In order to demonstrate this, it is necessary for me to first go through a quick overview of the purpose and design of prayer so as to keep the atheist detractors at bay. Prayer is not a cosmic wish-list of wants. God is not Santa Claus, nor is He a genie in the bottle who will grant us our three wishes so long as we use the magic phrase “In Jesus’ Name” at the end. Prayer is first and foremost an act of worship.
Jesus gives us some instructions on prayer. We know from the Lord’s Prayer, found in Matthew 6 and Luke 11, that before we pray for “our daily bread” we first pray “thy will be done.” Indeed, the focus on the will of God being done is exemplified when Christ prayed in the garden before His death, saying: “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done” (Matthew 26:42).
Proper prayer, therefore, must begin with its roots in the sovereign will of God. Indeed, no matter what we plan, it is God’s will that shall prevail:
Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit"— yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that" (James 4:13-15).Prayer does not inform God of new information. In fact, immediately before presenting us with the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus tells us: “your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Matthew 6:8). Indeed, this is repeated in verse 32 of the same chapter, when Christ tells us not to worry over our basic needs: “your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.”
What is the purpose of prayer then? Again, it is primarily our act of worship whereby we acknowledge the source of all that we have and are. We acknowledge the sovereignty of God by admitting our dependence upon Him.
But prayer is also a means that God uses to enact His will. For instance, James informs us: “You do not have, because you do not ask” (James 4:2). However, he also cautions: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions” (James 4:3). God uses prayers to bless His people, but He will not do so with wrongly motivated prayers. Again, prayer is not a magic formula to get rich quick. It is worship first, and asking for things out of wrongful passion will not gain you anything.
When we ask God for anything, we must always temper it with “thy will be done.” That God uses prayer as a means to His ordained ends does not mean He will grant you everything you wish willy-nilly. In the end, His will is done, and we, as godly Christians, must submit to His plans and purposes.
The sovereignty of God is absolute, and this is where we find the inconsistency in Arminianism. While virtually all Arminians will gladly say they believe in a sovereign God, they likewise maintain that God cannot do certain things unless we do things first. For instance, God cannot save someone unless that person, of his own volition, desires to be saved first. And while many Arminians temper this by saying it is not that God can not, it is that He will not, the fact remains that if the Arminian argument is right, then if God wills to save despite man's heart then God violates man’s freedom and God becomes the author of evil while man becomes a robot. In other words, the argument that Arminians use only makes sense if God literally cannot save people He desires to save, and therefore it is a case that God cannot save those whom He desires to save.
Yet despite this stated argument, Arminians (in general) have no problem at all praying that God save lost people. I work with many Arminians, as I’ve mentioned before, and none of them have a problem praying: “Lord, open the hearts of those who are ministering to that they may turn toward you.”
They do not realize that this prayer only makes sense in a Calvinist framework. God cannot “open the hearts” of anyone without violating their libertarian free will, if the Arminian position is correct. And He certainly cannot do it if the prayer comes from someone else.
In short, the above prayer (so common even in the most stringent of Arminian churches) is a prayer that God violate free will. It is a Calvinistic prayer, one that acknowledges that God is sovereign and “The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps” (Proverbs 16:9).
Took a break moving boxes of books and read Peter Pike’s latest, and I gotta respond to this one, I cannot resist (actually I can choose to resist but choose instead to respond).
ReplyDelete“Yet despite this stated argument, Arminians (in general) have no problem at all praying that God save lost people. I work with many Arminians, as I’ve mentioned before, and none of them have a problem praying: “Lord, open the hearts of those who are ministering to that they may turn toward you.””
Right, non-calvinists pray for nonbelievers and we pray that God would open their hearts so that they might understand the gospel and then be able to respond to it in faith. As God tells us that He loves the world (Jn. 3:16) with a salvific love, and God commands us to take out the message to the world (Matt. 28- great commission), and if we are obedient to the Lord and also love the lost we will then pray that the Spirit do His work of opening the hearts of unbelievers. We pray this way we because we know that the Spirit has to reveal Christ to people, reveal who He is, what He has done, how a person can be saved by placing their confidence/faith in Christ’s work of atonement, etc. etc. We are praying in line with God’s will as He desires for all to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2;1-6).
