Pray-Reading

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not sure that I would assert that the word of God was "designed to be prayed." It was designed to reveal God through its various forms. Among the various ways that you may be able to use and understand portions of it would include through prayer.

But the last time I read anything by the LSM that was trying to show others "pray reading" I was unable to conclude that any of them (or at least few of them) actually engaged in what the LRC had called pray-reading. I've heard scripture used in prayers in many ways, but outside of the LRC, I have not heard, or heard of such a practice that looks like their version of it.

What I recall from what I read was some descriptions of some notable people through history that made reference of some kind of prayer as they read the scripture. Virtually all of these were part of their personal study time. And I somehow recall only finding one or two that were even possibly found to have mixed the scripture in with their prayer, although the description I recall was still nothing like the deconstruction that was practiced in virtually every LRC endeavor that I had any knowledge of or participation in.

So they found "pray" or "prayer" within a reasonable proximity of the word "read" within a sentence that was talking about scripture and determined that their practice was thereby blessed.

I would agree that the word was designed to reveal God but I would add that it reveals God's will as well. Jesus taught us to pray like this "Thy will be done". I wouldn't know God's will if it wasn't for his word.

Now you might not be so sure, but Hannah, Solomon, Moses, Joshua, and Daniel all prayed God's word to Him. And, Mary's praise in Luke could be considered a thanksgiving for answered prayer, in which case she clearly viewed the Bible verses as prayers designed to be prayed.

Hannah prayed in 1Samuel 2:1-10 and that, to my mind, is a Biblical example of praying the word of God back to God.

Solomon’s prayer, recorded in 2 Chronicles 6 is also, to my mind, a Biblical example of praying the word of God back to God.

Moses prayed to God in Numbers 14:17-19 saying “let the power of my Lord be great, according as thou has spoken, saying…” to which God responded in verse 20 “I have pardoned according to thy word”. Moses prayed God’s word to Him and God pardoned according to Moses’ word which was in fact God’s word spoken by Moses.

In Joshua 19:50 it says that Joshua prayed for a city to be given him “according to the word of the Lord” and “according to the word of the Lord they gave him the city which he asked”.

Daniel prayed the word in Jeremiah concerning the return of Israel back to God.

Mary’s praise beginning in Luke 1:46 could be a praise for answered prayer. The verses she quotes can easily be viewed as promises of God. We are instructed to remind God of His promises.

1Thess 3:1 tells us exactly what to pray for. Clearly, if you receive that word and pray according to Paul’s request it is fair to say that word was designed to be prayed.

Psalm 119:25 “quicken thou me according to they word” – yes this word of God is a prayer and I would say was designed to be prayed.

Psalm 119:28 “strengthen me according to thy word” – ditto

Psalm 119:49 “remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast caused me to hope”. Praying the promises of God back to God is a way of reminding God of these promises. Not only does the word teach us the promises of God but we are also instructed to remind God of these promises. Repeatedly the men of God prayed that God would “remember His word”.

119:58 I intreated thy favour with my whole heart: be merciful unto me according to thy word. Again, another word in the Bible that I would say was designed to be prayed.

119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. The Lord taught us to pray that God’s will would be done on Earth as it is in heaven. This verse says that God’s word is settled in heaven. God’s word reveals His will.

119:133 Order my steps in thy word: The Lord taught us to pray that God would forgive us as we also forgive others. Our actions and our living are intertwined with our prayer. But this verse tells us that our steps are ordered in the word. James says that the prayer of a Godly man is very effective. How can you be a Godly man apart from God’s word?

Isaiah 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Clearly God spoke a word to accomplish something, that by definition, is His will. The Lord said that we are to pray “thy will be done”. Surely the Lord’s instruction is referring to this very thing. This is a promise, from God, that we should remind Him of. Yes, this word was designed to be prayed.

Jeremiah 1:12 Then said the LORD unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it. This is another example that the Lord’s will is revealed in His word.

29:10 For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. This word was prayed back to God by Daniel.

2:17 The LORD hath done that which he had devised; he hath fulfilled his word that he had commanded in the days of old: This is a principle that is repeated over and over in the Bible. God will fulfill His word. Therefore it is a very powerful thing to remind God of His word and pray that He would fulfill it, even as Jesus taught us.

