Originally Posted by UntoHim

Evangelical, we don't have to go back 200 years, but only to early to mid 20th Century China to see the influence of women in the church...well at least your church. After all, your guru's guru's gurus were WOMEN. Thank God that neither you (or any other antiquated male bigot) were around to stifle the work of the Holy Spirit through the LEADERSHIP of those dear sisters....else the Local Church of Witness Lee movement would have never come about. Poor, poor Christianity would have remained...just that...poor. So you of all people on this forum should be thankful for the leadership and influence of those godly women upon the life of Watchman Nee.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Those women weren't leading a church were they?

Originally Posted by OBW

The argument is not just about "leading a church," though it is of importance to some.

But if you are going to hang your hat on what others thought about things 100, 200, 500, 1,000, or 2,000 years ago, then the ground of dirt doesn't have a chance. Your own argument destroys it without even having a hearing on the issue. I would suggest that it is in your own interest to drop this line of reasoning because it is clear that you have not reasoned it out very well.

And on any other teaching that you really care about, you don't give a flying flip about what leading evangelical theologians think about it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Those women weren't leading a church were they? Funny how the work of the Holy Spirit coincides with the Christian feminist movement. 2000 years after the bible was written some translation errors were discovered that overturns everything the church has taught and practiced for centuries on its head. Things which are denied by leading evangelical theologians.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In speaking of opinions, not so long ago, 100 or 200 years ago, Wallace and the others, and my interpretation would have been accepted without question. Yours would have been declared heresy.

Are you saying that for 2000 years the church has got it wrong on this matter, that the Holy Spirit has not led anyone to the "truth" that women can now be church leaders? Isn't it rather coincidental that these matters were only brought to the forefront in conjunction with the modern day feminist movement? There has never really been a widespread conviction for female leadership in the church until the modern (i.e. Bushnell era and prior) day feminist movements started.

So any arguments you can present from the bible are really just a smokescreen to hide the fact that the position you hold is just an emergence of worldly ideals into the church.

Originally Posted by OBW

Really? The only sure way to determine the meaning of a phrase in another language is to analyze each word independently, drive a stake in the ground as to which meaning you think is more likely, then deal with the terse reading it creates, stir it around, and out comes a golden calf.

Originally Posted by OBW

Credentials are really not that meaningful beyond the base theological education. If we are relying on the determination of a person rather than a collective, then the fact of an alphabet soup of credentials does not mean much. The real question is how the analysis is undertaken. If it starts with the presumption that past determinations were correct, then there is a tendency to push the analysis that way — deliberately or not.

Originally Posted by OBW

As for Dr. Fanning, I recall that his task in the 18 month study was to amass all the evidence, analysis, writings, etc., that supported the status quo then make and defend all the arguments for it that he could until either he carried the argument or it failed to carry. Not just in numbers "voting" for or against, but in rational conclusions based on the available facts. This was not simply a determination by Dr. Fanning or any other scholar. The overall panel of persons that took it on included several seminary professors of significant stature, along with other seminary-trained persons, and some who were not seminary-trained, but well trained in the kind of study involved.

Originally Posted by OBW

Credentials or not, it takes a group, not a well-credentialed scholar and author, to analyze these issues. A group of well-trained persons is preferred to a singular scholar of high credentials. No matter how "peer-reviewed" his work may have been, it was ultimately his. And it is but one such work.

Originally Posted by OBW

You want to exclude women from all kinds of leadership, including any situation in which a woman teaches a man, yet they are right there in the Bible. And it is not obscure. Or only so if you are not really reading what is said. That would be your fault, not the Bible's.

Originally Posted by OBW

Your link to Wallace was not particularly persuasive. He makes a couple of irrelevant side examples that are themselves not compelling, and argues that even Paul referred to pre-fall conditions for his determination of status. Pre-fall? I'm confused. I can find nothing to suggest a hierarchy of authority in any way in Genesis 1 or 2. And even chapter 3 does not declare a hierarchy as much as prophesy that it would happen.

He may have reasonably separated that particular verse from the discussion, but at the same time he undercut some of his own arguments. That is why I said something earlier about scholars in a closed system not seeing beyond their taught biases (different words). He is arguing for what has been argued for before, but does not address the apparent flaws in the assumptions upon which he bases his conclusions.

Originally Posted by OBW

This is your argument? It undercuts almost every teaching of "significance" that Nee and Lee put forward. I am not suggesting that dropping this argument makes them right, but that you can't argue against others for doing what your believed MOTSs did in spades. It is an inconsistent argument. Rather, you have to find fault with the arguments made "hardly a quarter century ago" rather than simply dismiss them out of hand for being new.

And I admit that when something is new, it needs thorough scrutiny. But digging-in and repeating the arguments of old that didn't actually address the new arguments is not really scrutiny. It is closed-minded confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It would need to be word for word analysis of the Greek text like Wallace has done.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By the way, Wallace seems to support gender equality, but his professionalism and expertise as a scholar means he declares that the matters of head coverings and male headship are authoritative for all time based upon the interpretation of the Greek NT.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a view that the apostle Paul and the bible approve of slavery, and that this was overturned in modern times. You seemed be making that connection.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Do you have examples of God raising up women to lead the church in the New Testament or early church?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For about eighteen centuries, 1 Timothy 2:12, as well as 1 Corinthians 14:34 and related texts, was assumed to have a clear and self-evident meaning. Then, rather abruptly, some, hardly a quarter century ago, began to “discover” a different meaning in the apostle’s words.

Originally Posted by OBW

And, as Ohio keeps pointing out, what happened to no male of female in Christ? Was that just hollow rhetoric to toss aside when the rubber really hit the road?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Wallace has addressed people like Professor Ohio here:

https://bible.org/seriespage/2-women-leadership

Originally Posted by OBW

I suggest that as a professor of biblical languages and author, that it is doubtful that his analysis would be any less stringent, yet he has continued to be part of a church (assembly) that put the whole issue to 18 months of scrutiny and concluded that women would be permitted to preach.

Originally Posted by OBW

Pretty dense response. The comment was to show that what is in the Bible and what people have concluded that it is saying is not always completely agreed upon, or even understood in the majority view at all times in history. And if you are simply relying on history, how well do we really know the history of Christian thought concerning what passages mean beyond the last 300 or 400 years? Plus, we have so much more from the recent times anyway, so we often give it a greater weight just because there is a lot of it.

Originally Posted by OBW

But since I do not believe that either, I will deal with your position. The fact that it has been settled by the EO/RCC and some others that women should not preach or teach is not the same as determining that the Bible really says it as a rule without exception. It is clearly seen as a rule for one or two certain situations. Yet there is the actual raising up of women to lead by God himself, and the positive commendation of women in a role of teaching men in at least one case by Paul with respect to one particular woman. No comment that he was waiving the "women can't teach" rule to allow for it or refrain from opening up the guns of righteous indignation for what happened.

Originally Posted by OBW

And, as Ohio keeps pointing out, what happened to no male of female in Christ? Was that just hollow rhetoric to toss aside when the rubber really hit the road?

Originally Posted by Terry

What are some of these protocols?

• Submission to authority?
• Blind obedience?
• fellowship for college?
• fellowship for who to date/court?
• fellowship for career?

I'm sure there are many more such as where to live. I'm not making this stuff up, I've heard it all. So many more guidelines, protocols, etc that's expected to be adhered to.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

He seems to be or have been a colleague of Wallace's, so this will be interesting if they have different views on this.

Wallace has analyzed the Greek words word for word in the context of how those Greek words are typically used. . . .

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Sounds like a good topic to get into more, but I hardly think women not being leaders in the church is on the same level as slavery.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I hope you aren't going to use the old "it's unloving to forbid women from being leaders". That's the same sort of argument pro-gay marriage people use.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't see it as adding commands, but preventing the removal of them. Consider that the church of all persuasions has forbid female leaders for centuries, the Catholic/Orthodox will tell you that. So it is not about adding anything but preventing the removal of something important. As we know, the bible says the general trend from the bible age to modern times would get worse, not better. So this matter is likely part of the last days degradation rather than improvement.

Originally Posted by OBW

The real kicker to me is that virtually all of your positions are about adherence to protocols that you consider immutable. And when you think about it, protocols are what the kind of religion that your group so strongly objects to is all about. Getting the protocols right. A series of read-between-the-lines rules. Rules that are called principles, but that bring dire consequences if not followed closely.

I thought that part of your dogma was that Christ abolished the law. Yet here you are adding to the commands about forms and protocols.

Originally Posted by OBW

That would be the person. It has been some years and I had heard he retired. Might have been mixing two different people. And because of the time, I couldn't remember his first name.

The odd thing is that the ones who write are not necessarily so special in themselves. They write based on what was written before and what is the general thought from those within which they came to understand. All are part of the process of influencing the writing, but only a few actually write. That does not make them necessarily a fount of wisdom, rather a note-taker for the group that might attain to that name as a collective. And it seems that those of the past wrote with more certainty than many who write today. Those in the past thought their "revelation" was singular and God-ordained. But as more and more have taken exception (with humility) in subsequent times, the only ones who declare their positions to be infallible are those who hold to the old lines.

Originally Posted by OBW

You say that they church has never held in favor of slavery (in a previous post). But that is exactly what happened in America. And that holding prevails to this day with variations. From it arises the KKK, who uses Romans 12:1-2 as part of their initiation rituals. You can dismiss them as "not a church" all you want. It was from the teachings of many churches that it arose, not just the secular absconding with the verses to give an aura of spirituality to their evil.

