Monday, June 02, 2008

Obligation?

One thing that I will admit that Roman Catholic apologists have got right is that they recognize that Protestants have Traditions too (note the capital T). The difference between Catholic and Protestant Traditions (qua Traditions) is this: the Catholics admit to theirs, whereas the Protestants don’t.

Since Steve first responded to John Mark Reynolds, we’ve been treated to one particular Protestant Tradition: the Obligation to Pray for the Enemy (OPE). Much has already been said in the original post (including the comments), as well as in Steve’s follow up post. Naturally, the responses that Steve received (as well as responses to me, which surprised me somewhat since I figured everything I had said was, you know, obvious and all) consisted of much hot air and no content. In fact, this was the main reason that I penned my Out of the Closet satirical post since one of the objections that we received was that we at Triablogue (affectionately known in BHT circles as the BBB for the “Big-Brained Blog”) were too intellectual, as if somehow accusing someone of using logic and thinking through a position was an insult.

I don’t want to belabor the point too much, especially since Steve’s response is sufficient to demonstrate the lack of intelligence our detractors have displayed. Yet I must add that the anti-intellectualism expressed in our culture today has infiltrated deep into the church as well, and it is a sad day indeed when Christians think their best response is to embrace irrationality.

But just as God always keeps a Remnant, I know that there remain Christians who actually care about what the Bible says. There are Christians who are able to think and who can draw logical inferences from passages of Scripture. There are Christians who are not satisfied with the knee-jerk spleen venting and pseudo-piety offered by those who would be righteous if they weren’t such harpies. For those dozen or so readers, I offer the following texts of Scripture as we determine whether the OPE Tradition is legit.

Let us start in an unusual place. Rather than the obvious imprecatory (yes, I know how to spell it now) Psalms and Proverbs, let’s begin in a different place: 1 Samuel. 1 Samuel deals with the nation of Israel in her attempts at gaining a king so they could be like the other nations. Before the first king of Israel existed, the nation was ruled by various priests and judges. As 1 Samuel begins, we find out about how the prophet Samuel came about. We learn about his mother, Hannah, who would offer prayers to God, beseeching Him for a son. She promised to dedicate her son to God in the temple. When God blessed her with Samuel, she obeyed her promise and gave Samuel to the temple which was currently under the care of Eli. So here in 1 Samuel, we already have an instance where God answers prayer to the benefit of His followers.

But not all is well. Eli had wicked sons who refuse to submit to God’s laws. In 1 Samuel 2:22-25 (all passages are from the ESV) we read the following:


Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting. And he said to them, "Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the LORD spreading abroad. If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?" But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.
Now there are a couple of things of interest in this passage. First, the last sentence has got to make our LFW friends squirm. The reason that Eli’s sons would not listen to Eli was because “it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.” In other words, LFW is thrown right out the window. Eli’s sons did not have the possibility of listening to Eli. Yet compatibalism remains intact, for it was both God’s will that Eli’s sons be put to death and it was their desire to continue to do the behavior that would lead to death even after being warned of it.

But I didn’t quote this passage for that sentence. Instead, we are looking at how this passage relates to the concept of prayer, specifically relating to the OPE theory. Eli states a simple fact: “If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him.” Naturally, there is implied in this the repentance of the sinner and such. However, Eli then asks the rhetorical question: “But if someone sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?”

What isn’t as clear to modern readers is what is meant by a mediator. Despite the fact that Christianity is based on the mediation of Christ between sinners and God, most of the time we don’t really consider what this means. In the customs of the day, mediation was far more important though. Two parties in dispute would turn to a mediator to help resolve the dispute; but the mediator, in order to have any legitimacy, would be required to have more authority than either of the two parties involved in the dispute (this is what we do now using the court system with judges, backed by the authority of the law, for our mediators). This is why it is possible for God to mediate when one party sins against another party. In this instance, God has more authority than both of the parties involved and His judgment therefore holds weight. But when God is one of the parties involved (and because God is righteous, He is only involved if He has been sinned against), then there is no higher authority to mediate. Thus the question: “If someone sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?” The answer is clearly implied: no one.

Naturally, in the New Testament we discover there is a mediator: Jesus. But since Jesus had not yet been physically born, the question stood in Eli’s time.

So how does this relate to the OPE for the Christian now that we have Christ as a mediator? It relates in this manner: are there people who have sinned against God? This answer is an obvious, yes. We are all sinners. More critically: are there people for whom Christ does not intercede? Unless you are a universalist, then you must answer this question in the affirmative as well (and if you are a universalist, you have bigger problems than this one to contend with).

