Sky I agree and have been pondering this very topic since I got up this morning (and before I saw yer post oddly enuf).
I think twi's theory of believing is founded in practical truth.
Practical because it is the first step towards accomplishing ones goals, namely becoming clear on what one wants. This isn't magic nor really THAT big a spiritual truth as any good manager visionary or crackpot dictator will tell you, clarity of goals is the first thing one must do to achieve said goals. Heck every profitable company in America has whats known as a mission statement which essentially is nothing more than the goals the org wishes to *believe* into manifestation.
A mission statement in and of itself is worthless unless it is accompanied by clear concise movement towards said goal. This is where many folks in twi failed, they kept imagining something coming to pass (a better job, new car, pretty girlfriend etc) yet never got into the doing part. It is by putting ones words into action that goals can be accomplished, NOT setting at home SIT'ing like a house afire.
That will be $250 thank you very much,
Dr Herbie yer one stop shop for truth justice and the capitalistic way ;)-->
quote: But for those who've recently exited twi and are still steeped in waybrain, it shows how the pfal class used "selective scripturing" also known as private interpretation and therefore was tainted in its approach.
skyrider -- you got it. Not surprising that doc didn't use this as one of his examples of "the many clear verses, explain the few *errant* ones".
Works for sinner and saint alike. There is an "ominous" force within the human mind that can affect things outside of your body. You simply "believe" that something will happen and this force is set in motion. An invisible vector emits a quantity completely specified by a magnitude and a direction, interacting with various "intangible" objects that manipulates a predetermined outcome...it's called "the law of believing"...it's also called witchcraft...take your pick.
If the "law of believing", i.e. believing = receiving were true, then the world would be a lot more chaotic than it already is, with people "believing" for competing things.
If the "law of believing" is true, then why do people not recieve what they "believe" for 100% of the time?
quote: If the "law of believing", i.e. believing = receiving were true, then the world would be a lot more chaotic than it already is, with people "believing" for competing things.
Now there's a novel concept I never thought of!! :D-->
Guess it is a good thing that believing doesn't equal receiving, otherwise some unsuspecting folk would be on the "receiving end" of something malicious (like a baseball bat), as others defend "their property" -- making the claim --
If the "law of believing", i.e. believing = receiving were true, then the world would be a lot more chaotic than it already is, with people "believing" for competing things.
If the "law of believing" is true, then why do people _not_ recieve what they "believe" for 100% of the time?
Since twi-ers never comprised a sizeable portion of people winning
the lottery despite their "great believing", I figured this rule
wasnt quite as practical as vpw liked to make it sound.
As Raf has pointed out, it works as a "rule of thumb",
but elevating it to a "law" that "works for saint and sinner alike",
First of all, as I have pointed out here a number of times but it has conveniently slipped from some minds already: "Believing Equals Receiving" is not, Not, NOT, N.O.T. what the law of believing is!!!
Page 29 of the too-simple-to-bother-with Blue Book says that 'what we believe for or expect, we get" is the law SIMPLY STATED!!!
If some simpleton latches on the simply stated version of the law and tries to get detailed precision predictions from it, he will stupidly proclaim that the law is wrong.
We must go to the WHOLE law to get precision understanding of it. To do this, get to the whole law, we must master PFAL, not just a few sentences here and there.
"Believing equals receiving" rhymes and is a convenient mnemonic for remembering the simply stated version of the law. Even in this simply stated version, it still works like a rule of thumb... approximately.
Next, on that same ignored page 29 of BTMS we see that the law applies in "every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual."
To understand this in our enlightened quest (as opposed to the armchair stupidity I frequently see) we must know everything that this list of four entails. That would include mastering the natural/factual versus the spiritually/true dichotomy.
I started two large threads on this whole natural/factual vs. the spiritually/true dichotomy that delve into many of these same aspects.
I have posted these two links three times in the past day on three different threads. There are many, many more threads and erroneous notions that will be cleared up for those who obey God and master PFAL. These two links are a start.
People can wallow in ignorance and complain till they die, but only by coming back to PFAL and mastering it as we all were instructed will we have any answers to life. Come back to God or die are the only two choices.