12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, The word of God has a burden. I believe that we join with the Lord’s burden in prayer, that is where we agree with God. That to me, is what the Lord instructed us to do when He taught us to pray.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would agree that the word was designed to reveal God but I would add that it reveals God's will as well. Jesus taught us to pray like this "Thy will be done". I wouldn't know God's will if it wasn't for his word.

These verses all have to be stretched beyond recognition to support the type of pray-reading practiced in the LC. They are not even close. They do not indicate the Bible was designed to be prayed. You are reading into them something not intended, for why I don't know.

What I'm wondering is why you feel so strong as to over reach in your support for pray-reading.

I haven't pray-read for 30 yrs, and don't miss it at all. In fact, if I did try to pray-read the Bible I'd feel silly and stupid, like I would be in need to have my head examined.

What a silly unnecessary practice. May as well say some Buddhist mantra over and over again, or whirl like the dervishes. And that's okay if that's what you want to do. Sometimes being silly can be fun. So have at it. Pray read all the day long. Just don't let family and friends catch ya doing it, or they may check you into Bellevue for a 3 day mental examination.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

These verses all have to be stretched beyond recognition to support the type of pray-reading practiced in the LC. They are not even close. They do not indicate the Bible was designed to be prayed. You are reading into them something not intended, for why I don't know.

What I'm wondering is why you feel so strong as to over reach in your support for pray-reading.

I haven't pray-read for 30 yrs, and don't miss it at all. In fact, if I did try to pray-read the Bible I'd feel silly and stupid, like I would be in need to have my head examined.

What a silly unnecessary practice. May as well say some Buddhist mantra over and over again, or whirl like the dervishes. And that's okay if that's what you want to do. Sometimes being silly can be fun. So have at it. Pray read all the day long. Just don't let family and friends catch ya doing it, or they may check you into Bellevue for a 3 day mental examination.

I think the issue here is "the practice in the LRC". I am not defending the practice in the LRC. What I have said consistently from my first post on this thread to this one is that "pray reading" as defined by RG's book is scriptural.

OBW has argued that this book was written to defend the practice of the LRC and that by using the term "pray reading" it is a form of equivocation. I feel that it is too strong to accuse RG of this without more evidence. However, I think applying his use of equivocation to this thread is very accurate. Everyone that disagrees with my posts has done so based on "the practice in the LRC" whereas no one has actually disagreed with what I have actually said, which is "pray reading as defined in RG's book is scriptural".

The second thing that I have argued is that there was not a uniform practice of pray reading. When I was in Houston it was clearly a practice that was being hyped and sold, but not necessarily embraced or employed. When I was in Irving working on the hall it was almost non existent. When I was in Odessa, I did not bring this practice, nor did GW (thankfully) so it was not an issue at all. When I was in the FTTT it was there and I ignored it. When I was in NY the practice in the meetings was quite different from the practice in Dunton house and it was a minor irritant (as a High School teacher I have a high tolerance for minor irritants).

The third thing I have argued is that with sin and the flesh we should be absolute and uncompromising. But since this was neither we should be general, strict on ourselves, general with others. I have stated that judging the way a man serves his Lord is to cross a line and you will regret that at the Lord's judgement seat. But having said that I have fulfilled my responsibility.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the issue here is "the practice in the LRC". I am not defending the practice in the LRC. What I have said consistently from my first post on this thread to this one is that "pray reading" as defined by RG's book is scriptural.

OBW has argued that this book was written to defend the practice of the LRC and that by using the term "pray reading" it is a form of equivocation. I feel that it is too strong to accuse RG of this without more evidence. However, I think applying his use of equivocation to this thread is very accurate. Everyone that disagrees with my posts has done so based on "the practice in the LRC" whereas no one has actually disagreed with what I have actually said, which is "pray reading as defined in RG's book is scriptural".

The second thing that I have argued is that there was not a uniform practice of pray reading. When I was in Houston it was clearly a practice that was being hyped and sold, but not necessarily embraced or employed. When I was in Irving working on the hall it was almost non existent. When I was in Odessa, I did not bring this practice, nor did GW (thankfully) so it was not an issue at all. When I was in the FTTT it was there and I ignored it. When I was in NY the practice in the meetings was quite different from the practice in Dunton house and it was a minor irritant (as a High School teacher I have a high tolerance for minor irritants).

