I Will Not Pray For You

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Scarlett O.:


I cannot imagine not praying for lost people. I often pray during the invitation time at our church that God will not stop knocking on the heart's door of the lost.

Why? You don't believe in irresistable grace do you? If God decides to keep knocking until the sinner answers... that is exactly what you have- irresistable grace.

I pray for the message of the sermon and music and the tesimonies not to fall on deaf ears.

You mean some have ears to hear but some aren't given ears to hear? Do you expect God to give them ears to hear when you thus pray? Sounds like unconditional election... that God has the choice to answer by giving ears to hear or not.

Sometimes I pray to God that this will be the day of salvation for the person in the congregation that is closet to eternal hell.

You mean that you pray for God to intervene and interfere with a person's free will? Won't that make God a tyrant? Won't that make Him unfair? How could you possibly worship a God that won't leave people alone and let them make their own choice after He has given everyone an equal chance?

Praying to God to move upon the lost with His grace and mercy is given. I don't understand otherwise.

Bingo. God moves first.

Sorry for being rough on you Scarlett. I haven't interacted with you on C/A so I don't know where you come down on it. But we constantly endure the accusations I've alluded to in these questions from anti-calvinists.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
npet; You have a way of bringing out the worst in people. Something in me wants to respond and type a Calvinist prayer but it would be swapping railing for railing, so I will resist the temptation and pray for you and all people in the situation that woman was in.

Here, I'll do one for you.

"God, I want so-and-so to be saved, but there's no point in my praying for him because you've already decided whether or not he should be saved. If he's among the elect, you'll save him without my prayers. If he's not among the elect, you'll just ignore my prayer anyway. Since there's no point either way, I won't pray for him."

The problem with this parody is that it is all perfectly true. God has already decided whether or not so-and-so will be saved. There is NO POINT in praying for the lost if what you think you are doing is influencing God on the matter.

But that's not what prayer is. Prayer is, among other things, alignment with God (praying for the lost is in alignment with God, since He has come to seek and save the lost), awareness of our dependency upon Him, thankfulness, an acknowledgement of His glory, and so on.

For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.

If prayer was about influencing God, then the above statement would lead me to the conclusion that there's no point in praying. But Jesus continues...

9 In this manner, therefore, pray:

Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.
13 And do not lead us into temptation,
But deliver us from the evil one.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

Your kingdom come. Isn't God's kingdom coming whether we ask for it or not? So what's the point in praying that His kingdom come? It keeps us looking forward to His kingdom.

Your will be done. If God's is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, what's the point of praying that His will be done? His will is done whether we ask for it or not. He says so. He DECLARES the end from the beginning. He says it and it happens.

So why pray that His will be done? Because it is a positional statement. It keeps us AWARE of the fact that what's IMPORTANT is that God's will, not ours, be done. Man is by nature self-centered, and this repositions us properly.

Give us this day our daily bread. Doesn't God already know we need our daily bread? Of course He does. So why should we ask? Because prayer isn't about getting God to do things he wasn't already going to do.

Need I continue?

 

[saturneptune]

Npet,
If I were a person trying to decide between Calvinism and free-will (which I am not), and read the mean spirited and rudeness of your posts, I would be inclined to be a free-willer, which does not do anyone much good.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
Npet,
If I were a person trying to decide between Calvinism and free-will (which I am not), and read the mean spirited and rudeness of your posts, I would be inclined to be a free-willer, which does not do anyone much good.

To God be the Glory, but thank you.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Sorry for being rough on you Scarlett. I haven't interacted with you on C/A so I don't know where you come down on it.

As some on this board can probably tell you, I am one tough cookie. I didn't flinch at all from your post.

I tend to avoid the C/A threads because there is too much flaming and not enough peace and cooperation. Neither side will be moved and it reminds me of two rams who keep on banging their heads together regardless of the fact that some of the flock has wandered away and the enemy is creeping in on the rest.

I will leave you with this. I am going to say a prayer for ALL of you that peace rules in your hearts.

