Why Pray if God Is Sovereign? (Part 3)
January 26th, 2009
(By Matt Waymeyer)
So far, we have considered two reasons to pray in light of God’s sovereignty. Today we will consider two more.
3. God is able to respond to our prayers.
Rather than hindering the prayers of believers, the sovereignty of God ought to motivate them to pray, for “prayer grows from the certainty of God’s omnipotence and sovereignty” (The God Who Hears, 47). Put another way, if God does not reign in sovereignty over His creation and is not able to accomplish whatever He desires in and through it, why bother requesting of Him what He is unable to deliver?
To illustrate, if a five-year-old boy repeatedly asks his mother to make it stop raining on a Saturday morning, this may create a precious memory, but in the final analysis the boy’s request is misguided. As much as his mother might like to alter the weather, she simply lacks the ability to do so, and therefore to request this of her makes little sense. But when the children of God come before the throne of grace, they come with the full assurance that their heavenly Father is able to accomplish whatever He is pleased to do, for nothing is too difficult for Him. And this ought to motivate them to pray.
“To be worth praying to,” Hunter writes, “God has first of all got to have the power to do what we ask. Second, he must have sovereignty over creation to do what he wants to do” (The God Who Hears, 48). So perhaps the question, “If God is sovereign, why pray?” could be replaced with the question, “If God is not sovereign, why pray?” Believers must come to their God presenting to Him their requests because He has both the authority and the ability to grant what they have requested in their petitions and intercessory prayers.
4. God actually does respond to prayer.
The fourth reason that believers should pray is that God not only can, but actually does change the course of history in response to prayer. Jesus said, “[A]sk, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it shall be opened.” As Wayne Grudem points out, Jesus “makes a clear connection between seeking things from God and receiving them. When we ask, God responds” (Systematic Theology, 377).
Scripture is filled with examples of God granting to His people what they have requested in their prayers of petition and intercession. First Chronicles 4:10a records the prayer of Jabez in which he said, “Oh that Thou wouldst bless me indeed, and enlarge my border, and that Thy hand might be with me, and that Thou wouldst keep me from harm, that it may not pain me!” In response to Jabez’s prayer, “God granted him what he requested” (v. 10b). In Exodus 32:10, God told Moses of His intentions to destroy the people of Israel because of their idolatry. But Moses interceded on behalf of Israel (vv. 11-13), and in response to his prayer God relented and did not destroy them (v. 14). And as James records, God responded to the earnest prayers of Elijah in both initiating and ending a three-and-a-half-year drought (James 5:17-18; cf. Genesis 18:22-33; 32:26; Daniel 10:12; Amos 7:1-6; Acts 4:29-31; 10:31; and 12:5-11).
At the same time that it is acknowledged that God is sovereign, then, it must also be acknowledged that “[t]he effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much” (James 5:16b; cf. 4:2). In fact, immediately after answering the question of how to pray in Luke 11:2-4, Jesus goes on to answer the question of why to pray by giving two reasons—because God rewards diligence in prayer by granting requests (Luke 11:5-10), and because God delights in giving good gifts to His children (Luke 11:11-13).
In the words of Richard Pratt, then, “Prayer is a powerful human effort that can significantly affect not only the lives of individuals but the very course of world history” (Pray with Your Eyes Open, 112). This truth, no doubt, should be a powerful motive for the children of God to pray. As Grudem writes,
If we were really convinced that prayer changes the way God acts, and that God does bring about remarkable changes in the world in response to prayer,…then we would pray much more than we do. If we pray little, it is probably because we do not really believe that prayer accomplishes much at all (Systematic Theology, 377).
Mike (from an earlier post, same general subject)
said: But at the same time, Calvinists don’t deny that people have to choose to put their faith in Christ alone, and utterly rely upon Him for their righteousness. There is a choice. One must exercise their will.>
If the will is in TOTAL bondage to sin, then it cannot be exercised. Hyper-sovereignty (a new phrase I just coined) does not sort with scripture wherein people do things (many) that God did not make them do
Jer 32:35 ‘And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’
God doesn’t even TEMPT man to sin (though He tests)
Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
It has often been called God’s permissive will that allows man to do abominations. If those things too were God’s will then God’s ‘Law’ is a sham, an excuse to torment mankind.
BTW, I’ve never heard Ray B. say anything that would lead me to believe he was a Pelagian, did I miss something or is he just a good-ol’ Semi-Pelagian like me?
Oh, I see what you’re saying now. Man has to choose to have faith in Christ ALONE but he can’t do that until he’s regenerated…hmm? That’s clearer but I think still unbiblical. First he’s reborn, then trusts in Chris, then he’s reborn again? Two rebirths?
First he’s reborn, then trusts in Chris, then he’s reborn again? Two rebirths?
No. First he’s reborn, is given eyes to see, given ears to hear, a mind to understand. Then he sees, hears, and understands. Then he believes what he can only now see, hear, and understand properly. He’s not reborn again after that.
The logical order (a historically orthodox ordo salutis) is: Regeneration –> Faith. Not Faith –> Regeneration. You can’t believe before you’re alive. You can’t do anything before you’re alive. See Ac 16:14; John 6:44, 65; John 1:12-13; James 1:18; Eph 2:5; Col 2:13; Ezek 36:25-27, 37:1-14.
The important thing not to misunderstand, though, is that this is not a temporal order. Temporally, regeneration and faith are simultaneous. What I mean is, there are no regenerated people walking around who haven’t believed yet. There’s no time in between.
But logically, regeneration precedes faith. Again, you must be given eyes before you see. You must be given ears before you hear. You must be given a heart of flesh before you can incline it toward God.
In terms of Ray B., here’s what he said on a post about Infant Baptism over a year ago:
Ray B.: Christ died for sinners. Yet babies are not sinners. Jesus said they belong to the kingdom of heaven. They are innocent until they have particiapted in sin. All have sinned is written to those who could comprehend sin. They are the ones who have sinned , they are those included in all have sinned. Not the sinless babies who have not sinned.
There you have it. The doctrine of original sin denied. Adam’s sin did not corrupt our will. It didn’t even weaken it, as the semi-Pelagians say. It was Adam’s sin and his alone. Babies are born with a clean slate, and aren’t sinners until they “participate” in sin actively from their own wills.
Here’s the link to that thread. And there are others. That error was exposed not right away, but after much digging about thoughts about baptism, Calvinism, etc. It’s at the root of his heretical theology, and it’s at the root of your own theology about these things, David M. Yours isn’t heretical, simply because of your inconsistency.
Here is the relevant portion of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, which is the historical, orthodox position of the church.
(Note: “Effectual call” here is being used synonymously with the term “Regeneration”.)
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )
2._____ This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )
Good post.
The question should be “Why pray if God is NOT sovereign?”… exactly my point in the last post. It’s a stupid question to ask why pray if God IS sovereign. If anybody is truly struggling with that then their problem is not with prayer, but with understanding properly God’s sovereignty.
Mike, I think what Ray B. meant was that babies are sinners, but not accountable…in other words, they don’t go to hell until they reach the state of accountability, a position held by John MacArthur on which he wrote a whole book, Safe in the Arms of God.
David,
I’m not interested in arguing what Ray thinks. It is, frankly, not that important to me.
But how you get “babies are sinners” from “babies are not sinners,” is beyond me. I’m not sure how you can interact with anyone about how to properly interpret the Bible if that is what you do with mere man’s words.
I should remind you, in any case, that that wasn’t an isolated instance. There’s that thread of 164 comments, and two others that reached over 200 comments. So you won’t be surprised if I’m not fully engaging his every comment.