Pray-Reading

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So the Bible is designed to be prayed....

Really! Is that so? Are there Bible verses that advise us to pray it? References please. Educate me.

Yes, that was the thesis of RG's book as I recall it. I don't have a copy, but if the LSM published it you might get a copy from them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, that was the thesis of RG's book as I recall it. I don't have a copy, but if the LSM published it you might get a copy from them.

Chicago Bible and Books carries it ...

http://biblesandbooks.com/mm5/mercha...egory_Code=BSA

[OBW]

ZNP,

For all of your examples, I see exactly what I said. There are numerous places where as part of a prayer, passages were, in effect, recited back to God. This is the kind of praying of the word that I have seen with significant impact. Even simply repeating the "Lord's Prayer" is profound as part of a larger prayer. It fills in our poor prayers with at least generalities concerning the broad categories we were taught to pray. To pray for more than just kingdom stuff. To also pray for those "poor, pathetic" things about ourselves and our lives that Lee so despised.

But that is not the practice that was being defended by anything written by the LRC and published by the LSM. The practice being defended by Graver's little book was the one described in the earlier book in which neither true reading of the word, nor prayer that looks anything like what Jesus taught when he said, among other things "Thy will be done." Nor any of the other passages you quote in which clear, coherent sentences of profound meaning were turned into something like:

"Our Father. Oh, Lord, Amen, Our Father! Yes, Lord, our Father! Hallelujah, our Father! . . . Thy kingdom! Oh, Lord, Your kingdom! It's all about your kingdom! Save us prom prayers about anything but your kingdom! Come. Oh, Lord, Come! Come! Come! . . . "

And so on. And it can be argued that simply because the actual words from scripture are in there, it is a "sound" praying of the word. But while I did manage to leave the content vaguely recognizable, the process of dealing with scripture are more than sanctified syllables that contain power in their utterance — sort of like the effects of speaking the words from the Book of the Dead in the Mummy series of semi-modern swashbuckling adventure movies. The words contained in The Word have far less meaning as dictionary entries as they do in sentences, paragraphs, and whole passages.

And while there is power in the Word of God, it is not from merely saying the words contained in it. It is from reading for wisdom and understanding — something that the deconstruction of sentences into snippets divorced from their companions cannot do. There is no mystical power in mashing a bunch of words together in a meaningless way. That is not "letting the Word wash over you." It is no better than sitting in a circle and chanting "om." You feel better. You have been engaged in an exercise of emotional exhilaration but with no spiritual significance.

And the problem is not that there is no such thing through history as what might be called "pray reading," but that there is no record of the kind of thing that the LRC pushed as "pray reading." As you point out, there are numerous examples of praying by using passages of scripture as major portions of your own prayer. Or mixing parts of passages into your coherent sentences that, joined together, pray currently in a manner consistent with the passage mixed into your prayer.

So, a little book like Lord Thou Saidst correctly points to prayer in conjunction with what we know to be written in scripture. But that book is not being used to defend the practices mentioned in it, but something different. Something that only shares the words "pray" and "reading" with the examples brought out in the book.

In effect, the whole premise of that book is a kind of equivocation. They make note of practices that they call pray reading (and even others have called pray reading), then assert that their practice is also called pray reading and is therefore covered. But it ain't necessarily so.

So save your dissertation on examples of praying words from prior scripture contained within the scripture. I already agreed with that kind of practice.

And for anyone who still practices that stew-of-a-prayer the LRC calls pray reading, are you empowered to go out and care for the needy after pray reading those passages? Or is pray reading them not on the agenda?

Oh, and finding places where scripture contains the recording of a prayer that we can also pray does not support the general statement that scripture in general "was designed to be prayed." A prayer was designed to be prayed. That is not a general statement about the rest of scripture. So you can correctly assert that "there is scripture that was designed to be prayed" and that would be because it was a prayer when it was recorded.

And just because the word accomplishes God's will, and the words "Thy will be done" are found in a prayer does not support a general statement that the words of scripture are "designed to be prayed." That is just nonsense.

Yes. Pray the Word. Use it all in prayer. We can pray anything (although there clearly is no purpose in praying the American Heritage Dictionary). But that does not make any of it broadly "designed to be prayed." The purpose of scripture in general was not to be prayer. It was to be God's speaking. We can pray it. It is possible to do so. In some cases it is profitable to do so. But I do not see any evidence that, as a whole, it was "designed" as such.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

the problem is not that there is no such thing through history as what might be called "pray reading," but that there is no record of the kind of thing that the LRC pushed as "pray reading."

