Prayer is the most effective means we have of achieving victory in spiritual warfare, because prayer is how we petition our almighty God to come to our aid against his enemies. But there is a way that the power of prayer can be subverted by effeminate conditioning.
It happens by reasoning like this: since God is all-powerful and all-wise, he is infinitely more competent than us to both know how to achieve victory, and to implement that winning strategy. Therefore, once we have prayed, we should leave everything to God. Our job is done.
This is very much like thinking that since God is the one who changes hearts, and he can reach anyone he chooses to save through his Spirit without need of human help, therefore we need not evangelize. Just sit back and watch our Savior work!
In fact, it is not merely *like* thinking this; it is the *same* as thinking this, because evangelism itself is spiritual warfare (e.g. Mt 16:18). The command to evangelize (Mt 28) is a command to fight. We are commanded to fight in spiritual warfare, not to let go and let God.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of anywhere in Scripture that God fights *in place of* his people without first telling them explicitly that this is what he will do. There are many places, however, where he fights *alongside* them without explicit instruction or advice.
This comes down to whether the spiritual and the physical reflect realms each other. Does spiritual warfare follow similar principles and patterns to physical, or are they utterly different? We would never presume to instruct our army to sit back after praying in a physical war.
Scripture teaches that the physical, in fact, reflects the spiritual. This is why Paul knows that it is *he* who engages in spiritual warfare against those who suspect him of walking in the flesh. He fights on behalf of God; but it is not God who fights in his place.
So in 2 Cor 10 he threatens that he is going to have to be bold in face to face conflict with those saying he walks according to the flesh—in order to destroy, take captives, and punish. The objects of the warfare are different, and the weapons, but the tactics remain the same.
In other words, there are two requirements for success in the battle for the West:

1. *We* must fight
2. *God* must give us victory

Number 2 doesn't happen without number 1 in the ordinary scheme of things. But it also doesn't happen with actually asking, often and earnestly.
To close, here is a song written about the attack on Pearl Harbor, describing the words of a real chaplain, to both summarize the principle, and encourage you in implementing it:

Btw, most wartime skills don't come naturally. Scripture is our final authority, but it is not our only guide, and it is not a tactical manual. To supplement it, read faithful men who have actually achieved some success in war. Here's a great primer:

amazon.com/Rules-Reformer…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with D. Bnonn Tennant

D. Bnonn Tennant Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @bnonn

13 Sep
The Western world is falling apart. It's OK to be distressed about this, but it's not right to be anxious.

Adam put his wife over his God; their world fell apart.
Cain killed his brother; their world fell apart.
Men gave their daughters as wives to angels; that world fell apart.
It fell apart so badly that God took it all the way back to uncreation. But Noah found favor in his eyes.

Then Noah got drunk and his son did something nasty and their world fell apart.

The men of Babel tried to build the highest high place; their world fell apart by tongue.
Then there were nations, and they all fell apart. Babylon fell apart, Persia fell apart, Greece fell apart, Rome fell apart. Israel fell apart after just one good king.
Read 8 tweets
10 May
"Accordingly, each must be on guard for a particular set of sins. The man must struggle against forcing his principles and pressing upon others every possible consequence, and the woman must wrestle continually against her deficiency in logic that is manifested both in...
"...rigid tenacity and incorrigible willfulness, as well as in a fickleness that defies every form of argument. The man is susceptible to the danger of doubt and unbelief, rationalism and dead orthodoxy, while the woman risks no less a danger of...
"...superficial piety and superstition, mysticism and fanaticism. The loquaciousness of the woman contrasts with the incommunicativeness of the man. The vanity of the woman is no worse than the coarse indifference of the man. The infidelity of the man is matched by...
Read 4 tweets
5 Mar
Why must women be trained to love their husbands, love their children, be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, and in subjection to their own husbands?

Paul explains: "That the word of God be not blasphemed" (Tit 2:5).
Women who invert this order, leaving their husbands at home, refusing their theological guidance and taking up leadership in the church, are *blasphemers.* @BethMooreLPM is a blasphemer. @aimeebyrdhwt is a blasphemer. Rachel Miller is a blasphemer.
And the elders who promote and enable these women promote and enable blasphemy. According to Paul, @jdgreear promotes and enables blasphemy. @albertmohler promotes and enables blasphemy. @RScottClark promotes and enables blasphemy. @ToddPruitt6, Carl Truman and many others also.
Read 6 tweets
2 Mar
We tend to interpret other people's behavior based on our own motivations and feelings. This is why wrongdoers are often paranoid: they assume that people are as covetous/lustful/dishonest etc as they are, and will therefore easily pick up on their sin. It's called projection.
I've noticed that androgynist women tend to find masculine competence threatening. Such a woman feels compelled to publicly proclaim her greater competence—then interprets any non-affirming response from men, whether competitive or disgusted, as insecurity in their masculinity.
As with other wrongdoers, this tells us less about normal men and more about the androgynist woman. Because she is trying to act the man, she is terribly insecure in her sexuality.
Read 8 tweets
20 Feb
Weak, doughy hirelings who accuse strong, tough shepherds of legalism for preaching that a living faith requires masculine piety…
Willful, unruly scolds who accuse gentle, quiet wives of legalism for holding that a living faith requires feminine piety…
These are about as surprising as…
Read 10 tweets
19 Feb
To argue that women do not have a different ontology to men because then they would not be human beings indicates that you don't know what ontology involves. Ontology is simply the nature of a being.
It is uncontroversial to say that men and women have different physical natures. Male physical nature is objectively different to female nature, being formed by XY chromosomes rather than XX.
So why is it controversial to say that men and women have commensurately different spiritual natures? The visible reflects the invisible, so we should expect physical differences to correlate to spiritual ones.
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!