Originally Posted by OBW

While there is much to hold to within the scripture, when your positions effectively stand opposed to "love your neighbor as yourself" then you really need to rethink your positions.

Originally Posted by OBW

The real kicker to me is that virtually all of your positions are about adherence to protocols that you consider immutable. And when you think about it, protocols are what the kind of religion that your group so strongly objects to is all about. Getting the protocols right. A series of read-between-the-lines rules. Rules that are called principles, but that bring dire consequences if not followed closely.

I thought that part of your dogma was that Christ abolished the law. Yet here you are adding to the commands about forms and protocols.

Originally Posted by OBW

There is actually nothing that makes the LRC formula true in the scripture as written. Despite the general reference to the church in a particular city in a few places, it is also evidence that there was more than one "church" in some of those and no evidence that they adhered to a single eldership.

Originally Posted by OBW

Funny that you are quick to point to the position of some groups that follow your position despite otherwise declaring them to be Babylon the great or the harlot daughters of her.

Note that some groups declare that their ministers should not marry. And that you should pray to saints so that your prayers are heard in heaven. While I do not consider any of these, or the LRC, to not be true churches, I also do not consider any of them to be obvious choices for seeking out doctrinal truth. I don't use the fact that the LRC supports something I believe as proof of my position because that gives support to what I do not believe from them. But I accept that underneath is the correct gospel that Jesus Christ is the one sacrifice for sin, therefore I do not deny any of them the status as church.

Originally Posted by OBW

I have read from the discussions on this issue, and heard live discussion on it by a collection of theologians, including language scholars, that covered the topic quite well. Each discussion includes well-reasoned analysis of the language and the context and concludes that the particular passages that seem to provide a rule are context-bound. As for a name, I can only recall one of them at the moment because I sort of know the person. Fanning. A professor of biblical languages, now retired, I believe.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you want to say that the description should be considered more weighty because "God did it", then please also consider that the early church was structured as one church per city because that is how "God wanted it". The early church structure was not simply done that way because of man's will, but God's.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I would not say it is safe to assume at all, given that this view is not held by all major denominations - Catholic, Orthodox etc. The ones that keep careful records of early church tradition and history, and who have never changed their position on the matter of female leadership in the church.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let's hear it then, name these scholars, one will do. Let's compare their view against Wallace's for example, and see on what basis they claim Paul's command was not universally applicable. Not only Evangelicals like Wallace, but they are also up against the weight of Catholic and Orthodox scholars on this matter.

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem with your take on the OT descriptives are that you omit a huge part of the description. The OT description is not simply an account of a woman rising up without being stuck dead by God for daring to stand against a rule, but God raised her up. She wasn't just the preacher in some assembly installed by the members or a denominational board. God did it.

Originally Posted by OBW

Then you say that Paul prescribed. Yes he did. In a particular instance. And yet his own descriptions stand in sharp contrast to that prescription. Therefore it is safe to assume that the prescription was for a case of sickness rather than a rule to apply in all times.

Originally Posted by OBW

As for your claim the "the Greek NT scholars" tell us that Paul's commands are weighty, have you considered that the correct statement is "SOME Greek NT scholars" consider Paul's commands weighty (in the manner that you seek to infer them). The fact that there are significant Greek and other NT scholars who do not find Paul's command on this to be understood as universally applicable.

Originally Posted by OBW

You do not seek truth. You seek confirmation of the position you want to take. My position is no longer like yours because I was exposed to the evidence that the "prescriptions" you assert were not intended as universal and permanent. Because of that, my position has changed.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

On the topic of women the example of Deborah and others are descriptive and yet Pauls prescriptive commands deny female leadership. To me if you want to be consistent in your application of the prescriptive vs descriptive passages you should also deny the old testament descriptions and just follow Pauls commands which the Greek NT scholars tell us are weighty.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think you are qualified to talk about "analyzing all relevant information and evidence". I have presented the evidence from Greek NT experts like Wallace who analyze the original Greek word for word, yet you soundly rejected it. Bible commentaries from serious NT scholars, and you reject it. Anyone who rejects what the serious NT scholars have to say is not being like a noble Berean.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well none of the Old Testament leaders had an equivalent in the New Testament. None - NOT ONE - of the original apostles, or even Paul, equated their status to that of an Old Testament leader. Your point is moot.
...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yet Deborah is one of only a few clear examples of a female leader people can point to, as there is no real female leader equivalent in the New Testament.

Originally Posted by OBW

I think this says enough. When you are seeking the truth, what you do or do not include is not based on a wish or a desire. It is not based on the expectation of a particular outcome, or merely the desire to avoid a particular outcome.

Instead, it is based on the analysis of all relevant information and evidence. If there is found to be cause to classify some of the apparent evidence as not relevant, then that is fine. But the reason that is not relevant is not that you want (or wish) there to be a different result that the evidence stands in the way of.

Sort of like Nee in Further Talks. He effectively dismisses the house churches as relevant to the discussion because at face value they would contradict the one-city-one-church rule. But until you weigh all the evidence, there is no rule to apply. But he had a rule he wanted and he could not dismiss this contrary evidence without declaring that since it violated the rule, it must mean something else. But that proves that he had a bias in favor of the rule such that he used an as-yet un-established rule to dismiss any evidence that would cause it to fail to become the rule.

Begging the question. Using a rule to shut out evidence that the rule is invalid.

So you can't just include or exclude evidence because you don't like what it does to your expected outcome. You have to deal with it head-on.

Originally Posted by Terry

Same can be applied to deputy authority doctrine. Noah is used a core component of the teaching. King/Prophet relationship of Saul/Samuel and David/Nathan debunks the deputy authority teaching. Biblical excerpts used in deputy authority doctrine only uses those excerpts that support the notion.

Originally Posted by Terry

"Now we realize that every local church must be a police station and that every saint must be a policeman. Many have been reluctant to act as policemen for fear they might cause trouble. If someone claims to be for the ministry and yet goes about stealing and deceiving, we need to fulfill our function as policemen by checking him out according to the truth... If we see evil deeds but do not function as policemen, then we are not practicing the truth... Someone has even said that we should care only for the Spirit, not for principles. How subtle! ... If we all had practiced the truth, certain sayings and practices would have been questioned a long time ago." Truth Messages Chapter 1 Section 2

Originally Posted by OBW

I think this says enough. When you are seeking the truth, what you do or do not include is not based on a wish or a desire. It is not based on the expectation of a particular outcome, or merely the desire to avoid a particular outcome.

So you can't just include or exclude evidence because you don't like what it does to your expected outcome. You have to deal with it head-on.

Originally Posted by OBW

Sort of like Nee in Further Talks. He effectively dismisses the house churches as relevant to the discussion because at face value they would contradict the one-city-one-church rule. But until you weigh all the evidence, there is no rule to apply. But he had a rule he wanted and he could not dismiss this contrary evidence without declaring that since it violated the rule, it must mean something else. But that proves that he had a bias in favor of the rule such that he used an as-yet un-established rule to dismiss any evidence that would cause it to fail to become the rule.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

IWe have to consider the scope of the "surrounding passages" we wish to include. We have to consider the weight of those prescriptive or descriptive examples themselves and what is actually said.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you ever considered that Paul's views on women's roles in the church, like the matter of head-covering, were a safeguard to them because of first century cultural views?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are justifying it on the basis of modern society and culture, not the bible. Your remarks have only reinforced my conviction that the argument for female leaders in the church is not well supported by the bible, if at all. My view is well supported by the experts, including everyone's favorite John Piper who you like to quote sometimes on this forum.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

..and the men who defined for us the New Testament Canon, the Nicene Creed, and the doctrine of the Trinity also believed in the universal applicability of restricted female leadership. I think it unlikely that they were all lacking revelation from the Spirit on the matter.

Originally Posted by OBW

You think that deriving a car has no bearing on your spiritual life? That is one of the reasons that the LRC's condition is rather poor. They have a spirituality that does not include anything of ordinary life.

Driving your car — when that is what you are doing — is intricately engaged with your spirituality or lack thereof. If you are driving like Dale Earnhardt Jr at Datona while on the city streets, then your spirituality is in need of serious help. I provide an extreme example, but it shows the serious issue of dismissing things from modern ordinary life when considering things as "spiritual" or "secular." For the Christian, there should be no such thing a secular.

Originally Posted by OBW

But my point on the questions you managed to completely miss. If there is something that is clearly stated in a somewhat prescriptive way yet is surrounded (within all scripture, not just the immediate verses) by contrary examples, then it should be evident that there was a particular need in a particular instance for something to help that situation.

If you have a ship that is leaning hard to port, you would try to move as much movable load to the starboard side to help bring it more upright. But if it is upright, moving everything to starboard would cause it to lean to starboard. Since there are multiple examples of women with prominent roles that would even include teaching (in at least one instance), it would seem that a strong word (from the same writer that mentions the others without correction) to avoid women in leadership was something other than a clear, prescriptive word for all times and all places.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My point was...why would we care about whether driving a car is in the bible when it has no bearing on our spiritual life. All those things you mentioned are in the bible.

Originally Posted by OBW

So you are saying that there must be a specific reference to something spiritual in the Bible or it is forbidden?

How about:

• A minister of the age?
• Any basis for dismissing the content of scripture?
• A specific formula for the practice of communion (the Lord's table)?
• Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit?