I remember Mr. Lee saying that it was like cutting up a steak. Cut it up into tiny peices and chew on it. Nice analogy; but where is the basis of this, beyond Mr. Lee's inspiration? Suddenly the "historical basis" evaporates.

Originally Posted by OBW

In effect, the whole premise of that book is a kind of equivocation. They make note of practices that they call pray reading (and even others have called pray reading), then assert that their practice is also called pray reading and is therefore covered. But it ain't necessarily so.

Right. Cite others where it is convenient; ignore details which are not convenient. I think this is a trend which goes beyond the subject of pray-reading. You know, make a big deal about being rooted in the history of the christian faith, then when you want to deviate from that history, tell people how God wants a "new move". Then you can have it both ways.

That was easy, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by OBW

finding places where scripture contains the recording of a prayer that we can also pray does not support the general statement that scripture in general "was designed to be prayed." A prayer was designed to be prayed. That is not a general statement about the rest of scripture.

I remember being told (I don't doubt it goes back to Mr. Lee) that Paul told us "Unceasingly pray", therefore we were supposed to pray-read ALL the Bible, not just read it.

And when you got to the nasty parts, like Job's wife telling him to curse God and die, or Peter denying the Lord Jesus, you couldn't say "Amen" or "Hallelujah"... your repertoire of "prayers" shrank to "Oh Lord" and "Lord Jesus".

Reminds me of Lee's famous line that "Christianity (i.e. the clergy-laity system) has nullified the function of the members of the body." My prayers got shrunk to only 3 words!!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

ZNP, For all of your examples, I see exactly what I said. There are numerous places where as part of a prayer, passages were, in effect, recited back to God. This is the kind of praying of the word that I have seen with significant impact. Even simply repeating the "Lord's Prayer" is profound as part of a larger prayer. It fills in our poor prayers with at least generalities concerning the broad categories we were taught to pray. To pray for more than just kingdom stuff. To also pray for those "poor, pathetic" things about ourselves and our lives that Lee so despised.
But that is not the practice that was being defended by anything written by the LRC and published by the LSM.

I do not understand the fixation and hangup with the fact that there are superficial Christians whether in the LRC or anywhere else? I find this mockery particularly distasteful since I do not meet with the LRC and in my experience, there are plenty of superficial Christians outside of the LRC. I have heard many prayers that are as fleshly as you can get. But I don't mock them because I realize the real error in the LRC is their pride and arrogance.

As I recall I thought RG's book "Lord...Thou saidst" (thank you Ohio) was beneficial in improving my prayer life. I felt as a result of that book and the Biblical evidence he provided that if I could punctuate my prayer with "Lord...thou saidst" not as a formula, but by Finding God's will in His word, that would have impact. Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, I don't ever use the phrase "Lord thous saidst" in my prayer, but I often do seek to pray God's word back to him.

No doubt your mockery of pray reading is a shoe that fits many in the LRC, but certainly not everybody. I stayed at Dunton House in 1996. There were two older sisters there (in their 70s and 80s) and an elder (also in his 70s I think) in addition there was another brother. These 4 had all been in the LRC far longer than I, and I first met with the LC in '78. Their practice of praying the word for morning watch did not resemble your mockery in any way. We read the word, fellowshipped over it (perhaps, perhaps not), raised some prayer requests / burdens (again maybe yes, maybe no) and then finished by each praying. They refused to use that LSM booklet. The church in NY had a schedule on a weekly basis of verses for morning watch that were based on the messages during the Lord's day morning. No other church that I had met with had that practice, but so what, we used those verses in our morning watch.

For those of us who understood the genealogy of the practice, the point was that the word of God keeps us aligned with God's will and we knew that prayer is, at least in part, praying that God's will would be done.

As for your mockery, I wish many more Christians would have a time in the word every morning along the lines that we did.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I stayed at Dunton House in 1996. There were two older sisters there ... and an elder ... [whose] practice of praying the word for morning watch did not resemble your mockery in any way. We read the word, fellowshipped over it ... raised some prayer requests / burdens ... and then finished by each praying. They refused to use that LSM booklet. ... No other church that I had met with had that practice, but so what...

