Hi Brushstroke and welcome to Grease Spot! I like the approach your priest suggested and going by everything you've said on this and your other thread you seem like a very sharp individual. And like Waysider was saying - I wish I had your smarts when I was your age.
Well, your priest certainly nailed it there. The "Law" of Believing is many times a denial of reality. It is also a means of control for TWI. Positive believing was believing what they taught. Negative believing included doubt, worry, and fear. Doubting what you were taught was then negative believing or "believing in reverse and brought about negative consequences. This in tandem with the teachings of "the fall of man" in Genesis and the Private Interpretation teaching the TWI follower was implicitly taught to not question, not doubt, and not even consider anything deviating from their doctrine. Dangerous indeed!
As for the Law of Believing, when bad things happened to great men of God (including those in the Bible and in TWI) it was usually attributed to the Devil was so out to get them because they were just believing soo much and doing such great work. On the other hand if something happened to just another Joe Shmoe believer like most of us it was obviously because we weren't believing big enough if at all and we needed more instruction and meekness blah blah blah.
I know, completely ridiculous.
My wife was a good friend around the time of my exodus. She always had more questions and was/is a great thinker. She is also a great listener and our conversations were some of the best things for me at the time.
I always look at the example of Stephen in situations like this. Was he "out of fellowship" when they stoned him? Not likely, since he was in the midst of revelation from Jesus Christ! Did he "give up the fight"? Again, no, he fought with his last breath. Was he "believing" to be killed? Show me that! No, sometimes cr@p happens to good people. We have the final victory sealed up, and in the meantime we have the Comforter and the admonition to comfort one another.
Fr. John made a very good point about Sts. Peter and Paul the Apostles, two examples of people that died for their faith. Eusebius of Caesarea writes that Paul was beheaded in Rome, and Peter was crucified upside down! If they were "wrongly believing," as Wierwille claims, then why did they die and was their great faith that they died for in vain?
Hi Phil,
Did you ask Fr. John the same question "why did they die"? I'd be interested to know if his answer makes any sense or more sense than twi.
I believe God wants his children to live in prosperity and health; i.e., wants the best for his kids in all situations. But when his children get killed, why do these things happen?
TWI's attempt to explain this might be something like this: Peter and Paul, who certainly were great believers, died like this because for whatever reason they were not believing God for deliverance in that situation. Could they have been delivered? Yes. What would have delivered them? believing God for deliverance.
Jesus said among other things:
Luk 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Comparing the twi answer with answers from other religions is one reason why I haven't abandoned the twi teachings. If twi teachings deny reality, and make little sense, answers from other religions make even less sense to me. For instance, the answer from Fr. John (not putting words in his mouth) might be "it was God's Will". Doesn't make sense to me. God wills his children to die like that? I can't believe God would want his children being killed that way when he has given us power to overcome satan and tells us what to do to overcome satan. I believe God would want deliverance for his children from those situations.
In any case it would be interesting to compare both views and see which one makes more sense to you.
I may have misunderstood your explanation of why the lives of Paul and Peter(add Stephen to that, if you like.) ended in the awful ways they did.
Please feel free to correct me if I have. (misunderstood)
Your stance appears to be that these men died these horrible deaths because they were deficient in their ability to operate the "law" of believing in regard to deliverance. In other words, it was their own fault. Is that your contention?
Aren't you the same guy who can't understand why people didn't just walk away from The Way?
What is that phrase you have used,"No one held a gun to their heads."?
The Way taught people that to walk away was equivalent to leaving the "hedge of protection" that the "one true household" provided. In essence they were saying that to leave would put you out of fellowship and at the mercy of "the adversary".
And, of course, if you are "out of fellowship", it's impossible to receive revelation that might be required for personal safety and survival. You could end up the same way these men of Biblical note did if you walked away.
Is that how you justify why these aforementioned men died? Because they brought it onto themselves through "unbelief"?
Please clarify if I have misconstrued your meaning.
Did you ask Fr. John the same question "why did they die"? I'd be interested to know if his answer makes any sense or more sense than twi.
I believe God wants his children to live in prosperity and health; i.e., wants the best for his kids in all situations. But when his children get killed, why do these things happen?