I mean that sincerely.

Peace-
Scarlett O.
<><

 

[saturneptune]

Npet,
To God Be the Glory and the tone of your posts are not harmonious.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
Npet,
To God Be the Glory and the tone of your posts are not harmonious.

Says you? And what would be harmonious with the glory of God? Only sweetsie weetsie lovey dovey talk? Maybe you need to spend less time in sensitivity sessions and start reading the Bible.

I am answerable only to God in my passion for His glory. You can think whatever you like.

 

[saturneptune]

 

[Brother Bob]

So much for "except you become as this little child you shall in no wise enter the Kingdom of God".

 

[Tom Butler]

saturneptune, you're free to react to npet's posts any way you wish. You may not like the tone, but I urge to read his post for content as well as tone. He is correct.

And Scott J is pointing out Scarlett's inconsistency of a non-Calvinist who prays for the lost. God cannot save one who who will not be saved, no matter how much one prays.

Christ may "knock on the door" but is powerless to do more. The non-Calvinist holds that Christ, by dying on the cross, has done all that He can do, even if it is not quite enough.

I have no doubt Scarlett and all the othe non-Calvinists have a great burden for the lost. And saturneptune, I know you do. And I don't for one minute think anybody should not pray for God to save lost people. Non-Calvinists simply are inconsistent on this matter. They believe like Arminians, but pray like Calvinists.

 

[epistemaniac]

re standingfirm's saying

He should have prayed for God to open her eyes to the way of salvation.

but... the point is, he did not have to pray for her to have her eyes open to the way of salvation.... she was standing right there in front of him with her eyes wide open and he told her quite plainly and in no uncertain terms that to be saved she must trust in Christ... he said "that you are to trust yourself in Christ's hands , relying on His atoning sacrifice" .... now why would her eyes have to be open any further? The way of salvation was put plainly before her, or do you think that there was something else she had to know?

Secondly, as others have pointed out, for God to "open her eyes" would be for God to violate the vaunted free will that so many are so anxious to preserve and protect, at any cost, and especially to be protected from God's activity. If He opened her eyes without her permission to do so, where is free will now?

blessings,
Ken

 

[saturneptune]

A Calvinist would say Npet is correct, which may or may not be true, that is a matter of opinion. The tone is just as important. To say he is correct is ok if it is understood it is an opinion and not fact.

 

[saturneptune]

Npet,
Another thing, besides your tone, you seem to imply that you have some special understanding of God's eternal plan above other mortal men. Yes, God does have elect and non-elect from eternity past. What you do not seem to understand is that you have no way of knowing who the elect and non-elect are, therefore, have no idea who to pray for or not pray for, for the ridiculous concept that is.

 

[epistemaniac]

tone is not important in discovering truth, if someone said in a very condescending way, "2+2=4", would we therefore have to reject it? If something is true, its true regardless of how someone says it. The tone one uses may have to be addressed for other reasons, but not for deciding if something is true or false.

blessings,
Ken

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
What you do not seem to understand is that you have no way of knowing who the elect and non-elect are, therefore, have no idea who to pray for or not pray for, for the ridiculous concept that is.

I will forgive you for not reading my posts in other threads. I have said, repeatedly, that we do not know who the elect are, and therefore we must share the Gospel with everyone. I have even quoted (in support) Spurgeon as having said something like "if God had painted a stripe down the backs of the elect, I'd know to whom to preach. As God has not done that, I'll preach to everyone."

 

[Tom Butler]

Saturneptune, let's see here. I must be reading things wrong. Are you saying that Calvinists shouldn't pray for the lost or witness to them, or preach to them because we don't know who the elect are?

Are you also conversely saying it's okay for a non-Calvinist to pray for the lost, to witness to them and preach to them? It seems as if you're implying that, but surely I must be seeing it wrong.

Something doesn't compute here, and I'd appreciate some clarification.