However obscure the "true" teachings of vpw are, he and the leadership who followed him did nothing to discourage people from accepting the idea that
"believing = receiving" or "that 'what we believe for or expect, we get" is the law SIMPLY STATED!!!"
The result of accepting this idea is that when things go well (according to your expectation) you feel like you caused it to happen. When they don't, you feel at fault.
Since the "law" is never questioned, and the results are out there for all to see, the only variable must be YOU and YOUR believing.
This leads to a very warped view of the world, and an easy way for leaders to control those who take comfort from this view.
However obscure the "true" teachings of vpw are, he and the leadership who followed him did nothing to discourage people from accepting the idea that
"believing = receiving" or "that 'what we believe for or expect, we get" is the law SIMPLY STATED!!!"
The result of accepting this idea is that when things go well (according to your expectation) you feel like you caused it to happen. When they don't, you feel at fault.
Since the "law" is never questioned, and the results are out there for all to see, the only variable must be YOU and YOUR believing.
This leads to a very warped view of the world, and an easy way for leaders to control those who take comfort from this view.
I also touched on this subject on the Masters of the Word thread (I think it was that tread) but I quit discussing the subject with a number of individuals. I came to the conclusion I could not argue anyone into believing - "believing is a law" because the law of believing does not work outside the greater law, which is the law of love.
Just about everybody I was discussing the subject with only wanted some "logical argument" to support it. There is no logical argument to support the law of believing anymore than there is a logical argument to support the law of love. Both laws, the law of believing and the law of love, there is only the command from God's Word; and that is - do.
What do you want now? I'm sorry, but if the law of believing still does not work for you it is because you have failed at keeping the greater law which is the law of love. If you fulfill that law then the law of believing takes care of itself and nobody can argue you out of it. You don't need any explanation for it either - logical or otherwise.
You wrote: "I also touched on this subject on the Masters of the Word thread (I think it was that tread) but I quit discussing the subject with a number of individuals. I came to the conclusion I could not argue anyone into believing - "believing is a law" because the law of believing does not work outside the greater law, which is the law of love."
Gosh, I hope I wasn't one of those individual you had to give up on.
I kinda like what you said here. It fits right in with what I said above (and adds more) about NOT leaning on simple mnemonic sloganary abbreviations (believing=receiving) and seeking out the entire exposition of the law as laid out in PFAL. Your approach here is to add-in the idea of looking at love and the context the law of believing works in.
Actually, adding a little refinement here, I'd say that when you believe in someone, when you adhere to, trust on, and rely on someone, that's the same as loving them. When you love them, you believe in them (respecting whatever limitations they have). When you believe in them (again respecting their limitations), then you love them. Since God has no limitations except those He imposes on Himself, we can love and believe Him to the max.
***
You wrote: "Just about everybody I was discussing the subject with only wanted some "logical argument" to support it. There is no logical argument to support the law of believing anymore than there is a logical argument to support the law of love. Both laws, the law of believing and the law of love, there is only the command from God's Word; and that is - do."
I agree; we can't derive any of this stuff, just see it in the written revelations God has given us and obey it. Some of the logic may come later, some may not. God promises to meet our need, not our greed to understand everything.
You wrote: "However obscure the "true" teachings of vpw are, he and the leadership who followed him did nothing to discourage people from accepting the idea that 'believing = receiving'..."
NOT SO!
I can agree that his top leadership did nothing, or next to nothing, in this category, but that may be because they too did not have the understanding to do it. Dr certainly understood it and he did do plenty to discourage oversimplistic embraces of the law. He didn't do this every time the topic came up, but he OFTEN did put in the record what we needed to do to prevent such ignorance in us.
I have shown here in this thread (and others) what Dr did do to steer us to the proper understanding.
I pointed out that he put in writing that we (especially top leadership) needed to master the PFAL writings. That includes p.29 of BTMS where we were warned that simple phrases are just that: simple, and should not be confused with the entire ballgame.