TWI's attempt to explain this might be something like this: Peter and Paul, who certainly were great believers, died like this because for whatever reason they were not believing God for deliverance in that situation. Could they have been delivered? Yes. What would have delivered them? believing God for deliverance.
Jesus said among other things:
Luk 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Comparing the twi answer with answers from other religions is one reason why I haven't abandoned the twi teachings. If twi teachings deny reality, and make little sense, answers from other religions make even less sense to me. For instance, the answer from Fr. John (not putting words in his mouth) might be "it was God's Will". Doesn't make sense to me. God wills his children to die like that? I can't believe God would want his children being killed that way when he has given us power to overcome satan and tells us what to do to overcome satan. I believe God would want deliverance for his children from those situations.
In any case it would be interesting to compare both views and see which one makes more sense to you.
But then OM, you have to explain why great prophets were also crucified, stoned, sawn asunder, sewn into animal skins, quartered, tortured, beheaded ad nauseum? They ALL lacked faith during those moments, but all of their lives had a clear and strong ability to HEAR from the Lord and walk in HIS directions? Not likely, OM. Perhaps some would fall into that category. I personally believe the Lord God actually chooses people to die the martyr's death for HIS glory. And for those that are going to gag on this, too bad...the Lord God's thoughts and ways are far higher than ours, since we only see such a small slice of life, while God sees all from the end back to the beginning and reverse.
I may have misunderstood your explanation of why the lives of Paul and Peter(add Stephen to that, if you like.) ended in the awful ways they did.
Please feel free to correct me if I have. (misunderstood)
Your stance appears to be that these men died these horrible deaths because they were deficient in their ability to operate the "law" of believing in regard to deliverance. In other words, it was their own fault. Is that your contention?
Aren't you the same guy who can't understand why people didn't just walk away from The Way?
What is that phrase you have used,"No one held a gun to their heads."?
The Way taught people that to walk away was equivalent to leaving the "hedge of protection" that the "one true household" provided. In essence they were saying that to leave would put you out of fellowship and at the mercy of "the adversary".
And, of course, if you are "out of fellowship", it's impossible to receive revelation that might be required for personal safety and survival. You could end up the same way these men of Biblical note did if you walked away.
Is that how you justify why these aforementioned men died? Because they brought it onto themselves through "unbelief"?
Please clarify if I have misconstrued your meaning.
Waysider,
Was deliverance available?
I personally believe the Lord God actually chooses people to die the martyr's death for HIS glory.
Brideofjc, with the exception of Jesus Christ, I disagree with that opinion.
Jesus is the lamb of God to take away the sins of the world. God chose his son to die... it was God's Will... for that reason. And by his stripes we are healed. I believe God wants healing for his people through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and through the power of the holy spirit; THAT, gives glory to God; not misery and death.
The law of believing may not make sense but the idea that God actually chooses people (other than Christ) to suffer and die a painful agonizing martyr's death for HIS glory makes even less sense to me.
You are wellspoken, your posts are concise; with intellect and measured restraint. There are times I have enjoyed reading your thoughts, and there are times that I don't. That's okay. . . post on and express yourself.
Your intent appears to be to support Dr Wierwille's teachings and platform. I wish you well. Personally, I have found his work to be lacking.
This time, IMO, the scriptures you quote (Lk 10:19; Mt 21:22) are barely a token to that intent.
About people dying, why or how; trying to connect that to any kind of deliverance? You've got to ignore most of the bible to make your case.
Here are a few scriptures (maybe brushstroke will look em up for himself)
Everyone dies ( believing ain't gonna change this ) Genesis 3:19; Hebrews 9:27.
There is going to be some persecution (even in the words of Jesus. . .) John 15:20; Matthew 5:10.
There is a longgggggggg list of people in scripture whose examples are important to God. Hebrews chapter 11 is a fair start.
What of Abraham? Jacob? Joseph? David? all grossly mistreated. . .
What of Isaiah? Jeremiah? John the baptist? all killed in ugly and disgusting ways. . .
What of Jesus?
How can you read any of these, then so limit them with "I believe God wants his children to live in prosperity and health. i.e., wants the best for his kids in all situations"? Who decides what the term 'best' might mean?
Your intent appears to be to support Dr Wierwille's teachings and platform. I wish you well. Personally, I have found his work to be lacking.