You seem to be citing the exception (Dunton House, 1996), and then wondering why OBW is mocking the rule promoted by LSM and practiced nearly universally in the LCs?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

You seem to be citing the exception (Dunton House, 1996), and then wondering why OBW is mocking the rule promoted by LSM and practiced nearly universally in the LCs?

I thought I was clear. To my mind the error in the LRC was pride and arrogance, hence their fall. To mock superficial Christians is to me an example of pride and arrogance. So you wish to point out the error of the LRC by continuing to walk in pride and arrogance, that is what I don't understand.

Second, if you are honest you will admit that reading and praying the Bible in a superficial way is hardly the worst thing that superficial Christians do. I choose not to mock others because I feel my error was pride and arrogance. If I choose not to mock what are clearly fleshly prayers, why would I mock the LRC's superficial pray reading?

My point in using the example of Dunton House is that the mockery does not apply to all in the LRC. Ask OBW if his family practices pray reading the way he is mocking others? If his father doesn't, isn't that relevant?

[UntoHim]

ZNP I don't see where Mike is mocking.

His example:
"Our Father. Oh, Lord, Amen, Our Father! Yes, Lord, our Father! Hallelujah, our Father! . . . Thy kingdom! Oh, Lord, Your kingdom! It's all about your kingdom! Save us prom prayers about anything but your kingdom! Come. Oh, Lord, Come! Come! Come! . . . "

This is an accurate example. Plus Mike went on further to give a very detailed and helpful (in my view) rebuttal and provided to us what "pray-reading" should really look like.

I am reminded of the apostle Paul's word to the Corinthians: "I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also". In my opinion what is practiced in the LC ignores the mind part. Of course when you tell people to "get out of their mind" what else could you expect?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do not understand the fixation and hangup with the fact that there are superficial Christians whether in the LRC or anywhere else? I find this mockery particularly distasteful since I do not meet with the LRC and in my experience, there are plenty of superficial Christians outside of the LRC. I have heard many prayers that are as fleshly as you can get. But I don't mock them because I realize the real error in the LRC is their pride and arrogance.

As I recall I thought RG's book "Lord...Thou saidst" (thank you Ohio) was beneficial in improving my prayer life. I felt as a result of that book and the Biblical evidence he provided that if I could punctuate my prayer with "Lord...thou saidst" not as a formula, but by Finding God's will in His word, that would have impact. Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, I don't ever use the phrase "Lord thous saidst" in my prayer, but I often do seek to pray God's word back to him.

No doubt your mockery of pray reading is a shoe that fits many in the LRC, but certainly not everybody. I stayed at Dunton House in 1996. There were two older sisters there (in their 70s and 80s) and an elder (also in his 70s I think) in addition there was another brother. These 4 had all been in the LRC far longer than I, and I first met with the LC in '78. Their practice of praying the word for morning watch did not resemble your mockery in any way. We read the word, fellowshipped over it (perhaps, perhaps not), raised some prayer requests / burdens (again maybe yes, maybe no) and then finished by each praying. They refused to use that LSM booklet. The church in NY had a schedule on a weekly basis of verses for morning watch that were based on the messages during the Lord's day morning. No other church that I had met with had that practice, but so what, we used those verses in our morning watch.

For those of us who understood the genealogy of the practice, the point was that the word of God keeps us aligned with God's will and we knew that prayer is, at least in part, praying that God's will would be done.

As for your mockery, I wish many more Christians would have a time in the word every morning along the lines that we did.

You like to refer to it as mockery. But I am making direct reference to the practice that I saw and was taught over a 14+ year period in which "pray reading" was never anything but exactly as I referenced. And that little booklet from back in the late 60s or early 70s was all about that kind of pray reading.

And I'm pretty sure that was the practice that RG felt a need to defend since that kind of pray reading was what the first booklet (also written by a Texas brother, although I don't remember who now) covered and was what the Mindbenders and/or others were referring to.

I did not accuse you of defending the LRC. I just noted that they things your brought up were consistent with what I think most non-LRC people would think of if faced with the term "pray reading."

But I'm not sure that the "morning watch" version of pray reading that I ever saw would be something I would suggest to any Christians. It might give a good feeling, like many mindless activities can be when engaged in as a "tune-out" kind of venture. I can't comment on your experience because I wasn't there to compare to what I saw. I know that there was something about what I saw that always bothered me. But until long after I left, I was convinced enough of its "rightness" that I would have defended it despite my personal misgivings.

