F.E. Marsh: What Is Prayer?

Comments

1. Martin says

   April 15, 2013 at 12:24 pm

   Why have you used Roman numerals? It stops the Bible verses from coming up.

   • Chris Poblete (BLB) says

     April 15, 2013 at 3:42 pm

     Thanks, Martin. The Roman numerals were in the original source. It has now been updated to show Arabic numerals.

2. Jim says

   April 15, 2013 at 8:06 pm

   What’s prayer with out Believing mean?

3. Martin says

   April 16, 2013 at 12:15 am

   Thank you.

4. Tess says

   April 16, 2013 at 4:04 pm

   Prayer is communication with God. It’s time to commune with Him and be quiet in His presence as we listen for that still small voice. It’s not about what we ask for and are we gonna get what we ask for. It’s about having a relationship. If we view prayer as a vehicle to get something we want from God we do not understand prayer.

   It’s a time you spend in quiet just loving Him. Away from the noise pollution of the world and the distractions. A time to come and sit at His feet and pour out to God your heart and I think more importantly to listen.

   When we teach our children to pray we have them hold their hands together and close their eyes. These things block out distractions of the world so you can spend time together with your Creator. We are so noise oriented that we don’t know how to truly listen and be still.

   Elijah said when he heard Gods voice it was a still, small voice. Still meaning God doesn’t yadda, yadda, yadda like everything else. His voice didn’t have words, His voice was still. An impression on your heart. We’re so used to noise we can’t hear the message when it doesn’t boom over the idiot box or the noises we’ve become accustomed to.

   He makes Himself available 24/7. He is not removed from His people. The nature of God is not like unto gold, or silver or stone or graven by any man’s device. We can’t pray to a statue and pretend it’s God. Psalm 115

   We fail when we can’t sense the nearness of God because our minds are fixed on earthly things. He knows what you have need of before you ask Him so prayer properly used isn’t to get stuff. It’s to detect His nearness and practice being in His presence.

   I fail so much in sensing and detecting the presence of God and practicing the nearness of being in His presence. We aren’t wrong to ask God for healing or things we need or prayer for friends but we have not been taught to sit and just abide in His presence and that’s the most important thing about prayer and the one thing I believe the church has neglected to teach. Meditate on His ways. Let His Spirit come and commune with your own.

   How many times have you begun to pray only to think a couple of minutes later, “Hey wait, I was praying a minute ago and my thoughts pulled me away”? That’s a trick from satan. He doesn’t want you in God’s presence he wants you stuck in worldly concerns.

5. Mark Hayes says

   April 16, 2013 at 4:55 pm

   I give thanks to God for this teaching from Chris.

   There is a wonderful teaching from Ecclesiastes 5:1-2 “Walk prudently when you go to the house of God; and draw near to hear rather than to give the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they do evil.” “Do not be rash with your mouth, And let not your heart utter anything hastily before God. For God [is] in heaven, and you on earth; Therefore let your words be few.”

   So like Tess I find myself in agreement with her words “We are so noise oriented that we don’t know how to truly listen and be still.”

   I began in struggle in my own prayer time to know the Lord’s presence and to learn to discern His still small voice.

   Yet godly teaching from men of earlier generations such as Andrew Murray and Charles Spurgeon as well as now America’s Dr Charles Stanley encouraged me to persevere and to be expectant in hearing God.

   Andrew Murray’s book on “In the School of Prayer with Jesus Christ” (or similar title)truly gave me much to meditate on and to consider, though I found it a difficult read at first. (Mostly I think because it is a book of depth and much meditation).

   As I persevered in prayer, taking Mr Murray’s advice I saw the Lord Jesus as my Teacher in prayer with me. The words “Do not be rash with your mouth, And let not your heart utter anything hastily before God” from Ecclesiastes 5:1-2 became my cry and plea to the Lord Jesus, because I continually found my own thoughts rash and the utterances of my heart hasty before God’s throne and especially when I was given to discern God’s voice.