Dr often pointed out (and in the class) that we cannot take one sentence in scripture and lean on it alone doctrinally, but that we must see what is said in it's entirety on any one topic, and that may mean searching and combing through a lot of material. This principle of getting the whole story and not a mere abbreviation holds for secular writing as well as God's Word, so there's no excuse, even for those who disbelieved Dr's authority. In the good old days, though, no one (openly) did that.
Dr often urged his top leadership to master the writings, but in the long run, all disobeyed. After Dr stepped down in 1982, most top leadership got farther and farther from the wisdom needed to see that the simplistic slogans without comprehensive mastery was leading to distorted and bizarre doctrines.
If we had done these things we were told, then we would have been much more comfortable with first operating the law, and understanding more of it to.
***
You wrote: "The result of accepting this idea is that when things go well (according to your expectation) you feel like you caused it to happen. When they don't, you feel at fault. __ Since the "law" is never questioned, and the results are out there for all to see, the only variable must be YOU and YOUR believing. This leads to a very warped view of the world, and an easy way for leaders to control those who take comfort from this view."
I can agree that this did happen. The idea of the ONLY variable being our believing, though, is NOT what he taught. In the AC we learned of community believing being another variable.
I've posted before on other variables or causes. Here is what is on page 19 of GMWD (with my bold fonts) on these other causes:
"Verse 3 of Psalms 103 very plainly says, “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all [without exception] thy diseases.” Does God forgive your sins? Well then, does God heal you? He must or He is a liar; but God is no liar. People may then question, “Well, why doesn't God heal everybody?” Healing for all is God’s will. But when we fail to rise up to our rightful and legal privileges, due to a variety of causes—the greatest cause being a negative society where people talk about, expect, and cope with negative things—we fail to be healed. To claim and manifest God’s healing we must believe on the positives of His Word, not the negatives of the world. If we would become immersed in the Word and start living, we would find that God is still able to quiet down the nerves; God is still able to bring health and peace without antibiotics, sedatives, or alcohol."
Skyrider, I'm not sure what your saying here matches what your wanted to accomplish.
Luke 1:5-20
Zacharius wanted a son and his prayer was heard. Yet, when Gabriel told him of what was to follow......Zacharius did not believe.
Verse 20 ......because thou (Zacharius) believest not my words which shall be fulfilled in their season.
So was Zach praying for something he didn't want?
How do we eliminate Elizabeth's believing? Didn't she want to end the shame of not having a child?
Was old Zach just not believe the Angel?
I do understand believers believing for two different teams to win the super bowl, or two different players claiming to be believing God to score touchdowns, hit home runs, etc. not making sense, but we do have to know what's available, right?
Sorry, but there's so much other content to consider, I don't see this as a complete argument.
You mean, I don't have to try and figure out where my believing is "off" when I operate the "law" and I don't receive?
Cool. :)-->
I think this doctrine more than any other was the source of much condemnation and heartache. It sure was that way for me. The law couldn't be wrong, I thought, so where was I missing it? Particularly in the area of physical health, which is so obviously "available" according to the KJV. Anyone who knows me from my Way days, knows I couldn't have been more pure for God. I knew the "law of believing" backwards and forwards, and I did my darndest to walk by it.
If I did not receive (and sometimes I did not), then either the law of believing is wrong, or it is so complicated as to be incomprehensible, and the latter is not what Wierwille taught.
Mike said
quote:"Verse 3 of Psalms 103 very plainly says, “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all [without exception] thy diseases.” Does God forgive your sins? Well then, does God heal you? He must or He is a liar; but God is no liar. People may then question, “Well, why doesn't God heal everybody?” Healing for all is God’s will. But when we fail to rise up to our rightful and legal privileges, due to a variety of causes—the greatest cause being a negative society where people talk about, expect, and cope with negative things—we fail to be healed. To claim and manifest God’s healing we must believe on the positives of His Word, not the negatives of the world. If we would become immersed in the Word and start living, we would find that God is still able to quiet down the nerves; God is still able to bring health and peace without antibiotics, sedatives, or alcohol."
That is Waybrain in a nutshell. And a subtle condemnation -- i.e., if you do not receive healing, it is because you are believing the negatives of this world. If you really believed, you wouldn't need medicine (interesting that it is juxtaposed with alcohol, as if the taking of any of these was a weakness).
