Do You Pray for the Lost?

I guess my question though is still, Why would you pray with your theology? If God has done all that he will do in indiscriminately drawing people, is it not an impingement on free will to arrange circumstances to bring about something that otherwise would not be a free choice? Is that not a textbook definition of manipulation? Additionally would not God be unfair in responding to your prayers for certain people while leaving unaffected those who are not fortunate to have someone to pray for them?

I think this point shows a drastic inconsistency in your theology. While you desparately protect man's free will in your theology, you pray for God to contravene or manipulate free will.

I agree we should pray for the lost. I think verses like 2 Thess 3:1 is about praying for the spread of the word among the lost. Yet I can pray because I believe God does work in this way.

 

Praying for the lost does not manipulate free-will. If the god of this world has blinded some to what the truth is, I think we, as believers have the authority in Jesus name to pray that the blinders come off so they can know the truth. I will have to consult my bible for the exact scriptures for this.
I read all throughout the New Testament about Christians preaching to the lost.
Jesus, in the book of John 17:20, prayed not only for the believers, but also for those who will believe in Him through our words.
So, if Jesus Himself prayed for the lost, I guess we should follow His example.
Naomi

 

I disagree. For us who believe that God is in sovereign control of all things, we understand that he ordains the means as well as the ends. God did not ordain an end (that people be saved) without also ordaining the means (birth, circumstances, praying friends, the witness of the message, etc.). I can pray because I believe that God intervenes to save his elect. Our God has "done all that he can do" and now must sit and wait for someone to respond.

 

I agree with you. What I was pointing out is that Helen believes that God does not intervene in human free will and each person can choose of their unaided free will to accept or reject God. In praying for the lost, Helen is contradicting everything she claims to believe about God's way of working in salvation.

 

I guess, there are two schools of thought here
On one hand, I believe that we do have a choice. We are not robots. On the other hand, I believe that God can intervene through the prayers of the saints. If the blinders were taken off, and the lost can truly see their need for a Savior, they could make their own choice to believe. Some would still choose their own way, and not follow God. Others would choose to repent and follow God. Yet, it is His kindness that leads one to repentance.
All I know is God is God. He is all powerful, and all knowing. I am not
If I chose of my own free-will to follow Him, that would be more "real love" then it would be if I did not have a choice in the matter. It reminds me of various cultures that have arranged marriages. How can that be real love? They never had the choice of who they were going to marry. I guess I lean more towards free-will.
Although I believe that once you are saved, and know who Jesus is, I do not think He just up and leaves you for eternity.
Am I a Calvinist? (perhaps, just a little)
Naomi

 

I pray that the Lord's will will be done in all things. I don't pray for sheep to be added nor taken away from those that Jesus Christ had in view on Calvary. Jesus didn't pray for the world: "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine" (John 17:9). I appreciate the "Calvinistic" brethren on here pointing out the absurd inconsistencies with the Arminians praying for people to be saved. After all, the sinner has to submit to God first...right? You're not actually praying for God to override man's precious, sovereign free will now are you? We are to preach the Gospel in all the world as the Spirit leads us for the exhortation, instruction, and edification of the Lord's people...as Jesus commanded. The preaching will only be effective where God has prepared the heart (soil) to receieve the seed (Gospel) as Jesus so clearly taught the disciples in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13). When those who are ordained to eternal life hear and believe the Gospel PROCLAMATION, they will rejoice and be glad at the word of the Lord (Acts 13:48). God will get ALL the glory, not man. Those in Corinth were already God's people before Paul ever went there: "For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city" (Acts 18:10). So explain to me how hearing the Gospel makes one a child of God. I pray that the Lord's will will be done in ALL THINGS, and that He will receieve all glory, honour, and praise for what HE has done for His people. The Gospel was meant to save His elect (in time) and them only. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:6); "believeth" (literally, who is believing). It saves believers: "So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also" (Rom. 1:15). They were already saved. "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but UNTO US WHICH ARE SAVED it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18). Tell me how a man who does not receive spiritual things is saved by hearing the Gospel alone (1 Cor. 2:14). Eternal salvation, regeneration, etc. are ALL in the hands of God. Trust God that He will do His will which he purposed before any of us were ever born. The Bible makes it plain that only a remnant of Israel would be saved a chapter or two before, so you mean to tell me Paul was praying for Israel's eternal salvation after he just wrote only a remnant would be saved? That doesn't make good sense.

