Because of my renewed interest in open theism, a question has emerged with a haunting spirit: If the future is closed and predetermined, Why do I and other faithful believers pray?
Is our belief in a predetermined future only theoretical when it’s not us in need of prayer? If we believe in a closed future, Isn’t it fair then to conclude that we are only hoping that our prayers would correspond to what have already been predetermined?
On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted us in answer to the prayers of many. (2 Cor 1:10-11, TNIV, emphasis added)
What exactly was Paul’s theology of prayer? Did Paul believe that prayers were only answered because they corresponded to predetermined decisions? How about the many who prayed? Were they only praying and hoping that their prayers would correspond to predetermined decisions in an already closed future?
Is the contention of open theists to be dismissed as heretical because they believe that an all-knowing God has decided to leave the future somewhat open?
How is belief in an all-knowing God leaving the future somewhat open undermining the attributes of God’s sovereignty, power, and knowledge?
I believe these are questions are legitimate.
Well, from a hyper-Calvinistic standpoint, your prayers were determined so they factored into God’s plan. There was no free choice in your decision to pray so it’s futile to even question “why” we pray…you just do, hehe.
Traditional Calvinism is not as deterministic though. God has a plan, and will bring about that plan without fail, but he will use free beings within that plan through wooing and encouraging his people and their desires, relationships, etc. (sometimes irresistably, but not in every matter). Therefore, God ordains that our prayers bring about actions, and the Spirit encourages us towards prayer, empowers the prayers and reveals God’s will through His actions in “response” to our prayer. All of this comes through free will decisions based on our desire to please God, and our regenerated heart towards God’s purposes. J.I. Packer’s book “Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God” deals with these questions from a traditional Calvinistic standpoint.
Softer forms of Calvinism see the future as partially open (i.e. if God has middle knowledge). Traditional Arminianism doesn’t really have a problem with the issues either.
Once again, I suggest you read Terrance Tiessen’s book which outlines 8 or 9 different Christian responses to the questions you list above, including different forms of Calvinism, Arminianism, Open and even in Process thought.
The primary existential reason that I pray is to bring personal change, and to have better clarity in regards to God’s work around me. As I lift up requests to God, I am changed. When I make a request of God, my will is either encouraged or conformed. To be honest, more often than not it is the latter. I will bring an idea or request to God and although the idea seemed clearly the right path moments before, it falls apart in God’s presence. But that of course is a more existential reason than a theological one.
Tiessen is going to cost me some money.
But I’m seriously looking into the matter.
I too thought of Terrance Tiessen’s book when I read this post. That is because it starts with Tiessen’s criticism of a friend who prayed for a parking space. The problem is, the biblical concept of prayer does seem to allow us to pray for things like parking spaces – at least if not done selfishly. And I know from experience that this kind of prayer does work. I felt that Tiessen’s work was flawed because of his presupposition at the start against this kind of prayer.
There is no problem with this kind of prayer in an Open Theism framework. Nor is there one in a framework of compatibilism, within which it is compatible with God having completely predetermined the future – what Ranger calls hyper-Calvinism although I don’t think others would.
But I do have difficulties with traditional Calvinism as described by Ranger, which I don’t think others would recognise as traditional. Here we seem to have an open future except that God has decided that certain things will happen and, because he is almighty, he will certainly bring them about whatever other people may decide. Now I accept that he does something like that on a general scale, that he will certainly bring about his overall purposes for the universe. The problem comes with applying this kind of picture to individuals who are “elect”; for example, there must be an implication that these people receive special protection from anything that might kill them before they have made a free decision to turn to Christ for salvation. Anyway Ranger’s picture seems to conflict with the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity.
My understanding of the biblical material on predestination is that it is on the level of peoples as a whole rather than individuals. So while my picture would be quite similar to Ranger’s traditional Calvinism, complete with prayer really being answered, it would in fact be much more Arminian – and perhaps not far removed from Open Theism.
Things can be predetermined and prayer effectual. There is no time for God so in theory your prayers can be weighed in to what ultimately was decided. So providing you don’t know the outcome of an event you can pray for it, even if the event has from your perspective already happened “God please don’t let the plane have crashed”.
Hey Peter,
To clarify my response above, by hyper-Calvinism I’m referring to the extreme type of Calvinism espoused by John Gill, John Brine, etc.
