Should Christians pray for the sick? On the face of it, that’s a ridiculous question to ask. Of course Christians should pray for the sick!
I agree that it’s absurd. Yet it’s absurd in the same way eliminative materialism is absurd.
Depending on the premise, it’s not so absurd. A ridiculous conclusion may follow logically from a ridiculous premise. If you take physicalism for granted, then eliminative materialism is not absurd–given the premise.
So why do I ask the question? Well, we have Arminians like Roger Olson and Ben Witherington who deny that God directly or indirectly causes natural evils like life-threatening diseases. God is not responsible for cancer or natural disasters. So they say. That’s not his bailiwick.
But in that event, it’s less clear why we should pray to God to heal a sick loved one. If God has nothing to do with illness in the first place, why would we expect him to interfere? On their view, isn’t natural evil part of a closed system?
Likewise, what if the patient is unconscious? What if the patient can’t consent to our prayer? Should God forcibly heal them? Doesn’t that violate their freedom of choice? He didn’t give them a chance to refuse divine healing. Should God let all comatose patients die?
What if a loved one is mentally ill? In that condition they can’t give informed consent. Should we pray for them? Aren't we imposing on them?
If I see you drowning, but am in no position to help you myself, I'd exhort the man who is on the bank next to you to help pull you from the water. After your life is saved, whether or not you want to enter into a relationship with that man is completely up to you, is it not?
ReplyDeletePeople having free will doesn't mean they have complete freedom over all creation. You can't change the sun purple just because you want to. You can't stop your buddy from slapping you on the back when you don't see it coming. Likewise, if God wants to respond go a prayer by healing you that is up to God, not you. But again, that does not mean you have to get into a relationship with anybody if you are determined not to. Even a jailer can't make you freely enter into an actual relationship with him if you don't want to. You could choose to take his food and even tortures while completely ignoring him if you really wanted to. So I don't see why God healing you forces you to get into a relationship with Him, or why God's acts in the world are different for your free will than the actions of others around you that also force responses from you.
Not anonymous6/27/2012 3:14 PM
ReplyDelete"If I see you drowning, but am in no position to help you myself, I'd exhort the man who is on the bank next to you to help pull you from the water. After your life is saved, whether or not you want to enter into a relationship with that man is completely up to you, is it not?"
Your illustration is confused. The real comparison is not whether a drowning swimmer wants to have a relationship with the lifeguard, but whether he wants to be saved from drowning without his consent. What if he jumped off the peer to commit suicide? Should you rescue him against his will?
The question is not whether he wants to have a "relationship" with you after you fish him out of the water, but whether your rescue attempt is, itself, an infringement on his freedom of choice.
"People having free will doesn't mean they have complete freedom over all creation."
Irrelevant to the point of the post.
"Likewise, if God wants to respond go a prayer by healing you that is up to God, not you."
True. But is that consistent with an Arminian theology of prayer?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteFreedom of will is essentially about whether or not one wants to have a relationship with God. Arminian theologians don't maintain ghat God doesn't act in the Universe. When God parted the Red Sea that had huge implications for all involved. But how they reacted to that event was free. If a woman runs up and gives you a big kiss you must react to that event one way.or another. How is God healing you different in terms of your free will? God can and does act in the universe. Why you think that means that arminians have a confused notion of free will is not very clear. Matter, animals and other persons (including God) all produce events that impact one in the universe. Only a universe with no possible interaction could be any different. One must respond to.such events in their own free way. But the only choice relevant to salvation is whether or not one enters into a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and nothing you have said here indicates a lack of freedom in such a choice.
Not anonymous
ReplyDelete"Freedom of will is essentially about whether or not one wants to have a relationship with God."
Actually, it's essentially about making our own choices. Choosing for or against God is just a special case of that broader principle.
"Arminian theologians don't maintain ghat God doesn't act in the Universe."
You're attacking an argument I didn't use. You need to learn how to focus.