[ May 27, 2002, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

While there may be a lot of theoretical sense in this, you have to beware of turning it into pure scripting, like God wrote that you would preach to this person and he would get saved. But then someone else chose not to preach, (even though he could have; as if the outcome was not yet decided), so another person did not hear the Gospel and was not saved. But it was really God who wrote that this person would not be preached to and not be saved, yet both that person and the lazy preacher would be "responsible" for their "free actions" (that God really scripted). As at least one Calvinist [Westminster/John Knox published] writer pointed out, this actually makes God uninvolved because He simply wrote a long film, and then sat back and watched it play. (His only "involvement" is if He scripted Himself into the film as well).
All of this shows that we cannot answer completely how prayer works. We just do it and let God take care of it.

 

I thank God that I can pray for the lost. I thank God that I had a praying mom and dad who prayed for me during a revival that led to my salvation!
You go and think you have heard it all and then someone comes up with a doozy!
Every time I bow my head I pray that the Holy Spirit will convict my lost loved one's hearts. We are to come to the throne with boldness!

In Christ,
Susan

 

Romans 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Apostle Paul would never want to be accursed from the gift of eternal salvation. To allow those brethren who were lost to the truth as they are in Christ Jesus, those who were blinded to what they had long desired. They were in the covenant of grace as the scriptures plainly teach but they were lost to the joys of their salvation. God knows who his children are Past, Present, and Future. Why do we seem to be talking about two different Gods? Those who think their loved ones are lost underestimate the power of my God... Brother Glen

[ May 27, 2002, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Well, it certainly says that Paul prayed for their salvation. If it wasn't for their eternal salvation, then what was it?

You seem to think we have to know that something is ordained by God before we can pray for it. But then how can you pray for anything? How can any person know the mind of God? How can we know what things he plans to do?

Paul may have known that only a remnant of the nation Israel would be saved, but he certainly didn't know exactly how large that remnant was, or who exactly was part of that remant. There is no reason why he couldn't pray for any individual Israelite to be saved.

If God foresees (or even ordains, as I believe) the prayer I will pray today, why couldn't he elect someone before the foundation of the world in response to the prayer I will pray today? Couldn't the Spirit move me to pray for someone because God is planning to begin bringing them to faith.

If I feel really concerned about someone's salvation, I always think there is a good possibility that that concern is Spirit-given--it is the Spirit moving me to pray in accordance to the Father's will, and the Father is willing to bring that lost sheep to himself.

[ May 27, 2002, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

Russell55 said:

You are putting yourself into the equation and it is either all of God or none of God. There is no question on that!... To say God responds to what us sinners do in regards to Eternal Salvation is a gross error. When you are regenerated then you can respond and not before. Before you are regenerated you are a corpse. I pray for those on here that they might see the truth and that truth is... Eternal Salvation Is All Of God!... You want to talk about the joys of that salvation that is dependent upon you!... Brother Glen

 

Oh, it is ALL of God. It is all God's work. But sometimes God chooses to accomplish part of His work using human agents.

Paul planted, Apollos watered, God gave the increase. The size of the harvest is up to God, but God uses His human agents to do some of the work that helps bring the harvest. And I believe prayer for specific individuals is part of the work of the harvest.

Can God use me to accomplish what He desires? Of course? Does anything God do DEPEND on me? Of course not!

[ May 27, 2002, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus said, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37). "Giveth" is in the present active tense which means a continual giving. The Father is not passively sitting on His throne hoping that a sinner will make a "decision for Christ." There would never be any decisions apart from the regenerating grace of God. God is continually and effectually bringing the elect to His Son. The humanistic philosophy of free-will was the worst satanic deception ever introduced to the Lord's church.

 

I believe that this sums it up beautifully!

IICorinthians 4:1-7

4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

I would rather err on the side of preaching the gospel to the lost, and praying for their salvation, then err on the side of not doing so because it has already been determined on who is and who is not saved. I do not have all the answers, but I know that God is Sovereign. I trust Him completely. Have you heard? All the Angels rejoice when one sinner repents. See, it is not for our glory, it is for His!
I am not going to tell anyone what to do now that they are saved. That is between you and God, but as for me and my household...we are going into the highways and bi-ways, and invite as many as we can to know who Jesus is and tell them of the salvation He offers. We will not tell them it is of their own free-will, we will not tell them, they cannot be saved unless they were already chosen, we will tell them, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved! It is not our job to save anyone, it is our command to witness
Naomi

 

Maybe never "fatalism" but it seems the Calvinist position is something of a divine fatalism.

 

This would not be an error. It would be obedience. However, we must understand that our prayers are a part of God's plan in human history.

