I've already stated in a previous post that anyone that was involved in, or that was reasonably close to, the research fellowship at TWI (circa '83-'85)
surely was aware that there were unresolved issues around how pistis was being handled and taught in the ministry. (Perhaps you missed that.)
At the very least, DWBH or Charlene ought to be able to confirm the reality of at least that much of what I said for you. Maybe there's others here that were aware of it at the time. Otherwise, you probably won't think or take it as anything other than something which uniquely existed in my own head.
(Though it may have started with trying to delineate what the "household of faith" meant or referred to, it necessitated a better handle on - or understanding of - "pistis.")
Did any of you ever wonder what "the household of faith" really was, or was the meaning of it so smooth and polished by the time you heard it that it never crossed your mind (back in the day) to question it?
my in-residence training does fall within the time frame you stated -
though i don't recall anyone in my corps or elder corps even hinting at this "known issue" you speak of - and certainly not any of the faculty - nor guest speakers like VP himself, his son Don, LCM, limb coordinators, or anyone else who one would think were tapped in to the latest research - although i wonder how much intellectual honesty could be found in that whole lot of bozos.
..oh yeah i forgot to mention that geeky Greek "scholar" Walter C. - for our corps night teachings old Wally would blather on about the book of Timothy....i remember one "enlightening" session when i got a glimpse into the priorities of TWI "research" - Wally went on and on.... and on.... and on about VP's directives of what he should find in the scriptures - before he even went to some institute for New Testament research in Germany - yeah "research"....i mean with this kind of intellectual straitjacket wrapped around a research staff - i don't see that as being open territory for free-range thinking - know what i mean...perhaps there were encrypted notes passed around about the issues of TWI's doctrine of believing.
i could be wrong on this but i think you "deferring" to DWBH or Penworks and others to prove your point is a..... chicken $hi_t ..... very cowardly way to make your case.
There used to be a guy who posted here (His name rhymes with psych.) who would carry on for a page and a half about how he didn't have time to post.
good point, Waysider- i think we're seeing some tough competition here!
my in-residence training does fall within the time frame you stated -
though i don't recall anyone in my corps or elder corps even hinting at this "known issue" you speak of - and certainly not any of the faculty - nor guest speakers like VP himself, his son Don, LCM, limb coordinators, or anyone else who one would think were tapped in to the latest research - although i wonder how much intellectual honesty could be found in that whole lot of bozos.
..oh yeah i forgot to mention that geeky Greek "scholar" Walter C. - for our corps night teachings old Wally would blather on about the book of Timothy....i remember one "enlightening" session when i got a glimpse into the priorities of TWI "research" - Wally went on and on.... and on.... and on about VP's directives of what he should find in the scriptures - before he even went to some institute for New Testament research in Germany - yeah "research"....i mean with this kind of intellectual straitjacket wrapped around a research staff - i don't see that as being open territory for free-range thinking - know what i mean...perhaps there were encrypted notes passed around about the issues of TWI's doctrine of believing.
i could be wrong on this but i think you "deferring" to DWBH or Penworks and others to prove your point is a..... chicken $hi_t ..... very cowardly way to make your case.
good point, Waysider- i think we're seeing some tough competition here!
Thanks Penworks - i will eat some humble pie now....about the time you posted the thing on pistis i was working on my post and did not see yours -
so while i was eating breakfast (not humble pie yet) and reflecting on what i just posted i thought i should go back and edit what i said to reflect the issues you and others have talked about while you were in....the point i was trying to make with TLC was that ANY doctrinal issues back then were not known to the general TWI public - even at the campuses.I don't recall any renegades or usurpers spreading mass sedition at the time.
perhaps TLC could elaborate on what he experienced, conversations he had with research staff, etc.
I didn't have any inside track as to what was going on at the corporate level, especially about anything that ventured into the realm of academia. As I've noted before, one of my biggest disappointments with the FellowLaborer program was the virtual nonexistence of anything resembling scholastic study. I think people out on the field were under the impression we were privy to all sorts of proprietary information. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We lived in a commune, worked a small garden plot, hashed, rehashed and re-rehashed collaterals and SNS teachings, and had endless, mind numbing organizational meetings, butt chewings and more believer's meetings than any one person should ever be subjected to in a lifetime. But, did we do any in-depth study of "The Word" or gain special insight on nuances of the Bible? Nope. Never happened. Oh, I can tell you how to sprout your own Mung Beans, make mayonnaise from scratch or throw together enough familia to feed 50 people for a month, sure. Greek words and Biblical intricacies? Nah, not so much...OK, not at all.
I didn't have any inside track as to what was going on at the corporate level, especially about anything that ventured into the realm of academia. As I've noted before, one of my biggest disappointments with the FellowLaborer program was the virtual nonexistence of anything resembling scholastic study. I think people out on the field were under the impression we were privy to all sorts of proprietary information. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We lived in a commune, worked a small garden plot, hashed, rehashed and re-rehashed collaterals and SNS teachings, and had endless, mind numbing organizational meetings, butt chewings and more believer's meetings than any one person should ever be subjected to in a lifetime. But, did we do any in-depth study of "The Word" or gain special insight on nuances of the Bible? Nope. Never happened. Oh, I can tell you how to sprout your own Mung Beans, make mayonnaise from scratch or throw together enough familia to feed 50 people for a month, sure. Greek words and Biblical intricacies? Nah, not so much...OK, not at all.
