Great Thread Tom!

 

I understand Mephi's formula, but I'm not so sure it's a good one. The problem I see is that it highlights the variables and obscures God's power and faithfulness. The immediate effect is that it diminishes OUR faith. If we're going to use a formula at all I think it should include a large section on God's consistant faithfulness to his people through time -despite the variables that oppose Him/His will. Somehow God IS faithful. If anything should precede our prayers, I think an affirmation of His faithfulness is much more helpful than Meph's formula (sorry mephi - you know me "bible girl" )

 

 

Mt.21:21 Jesus answered them, "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, "Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' it will be done. 22 Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive."

 

 It's almost impossible for me to have faith (and not doubt!) if I recite Meph's formula before I pray. What can I expect to receive?

 

okey dokey?

 

love ya,

T

 

 

Post Edited (selah) : 7/11/2006 10:34:16 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 7/11/2006 10:37:03 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (TGB) : 7/11/2006 11:51:39 PM (GMT-5)

Tom,

Come on... Faith is probably THE most important factor in prayer/warfare. I don't get it. How do you pray without having faith that what you are praying for will come to pass?

selah

 ..when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"

To believe that the open view is true is to believe that there can be at least ONE CASE where God, given all the relevant factors, CANNOT bring about something being ardently prayed for in mind-blowing faith...even if God really, REALLY wants that prayer answered himself!  Just like Tom says...

I just don't know how (given the worldview) one can pray with the assurance that requests about these things will be answered...even if it's God's will to grant them. That's the kicker, the small print on the bottom of the contract that almost nobody's reading. But it's there.

Actually, let's get gutter on this.  If I remember "God of the Possible" right, it's actually possible for God to put a person in a VERY painful predicament that God THOUGHT was going to turn out differently than it did.  An improbable probability occurs...and now the person who was believing God is STUCK.  (Please re-read God of the Possible where Doc talks about the woman who married the lecherous missionary!)   Now, you do the math.  If a person really believes all this, how could said person EVER have rock-solid faith that God WILL answer a certain prayer a certain way?  Moreover, how could this person EVER have rock-solid faith that God WILL definitely provide for them if they step out on faith?

Now, I can have faith and trust in God's character, presence, and activity all day long!  I can even HOPE that circumstances are such that God can ACTUALLY answer my particular providential want.  But this is NOT the same as believing that God WILL answer my prayer or that God WILL deliver me from my issues.

These issues have been here for a LOOOOOOONG time.  I'm glad you are dealing with this, Tom!

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 7/12/2006 9:33:52 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 7/12/2006 9:25:11 AM (GMT-5)

Mephi: The most positive thing was that I genuinely became more humble and open to being Spirit-led in moments of evil and suffering. Recognizing the vast ambiguity in all this HUMBLED me to the point where I will not make blanket, rigid statements about what God "wants" or what God "will do" when speaking about particular occurrences in human history.

Tom: Right (except knowing that he will do whatever is most consistent with his loving, Kingdom purposes—we know God will always do THAT though we may not always know what it will LOOK like in terms of specific outcomes in conflicted situations). We can set up in our mind supposed scenarios where we lock down all the variables. In this case we can know what a loving God would do. But in real life the ambiguity forbids our being able to lock down the variables.

Mephi: This is why I had such problems with people's interpreations of Sept 11th!

Tom: I agree. We can’t say for sure that there was no extenuating circumstance, no variable in the mix, that might have led God to conclude that permitting 9/11 was better than preventing it (when preventing it was entirely within is will and ability except for this variable in question).

But…

I made a suggestion on the Carlie thread that I’m still inclined to (which you disagreed with), and it was basically this: the greater the evil, the less likely it is that there are variables (across the board) that make permitting it better than preventing it. I still think this is a safe assumption if God really is out to maximize good and minimize evil AND the variables, though very great in number, are limited. It’s necessarily the case that as the greatness index of a particular evil goes up, the number of variables that might explain God’s allowing it goes down. Some (otherwise logically possible) evils are for this very reason rule out absolutely.