 

[saturneptune]

My wording may not have been the best on the last post. It was late after a long day at work. The point as I see it is that we are to pray without ceasing for whatever the Holy Spirit leads us to pray for. To inject the Calvinist Arminian debate into the subject of prayer (and that includes the ridiculous parodies of prayer on both sides), and come to some type of ridiculous conclusion on either side that there is a time not to pray for someone (subject of this thread) to me is way out of bounds. Does this debate have to infect every aspect of Christian discussion??

As for the tone, as far as I am concerned, it makes no difference to me if 500 people say tone does not matter. It most certainly does. First of all, what purpose does an arrogant and looking down your nose at someone tone accomplish verses a respectful tone? Phrases like "your ignorance is showing again" or others above are not necessary to get the point across.

Calvinism makes the most sense for an eternal and sovereign God. However, it seems to me that the vast majority of posts of this tone come from Calvinists. Why is that? Is this the tone you use to witness to others? Is this the tone you pray to the Lord? (if you choose to pray for that person, I almost forgot). The only time I can recall Jesus angry was at the money changers and Pharisees. That is called righteous anger. Since there is none of that in us, who are we as flawed humans to have an arrogant tone with anyone, especially in spiritual matters?

 

[Me4Him]

Why should a person pray and have "Sympathy, Compassion" toward any unsaved, if God has "predestine" that he won't, aren't we to "conform to his image"???

Like the woman who knew what she had to do to be saved and Spurgeon refused to pray for again, God/Jesus has done all that's necessary to save the whole world, but unless the world places it's faith in Jesus, and "COMES" to the light, it's of no benefit to them, and Why Jesus said he wouldn't pray for those who refused to come.

Joh 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Hell was created for Satan and his angels, not man, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, that the whole world "might be" saved, but unless man accepts the "Free gift" of his sins being paid by Jesus, he'll have to pay those wages himself.

God's spirit will only "Strive" to save a person for so long, that's why "Today" is the day of salvation, not tomorrow, next week, once that striving is finished, it's too late.

Pr 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;

25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:

26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;

27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.

28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.

31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.

Ga 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

God sowed a "SEED" that the "whole world", "MIGHT" reap salvation.

 

[Brother Bob]

TB; Are you also conversely saying it's okay for a non-Calvinist to pray for the lost, to witness to them and preach to them? It seems as if you're implying that, but surely I must be seeing it wrong. (who does a free-willer think he is anyway? Does he think he can pray for someone? What in the world is a free-willer doing preaching the Gospel, I just don't understand at all for he is not of us.)

If the woman was of the "elect" what difference did it make what Spurgeon thought or did. It was to no avail either way if she was the "elect". So maybe we judged him too quick, maybe Spurgeon somehow knew this woman was not one of the group and he had more important things to do, such as tell the free-willers they are lost.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
If the woman was of the "elect" what difference did it make what Spurgeon thought or did. It was to no avail either way if she was the "elect". So maybe we judged him too quick, maybe Spurgeon somehow knew this woman was not one of the group and he had more important things to do, such as tell the free-willers they are lost.

And people complain about MY tone?!?! Here you are showing disrepect for Spurgeon and lying about his motives. Why is it a lie and not a misrepresentation? Because you can see plainly from the text WHY He refused to pray for her. He refused warp the Gospel for the sake of this woman's self-centeredness. He said "trust in Christ, period, I am not going to ask God to let you in some other way." And look at the end result! The woman was saved, and according to her, she was saved at least in part because He refused to warp the truth for her sake.

So here we have a preacher who refuses to warp the truth for the sake of a woman. We have a woman who gets saved and SHE credits Spurgeon's integrity as part of that process. And you're still making up idiotic things like "maybe Spurgeon somehow knew this woman was not one of the group and he had more important things to do, such as tell the free-willers they are lost".

I feel like I'm in the same room as the Pharisees, questioning the blind man who was made to see. Here it is, plainly a work of God, and they're stubbornly refusing to credit Jesus for it, or see it is of God because it doesn't fit into their man-centered view of righteousness.