Did you know that VP's primary goal with the Corps was to have a work crew? If you can stomach reading the Passing of the Patriarch, you'll see Ge*r reference VP's comments about that. The manual labor aspect was supposed to be patterned after something called The School of the Prophets, which VPW thought he was re-instituting with the Way Corps. We did more manual labor than Bible study in the Corps.
I think most of us here understand that any Bible study in TWI was really only VP's interpretation, some of which was plagiarized. TWI's basis for "study" starts with the assumption that the Bible is inerrant. That claim was made up by men (long before Wierwille or Bullinger) who, in my opinion, used it to dominate people, not instruct them honestly about what the Bible actually is--an anthology of different writings over centuries by men from different cultures and languages. Ah but I digress. I'll stop now ...
Thanks Penworks - i will eat some humble pie now....about the time you posted the thing on pistis i was working on my post and did not see yours -
so while i was eating breakfast (not humble pie yet) and reflecting on what i just posted i thought i should go back and edit what i said to reflect the issues you and others have talked about while you were in....the point i was trying to make with TLC was that ANY doctrinal issues back then were not known to the general TWI public - even at the campuses.I don't recall any renegades or usurpers spreading mass sedition at the time.
perhaps TLC could elaborate on what he experienced, conversations he had with research staff, etc.
Hey, I get that. Letting the general public know what was really going on in research was NOT going to happen. It would sabotage the money coming in, the adoration of VPW and the acceptance of his authority!
Hey, ya know, 50 of us came together in one place, each believing we would receive specialized Bible/ministerial training. (Specifically, it was supposed to focus on Acts.) But, it never happened. No wonder we got our butts chewed so much. Even with 50 of us believing, we were too weak to bring it to pass.
Yes, the Greek word "pistis" as VPW taught it presented problems, although I don't have the details of why or how at my fingertips. I do remember this issue coming up while I was on the research team 84-86 at HQ. I suggested that perhaps someone in the graduating corps might do a research paper on "pistis" (a paper like that was required to graduate), but I was told no, no, no, that topic is a problem, i.e. certain team members knew "we" could not substantiate what VPW taught about it. Maybe VP "borrowed" his teachings about faith/believing from some other man's book/teachings. He was known for doing that.
Thank you, penworks. (Clever handle, btw. It had slipped by mind what it was in my previous post, but I've had enough pens that didn't work that it should be easy enough to remember. However, seems a lot of details from half a lifetime ago do rather easily slip away from one's fingertips.) If I had to guess, I'm inclined to think Norman Vincent Peale, who's writings undoubtedly also influenced Robert Schuller. (Joel Osteen reminds me of their style or manner of teaching.)
I don't recall any renegades or usurpers spreading mass sedition at the time.
perhaps TLC could elaborate on what he experienced, conversations he had with research staff, etc.
Well, I didn't say that anyone back then claimed to have much for "answers." The intent was to point out that that there were questions (re: this "magical thinking," the topic of this thread) from way back then (...which few here seemed to think even possible, preferring to think that I was probably just in denial.)
Perhaps it won't make sense to you, but once you (in this case, me) start chasing something down a rabbit hole, the longer you're at it and the farther away from where you started you go, the harder it becomes to retrace your "jumping off" point and all the reasons why you might have gone left or right in the course of things. So in a certain sense, asking how I got to the place where I'm at regarding my thoughts on what believing is (and what it is not) can be a bit like asking Alice how she got there.
On the surface, someone would undoubtedly be quick to say that I'm "waybrained." But underneath the surface, it's so different from what was taught in TWI, the difference is... magical.
Did you know that VP's primary goal with the Corps was to have a work crew? If you can stomach reading the Passing of the Patriarch, you'll see Ge*r reference VP's comments about that. The manual labor aspect was supposed to be patterned after something called The School of the Prophets, which VPW thought he was re-instituting with the Way Corps. We did more manual labor than Bible study in the Corps.
Some here seem to think that VP was so into Pauline doctrine, that he either cast aside or reinterpreted the O.T. to fit with it. Yet, here is a classic example of him pulling something out the O.T. that just doesn't fit with the Pauline epistles and the gospel of grace. (Nor with the school of Tyrannus.)
I think most of us here understand that any Bible study in TWI was really only VP's interpretation, some of which was plagiarized. TWI's basis for "study" starts with the assumption that the Bible is inerrant. That claim was made up by men (long before Wierwille or Bullinger) who, in my opinion, used it to dominate people, not instruct them honestly about what the Bible actually is--an anthology of different writings over centuries by men from different cultures and languages. Ah but I digress. I'll stop now ...
Long before Wierwille or Bullinger, agreed. But I chose (well before TWI) to disagree with you on the "made up" part (and haven't changed my mind since.)
But, as you say, it digresses...
Hey, I get that. Letting the general public know what was really going on in research was NOT going to happen. It would sabotage the money coming in, the adoration of VPW and the acceptance of his authority!
While that may have been the reason behind some things, I'm not convinced it was the reason here. More basic to it at the time, I suppose, was the lack of more viable (and understandable) alternatives. And, given the egotistical nature of those in control (giving those of us not in charge or in control the unwarranted and undeserved benefit of the doubt, but probably no less applicable or true), there was simply no need to burden those of lessor intellectual spiritual ability with unresolved and unanswerable questions.