”They do not realize that this prayer only makes sense in a Calvinist framework. God cannot “open the hearts” of anyone without violating their libertarian free will, if the Arminian position is correct. And He certainly cannot do it if the prayer comes from someone else.”
Peter please explain how is opening the heart of people VIOLATING THEIR LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL???
Free will is about having options. If the Spirit reveals Christ to a person thus giving them another option which prior to the work of the Spirit they were unaware of, how is that a violation of their free will their capacity to make choices from alternatives. Adding an alternative does not give us less choices it gives us more. If we go to the restaurant and the waiter tells us the special of the day, which is not in the menu, how is giving us another option which we did not have before, violating our free will?
”In short, the above prayer (so common even in the most stringent of Arminian churches) is a prayer that God violate free will. It is a Calvinistic prayer, one that acknowledges that God is sovereign and “The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps” (Proverbs 16:9).”
It is not a calvinistic prayer it is a Christian prayer for God to reveal His Son to nonbelievers. It is in fact a prayer that both noncalvinists and calvinists can pray and ought to be praying. It is not a prayer that God violate free will. Again, how does it violate free will? When a person is listening to a sermon and God puts something on their heart, convicts them of something they need to do or not do, how is being made aware of this option violating their ability to choose. They still have to choose to act according to what God shows them. Likewise, the Spirit may reveal Christ to you, but you still have to choose to trust in Him for salvation. Peter your claims that this prayer violates free will in the libertarian sense are mistaken.
Robert
Robert said:
ReplyDelete---
Took a break moving boxes of books and read Peter Pike’s latest, and I gotta respond to this one, I cannot resist (actually I can choose to resist but choose instead to respond).
---
Riiiight.
Too bad you forgot to respond to what I wrote and instead responded to what you thought I had written.
I'm serious when I say you need to take a Hooked on Phonics course. Context and hermaneutics are beyond you. Right now, I'd settle for a basic grasp of sentence structure.
You said:
---
Peter please explain how is opening the heart of people VIOLATING THEIR LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL???
---
A) Did they choose to have their heart opened?
B) Your idea of what it means to have one's heart opened (e.g. having more options) is not the Biblical idea of having one's heart opened (see Ezekiel 36:26).
C) It's completely unnecessary for God to open someone's heart if it's just giving them new information so they can make a choice. That's done by simple proclamation of the Scripture. There is no reason that God needs to open anyone's heart unless you affirm the total depravity of man in the first place.
You said:
---
Free will is about having options.
---
Congradulations! You have successfully redefined "free will" for the 19th time in our discussions. One more and you get our complimentary steak knives collection!
This kind of back and forth cutting down of each other is what makes me wonder if any of the studying either of you do will ever make you loving which is supposed to be the outcome right?
ReplyDeleteAhh Robert, so non believers just don't have enough information to make an informed choice. If only they had more information (choices), they would clearly choose Christ.
ReplyDeleteOf course this is rubish. Even the Arminian does not believe such noscense.
What we need is a Jeremiah 31 heart transplant - a heart that is "willing" to receive the gospel. And that's precisely what the sovereign God of the universe provides to those whom He calls (John 6, 10). Praise God he wasn't waiting for me to perform the surgery and performed it Himself! I will joyfully praise the Great Phsyscian for his mighty works for eternity! God will get all the glory, and I will have no room to boast (Ephesians 2).
Heath,
ReplyDeleteAnswering a fool according to his folly is sometimes valid.
By the way, if I hated Robert, I wouldn't challenge his errors. I'd let him march off into heresy and pretend he's correct.