Seems that you only apply your rules (aka principles) when it can be leveled against someone else.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Driving a car is not a spiritual matter though.

Originally Posted by OBW

Driving a car is not in the Bible.

Your measure of what should NOT be done has no yardstick. Instead, it is left to be declared right or wrong based on what. Your opinion? If the Bible is silent on it, then it has nothing to say on it.

The practice of praying is in the Bible. Therefore it speaks in some ways on the subject. The celebration of any particular day is not in the Bible, therefore it is saying nothing about it.

But in the third chapter of the second book of Lee, Christmas is declared to be demonic and should therefore be shunned, and even spoken against as a "principle," if not a rule about proper Christian practice.

Thus sayeth the Lee.

And you are dense enough to think it is spiritual and continue to repeat his nonsense.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But unlike attending synagogues, celebrating Christmas is not in the bible. The principle of praying 3 times is more biblical than Christmas.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Synagogues are not mentioned in the Old Testament, when the Jews started practicing them they were their own invention.

The same with Christmas.

The point is not that Christmas is equivalent to synagogues. The point is your idea that for something to be an acceptable practice it must be mentioned in the Bible is false. Synagogues were not mandated by God in his word, yet Jesus honored their usage.

Note, I'm not necessarily defending Christmas, though I could. I'm saying your argument that Christmas is not valid because it is not in the Bible is itself invalid. The example of synagogues proves that.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Synagogues are not mentioned in the Old Testament, when the Jews started practicing them they were their own invention.

The same with Christmas.

The point is not that Christmas is equivalent to synagogues. The point is your idea that for something to be an acceptable practice it must be mentioned in the Bible is false. Synagogues were not mandated by God in his word, yet Jesus honored their usage.

Note, I'm not necessarily defending Christmas, though I could. I'm saying your argument that Christmas is not valid because it is not in the Bible is itself invalid. The example of synagogues proves that.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But unlike attending synagogues, celebrating Christmas is not in the bible. The principle of praying 3 times is more biblical than Christmas.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But unlike attending synagogues, celebrating Christmas is not in the bible. The principle of praying 3 times is more biblical than Christmas.

Originally Posted by OBW

You point to the voluntary celebration of an event on some day as a problem when even Paul does not chastise for the celebration of days. Then you insist upon principles that are based on opinions about what is not stated in the scripture.

If you can't see the difference, you are clearly the one blinded. Many voluntarily celebrate actual events recorded in the Bible. You despise that. But you insist on opinions derived from things not said in scripture.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, I celebrate Christmas because I'm a Christian. Duh!

Originally Posted by OBW

It sounds so spiritual. But it is not. It is evil wrapped in a faux spirituality.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's because Jesus was a Jew.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you are so concerned with what has scriptural support and what doesn't then I hope you don't celebrate Christmas or Easter which is neither prescriptively or descriptively found in the bible.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's because Jesus was a Jew.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Neither were synagogues. But Jesus himself attended them and honored their practices.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can imagine that if David for example had an important matter to pray about, he would pray it in the morning, at midday, and at evening, on that same day. He prayed 3 times a day.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You cannot rule it out. You cannot say that David did not pray for the same thing three times on the one day.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I find it hard to believe that Jesus was merely putting on a show for his disciples. He was a great actor to be able to fake tears of blood and sweat.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They are opinions rooted in knowledge of Jewish customs and a degree of common sense that it is possible to pray too much for something.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The idea of God you present is a God who makes us persevere and beg until He gives us a fish. Do you really think God is going to make you persevere and work for what He wants to give you? Even if it is a loaf or a fish?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There's no rule about it, it's a principle, just pray whatever number of times you think you need or until God answers. But at some point, if God hasn't answered, we need to ask why.

Originally Posted by OBW

And we can see now how far from the actual topic you are going to get your "principle."

Praying three times a day is like saying "take a drive in your car tree times a day." It does not make any reference to where you drive, how far you drive, or how long you take. We are not talking about how often you pray in general, but the number of times that a particular prayer should be uttered before it should never be spoken again (or be guilty of vain repetition). Those are tow completely different topics. But I suspected this was your "many times." You just can't seem to make rational distinctions between vastly different things. You think that the fact that prayer is involved causes points in one discussion (when to pray or how often to pray) to become factors in a completely different discussion (how many times a particular prayer should be uttered before you stop). One gives an example of three 3 a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, for all the years of your adult life. You have brought that "3" into a discussion that is about a total limit of times to pray for a particular item as if it has any meaning whatsoever.

And if you still think it does, then your status as a reasonable person is in serious risk of being revoked. If that is how you frame your arguments about anything, then you don't understand language, context, syntax, and logic.

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you really think that Jesus did not know the answer before he said the first word the first time? It is more likely that the prayer was spoken for the disciples to hear and eventually come to understand that what was to happen was God's will. The repeating of it 3 times was to emphasize that it was really prayed for to completion and the answer was what they would see over the coming hours.

Originally Posted by OBW

Yet you were bold to declare that opposing this "principle" would mean your prayer was in vain. Why? Because the answer was (in your mind) clearly "no" so to continue to pray about it would be (in your opinion) a meaningless prayer? On what basis do you state this? Lots of words but no reasons other than your opinions.

Opinions that do not seek the best for your fellow Christian, but stand as proof that others do not follow your opinions.

Your commentators are clearly just providing ideas, notions, and opinions. They have not found a clear word that what they say is true.

Originally Posted by OBW

Just because you have not received what you pray for does not mean you should stop praying. Your position infers that the answer must come quickly, or that it must be manifest now, not later. While I am a little put-off by some people's constant references to "God's perfect timing," I do agree that God will do things when he decides to do them, not when we want them. He has his reasons and we may not understand them. But if what you are praying for is ultimately a "yes" but a "no" for right now, on what basis do you stop praying if you have not received some assurance of an answer? If a lack of answer is to be presumed to be "no" then you stop praying understanding your answer to be other than what it actually is. The whole "stop praying and presume your answer" kind of thinking is such a pit of error. It is like just telling someone who has lost a loved one that "God must have needed them in heaven more than we do here on earth." A pretty crappy view and explanation of God. But your "principle" is a backhanded version of just that in some cases. You have a principle that does not take into account God's desire for us to persevere. 3 times is hardly persevering. I could just be warming up on the topic in 3 times.

The person who needs a job. Pray three times and just quit praying about it, even if it takes 6 months to find the job. "I didn't need to talk to God about this more than those 3 times back last year because there is a principle according to this Evangelical fellow on the LCD discussion forum. He seems so smart about these things. Just like Nee and Lee do."

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My statement about many instances of praying no more than three times includes Daniel, David, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob praying three times daily.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The scripture does not record that Jesus received an answer to his prayer after the third time, unlike Paul.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Therefore we can trust that three times is an appropriate limit to take when we do not receive an answer to prayer. But surely that can extend to 4,5,6 times, probably not 100 or 1000. There is no rule about that, it is a principle.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think the first approach is one of spiritual maturity, and the second approach is more like a child would do. I don't think God minds if we keep asking 100 times, but if He has not answered by the 100th, it is likely to be a no or a wait answer. In my experience God often answers by the third time, either a passage of scripture to mind, or a sense of peace.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

2 Cor 13:1 “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The frequency can establish things in some cases but in this case it is more about the significance of the number 3 rather than how many examples we can find of people praying more than 3 times.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is significant that the Son of God, who gave a parable about persisting many times in prayer, prayed only three times and then stopped, surrendering to the Father's will.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Having no reply to his request after the third time, Christ became certain that the Father's will was that He should go to the cross.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Rather than simply count the number of examples, we should consider why they prayed 3 times only. If we consider the additional information regarding their customs and principles, we will find that it weights the argument towards my view rather than yours.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Albert Barne's in his Notes on the Bible reveals that praying 3 times was a Jewish principle that Paul and Christ followed. Therefore hundreds of thousands of Jewish converts to Christianity would have prayed in like manner. Gentiles possibly as well, following Christ and Paul as their examples.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Here is what Barne's has to say:

It will be recollected that the Lord Jesus prayed three times in the garden of Gethsemane that the cup might be removed from him, Matthew 26:44. At the third time he ceased, and submitted to what was the will of God. There is some reason to suppose that the Jews were in the habit of praying three times for any important blessing or for the removal of any calamity; and Paul in this would not only conform to the usual custom, but especially he would he disposed to imitate the example of the Lord Jesus. Among the Jews three was a sacred number, and repeated instances occur where an important transaction is mentioned as having been done thrice; see Numbers 22:28; Numbers 24:10; 1 Samuel 3:8; 1 Samuel 20:41; 1 Kings 18:44; Proverbs 22:20; Jeremiah 7:4; Jeremiah 22:29; John 21:17.

This does not prove that we should be limited to exactly this number in our petitions; but it proves that there should be a limit;

The passage proves that it is right to pray earnestly and repeatedly for the removal of any calamity. The Saviour so prayed in the garden; and Paul so prayed here. Yet it also proves that there should be a limit to such prayers.

So there is sufficient evidence based upon the two examples presented, and the knowledge of Jewish customs at the time, to conclude that praying three times for a matter is a biblical principle. The bible does not teach or show prayer ad nauseam.

Originally Posted by OBW

You have an example of continual prayer that refers in any way to the number of times? You keep talking as if there is some constant set of references to prayer in terms of how many times to pray. Yet almost all the examples I can find just mention that they prayed and say nothing about the number of times anything particular was prayed for.