Wing,
Wierwille's explanation on this topic makes more sense to me than the others. When that happens, it is my intent to support it over the others until a more sensible explanation comes along. Fr. John brought up Peter and Paul so I'd like to hear the answer why they died that way from his perspective and see if it makes more sense.
The question I ask is this: was deliverance available to Peter and Paul?
Does The Bible say that deliverance is always "available" in all( without exception) instances?
If the answer, on the other hand, is that it is "available" in all(within a particular distinction), what and whom determines that distinction?
If it is God who determines that qualifying criteria, it would be fool hearty to try to over ride it with the "law" of believing.
Your logic on this particular subject appears to be horrendously flawed and idolatrous.
Waysider,
Are you suggesting that God the Father determined the criteria that He wouldn't have deliverance available for his children Peter and Paul to keep them from experiencing these horrible and painful deaths?
My goodness, even flawed earthy fathers are better spoken of about taking care of their kids.
Your logic on this particular subject appears to be horrendously flawed and blasphemous.
Are you suggesting that God the Father determined in this situation that He wouldn't have deliverance available for his children Peter and Paul to keep them from experiencing these horrible and painful deaths? Even flawed earthy fathers are better spoken of.
Your logic on this particular subject appears to be horrendously flawed and blasphemous.
There is only one man that has ever escaped death, Oldies.
And the Bible doesn't say he accomplished this by operating the "law" of believing.
It can't possibly be "available" for every other man, woman and child who has ever inhabited this planet to escape death by operating the "law" of believing.
Your implication here is that these men are directly responsible for their own deaths because they failed to "operate" a so-called principle that is not Biblical but rather a man-made concept proposed by VPW.
Please show me some scripturally sound evidence that states that physical death can be escaped by "believing".
Wierwille's explanation on this topic makes more sense to me than the others. When that happens, it is my intent to support it over the others until a more sensible explanation comes along. Fr. John brought up Peter and Paul so I'd like to hear the answer why they died that way from his perspective and see if it makes more sense.
The question I ask is this: was deliverance available to Peter and Paul?
Oldies,
Do you want someone who will say God cannot do all things? Do you want to decide what God can, or won't, do? You won't get that from me.
Peter and Paul were 'delivered' many times (But I'm not sure what that means to you).
Wierwille's explanation blames you if things don't go YOUR way ( which he / you might call GOD's way since 'whatsoever you ask' is your rule). Or, it gives you the credit (glory) if things do go YOUR way, because after all YOU believed it.
You're being a good way witnesser. That's your call to make. But it's a one sided line of thought.
My question for you is this: who determines what is 'best'? or, in this case, what is 'deliverance'?
There is only one man that has ever escaped death, Oldies.
And the Bible doesn't say he accomplished this by operating the "law" of believing.
It can't possibly be "available" for every other man, woman and child who has ever inhabited this planet to escape death by operating the "law" of believing.
Your implication here is that these men are directly responsible for their own deaths because they failed to "operate" a so-called principle that is not Biblical but rather a man-made concept proposed by VPW.
Please show me some scripturally sound evidence that states that physical death can be escaped by "believing".
Waysider,
This isn't about deliverance from natural death.. am not suggesting that ... Peter and Paul didn't just die naturally, they died prematurely by being killed by their enemies in a most horrible and painful way.
You are suggesting that God wouldn't have had deliverance available to them. You are suggesting that this painful and horrible death is God's will.
Off the top of my head, some of these verses came to mind:
Hbr 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and [of] Barak, and [of] Samson, and [of] Jephthae; [of] David also, and Samuel, and [of] the prophets:
Hbr 11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
Hbr 11:34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
Hbr 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
It doesn't say they "operated the law of believing" but it does say these things were done through faith/believing.
There's a case where Peter raised Dorcas from the dead, through prayer:
Act 9:40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning [him] to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.
Wow. Peter had to believe God to bring that to pass. That's believing. It wasn't called "the law of believing", but Peter believed God to bring that to pass. Peter even believed to walk on the water, like Jesus.
But you're suggesting that God wouldn't make deliverance available for Peter at his time of need? Sorry, don't buy it.
My question for you is this: who determines what is 'best'? or, in this case, what is 'deliverance'?