I agree to answer wrong theology is loving, but it is the manner and attitude in which it is done that was so unloving. I am not opposed to having fun and maybe that is what is happening here I don't know, but as I listen to and read folks that defend the faith, the main turnoff for me and many others is the attitude in which it is done, not the information that is exchanged.
ReplyDeleteHeath,
ReplyDeleteYou nailed it. Lots of puffed up knowledge by both Steve and Pete. They make valid points but the manner in which they communicate is disheartening. They seem far too proud of themselves.
Heath wrote:
ReplyDelete“This kind of back and forth cutting down of each other is what makes me wonder if any of the studying either of you do will ever make you loving which is supposed to be the outcome right?”
In my post to Peter I did not cut him down or in any way attack him personally. I did challenge his writing because I believe it to be wrong and because it inaccurately presents the noncalvinist position. Regarding manner of posting, you are correct that we are to speak the truth in love and the bible has some clear admonitions about how we are to interact with nonbelievers (cf. 2 Tim. 2:24-26) with gentleness and patience with those who oppose us, and says much more about how we are to interact with believers (i.e., seeking to build up not tear down, treating believers even better than we treat nonbelievers because we are all part of the one family of God). Friends of mine have made these points before with the Triablogers but they have not taken it to heart. So you can expect for them to insult and attack you if you challenge their beliefs (e.g. Peter is insulting me by claiming that I need to take a phonics class and Steve Hays is insulting me saying that I must have been drunk; all of this is unacceptable speech towards other believers, but they keep engaging in it.
Note Peter Pike’s response to Heath:
“Answering a fool according to his folly is sometimes valid.”
This is yet again an unnecessary put down. I am not a fool according to the description given in Proverbs (if I were I would be unsuited to be an elder at a local church, and I am an elder). The fool in Proverbs is also an unbeliever who is callous towards the things of God and to correction (he hates reproof and hates those who reprove him).
Pike continued:
“By the way, if I hated Robert, I wouldn't challenge his errors. I'd let him march off into heresy and pretend he's correct.”
It is difficult to take this seriously when you examine his other snide comments towards me. Also if this is how he speaks to those who are other believers whom he is to speak to in love, what does his hating look like then? From my end and my friends who follow these threads but are no longer commenting it sure does not look like love for another brother at all.
Heath added:
“I agree to answer wrong theology is loving, but it is the manner and attitude in which it is done that was so unloving. I am not opposed to having fun and maybe that is what is happening here I don't know, but as I listen to and read folks that defend the faith, the main turnoff for me and many others is the attitude in which it is done, not the information that is exchanged.”
Heath you are absolutely correct here. It is not just what we say, but the manner in which we say it. As one of my friends puts it: you can win the battle with your argument but you can be dead wrong with the attitude that you had when you presented your “winning” argument.”
The Christians who I have most admired and learned from are people who are extremely smart and also very gracious in their dealings with others. You can especially see Christian maturity in trials or in this case, how they handle people they disagree with. Anyone can treat their friends well and Jesus said the world does that, but the Christian is to go further and treat even their enemies well.
Of course it is really sad when Christians treat other Christians they disagree with as enemies and fools (this cannot be pleasing to the Lord), with insults and scorn and veiled hatred by the use of words. Thanks for your words and reminder Heath. Keep us accountable to interact with each other in a way that pleases the Lord.
Robert
Hey, I can do that too!
ReplyDelete*sniff*
I wish Robert wasn't such a meanie.
I present arguments and all he does is ignore them.
He offers one-line commentary that is irrelevant. A typical response goes like this.
First, I state the sky is blue. If Robert agrees, he says:
"I have to respond to this one even though my toast is burning and I forgot to flush earlier this morning.
The sky is blue, not vermillion or even chartruse. It is sky blue. As L.T. Hewitt says, 'Blue skies are the color of air on a wing.' This is why Calvinists cannot be trusted.
Did I mention I'm an elder?"
If he disagrees he says:
"Peter says the sky is the color of dead Smurfs.
No it isn't! It is REALLY vermillion. As E.F. Chadwick said, 'A blue sky is with a pie.'