What you are failing to grasp is that you have one example of Christ praying three times out of many examples of Christ praying at all. And in those cases there is no mention of the number of times he prayed for any particular thing. It doesn't say is prayed only once, and it doesn't say he didn't pray more than three. It just doesn't say. That fact alone should create significant doubt that the meaning of the three was about something that the account does not indicate it is about.

Even if I accept your overlay as having any relevance, it is only meaningful that they considered their prayers complete. There is nothing in it that suggests that more prayer could not be required in other cases, or that to pray more is to somehow run afoul of an unstated principle that puts the whole of the person's prayer in jeopardy of becoming "in vain."

Besides, when the bible uses a number like this to imply completeness, the purpose is not to make the number a rule, but to use the number to make a statement about what it is associated with. So the number 3 is associated with a particular prayer, so the number 3 is brought into the account to underscore that the prayer was somehow considered complete. But that does not cause there to be a principle that 3 prayers with respect to any particular item is "complete" and that more are vain.

And that is why I mentioned the thing about the number of persons listed in genealogies. 10 from here to there. There were actually more. But by distilling it down to 10, something was added to the discussion that was otherwise not simply in the list of names. But it doesn't mean that there are actually only 10 names between X and Y, or that it is meaningful that the number between X and Y is 10. Rather, it is like adding a statement to the discussion that really has nothing to do with the number. Rather it is implied because the number was invoked.

So in the case of Christ's prayer, the number is not intended to imply a rule (or principle) about how many times to pray, but rather to demonstrate that the actions that Jesus was about to embark on was truly the will of God because he thoroughly prayed about it as implied by the use of the number 3 in the account.

And despite your vague references to other accounts of people praying 3 times, you actually have provided nothing that was not already in discussion — the singular accounts concerning specific prayers by Jesus and Paul. You claim that there were many. You need to supply enough to establish "many."

And your insistence that the one event with Jesus is all you need, it is more than evident that it is not. There is no special rule about a single observation of Christ becoming a principle.

So either come up with them . . . .

Or admit that you can't do it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

. . . however the practical examples of "continual prayer" is only three times.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I gave two examples but one of those examples was Christ Himself which outweighs any number of examples I could provide. The Bible never records Christ praying more than three times, even in his most difficult hour before going to the cross.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

From what we know about the bible's use of numbers, the number three represents completion therefore praying three times for a matter is regarded by Christ and Paul as praying completely.

Originally Posted by OBW

And so far you have provided only two examples of particular prayers have happened 3 times without any comment on the number other than that it was recorded has happening three times yet without even a hint that the number was significant. Yet there are numerous examples of a single prayer. And a spoken commendation to someone who "prayed" over and over until an answer was received.

Originally Posted by OBW

I have never said that the fact of praying 3 times has no meaning. But the meaning it has is about the particular prayer, not prayer in general. How can I say that? Because the one who is most qualified to create such principles did not follow it in the vast majority of the prayers of his that are recorded, and he commended the actions of one who went way beyond your supposed maximum as an example of how to persevere in prayer. It doesn't just put a pin-hole in your principle, it drives a Mack truck through it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Vain repetition includes praying something over and over too much. We may ask, seeking guidelines, how many times is too much? and three then becomes a guiding principle. To say there is no limits, means that repetition is not a problem.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't believe everything has coded messages, but such use of three-time prayer cannot be coincidence.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christ's actions mean something. The fact he prayed 3 times is telling.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You did not merely disagree with my interpretation of the number 3, you seem to denigrate the whole bible's use of numbers and almost insult the bible's Author who designed it so.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I never put it like that and I don't think you have understood the difference between a rule and a principle.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

And I hope you apply the same principle of "biblical clarity" to Christmas if you or your church celebrate it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We have recorded instances of many people including Christ praying no more than three times.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We have no record anywhere in the Bible of anyone celebrating Christ's birthday.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's because we know that Jews didn't celebrate birthdays.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We also know that numerology was prevalent in Judaism and likely the driving principle behind why Christ prayed 3 times only.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nice, even, whole numbers often repeated don't always have significant meaning?

Originally Posted by Freedom

When the Shanghai elders expelled Nee, I'm sure that they didn't 'feel' happy about having to make that kind of difficult decision. This highlights a good point that aron has made. WL tricked everyone into becoming dependent on supposed feelings such as what he called the "sense of life." The problem with that is that not all decisions or situations are going to make someone feel 'peaceful'. Difficult, but necessary decisions can be quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by aron

Put another way, the continued LC experience eventually gives one a choice: whether to obey your feelings or the plain words of the Bible in front of you? Do you prefer more warm fuzzies, and mutual grooming ("Amen, brother!!!"), or your conscience? Will you choose the right "flavor" or 2,000 years of Christian precedence, going back to the apostolic establishment of the NT record? Do you want more "life" or do you want to discern the basics, like right from wrong?

The LC "exercise your spirit" modus leans toward the first choice in every case. Where scripture, apostolic precedent, common sense, and one's conscience diverge from the LC path, one's forced to go with the feelings. That's the peril of chasing the sensuous experience, of building on such sand.

As WL asked the Shanghai elders, "How did you feel" when you expelled WN? Didn't matter that he was sinful, or grossly sinful, or repeatedly sinful. Only mattered how they felt. That gave WL leverage. And this indicates that the path had already deviated. The die was already cast for the Little Flock/Local Church experience.

Originally Posted by aron

.. these aren't marks of the Holy Spirit but rather bring to mind the apostle's warning that Satan may come as an angel of light. That warm, fuzzy feeling you got as you repetitively yelled the special words - where did it come from?

Originally Posted by OBW

And I see where you are coming from. You are presuming that God has provided this end-all compendium of ways to make him happy but veiled it in vague implications and coded messages. That his words almost always mean something not actually said. And that the words actually said are ignored because you are busy trying to find hidden meaning.

Originally Posted by OBW

The Bible is too clear on too many things to leave the difference between proper prayer and vanity to an overlay that says because in this one case (that is numerically different from all others) Jesus prayed three times concerning this one thing, therefore we should understand it to mean we should never pray more than 3 times for anything.

Originally Posted by OBW

Numerology, while possibly adding meaning in a few cases, is something of uncertain meaning and application. To insist that the fact of 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 144, etc. always have significant meaning is just not realistic.

But the only instructions on prayer was instruction for "when you pray," therefore something that can, and even should be the pattern for regular prayer. And it includes a regular, repeating prayer for forgiveness and to be delivered from evil. If we are eternally saved, then why the continual prayer for forgiveness? Might it be because it takes more than once, twice, even three times to deal with our need for forgiveness?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I see where you are coming from, I really do. But as soon as you take that viewpoint, I think it raises questions about other parts of the bible.
A problem with numerology as you described, is that one cannot be certain whether the number is intended to be literal or purely symbolic. To be on the safe side, I believe it is better to take it literally, and consider it to be both literal and symbolic.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You're using the term rule again, when I only ever stated it as a biblical principle, and I don't recall there ever being a rule about it in the LC. I presume you know the difference between rules and principles. I think if we reject the numerology, then we've thrown away a large chunk of Divine inspiration away in my view. The numbers are important. For example, if the bible said Jesus prayed 1000 times in the Garden of Gethsemane, it implies he was really desperate for an answer. Praying once only, might imply he was not much in agony. Just by changing the number we can change the implied meaning.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Heres a challenge.
Try to find any prayer or habit of prayer being more than 3 times in the bible.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Try this in your next meeting and see what happens.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think silence is more likely.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Hey man, believe it or not, I sort of guessed you will respond this way.

So are you saying you use one whole minute to pronounce three words? Or you use 5 seconds to call once, have dead silence for 55 seconds until the next call?

Lee certainly knows the condition of the Lord's Recovery by recommending several minutes of calling.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You have not considered the frequency of the calls. Calling once per minute for 3 minutes, is three calls over "a few minutes". Yet I feel that Lee said "a few minutes" for our benefit rather than his.
[/I]

Originally Posted by A little brother

It is interesting to use your idea of dependency on the person's heart to look into the heart of WL by his recommended calling practice. The number of calls that can be done in serveral minutes were the same number of calls he needed to get closer to God.

The Spirit and the Body by Witness Lee

There are times when I have nothing to speak. However, after calling on the name of the Lord for a few minutes, I have a great deal to say.

Some meetings may be started simply by calling on the name of the Lord for several minutes.



Isn't call upon the Lord a form of asking God's presence? Why isn't it counted as "to ask God for something continually"?

Anyway, this time you don't have to answer my questions. I used to be frustrated. But now I am more amused looking at how your logic/mind works.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It would depend on the person's heart. Generally the number of times a person feels necessary to call is related to how close they are with the Lord. I think if we averaged the number of times the Lord's name is called it would average around three times. I'm thinking I should count them next time in the meeting, it would be an interesting study. From my experience it is around three times.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So it would be alright to call upon the Lord continually, but to ask God for something continually I think is too much.

Originally Posted by A little brother

How about my second question:

(2) You agree those "calling on the name of the Lord 5 times", "calling on the name of the Lord 10 times" in local church meetings are all calling in vain then?

Originally Posted by Nell

Call "O Lord Jesus" 3 times to be saved?

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Calling on the Lord in v. 13 is defined in vv. 9-10.
Verse 14 clarifies that "belief" comes before "calling." Calling alone is not sufficient. Belief is necessary. Calling 3 times is not enough.