Wing,
Just use your common sense. Is it God's will that they suffer a horrible and agonizing premature death? I don't believe so. Golly, earthly fathers are better than that.
I'm away from the computer for a few days so i won't be able to respond. Perhaps Mike can take over for me. :o :lol:
that 'law of believing' is wayspeak. to make it the rule of activity is to misplace who is doing what.
waysider is right, IMO, it is unbiblical. maybe that is not important to you, but maybe it is.
what makes it unbiblical has to be that it does not work every time.
Jesus healed the man born blind (Jn 9). Hard to put 'lord I believe' into that mans mouth. unless you want to add to the scripture record. your choice. Jesus found him, made some mud, put it on his eyes, told him to 'go wash. . .' and the man followed that instruction. No exchange about him having faith, not even a suggestion about what going and washing might do for him. there was some discussion / question among the disciples about sin maybe having a previous effect. but Jesus said that sin had nothing to do with it. Oldies, is your God involved in this? because (it seems?) that you will not allow that "this happened so that the work of God might be displayed" (the words of Jesus given in Jn 9:3).
Jesus healed others, and 'faith' was part of the activity. (but what does that word 'faith' mean? people disagree on that).
This isn't a sermon. It's only me trying to point out that God ain't in the box that the law of believing believers want to put him in. God will do what He wants to do, when He wants to do it, and in the way of His own choosing. This isn't a 'free will' discussion topic. But this is about your ability to take God's will into your own control.
Similar to that, if we pretend that you are God, why would you do anything that does not put the glory where it properly belongs? The real God got pretty peeved at David (1 Chronicles 21) when David tried to take control into his own mortal hands. Tens of thousands of Israelites died. God is love, and all those good things; but that ego driven sophistry will not get you on his good side.
didn't work for TWI, ain't gonna work now.
We need faith. don't get me wrong. IMO we need faith desperately. But a faith that depends on a man is a big mistake.
Brushstroke, if you're reading this. . . I apologize because this stuff probably doesn't apply so much to your concerns.
Fr John sounds like a good guy. Glad that he is close by for you to talk to.
thanks for your time,
wing
I feel that I should clarify a comment that I made. . .
"Jesus healed the man born blind (Jn 9). Hard to put 'lord I believe' into that mans mouth." Because by the end of the chapter the man comes to say those very words. But BEFORE he got to that point, he was healed by Jesus, he admitted to his neighbors that he went and washed, came seeing; he was healed. Asked how? he said the man called Jesus. The pharisees questioned him, the man allowed that Jesus was a prophet. They asked him again. He still answered Jesus. Along with his eyesight, he was thrown out of the synagogue (this part of it is no blessing at all). After this Jesus finds him again (not the other way around). Jesus asked him if he believed. . . the man asked him 'tell me so that I may believe?' After all of this, occurs the 'I believe'.
I am only illustrating that, as much as twi wanted the believing to come first and foremost, it is not always the case.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
23
13
14
Popular Days
Apr 8
39
Apr 7
26
Apr 13
23
Apr 16
17
Top Posters In This Topic
WhiteDove 15 posts
waysider 23 posts
brideofjc 13 posts
Brushstroke 14 posts
Popular Days
Apr 8 2008
39 posts
Apr 7 2008
26 posts
Apr 13 2008
23 posts
Apr 16 2008
17 posts
waysider
I sure wish I would have had your wisdom and insight when I was 18.
Que Sera Sera.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Hi there,
Have you read the article by Dr. John Juedes on the believing that the Way taught? It is an insightful article
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/editor...god-needed.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
you seem like a really nice person, brushstroke
i think i welcomed somewhere on here
but anyway welcome again !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi Brushstroke and welcome to Grease Spot! I like the approach your priest suggested and going by everything you've said on this and your other thread you seem like a very sharp individual. And like Waysider was saying - I wish I had your smarts when I was your age.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Well, your priest certainly nailed it there. The "Law" of Believing is many times a denial of reality. It is also a means of control for TWI. Positive believing was believing what they taught. Negative believing included doubt, worry, and fear. Doubting what you were taught was then negative believing or "believing in reverse and brought about negative consequences. This in tandem with the teachings of "the fall of man" in Genesis and the Private Interpretation teaching the TWI follower was implicitly taught to not question, not doubt, and not even consider anything deviating from their doctrine. Dangerous indeed!