That is the kind of thing that really makes me wary of so many things LRC. It gets into your nostrils and hair and clothes and you think you can smell roses and its still LRC garlic. They taught us some things that they said were so spiritual that I still don't think about whether they really are. We just assume it is true.

And I have to assume that it is happening elsewhere. And you are getting the results of my willful questioning of everything LRC. It all needs to be proved by reference to something wholly unrelated to the LRC. I even distrust the sense of experience unless there is something more to it than that.

[OBW]

To respond to your post on the points I think needing response, I will simply copy and paste the whole thing in here and then edit it down to what I want to respond to.

My new comments are in GREEN.

-----

You asked me to "rethink" this. I went back to OBW's post, here, per your request, is my "rethinking".

This is OBW’s post #51 in black.

ZNP,

. . . . The practice being defended by Graver's little book was the one described in the earlier book in which neither true reading of the word, nor prayer that looks anything like what Jesus taught when he said, among other things "Thy will be done." Nor any of the other passages you quote in which clear, coherent sentences of profound meaning were turned into something like:

"Our Father. Oh, Lord, Amen, Our Father! Yes, Lord, our Father! Hallelujah, our Father! . . . Thy kingdom! Oh, Lord, Your kingdom! It's all about your kingdom! Save us prom prayers about anything but your kingdom! Come. Oh, Lord, Come! Come! Come! . . . "

This is not right. RG’s book did not quote this or refer to this. The context of the book was that the Mind Benders book was out accusing the LC of “chanting”. RG was proving that “praying the word back to God” is scriptural and didn’t come from the Far East. No doubt he was defending the practice in the LC by compiling these quotes. But it is a huge stretch and very unfair to him at the time to say he was defending a mindless practice of pray reading. On the contrary, there is nothing in his book that would have supported that. The most you can say is that he was saying that since these saints prayed the word back to God, so can we without being a cult. He didn’t discuss the practice of it. The practice of pray reading in 2011 can hardly be considered the practice in 1979 when he first probably started this book.

If you start with the fist sentence I included after the ellipsis, I am giving the practice that RG is defending, not the practice he is describing in his book. I'm not sure who wrote the other book, but it really does sort of describe something like I laid out. It is not a mockery. And it is the whole of what I ever saw in the LRC from Jan 1973 through August 1987.

I really don't care what the practice in certain places in 2011 is because RG did not write about that. He wrote about what was at the time. Well, he wrote with the intent of making what he wrote about seem to be covering what was common practice at the time.

And so on. And it can be argued that simply because the actual words from scripture are in there, it is a "sound" praying of the word. But while I did manage to leave the content vaguely recognizable, the process of dealing with scripture are more than sanctified syllables that contain power in their utterance — sort of like the effects of speaking the words from the Book of the Dead in the Mummy series of semi-modern swashbuckling adventure movies. The words contained in The Word have far less meaning as dictionary entries as they do in sentences, paragraphs, and whole passages.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds like mockery to me. Was this quoted from an LSM publication?

No. It is a fairly faithful representation of the kind of thing that I heard and participated in over a 14+ year period. This is no quote from a publication.

And while there is power in the Word of God, it is not from merely saying the words contained in it. It is from reading for wisdom and understanding — something that the deconstruction of sentences into snippets divorced from their companions cannot do. There is no mystical power in mashing a bunch of words together in a meaningless way. That is not "letting the Word wash over you." It is no better than sitting in a circle and chanting "om." You feel better. You have been engaged in an exercise of emotional exhilaration but with no spiritual significance.

This to me is a prime example of “who are you to judge another man’s servant, to his own master he stands or falls”. I believe Paul has drawn a very clear line with this verse and that this post has crossed that line.

I tire of your "who are you to judge another man's servant." That just makes us all into servants of Lee and therefore free from any questioning of what might be wrong there. Besides, what is the "this verse" that Paul has drawn any kind of line about? I am not referring to any verse of Paul's that I am aware of. Did you dream this part? If you don't want to "judge" anything, what the heck are you doing here??

. . . .

So, a little book like Lord Thou Saidst correctly points to prayer in conjunction with what we know to be written in scripture. But that book is not being used to defend the practices mentioned in it, but something different. Something that only shares the words "pray" and "reading" with the examples brought out in the book.

This is unsubstantiated. Give me a quote from the book that does this. I have already stipulated that the book was a polemic to defend the LC practice. But you haven’t provided anything that demonstrates that the practice in 1979 in Houston was drastically different from what RG wrote.