Nell

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I answered your question. Its according to the spirit of the word. Your ask for 'proof' is unfounded. You cannot give proof for many things done in Christianity.

Originally Posted by A little brother

You are evading again.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Where is the proof that Christians must meet on a Sunday? Where is the command for Christians to tithe 10%?

You probably accept many things in Christianity without questioning. Principles and practices for which no biblical command can be found. Yet in your heart you know that you do it because Christ did it and you wish to follow Him as your example.

Originally Posted by A little brother

(1) Where is the proof that people has to call on the Lord 3 times to be saved?

(2) You agree those "calling on the name of the Lord 5 times", "calling on the name of the Lord 10 times" in local church meetings are all calling in vain then?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We do.
Calling on the Lord 3 times is how people can be saved.

The principle also applies for God speaking to us.
See
1 Samuel 3:8.

Originally Posted by A little brother

If you so believe in the principle of three-times, probably you should apply the same principle to the calling on the name of the Lord.

Trying to call "Oh, Lord Jesus!" more than three times in order to turn to the spirit would be calling His name in vain.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The principle of three-times is well established in the Bible.

David prayed 3 times a day. Christ prayed 3 times. Paul prayed 3 times. The principle of 3 witnesses. etc.

Please see the "use of three in the bible" here:

https://bible.org/seriespage/3-use-three-bible

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am quoting your first paragraph but I am addressing your whole post regarding praying three times. As usual, when addressing your posts I only have to consult what bible scholars say. You may be right with your "SOLO scriptura" interpretation that "there is no rule". Yet this does not mean you are correct. In fact you are quite wrong because you have not considered the reason why Paul might have prayed three times and that this was according to a well-established principle.

This is from Barnes' Notes on the Bible 2 Corinthians 12:8 (emphasis mine)

There is some reason to suppose that the Jews were in the habit of praying three times for any important blessing or for the removal of any calamity; and Paul in this would not only conform to the usual custom, but especially he would he disposed to imitate the example of the Lord Jesus. Among the Jews three was a sacred number, and repeated instances occur where an important transaction is mentioned as having been done thrice; see Numbers 22:28; Numbers 24:10; 1 Samuel 3:8; 1 Samuel 20:41; 1 Kings 18:44; Proverbs 22:20; Jeremiah 7:4; Jeremiah 22:29; John 21:17.

I think the parallel between Jesus praying 3 times and Paul praying 3 times is well known. At least most of the bible commentaries I have consulted make reference to it. Here, Paul used the thrice-prayer principle that Christ used. God also confirms this principle as it was God who intervened after the third time and gave His response.

So consider which of these two views are most in accordance with the bible?
- praying as many times as you like, "because the bible gives no principles".
- praying three times to imitate the example of the Lord Jesus, Paul and the many other uses of the three-fold principle.

Originally Posted by OBW

First, you attempt to make prescription out of a couple of observations. In response to your observations, it is worth noting that there are times when the Bible records things according to some numerical pattern. Like leaving out a little-known generation in some genealogy so that the groupings are exactly 7 or 10 from here to there. You make the observation that two different people many years apart prayed three times — once by counting the manner in which the events are recorded and the other by the account of the person who prayed (Paul) — but scripture makes no comment in either case concerning any significance to the three, whether immediately or later, yet you make a rule out of it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Possibly, it depends on the circumstance. However the fact that Jesus nor Paul or David prayed more than 3 times is telling. Then there is the warning to not persist too much in case God gives his permissive will not his perfect will.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I did not get that context because you did not talk about the heart turned toward Christ as such. Your definition of religion to me seemed Christ-less in the sense that it was defined in reference to our own heart and not the object of the worship which should be Christ. Basically I think if something is for Christ it is not religion, if it is not for Christ but ourselves then it is religion.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Just because the discussion naturally flows into a certain direction does not mean it is trolling.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The principle of three-times is well established in the Bible.

David prayed 3 times a day. Christ prayed 3 times. Paul prayed 3 times. The principle of 3 witnesses. etc.

Originally Posted by OBW

Under the assumption that Paul received a clear answer (which he said he did) you could stretch to say you are right. But just because someone keeps on asking without receiving is not evidence that the prayer is in vain. Even Jesus commended the widow who returned day-after-day to ask the judge for justice on an issue.

Originally Posted by OBW

Once again, you are stepping back from what I have repeatedly stated and spoken as if I did not. When I say "with their heart" it is within the context of the heart turned toward Christ. Seeking Christ. Your little efforts to undermine my statements are getting a little tiresome.

Originally Posted by OBW

And are starting to read like internet trolling. Always trying to turn any conversation into something other than what it is. That is something that someone claiming to be a representative of "God's unique move on the earth that has the highest claim to oneness" should not be doing. It smacks of intentionally trying to shove people out of your way so you can have a private sandbox in which to say you are one with those you allow in.

You have two options in response.

1. Admit that you really don't understand the words that I use and start to ask for help in understanding.

2. Admit that you are intentionally being a jerk so that you can undermine others without actually dealing with the substance of the statements they make.

I suspect that it is the latter. And I suspect that you will never admit to either. Just keep up the same old trolling.

Soon, the responses to your posts will start to be "Don't Feed the Troll."

Originally Posted by OBW

And here we return to the story Jesus told.

Besides, on what basis do you determine that a prayer that is not answered (as of today) is or is not in vain? It is not simply by the fact that it is not answered. If that was true, then Paul would have been in vain two out of three because he didn't get an answer until the third time. And there is no metric in the Bible defining the acceptable number of times to ask before we "let it go." And there is nothing that makes the number of times the prayer is offered evidence of being vain. That is just stuff you are making up.

In the final analysis you could be right. But between here and the next age, it is not your opinion nor mine that makes anyone's prayer in vain. Especially no target number of prayers on a single topic that can be offered without answer before it becomes vain to ask again. There is no such metric. You are making stuff up whole cloth and trying to pass it off as spiritual. You can keep saying it, but there is nothing that makes what you are saying right. But you keep saying it anyway.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Paul had continued asking, I'm sure God would have ignored him. Thus, it would have been vain.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your definition didn't seem to cover Christians doing things with their heart in it, but not for Christ. For example, Sunday church raffles. Some of the old ladies must put in a lot of effort to bake the cakes. But if it is not for Christ then does it really count?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To me there is only prayer that is answered (not in vain), and prayer that is not answered i.e. in vain. The word genuine is interchangeable with the word vain because vanity speaks of the result, but genuine speaks of how we pray. Without genuine prayer there can only be vain results.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

These passages from Psalm 18 don't seem to refer to death to me:

He shot his arrows and scattered the enemy,
with great bolts of lightning he routed them.

He rescued me from my powerful enemy,
from my foes, who were too strong for me.

Originally Posted by aron

Really?!? And even where it says, "The cords of the grave coiled around me; the snares of death confronted me" . . . you can't even take the position of the Ethiopian to Philip and ask, Was he writing concerning himself, or another (Acts 8)? Where's the examination, the consideration? Where's the careful weighing? And why was the "rich ministry of Witness Lee", such an allegorical bonanza elsewhere, such a dry hole when he came to the Psalms? Unable to see Jesus Christ when possibly portrayed in figure and type? When NT reception repeatedly gave permission (even invitation) to consider? Witness Lee never even considered, apparently. Some doctrinal wall stumbled him, apparently. He wasn't even able to look at the plain words on paper in front of his eyes. The "inner life" apparently clouded him. He didn't "get life" to look at God's word, and consider, and muse. . .

Originally Posted by OBW

And I never suggested otherwise or suggested you thought otherwise.
You really think that God would expect that we stop such a prayer just because of a number? Not faulting Paul. It appears that he received his answer at that point. And if he did then you are correct. But that does not mean that you or I or anyone else must expect an answer by #3 and cease or be in vain. You are trying to read into the account something that is not there. Paul indicated that he received the word that God's grace was sufficient for him. At that point, Paul took it as final. Does that mean that everyone needs to know when it is final. Or that it will be after #3 (either clearly answered or quit trying anyway).

Originally Posted by OBW

Your response is based on the presumption that there must be the constant speaking or writing of the word/name "Christ" or it is not about Him. It is a subtle way to cast aside those who do not feel the need to constantly repeat the obvious. I am not saying that we have no need to speak or write "Christ" at any time. But once the context is formed (e.g., the discussion is about people engaged in the active worship of Christ with their whole hearts and not just doing a routine without any actual thought of Christ) then you have no basis for such a statement.

You are trying so hard to exclude as many Christians from your definition of belief in Christ, and worship of Christ. By almost any means possible. Including mischaracterizing what they say. You do this by demanding that your lexicon of terminology is the only right one, therefore what I say is rejected as "incorrect" because I do not use your lexicon.

Originally Posted by OBW

BTW. Back in the second quote above, you sais that Paul "was genuine to pray . . . ." Do you think that genuine prayer is only prayer that is not vain? You think that someone is not genuinely praying even if it is ultimately in vain? "[G]enuine to pray" would seem to mean that it was what the prayer is actually intending to do. I assume that you really meant something else like "not in vain" or something like that. Genuine is not the opposite of "not in vain." I just think that you have a fixation on the word. Just like genuine church or genuine worship. You use the word as a qualifier intended to exclude others from what is being discussed (church, worship, prayer, etc.) But its meaning is not narrow enough for what you are trying to do. You are redefining it so that you can separate yourself from others. And that is exactly what Jesus taught us to do (NOT!).