Some here seem to think that VP was so into Pauline doctrine, that he either cast aside or reinterpreted the O.T. to fit with it. Yet, here is a classic example of him pulling something out the O.T. that just doesn't fit with the Pauline epistles and the gospel of grace. (Nor with the school of Tyrannus.)
You would be incorrect on that assumption. Most of us who have been on this ride for a while are painfully aware how blatantly VPW cherry picked verses from multiple "administrations" as they fit his given agenda, being apparently aware they didn't really "fit". Take, for example, the list of Keys To Walking By The Spirit or even the very essence of the tithe. I, personally, am aware of how the various training programs didn't fit with the school of Tyrannus.
Long before Wierwille or Bullinger, agreed. But I chose (well before TWI) to disagree with you on the "made up" part (and haven't changed my mind since.)
While that may have been the reason behind some things, I'm not convinced it was the reason here. More basic to it at the time, I suppose, was the lack of more viable (and understandable) alternatives. And, given the egotistical nature of those in control (giving those of us not in charge or in control the unwarranted and undeserved benefit of the doubt, but probably no less applicable or true), there was simply no need to burden those of lessor intellectual spiritual ability with unresolved and unanswerable questions.
I don't think there's any doubt that there are/were issues in the way "believing" was talked about or taught, but along with that it should be noted that this really isn't (or perhaps, shouldn't be) something new or only recently discovered. Because even back in the heydays of the ministry (i.e., the 70's) there were "known issues" with it. Unfortunately, not only were they never sufficiently addressed or resolved, evidently they continued to be ignored, cast aside and/or simply forgotten entirely in later years.
However, "believing" was not - and is not - thought of by everyone (in TWI, at least, back then) in the way and manner that it is described in this thread. And I'm no "apologist." I'm merely stating the reality of the situation.
edited: thought talked
What you've been saying in your later posts differs from your earlier posts - like #19 (above) – in terms of exactly who knew of the issue.other than the select group of insiders (research staff) and anyone else that got wind of the issues ( from research staff).....I think the "reality" of the situation in the TWI general public was that everything is cool with PFAL, i.e. law (magic) of believing, and all the other nonsense; matter of fact, at the start of working on our research papers in residence - I can still hear LCM pounding on the podium and telling us in a resounding voice don't try to reinvent the wheel – stick to PFAL.
I think Penworks remarks about TWI proper keeping a lid on doctrinal issues so as not to hurt sales is a key point here. Hopefully folks did not miss that.
I've already stated in a previous post that anyone that was involved in, or that was reasonably close to, the research fellowship at TWI (circa '83-'85) surely was aware that there were unresolved issues around how pistis was being handled and taught in the ministry. (Perhaps you missed that.) At the very least, DWBH or Charlene ought to be able to confirm the reality of at least that much of what I said for you. Maybe there's others here that were aware of it at the time. Otherwise, you probably won't think or take it as anything other than something which uniquely existed in my own head.
(Though it may have started with trying to delineate what the "household of faith" meant or referred to, it necessitated a better handle on - or understanding of - "pistis.")
Did any of you ever wonder what "the household of faith" really was, or was the meaning of it so smooth and polished by the time you heard it that it never crossed your mind (back in the day) to question it?
Well, I didn't say that anyone back then claimed to have much for "answers." The intent was to point out that that there were questions (re: this "magical thinking," the topic of this thread) from way back then (...which few here seemed to think even possible, preferring to think that I was probably just in denial.)
Perhaps it won't make sense to you, but once you (in this case, me) start chasing something down a rabbit hole, the longer you're at it and the farther away from where you started you go, the harder it becomes to retrace your "jumping off" point and all the reasons why you might have gone left or right in the course of things. So in a certain sense, asking how I got to the place where I'm at regarding my thoughts on what believing is (and what it is not) can be a bit like asking Alice how she got there.
On the surface, someone would undoubtedly be quick to say that I'm "waybrained." But underneath the surface, it's so different from what was taught in TWI, the difference is... magical.
I think it's been a little like chasing down a rabbit hole in reverse for me – I finally got some idea of what you were talking about (a select group of those in the know) by going back to your first post and slowly piecing together what little details you've given us in each post thereafter on why you see things differently...... I do apologize for the delay in my understanding I guess I missed that first time thru.....that's why some posters on this thread have been pestering you for specifics.....perhaps you missed that.
now that i see your point on the "insider knowledge" perhaps you could explain how the teachings on believing / faith released to the TWI general public for consumption are all that different than what has been described on this thread
I don't disagree that he probably incorporated some number of things from EW Kenyon. But I don't see or necessarily agree that's primarily where the problems with how believing was taught stemmed from. And I actually like a lot of Kenyon's stuff and think a lot can be learned from it. (Especially his work on Identification.)
He also learned some of it from Glenn Clark and Albert Cliffe
Albert Cliffe was a guest of wierwille's during the years he was on his congregation's payroll,
looking to set up his own organization.
Having not ever researched or read much on either of these two (aside from Clark's book on George Washington Carver, which is remarkable), I don't know if either of them might be the source for the "camera" analogy.
now that i see your point on the "insider knowledge" perhaps you could explain how the teachings on believing / faith released to the TWI general public for consumption are all that different than what has been described on this thread
Where did you think I ever said or claimed they were different? What I said was, that there were some known issues with it (though obviously, not known by everyone.)
Furthermore, I said that not everyone thought of "believing" in the way and manner that it is described in this thread.
Does the Law of Believing, *cough*, "work", in the absence of Wierwille Worship?