A positive outlook on life is a healthy and effective way to live, but it is a far cry from the "law of believing."
I'm convinced that NONE of us ever really believed, except in certain isolated areas of our lives where we had already (by accident) developed a true steady unshakable set of attitudes that simply needed some fine tuning from the Word.
Most of what we thought was believing was mental assent.
Believing is simple, but we get so easily talked out of it. There is a not so simple, and voluminous set of techniques the adversary has in place to cause us to stumble before our mental assent develops into real believing.
Thinking that you believed for something is no proof that you really did believe. You may have done well with some of the details in learning, but the depth of your believing report is something that I would not take as anything but subjective testimony.
If you were really believing, then the circumstances of it not coming to pass would not stall the process. Believing the promises of God means rejecting a belief in the 5-senses circumstances that say otherwise.
When our body hurts, believing the Word more than our own body's reports is simple still, but still very difficult.
Look how long it took Abraham to get his circumstances to change. He could have thrown in the towel if he had listened to you after several years of waiting for a kid. He nearly did do that with the incident involving Ishmael, but he hung in there. Believing is a battle at times because we have an adversary.
Jesus said we needed to have NO DOUBT for it to work. That's no flinching at all. Dr taught that we cannon have ONE IOTA of doubt. Just a little bit can throw it off.
The law is simple, applying it in a battle can be very challenging. That's why all believers (so far) have died. They pooped out on believing, every one. Every apostle, every prophet, even John the Baptist. Mary too. Joseph was in prison for two full more years, even though he had successfuly believed for the revelation interpretation of two inmates' dreams.
You wrote: "I do understand believers believing for two different teams to win the super bowl, or two different players claiming to be believing God to score touchdowns, hit home runs, etc. not making sense, but we do have to know what's available, right? __ Sorry, but there's so much other content to consider, I don't see this as a complete argument."
TK, you hit the nail right on the head on the lack of completeness here.
Plus, I also appreciate your reminder that the list of available items (promises of God) is crucial in the law of believing.
I've seen it often the case that non-mastering grads forget to include that it only works for what is available.
And how many times does Dr say the word "available" the PFAL class? I just counted 47 times in the first segment of the class. That's SEGMENT 1, not Session 1. The segments were 28 minutes long. In Session 1 the count is 89 times. In the PFAL book it was 47 times. Yet people are so forgetful of this and prone to think that the law applies to any old thing we want to "believe for."
Is there anyone here who thinks that this Zacharius analysis is complete and wise?
Has anyone done any kind of deeper research other than a quick KJV reading?
Has anyone even systematically looked for ALL of the KJV references to this exact topic or any related ones? Is it ever referred to again in a tucked away in a remotely located fragment of a verse that no one remembers?
Can anyone here reasonably say that we can expect of God that He always puts into written form all the facts about this issue to illustrate the law of believing?
Yeah sure!
Who's going to tell me that every incident reported in the Bible has complete documentation included that reveals all the details of each participant's believing at each point in time in the sequencing of the story?
Your formulaic concept of life is just wrong. Reality is far too complex to be reduced to a priori formulas found in the PFAL class or in collaterals. Paul said that "the letter kills but the spirit gives life."
Far too many people who struggled with difficult issues in TWI sought help only to be judged and upbraided by smug and sanctimonious "miserable comforters" for their supposed lack of believing. Conversely, the summation of Jesus' message love, mercy, justice and hope which are concepts that don't lend themselves easily to trite slogans, maxims and formulas.
Okay, so there is (according to Mike and the now deceased Wierwille) a law of believing that "simply stated" is believing = receiving, but is in reality more complicated than that.
Other variables include "community believing" and the negative impact of the non-believing world.
Apparently the only way to really know if you are believing is if you are receiving, because if you're not receiving, your not really believing.
It's like pole vaulting in the dark: you don't know how high you're supposed to jump, nor how long the pole is that will get you there, nor how far away the cross bar is, nor how far you missed it by.
