Non-Cals prayer for Non-Believers

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oh, oops! I pray for the Father to draw, the Holy Spirit to convict, and for Jesus to save.

/

Calvinism, at least non hyper form, does indeed teach that we are to preach/teach/pray for salvation of all, as we cannot know just whom are the ones God elected out to receive eternal life thru jesus!

You don't know what you are talking about do you?

 

[Yeshua1]

/



You don't know what you are talking about do you?

We are commanded to teach and preach jesus to all sinners, to pray for all, .... in order to have the Lord out of His grace and mercies to bring in salvation unto those He chose to get saved!

Since none of us know who they are, we still must pray and preach to all!

 

[Greektim]

The problem with your inquiry is that God knows who will say yes and we do not. So yes we pray for God to draw for this is His will that He should draw and we should pray, thus, we are doing God's will by praying for the lost to be saved, even knowing our prayer isn't forcing God nor forcing man, but the prayer is causing effects, for God works through prayer.

Now if I pray "hoping God softens the heart to the point where he knows it will bring about a change", is this Calvinistic? If you prayer is mere "hope" it could change a situation then that prayer is the same as an Arminian prayer, is it not?

But what you are saying is full of holes. Do you pray for God to effectually draw people or ineffectually? If the first, that's Calvinistic. If the second, then why bother?

As for a Cavlinistic prayer, we aren't praying to change God's plan so much as "making our requests known to God" (biblical). And our request is that God will effectually change hearts. We can be consistent here. "God, breath life into their dry bones! Give them a heart of flesh and remove their heart of stone!!! Nevertheless, your will be done" (all biblical).

 

[Revmitchell]

Non cals do not think in terms of effectual or ineffectual. Neither do we pray in such a manner.

 

[Greektim]

Non cals do not think in terms of effectual or ineffectual. Neither do we pray in such a manner.

I think you do. You hope for an effectual outcome, an effectual wooing. Therefore, you pray hoping for an effectual "drawing".

Or would you actually say you hope God does what he says he will do (as you believe) and draw everyone? If so, then you have the same predicament as the Calvie... why pray for something God said he would do already. Unless, you are hoping for an effectual drawing, thus the purpose behind the prayer. That is the only thing that makes sense.

 

[Winman]

I think you do. You hope for an effectual outcome, an effectual wooing. Therefore, you pray hoping for an effectual "drawing".

Or would you actually say you hope God does what he says he will do (as you believe) and draw everyone? If so, then you have the same predicament as the Calvie... why pray for something God said he would do already. Unless, you are hoping for an effectual drawing, thus the purpose behind the prayer. That is the only thing that makes sense.

Non-Cals do not believe in your "effectual" calling, although we do believe God knows best how to influence a person. A good example is Jonah, God knew exactly how to persuade him to go to Nineveh.

I believe God calls and draws everyone, but at some point God will give "up" or "over" a person to a reprobate mind. I pray God would not give up on this person and continue to draw and call them.

You see this in the Bible, when the Jews sinned God was going to destroy them, but Moses prayed that God would forgive them.

Num 14:11 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?
12 I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.
13 And Moses said unto the LORD, Then the Egyptians shall hear it, (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them; )
14 And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.
15 Now if thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying,
16 Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness.
17 And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my Lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying,
18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
19 Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.
20 And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word:

God was pretty fed up with the Jews here, and was going to destroy them. But Moses made a very persuasive argument, that God himself would be dishonored if he destroyed the Jews, and that it would be said that God was not able to bring his people into the land he swore he would give them.

God listened to this argument and granted Moses request.

This just shows that all things are not pre-determined, that God hears prayer, and that prayer can change things.

All this would be nonsensical if Calvinism is true.

 

[Yeshua1]

All of us as sinners already have a mindset set against God, so unless God changes our mindset/direction, we cannot come to know Him!

Need to have the Holy Spirit grant them new life, as in themselves, is just death!

 

[Winman]

All of us as sinners already have a mindset set against God, so unless God changes our mindset/direction, we cannot come to know Him!

Need to have the Holy Spirit grant them new life, as in themselves, is just death!

Could you please show the scripture that says these things?

Otherwise you are simply a Reformed parrot.

 

[Luke2427]

Well, while I believe in free will, and do not believe God can force anyone to believe, that is not to say I do not believe God can cause circumstances in a person's life that would encourage them to believe.

So then, if God can do more upon request, God is not already doing everything he can to save everybody.

Is that not preferential treatment?

Does that not have God loving some more than others?

 

[Inspector Javert]

So then, if God can do more upon request, God is not already doing everything he can to save everybody.

That is a non-sequitor:
God may always intend or have intended to "DO MORE" and inasmuch as he chooses to work through prayer, he may do so concurrent with the prayers he in his Omniscience already knew you would pray.

He answers our petitions before we ask them....but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

Is that not preferential treatment?

Nobody denies that some persons are given what you are calling "preferential treatment". The mere fact that neither you nor I were born into an obscure isolated tribe in New Guinea is one reason we might consider ourselves as blessed more so than another.
I maintain that Hosea's particular calling to marry a prostitute to be much less advantageous as mine is, and therefore consider myself to be treated somewhat more "preferentially" in that regard at least....I feel I at least have been given a far lighter burden to bear than he....