It will "appear to "work" if you believe it will…please note: in the absence of Wierwille Worship yourperception of it "working" may become impaired.
This may explain why Han Solo did not really believe in the Force; in another "life" he threw away the idol...you may recall that as Indiana Jones he found a precious idol in a cave - and was needing his bullwhip to escape by using it to swing across a chasm; Satipo was on the other side of that chasm holding Indiana's whip; Satipo says "throw me idol" and Indiana responds "throw me the whip"; Indiana throws Satipo the idol, but then Satipo just drops the whip, runs off, and turns over the idol to Belloq; when he unwraps the idol – voila – it's one of those miniature commemorative statues of VP. Perhaps that is why Han Solo did not really believe in the Force; now you know the rest of the story.
Where did you think I ever said or claimed they were different? What I said was, that there were some known issues with it (though obviously, not known by everyone.)
Furthermore, I said that not everyone thought of "believing" in the way and manner that it is described in this thread.
Evidently you doubt there is such a law (with or without any modifiers.)
What then, do you make of Romans 3:27?
I don't so much see problems in the effects of believing, but in what believing is and/or how it is taught.
I'm not exactly sure what you are suggesting the "law" is in Romans 3:27 - maybe you could clarify or specify what effects one should expect, and for that matter what issues (problems) in the effects of believing are you addressing - ....perhaps you could define what "believing" is and how it is taught (if you want to break it up by group (group A taught to TWI general public and group B taught secretly to a select group who know of a different version) is ok too or you could just share YOUR version and/or the unauthorized version - - or any way you want to address my questions.
i am wondering if you hold to a different meaning of "law" that goes beyond the natural sense of the passage. The reason i say this is because in preceding posts you have been discussing the official TWI doctrine of believing and the "unofficial" doctrine of believing (known to research staff and others with whom they have shared it with)....not trying to start anything here - it's just that given my track record for misunderstanding />- i'm doing my best to get on the same page as you.
guess what i'm saying is that TWI's official doctrine on believing is NOT what's being addressed in Romans 3:27 - (once again - that's the official TWI doctrine on believing proclaimed to the masses - i'm not aware of the other version that you've been talking about) -.
I think the natural sense of Romans 3:27 does NOT refer to TWI's doctrine of "the law of believing" even by any stretch of the imagination. Going on the context of Romans 3 verses 27 to 31 (see below) it looks to me that it's stressing proper fulfillment of the law is no longer based on works but on faith;
faith being "the new rule" – or maybe the means of compliance in the "process" of justification; whereas the deeds of the law was "the old rule" and meant strict adherence in following the Old Testament laws - even the ceremonial laws in order to be justified.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. KJV
If one chooses to immigrate to our country and become a citizen they must follow the laws of our land, meeting the requirements to become a US citizen; these would be listed under immigration law which refers to the rules established by our government for determining who is allowed to enter our country - for how long - as well as the naturalization process for those who want to become citizens. once citizens they are afforded rights and privileges.
perhaps the kingdom of God works in a similar fashion; in order to be justified in the Old Testament you had to satisfy all the law - moral and ceremonial laws; now in one sense it seems God cut all that legal red tape - it's just by faith now....i said in one sense because i'm thinking about James 2:17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead, NIV ...
so whatever "faith" is it seems there's more to it than meets the eye - is it a belief a confidence, or acceptance of something as true plus being accompanied by appropriate action - - and that sort of sounds like works and makes me think of Matthew 3:8 John the Baptist's words Produce fruit in keeping with repentance, NIV. but you know fruit is a product of work - one has to prep the soil, all that gardening type stuff that i know nothing about - water and prune yada yada yada - and voila the fruit of your labors!
to qualify this "faith-works" (if there is such a thing) as opposed to the works of the law - is perhaps like seeing a difference between going thru the motions versus putting your heart into it. I could act nice to my neighbor do neighborly things for them - but i could do all that without my heart being into it - just doing that with an ulterior motive in mind....or i could truly love my neighbor as myself - that would definitely put my heart into my actions - then it would be genuine acts of kindness towards my neighbor.
...enough digressing from discussing what is the "law" of Romans 3:27.
Another thing that has me leaning toward "law" being a ruling or governing principle in the above passages rather than a scientific principle is that God is portrayed as the one doing the justifying – so he has an active role in the process - - perhaps as one who not only wrote the law he is also the one to enforce the law since he is the controlling authority. There doesn't appear to be any allusion to God being over here – and some independent law over there as though it were separate from Almighty God - functioning autonomously as it were
Even thinking about just the definition of "law" I feel strongly enough that some "magical" law of believing that works for saint and sinner alike is NOT what Romans 3:27-31 is talking about; an online definition of "law" that I found states there are two basic usages:
1. The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
2. A statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
TWI's doctrine on the "law of believing" supposedly refers to the 2nd usage – that it is a statement of fact, deduced from observation that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present; wasn't it in PFAL that VP suggested the law of believing works just as consistently as in the realm of science – when you mix 2 parts of hydrogen with 1 part oxygen – you get water; the hitch with this idea is that one cannot observe if certain conditions were met for it to be true believing (maybe a somewhat simplified version of the conditions is presented in Bolshevik's post # 64).