You are joking. Right? It has already been stated that the book came out during the time of the lawsuits as a historical view of praying with the word so that the LRC practice of pray reading could be defended. Are you disagreeing with this? Are you suggesting that the method of pray reading that you see in 2011 is what was seen by observers prior to 1981? Back to the origins of pray reading. Back when Duddy and others visited LRCs to see for themselves? They may have made more out of it in a negative way than I did, but it was what it was.

But the book isn't going to quote anything that mentions what I did. That is what it is trying to hide. Trying to make go away.

In effect, the whole premise of that book is a kind of equivocation. They make note of practices that they call pray reading (and even others have called pray reading), then assert that their practice is also called pray reading and is therefore covered. But it ain't necessarily so.

I knew RG from 1978 to 1981. I have learned things that have shocked and disappointed me concerning him on this forum. I feel he may have hid his eyes during the JI expulsion. But it is a very serious matter in the NT to accuse an elder of lying or equivocation. I find this to be very insulting, I feel you have crossed the line with this comment, and I feel you need to back it up with solid witnesses and evidence. Because based on Paul’s word in the NT I am not to receive a charge against an elder unless it is from several reputable witnesses, and this is not.

Equivocation can be both intentional and unintentional. But after all the stuff that Benson and Ray did in the whitewashing of JI and others, I do not have any compunction to fear saying that lies have proceeded from his mouth. I would suggest that the deception was intentional.

I would also suggest that he probably was loose in his thinking and simply thought that any kind of prayer with the Word was sufficient since prayer with the Word is prayer with the Word. And if that was as far as he thought, then maybe he wasn't willfully deceptive about it. Maybe more like he was himself deceived.

But if the purpose of the book was to defend the LRC practices at the time of those early lawsuits, and you have even pointed out within this post (a part I have not kept) that the book can be used to show how the LRC is not really engaged in the practices mentioned in that book, then how do you say that there is no equivocation of any kind if the purpose was to defend one thing by showing something else with a similar name. Isn't that the raw definition of equivocation?

So save your dissertation on examples of praying words from prior scripture contained within the scripture. I already agreed with that kind of practice.

And for anyone who still practices that stew-of-a-prayer the LRC calls pray reading, are you empowered to go out and care for the needy after pray reading those passages? Or is pray reading them not on the agenda?

Once again, the use of the term “dissertation” is mocking, especially since both you and Awareness asked directly for references to support the statement that “the word of God is designed to be prayed”. References are asked for, I provide them, you mock. As to empowering saints to live the Christian life, let the Lord judge.

And, despite all of your sources and references, you actually have not established that "the word of God is designed to be prayed." It can be prayed. Some of it is already prayer. But you have failed to actually deal with the question. The question is not whether you can pray the word. It is whether it was designed to be prayed. Is there any evidence that, as a general statement, you can show that the word is designed — written with the structure and intent that it would be prayed.

You can make generalizations about where there are prayers contained in scripture. You can find that some portions of scripture were actually prayed by someone else in other scripture. But you haven't established that anything says that it was designed to be prayed.

-----

I could explain that finding prayers, and verses prayed, is like finding verses that say "to the church in [city]" and declaring that churches must be by city. It could be true in some cases. But there are other cases that are not that way. Just as there are a vast array of verses in scripture that are not demonstrated as being prayed, nor are they said that they should be prayed.

No one has said you should not pray scripture. But you cannot find anything that establishes that it is expressly designed to be prayed. That is the point.

[kisstheson]

Hello dear ones. I have to admit that my respect for Ray Graver's book entitled Lord . . . Thou Saidst has plummeted since this discussion began. I still like the contents of the book, but the reason it was written was very disingenuous, to say the least. Based upon LSM's own words in the booklet entitled Pray Reading the Word, other Christians had PLENTY to be concerned about regarding LSM's version of pray-reading.

There is absolutely nothing in Ray Graver's book which defends LSM's version of pray-reading. Nothing! The clearest NT example of an assembly incorporating Scripture into their prayer is given in Acts 4:24-26. This account is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from the high volume, pep-rally, 6.7 6.7 cadence, chop-the-scriptures-up-into-tiny-pieces, "close your mind", "no time to use your mind" approach to pray-reading promoted by LSM. Dear brother Ray Graver - if you are reading this post, you desperately need to repent! Writing a book to document how other dear ones have used the Scriptures in their prayers and have prayed as the read the Scriptures actually condemns LSM's approach since LSM's approach to pray-reading is NOTHING LIKE what we see in the Scriptures or what we see in the testimony of church history.