In order to be blue, it must be ACTUALLY blue. It must be REAL blue, not chartruse.
But your blue isn't a REAL blue. I know because I capitalize it each time. Therefore, it's not REALLY, REALLY, blue.
And furthermore, I am not an Arminian even though I look like one."
Oh well.
WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG? WHY DO ARMINIANS HAVE TO BE SUCH MEAN PEOPLE ALL THE TIME?
I agree with everything Peter said. Those Arminians are brutal people here when they hijack T-Blog posts. All they do is nit pick and whine.
ReplyDeleteAll you Arminians are a bunch of heathens! If you knew what was good for you, you'd be nice!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your words of affirmation, anonymous people. I only long for the day when Arminians would accept Calvinists with loving arms rather than the back hand of fellowship.
ReplyDelete. Friends of mine have made these points before with the Triablogers but they have not taken it to heart
ReplyDeleteActually, we're not so sure about that. Some of believe it has only ever been one person, namely you who have done so. Either that, or you all have the same writing style as if you are working from a stylesheet or script.
the bible has some clear admonitions about how we are to interact with nonbelievers
The Bible also comes chocked full of impreccatory psalms. Indeed some of its strongest language is reserved for the apostate. We answer a person on their own level many times in order to draw them out. It exposes their hypocrisy when they object.
Let's take for example, the time you came here and said that Steve was condemning a believer to hell as a false teacher. You deliberately violated the 9th commandment. We haven't forgotten that. You never repented for that.
I did challenge his writing because I believe it to be wrong and because it inaccurately presents the noncalvinist position.. Who are you to speak for all "nonCalvinists?" Indeed this very statement is quite careless, since "non-Calvinism" comes in various stripes. "Non-Calvinism" is an amorphous shapeshifter. There is no single target. It constantly moves.
he hates reproof and hates those who reprove him
Since you regularly refuse to be corrected when we tell you what Calvinism actually teaches, I should think you qualify for the first. Let's take your continued, perpetual conflation of certainty and causality. No matter how many times we correct you, you refuse it. When you violate the 9th commandment by rewriting the historical record repeatedly, as in
the first time you began posting under this name, you seem to demonstrate the latter.
Indeed, you obnoxiously coopt many threads here. One more time, blogger software is free. Instead of behaving exactly like "Orthodox" you should get your own blog and post to your heart's content. It would help us respect you more. You've had months to do this, yet you perpetually refuse.
Indeed you retreat into complaining about the way you are treated as a diversionary tactic for not having to deal with the responses to what you write on a regular basis.
"Prayer Doesn’t Make Sense Except In Light of a Reformed Understanding of Sovereignty" is an idiotic statement since the Calvinist idea of Sovereignty is that no sovereign can allow anyone else to do anything or they cease to be sovereign. Your citation of James illustrates the point, "you do not have because you do not ask," which you follow up with by saying that God uses prayer to bless his people. What? Did the great Sovereign forget to predetermine my asking? If asking is something, I must do, does it not make God lose his sovereignty according to the Calvinist idea of sovereignty? Indeed it does! Yea also, according to the usual Calvinist definition of merit, if God gives me something because I ask for it, I have merited it and can boast. (I argue as a Calvinist, that is, as a fool.) We (those who are not Calvinists) know that to ask is not to merit, and that a sovereign doesn't have to personally do everything to remain a sovereign. God doesn't have to literally be in absolute control of your anus to be God. He can and does set natural laws into order, and when you defecate God does not have to take some sort of active action to make it so. Not that he couldn't do so if he wanted to, but he doesn't have to in order to retain his sovereignty. Prayer destroys the Calvinist view of sovereignty, for we see that God will will to do something, YET NOT DO IT UNTIL PEOPLE ASK FOR IT. As you say, God wants to bless his people, and to use prayer to do so, yet "you have not because you ask not."