But noting usage 1 of the online definition – "law" as a system of rules to regulate actions seems like a better fit for understanding what "the law" refers to in Romans 3:27…..that's just what i make of Romans 3:27 - I could be wrong.
ooops ! almost forgot to point out - in the above definition of "law" that i found online - grammatically both are classified as a noun - which is a word used to identify a person, place, thing, idea.......whereas "believing" is a verb.....and i do remember the Way's follow up phrase to that - a verb connotes action....obviously the "law" used in Romans 3:27 is a noun and so is the word "faith" - so that it draws a contrast to the other noun "works" - in stating how we are justified it asks By what law?of works? No but by the law of faith.
I'm not exactly sure what you are suggesting the "law" is in Romans 3:27
I really didn't want to suggest a meaning for it, and intentionally asked it a non-leading way so as it leave it open for interpretation if it's said or thought that there is no law of faith (aka, believing.)
- maybe you could clarify or specify what effects one should expect, and for that matter what issues (problems) in the effects of believing are you addressing - ....perhaps you could define what "believing" is and how it is taught (if you want to break it up by group (group A taught to TWI general public and group B taught secretly to a select group who know of a different version) is ok too or you could just share YOUR version and/or the unauthorized version - - or any way you want to address my questions.
Good golly. Might as well draw up blueprints for a manned rocket ship to Mars while I'm at it...
BTW, are you aware (i.e., have you read or surmised elsewhere in my post in other threads) of my proclivity towards being a Socratic?
It's just not much in my nature to think or act like a prosecuting attorney and "lay the case out before you" and try to persuade you with it into thinking a certain way.
And, on top of that, short posts on a thread like this get read, while long ones seem to dull the senses (and get glossed over.)
Bite size is simply more palatable.
As noted already in my previous post, I don't have issues (i.e., problems) in the effects of believing. (So I'm not addressing any.)
You want a definition for believing? Well, it may not be the most complete or best there is, but I trust that you won't mind if I borrow one from someone else that I think isn't bad.
Very simply put, believing is to take God at His Word.
How that's taught and/or learned isn't as easy or as simple to grasp.
Far easier to spot, is what it's not, or how it's not done right.
While we can probably discuss what about it was taught (right, poorly, or just plain wrong) in PFAL and TWI, I'm not aware of any secret way that it was ever taught to "group B."
However, as for my own thoughts on the matter, well... it would have to be more bite size (that'd probably take a bit of work on your part to piece together).
For starters, I see believing as being an issue of the heart. What do you think or see the heart is?
Good golly. Might as well draw up blueprints for a manned rocket ship to Mars while I'm at it...
BTW, are you aware (i.e., have you read or surmised elsewhere in my post in other threads) of my proclivity towards being a Socratic?
(SNIP)
Well I'll be!!!!...Maybe there is something to that saying birds of a feather will flock together – I'm also inclined to asking others to clarify their statements.
It's just not much in my nature to think or act like a prosecuting attorney and "lay the case out before you" and try to persuade you with it into thinking a certain way.
And, on top of that, short posts on a thread like this get read, while long ones seem to dull the senses (and get glossed over.)
Bite size is simply more palatable.
Yeah you're probably right…I do tend to get verbose. I do apologize for that…alright…. I'll try to curb all the fluff and doo-doo and shoot for brevity – starting with this post….not promising anything though…sometimes the bs just wells up inside me…maybe I should apologize in advance...is there such a thing as writing a blank check for apologies?
While we can probably discuss what about it was taught (right, poorly, or just plain wrong) in PFAL and TWI, I'm not aware of any secret way that it was ever taught to "group B."
However, as for my own thoughts on the matter, well... it would have to be more bite size (that'd probably take a bit of work on your part to piece together).
oh i don't mind the work - i'm keen on the socratic method, citical thinking and all that jazz anyway.
For starters, I see believing as being an issue of the heart. What do you think or see the heart is?
mmmmm....no thanks – while that might be interesting – I think we've got enough on the plate already discussing magical thinking.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
20
15
29
Popular Days
Jul 26
28
Jul 24
19
Jul 23
16
Jul 27
11
Top Posters In This Topic
T-Bone 23 posts
waysider 20 posts
Bolshevik 15 posts
TLC 29 posts
Popular Days
Jul 26 2016
28 posts
Jul 24 2016
19 posts
Jul 23 2016
16 posts
Jul 27 2016
11 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
Well, OK, here's the first part: "Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason
T-Bone
Rocky thanks for that link to magical thinking – I've bookmarked it so I can review it a few times – good stuff. VP's skewed version of Christianity was a lot about being in control and manipulati
penworks
If I could put these two sentences in a flashing neon sign, I would. Speaking from experience, this lies at the heart of fanaticism.
T-Bone
my in-residence training does fall within the time frame you stated -
though i don't recall anyone in my corps or elder corps even hinting at this "known issue" you speak of - and certainly not any of the faculty - nor guest speakers like VP himself, his son Don, LCM, limb coordinators, or anyone else who one would think were tapped in to the latest research - although i wonder how much intellectual honesty could be found in that whole lot of bozos.