Remember that the O in OPE stands for obligation. Do we have an obligation to pray for our enemy? Given the above, there will be people whom Christ does not intercede for who fall under the rhetorical question: “who can intercede for him?” No one can. And as a result of this, we cannot intercede either. If we say that we are obligated to pray for our enemies, and we know that this included people who are damned, then we are saying that we are obligated to intercede on behalf of those for whom none can intercede. This is frankly irrational.

Of course one could try to avoid this problem by saying we could pray for their physical benefit rather than for a spiritual benefit. But someone once asked: what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and yet forfeits his soul? (I only wish I could remember who said that....)

The next question that we must ask is this: does God always listen to every prayer? By this, I do not mean “Is God cognizant of every prayer?” because, being omniscient, He is. Instead, I use it in the Biblical sense. Does God care about and respond to every prayer?

Well, we don’t have to turn too many pages in 1 Samuel to find the following passage:
And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.

1 Samuel 8:18
Here we have the promise that God will ignore the prayers of the Israelites. Why? I think a strong case can be made that it links directly back to the above referenced passage in 1 Samuel 2. If someone sins against God (which is what the people did by demanding a king so they could be like the other countries) then there remains no one who can intercede on their behalf.

But this passage is not alone. Indeed, we likewise read:
For what is the hope of the godless when God cuts him off,
when God takes away his life?
Will God hear his cry
when distress comes upon him?

Job 27:8-9
Here we have in mind a specific group of people: the “godless.” Once again, a rhetorical question is asked: “Will God hear his [the godless] cry when distress comes upon him?” Again the answer is an obvious no. God will not listen to the prayers of the godless who have sinned against Him.

This is made explicit in other passages too:
Therefore, thus says the LORD, Behold, I am bringing disaster upon them that they cannot escape. Though they cry to me, I will not listen to them.
--Jeremiah 11:11

When you spread out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
--Isaiah 1:15

Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
--Proverbs 1:28

They cried for help, but there was none to save;
they cried to the LORD, but he did not answer them.
--Psalm 18:4

Therefore I will act in wrath. My eye will not spare, nor will I have pity. And though they cry in my ears with a loud voice, I will not hear them.
--Ezekiel 8:18

Then they will cry to the LORD,
but he will not answer them;
he will hide his face from them at that time,
because they have made their deeds evil.
--Micah 3:4
These passages could be multiplied many times over. It is clear that God is under no obligation to listen to the prayers of the wicked. I therefore ask, if God will not listen to the prayers of the godless, what makes us think that God will listen to our prayers on behalf of the godless?

To answer that question we can do another examination of Scripture. Are there times when God has said that He will not listen to prayers offered by believers on behalf of non-believers? Indeed, there are:
As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you.

Jeremiah 7:16
We cannot get more explicit than this. God commands Jeremiah specifically NOT to pray for Israel. He commands Jeremiah NOT to intercede. Why? Because “I will not hear you.”

We’ve already seen how God does not listen to the prayers of the godless. But here we see that God will not listen to the prayers of righteous Jeremiah if they are prayers on behalf of those whom God has condemned. Another passage from Jeremiah juxtaposes both themes together:
The LORD said to me: "Do not pray for the welfare of this people. Though they fast, I will not hear their cry, and though they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I will not accept them. But I will consume them by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence."

Jeremiah 14:11-12
Here we see both the command for Jeremiah to refrain from prayer and God’s promise to ignore the prayers of those who are to be punished.

With these passages in mind, the OPE easily crumbles into nonsense. But it’s only nonsense in one particular part. The O. That is, the obligation to pray for our enemies. We cannot be obliged to pray for something God has promised not to listen to. But that doesn’t mean we can’t pray for it anyway. We certainly can do so.

Of course, God will still ignore us. In fact, this point is something that has caused some Christians to doubt God: “Why won’t God save my father?” or “Why won’t God save my best friend?” If your father, best friend, etc. is an enemy of God and is reprobate, then there is none who can intercede on his or her behalf. God will ignore your prayers.

But we do not know who God has Elected and who He has not. We certainly are allowed to pray for our heart’s desires. After all, Christ did in the Garden of Gethsemane when He prayed: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” (Matthew 26:39). But He did not stop there: “nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”

We are free to pray for things that God will not grant as long as we remember “nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”

So feel free to pray for your enemies. They may very well be only temporary enemies. They may, indeed, be lost sheep that Christ will return to the fold. But if they are not, your prayers will be futile and pointless…unless you remember “nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” Then your prayers will still have value, as they will be both a Godly act of worship and a means of submitting to the will of God in all things.

The obligation is to remember God’s will be done, not for us to pray for our enemies.

18 comments:

  1. This blog has become darnright un-Christian of late. We all know the verses extolling to pray for our enemies and all types of men. Why anyone would want to waste so many words attempting to refute the plain meaning of scripture I don't know.

