# Change in Sentiment, i.e. Doctrinal Shift



## doulosChristou (Aug 1, 2005)

Brethren!

I´ve been studying through a doctrine over the past six months and have finally made a switch on my stance. It was about 2:30AM early this morning while reading through the gospel of Luke in the original Greek that the light suddenly and finally came on in my mind. I just had to laugh when I saw it there on the page so clearly. I must have read Luke 11:2 dozens of times before but never really "œsaw" it until today. As the truth came flooding into my mind, all the other barriers to the doctrine began falling like dominoes until there was nothing left to do but laugh out loud and just accept that I´ve been most blinded and wrong about how corporate prayer is proscribed for the church assembly until today. Like most of you, I was raised by default to believe that the church can simply pray within the corporate worship service as one would outside of corporate worship just as long as the prayers were reverential and appropriate to worship, but I now know that we are much more restricted than that. There is only one authorized prayer given to the church "“ the Lord´s Prayer. "œAnd He said to them, "˜When you pray, say: "˜Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come "¦" It was the verb translated "œsay" which grabbed my undivided attention. It is a command. It is in the imperative. It is a command to the church. It is an active imperative plural. When we pray assembled together as a church, we are commanded to say (not to "œmodel", but to actually _legw_ "œsay") the very words given in Luke 11. Follow with me as I take you through what was revealed to me in the early morning hours to see how one is to arrive at the Lord´s Prayer Only (LPO) position.

First of all, since we are given a specific and explicit command to pray whenever we pray corporately saying the words given in Luke 11, the burden of proof is clearly on those who hold to the Uninspired Prayer (UP) position. According to the RPW, there must be a specific command in Scripture compelling the church to offer up uninspired prayers during the worship service. Since no command exists, uninspired prayers are forbidden from the worship service. Secondly, what better prayer to pray than a divinely inspired prayer, the very one given to us by the Lord Himself? Praying back to the Lord the very words of Himself have the added benefit of causing the ones participating in the praying to be at the same time memorizing Scripture. This was the conclusion of the early church fathers. As Cyprian wrote in his Treatise on the Lord´s Prayer:



> Let us therefore, brethren beloved, pray as God our Teacher has taught us. It is a loving and friendly prayer to beseech God with His own word, to come up to His ears in the prayer of Christ. Let the Father acknowledge the words of His Son when we make our prayer, and let Him also who dwells within in our breast Himself dwell in our voice. And since we have Him as an Advocate with the Father for our sins, let us, when as sinners we petition on behalf of our sins, put forward the words of our Advocate. For since He says, that "whatsoever we shall ask of the Father in His name, He will give us," how much more effectually do we obtain what we ask in Christ's name, if we ask for it in His own prayer!
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-114.htm



The introduction of uninspired prayers into the worship service was introduced early in the church´s history, particularly by heretics such as Origen (who offered up prayers for the dead), polluting corporate worship more and more gradually over time. This culminated when, by way of the Act of Uniformity of 1662, ministers were compelled by the State to pray uninspired prayers out of the man-made compilation within the Edwardian 1552 Book of Common Prayer. It was the Separatists within the Puritan movement who objected most strenuously to the Book of Common "œuninspired" Prayer. Those who by default were raised up in UP homes may well object, stating that we are told to worship in spirit and in truth, and so as long as the prayer is true and spiritual then it is permissible and cannot be called sin. Cyprian responds thus:



> For what can be a more spiritual prayer than that which was given to us by Christ, by whom also the Holy Spirit was given to us? What praying to the Father can be more truthful than that which was delivered to us by the Son who is the Truth, out of His own mouth? So that to pray otherwise than He taught is not ignorance alone, but also sin; since He Himself has established, and said, "Ye reject the commandments of God, that ye may keep your own traditions."
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-114.htm



Other UP proponents may likewise object, stating that LPO proponents inconsistently err by restricting acceptable prayer to Luke 11 only and not to other inspired prayer such as the Prayer of Jabez. However, it should come as an obvious observation that we are never once commanded to pray in the context of corporate worship reciting the prayer of Jabez or any other man´s prayer recorded in Holy Writ. We are, on the other hand, commanded explicitly to "œWhen you pray, say: "˜Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come "¦" I rest my case. 

Satirically yours,

dC


----------



## JonathanHunt (Aug 1, 2005)

Get out! You're banned. You, and your children, and your children's children!


----------



## blhowes (Aug 1, 2005)

Nice job!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 1, 2005)

Gregory, I love it. You just became one of my best friends! 

Ok, Gabe, Matt, Scott, etc. . . . let's hear your response to this one.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

Satire. It definitely is satire.

Studying a theology of prayer would not allow us to exlcude the rest of the bible and exegetical considerations to solely lean on Luke's "legow." Legow my eggo. _Please._

You're not comparing apples and oranges, you're satiring apples, spaghetti and sushi.

Take your next step and exegete Matthew 6 in conjunction with Luke. Or go thorugh the psalms.

"In this way or manner..."

Remember that in your satire you made fun of the EP argument by using the UH tactic of appealing exclsuively to Eph. and Col. The EP does not do this. He starts exegetically in the OT and moves forward. 

I would hope that on such dubious idea you would not make a shift until you finished putting together a "theology of prayer."

A+ for effort though. 

Mocking, though, is not nice.
Job 12:4, "I am as one mocked of his neighbour."
Romans 13:9, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."



[Edited on 8-1-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> Mocking, though, is not nice.
> Job 12:4, "I am as one mocked of his neighbour."
> Romans 13:9, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."




And sometimes the most loving thing you can do for you neighbor is to try to whack a little sense into him . . . & sometimes satire does that very trick. I think Gregory did a great job. 

Don't forget, satire is even used in the Bible. Sometimes it is just what is needed to show the ill-logic of an opposing view.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Aug 1, 2005)

Oh, man, you had me there! As I was reading that I was thinking, "What am I going to post in reply?" 
"You can't be serious" came as my only answer.

....and I'm glad you weren't!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



It doesn't show ill-logic because to do that he would have to have a complete exegetical theology of prayer (in other words, that one passage would have had to be the ONLY passage to deal with on the issue) - which is WHY it is satire (nonsense). Instead, he did a simple "exegetical" idea into ONE passage, and came up with a fun story to read, but has no bearing whatsoever on the EP argument.

Again, the "satire" was funny, but not remotely biblically attainable. In other words, exegetes do not have to deal with it because it is fiction.


----------



## doulosChristou (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> A+ for effort though.



Thanks!



> _Originally posted by webmaster_Mocking, though, is not nice.
> Job 12:4, "I am as one mocked of his neighbour."
> Romans 13:9, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."



A bit of friendly teasing, but no mocking or scoffing directed at you, brother.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

No problem brother.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> You're not comparing apples and oranges, you're satiring apples, spaghetti and sushi.



For a minute there, I thought you were going to let loose with some verse quoted from the Apocryphal Prophecy of Jacque Pepin, which some interpret as "food, food, and food"...

Todd


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 1, 2005)

Hee, hee, hee


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...


----------



## pastorway (Aug 1, 2005)

that is the most clever thing posted in a long while.....

thanks!

I do hope though that none of our resident keyboard theologians adopt this new doctrine after accepting your hermeneutic.......I really do not want to get into that argument!



[Edited on 8-2-05 by pastorway]


----------