..oh yeah i forgot to mention that geeky Greek "scholar" Walter C. - for our corps night teachings old Wally would blather on about the book of Timothy....i remember one "enlightening" session when i got a glimpse into the priorities of TWI "research" - Wally went on and on.... and on.... and on about VP's directives of what he should find in the scriptures - before he even went to some institute for New Testament research in Germany - yeah "research"....i mean with this kind of intellectual straitjacket wrapped around a research staff - i don't see that as being open territory for free-range thinking - know what i mean...perhaps there were encrypted notes passed around about the issues of TWI's doctrine of believing.
i could be wrong on this but i think you "deferring" to DWBH or Penworks and others to prove your point is a..... chicken $hi_t ..... very cowardly way to make your case.
good point, Waysider- i think we're seeing some tough competition here!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
See my post above re: pistis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks Penworks - i will eat some humble pie now....about the time you posted the thing on pistis i was working on my post and did not see yours -
so while i was eating breakfast (not humble pie yet) and reflecting on what i just posted i thought i should go back and edit what i said to reflect the issues you and others have talked about while you were in....the point i was trying to make with TLC was that ANY doctrinal issues back then were not known to the general TWI public - even at the campuses.I don't recall any renegades or usurpers spreading mass sedition at the time.
perhaps TLC could elaborate on what he experienced, conversations he had with research staff, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I didn't have any inside track as to what was going on at the corporate level, especially about anything that ventured into the realm of academia. As I've noted before, one of my biggest disappointments with the FellowLaborer program was the virtual nonexistence of anything resembling scholastic study. I think people out on the field were under the impression we were privy to all sorts of proprietary information. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We lived in a commune, worked a small garden plot, hashed, rehashed and re-rehashed collaterals and SNS teachings, and had endless, mind numbing organizational meetings, butt chewings and more believer's meetings than any one person should ever be subjected to in a lifetime. But, did we do any in-depth study of "The Word" or gain special insight on nuances of the Bible? Nope. Never happened. Oh, I can tell you how to sprout your own Mung Beans, make mayonnaise from scratch or throw together enough familia to feed 50 people for a month, sure. Greek words and Biblical intricacies? Nah, not so much...OK, not at all.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Did you know that VP's primary goal with the Corps was to have a work crew? If you can stomach reading the Passing of the Patriarch, you'll see Ge*r reference VP's comments about that. The manual labor aspect was supposed to be patterned after something called The School of the Prophets, which VPW thought he was re-instituting with the Way Corps. We did more manual labor than Bible study in the Corps.
I think most of us here understand that any Bible study in TWI was really only VP's interpretation, some of which was plagiarized. TWI's basis for "study" starts with the assumption that the Bible is inerrant. That claim was made up by men (long before Wierwille or Bullinger) who, in my opinion, used it to dominate people, not instruct them honestly about what the Bible actually is--an anthology of different writings over centuries by men from different cultures and languages. Ah but I digress. I'll stop now ...
Hey, I get that. Letting the general public know what was really going on in research was NOT going to happen. It would sabotage the money coming in, the adoration of VPW and the acceptance of his authority!
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hey, ya know, 50 of us came together in one place, each believing we would receive specialized Bible/ministerial training. (Specifically, it was supposed to focus on Acts.) But, it never happened. No wonder we got our butts chewed so much. Even with 50 of us believing, we were too weak to bring it to pass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Thank you, penworks. (Clever handle, btw. It had slipped by mind what it was in my previous post, but I've had enough pens that didn't work that it should be easy enough to remember. However, seems a lot of details from half a lifetime ago do rather easily slip away from one's fingertips.) If I had to guess, I'm inclined to think Norman Vincent Peale, who's writings undoubtedly also influenced Robert Schuller. (Joel Osteen reminds me of their style or manner of teaching.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, I didn't say that anyone back then claimed to have much for "answers." The intent was to point out that that there were questions (re: this "magical thinking," the topic of this thread) from way back then (...which few here seemed to think even possible, preferring to think that I was probably just in denial.)
Perhaps it won't make sense to you, but once you (in this case, me) start chasing something down a rabbit hole, the longer you're at it and the farther away from where you started you go, the harder it becomes to retrace your "jumping off" point and all the reasons why you might have gone left or right in the course of things. So in a certain sense, asking how I got to the place where I'm at regarding my thoughts on what believing is (and what it is not) can be a bit like asking Alice how she got there.
On the surface, someone would undoubtedly be quick to say that I'm "waybrained." But underneath the surface, it's so different from what was taught in TWI, the difference is... magical.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Some here seem to think that VP was so into Pauline doctrine, that he either cast aside or reinterpreted the O.T. to fit with it. Yet, here is a classic example of him pulling something out the O.T. that just doesn't fit with the Pauline epistles and the gospel of grace. (Nor with the school of Tyrannus.)
Long before Wierwille or Bullinger, agreed. But I chose (well before TWI) to disagree with you on the "made up" part (and haven't changed my mind since.)
But, as you say, it digresses...
While that may have been the reason behind some things, I'm not convinced it was the reason here. More basic to it at the time, I suppose, was the lack of more viable (and understandable) alternatives. And, given the egotistical nature of those in control (giving those of us not in charge or in control the unwarranted and undeserved benefit of the doubt, but probably no less applicable or true), there was simply no need to burden those of lessor intellectual spiritual ability with unresolved and unanswerable questions.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
One of the biggest things was the Aura of Inerrancy around vpw.
vpw put for that himself was some Great One, and that he had a Special Connection with God Almighty.
So, his shortcomings and failings had to be glossed over.
This was especially true of things vpw didn't understand.
In pfal, vpw made a passing comment that the Book of Revelation wasn't difficult to understand.
Later, in private, he mentioned not wanting to try to tackle it because it was difficult.
But his passing claim in pfal made him sound really knowledgeable- how he even had no trouble
with the Book of Revelation. So, what he didn't understand had to be covered over and
explained away.
