Quote:
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.
|
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.
It seems rather duplicitous to be using a lexicon in which the set patterns of a liturgy which is used as a means of being thorough in worship is dismissed as "religion" (always considered in a negative light) yet your own ways are mired in rules of "musts" that you claim separate the believers that "uniquely" follow God in the proper manner from all others. Musts like how you name your assembly. What ministry you follow. Limiting the use of terms like "saints" to less than all believers. Following a very specific, even if not written down, pattern for the Lord's table that is enforced as if written in stone.
While I do not agree with all of your "musts," to the extent that they are just yours, I have no particular complaint. But to the extent that you insist that others follow them or be considered deficient spiritually, you make yourself the very kind of "religion" that you complain of with respect to everyone else.
Quote:
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.
|
It is clear that you are looking for reasons to dismiss the practices of all Christians but your group.
And your group is following rules that are not stated in the scripture, but you not only think of them as good ideas but as articles of the faith. Then when I do not detail the meaning behind every word that I speak, you find cause to dismiss it a not being about Christ. Your little world of parsing what isn't there to create doctrine, coupled with parsing what everyone else says according the lexicon of your unfounded doctrines is worse than the kind of religion that you constantly try to limit the word to mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Just because the discussion naturally flows into a certain direction does not mean it is trolling.
|
It is trolling when the topic is on one thing and you are constantly seeking to nit-pick the lexicon being used by others so as to create division in the body of Christ.
Quote:
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.
|
But none of these were stated as required (other than
2 (TWO) witnesses." And none of them precluded more. Neither the practice of David, or the account Paul gave of his particular prayer defined three as a required minimum or maximum. That is an overlay added by those who need to find cause for separation from others.
That there are principles in numbers does not make them rise above their place Is the principle that God requires threes, or are there threes because repetition makes a point. And three is generally seen as intentionally repeated. But even that admission does not cause all occurrences of three to mean that some overriding principle is in play. God is three (trinity) because he is, not because there is a principle to it. But just because he is three does not make everything have to be in threes.
What about principles of 7, 10, or 12? When those are used, it is seldom to suggest that a precise number is intended, but that a principle (that has nothing to do with the actual number) is being inferred. Yet when it comes to 3, you want to insist that its principle is the number 3, not something else. That the mention of something in 3s or as happening 3 times is about the number of times rather than using the description of the thing in 3s as a sideways reference to a principle that is not about number.
I think you are getting the importance of 3 all wrong. To the extent that it is a "thing" or principle, it is not about the number. It is a stand-in for something of actual significance. The number three is not of standalone significance that I can see. It is an observation of the tendency for the writers to mention certain kinds of things in 3s. That should point to something else as the principle, not to the number 3.
. . . .
Of course, it is to be expected that the followers of Nee and Lee would be quick to find excludable fault in others. The LRC comes by this practice naturally through the following of their MOTAs who found fault in everyone outside of their own sect. I guess ground and MOTA is not enough for some. They need to add "3" to the list.