But, then, I imagine all scenarios have both advantages and disadvantages which are not easy for you or I to recognize.

What we especially can't know is what particular circumstances will lead a given person to salvation in Jesus Christ which is arguably, his primary goal. We could only speak for ourselves.

There is no reason to leap to the conclusion that God simply has no desire for all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Does that not have God loving some more than others?

Not necessarily. We do not know what the particular sorts of circumstances are, or must be to shape or influence how a person acts.
We can't BEGIN to imagine the complexities involved, and they may be less than simple. What may have a certain effect upon you or I may have no such effect on someone else.
We can only appeal to our own ignorance. That doesn't lead us to any conclusions other than.....
We DON'T KNOW something.

 

[Luke2427]

That is a non-sequitor:
God may always intend or have intended to "DO MORE" and inasmuch as he chooses to work through prayer, he may do so concurrent with the prayers he in his Omniscience already knew you would pray.

He answers our petitions before we ask them....but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

Nobody denies that some persons are given what you are calling "preferential treatment".

It seems to me that no matter how you slice it, you still have God not doing everything he can to save everybody.

If he can do more in answer to your prayer for someone's conviction or salvation than he would have done without it- then he is simply not trying to save everybody with equal effort.

If he is trying to save each one as much as every other, then there is no point in praying for him to do more to save the one for whom you are particularly concerned in your prayer.

Hence, it seems to me, that prayer in the Arminian scheme is pointless.

 

[Revmitchell]

Hence, it seems to me, that prayer in the Arminian scheme is pointless.

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

 

[Tom Butler]

How do you pray for the lost? What exactly do you say/ask of God?

This is curious to me. I may press your ideas, but I am truly inquisitive.

I'm joining this thread late. I just remembered something I found several years ago, and found it in a computer folder.

It's called the Arminian Prayer. It doesn't directly speak to the OP, but does indirectly.

Here 'tis:

God, I thank you that You provided salvation for every person and that everyone has the equal opportunity to that salvation. And I thank You for my salvation. Actually, I thank me some for my salvation because You gave us all the freedom to choose. Yes, God, every man You gave the freedom to choose or reject You. I chose You and I'm sure You're happy that I did. After You provided salvation for everybody it is good that somebody responds to it. I responded to it and I thank You. Well, really, it was my choice so I don't thank You for my response. I'm sure You're grateful to me that I responded. If I and some others had not chosen to respond You would not have any children and that would be too bad. So I know that You're delighted with those of us that had the good sense to do what is right, to love You and choose You. Everybody could have chosen You, but I'm the one who did. It is just too bad that those other people were not as clever as I am. God, I'm sure You're disappointed in them. But don't take it too hard. You still have us that had the brains to appropriate Your salvation. God, I'm obliged for Your part in my salvation. And though You have never said so, I'm sure You are appreciative to me for my part as well. There is no doubt that when I get to heaven You will let me know how grateful You are. We've worked this out together for our mutual benefit. I thank You and You thank me. How nice. We are a real team. And God, I especially thank You that I am not like those self-righteous Calvinists. Well, actually, You didn't have anything to do with that so I don't thank You. It was my choice to believe what I believe so I'm sure You are happy with me. Imagine me thinking that You were so egotistical as to do all the choosing Yourself. How unfair! Those Calvinists are so self-righteous to think that You would just save them while they do nothing but sin. But I'm not like that. I know I made the right decision when I chose You, God, and You can take great joy in it. To God be all the glory... Well, a little of it anyway. Amen.

I know, it's a satire, attempting to inject some humor into a serious subject. But the question is, how closely does this "prayer" reflect the Arminian (or non-Cal) view? If you think it over-simplifies, what, then, would be a prayer which does reflect the Arminian view?

 

[JonC]

I know, it's a satire, attempting to inject some humor into a serious subject. But the question is, how closely does this "prayer" reflect the Arminian (or non-Cal) view? If you think it over-simplifies, what, then, would be a prayer which does reflect the Arminian view?

It does not over simplify the Arminian position, it misrepresents that position.

(e.g.: “You provided salvation for every person” is universalism, not Arminianism. “Every person has the equal opportunity to that salvation” should have left out “equal.” The “freedom to choose” is not a “gift” but an attribute in that view, and keep in mind that many Calvinists believe we have the ‘freedom to choose’ but always choose in accord with our fallen nature. The idea that an Arminian would not be grateful for salvation based on the logical outcome of their theology is also incorrect - salvation remains a grace of God rather than man although our philosophical arguments will try to show otherwise).

But...as you point out...it is a satire. Perhaps the topic of the satire not only applies to Arminian "inconsistencies" but also Calvinistic misjudgments.

 

[Luke2427]

It does not over simplify the Arminian position, it misrepresents that position.

(e.g.: “You provided salvation for every person” is universalism, not Arminianism.

What then did God provide for every man when he paid the price for every sin every man ever committed?

What is it that God makes available that man can choose to accept or reject?

Is it not salvation? Does the cross not make salvation available to every man?