Welcome back to the fray Mike, working on the logic I see, although still operating from an unsupported premise ;)--> - we disagree as usual, but at least you use complete sentences (lots of 'em) and appear to have a grasp of spelling and basic grammar
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
7
9
13
Popular Days
Nov 29
21
Dec 2
20
Nov 30
17
Dec 3
14
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 11 posts
skyrider 7 posts
Too Gray Now 9 posts
Mike 13 posts
Popular Days
Nov 29 2004
21 posts
Dec 2 2004
20 posts
Nov 30 2004
17 posts
Dec 3 2004
14 posts
herbiejuan
Sky I agree and have been pondering this very topic since I got up this morning (and before I saw yer post oddly enuf).
I think twi's theory of believing is founded in practical truth.
Practical because it is the first step towards accomplishing ones goals, namely becoming clear on what one wants. This isn't magic nor really THAT big a spiritual truth as any good manager visionary or crackpot dictator will tell you, clarity of goals is the first thing one must do to achieve said goals. Heck every profitable company in America has whats known as a mission statement which essentially is nothing more than the goals the org wishes to *believe* into manifestation.
A mission statement in and of itself is worthless unless it is accompanied by clear concise movement towards said goal. This is where many folks in twi failed, they kept imagining something coming to pass (a better job, new car, pretty girlfriend etc) yet never got into the doing part. It is by putting ones words into action that goals can be accomplished, NOT setting at home SIT'ing like a house afire.
That will be $250 thank you very much,
Dr Herbie yer one stop shop for truth justice and the capitalistic way
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
A mission statement equals receiving.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
skyrider -- you got it. Not surprising that doc didn't use this as one of his examples of "the many clear verses, explain the few *errant* ones".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Works for sinner and saint alike. There is an "ominous" force within the human mind that can affect things outside of your body. You simply "believe" that something will happen and this force is set in motion. An invisible vector emits a quantity completely specified by a magnitude and a direction, interacting with various "intangible" objects that manipulates a predetermined outcome...it's called "the law of believing"...it's also called witchcraft...take your pick.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
You say "witchcraft" like it's a bad thing
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
If the "law of believing", i.e. believing = receiving were true, then the world would be a lot more chaotic than it already is, with people "believing" for competing things.
If the "law of believing" is true, then why do people not recieve what they "believe" for 100% of the time?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Now there's a novel concept I never thought of!!
:D-->
Guess it is a good thing that believing doesn't equal receiving, otherwise some unsuspecting folk would be on the "receiving end" of something malicious (like a baseball bat), as others defend "their property" -- making the claim --
"I believed first!! Now get out of here!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Since twi-ers never comprised a sizeable portion of people winning
the lottery despite their "great believing", I figured this rule
wasnt quite as practical as vpw liked to make it sound.
As Raf has pointed out, it works as a "rule of thumb",
but elevating it to a "law" that "works for saint and sinner alike",
as vpw loved to do with trends or rules of thumb,
makes it into something that it is not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
First of all, as I have pointed out here a number of times but it has conveniently slipped from some minds already: "Believing Equals Receiving" is not, Not, NOT, N.O.T. what the law of believing is!!!
Page 29 of the too-simple-to-bother-with Blue Book says that 'what we believe for or expect, we get" is the law SIMPLY STATED!!!
If some simpleton latches on the simply stated version of the law and tries to get detailed precision predictions from it, he will stupidly proclaim that the law is wrong.
We must go to the WHOLE law to get precision understanding of it. To do this, get to the whole law, we must master PFAL, not just a few sentences here and there.
"Believing equals receiving" rhymes and is a convenient mnemonic for remembering the simply stated version of the law. Even in this simply stated version, it still works like a rule of thumb... approximately.
Next, on that same ignored page 29 of BTMS we see that the law applies in "every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual."
To understand this in our enlightened quest (as opposed to the armchair stupidity I frequently see) we must know everything that this list of four entails. That would include mastering the natural/factual versus the spiritually/true dichotomy.
I started two large threads on this whole natural/factual vs. the spiritually/true dichotomy that delve into many of these same aspects.