Obviously I wasn’t descriptive enough in my analysis of traditional Calvinism because your interpretation of what I said is not what I meant! By traditional Calvinism I’m referring to a more Puritan form most clearly espoused by Jonathan Edwards (although found much earlier in Calvin, Beza, et. al. though not as clearly IMO). This is the compatibalism, which you implied that I was arguing against, and not the first statement of Calvinism (probably I should have defined hyper-Calvinism more properly).
In Edwards understanding of freedom, we have totally free wills and are not bound to make any decision as a matter of faculty, but are bound in our desires. For instance, I can freely choose whether or not to eat liver and onions, but I am not a person who has (or will ever have) the desire to do so. In this way, God has a set plan, yet brings it about through desires in regenerate hearts, the wooing and conviction of the Holy Spirit. God directs the world’s future completely and controlled since He is sovereign over all of Creation, yet at the same time this view is not nearly as deterministic as the hyper-Calvinism of Gill, et. al. where humanity has no independent will and secondary causes are of no effect.
It’s compatibalist because God ordains the actions and brings them about, yet does so through his urgings and shaping human desires so that His decisions always come about (yet through free decisions).
I hope that clarifies my above statements, as I surely did not intend the open view for traditional Calvinism as you interpreted me to say!
Peter, I reject hyper-calvinism. I think of myself as a compatibalist, but I’m moving toward the idea of a somewhat open future.
CD-Host, good point about God and time, but if things are predetermined and prayer can still be effectual, there is really no room for changing anything but rather corresponding to what already is.
Ranger, this freedom of the will thought can seen in Augustine, Luther, and Edwards. We have freedom to choose and do whatever, but bound by a sin nature to come to God on our own.
Ranger, thanks for the clarification. I need to think about this some more. I wish I actually had Tiessen’s book. My position may in fact be a “middle knowledge” one, but perhaps like TC’s moving in an Open Theism direction. But I do reject the kind of process theology often associated with Open Theism which makes God into part of the creation, subject to rules outside of himself.
Peter, I’m getting ready to read Greg Boyd’s God of the Possible (176pgs). But my wife is somewhat uneasy at exploration of open theism. She’ll come around.
CD-Host, good point about God and time, but if things are predetermined and prayer can still be effectual, there is really no room for changing anything but rather corresponding to what already is.
Not sure there is a difference.
A puts a card in an envelope and hangs it outside the cell for X and Y. if it is black the person will be killed and if red set free. X prays that his card red. Because God does not move through time linearly X’s prayer can influence God who can influence A’s choice even though from X’s perspective that choice has already happened. It is only when X becomes aware of the card that his prayers no longer are effectual (at least according to the theory).
“I think of myself as a compatibalist, but I’m moving toward the idea of a somewhat open future.”
Wow that is a pretty big step and completely unexpected to see you say. Good luck in whatever you end up with.
Do yourself a favor and read Boyd’s 2 big book on theodicy.
Bryan
A puts a card in an envelope and hangs it outside the cell for X and Y. if it is black the person will be killed and if red set free. X prays that his card red. Because God does not move through time linearly X’s prayer can influence God who can influence A’s choice even though from X’s perspective that choice has already happened. It is only when X becomes aware of the card that his prayers no longer are effectual (at least according to the theory).
This is confusing. It seems like you’re saying it’s both open and closed at the same time.
Bryan L, I’m thinking about ordering the God of the Possible first. I want to look into the foundational arguments open theism from a biblical perspective according to Greg Boyd. Whether I agree with him or not, is another issue.
But thanks. I’ll look into those later.
The primary focus of my Christian life and ministry has been in the realm of prayer and intercession. Years ago my view of the future was very open especially regarding prayer. In the late 1990′s a group from the Smithton outpouring came to El Cajon, California; where I was deeply impacted by the power of God. The primary result was a long season of amazing answers to prayer. I was leading a weekly prayer meeting that immediately went from weak and struggling, to powerful. The key was finding out what was on God’s agenda for us, and praying into what he showed up. Over time I have moved more toward predetermination because of learning, like Jesus, I only do what I see the Father doing.
I wrote on the tapestry principal a few weeks ago. When we pray for someone or something, occasionally there is a powerful burden and then breakthrough. When this occurs, I’ve learn to say I have a vertical string (between heaven and earth) into that situation. We have tapped into something God is doing and he uses us through prayer to see His Kingdom come and His will being done.
Duane, thanks for sharing, but Do you believe that the future is somewhat open to your prayers? Does God really change things?
