1. We should always be open to the possibility that whatever is going on here is our own fault.
2. We need to pray for our enemies (all of them!) in the same way we pray for our friends.
3. Sometimes we need the prayers of those who have sinned against us, as a matter of the gospel.
I'm on board with 1, which seems indisputable. But I think there's a distinction to be made between personal and public enemies in 2, which distinction cuts against your point. And I'm really having trouble getting my head around 3 at all.
Regarding the second point, I think you're missing a distinction between one's personal enemies and one's public enemies. A man's personal enemies are those who have some kind of personal connection to him, those who have taken specific actions that adversely affect him (or those under his protection), immediately and directly. But with a man's public enemies, there really isn't anything personal about it. Nothing David French, Russell Moore, or Roundheels McClownlaugh--or anyone of their ilk--says or does is really directed at me, as an individual. They're clearly directed at one or more groups of people that include me, but David French, etc., isn't really **my** enemy in any meaningful way. They've just set himself up as an enemy of God's people in general.
I think that when Jesus says to pray for one's enemies in the Sermon on the Mount, he's talking specifically about personal enemies. I don't see it applying to public enemies. That would be akin to asking an Israelite to pray for the Assyrians. Sure, Jonah was sent to preach to them, but 1) he was a prophet specifically commissioned to do that (more on that later); and 2) there are also plenty of instances in which God's people pray for the destruction of their enemies, are called to do so, or rejoice when such destruction occurs. Both Old and New Testaments. I think you'll find that such instances almost invariably involve public enemies.
If this passage of the Sermon on the Mount changes anything, it's really only with respect to a man's personal enemies. And even there, you still see examples like Paul's interactions with Alexander the coppersmith.
As to the third, yes, Abraham was to pray for Abimelech. But I don't think you the story of Abraham and Abimelech permits lends itself to abstracting a principle that the gospel somehow requires us to think about the possibility that we need the prayers of someone who has sinned against us. I think the principle we're supposed to learn here is that the unrighteous require a mediator, specifically Christ. Abraham was the anointed covenant head, not some random schmuck like you or me. Abraham has to pray for Abimelech for the same reason Job has to pray for his friends: both were divinely appointed mediators for the unrighteous.
I don't see how you go from there to the idea that it is incumbent upon us to act as if we might somehow require the prayers of people who clearly hate us. Not just because David (unprintable) French isn't any kind of covenant mediator, but because nobody else--except Jesus--is either.
I see you making three basic points here:
1. We should always be open to the possibility that whatever is going on here is our own fault.
2. We need to pray for our enemies (all of them!) in the same way we pray for our friends.
3. Sometimes we need the prayers of those who have sinned against us, as a matter of the gospel.
I'm on board with 1, which seems indisputable. But I think there's a distinction to be made between personal and public enemies in 2, which distinction cuts against your point. And I'm really having trouble getting my head around 3 at all.
Regarding the second point, I think you're missing a distinction between one's personal enemies and one's public enemies. A man's personal enemies are those who have some kind of personal connection to him, those who have taken specific actions that adversely affect him (or those under his protection), immediately and directly. But with a man's public enemies, there really isn't anything personal about it. Nothing David French, Russell Moore, or Roundheels McClownlaugh--or anyone of their ilk--says or does is really directed at me, as an individual. They're clearly directed at one or more groups of people that include me, but David French, etc., isn't really **my** enemy in any meaningful way. They've just set himself up as an enemy of God's people in general.
I think that when Jesus says to pray for one's enemies in the Sermon on the Mount, he's talking specifically about personal enemies. I don't see it applying to public enemies. That would be akin to asking an Israelite to pray for the Assyrians. Sure, Jonah was sent to preach to them, but 1) he was a prophet specifically commissioned to do that (more on that later); and 2) there are also plenty of instances in which God's people pray for the destruction of their enemies, are called to do so, or rejoice when such destruction occurs. Both Old and New Testaments. I think you'll find that such instances almost invariably involve public enemies.
If this passage of the Sermon on the Mount changes anything, it's really only with respect to a man's personal enemies. And even there, you still see examples like Paul's interactions with Alexander the coppersmith.
As to the third, yes, Abraham was to pray for Abimelech. But I don't think you the story of Abraham and Abimelech permits lends itself to abstracting a principle that the gospel somehow requires us to think about the possibility that we need the prayers of someone who has sinned against us. I think the principle we're supposed to learn here is that the unrighteous require a mediator, specifically Christ. Abraham was the anointed covenant head, not some random schmuck like you or me. Abraham has to pray for Abimelech for the same reason Job has to pray for his friends: both were divinely appointed mediators for the unrighteous.
I don't see how you go from there to the idea that it is incumbent upon us to act as if we might somehow require the prayers of people who clearly hate us. Not just because David (unprintable) French isn't any kind of covenant mediator, but because nobody else--except Jesus--is either.