"How is God healing you different in terms of your free will? God can and does act in the universe. Why you think that means that arminians have a confused notion of free will is not very clear. Matter, animals and other persons (including God) all produce events that impact one in the universe. Only a universe with no possible interaction could be any different."
You're unable to follow the actual argument I presented. This is not about natural events generally, but natural evils. Try to pay attention to the actual argument.
In addition, why should we pray to God to heal someone without their consent?
"Lack of focus", "you are unable to follow the argument".
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that Calvinists always go personal and arrogant in any disagreement on the internet? Even James White has noted this problem in your ranks. By their fruit ye shall know them... the best argument against Calvinism may well be the peculiar brand of aggressive and surly Christian it tends to produce.
There isn't a lack of focus at all. You said arminians don't have grounds for calling on God to interact in a closed system, to do things such as praying to God to heal the sick. Somehow you think this would be a violation of free will. But that just doesn't follow. Arminians obviously don't believe the System is closed, because they believe in things like miracles. Arminians believe that God interacts with His universe. You are attacking a straw man.
My analogy of the drowning man also holds here. If I ask somebody to save you from drowning no arminian would find that exceptional or bray about some violation of free will. So why is asking God any different? If I ask God to save you from drowning it is no different just because it is God. It is still an external agent acting on you, and the universe is made up of all kinds of agents that may act upon you in a variety of ways. Nobody is arguing for free will in the sense you seem to be claiming. There are other agents in the universe that might interact with me and force a response. This could be a coworker or a water buffalo or a rainstorm. There is a wall next to me made of matter that im not free to walk through, whether I want to or not. Your question is supposing that this is the sort of free will that arminians believe in, when in fact nobody believes in that kind of free will, as the only way it would be possible would be if there were no fixed external world and no other agents. That is the kind of belief you are apparently arguing for here, but you are arguing into the wind as nobody believes this.
The universe is not a closed system. God is free to act in it, and if He does you have to respond. This is no different than any other external agent. If you were drowning I would try to save you. Either by jumping in myself, and/or by asking somebody else in a suitable position to help you... even God. Why asking God to help you is somehow different than asking a lifeguard to help you, in terms of impact on your free will, is beyond me.
Do you really think an Arminian would refrain from asking a lifeguard to save you from drowning? Of course not. Then why would they not ask God, too? In terms or your free will there is no difference in the two.
"Why is it that Calvinists always go personal and arrogant in any disagreement on the internet? Even James White has noted this problem in your ranks. By their fruit ye shall know them... the best argument against Calvinism may well be the peculiar brand of aggressive and surly Christian it tends to produce."
ReplyDeleteNow you're the one getting personal. Steve's comment about you not following the argument is not a personal attack, it is a fact. You're still not following his argument. Perhaps the problems is Arminians not putting in the due diligence to read and comprehend what is being said against their own position?
"You said arminians don't have grounds for calling on God to interact in a closed system, to do things such as praying to God to heal the sick. Somehow you think this would be a violation of free will. But that just doesn't follow. Arminians obviously don't believe the System is closed, because they believe in things like miracles. Arminians believe that God interacts with His universe. You are attacking a straw man."
No. You are attacking a straw man. You simply do not understand what Steve is saying and are not comprehending the substance of his objection. I'd try to clarify, but I'll let Steve speak for himself, but honestly you should just carefully reread his post/replies and your replies.
Taking words directly from his post now:
ReplyDelete"But in that event, it’s less clear why we should pray to God to heal a sick loved one. If God has nothing to do with illness in the first place, why would we expect him to interfere?"
If the man standing on the bank next to you had nothing to do with you falling into the river, why would we expect him to jump in and save you from drowning? Guess I shouldn't even bother to ask, huh? That is obviously absurd, but it is no different in substance than the question he asked in his post. That is why I answered with the drowning man analogy.
"On their view, isn't natural evil part of a closed System?"
No. As I said previously, Arminians aren't arguing the System is closed. God is free to act. Arminians believe in miracles, after all, and miracles are God acting in the System. Jesus healed the sick when they asked him to.