ReplyDeleteHeath said:
ReplyDelete"I agree to answer wrong theology is loving, but it is the manner and attitude in which it is done that was so unloving. I am not opposed to having fun and maybe that is what is happening here I don't know, but as I listen to and read folks that defend the faith, the main turnoff for me and many others is the attitude in which it is done, not the information that is exchanged."
Do you also apply that same yardstick to Scripture? Do you judge the Bible by the tone of a particular author in a particular passage?
robert said...
ReplyDelete“Treating believers even better than we treat nonbelievers because we are all part of the one family of God).”
Of course, this is Robert’s fundamental failing. He imagines that, as a professing Christian, he should be held to a lower standard than we would apply to unbelievers. He uses his Christian profession the way a politician pulls rank on a policeman who pulls him over for DUI.
“Friends of mine have made these points before with the Triablogers.”
Naturally his friends see things his way. Al Capone’s friends saw things his way as well. But the Book of Proverbs distinguishes between good friends and bad friends. Robert has simply surrounded himself with friends who reinforce his license.
“But they have not taken it to heart.”
This is one of his typical lies. Gene and I (among others) have, indeed, corrected them on the way they selectively quote Scripture out of context while disregarding other verses that don’t support their contention.
Robert simply repeats himself rather than addressing our corrections. He quotes Scripture the way a prosperity preacher quotes Scripture.
“So you can expect for them to insult and attack you if you challenge their beliefs.”
I’ve never objected to Robert challenging my belief. What I object to his chronic dissembling.
“All of this is unacceptable speech towards other believers, but they keep engaging in it.”
Here’s a simple rule of thumb:
If you want to be treated like a Christian, you need to act like one.
Robert imagines that he is above the authority of Scripture. He fancies himself exempt from the elementary duty to tell the truth.
But, according to Scripture, professing believers who are guilty of impenitent misconduct (like Robert) should be treated like profane pagans (Mt 18:17).
Robert keeps hiding behind the name of Jesus to shield himself from Biblical reproof for his habitual dishonesty.
“(If I were I would be unsuited to be an elder at a local church, and I am an elder).”
Every apostate denomination has church officers. So what? Vicki Gene Robinson is an elder in his church.
“Keep us accountable to interact with each other in a way that pleases the Lord.”
But Robert isn’t accountable to the word of God. He thinks he has a free pass to prevaricate at will.
"Prayer Doesn’t Make Sense Except In Light of a Reformed Understanding of Sovereignty" is an idiotic statement since the Calvinist idea of Sovereignty is that no sovereign can allow anyone else to do anything or they cease to be sovereign
ReplyDeleteFalse, we deny libertarian freedom. God is not sovereign if His decrees can be violated. What God has determined will be done will, in fact, be done. The Libertarian denies this. We affirm, for example, that there is no such thing as gratitous evil. We affirm that the Fall was decreed, not merely the possibility of it.
We also teach that God uses means to accomplish His decrees. We distinguish between a decree and providence. We've been over this with you before.
What? Did the great Sovereign forget to predetermine my asking? If asking is something, I must do, does it not make God lose his sovereignty according to the Calvinist idea of sovereignty?
No, because God's responses to prayer are parts of His decree, and some parts of his decree are contingent on other parts. This too has been covered with you before, but you're too dishonest or too ignorant to acknowledge it.
Yea also, according to the usual Calvinist definition of merit, if God gives me something because I ask for it, I have merited it and can boast.
So, your argument is that God's good gifts are, in fact, deserved. Okay.
What Calvinists say that if God gives us something for which we ask, we have "merited" it, and that therefore, this is out of bounds with respect to orthodoxy?
I argue as a Calvinist, that is, as a fool.
Yes, your facile understanding of Calvinism does, indeed make you a fool. Indeed, you are the epitome of the fool in the first section of Proverbs.
God doesn't have to literally be in absolute control of your anus to be God.
Of course Calvinism distinguishes between the absolute and ordinary power of God. We distinguish between decrees (certainty) and providence (causality). We have a healthy doctrine of secondary causation. This, of course, gets ignored by you.
