Post Edited (One Love) : 11/8/2010 11:54:47 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Tom) : 11/8/2010 11:55:37 AM (GMT-6)

If that's right then it CAN'T be the case that all moments in time are "equally real" to God.

T

Again, this is not saying that Ceasar's crossing the Rubicon is NOW HAPPENING and God is there while it's doing so.  This is more like saying that the fullness of God that was involved in Ceasar's crossing of the Rubicon is the SAME fullness of God that is involved in my typing this right now...which is the SAME fullness that will be involved at some future point in my existence.  By focusing on God's presence and my utterly derivative being before God, the most real aspect of my past, present, and future are all "Now" in God.

I'm thinking it's a quasi-mystical perspective. ;)

Post Edited (One Love) : 11/10/2010 11:18:28 AM (GMT-6)

As for the car crash blog, I have some thoughts on that.  Greg said:

It’s my conviction, therefore, that Shelley and I might have been more seriously injured were it not for the fact that we are continually covered in prayer (thank you prayer warriors!), but also that we might have been less seriously injured had we ourselves prayed for protection before our trip (which, I confess, we did not do). Things really hang in the balance on whether or not we pray! “If my people…will humble themselves and pray…then I will hear from heaven…and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14).

and...

If we instead think of the future as partly open and conceive of divine power in response to prayer along the lines of influence rather than coercion, these (and many other) problems are avoided. Prayer doesn’t magically override the multitude of variables that affect what comes to pass, but it is itself a powerful variable. We can take it on faith that prayer is always “powerful and effective” (Ja 5:16). In some situations, variables are such that the increased divine influence is able to bring about what we pray for, in others not. Yet, if what we pray for is in line with God’s character and will, we can trust that things would have been worse had we not prayed.
Some thoughts:

1) How is this not a form of postdiction?  Just assume the power of prayer that is "in line with God's character and will" and regardless to WHAT outcome comes, one could always say that "it could have been worse" if we hadn't have prayed.  This is completely unfalsifiable.  Even if you had a person with cancer who prayed individually and a community around them praying for their healing...and the person died...I guess it would still be said that the death would have been WORSE had the prayer not gone on.  In other words, whatever outcome that occurs in the midst of prayer can be REINTERPRETED so that it is "better than" something else that could have happened. 

2) I don't see how Greg's view of petitionary prayer doesn't bring up the "We just didn't pray enough" problem.  Even though Greg says that prayer doesn't ENSURE divine aid, it INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD of divine aid, given a certain amount of prayer is done by a certain amount of people.  So, if a person gets into a bad situation, it could ALWAYS be the case that said person blames themselves (or others) for just not praying enough.  Sure, Greg mentions other factors involved.  But look at Greg's own words...

It’s my conviction, therefore, that Shelley and I might have been more seriously injured were it not for the fact that we are continually covered in prayer (thank you prayer warriors!), but also that we might have been less seriously injured had we ourselves prayed for protection before our trip (which, I confess, we did not do).

He genuinely believes that the fact that he and Shelley did not pray for protection before leaving opened them up to more serious injury than they would have sustained otherwise.  But what if he had have had the exact same accident would have happened, but having prayed?  Wouldn't the "prayer warriors" be culpable for not praying enough? That COULD genuinely have been the case, given the motif, you know.  If accidents can be "worse" because people aren't praying, then the people not praying are can be considered culpable for the lack of protection.  (And from my experience, some people in the Pentecostal/Charismatic vein use this line of thought a significant amount!) But Greg would probably be too NICE to say something like that about the people supposedly praying for him.  Chances are he would just have written it off to free-willed forces, whether human or demonic. But then that just shows the hindsight bias problem: regardless to what circumstance occurs, a person can just pick which factor is the most convenient to "blame" and then place it there: themselves, other praying people, or other free-will agencies.  That may be cool for some kind of existential pacification, but not for really finding out what happened.

3) I don't think any of Greg's perspective takes the EO view of Grace into consideration.  I mean, really.  Once you know what Grace truly IS and how it grounds absolutely everything in Creation at all times, how much more "influential" can God be in a situation?  Seriously.  Try to explain to a person the EO concept of Grace...and THEN tell them that God's influential power to answer petitionary prayer is strictly constrained by how many people pray.  Yeah....that'll go over well.

4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mFRUGDY8Ao

Post Edited (One Love) : 11/11/2010 6:56:01 AM (GMT-6)