The first is "The Ubiquitously Hidden Teaching of VPW" and can be found at http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a=tpc...=3656073772&p=1
The second is "The Spiritually Divine over the Naturally Factual" and can be found at http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a=tpc...=3216084083&p=1
I have posted these two links three times in the past day on three different threads. There are many, many more threads and erroneous notions that will be cleared up for those who obey God and master PFAL. These two links are a start.
People can wallow in ignorance and complain till they die, but only by coming back to PFAL and mastering it as we all were instructed will we have any answers to life. Come back to God or die are the only two choices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
Gee Mike We do not live under the law remember it is grace
enough with the laws already.
life is bigger than a simple statement
love God and keep his( see his not some man made
formula) commandments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Ahhh... the same law that fails for 50% of the people every time at a football game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
My3Cents
However obscure the "true" teachings of vpw are, he and the leadership who followed him did nothing to discourage people from accepting the idea that
"believing = receiving" or "that 'what we believe for or expect, we get" is the law SIMPLY STATED!!!"
The result of accepting this idea is that when things go well (according to your expectation) you feel like you caused it to happen. When they don't, you feel at fault.
Since the "law" is never questioned, and the results are out there for all to see, the only variable must be YOU and YOUR believing.
This leads to a very warped view of the world, and an easy way for leaders to control those who take comfort from this view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I felt this was worth repeating,
for those who might have been skimming.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
I also touched on this subject on the Masters of the Word thread (I think it was that tread) but I quit discussing the subject with a number of individuals. I came to the conclusion I could not argue anyone into believing - "believing is a law" because the law of believing does not work outside the greater law, which is the law of love.
Just about everybody I was discussing the subject with only wanted some "logical argument" to support it. There is no logical argument to support the law of believing anymore than there is a logical argument to support the law of love. Both laws, the law of believing and the law of love, there is only the command from God's Word; and that is - do.
What do you want now? I'm sorry, but if the law of believing still does not work for you it is because you have failed at keeping the greater law which is the law of love. If you fulfill that law then the law of believing takes care of itself and nobody can argue you out of it. You don't need any explanation for it either - logical or otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What The Hay,
You wrote: "I also touched on this subject on the Masters of the Word thread (I think it was that tread) but I quit discussing the subject with a number of individuals. I came to the conclusion I could not argue anyone into believing - "believing is a law" because the law of believing does not work outside the greater law, which is the law of love."
Gosh, I hope I wasn't one of those individual you had to give up on.
I kinda like what you said here. It fits right in with what I said above (and adds more) about NOT leaning on simple mnemonic sloganary abbreviations (believing=receiving) and seeking out the entire exposition of the law as laid out in PFAL. Your approach here is to add-in the idea of looking at love and the context the law of believing works in.
Actually, adding a little refinement here, I'd say that when you believe in someone, when you adhere to, trust on, and rely on someone, that's the same as loving them. When you love them, you believe in them (respecting whatever limitations they have). When you believe in them (again respecting their limitations), then you love them. Since God has no limitations except those He imposes on Himself, we can love and believe Him to the max.
***
You wrote: "Just about everybody I was discussing the subject with only wanted some "logical argument" to support it. There is no logical argument to support the law of believing anymore than there is a logical argument to support the law of love. Both laws, the law of believing and the law of love, there is only the command from God's Word; and that is - do."
I agree; we can't derive any of this stuff, just see it in the written revelations God has given us and obey it. Some of the logic may come later, some may not. God promises to meet our need, not our greed to understand everything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My3Cents (and WordWolf),
You wrote: "However obscure the "true" teachings of vpw are, he and the leadership who followed him did nothing to discourage people from accepting the idea that 'believing = receiving'..."
NOT SO!
I can agree that his top leadership did nothing, or next to nothing, in this category, but that may be because they too did not have the understanding to do it. Dr certainly understood it and he did do plenty to discourage oversimplistic embraces of the law. He didn't do this every time the topic came up, but he OFTEN did put in the record what we needed to do to prevent such ignorance in us.
I have shown here in this thread (and others) what Dr did do to steer us to the proper understanding.
I pointed out that he put in writing that we (especially top leadership) needed to master the PFAL writings. That includes p.29 of BTMS where we were warned that simple phrases are just that: simple, and should not be confused with the entire ballgame.