 

Maybe never "fatalism" but it seems the Calvinist position is something of a divine fatalism.</font>[/QUOTE]See Is Predestination the Same Thing as Fate? by Benjamin B. Warfield

 

My phrase, “divine fatalism,” implies that such determinism “proceeds from a rational Being,” as opposed to fatalism per se. As such, Warfield’s comments cited by Chris are irrelevant.

Be that as it may, with all due respect, I think Warfield lightly dismisses Schopenhauer's remark. From my perspective, it is not the source of predestination or fatalism, which is problematic, but it’s mode of operation and the results of it. Scopenhauer rightly remarks that they “do not differ in the main” except that the predestination "of human action proceeds from a rational Being, and with fatalism from an irrational one. But in either case the result is the same,” which similarity thus constitutes the essential difficulty in accepting the Reformed idea of divine determination.

In my opinion, Warfield dismisses the relevant problems, does not address the issue in any significant way, and forms a trivial argument.

For example, Warfield seems to completely dismiss (or rather, reject) the fact that, as with fatalism, divine determinism “involves ‘an inevitable necessity’ in the falling out of events.” Such an “inevitable necessity” accords with the Reformed idea that “God determines all that shall happen in his universe.” Since it is impossible for an event to occur other than as it has been determined by God, regardless of whether or not these events are under a “divine influence” (a view he seems to disparage) or “the loving hands of a father,” the fact is that its occurrence is an ‘an inevitable necessity.’

In another place, Warfield, citing William James, contends that the difference between fatalism and God’s predestination is illustrated by the difference between Aurelius’ “chill[ing] remark” and Job’s “passionate cry.” Unfortunately, I see no difference.

Aurelius’ statement (as it stands without the context, that not being available) may reflect a quality of trust (though misguided) equivalent to the trust Job has for Yahweh. Job’s statement assumes that, regardless of God’s semblance of indifference for unknown reasons, Job will trust the wisdom of such unconcern. For Aurelius, it can be said that he too, though not knowing why the gods do not care, nevertheless, will acknowledge that whatever their reasons, they are warranted. That Job means a personal God and Aurelius may intend the idea of fate is irrelevant to the fact that the events, which conspired against them, were an “inevitable necessity.”

Another example is Warfield’s story that, though it may touch heartstrings, is a circular argument. For one, it was an “inevitable necessity” that the Dutch boy disobey because God predetermined his disobedience to occur (unless it were possible for the boy to have done otherwise). As a result, the “loving hands of a father” are administering pain to a child who only acted according to God’s predetermination.

Out of curiosity, what kind of picture of God would we get from this story if the boy were to symbolize, not (as it seems) a believer but an unbeliever?

Warfield’s only objection seems to be equating God to “natural law” or “natural force.” What he fails to notice is that such an equating is actually irrelevant to the problem. Be it to a living “God who determines all that shall happen in his universe” or “to necessity, or to chance, or to the caprice of man, or to the malice of Satan, to control the sequence of events and all their issues,” is beside the point. The point is that under the idea of “fate” and the Reformed teachings, all events occur from an “inevitable necessity,” one by the predeterminations of a rational being and the other by an impersonal, irrational non-being, with the result that all events cannot occur otherwise.

After having read it a few times, I find that Warfield fails to show how predestination and fate are significantly different.

 

You see a rational being (God) and an irrational force as not beign significantly different? Perhaps that explains your apparent view of God that you have espoused. I do not say that to be derogatory but it is this precise issues of the nature of God that is one of the major components of this discussion (the other being the nature of man).

To redirect this to the topic at hand, we direct prayer to a rational Being, the Creator God of the Universe, precisely because we believe he is both able and willing to intervene in human history to bring about his purposes. You apparently believe that he is able but unwilling to. Helen and others believe that he is willing to intervene if someone asks but so far has yet to give a reason why some prayers for the lost are answered affirmatively and some not. (Is that a God of rationality? ... or Do we misunderstand prayer and the sovereignty of God?)

There is a vast difference between predestination and fate. As Warfield atply puts it, "All the language of men cannot tell the immensity of the difference."

 

Please note the opening sentence to my last post, which shows that Larry has not understood the thrust of my objection. It had nothing to do with confusing the nature of God with the idea of fate.

To reiterate: The point is that under the idea of “fate” and the Reformed teachings, all events occur from an “inevitable necessity,” one by the predeterminations of a rational being (i.e. God) and the other by an impersonal, irrational non-being (i.e. "natural force"), with the result that, in the case of each one, it is impossible for all events to occur otherwise.