There is a HUGE chasm between George Whitefield on his knees tearfully reading his Bible and praying over what he read to obtain strength to carry out his campaigns of soul-winning vs. LRC meetings where the pep-rally, rapid-paced, shout-reading takes place.

I don't know Ray Graver's heart at the time of writing, but the purpose of his book was extremely disingenuous. Between this book and Witness Lee's lies while under oath in court, I am INCREDIBLY SICKENED by the whole WL/LSM charade in their so-called "defense". What a bunch of phonies! There is such a blatant disparity between the image LSM tries so hard to publicly display and the true inner workings of their sectarian, aberrant, sick little group. I am no fan of The God Men or The Mind Benders, but I am finding out all the time that other Christians had plenty to be concerned about with LSM and the LRC.

Sorry for the strong language, but finding out the real history behind this book that I have always admired really makes me want to vomit!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And, despite all of your sources and references, you actually have not established that "the word of God is designed to be prayed." It can be prayed. Some of it is already prayer. But you have failed to actually deal with the question. The question is not whether you can pray the word. It is whether it was designed to be prayed. Is there any evidence that, as a general statement, you can show that the word is designed — written with the structure and intent that it would be prayed.

You can make generalizations about where there are prayers contained in scripture. You can find that some portions of scripture were actually prayed by someone else in other scripture. But you haven't established that anything says that it was designed to be prayed.

-----

I could explain that finding prayers, and verses prayed, is like finding verses that say "to the church in [city]" and declaring that churches must be by city. It could be true in some cases. But there are other cases that are not that way. Just as there are a vast array of verses in scripture that are not demonstrated as being prayed, nor are they said that they should be prayed.

No one has said you should not pray scripture. But you cannot find anything that establishes that it is expressly designed to be prayed. That is the point.

This is true, which is why I still like you. You don’t stop until I can get to the punch line. Everything I have shared is relevant to the comment, but doesn’t establish that the word was designed for this purpose.

1 Peter 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers and James 5:16 – The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. God’s ears are open to the prayers of the righteous, their prayers are effectual, and their prayers avail much. Therefore, if you want God to hear and answer your prayers you need to be a righteous man.

Rom 3:28 – we are justified by faith. Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Paul explains that Abraham was fully persuaded that what God had promised He was able to perform, and therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. This is what he is referring to when he says Abraham was justified by faith. So in Galatians Paul says: 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

It is by faith that we are justified, it is by faith that righteousness is imputed to us, it is by the hearing of faith that God ministers the Spirit to us and works miracles among us.

Then Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The word is designed for us to hear it, and when we hear it faith comes. This is how faith comes. Without that faith it is impossible to please God, it is impossible to be justified, it is impossible to be a righteous man that God hears, a man whose prayers are effectual and that avail much. God has designed his word to transmit this faith to us. Prayer is based on faith. This is what James refers to when he says “the prayer of faith” in 5:15. A prayer of faith is your telling God that you have received his promise and are fully persuaded that He is able to perform it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Oh, and finding places where scripture contains the recording of a prayer that we can also pray does not support the general statement that scripture in general "was designed to be prayed." A prayer was designed to be prayed. That is not a general statement about the rest of scripture. So you can correctly assert that "there is scripture that was designed to be prayed" and that would be because it was a prayer when it was recorded.

And just because the word accomplishes God's will, and the words "Thy will be done" are found in a prayer does not support a general statement that the words of scripture are "designed to be prayed." That is just nonsense.

Yes. Pray the Word. Use it all in prayer. We can pray anything (although there clearly is no purpose in praying the American Heritage Dictionary). But that does not make any of it broadly "designed to be prayed." The purpose of scripture in general was not to be prayer. It was to be God's speaking. We can pray it. It is possible to do so. In some cases it is profitable to do so. But I do not see any evidence that, as a whole, it was "designed" as such.

Once again you take a very general statement "the word of God is designed to be prayed" and put your very strict definition on it. If I said Cheerios were designed to be eaten would you assume I was talking about the box?