I used to believe that the future was very open to my prayers and didn’t get very many prayers answered. I still believe that the future is somewhat open, but I’m much more practical on this issue. Prayer is very much more effective when I lay down my agenda, worship, wait, get an assignment, and pray it through. Practically speaking I find prayer more effective by aligning myself with God plan.
I think one of the important question to answer in regards to what we see as answered prayer is whether the outcome would have been any different had we not prayed.
Maybe prayer doesn’t change God’s mind in every instance but maybe it shows our dependency and need for him to act and is what prompts him to answer our pleas (which he wanted to do but also wanted us to come to him and reveal our need).
Maybe prayer is what God uses to keep up from being spoiled children. It recognizes that God is not just going to do whatever we hope he will but desires to be in a close relationship where we ask for the things we need because we know they can only come from him and he is the source of every good and perfect gift and he gladly says yes (though not always) when those requests line up with his desires (although there seems to be a thread in scripture that says that he changes his mind in certain cases too).
Maybe…
Bryan
Peter,
I’m right there with you. I personally swing on a pendulum between traditional, middle-knowledge, open and back.
I used to believe that the future was very open to my prayers and didn’t get very many prayers answered. I still believe that the future is somewhat open, but I’m much more practical on this issue. Prayer is very much more effective when I lay down my agenda, worship, wait, get an assignment, and pray it through. Practically speaking I find prayer more effective by aligning myself with God plan.
Duane, I think you’re referring to being more open to what God is doing.
I think one of the important question to answer in regards to what we see as answered prayer is whether the outcome would have been any different had we not prayed.
Bryan L, that’s the key that will unlock this whole mystery, if you will.
But some people are paralyzed by a sense of fatalism in all this prayer thing. They’re not sure what to believe.
Ranger, make up your mind!
“Ranger, make up your mind!”
That would be too easy! You see I follow this God who is way bigger than anything I could imagine or understand, so…
Good one, my brother…
Would Lot have been spared if Abraham had not prayed?
Would the man who beat on his friends door, asking for three loaves for his friend, received bread for the one in need?
Maybe God would have provided bread for the one in need, but through someone else.
Duane, we can come up with a million what ifs. At the end of the day, Do we really know how these things work. We often say that God works in mysterious ways.
I’ve always understood prayer to be pretty effective – not just in my personal relationship with God, but also for affecting what happens in the world. I agree there’s definitely the sense in the Gospels of Jesus taking time out in prayer to learn his Father’s will (as Duane and others have mentioned above) but surely the overwhelming teaching of Jesus is that God responds to prayer and our prayers therefore have real consequences in the world, e.g. Luke 21.36, Matt 7.11 ‘how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him’, Luke 10.2 ‘ask for workers’, Luke 22.32 (in verse 31 it sounds like Satan is also able to pray!)… and I haven’t even mentioned some of the most famous verses about prayer!
What I understand from what Boyd and others teach is that because God is relational he has chosen to mediate his authority through free agents such as ourselves and angels etc.* Although the plan was for us to rule ‘under authority’ (c.f. Luke 7.8), we have real delegated responsibility. To this end God has chosen to limit his influence and authority in the world according to our direction and desire. The really challenging thing about this view is that it makes prayer absolutely critical. God’s involvement depends on us asking for it! When we pray ‘your will be done’ we’re apparently – in a really odd way – actually giving God ‘permission’ to act to bring about his will. Sounds crazy, doesn’t it?
I actually think this view has a lot to recommend it, as it makes sense of Jesus’ instructions about prayer and the importance Paul obviously gives to prayer (e.g. 1 Thess 3.10). God is genuinely responsive to our prayers, relational even in the exercise of his sovereign authority. That sounds like a truly dynamic relationship! It’s also interesting to note the way Paul talks about being coworkers with God.
[*At the beginning humankind is given dominion over the earth (Gen 1.26-28) but unfortunately it seems we surrendered our authority to Satan, who is now the 'prince of this world' (John 12.41). But Daniel 7 indicates that part of our final destiny is to finally reclaim this authority in the kingdom of Jesus.]
Pingback: Openness and Prayer « It’s a Mustard Seed Kingdom
To this end God has chosen to limit his influence and authority in the world according to our direction and desire. The really challenging thing about this view is that it makes prayer absolutely critical.
As I said on your blog, this is the crux of the matter. When we are able to settle this concept, we’ll really understand what’s going on. But will we be able to settle the matter?
TC –
Basically you can’t pray to alter your own past, but God’s acts are timeless. Hence you can pray to alter anything that is not in your own past.
CD-Host, Do you subscribe to a somewhat open future?