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I dont think Pauls prayer for healing was in vain.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

He was genuine to pray for healing but God had other plans.It is not a princple that we shouldn't pray for healing. Though if Paul persisted more than 3 times I think it would be vain.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We talk about the spirit vs the natural man and what you said about the heart is very similar to that. Religion is trying to be pleasing God without Christ. Your definition is missing Christ. I mean a Hindu could visit widows with their heart in it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Death was not the enemy David was speaking of.

Originally Posted by OBW

First, out of context is often still as written. That is the reason it is so difficult to put the "name it and claim it" (or blab it and grab it) preachers out of business. And it sometimes cripples very good Christians. My cousin, the son of an evangelical preacher (well mostly so — AOG) broke his back in a bicycle accident. Because of their belief in healing as something that could be claimed (at least at some level, or by those with the right "gift") they had a hard time over the years as he has remained a paraplegic and has some ongoing health problems as a result. They are praying from the Bible. But they do not fully understand it, so they do not realize that the "promise" they have been holding onto is not quite what they think it is.

If you pray the words of so many portions that are claimed to be continual "promises," but were actually specific to Israel, you will not get what you expect. They are not entirely vain because you are praying to God. But they are vain because they are requests for what will not be granted.

When I say "religious duty," I am referring to going through a motion because it was learned or seems required, but not because your heart, mind, and will are engaged (other than t do what you think is required). It does not negate my otherwise positive use of the word "religion." If you think it does, it demonstrates that you are still mired in the "one definition" world that Lee doped us all into believing. It is worse than a garlic room. More like a smoky opium den. Drugged so that fantasy and hallucination seem to be reality.

"religion" and "religious duty" are not necessarily of the same kind. If you have a duty and it is religious, it may or may not be something negative. The key is to how you engage in it. If your heart, mind, will, etc. are engaged to meet God in it, then there is nothing negative to say about it. If it is merely that thing you do occasionally because it is what you learned to do years ago and your heart is far away, then there is a problem.

Once again, "religion" — even religious duty — is not the problem. It is the participant. Your inability to see beyond the hollow rhetoric of your sect is evidence of a closed and ignorant mind.

Originally Posted by aron

Acts 2:24 (NIV)But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

God delivered Christ from death. This is our hope, our faith, our strength. It is the central point of the NT. Without this, what do we have? Yet Lee couldn't, or wouldn't, see it.

Well it's good that Lee found certain verses. Please bear with the rest of us if we can also find Christ in certain verses. Like having clean hands, etc. Being righteous. Being delivered from the power death.

It seems more than passing strange that Lee read Christ so broadly, liberally, and generously elsewhere, but here read Christ so narrowly. You'd think it would be the opposite, if anything. Certainly the invitation via apostolic precedent was there. But no. The apostle has spoken. No Christ in God's delight, in clean hands, in obedience. . . so then who? Nobody, says Lee. None are good. If that is so, then who died on the cross for us?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps it is because God did not deliver Christ from his enemies like He did with David..

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So I've just been reading the book Christ and the church revealed in the psalms and Lee mentions that certain verses of psalm 18 refer to Christ there.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I was speaking of praying the words of the bible as written...and not for praying them out of context. If we pray the words of the bible as written it cannot be vain.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I also note your use of the term "religious duty" seems to contradict your stance in previous discussions on the meaning of the word religion where you indicated that religion is a positive thing. Seeing you use the word in a negative way here is surprising.

Originally Posted by aron

Evangelical, I don't suppose you could be any more deliberately obtuse, could you? Did Peter say Psalm 16 was about David? Or about "the NT believer enjoying grace"? God delights in His Son. Our faith is not in ourselves, nor David, nor in the NT believer enjoying grace.

Christ is our righteousness, precisely because He did have clean hands in His human living before the Father's throne. Doesn't it strike you as odd that a Bible expositor who teased "Christ" out the silver sockets of the ark couldn't see Christ here?

I know, you'll protest, "But Christ isn't the sinful and repentant protagonist of Psalm 51. Don't read too much into the text." Yet look at the end of Psalm 51. Almost the exact words Jesus speaks to Peter. "When you turn back to God, you'll be a strengthening to the rest."

I do apologize if I've cast aspersions on the person; if Witness Lee was a failure then I moreso. But earlier we were talking about the vanity of the Gentiles, thinking that in their multiplicity of words they reached God. I can hardly think of anything more vain than expounding on the Bible and ignoring Jesus Christ. Here, it even seems the ignoring is done at some effort.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What about verse 20. Are we now supposed to pray read that God delights in us because of our own goodness? "Oh Lord ,like David you delight in me because of my goodness"..seems not like a prayer that the Spirit of Christ would inspire. Where is the blood of Christ and unmerited favor in this verse?

Originally Posted by aron

If you read the footnotes in Psalm 16, Lee notes that the sentiments and experiences refer to "Christ in his human living". Why doesn't Psalm 18 also refer to "Christ in his human living"? Instead, Lee looked at David's hands, and his heart. Is that how we're saved? Looking at David and assessing his fitness? Clearly you haven't been pray-reading these verses, because the Holy Spirit hasn't yet come to fill you, and dwell in you richly, and reveal the Son. ~John 14:26 Try it sometime. Psalm 18:19 is every bit the word of Christ that Psalm 16:10 is. Or do you think a different Spirit comes when you pray-read Psalm 18? A "wrong concept" spirit?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There's no footnote anywhere in the recovery version that says God did not delight in David. The footnote is for verse 20 where David thinks God recompensed him for the "cleanness of my hands".

Anyone who knows anything about David knows that he did not have "clean hands". David committed murder, adultery, and killed many people. David was not perfect, like Christ. In Psalm 51 he says "Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed". So I think Lee is correct that David talking about the "cleanness of my hands" is not in accordance with the New Testament revelation where we are saved by grace through faith, and not our own merits.

Originally Posted by aron

Verse 19 has no footnote at all. It's surrounded by commentary panning David's erroneous concepts. Where else can one's common sense take them, here?

Suppose in Acts 2 Peter stood with the eleven, and said David had a wrong concept about his flesh not seeing corruption, that "his grave is with us today" (v.29), and then dismissed the crowd. Not a very inspiring gospel message. That's essentially what Lee did, here and pretty much everywhere he wasn't forced to acknowledge Christ from the NT reception.

God delighted in His Christ. God raised Him from the dead. Not too complicated, really. The NT re-iterates this theme continually. "He trusted in God; let Him [God] save Him [Christ] now". Why should we not see this also in Psalm 18, and elsewhere? Why couldn't we "see God's Christ, and live"? Why did Lee turn us away? Where's the NT pattern of turning away from scripture thus?? I see nothing but the opposite. "Closely following the apostles' fellowship" - hardly. I see novelty, deviation.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Before we further with culture..

Psalm 18 doesn't say God delighted in David.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Before we further with culture..

Psalm 18 doesn't say God delighted in David.

Originally Posted by aron

And Lee's hermeneutic recovered it? Please. How could he call China 'virgin soil' unless he was biased by ignorant self-interest & culture?

And the link is being restored, bit by bit. The Intertestamental, or Second Temple period is no longer the Great Blank Spot it once was. But you'd never know that inside the One Trumpet.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What does China have to do with the old testament

Originally Posted by Nell

Psa. 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:

It looks to me like it is the Psalmist saying "the Lord will not hear me".
It doesn't say "the Lord said he will not hear me."

Is the Psalmist offering his opinion?

Nell

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Psalm 66.18. Says God does not hear all prayers.
That is one of a few verses that tell us under whst circumstances God hears prayer.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not my words, but Isaiah's prophecy.

So Isaiah needs to repent for saying Jehovah did evil to His only begotten?

Evangelly, ever hear about the sovereignty of God?

Originally Posted by Nell

God is omniscient. He listens to all prayers. He hears all prayers. He hears every word we speak. God answers all prayers (yes; no; not now). God knows the thoughts and intents of all hearts. God doesn't live in a man-made box. He is the Potter. We are the clay. We don't dictate his ways to him. We don't tell him what and which prayers he answers and which he doesn't.

Exodus 33:19 ... I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

Nell

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not my words, but Isaiah's prophecy.

So Isaiah needs to repent for saying Jehovah did evil to His only begotten?

Evangelly, ever hear about the sovereignty of God?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The crowd were shouting crucify Him. God was not part of the crowd. Nor did God enter Judas for the betrayal. Then you believe the Father was also in the crowd shouting that. Furthermore you must believe that Satans words even Judas was inspired by God. Your view suggests a holy and perfect God was a participant in the crime. You may need to repent of saying that God did evil.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes, you are right. From our side however, we can understand a vain prayer to be one to which the Lord does not listen, and I believe Scripture reveals at least two ways that God might not hear our prayer - unbelief, or sin. Thus, to pray Scripture with a sinful heart, or an unbelieving heart, is likely to be in vain. As are, prayers of amiss, and prayers for public show.

If all these conditions are met, then praying the words of the bible as written, would not be in vain.

Actually, it is more than merely praying "from the heart" as OBW said. A person may "pray from the heart" for a million dollars, for example, and yet be asking amiss, or in vain. It may be a sincere prayer, but God does not answer prayers based upon sincerity, but based upon alignment with His will.

Originally Posted by aron

And Lee's hermeneutic recovered it? Please. How could he call China 'virgin soil' unless he was biased by ignorant self-interest & culture?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The thing is that the OT anchor was lost long ago by the shift of Christianity away from Judaism and into paganism.