Dr often pointed out (and in the class) that we cannot take one sentence in scripture and lean on it alone doctrinally, but that we must see what is said in it's entirety on any one topic, and that may mean searching and combing through a lot of material. This principle of getting the whole story and not a mere abbreviation holds for secular writing as well as God's Word, so there's no excuse, even for those who disbelieved Dr's authority. In the good old days, though, no one (openly) did that.
Dr often urged his top leadership to master the writings, but in the long run, all disobeyed. After Dr stepped down in 1982, most top leadership got farther and farther from the wisdom needed to see that the simplistic slogans without comprehensive mastery was leading to distorted and bizarre doctrines.
If we had done these things we were told, then we would have been much more comfortable with first operating the law, and understanding more of it to.
***
You wrote: "The result of accepting this idea is that when things go well (according to your expectation) you feel like you caused it to happen. When they don't, you feel at fault. __ Since the "law" is never questioned, and the results are out there for all to see, the only variable must be YOU and YOUR believing. This leads to a very warped view of the world, and an easy way for leaders to control those who take comfort from this view."
I can agree that this did happen. The idea of the ONLY variable being our believing, though, is NOT what he taught. In the AC we learned of community believing being another variable.
I've posted before on other variables or causes. Here is what is on page 19 of GMWD (with my bold fonts) on these other causes:
"Verse 3 of Psalms 103 very plainly says, “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all [without exception] thy diseases.” Does God forgive your sins? Well then, does God heal you? He must or He is a liar; but God is no liar. People may then question, “Well, why doesn't God heal everybody?” Healing for all is God’s will. But when we fail to rise up to our rightful and legal privileges, due to a variety of causes—the greatest cause being a negative society where people talk about, expect, and cope with negative things—we fail to be healed. To claim and manifest God’s healing we must believe on the positives of His Word, not the negatives of the world. If we would become immersed in the Word and start living, we would find that God is still able to quiet down the nerves; God is still able to bring health and peace without antibiotics, sedatives, or alcohol."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tumbleweed Kid
Skyrider, I'm not sure what your saying here matches what your wanted to accomplish.
Luke 1:5-20
Zacharius wanted a son and his prayer was heard. Yet, when Gabriel told him of what was to follow......Zacharius did not believe.
Verse 20 ......because thou (Zacharius) believest not my words which shall be fulfilled in their season.
So was Zach praying for something he didn't want?
How do we eliminate Elizabeth's believing? Didn't she want to end the shame of not having a child?
Was old Zach just not believe the Angel?
I do understand believers believing for two different teams to win the super bowl, or two different players claiming to be believing God to score touchdowns, hit home runs, etc. not making sense, but we do have to know what's available, right?
Sorry, but there's so much other content to consider, I don't see this as a complete argument.
Just one Cowboy's PRIVATE opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear sky,
You mean, believing DOES NOT EQUAL receiving?
You mean, I don't have to try and figure out where my believing is "off" when I operate the "law" and I don't receive?
Cool.
:)-->
I think this doctrine more than any other was the source of much condemnation and heartache. It sure was that way for me. The law couldn't be wrong, I thought, so where was I missing it? Particularly in the area of physical health, which is so obviously "available" according to the KJV. Anyone who knows me from my Way days, knows I couldn't have been more pure for God. I knew the "law of believing" backwards and forwards, and I did my darndest to walk by it.
If I did not receive (and sometimes I did not), then either the law of believing is wrong, or it is so complicated as to be incomprehensible, and the latter is not what Wierwille taught.
Mike said
That is Waybrain in a nutshell. And a subtle condemnation -- i.e., if you do not receive healing, it is because you are believing the negatives of this world. If you really believed, you wouldn't need medicine (interesting that it is juxtaposed with alcohol, as if the taking of any of these was a weakness).A positive outlook on life is a healthy and effective way to live, but it is a far cry from the "law of believing."
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Shaz,
I'm convinced that NONE of us ever really believed, except in certain isolated areas of our lives where we had already (by accident) developed a true steady unshakable set of attitudes that simply needed some fine tuning from the Word.
Most of what we thought was believing was mental assent.