“Every person has the equal opportunity to that salvation” should have left out “equal.”

Why? Is God trying harder to save some than others? Isn't that just a watered down version of the thing that Arminians hate so much about Calvinists- that God is not extending the same offer to all men?

It is not the same extension of the offer if he reaches out a little more to some than he does to others.

The “freedom to choose” is not a “gift” but an attribute in that view,

Where did the attribute come from? Did it not come from God like all other things? Is it not then a gift from God?

Calling it an attribute instead of a gift seems to me like a kid opening a fire engine toy at Christmas and when he says, "Thank you for this gift," you say, "It is not a gift- it is a fire engine."

The idea that an Arminian would not be grateful for salvation based on the logical outcome of their theology is also incorrect -

The Arminian is grateful that God made salvation possible. He cannot be grateful for the appropriation of that salvation since the Arminian himself is the one who appropriated unto himself by his superior choosing abilities (superior to those poor stupid souls who do not choose).

 

[Tom Butler]

Yeah, I suppose it is a bit over the top in a couple of places.

But most DoGs will think it's funny.

And most non-Cals will think as you do.

 

[JonC]

Yeah, I suppose it is a bit over the top in a couple of places.

But most DoGs will think it's funny.

And most non-Cals will think as you do.

:smilewinkgrin: No, I actually thought it was funny...not as funny as the "daisy" comment (He loves me, He loves me not) a while back. I just think that it reflects more of a Calvinist view than an Arminian theology (if it were serious).

 

[JonC]

Calling it an attribute instead of a gift seems to me like a kid opening a fire engine toy at Christmas and when he says, "Thank you for this gift," you say, "It is not a gift- it is a fire engine."

:laugh: That's funny.

Salvation and an opportunity to be saved are different things. I am only saying that the satire posted, and many of the critiques of Arminianism provided, do not deal with Arminianism within its own context. Just look at how often Cal/non-Cal debates go astray on this forum due to evaluating a position within the context of the opposite view.

Your questions highlight this observation. Were I to answer them, we would not totally agree (from past experience I think that we both realize where the other stands and that we are for the most part in agreement). My "L" in TULIP is there, but doesn't meet your expectations - I believe that all have an opportunity to be saved, but that all reject God but for those He draws unto Himself. For me, the gospel includes all of creation that waits in anticipation and therefore even doctrines of a final judgment of the lost is Christ centered. This of course means that there are other issues of Atonement that we would have to discuss before we could even start a debate (our disagreement may be larger or smaller than appears).

I'm not interested in that discussion. The only point that I was trying, although poorly, to make was that if the satire were serious - and perhaps even if not - then it reflected Calvinism more than Arminianism as it views their theology under the guide of Calvinism and arrives at a poor understanding of their doctrine (which, BTW, I also reject).

 

[Winman]

What then did God provide for every man when he paid the price for every sin every man ever committed?

What is it that God makes available that man can choose to accept or reject?

Is it not salvation? Does the cross not make salvation available to every man?

The non-Cal or Arminian would answer YES, but if you believe in Limited Atonement, you must answer NO.

Why? Is God trying harder to save some than others? Isn't that just a watered down version of the thing that Arminians hate so much about Calvinists- that God is not extending the same offer to all men?

It is not the same extension of the offer if he reaches out a little more to some than he does to others.

Jesus gave his life to save all men. How can you do more than that? But in Calvinism, Jesus did not give his life for many men.

Where did the attribute come from? Did it not come from God like all other things? Is it not then a gift from God?

Calling it an attribute instead of a gift seems to me like a kid opening a fire engine toy at Christmas and when he says, "Thank you for this gift," you say, "It is not a gift- it is a fire engine."

To the non-Cal or Arminian, free will is an ability given to all men.

The Arminian is grateful that God made salvation possible. He cannot be grateful for the appropriation of that salvation since the Arminian himself is the one who appropriated unto himself by his superior choosing abilities (superior to those poor stupid souls who do not choose).

Again, the non-Cal or Arminian believes all men have free will, so we are not superior to those who refuse salvation.

Now, that those who choose Christ are wiser than those who reject Christ, the scriptures repeatedly show that is true. Read Proverbs chapter 1 where wise persons who listen to God are contrasted to foolish persons who despise knowledge and wisdom. But that is a choice, every man could choose wisely.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Where did the attribute come from? Did it not come from God like all other things? Is it not then a gift from God?

Since when is free-will a "gift" or even necessarily a "good" thing?

It's simply a fact of life.
You have steeped yourself so far into Calvinism that you are assuming Arminians must think free-will to be an inherently "good" thing, that we "WANT". Only Calvinists think that freedom of Will is always something
to be desperately DESIRED.

Arminians think that to not have a free-will would exonnerate us from sin.

To think that Arminians desire to have freedom of will is as reasonable as thinking that Calvinists desire to have a sin nature.

Calvinist carping about how Arminians "cling" to their freedom of will, and defend the notion, as though we regarded it as somehow precious or inherently to be desired is absurd of them, and always makes me chuckle.

Freedom of Will is simply a-priori fact...
It's not a "gift".
It just is.