The third thing I have argued is that with sin and the flesh we should be absolute and uncompromising. But since this was neither we should be general, strict on ourselves, general with others. I have stated that judging the way a man serves his Lord is to cross a line and you will regret that at the Lord's judgment seat. But having said that I have fulfilled my responsibility.

Actually, I started by trying to find out when the book was actually written and whether it was the one that described the very disjointed, deconstructive practice of pray reading. I believe that Igzy and/or someone else had suggested that Lord Thou Saidst was written during the turmoil of the Nelson/Mindbenders lawsuits and would appear to be defending the LRC's pray reading.

I do not recall where I read it, but through some online resources, either in the LSM online books, or through another repackaged web site, I read several of the comments actually made by some of the people that were cited earlier. It has been a long time, so finding it again in the format that is drifting foggily through my brain could be difficult. But I recall that virtually none of them described anything like what I had ever seen as the practice of pray reading in the LRC. I admit that I only saw Dallas, Arlington, and Irving, plus whatever happened at conferences (mostly Dallas, Houston, Austin or Irving) and trainings (Anaheim or Irving).

Relative to my experience and observation, RG's book does not represent anything descriptive of the LRC practice of pray reading. So there is a disconnect from the very beginning outside of the use of the term "pray reading."

You need to forget this "judging a man's servant" malarkey. That is just a way to hide error. RG is the only one "judged" at any level and according to the rules of this forum, he is fair game. If you don't like it, argue why the judgment is incorrect. Just saying it should not happen is sooo like saying that we will be struck down for leaving the LRC. You sound quite foolish for it.

Besides, in the capacity as writer of the book we are discussing, whose servant is RG? If you argue that he is God's, then we might as well shut this forum down because we are all God's servants. And to take that position is to presume that he is actually doing what he did at the behest of his master. I don't think that God directed RG to write a book about a practice that the LRC did not employ so that through a common terminology it would be viewed as covering a practice that they did employ. That is deception. That is actually called equivocation. RG may have been blind enough to actually think that finding practices that mixed prayer with reading scripture was sufficient. But if he did, then he is not qualified to be writing such a book, or having anything to do with leading an organization of more than a handful of people.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

RG may have been blind enough to actually think that finding practices that mixed prayer with reading scripture was sufficient. But if he did, then he is not qualified to be writing such a book, or having anything to do with leading an organization of more than a handful of people.

Hence my surprise a year ago to learn that he is. RG has his strengths, no doubt about it, manna man would probably be better than me at describing them, but he is no theologian. You can be sure that thorny issues of doctrine are handled by RK or KR, not RG.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

You need to forget this "judging a man's servant" malarkey.

And how many other verses have also been removed from your "bible?"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And how many other verses have also been removed from your "bible?"

It is not the removing of the verses. I believe it is the inappropriate use of them to stop a righteous inquiry. Just because someone does something at someone else's behest is no excuse. To take that verse to mean that we are unable to judge RG is to suggest that the lackeys of mafia bosses are excused because they are "dealing with" his rivals at his behest and not merely on their own.

I believe that this verse is being used in an incorrect way. In the context, the only master in question is God. This is about the meat v no meat controversy in Romans 14. It is not about someone doing something at the behest of some human master. There is a context. It is not so general as to forgive everything.

Besides, it is clear from other words by Paul that we are not to judge the world, but we are to judge the believers. This is why there is church discipline. This is why we do care about teachings. It is how we decide to "refuse" certain teachers. It is a judgment.

Just because one verse says "Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?" does not make that an overarching command. It is specific concerning things with no command. It is about what meat you can eat. No command. Each man acts according to his conscience before God. There is no parallel to RG writing Lord Thou Saidst.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I believe that this verse is being used in an incorrect way. In the context, the only master in question is God. This is about the meat v no meat controversy in Romans 14. It is not about someone doing something at the behest of some human master. There is a context. It is not so general as to forgive everything.

Then you must take into account the context of Romans 14. By attacking RG's supposed motives in writing a book, you have "elevated" his motive to those of eating veggies and celebrating Christmas. You have become as narrow and as judgmental as the ones you judge.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Just because one verse says "Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?" does not make that an overarching command. It is specific concerning things with no command. It is about what meat you can eat. No command. Each man acts according to his conscience before God. There is no parallel to RG writing Lord Thou Saidst.

If there is no command to not write books then writing a book falls under Romans 14. What is written is another matter. That's the teaching which we can judge. But we cannot judge someone simply for writing a book.