Philosophical & Theological Ponderings

Greece via email

Philosophical & Theological Ponderings on Prayer and Action

The Importance of Prayer

W.R.F. Browning

Prayer is the act of communicating with God in words or in silence, as in conversation between persons and the transcendent God. Browning (1997: 300). It is not regarded as a method of compelling God to do something primarily, but rather is asking that God's will be done and that his Kingdom arrive. Browning (1997: 300).

James Montgomery Boice

Prayer is a privilege, to speak with God.
Christians resist the evil one and his partners.
Things are requested from God.
It is central to the Christian life Biblically.
Prayer was essential to Christ and therefore naturally should be essential to believers.
God provides mercy through prayer.
God provides joy via prayer.
God provides peace from anxiety with prayer.
The Holy Spirit is granted with prayer.
Prayer is a means by which the Second Coming is to be measured, and the Church alert.
The growth of the Church is developed via prayer. Boice (1981: 483-484)

Millard Erickson

Prayer is more than self-stimulation, it is more than positive mental attitude, instead it is a right attitude in regard to God's will. Not so much what persons would like done, but the attitude that God's will should be done. Persistent petition to God for human desires and wishes is important but the goal should be that it be along the will of God. Erickson lists the Lord himself, Jesus Christ, and the Apostle Paul as two Biblical examples of those that prayed to God to have sufferings lifted but did not have sufferings removed. Erickson (1994: 406).

End citations

I am in basic agreement with the citations. As a Reformed theologian, I hold to compatibilism/soft-determinism. The opposite would be incompatibism as in all human actions are free if a person could have done otherwise. Indeterminism is also equated with incompatibilism which states that God, or any other being, cannot cause by force or coercion any human action, nor can any action be simultaneously willed by God or any other being, for the human action to remain significantly free. Compatibilism, which I hold to, would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions.

When a person prays that would be a secondary cause and God the primary cause of thoughts and actions. Because I am not a hard-determinist, but a soft-determinist, I still hold to human beings as a secondary cause as long as they are morally responsible for thoughts and actions.

There is a potential danger related to prayer, not too much prayer, but prayer not connected to action.

I state this because I hear and read in different Church contexts with different persons 'I will pray for you', which is a good thing, a fair amount in Western culture within the Church, but is it possible that at times prayer is replacing needed action in personal lives and ministry.

For example:

I reason in regard to potential actions resulting from prayer:

'Maybe later' as a philosophical thought or statement means many times it will never happen.

'Maybe when I am older' as a philosophical thought or statement means many times it will never happen.

'Someone else will perform that right action in regard to that person' as a thought or statement.

This may very well not occur because other like persons may use similar reasoning within the same culture within similar circumstances.

The solution would seem to be that when guided by God to pray on certain serious issues to follow-up with action, not only to continue in prayer.

Philosophical & Theological Ponderings on Natural Theology

This is edited from some comments I made on another academic theology blog in regard to Natural Theology, which I admit I am not expert on and the blogger is writing a series. I however, did come across the topic within my PhD research with philosophers such as Geivett, Plantinga, Hick and others and did use academic sources in reply....

I do not think Natural Theology is primarily, or only a discipline of apologetics. But would be of the discipline of theology as well. And it could be dealt with in philosophy as in see Geivett’s book ‘Evil and the Evidence for God’ and see also Plantinga ‘God, Freedom and Evil’.

From Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling:

Natural Theology maintains that humans can maintain particular knowledge about God through human reason by observing the created order as one locus of divine revelation. Dictionary of Theological Terms. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling. (1999: 82).

Millard Erickson discusses Romans 1-2 with Natural Theology in his text 'Christian Theology' when he favours Calvin's views over those of Barth and Thomas and states that Paul asserts that persons do not clearly perceive God in general revelation. Sin marred this general revelation. General revelation does not allow the unbeliever to know God. Erickson notes that there is nothing within Scripture that would be a formal argument for the existence of God from evidences within general revelation. Thus the conclusion from Erickson is that a general revelation cannot be used to construct a natural theology. Erickson (1994 168:171).

I agree with Calvin and Erickson concerning their conclusions concerning the state of humanity:

I do reason that Natural Theology and Revelation (Romans 1-3 for example) has its place.

I am not clearly suggesting that a general revelation must or would construct a natural theology, but after looking through Geivett’s book for my PhD work, for example, I do think that Scriptures such as Romans 1-3, and Romans 1, in particular, could possibly philosophically influence a non-believer in regard to let us state a very limited natural theology. From a Reformed, Biblical perspective it is of course up to the Holy Spirit of enlighten a person. We know that God uses many things in that process (preaching, Scripture, Bible, etc.).

So, further from what I posted on the other site. I accept the Biblical, Reformed position that non-believers cannot know God merely by evidence of creation, as in general revelation, because the human knowledge of God discussed in 1: 21 is not a general knowledge of God. Cranfield (1985)(1992: 32). God has always been self-disclosed but humans beings have not allowed themselves to see him. Cranfield (1985)(1992: 32). They have known him, according to Cranfield in the sense of experienced him all their lives, he has sustained them, but this is not personal knowledge. It is only to 'know' God in a limited sense'. Cranfield (1985)(1992: 32).

In his commentary Mounce explains that 'Understanding God requires a moral decision, not additional information'. Mounce (1995: 79).

Therefore, again I am in agreement with Calvin and Erickson that Scripture and in particular Romans 1-3, in particular, Romans 1 demonstrates that the corruption of humanity, and that building a general revelation to a natural theology is troublesome and that God cannot be known this way. I have of course on this blog steadfastly taken a Reformed compatiblistic stand.

I am stating that God can use Romans 1-3, in particular Romans 1, in conjunction with nature/creation in influencing a non-regenerate person to consider the gospel. This could be considered in a limited sense natural theology. This could also within a Reformed, Biblical model eventually be an influence in the election of some in Christ (Ephesians 1, Romans 8).

BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1981) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1985)(1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.