   I cannot claim to be an expert on the matter of prayer but what I can now share is that the Lord Jesus has answered my cry and enables me to come in a quieter and more still heart which can better await on God. In such an attitude of spirit one is able to draw near to God and know His presence.

   I still wish my words would be fewer in the holy place with our Lord as is taught in Ecclesiastes 5:2 yet I praise God for His grace in allowing me to now know His presence in prayer.

   I whole heartidly agree that prayer is a place to know the living presence of the Lord.

   As we draw near in lowly reverence as the men I have mentioned above teach of(AND attitude can be demonstrated in physical position also), coming in a heart of praises and thanksgiving and asking the Christ to still our mind and our heart, so the Lord Jesus Christ our God will draw near to His own.

   May the Lord Jesus Christ keep me in His school of prayer.

   God bless
   Mark Hayes NZ

   • Tess says

     April 16, 2013 at 7:14 pm

     Thanks for the book title Mark. I heard of another book the other day that I’ve placed a request from the library for. They Found The Secret by Victor Raymond Edman.

     http://www.amazon.com/They-Found-Secret-Raymond-Edman/dp/0310240514

     As a librarian I’d like to point out that libraries all over the country stock their books largely by patron request. Requesting godly books not only gives you access to them but also has a profound effect on the public. It’s a witness to a world searching for answers. I can’t tell you how often these types of books when checked out come back with profound comments about them and satan knows this too. The trend toward dark evil books is growing and there is what’s termed a mash-up. Childrens stories with an evil demented twist. Such as Dick and Jane and the Vampire.
     One reviewer states:
     See Dick, See Jane, See Dick and Jane play with a Vampire.
     See Dick, See Jane, See the Vampire trying to replace their father. Oh, Oh, Oh!
     See Dick, See Jane, See the Vampire being creepy with the kids.
     See Dick, See Jane; See them hook the vampire up with someone other then their mommy.
     See, See, See…..

     Is there a way to combat this? YES! Request and support Christian books at your local library.

     I’m sorry to get off topic but I felt it was worthy of mention.

6. Barbara LeFevre says

   April 24, 2013 at 5:31 pm

   Tess~

   To begin, the reason that I didn’t address your questions is because the purpose of this dialogue is to determine whether true, born-again believers can lose their salvation, not to discuss hypothetical scenarios, at least at first. I meant to include this comment in my post but forgot. Once it is determined whether Scripture proves or disproves eternal security, then we can branch off into specific situations. Otherwise, there is no scriptural foundation upon which to examine and rightly judge them.

   You wrote, “ I answered the question about Matthew 24:13 quite thoroughly….” The fact is, Tess, you didn’t, and you contradicted yourself. As to what Matthew 24:13 says, you wrote, “This very clearly says that in the end times believers will have to endure and not take the mark of the beast or compromise. They will be persecuted and they must endure even to the point of death” (April 9). When I pointed out, using the verse in context, that Jesus was not talking merely to those in the “end times” but to believers of all ages (April 13), you responded by telling me that “All scripture can be viewed as past, present and future in it’s lessons to us. I tend to view all scripture as applicable then, now and in the future” (April 15). Taking both of your explanations, you are simultaneously saying that this verse applies only to those in the “end times” as well as to those in the “past, present and future.” I would appreciate further clarification on your two statements because, obviously, they both can’t be true. Two other problems arise with your view, which you didn’t address either. The first is that God would have two different standards if your first premise is true, one for believers in the end times and one for believers in the rest of time. Can you provide Scripture to support two salvation messages? Secondly, even if your first premise is true, that this verse only applies to believers in the end times, then you still haven’t reconciled the fact that this verse is saying that they have to endure to the end to be saved with your opinion that believers cannot lose their salvation. Please explain why your conclusion that believers cannot lose their salvation disagrees with how you, yourself, view these believers having to endure in the end times to be saved.

