Repetition, Ritual, Religion

[OGOP]

Precisely this: that words of themselves will never save you, and are the "vain repetitions of the gentiles'' that Jesus spoke of in Matt 6:7;

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.

[Evangelical]

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.

If you go here:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-7.htm


You will find that the Recovery version of this verse is virtually the same as many other versions.

ESV: “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

[OGOP]

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

[Evangelical]

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.

The footnotes say the same thing as the verse.

[Evangelical]

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

Vincent's Word Studies

Use vain repetitions (βατταλογήσητε)
A word formed in imitation of the sound, battalogein: properly, to stammer; then to babble or prate, to repeat the same formula many times, as the worshippers of Baal and of Diana of Ephesus (1 Kings 18:26; Acts 19:34) and the Romanists with their paternosters and aves.


for they think that by their many words they will be heard


The problem is in not believing the power, or the knowledge, or the goodness of God, and resorting to methods such as vain babbling.


(Benson Commentary)
Matthew 26:39-44. For your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before you ask him — We do not pray to inform God of our wants. Omniscient as he is, he cannot be informed of any thing which he knew not before: and he is always willing to relieve them. The chief thing wanting is, a fit disposition on our part to receive his grace and blessing.


Benson's commentary (the parts in bold) reminds me of what 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.

[aron]

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.

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?

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?

Now, my own response is subjective, and anecdotal. I'm not presuming objective reality. But it's worth consideration, and some scrutiny. Not just, "When we do it, then it's 'more God'".

[aron]

Let me rephrase the idea: Paul wrote to the Corinthians that he prayed not only with the spirit but with the mind (or, understanding). See 14:15, &c.

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.

And his campaign was successful, to look at the LSM outreach & indoctrination centres set up round the world. (One coming to a college campus near you)

[Ohio]

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?

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.

[Freedom]

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?

It is interesting, in the LC environment, it seems there is a constant struggle among members to earn respect and to 'prove' themselves. This can be traced back to what is at the heart of LC teachings, that being the emphasis on authority. But it isn't authority that always manifests itself in obvious ways. Sometimes it is evidenced when someone calls on the Lord in a way that is deemed to be to 'quiet', then that person gets called out in front of the group and a snide remark is made, such as "Brother, you need to exercise your spirit."

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. Someone who has no interest in shouting and fist pumping probably can't expect to ever be someone who is looked up to in the LC, rather they might be someone who the elders look down on.

[Ohio]

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?

I remember an interesting little message (testimony?) given years ago by LSM's Kerry Robichaux in the context of a WL message on Pentecostal tongue speaking. (Possibly the I Corinthians Life Study) I don't remember all of the specifics, but KR compared the repetitious sounds of Pentecostal Tongues to pagan practices incited by Kundalini spirits. I do remember that it was the most serious warning I had ever heard concerning "glossa" tongues.

I'm not saying that I buy his teaching on tongues anymore, nor that his words do not have any factual basis, because other Christian ministers have warned of this too. I'm just pointing out the irony of it all. LSM is so keen to warn their people of Christian dangers "out there" in Christendom, but legally blind to the dangers of their own promotions.

Yes, Apostle Paul spoke about saying "the Amen" in our gatherings (I Cor 14.16), but the constant, brainless drumbeat of "amen, amen, amen" was not in the mind of Paul. There were several occasions I recall over the years where someone prayed, either purposely or accidentally, something totally wrong, and the chorus still chimed the "amen" in regular cadence. I too often caught myself in a prayer meeting with my mind wandering off to solve some current work related challenge, while my mouth still droned the constant "amen."

[OBW]

"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."

. . .

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."

It is not even opposing the repeating of mere words. The footnote acknowledges that Paul prayed the same thing thee times (on three different occasions, it is presumed), and Jesus did not merely repeat a few words in rapid succession.

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. Those scenes from Revelation have a group continually falling down and crying out "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty . . . ." Not vain. Just repeated.

And it is easy to declare that someone else's repetition is vain, but not yours (or mine). But do we know? Maybe. But maybe not.

I note that the warning was to those who would be trying to "reach God," not to observers of those people. In other words, the warning is not to me so I can judge others based on my opinion of their vanity, or lack thereof. It is to me to be ware that I do not simply mouth words over and over in hopes that they do something for me.

Same words. Different source. Different result.

At times, no matter how bad I think a lot of LRC teachings are, it is the ingrained attitude that they need to compare themselves to others in a judgmental way that seems the most insufferable. Like the Pharisee raising his voice to God to compare himself to the publican over in the corner who is honestly crying out "be merciful to me a sinner."

[aron]

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.

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:

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).

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

[Evangelical]

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/

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.

[aron]

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. .

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.

[Nell]

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.

aron,

Is it not true that Satan himself used Scripture to tempt Jesus in the wilderness? While the words of the Bible are neither vain nor useless, the words of the Bible can and have been used nefariously by God's enemy. This would highlight a third problem with the "Evangelical" assertions. If Satan can quote scripture, then the vain repetition of God's word is not only possible but likely. Hence the warning in Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

The mesmerism piece is scary. Before the hall on Ball Road was built, at least one training was held in the Anaheim Convention Center with about 3000 people in attendance. One meeting the group was chanting "Oh Lord Jesus" and the floor was literally swaying up and down. It was mesmerizing. I was caught up in that moment like everyone else, until I wasn't. 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.

Nell

[Ohio]

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.

What "broke the spell" for me personally was watching that Whistler Kangaroo Court display of unrighteous hypocrisy on youtube. They went on for hours bringing fake charges against Titus Chu in absentia contrary to scripture, and then had a "seventh inning stretch" moment, "let's all stand and call on the Lord 5 times."

Pathetic!

[OBW]

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.

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.

[Ohio]

It is obviously the struggle of every child of God to keep our hearts and minds engaged in the worship of God. Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman that His Father seeks "true worshipers who will worship in spirit and reality." God had long been bored with the rituals of Israel, "honoring with the lips, but the heart is far away." The words of Isaiah are quite telling (Is 29.13)

And so the Lord says, “These people claim they are mine.
They honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
And their worship of me is nothing but man-made rules learned by rote.

Isaiah's rebuke, also quoted by Jesus, starts with exclusive claims that they alone are the Lord's. I was indoctrinated by LSM for decades that they were uniquely the Lord's testimony. We convinced ourselves that we alone worshiped in spirit and reality. In this lies the sickness of prideful arrogance, not that we desired to be the Lord's or be true worshipers, but that we were instructed that we alone were the Lord's and His true worshipers.

That begun the downfall of every exclusive group, including ours. Does not pride precede the fall? Every time! So what do we do? Repent? No, of course not! Everyone else needs to repent! We are the Lord's Recovery! We keep doing what we have been doing, as pride moves our heart further away. Meanwhile the so-called "interpreted word" of the ministry replaces the actual word of God. Our worship, without spirit and reality, gets easily codified with ordinances and traditions of man.

Like the sister who tore up the Lord's Table bread because it was made with whole wheat flour and not bleached white flour. Like the elder who stopped a testimony because it did not course with HWFMR. Like the demand to call on the Lord 5 times during an exhaustive excommunication. Like the quiet worshiper who got exhorted to "exercise her spirit" to ramp up the volume. Human traditions and standards. All passed down from headquarters.

[Evangelical]

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.

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.


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.

[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. ...

Only God knows if a prayer is vain or not.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Only God knows if a prayer is vain or not.

Nell

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.

[aron]

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.

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.

[Evangelical]

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.

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.

[OBW]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Evangelical]

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.

I dont think Pauls prayer for healing was in vain. 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.

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.