And his only other question in the post was about patients in comas or people otherwise unable to respond. But as I pointed out before, this is attacking a straw man. The person who prays for healing has also brought that person to the doctor in his example. Im saying there is no difference, in terms of the person's free will, if the doctor heals the person or if God does. And Arminians do go to the doctor., so.I don't see the difference in asking Doc versus asking God in terms of free will.
These were the three essential questions in his post, which I have just quoted out and answered directly here. But I answered them above, too, and was still accused of being at fault for not following his argument. Im very willing to stand corrected if I'm at fault, so please tell me in what ways I misinterpreted the three questions above.
Not anonymous
ReplyDelete"Why is it that Calvinists always go personal and arrogant in any disagreement on the internet?"
Why is it that Arminians always get so emotional?
BTW, why do you drag Calvinism into it? I didn't mount a Calvinist argument against Arminianism. I didn't use Calvinist assumptions. Rather, I discussed Arminianism on its own terms, a la Olson and Witherington.
"By their fruit ye shall know them... the best argument against Calvinism may well be the peculiar brand of aggressive and surly Christian it tends to produce."
Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens lodge the same complaint about Yahweh. I guess I'm in good company.
Moreover, I've also seen the quality of fruit among many Arminian bloggers and commenters. So your objection cuts both ways.
"There isn't a lack of focus at all. You said arminians don't have grounds for calling on God to interact in a closed system, to do things such as praying to God to heal the sick. Somehow you think this would be a violation of free will. But that just doesn't follow."
You're conflating two distinct arguments. I used two successive arguments. The first argument pointed out that Arminians like Witherington and Olson treat the universe as a closed-system with respect to natural evils. They don't think God has anything to do with natural evils. Indeed, they think it's blasphemous to attribute natural evils to divine agency, however remote.
Well, then, why would they pray to God to cure someone of cancer (to take one example) when they go out of their way to insulate God from natural evil? When they treat natural evil as a self-contained causal continuum?
"But that just doesn't follow. Arminians obviously don't believe the System is closed, because they believe in things like miracles. Arminians believe that God interacts with His universe. You are attacking a straw man."
Once again, you're not tracking the argument, even though I was very specific. Did I say Arminians think the universe in general is a closed system? No. I said that in reference to natural evil, Arminians like Olson and Witherington treat the universe as a closed system. They dichotomize reality. They attribute the "good" stuff to God, but not the "bad" stuff.
When I present an explicitly qualified argument, and you blow past the stated qualifications, you're the one who's burning a straw man.
"If I ask somebody to save you from drowning no arminian would find that exceptional or bray about some violation of free will. So why is asking God any different?"
I already addressed your analogy. Some people drown because they choose to drown. That was their way of committing suicide. So, yes, it would violate their freewill to rescue them against their will. That's pretty straightforward.
"Your question is supposing that this is the sort of free will that arminians believe in, when in fact nobody believes in that kind of free will, as the only way it would be possible would be if there were no fixed external world and no other agents. That is the kind of belief you are apparently arguing for here, but you are arguing into the wind as nobody believes this."
No. It reflects your failure to distinguish between my two different arguments. And it badly mangles the first argument I was using.
"Why asking God to help you is somehow different than asking a lifeguard to help you, in terms of impact on your free will, is beyond me."
To begin with, that's your illustration, not mine. And even on its own terms, not all drowning swimmers are asking for help. Some swimmers are drowning because they wish to take their own life.
Moreover, you ignore my analogies, involving unconscious or comatose patients who can't consent to a medical procedure. What if they don't want to be resuscitated?
Moreover, you ignore my analogies, involving unconscious or comatose patients who can't consent to a medical procedure. What if they don't want to be resuscitated?
DeleteSome patients (e.g. the elderly) have tags (and such) that they purposefully wear that have the initials DNR for "Do Not Resuscitate" in the event that they need to be resuscitated if they are going to stay alive.
Analogically, there are atheists out there who don't want God to interfere in their lives even if He existed.