Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
I dont think Pauls prayer for healing was in vain.
|
And I never suggested otherwise or suggested you thought otherwise.
Quote:
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.
|
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).
Quote:
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.
|
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.
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!).