As for the Law of Believing, when bad things happened to great men of God (including those in the Bible and in TWI) it was usually attributed to the Devil was so out to get them because they were just believing soo much and doing such great work. On the other hand if something happened to just another Joe Shmoe believer like most of us it was obviously because we weren't believing big enough if at all and we needed more instruction and meekness blah blah blah.
I know, completely ridiculous.
My wife was a good friend around the time of my exodus. She always had more questions and was/is a great thinker. She is also a great listener and our conversations were some of the best things for me at the time.
Good luck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I like Father John!
And I think he is right on the money!
CS Lewis was a great writer. Now I wanta read that book, "Mere Christianity" myself. (loved the Narnia chronicles).
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I always look at the example of Stephen in situations like this. Was he "out of fellowship" when they stoned him? Not likely, since he was in the midst of revelation from Jesus Christ! Did he "give up the fight"? Again, no, he fought with his last breath. Was he "believing" to be killed? Show me that! No, sometimes cr@p happens to good people. We have the final victory sealed up, and in the meantime we have the Comforter and the admonition to comfort one another.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
The *LAW* of *believing* is from the pit of Hell.
And docvic promoted it to his advantage, and NO ONE else's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
I liked The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Hi Phil,
Did you ask Fr. John the same question "why did they die"? I'd be interested to know if his answer makes any sense or more sense than twi.
I believe God wants his children to live in prosperity and health; i.e., wants the best for his kids in all situations. But when his children get killed, why do these things happen?
TWI's attempt to explain this might be something like this: Peter and Paul, who certainly were great believers, died like this because for whatever reason they were not believing God for deliverance in that situation. Could they have been delivered? Yes. What would have delivered them? believing God for deliverance.
Jesus said among other things:
Luk 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Comparing the twi answer with answers from other religions is one reason why I haven't abandoned the twi teachings. If twi teachings deny reality, and make little sense, answers from other religions make even less sense to me. For instance, the answer from Fr. John (not putting words in his mouth) might be "it was God's Will". Doesn't make sense to me. God wills his children to die like that? I can't believe God would want his children being killed that way when he has given us power to overcome satan and tells us what to do to overcome satan. I believe God would want deliverance for his children from those situations.
In any case it would be interesting to compare both views and see which one makes more sense to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Yeah, find the answer oldies, and get back with us.
Instead of being lead by other doctrines,
why not go to the source?
Can you find the source?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oldiesman
I may have misunderstood your explanation of why the lives of Paul and Peter(add Stephen to that, if you like.) ended in the awful ways they did.
Please feel free to correct me if I have. (misunderstood)
Your stance appears to be that these men died these horrible deaths because they were deficient in their ability to operate the "law" of believing in regard to deliverance. In other words, it was their own fault. Is that your contention?
Aren't you the same guy who can't understand why people didn't just walk away from The Way?
What is that phrase you have used,"No one held a gun to their heads."?
The Way taught people that to walk away was equivalent to leaving the "hedge of protection" that the "one true household" provided. In essence they were saying that to leave would put you out of fellowship and at the mercy of "the adversary".
And, of course, if you are "out of fellowship", it's impossible to receive revelation that might be required for personal safety and survival. You could end up the same way these men of Biblical note did if you walked away.
Is that how you justify why these aforementioned men died? Because they brought it onto themselves through "unbelief"?
Please clarify if I have misconstrued your meaning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
But then OM, you have to explain why great prophets were also crucified, stoned, sawn asunder, sewn into animal skins, quartered, tortured, beheaded ad nauseum? They ALL lacked faith during those moments, but all of their lives had a clear and strong ability to HEAR from the Lord and walk in HIS directions? Not likely, OM. Perhaps some would fall into that category. I personally believe the Lord God actually chooses people to die the martyr's death for HIS glory. And for those that are going to gag on this, too bad...the Lord God's thoughts and ways are far higher than ours, since we only see such a small slice of life, while God sees all from the end back to the beginning and reverse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Waysider,
Was deliverance available?
Brideofjc, with the exception of Jesus Christ, I disagree with that opinion.