He can and does set natural laws into order, and when you defecate God does not have to take some sort of active action to make it so
1. "Natural law" is the theology of the deist. It's nice to know where your sympathies do, in fact, lie.
2. See above on secondary causality and providence.
Prayer destroys the Calvinist view of sovereignty, for we see that God will will to do something, YET NOT DO IT UNTIL PEOPLE ASK FOR IT.
Of course, we affirm that the end and the means are both decreed, so you haven't begun to demonstrate what you set out to demonstrate.
Being somewhat new to this and to this site I would like help in reading up on the decrees and providence of God that has been mentioned a great deal.
ReplyDeleteCould one of you point me to where I could read about this on your site? Thank you for your help.
Magnus said:
ReplyDeleteBeing somewhat new to this and to this site I would like help in reading up on the decrees and providence of God that has been mentioned a great deal.
Could one of you point me to where I could read about this on your site? Thank you for your help.
**************************************
Here are two standard treatments:
http://www.amazon.com/Providence-God-Contours-Christian-Theology/dp/0830815333
http://www.lgmarshall.org/Warfield/warfield_predestination.html
Steve,
ReplyDeletethank you for those two links, i have started reading the Wrfield one and have ordered the other on off amazon.
I wonder if any of you have written on it here at Triablogue? I have seen comments to Robert in particular which leads me to believe that there would be, but I have not found them in the archives as of yet. I wish to read more on the decrees and providence of God and how the relate to cause and effect.
With that said, do you know of any post here at Triablogue that you could direct me too to read up on this more?
I've pointed out the same inconsistency to Arminians about praying for others' souls that you made clear here.
ReplyDeleteIt seems obvious to me that Arminians are people who don't have the guts that Calvinists do. They just can't stomach the idea that God's absolute sovereignty tolerates pedophilia and flesh-eating bacteria. Calvinists are blessed with a rock-solid faith, I guess...
I wrote what I thought was a fair and appropriate post suggesting yet again that the tone and manner of the Triablogers needs to improve and be more in line with what the bible says about how Christians are to interact with one another. I also ended with a suggestion that we all seek to please the Lord in the way that we interact with one another. Instead of agreeing and then attempting to do so, Steve Hays engages in yet another unwarranted personal attack. Here were some of the comments:
ReplyDelete[“This is one of his typical lies. Gene and I (among others) have, indeed, corrected them on the way they selectively quote Scripture out of context while disregarding other verses that don’t support their contention.
Robert simply repeats himself rather than addressing our corrections. He quotes Scripture the way a prosperity preacher quotes Scripture.
I’ve never objected to Robert challenging my belief. What I object to his chronic dissembling.
Here’s a simple rule of thumb:
If you want to be treated like a Christian, you need to act like one.
Robert imagines that he is above the authority of Scripture. He fancies himself exempt from the elementary duty to tell the truth.
But, according to Scripture, professing believers who are guilty of impenitent misconduct (like Robert) should be treated like profane pagans (Mt 18:17).
Robert keeps hiding behind the name of Jesus to shield himself from Biblical reproof for his habitual dishonesty.
Every apostate denomination has church officers. So what? Vicki Gene Robinson is an elder in his church.
But Robert isn’t accountable to the word of God. He thinks he has a free pass to prevaricate at will.”]
Steve you need to stop engaging in this sort of personal attack against me (e.g. accusing me of habitual dishonesty, guilty of impenitent conduct). And you need to seek to improve your manner of interacting with me and others, and do so in a way that honors the Lord and obeys His commands about how we are to interact with one another.
I really would like to discuss subjects here without Hays’ insults and personal attacks. And the bible clearly calls believers to engage in interactions which build up one another, manifest gentleness, kindness and love. There are clear commands on this in the New Testament (some which have been presented by others here before). I do not believe that my request is unreasonable. Steve if your personal attacks towards me do not stop, and stop now, then give me the name of your senior Pastor and the local church you attend and we will go that route.
Robert