   You have spared no words or criticisms throughout these posts and others with regard to my approach to Scripture or my interpretation of Scripture or me personally. One example was your comment that “I think we all step right onto a slippery slope when we don’t let the God’s Word speak for itself,” implying that I don’t, although you plainly say about yourself that “I take the word and believe what it says.” Okay, let’s put that to the test. Apparently, according to you, I am not letting “God’s Word speak for itself,” so please tell me what the words in Matthew 24:13 say? What, exactly, did Jesus mean when He said, “But he who endures to the end shall be saved”? I don’t want any long, drawn out rhetoric about how we are to approach the Word. I don’t want your opinion of me or of how you think I wrongly interpret Scripture or use fallacy. I don’t want your ideas on any other verses in God’s Word. All I want is for you to tell me what is being said in these 10 short words in their immediate context. On April 9, you wrote, “Using God’s words out of context to try to prove what Barbara states as fact (that believers can loose [sic] their salvation) is not dividing the Word of God correctly.” In order for anyone to write something like this, he or she would have to have the correct understanding of this verse in its context and be willing and able to share it, taking it word for word if necessary. In addition, you wrote, “I noticed that you want to come to conclusions based on ‘isn’t the converse true?’ Barbara I don’t deal in converse conjectures. I take the word and believe what it says.” In the first place, I used that method of explanation exactly once, so please don’t generalize. Secondly, to rephrase something in converse, or opposite terms, is not “conjecture;” it is paraphrasing, saying the same thing in different terms, and there is absolutely nothing biblically or logically erroneous or suspect in doing so. In fact, it is what we all do, including you, to explain what the Bible says. It is not one bit different than saying that whosoever does not believeth in God’s Son shall perish, the converse of John 3:16. Thirdly, you made the comment that you “…don’t concern [yourself] with converse issues about other believers.” What does this even mean, and why are you implying a difference between your walk with the Lord and that of other believers? Doesn’t all of God’s Word apply to all of God’s people?

   With regard to the seven churches, you said a great deal that needs to be discussed, but for this post, I am primarily just going to address your idea that these letters are written to the “tares among the wheat,” whether, as you think, the entire church is one of tares or whether it is just a portion of the church. Here I am not arguing that there aren’t tares among the wheat because Scripture tells us that there are (Matt. 13:30) but only that these letters are not applicable to them for the following reasons:

   ~The first thing to consider is that the tares are nonbelievers, and as such, the Bible was not written for them. As II Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the MAN OF GOD may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (caps mine). While God’s Word certainly writes ABOUT the tares, it was not written TO them, only to the “man of God” as Jesus says in Revelation 1:4a “John TO the seven churches which are in Asia” (caps mine).

   ~Along those same lines, we are told in I Corinthians 2:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.” In other words, because the tares are “natural [men],” they cannot even understand God’s Word, so it would be illogical for God to have written letters to them.

   ~Finally, we don’t need to speculate who the recipients of these letters are because we are explicitly told in Revelation 1:4 that Jesus revealed them to John who revealed them to “the seven churches” through angels. The word “churches” is “ekklēsia” (Strong’s G1577), and it means “in a Christian sense…b. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake.” In other words, these letters were written to believers in believing churches.
   These three points are my proof that all seven of the letters were written to believing churches, individual bodies of Christ; therefore, the consequences given are for believers. What is your evidence to disprove what I have written to support your belief that they were written, wholly or partially, for the tares?