Originally Posted by aron

Public shaming and group-think were part and parcel of the commentary. Pretty effective. Other than that though, "We are so free", as WL told Judge Seyranian.

The NT shorn of its OT anchor is shorn of context and loses meaning. Then it's open to fill-in-the-blanks theology from every self-appointed apostle that comes along. Witness Lee was one of dozens, that I've seen.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I dont see how the commentary stops us pray reading the Word.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well the old testament is but a shadow of the new. In most Christians minds it is of secondary importance to the new.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evan, how do you know that these words "crucify him" are not from God's mouth?

Does not Isaiah 53 say, "He was smitten of God, and afflicted ... Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise Him, to put Him to grief, and to make His soul an offering for sin?"

You need a serious repentance about your views of scripture. That means change your way of thinking. Paul said "all scripture is God-breathed."

Originally Posted by aron

Ah! Common sense! What then to do when the Bible expositor's interpretive metric tells us, contrary to the clear and repeated pattern of NT reception, that whole swaths of the OT are "low", and "fallen concepts", and "mixed sentiments", and "natural" writings? And that large sections of the NT (e.g., Peter, James, Jude) are in similar straits?

In Acts 2 we see Peter standing with the eleven, saying that David, writing Psalm 16, was a prophet who knew the promise was for the Seed to come. This is part of a clear and repeated pattern of NT reception; what then to make of Psalm 18 where David says, "He rescued me because He delighted in me"? Common sense says that there's a pattern, and the One in whom God delights is the Son. See Matt 3:17; cf 2 Pet 1:17 &c

You know what Lee said? "God didn't delight in David. David was a sinner". What to do with common sense, here? Should we "just be simple, don't be hardened", and repeat "Processed! Amen, Processed" with the rest of the ministry drones? Or use our native common sense, and rehearse the word, as written, within the clear pattern of reception?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I speak only of praying the words of the bible that make sense to do so. I thought that is common sense.

Of course, not every word in the bible is from Gods mouth. The words 'crucify him' for example are not from Gods mouth. It is not appropriate to pray read every word in the bible.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I speak only of praying the words of the bible that make sense to do so. I thought that is common sense.

Of course, not every word in the bible is from Gods mouth. The words 'crucify him' for example are not from Gods mouth. It is not appropriate to pray read every word in the bible.

Originally Posted by aron

I find this to be an interesting remark, given that earlier, when I quoted, "Every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God", you said something that not every word of the Bible came from God's mouth. Witness Lee, with his hermeneutics, got to decide which was which.

The Bible uses repetition, as well. Psalm 136 repeats "His mercy endures forever"; WL mocked those who followed such repetitive patterns. "Too low"; he did this from the dias, and none protested this nonsense. They were stupefied. Paralyzed. Mute.

It seems as though the Bible "as written" is fine as long as it lines with "the ministry" - if it doesn't then it's dismissed. Even mocked.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I was speaking of praying the words of the bible as written...and not for praying them out of context. If we pray the words of the bible as written it cannot be vain.

Originally Posted by Nell

Only God knows if a prayer is vain or not.

Nell

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I was speaking of praying the words of the bible as written...and not for praying them out of context. If we pray the words of the bible as written it cannot be vain. ...

Originally Posted by OBW

It is true that hollow chants in an environment of limited mental engagement is a tool for mind control or alteration. But the most sound worship of most of the history of Christianity was full of repetition. Seldom as uninterrupted as an Eastern religious chant or a rousing chorus of "Oh Lord Jesus" repeated over and over. Both have been sound and both have been hollow.

I note that Evangelical has declared just a post or two after yours that you can't pray the words of the Bible in vain. Pretty foolish. I would suggest that there are many who pray those "name it and claim it" prayers right out of the Bible. Out of context but right out of the Bible.

Rather that having a knee-jerk reaction that thinks repetition is likely to be vain or that using the words of the Bible will necessarily not be vain, we should be aware of our own hearts when we pray. When someone speaks something like "We have not loved our neighbor as ourselves" after which we declare "Christ have mercy on us," then another statement of our general tendency to sin, followed again by "Lord have mercy on us," we should not presume "vain repetition" or "hollow religion." Neither should we presume it is simply OK. The question is in the heart of the participant, not in the opinion of the observer. The observer that presumes negatively is clearly not engaged in worship of Christ, but in bickering with the household of faith.

It is probably better if we didn't worry about what we have been taught to think about any particular kind of worship and to instead be sure that when we worship we are not just going through the motions of whatever it is we do. Whether it is a centuries-old liturgy or a rousing chorus of "Oh Lord Jesus." Whether the prayers are impromptu and ad lib, or thoughtfully written down (even centuries before). If they are from the heart, it is prayer. If it is from religious duty with no heart, it is vain.

But it is wise to beware of anyone suggesting that we "clear our minds" in worship. To just repeat words (even good ones) over and over. Rather than clearing our minds, we should be setting them. We should be letting it wash over our thoughts and cares. It should be convicting us of our failures and encouraging us to walk by the Spirit.

Originally Posted by aron

We have reason to be suspicious of repetition as a tool of religious inculcation leading people to vanity. Maybe yes, maybe no; but at least we should be wary.

But even more, what should we think when the pattern of repetitive chanting or declaring is accompanied by phrases like, "Be simple, don't be hardened", and "Get out of your mind", and "Drop your concepts"? We were told "Touching Jesus is all that really matters", but what happens when "touching Jesus" comes with unrelieved hostility and judgmentalism towards all one's neighbours, a controlling atmosphere in which "fellowship" is needed in all decisions of life, with sins and failures of leaders being covered up, and especially with exercise of one's God-given faculties of reason and critical thought being suppressed as dangerous independence and even rebellion against God's specially-anointed?

What are we really touching, here? It gives every appearance of a man-made programme of charismania, or sensory overload, leading to surrender of the will and the submerging of one's identity to the group. Then the subject is fully open to manipulation and control.

Originally Posted by Nell

I don't remember what "broke the spell" for me, but I just felt like something wasn't right. That was the first of several similar experiences. From then on, I just didn't "feel right" about the mass chanting.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Vain means praying words that are useless. But praying the words of the Bible cannot be vain because the words of the Bible are not useless. It's praying God's Word and God's Word is never vain. What sort of contradiction is it to say that praying the bible is unbiblical or vain? Andrew does not know what he is talking about.

Originally Posted by aron

Two related problems with this assertion. First is that WL deliberately contravened Paul, saying not to pray with understanding but rather to cultivate sensory impression. Second is that the practice facilitated an environment in which words could mean whatever 'God's oracle' needed them to mean today. In fact, it even led to messages - many, not few - where biblical words were held as useless (labeled vain, fallen, mixed, natural &c) simply because they didn't line up with the exposition at hand.

Beyond that, a lot of what was repetitively shouted wasn't even God's word but the word of the so-called seer of the revelation. "Let's all stand and declare stanza three with an exercised spirit!!" Footnotes, outlines, message text, all called forth in the same rhythmic cadence. All with the aim of cultivating sensory impression, and losing self in the Hive-mind. It's Mesmerism writ large.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

. .praying the words of the Bible cannot be vain because the words of the Bible are not useless. It's praying God's Word and God's Word is never vain. .

Originally Posted by aron

We have reason to be suspicious of repetition as a tool of religious inculcation leading people to vanity. Maybe yes, maybe no; but at least we should be wary.

But even more, what should we think when the pattern of repetitive chanting or declaring is accompanied by phrases like, "Be simple, don't be hardened", and "Get out of your mind", and "Drop your concepts"? We were told "Touching Jesus is all that really matters", but what happens when "touching Jesus" comes with unrelieved hostility and judgmentalism towards all one's neighbours, a controlling atmosphere in which "fellowship" is needed in all decisions of life, with sins and failures of leaders being covered up, and especially with exercise of one's God-given faculties of reason and critical thought being suppressed as dangerous independence and even rebellion against God's specially-anointed?

What are we really touching, here? It gives every appearance of a man-made programme of charismania, or sensory overload, leading to surrender of the will and the submerging of one's identity to the group. Then the subject is fully open to manipulation and control.

Here's another person's experience, recorded in 2003:



https://www.evangelical-times.org/27...-local-church/

Originally Posted by OBW

But even that is not prohibited by the warning against vain repetition. The problem is what is being repeated and how and why it is repeated.

Originally Posted by Andrew Setchell

I became a Christian while at Manchester University through Christians in a group called ‘the Local Church’.

This name comes from the teaching of ‘localism’ – the belief ‘that there is only one true representative of the Body of Christ in any city. This … is said to be the Local Church. The Local Church alone is alleged to be the true representative of the Body of Christ, and all other churches are false’.

‘The Local Church’ had bases in Manchester and elsewhere in the UK, but its main centres were in Anaheim (USA) and Taipei (Taiwan).

At that time, the movement was led by a man called Witness Lee. My experiences of the Local Church in 1986/87 may not reflect the current beliefs and practices of the movement.

I first came into contact with ‘the Local Church’ through fellow students. One of them befriended me and began to share the gospel with me.

I was attracted by the quality of this man’s life. He invited me to a meal where he and others preached the gospel to me. As a result, I repented and put my trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Following conversion and baptism they led me through some ‘New Life Lessons’, which helped me to grow. After some weeks, I began to attend ‘the Local Church’ meetings in Manchester and later on joined them in door-to-door evangelism.

The people I met in this group had a tremendous love for one another and were genuine, sincere and zealous for the Lord and his Word. All this impressed me as a young believer.