No it is not nonsense. If I can show you a verse in the Bible that was clearly designed to be prayed that is proof of the statement. I never said that every word was designed to be prayed. I understand that there is a range of acceptance on this point, personally I feel that a very high percentage of the Bible is designed to be prayed, but if others feel only 5% is designed to be prayed, so what, that does prove my statement. Not your absurd assumptions about what the statement meant. This is typical of you. Take a reasonable statement, put absurd inferences on the statement that then make the statement almost impossible to prove and say the statement is false. If you agree, which you have stated that you do, that one word in the Bible is designed to be prayed, then you have agreed to the statement that "the word of God is designed to be prayed". All you are doing is qualifying it to say you don't agree that every word is designed to be prayed. So what?

Likewise, if you agree that the word of God reveals God's will. Then without a doubt praying that God's will be done can certainly involve praying this word back to God as many examples in the Bible attest. Yes, this definitely proves that "God's word is designed to be prayed". Once again you color this statement with an absurd inference that I used the qualifier "every". Also you cut the verse references out of the context. It is as though I had a two step proof and you argue that step one by itself is not a proof?! The proof is this: 1. the Lord taught us to pray "thy will be done" (we all agree this is what is taught), 2. We learn of God's will from the word of God (again, no dispute that the word of God reveals God's will). 3. There are many examples of prayers recorded in the Bible in which God's will from His word is prayed back to God (once again no dispute). Therefore, to pray God's will as revealed in the word is a Biblical practice of the Bible. Try respecting the ways of God and his servants.

Instead, I would say that as you find the easiest words to pray back to God you will find others as well. So although you initially may feel that only 5% of the Bible was designed to be prayed, that percent will grow as you pray.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Instead, I would say that as you find the easiest words to pray back to God you will find others as well. So although you initially may feel that only 5% of the Bible was designed to be prayed, that percent will grow as you pray.

And sung. And declared. And spoken in the congregation. And mulled over. And copied in notebooks.

Etc etc ad infinitum. Yes, also "eaten". Thy words were found and I did eat them.

How that prayer and declaration and singing is to be conducted is perhaps left up to the participant, and not headquarters. Other than that, you and I and OBW and Ray Graver are all pretty much in agreement. We are believers who think it's important to engage God in His word. You know, conduct a transaction with God, which ostensibly equips us to conduct divine transactions to needy vessels in a fallen world.

"I will not let you go unless you bless me" -- Genesis 32

"I held Him and would not let go" Song of Solomon chapter 3

Our manner of holding the Lord in His word should be free to the inspiration of the participant. Lee was free to cut up his steak into little pieces and chew on it; I likewise am free to engage God's word as I see fit.

OBW's objection was that Graver was using the writings and experiences of others as a cover for LC practices, which were quite narrowly dictated to the rank-and-file.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

OBW's objection was that Graver was using the writings and experiences of others as a cover for LC practices, which were quite narrowly dictated to the rank-and-file.

My objection was that he has not substantiated that allegation. I read the booklet back around 1980 or at the latest in the winter of 1981 before the Irving Hall was started. I do not recall it being a "cover". The most I would characterize it as being a polemic in defense of the Biblical and spiritual legitimacy of the practice of "praying the word back to God".

I do not recall that booklet really getting into a prescribed method in which to do this. Now if OBW wants to put his money where his mouth is, cough up the $7, buy the book, and quote the offensive parts to us. If he can prove his case, and I'll let you be the judge of that, then I'll buy the book off of him.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I do not recall that booklet ["Lord, Thou Saidst"] really getting into a prescribed method in which to do this.

True. But as RayLiotta pointed out, that is not the way it is on the street. The publication puts a public face on it. Then, within the actual LRC fellowship, what they call "the church life", you are clearly given the method in which to "pray-read". And if you go into the meetings and deviate from collective practice, you will be marked. You are no longer "one".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My objection was that he has not substantiated that allegation. I read the booklet back around 1980 or at the latest in the winter of 1981 before the Irving Hall was started. I do not recall it being a "cover". The most I would characterize it as being a polemic in defense of the Biblical and spiritual legitimacy of the practice of "praying the word back to God".

I do not recall that booklet really getting into a prescribed method in which to do this. Now if OBW wants to put his money where his mouth is, cough up the $7, buy the book, and quote the offensive parts to us. If he can prove his case, and I'll let you be the judge of that, then I'll buy the book off of him.

Brother ZNP, my suggestion is to post what is on your heart, and not try to win arguments. Some folks just love to challenge everything. It is just a trap. The way out, at least for me, is to write unto the Lord for the unseen reader. Let the other poster disagree, and then let the reader decide.