Believing is simple, but we get so easily talked out of it. There is a not so simple, and voluminous set of techniques the adversary has in place to cause us to stumble before our mental assent develops into real believing.
Thinking that you believed for something is no proof that you really did believe. You may have done well with some of the details in learning, but the depth of your believing report is something that I would not take as anything but subjective testimony.
If you were really believing, then the circumstances of it not coming to pass would not stall the process. Believing the promises of God means rejecting a belief in the 5-senses circumstances that say otherwise.
When our body hurts, believing the Word more than our own body's reports is simple still, but still very difficult.
Look how long it took Abraham to get his circumstances to change. He could have thrown in the towel if he had listened to you after several years of waiting for a kid. He nearly did do that with the incident involving Ishmael, but he hung in there. Believing is a battle at times because we have an adversary.
Jesus said we needed to have NO DOUBT for it to work. That's no flinching at all. Dr taught that we cannon have ONE IOTA of doubt. Just a little bit can throw it off.
The law is simple, applying it in a battle can be very challenging. That's why all believers (so far) have died. They pooped out on believing, every one. Every apostle, every prophet, even John the Baptist. Mary too. Joseph was in prison for two full more years, even though he had successfuly believed for the revelation interpretation of two inmates' dreams.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Bravo Tumbleweed Kid !!!
You wrote: "I do understand believers believing for two different teams to win the super bowl, or two different players claiming to be believing God to score touchdowns, hit home runs, etc. not making sense, but we do have to know what's available, right? __ Sorry, but there's so much other content to consider, I don't see this as a complete argument."
TK, you hit the nail right on the head on the lack of completeness here.
Plus, I also appreciate your reminder that the list of available items (promises of God) is crucial in the law of believing.
I've seen it often the case that non-mastering grads forget to include that it only works for what is available.
And how many times does Dr say the word "available" the PFAL class? I just counted 47 times in the first segment of the class. That's SEGMENT 1, not Session 1. The segments were 28 minutes long. In Session 1 the count is 89 times. In the PFAL book it was 47 times. Yet people are so forgetful of this and prone to think that the law applies to any old thing we want to "believe for."
Is there anyone here who thinks that this Zacharius analysis is complete and wise?
Has anyone done any kind of deeper research other than a quick KJV reading?
Has anyone even systematically looked for ALL of the KJV references to this exact topic or any related ones? Is it ever referred to again in a tucked away in a remotely located fragment of a verse that no one remembers?
Can anyone here reasonably say that we can expect of God that He always puts into written form all the facts about this issue to illustrate the law of believing?
Yeah sure!
Who's going to tell me that every incident reported in the Bible has complete documentation included that reveals all the details of each participant's believing at each point in time in the sequencing of the story?
What a bunch of baloney.
Tumbleweed's nailed it.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Mike,
Your formulaic concept of life is just wrong. Reality is far too complex to be reduced to a priori formulas found in the PFAL class or in collaterals. Paul said that "the letter kills but the spirit gives life."
Far too many people who struggled with difficult issues in TWI sought help only to be judged and upbraided by smug and sanctimonious "miserable comforters" for their supposed lack of believing. Conversely, the summation of Jesus' message love, mercy, justice and hope which are concepts that don't lend themselves easily to trite slogans, maxims and formulas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Okay, so there is (according to Mike and the now deceased Wierwille) a law of believing that "simply stated" is believing = receiving, but is in reality more complicated than that.
Other variables include "community believing" and the negative impact of the non-believing world.
Apparently the only way to really know if you are believing is if you are receiving, because if you're not receiving, your not really believing.
Naw, that's not circular at all
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
...and how convenient to have something that can't be measured (i.e. your own believing) to blame if things don't come to pass as imagined.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
It's like pole vaulting in the dark: you don't know how high you're supposed to jump, nor how long the pole is that will get you there, nor how far away the cross bar is, nor how far you missed it by.
Welcome back to the fray Mike, working on the logic I see, although still operating from an unsupported premise
;)--> - we disagree as usual, but at least you use complete sentences (lots of 'em) and appear to have a grasp of spelling and basic grammar
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.