Jesus is the lamb of God to take away the sins of the world. God chose his son to die... it was God's Will... for that reason. And by his stripes we are healed. I believe God wants healing for his people through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and through the power of the holy spirit; THAT, gives glory to God; not misery and death.
The law of believing may not make sense but the idea that God actually chooses people (other than Christ) to suffer and die a painful agonizing martyr's death for HIS glory makes even less sense to me.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
wing
Oldies,
You are wellspoken, your posts are concise; with intellect and measured restraint. There are times I have enjoyed reading your thoughts, and there are times that I don't. That's okay. . . post on and express yourself.
Your intent appears to be to support Dr Wierwille's teachings and platform. I wish you well. Personally, I have found his work to be lacking.
This time, IMO, the scriptures you quote (Lk 10:19; Mt 21:22) are barely a token to that intent.
About people dying, why or how; trying to connect that to any kind of deliverance? You've got to ignore most of the bible to make your case.
Here are a few scriptures (maybe brushstroke will look em up for himself)
Everyone dies ( believing ain't gonna change this ) Genesis 3:19; Hebrews 9:27.
There is going to be some persecution (even in the words of Jesus. . .) John 15:20; Matthew 5:10.
There is a longgggggggg list of people in scripture whose examples are important to God. Hebrews chapter 11 is a fair start.
What of Abraham? Jacob? Joseph? David? all grossly mistreated. . .
What of Isaiah? Jeremiah? John the baptist? all killed in ugly and disgusting ways. . .
What of Jesus?
How can you read any of these, then so limit them with "I believe God wants his children to live in prosperity and health. i.e., wants the best for his kids in all situations"? Who decides what the term 'best' might mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Wing,
Wierwille's explanation on this topic makes more sense to me than the others. When that happens, it is my intent to support it over the others until a more sensible explanation comes along. Fr. John brought up Peter and Paul so I'd like to hear the answer why they died that way from his perspective and see if it makes more sense.
The question I ask is this: was deliverance available to Peter and Paul?
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You tell me, Oldies, was it?
Does The Bible say that deliverance is always "available" in all( without exception) instances?
If the answer, on the other hand, is that it is "available" in all(within a particular distinction), what and whom determines that distinction?
If it is God who determines that qualifying criteria, it would be fool hearty to try to over ride it with the "law" of believing.
Your logic on this particular subject appears to be horrendously flawed and idolatrous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Waysider,
Are you suggesting that God the Father determined the criteria that He wouldn't have deliverance available for his children Peter and Paul to keep them from experiencing these horrible and painful deaths?
My goodness, even flawed earthy fathers are better spoken of about taking care of their kids.
Your logic on this particular subject appears to be horrendously flawed and blasphemous.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There is only one man that has ever escaped death, Oldies.
And the Bible doesn't say he accomplished this by operating the "law" of believing.
It can't possibly be "available" for every other man, woman and child who has ever inhabited this planet to escape death by operating the "law" of believing.
Your implication here is that these men are directly responsible for their own deaths because they failed to "operate" a so-called principle that is not Biblical but rather a man-made concept proposed by VPW.
Please show me some scripturally sound evidence that states that physical death can be escaped by "believing".
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
wing
Oldies,
Do you want someone who will say God cannot do all things? Do you want to decide what God can, or won't, do? You won't get that from me.
Peter and Paul were 'delivered' many times (But I'm not sure what that means to you).
Wierwille's explanation blames you if things don't go YOUR way ( which he / you might call GOD's way since 'whatsoever you ask' is your rule). Or, it gives you the credit (glory) if things do go YOUR way, because after all YOU believed it.
You're being a good way witnesser. That's your call to make. But it's a one sided line of thought.
My question for you is this: who determines what is 'best'? or, in this case, what is 'deliverance'?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Waysider,
This isn't about deliverance from natural death.. am not suggesting that ... Peter and Paul didn't just die naturally, they died prematurely by being killed by their enemies in a most horrible and painful way.
You are suggesting that God wouldn't have had deliverance available to them. You are suggesting that this painful and horrible death is God's will.
Off the top of my head, some of these verses came to mind:
Hbr 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and [of] Barak, and [of] Samson, and [of] Jephthae; [of] David also, and Samuel, and [of] the prophets:
Hbr 11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
Hbr 11:34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
Hbr 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
It doesn't say they "operated the law of believing" but it does say these things were done through faith/believing.