As for his magical believing, he borrowed from a number of sources, some Christian and some not.
From EW Kenyon, he borrowed both the Word of Faith movement, and prosperity theology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
He also learned some of it from Glenn Clark and Albert Cliffe
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/rsr_lawbelieve.htm
Albert Cliffe, in particular, attributed his learning to his work as a psychic medium for the dead.
Glenn Clark was a promulgator of New Thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought
Albert Cliffe was a guest of wierwille's during the years he was on his congregation's payroll,
looking to set up his own organization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
What you've been saying in your later posts differs from your earlier posts - like #19 (above) – in terms of exactly who knew of the issue.other than the select group of insiders (research staff) and anyone else that got wind of the issues ( from research staff).....I think the "reality" of the situation in the TWI general public was that everything is cool with PFAL, i.e. law (magic) of believing, and all the other nonsense; matter of fact, at the start of working on our research papers in residence - I can still hear LCM pounding on the podium and telling us in a resounding voice don't try to reinvent the wheel – stick to PFAL.
I think Penworks remarks about TWI proper keeping a lid on doctrinal issues so as not to hurt sales is a key point here. Hopefully folks did not miss that.
I think it's been a little like chasing down a rabbit hole in reverse for me – I finally got some idea of what you were talking about (a select group of those in the know) by going back to your first post and slowly piecing together what little details you've given us in each post thereafter on why you see things differently...... I do apologize for the delay in my understanding I guess I missed that first time thru.....that's why some posters on this thread have been pestering you for specifics.....perhaps you missed that.
now that i see your point on the "insider knowledge" perhaps you could explain how the teachings on believing / faith released to the TWI general public for consumption are all that different than what has been described on this thread
(edited for clarity)
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Issues with The Law of Believing?
k . .
Get your thoughts words and actions going in the same way.
So if you get your words and actons going, but not your thoughts, they get you for lying. YOU are the bad guy. Not the doctrine.
IT'S A TRAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
forget about it
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Does the Law of Believing, *cough*, "work", in the absence of Wierwille Worship?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
wayside said in post # 61:
In other words, "Better keep it hidden from the peons, lest the ABS should cease to flow."
However, I actually said (concerning this subject matter) that I did not think this was the reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Granted, that was an issue that grew larger and became worse over time.
Well, it sure didn't have to be (and it wasn't always)... but unfortunately, it far too often was.
I don't disagree that he probably incorporated some number of things from EW Kenyon. But I don't see or necessarily agree that's primarily where the problems with how believing was taught stemmed from. And I actually like a lot of Kenyon's stuff and think a lot can be learned from it. (Especially his work on Identification.)
Having not ever researched or read much on either of these two (aside from Clark's book on George Washington Carver, which is remarkable), I don't know if either of them might be the source for the "camera" analogy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Where did you think I ever said or claimed they were different? What I said was, that there were some known issues with it (though obviously, not known by everyone.)
Furthermore, I said that not everyone thought of "believing" in the way and manner that it is described in this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Evidently you doubt there is such a law (with or without any modifiers.)
What then, do you make of Romans 3:27?
I don't so much see problems in the effects of believing, but in what believing is and/or how it is taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Romans 3:27 seems to be in the context of faith in Jesus, or some variant of that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
It will "appear to "work" if you believe it will…please note: in the absence of Wierwille Worship your perception of it "working" may become impaired.
This may explain why Han Solo did not really believe in the Force; in another "life" he threw away the idol...you may recall that as Indiana Jones he found a precious idol in a cave - and was needing his bullwhip to escape by using it to swing across a chasm; Satipo was on the other side of that chasm holding Indiana's whip; Satipo says "throw me idol" and Indiana responds "throw me the whip"; Indiana throws Satipo the idol, but then Satipo just drops the whip, runs off, and turns over the idol to Belloq; when he unwraps the idol – voila – it's one of those miniature commemorative statues of VP. Perhaps that is why Han Solo did not really believe in the Force; now you know the rest of the story.
ok - i apologize for that misunderstanding
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I'm not exactly sure what you are suggesting the "law" is in Romans 3:27 - maybe you could clarify or specify what effects one should expect, and for that matter what issues (problems) in the effects of believing are you addressing - ....perhaps you could define what "believing" is and how it is taught (if you want to break it up by group (group A taught to TWI general public and group B taught secretly to a select group who know of a different version) is ok too or you could just share YOUR version and/or the unauthorized version - - or any way you want to address my questions.
i am wondering if you hold to a different meaning of "law" that goes beyond the natural sense of the passage. The reason i say this is because in preceding posts you have been discussing the official TWI doctrine of believing and the "unofficial" doctrine of believing (known to research staff and others with whom they have shared it with)....not trying to start anything here - it's just that given my track record for misunderstanding
/>- i'm doing my best to get on the same page as you.
guess what i'm saying is that TWI's official doctrine on believing is NOT what's being addressed in Romans 3:27 - (once again - that's the official TWI doctrine on believing proclaimed to the masses - i'm not aware of the other version that you've been talking about) -.