Still, even if I’m right about this, one can never know for sure whether any particular evil was in fact a sacrificing of the rook for the queen. We can be confident that the greater the evil the less likely it is that God has sacrificed the rook. I really think you can get with this idea, Mephi, if you work through it. Look, in terms of the preceding paragraph, my point is that it makes sense to say God sacrifices “pawns” and “rooks” for “queens” given the value of pawns and rooks to queens relative to the purpose of the game and the particular way the board is laid out. But it doesn’t make sense to say God sacrifices “rooks” for “pawns.” See? When we say God sacrifices rooks for queens we’re recognizing the point I make—i.e., the greater the evil the less likely it is that God has permitted it in a sacrifice move. For example, if I’m able to capture a very excellent chess player’s ‘pawn’, I assume he specifically allowed it. If I capture his ‘rook’ or ‘knight’ I might assume the same, though it’s a bit less likely. But if I capture his ‘queen’, I’m not going to assume he just permitted it the way he did the ‘pawn’. I’m far more likely to assume I captured it against all attempts on his part to prevent the loss and that I just flat out beat him on that move. Why would I assume this? Because the evil of a pawn’s loss is less than the evil of a queen given their values to the overall purpose of winning. Thus, the greater the evil, the less likely it is to be considered a “sacrifice move.” This seems pretty clear to me.

Furthermore it helps pastorally. It helps to tell those who lost loved ones in 9/11 that the evil deed of the terrorists really does figure into Kingdom values and purposes differently than does the evil of, say, shoplifting or a particular drug sale and that the latter are more easily understood as permissible in the attempt to maximize good in the world than is the former. But pastoral effects are highly intuitive, so I’m not suggesting you buy this part. But the likelihood vs unlikelihood of divine complicity in particular evils based on the severity/greatness/impact of the evil does make sense to me.

Mephi: Nor will I pray for something assuming direct relationships between human faith and prayer actualization...

Tom: But human faith is a variable, and sometimes (given the worldview) the deciding variable. So why would you ever ASSUME there’s no direct relationship between faith and prayer actualization? What happened to ambiguity? Given the ambiguity, you can’t assume anything positively about the mixture of variable-influence relative to any specific outcome. If you just mean “won’t assume human faith always produces the desired outcome” then yeah, we can’t assume that. But it looks to me like you said more, i.e., assuming NO relationship ever between faith and outcomes. That’s denying that faith is ever a determining variable. Do you want to do that?

I always see a direct relationship between human faith/prayer and prayer actualizations in the sense that prayer always contributes SOMETHING to the mix of influences that determine outcomes EVEN IF the outcome is not the one prayed for. The prayer of a righteous person amounts to a release of spiritual power/influence into the world. So in spite of faithfilled prayer not always obtaining the desired outcome, that’s not to say it wasn’t part of determining the highest good possible in its field of play.

Mephi: What I do is admit the huge amount of stuff I don't know and cannot know…move upon the things I THINK I know (stemming evil, ameliorating pain and injustice, etc), and be completely open to the Spirit for discernment about what should be done, all the while knowing that even THIS has ambiguities involved.

Tom: Being led of the Spirit on a circumstance by circumstance basis is a huge piece that hasn’t been a part of Greg’s defense of the place of prayer in his worldview. I think it adds a lot. It means we’re led to act in personal relation rather than always being led by our knowledge of right and wrong. It gets us away from the “tree” and back to reliance upon God.

Mephi: I expect Kingdom movement in Creation to be furthered by my prayer. What that exactly looks like at any specific instance in a given point in time, I can never have a totally solid idea.

Tom: Exactly. THAT expectation is what I understand “faith” to be. It can even be expressed in terms of specific things we expect to happen, but it fundamentally has to do with the assurance that our prayers contribute to Kingdom outcomes as viewed from God’s perspective, not mine. So faith has to do with explaining the past as much as the future!

Mephi: I think two fairly solid intuitions that you will get from people of any religious belief dealing with prayer to gods or spirits.

"Prayer can help change situations and people."
and...
"I do not always get what I ask for when I pray, even when I have tons of faith in my praying."

Tom: I don’t see how the second one is an “intuition.” It just looks like a recognition of fact—we don’t always get what we believe for. Intuitions are the assumptions and beliefs we might appeal to in an effort to explain why the world is the sort of place where our prayers don’t always produce the desired outcomes.

Tom