There's a case where Peter raised Dorcas from the dead, through prayer:
Act 9:40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning [him] to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.
Wow. Peter had to believe God to bring that to pass. That's believing. It wasn't called "the law of believing", but Peter believed God to bring that to pass. Peter even believed to walk on the water, like Jesus.
But you're suggesting that God wouldn't make deliverance available for Peter at his time of need? Sorry, don't buy it.
I'd still like to hear what Fr. John says.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Wing,
Just use your common sense. Is it God's will that they suffer a horrible and agonizing premature death? I don't believe so. Golly, earthly fathers are better than that.
I'm away from the computer for a few days so i won't be able to respond. Perhaps Mike can take over for me. :o :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It never ceases to amaze me the twisting and contorting of logic you will go through to keep your idol on a pedestal.
I never said they died of what we refer to as "natural" death.
I said they died a "physical" death just like everyone else who ever existed including Dorcas.
(In case it escaped your notice, she didn't stay alive forever.)
Nor did I ever say it was "God's Will" that they die a painful, horrible death.
You have still failed to show me where the scriptures say that deliverance is "available" in EVERY incident that life brings our way.
You are doing the exact same thing Wierwille did.
You are implying that our short comings in this life are all our own fault because we fail to "believe" for deliverance.
I ain't buying it.
(Nor am I buying into the idiotic "law" of magical believing.)
It ought to be renamed "the law of passing the blame and assigning unwarranted guilt".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wing
Oldies
that 'law of believing' is wayspeak. to make it the rule of activity is to misplace who is doing what.
waysider is right, IMO, it is unbiblical. maybe that is not important to you, but maybe it is.
what makes it unbiblical has to be that it does not work every time.
Jesus healed the man born blind (Jn 9). Hard to put 'lord I believe' into that mans mouth. unless you want to add to the scripture record. your choice. Jesus found him, made some mud, put it on his eyes, told him to 'go wash. . .' and the man followed that instruction. No exchange about him having faith, not even a suggestion about what going and washing might do for him. there was some discussion / question among the disciples about sin maybe having a previous effect. but Jesus said that sin had nothing to do with it. Oldies, is your God involved in this? because (it seems?) that you will not allow that "this happened so that the work of God might be displayed" (the words of Jesus given in Jn 9:3).
Jesus healed others, and 'faith' was part of the activity. (but what does that word 'faith' mean? people disagree on that).
This isn't a sermon. It's only me trying to point out that God ain't in the box that the law of believing believers want to put him in. God will do what He wants to do, when He wants to do it, and in the way of His own choosing. This isn't a 'free will' discussion topic. But this is about your ability to take God's will into your own control.
Similar to that, if we pretend that you are God, why would you do anything that does not put the glory where it properly belongs? The real God got pretty peeved at David (1 Chronicles 21) when David tried to take control into his own mortal hands. Tens of thousands of Israelites died. God is love, and all those good things; but that ego driven sophistry will not get you on his good side.
didn't work for TWI, ain't gonna work now.
We need faith. don't get me wrong. IMO we need faith desperately. But a faith that depends on a man is a big mistake.
Brushstroke, if you're reading this. . . I apologize because this stuff probably doesn't apply so much to your concerns.
Fr John sounds like a good guy. Glad that he is close by for you to talk to.
thanks for your time,
wing
I feel that I should clarify a comment that I made. . .
"Jesus healed the man born blind (Jn 9). Hard to put 'lord I believe' into that mans mouth." Because by the end of the chapter the man comes to say those very words. But BEFORE he got to that point, he was healed by Jesus, he admitted to his neighbors that he went and washed, came seeing; he was healed. Asked how? he said the man called Jesus. The pharisees questioned him, the man allowed that Jesus was a prophet. They asked him again. He still answered Jesus. Along with his eyesight, he was thrown out of the synagogue (this part of it is no blessing at all). After this Jesus finds him again (not the other way around). Jesus asked him if he believed. . . the man asked him 'tell me so that I may believe?' After all of this, occurs the 'I believe'.
I am only illustrating that, as much as twi wanted the believing to come first and foremost, it is not always the case.
Edited by wingLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.