I think the natural sense of Romans 3:27 does NOT refer to TWI's doctrine of "the law of believing" even by any stretch of the imagination. Going on the context of Romans 3 verses 27 to 31 (see below) it looks to me that it's stressing proper fulfillment of the law is no longer based on works but on faith;
faith being "the new rule" – or maybe the means of compliance in the "process" of justification; whereas the deeds of the law was "the old rule" and meant strict adherence in following the Old Testament laws - even the ceremonial laws in order to be justified.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. KJV
If one chooses to immigrate to our country and become a citizen they must follow the laws of our land, meeting the requirements to become a US citizen; these would be listed under immigration law which refers to the rules established by our government for determining who is allowed to enter our country - for how long - as well as the naturalization process for those who want to become citizens. once citizens they are afforded rights and privileges.
perhaps the kingdom of God works in a similar fashion; in order to be justified in the Old Testament you had to satisfy all the law - moral and ceremonial laws; now in one sense it seems God cut all that legal red tape - it's just by faith now....i said in one sense because i'm thinking about James 2:17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead, NIV ...
so whatever "faith" is it seems there's more to it than meets the eye - is it a belief a confidence, or acceptance of something as true plus being accompanied by appropriate action - - and that sort of sounds like works and makes me think of Matthew 3:8 John the Baptist's words Produce fruit in keeping with repentance, NIV. but you know fruit is a product of work - one has to prep the soil, all that gardening type stuff that i know nothing about - water and prune yada yada yada - and voila the fruit of your labors!
to qualify this "faith-works" (if there is such a thing) as opposed to the works of the law - is perhaps like seeing a difference between going thru the motions versus putting your heart into it. I could act nice to my neighbor do neighborly things for them - but i could do all that without my heart being into it - just doing that with an ulterior motive in mind....or i could truly love my neighbor as myself - that would definitely put my heart into my actions - then it would be genuine acts of kindness towards my neighbor.
...enough digressing from discussing what is the "law" of Romans 3:27.
Another thing that has me leaning toward "law" being a ruling or governing principle in the above passages rather than a scientific principle is that God is portrayed as the one doing the justifying – so he has an active role in the process - - perhaps as one who not only wrote the law he is also the one to enforce the law since he is the controlling authority. There doesn't appear to be any allusion to God being over here – and some independent law over there as though it were separate from Almighty God - functioning autonomously as it were
Even thinking about just the definition of "law" I feel strongly enough that some "magical" law of believing that works for saint and sinner alike is NOT what Romans 3:27-31 is talking about; an online definition of "law" that I found states there are two basic usages:
1. The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
2. A statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
an online definition of law
TWI's doctrine on the "law of believing" supposedly refers to the 2nd usage – that it is a statement of fact, deduced from observation that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present; wasn't it in PFAL that VP suggested the law of believing works just as consistently as in the realm of science – when you mix 2 parts of hydrogen with 1 part oxygen – you get water; the hitch with this idea is that one cannot observe if certain conditions were met for it to be true believing (maybe a somewhat simplified version of the conditions is presented in Bolshevik's post # 64).
But noting usage 1 of the online definition – "law" as a system of rules to regulate actions seems like a better fit for understanding what "the law" refers to in Romans 3:27…..that's just what i make of Romans 3:27 - I could be wrong.
ooops ! almost forgot to point out - in the above definition of "law" that i found online - grammatically both are classified as a noun - which is a word used to identify a person, place, thing, idea.......whereas "believing" is a verb.....and i do remember the Way's follow up phrase to that - a verb connotes action....obviously the "law" used in Romans 3:27 is a noun and so is the word "faith" - so that it draws a contrast to the other noun "works" - in stating how we are justified it asks By what law?of works? No but by the law of faith.
(edited for clarity)
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I really didn't want to suggest a meaning for it, and intentionally asked it a non-leading way so as it leave it open for interpretation if it's said or thought that there is no law of faith (aka, believing.)
Good golly. Might as well draw up blueprints for a manned rocket ship to Mars while I'm at it...
BTW, are you aware (i.e., have you read or surmised elsewhere in my post in other threads) of my proclivity towards being a Socratic?
It's just not much in my nature to think or act like a prosecuting attorney and "lay the case out before you" and try to persuade you with it into thinking a certain way.
And, on top of that, short posts on a thread like this get read, while long ones seem to dull the senses (and get glossed over.)
Bite size is simply more palatable.
As noted already in my previous post, I don't have issues (i.e., problems) in the effects of believing. (So I'm not addressing any.)
You want a definition for believing? Well, it may not be the most complete or best there is, but I trust that you won't mind if I borrow one from someone else that I think isn't bad.
Very simply put, believing is to take God at His Word.
How that's taught and/or learned isn't as easy or as simple to grasp.
Far easier to spot, is what it's not, or how it's not done right.
While we can probably discuss what about it was taught (right, poorly, or just plain wrong) in PFAL and TWI, I'm not aware of any secret way that it was ever taught to "group B."
However, as for my own thoughts on the matter, well... it would have to be more bite size (that'd probably take a bit of work on your part to piece together).
For starters, I see believing as being an issue of the heart. What do you think or see the heart is?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Well I'll be!!!!...Maybe there is something to that saying birds of a feather will flock together – I'm also inclined to asking others to clarify their statements.
Yeah you're probably right…I do tend to get verbose. I do apologize for that…alright…. I'll try to curb all the fluff and doo-doo and shoot for brevity – starting with this post….not promising anything though…sometimes the bs just wells up inside me…maybe I should apologize in advance...is there such a thing as writing a blank check for apologies?
oh i don't mind the work - i'm keen on the socratic method, citical thinking and all that jazz anyway.
mmmmm....no thanks – while that might be interesting – I think we've got enough on the plate already discussing magical thinking.
Link 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.