They also expressed their love to me in practical ways, and I developed good friendships.

The main negative experience was that they did not encourage members to read literature written by anyone other than Witness Lee. Even the Bible the group used had footnotes by Witness Lee, which were consulted when the Bible was read and studied.

I left ‘the Local Church’ in the Summer 1987 on the advice of those who were concerned about my involvement with the group. After leaving, I learnt that although some aspects of the teaching and practice of ‘the Local Church’ were biblical, some were not.

In his goodness, the Lord then led me to Bible-believing churches where, over a period of years, the errors I had learnt were corrected.

To illustrate the unbiblical nature of some aspects of ‘the Local Church’, I will focus upon... one area of practice (‘pray-reading’).

I was encouraged to ‘pray-read’ the Scriptures. This I attempted to do in my own quiet times.

The following quote from Lee will illustrate pray-reading: ‘Simply pick up the Word and pray-read a few verses in the morning and in the evening. There is no need for you to exercise your mind in order to squeeze out some utterance, and it is unnecessary to think over what you read …

‘It is better for us to close our mind! For example, in pray-reading Galatians 2:20 simply look at the printed page, which says, “I am crucified with Christ”. Then with your eyes upon the Word, and praying from deeply within, say: “Praise the Lord, I am crucified with Christ. Hallelujah! Crucified with Christ. Amen. I am. Oh, Lord, I am crucified. Praise the Lord! Crucified with Christ. Amen! I am crucified with Christ. Hallelujah! Amen!”.’

The unbiblical nature of all this is clear – such vain repetitions are condemned by our Lord (Matthew 6:7-8). ‘Pray-reading’ leads to the mind being bypassed, which is contrary to the Bible’s exhortation that we are to pray with the understanding (1 Corinthians 14:15).

Originally Posted by Nell

I was riding to work once with 3 sisters. They were into the "pray-reading" thing and I was sitting quietly in the back seat lost in thought or something. I just didn't join in...for no real reason that I can think of.

Soon the "prayers" for/at me started...Ooooohhhh Loooorrrddd....the oneness! The ONENESS Loooorrrrdddd! One sister in particular...pounding her fist into her hand and looking down, shaking her head...like RG did/does... Ooooohhhh Loooorrrrddd... . She just kept on and on...creeps me out thinking about it.

She didn't approve of me sitting quietly on the ride to work. She had her own "vision" of "oneness" and she was going to impose it on me in a not-so-subtle way. The more it went on, the more determined I was that I would NOT buckle to the pressure.

So this time, add to the cadence a "pray-shame" ritual.

Nell

Originally Posted by aron

I was praying with some Chinese LC members at one point, and was listening to the rhythm: Blah blah blah blah BLAH (Ayee- MAYYN!!) Blah blah blah blah BLAAH!! (Ayyee- MAYYN!!) Blah blah blah blah BLAAHH!! (Ayee-MAYYN!) which along with the fore-arm thrusts, produced a kind of hypnotising rhythmic quality.

Now, is this "vain babbling" or "more God"? Typically, the subjectivist LSM LC response is, "If we do it, it's not vain. When others do it, then it's vain." Can we perhaps do better than that?

Originally Posted by aron

But Witness Lee, in his campaign of human subjugation, taught his followers to "get out of your mind" - this was the center of the LC programme, as shown by the previous quote in post #3. The repetitive chanting and shouting, the arm-waving and so forth were all part of a scheme of sensory overload in which the mark becomes susceptible to manipulation & influence. It's all about control. Christ died to set us free, but the enemy wants to put us back in slavery again.
...
Right. Performance is not merely self-abnegation, but socially-constructed self-abnegation such that one integrates within the group.

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

Originally Posted by Freedom

Everyone is made to believe things like a lack of volume and fist pumping is a legitimate concern, when it is really just an establishment or reinforcement of a pecking order. Whoever performs the best earns the respect of the group and becomes the alpha male..

Originally Posted by aron

The other thing I noticed about their prayers, was that I could tell the Alpha males and Beta males from the Gamma and Theta males about how they amen'ed each other. It was pretty clear to me that the call-and-response patterns had some socialization aspects as well. Who was "losing face" to whom. When you are habitually losing face to others you put yourself into submission. Again, why merely assume this is "God" and not fallen human subjugation, reinforced by centuries of culturally-derived patterns?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Remember the poster "Toledo?"

One time he made a public joke that "we prayed in 6.7.6.7 meter," referencing song poetry. It was poking fun at ourselves, but it had impact on many GLA brothers, including me. I then made conscious effort to move from the rhythmic "Amen" cadence to praying from the heart, slowing down and seeking the Lord.

Originally Posted by aron

I was praying with some Chinese LC members at one point, and was listening to the rhythm: Blah blah blah blah BLAH (Ayee- MAYYN!!) Blah blah blah blah BLAAH!! (Ayyee- MAYYN!!) Blah blah blah blah BLAAHH!! (Ayee-MAYYN!) which along with the fore-arm thrusts, produced a kind of hypnotising rhythmic quality.

Now, is this "vain babbling" or "more God"? Typically, the subjectivist LSM LC response is, "If we do it, it's not vain. When others do it, then it's vain." Can we perhaps do better than that?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus is not against repetition of the same words, but babbling:

. . it is said in the Recovery, that the purpose of prayer is not to have our needs met by asking God for things, but to be filled with God.

Originally Posted by OGOP

You're completely overlooking the the footnotes.
When you read a recovery bible those footnotes are treated the same as The Bible itself.

Originally Posted by OGOP

That is very interesting to read Matt 6:7. Thanks for sharing.

Also very interesting to note the differences between the King James version versus the Recovery version.

"KJV: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

"Recovery: And in praying do not 1babble empty words as the Gentiles do; for they suppose that in their amultiplicity of words they will be heard.

1-This does not mean that we should not repeat our prayer. The Lord repeated His prayer three times in Gethsemane (26:44), the apostle Paul prayed the same prayer three times (2 Cor. 12:8), and the great multitude in heaven praised God repeatedly with hallelujahs (Rev. 19:1-6). It means that we should not repeat empty words, words spoken in vain. "

Very scary to see the differences.

Originally Posted by Ohio

They have so much useless human activity. Their teachings are merely dead doctrines to them.

Originally Posted by Assembly Board

Hi Dave K. !

You probably don't remember me, (Mark Campbell from the Valley) but I remember you from the early Fullerton Assm. days.

My recollections of you were formed by a campaign to discredit you by Assm. management and I apologize to you for my blindly accepting the smear campaign that was directed at you---- please forgive me for this.

As to Witness Lee: I often ran into members of this group at school, and at work (I worked with one of these guys at one job and also had an association via another job where they were contractors). They didn't want to talk about theology (such as their views of the Trinity) as that was disparaged as being, "in the mind." I recall Tom Mad's response to this: "are you out of yours?" ;D

I recall having to drop off some things at the work place of the contractors I mentioned above one day when about ten of them circled me and began to chant, "O' Lord Jesus", trying to get me to say that phrase so that a vacuum would be created in my heart that the Spirit could fill ???. I found out later that they based this teaching on the Rom. 10 verse re. "who confesses Jesus as Lord" will be saved.

This kind of thing seems to be heavily influenced by Eastern religious thinking, as does the other less wacko "inner life" kind of stuff that the Assm. was also into. As Tom points out, the fruit of these kind of teachings prove how close to God's will they really are--- elitist, hypocritical, inhumane, arrogant, and unreasonable!

Tom mentions that the ability to reason is what most closely demonstrates our being made in God's image, and I would agree with this. However, that intellectual ability must also be coupled with a moral sensitivity or our religion will lack God's heart.

Both of these groups, Witness Lee and the Assm., were out of sync with God not only because they had confused thinking, but because the groups were able to get members to ignore their own consciences. This led to the kind of abuses where members (like you) could get drummed out because of the false accusations they raised against them!

It was good that you had some previous Christian training and experience, but think of the many who now wander the Earth thinking they "tried that Christian thing" and as a result now have no enjoyment of God. There are those who can't step inside a church anymore as they fear what might happen to them! :'(

To me a cult is a cult (primarily) when it is more concerned with advancing the selfish interests of the leader/leaders, and the goals of the group, vs. building the faith of the individual member. Cults attempt to destroy any vestige of individual expression while true God inspired ministry seeks to "buildup" the individual believer in their faith. This is a danger any Christian group can get into and the reason Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. constantly reminded us of this error.

This cultish attempt to violate personal boundaries can be performed while seeming to be very orthodox in ones teaching of the bible. All of the "cultishness" happens via subtle alternations and misuse of scripture--- as in: "brother, are you standing in unity with us or are you going to give place to the devil?" >

However, those that courageously challenge those who misuse authority in the church are the true servants of Jesus Christ; in a cult these will be forced out!

Good to hear from you. God bless, Mark C.

Originally Posted by aron

I got a copy of a recent publication, a HWMR on Hebrews, and was looking at today's entry. Week 6, Day 2. It was revewing Hebrews 7:25. I noticed that in the first 4 paragraphs, he uses the word "intercession" or "intercessor" 12 times. He just keeps saying the same thing, over and over again. It's creepy. Is this some Eastern 'mantra' thing? Is he trying to get us to some altered state? I mean, I get that he wants to make a point. But 12 times? Are we really that dull?

And he uses the word 4 more times as well; 16 times total in one 'daily portion' of 9 paragraphs.