    Matt. 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

    1Tim. 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jan is uninterested in dealing with biblical arguments but would prefer to remain ignorant.

    As it's been pointed out numerous times already, Matt. 5:44 deals with loving personal enemies and persecutors. We are to do what is right even when others do what is wrong to us. But this doesn't apply to a personal enemy of Christ, like Kennedy. If the Philistines would've been struck with disease, would you have prayed for their recovery?

    And 1 Tim. 2:1 deals with prayers for all kinds of men. But what is in view is their salvation.

    So we don't pray for Kennedy to simply get well and continue down his warpath against the unborn. We don't pray towards his rehabilitation so that he may continue his assault against things the Bible holds dear. We pray for him to get converted, and if that not be God's will, for God to ultimately stop him in his tracks as an enemy of Christ.

    What do you say of David's prayers against God's enemies?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, it is so un-Christian to use the entire Bible instead of the parts of the Bible that are Joel Osteen approved.

    At best it's encumbant upon Jan to define what in the world it means to pray FOR someone. As I said in my comments on Steve's original post, praying for enemies would literally be praying: "Lord, I'm all out of enemies. Could you send some more my way?" That's praying for enemies.

    But since you don't even want to define your terms, how in the world are you going to understand the texts you quote, let alone deal with those texts in the context of the entire Bible, which happens to contain the Old Testament. (You can find the Old Testament in your Bible because it's the section where all the pages are unsullied by your fingerprints.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think the Hitler comparison is what has sent this post over the top. The Hitler comparison is overused in many debates and to be frank, Ted Kennedy is not Hitler. Hitler intentionally tried to exterminate a race of people.

    Regardless in 1Tim. 2:1-2 Paul was no doubt thinking of Nero and the Roman pagan authorities. It was not only their salvation he urged prayer for though you are correct that is no doubt primary. It was also a prayer that they would rule wisely thus making it easier on Christians.

    We should remember that like Ted Kennedy we are also sinners. We should pray for our leaders ( and yes, he represents us since he makes legislation that effects us all even if you don't live in His State) that they be converted and serve the country well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's rather amazing since Hitler isn't mentioned in this post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually I was talking about the original post on this blog comparing Kennedy to Hitler which is referenced by you at the beginning of this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Looks like the surgery was successful. I guess the moral of the story is that if you're terminal, all you need to do is get the TBloggers to pray imprecatory prayers for your demise and you should be good to go.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thnuh said:
    ---
    Looks like the surgery was successful. I guess the moral of the story is that if you're terminal, all you need to do is get the TBloggers to pray imprecatory prayers for your demise and you should be good to go.
    ---

    Looks like if you want to read a fantasy novel all you have to do is ask Thnuh to interpret a TBlog post.

    Randy said:
    ---
    Actually I was talking about the original post on this blog comparing Kennedy to Hitler which is referenced by you at the beginning of this thread.
    ---

    And how, exactly, was it "over the top" to compare Kennedy to Hitler?

    BTW, Hitler wasn't even that bad compared to Stalin or Mao. Hitler's regime killed about 10 million people. Stalin killed over 30 million Russians; Mao about 60 million Chinese.

    So why is Hitler over the top but Stalin and Mao aren't when both are mentioned in the same post too? I'll be charitable and assume instead of you being inconsistent that you're publik skewled and therefore don't know this (probably because Hitler was a Nazi, which means it's okay to make him a whipping boy, whereas Stalin and Mao were Commies and the publik skewl system wouldn't want you to learn the dirty secrets about their heroes).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Really, it isn't that we think you are too intellectual. Really.

    It's that YOU think you are intellectual.

    You aren't.

    ReplyDelete
  10. RANDY WILLIAMS SAID:

    “I think the Hitler comparison is what has sent this post over the top. The Hitler comparison is overused in many debates.”

    The fact that it’s overused doesn’t mean it’s overused in my post.

    My comparison wasn’t limited to Hitler. I compared him to “Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse-tung.”

    So why do you single out one out of four?

    “And to be frank, Ted Kennedy is not Hitler. Hitler intentionally tried to exterminate a race of people. “

    6 millions Jews to 50 million American babies. Are you saying that Kennedy is worse than Hitler?

    “1Tim. 2:1-2…was also a prayer that they would rule wisely thus making it easier on Christians.”

    I made that point in my original post.

    “We should remember that like Ted Kennedy we are also sinners.”

    No, we don’t need to “remember” that since I never denied that in the first place. Spare me the strong man arguments.

    “We should pray for our leaders ( and yes, he represents us since he makes legislation that effects us all even if you don't live in His State) that they be converted and serve the country well.”