   You wrote, “I’ve also asked you to supply me verses (I believe I asked for 6 verses from you where the Word states a believer can loose [sic] their salvation.) Give me a chapter, give me something because if you can’t you need to seriously consider why you can’t defend something you so vigorously contend is true.” Actually, Tess, what you wrote was “Point to one chapter or even 6-10 consecutive verses that say ‘repentant believers’ can loose [sic] their salvation” (April 9). In the first place, the reason we are having this discussion is to examine verses that, I believe, do very much say that “repentant believers” can lose their salvation. You agreed to look at the three I listed, so why are you asking me to give you additional verses now? I do have scores of examples (verses, passages, and chapters), but let’s take care of the three before we go on to more, okay? Secondly, if you are actually asking me for an exact statement such as “Repentant believers can lose their salvation,” you know that just because something isn’t stated in specific wording that it doesn’t mean that it isn’t a biblical truth. For example, you know that there is no exact statement that says, “God is a Trinity” or “There is a Triune God,” but you believe that there is one because Scripture implies it in numerous ways as you argued on February 11 to Jerry, so if you’re going to insist that a specific phrase be forthcoming to prove that believers can lose their salvation, then you also must follow suit and provide one about the Trinity. Just to let you know, I do believe in a Triune God; I’m just making a point. You can’t demand something that you, yourself, cannot provide. God chose to reveal His Word as He saw fit, and for whatever reasons, He purposed that some of His truths were not to be found in emphatic statements, but this doesn’t mean that they aren’t there. As I hope to show, if we can get past even this one verse, it is not a “hidden” doctrine; it is one of the most thoroughly documented truths in the Bible.

   Although you addressed the seven churches, I don’t agree with your conclusions because I believe the evidence shows that the letters were all written to believing churches, and there is nothing stated or implied to suggest otherwise. In other words, where is any internal evidence that links what is being said in the verses themselves to your conclusions about them being wholly or partially “tare” churches, especially because the format is exactly the same for each one? Jesus gives a commendation, a correction, a call, and a consequence for each church, and there is no indication that He is speaking to two different groups, the wheat and the tares. I think we can wait on the consequences until you can show how you have arrived at your conclusions, but I do want to ask one question about the church in Sardis. You wrote, “Sardis (This one the whole church is tares. They are by name only but they are dead. Again they have time to repent and no final judgment is pronounced by Jesus and He’s the one who counts.).” I agree that Jesus is the “one who counts,” and here is what He says to the church in Sardis: “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels” Rev. 3:5). There are a few phrases in this verse that need explanation, but let’s just focus on one. Please explain, if this “whole church is tares,” or unbelievers, why Jesus would tell them that if they overcometh that He “will not blot his name out of the book of life”? Obviously, the only way one can have his or her name blotted out of the book of life is if one had it written in there to begin with, and the only way it can be written into it is if the person was saved, a born-again believer, wheat, if you will. Now how can the “whole church [be] tares,” as you believe, and also have its name written in the book of life?

   Finally, when you wrote about the church in Philadelphia, you said, “Again there’s no believers are gonna [sic] burn statements,” a sentiment you used in several of your explanations about the churches. As I wrote earlier, just because there isn’t an emphatic statement doesn’t mean a specific truth cannot be implied, and this example proves my point. No, there aren’t any “burn statements,” but when one has his or her name “blotted out of the book of life,” then that person is going to perish, in a burning hell, for eternity, which is exactly the same thing, is it not? Therefore, when I asked, “what is being said,” I know full well what is being said in Revelation 3:5, for example, because it isn’t a verse laden with figurative language or other ambiguous factors that would rend it a difficult excerpt to understand. It was very much an honest question meant for you to tell me that if it doesn’t mean what I can plainly read that it is saying, then, please, by all means you tell me “what is being said,” but you didn’t. I don’t mean to be insulting, but you didn’t include anything in your explanations that proves your premise. You cut and pasted some of the verses and gave one or two general comments, some “I thinks,” and then concluded that because there were no “burn statements,” that Jesus wasn’t speaking of believers losing their salvation, and you did it without addressing even one of the consequences themselves. I don’t understand that at all. If you are so sure that I am wrong, then why can’t you take the seven consequences and examine them? At this point, I will settle for the one about the church in Sardis, and you don’t even have to address all Jesus’ comments, just the one about having one’s name blotted out of the book of life.

   I noticed you included a great deal of information on Hebrews 3, but because we decided that we would leave the Hebrews verse for another time, I’ll address what you wrote when we get to the Hebrews verse.

   I would really like to move on from this one verse and onto others. You don’t need to write much. Please just tell me what Jesus means when He says, “But he who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13), and tell me how tares can have their names blotted out of the book of life when they haven’t been written into it (Rev. 3:5). Thank you.

   Barbara