    So do you also pray for the other 534 members of Congress? And why stop with Congress? What about the Federal appellate court judges? Their rulings affect our lives as well. Precedent. Case law. Stare decisis.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Randy McRoberts said:
    ---
    Really, it isn't that we think you are too intellectual. Really.

    It's that YOU think you are intellectual.

    You aren't.
    ---

    In that case you shouldn't have too much difficulty mounting an actual argument.

    Oh wait. You don't know what one of those is. You think that saying "Nanner nanner nanner" is a valid response.

    Some of us have made it past third grade.

    Here's the thing, Randy. I've never claimed to be an intellectual.

    I don't have to.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The thing is, Peter, that you don't realize that arguments don't always matter. It's character and integrity and love that matter more. You can win arguments all day long against me. So what? You can speak with the tongue of men and angels, too, for all I care.

    I don't care to mount an argument. That's not what I'm all about. If it works for you, have a ball with it. Don't expect most people to care a whole lot. You might win the argument, but it's an empty win.

    ReplyDelete
  13. but it's an empty win.
    fyi, if you want to sound intellectual, you should use the term "pyrrhic victory".

    And your statement that arguments don't always matter is itself an argument. You can't escape the need to evaluate the truth of propositions, so you might as well not waste time making such cavils.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I never thought I'd agree with Thnuh on anything, but miracles do happen :-D His last sentence was right on.

    In any case, Randy McRoberts said:
    ---
    The thing is, Peter, that you don't realize that arguments don't always matter. It's character and integrity and love that matter more.
    ---

    Once upon a time, there was a little boy named Randy. Randy loved everyone and everything as much as possible. If his cruel, cold-hearted Dad was about to crush a spider, Randy would rescue the spider and lovingly toss it outdoors where it had a chance to live.

    One day, an early spring day, Randy was walking down the sidewalk with his evil father when they saw a baby bird lying on the ground. It had obviously fallen from its nest.

    "Leave it," the wicked adult said. "It's mother will come for it."

    But that was unacceptable for Randy, who loved the poor little bird. So when the demon-in-human-form wasn't looking, Randy scooped up the baby bird and put it in his pocket.

    When they got home, Randy rushed straight to his room. He took out the bird and placed it in an old shoe box. The bird chirped because it was very hungry. So Randy decided to feed the bird.

    He asked his less-wicked-but-still-not-quite-loving-because-she-was-a-Presbyterian mother what baby birds ate. She said they ate worms. But Randy knew that couldn't be the case--worms were icky little creatures (that still deserved to live, mind you--that was why Randy would rescue them before his diabolical father went fishing).

    There was a better solution. Randy liked Butterfinger candybars and Dr Pepper to wash them down with. They were his favorite treats. Because he loved the bird so much, Randy shared his favorite things with the bird.

    The next morning he awoke to find a very dead bird in the shoe box. Because, you see, poor Randy never grasped the concept that love without knowledge is dangerous. If you love someone or something but you have no clue what they need then you will not be able to satisfy their needs and your love will condemn them to death.

    Sadly, this episode did not teach Randy his lesson. Later, he would grow up to believe that it did not matter if a sinner was hell-bound. The important thing was the love them, not to argue with them. The important thing was to make sure the had a sugar buzz before they spent eternity in hell.

    And as a result, Randy decided to attack those who were trying to rescue sinners by calling those apologists intellectual elitists in a Big-Brained Blog. And lo, he felt good about himself, and those who were hell-bound enjoyed his taunts. And merrily they continued on the path to destruction.

    At least on the day of judgment Randy can say, "I loved everyone I ever put in hell, unlike those bastards at Triablogue who actually convinced a few sinners to change direction by using arguments."

    ReplyDelete
  15. "At least on the day of judgment Randy can say, "I loved everyone I ever put in hell, unlike those bastards at Triablogue who actually convinced a few sinners to change direction by using arguments."

    Technical knock-out. Game, set, match. Walk off homerun. Checkmate.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I didn't realize that the purpose for your blog is apologetic rather than theological.

    So what has been the response from atheists to your proposal that Christians should not pray for Ted Kennedy? Have you seen several conversions from that one? It certainly makes a good argument that following Christ is a wonderful expression of humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Randy said:
    ---
    I didn't realize that the purpose for your blog is apologetic rather than theological.
    ---

    You do realize that those things go together, don't you?

    Oh wait. You're Randy. Never mind.

    Randy said:
    ---
    So what has been the response from atheists to your proposal that Christians should not pray for Ted Kennedy?
    ---

    This is tiresome. READ WHAT I WROTE INSTEAD OF WHAT YOU THINK I WROTE. I've never said "Christians should not pray for Ted Kennedy."

    Now either read and interact with what's written or shut up and go away.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I've decided that I will shut up and go away.

    And I've decided that you are a lout.

    ReplyDelete