As for prayer, I'd like to start off with a little bit of Lewis myself, as is found in God in the Dock ("Scraps" p. 217).
'Praying for particular things', said I, 'always seems to me like advising God how to run the world. Wouldn't it be wiser to assume that He knows best?' 'On the same principle', said he, 'I suppose you never ask a man next to you to pass the salt, because God knows best whether you ought to have salt or not. And I suppose you never take an umbrella, because God knows best whether you ought to be wet or dry.' 'That's quite different,' I protested. 'I don't see why,' said he. 'The odd thing is that He should let us influence the course of events at all. But since He lets us do it in one way I don't see why He shouldn't let us do it in the other.'
This idea goes along with a longer essay in the same book entitled "Work and Prayer." The thing we forget, is exactly what you asked of me Joe, "How could there be anything in existence that is outside of God?" If God made the both the spiritual and the physical, then our actions on earth are as much a manipulation of events as our prayers to Heaven. Yet, no one will argue that we, in almost all cases of history, are acting on conscience, emotion, our own thoughts, rather than waiting for things to happen on their own, or for something out of our control to carry out our wishes. It's in the nature of God that we choose to eat the hamburger instead of the pizza, or decide to run instead of walk. It is His nature, and within God, in that He has given us the bodies that we use to interact with the physical world, and also that His very nature, the quintessential element of God, is that He is free. God, being holy, being the Holy One, is able to act in whatever way He deems best that also is in accordance with His goodness and love. In the same way, we are free to act within the laws of nature, and those spiritual laws that govern our amount of power and ability - both placed on us by God.
This could be a much larger subject, let me abruptly try to end that train of thought and respond to the three situations you presented.
1. When we ask, we receive what God deems appropriate. I think that is why He "only hears the prayers of the upright" as you said. On earth, our actions are more immediate and ruthless, because the effects directly follow the cause. When I punch you in the face, you immediately feel pain. However, when we attempt to affect the design of Heaven, we are acting in a realm above time and space, and calling on a power without limits. That is why God is the mediator of our prayers, that in His goodness and wisdom He is able to hear us, and yet not 'grant' our every desire. It would be a horrible world if prayer was an instantaneous success for lunatic and saint alike.
2. These questions are where predestination and prayer are linked in my reckoning, and why the idea of God bringing men to Himself (without fail), removes the necessity of Christ. If God is going to do it anyway, outside interaction in the process is unnecessary. Lewis phrases it such: "Most of the events that go on in the universe are indeed out of our control, but not all. It is like a play in which the scene and the general outline of the story is fixed by the author, but certain minor details are left for the actors to improvise." That is not to say that Jesus is an 'outside source' in the same way as man is a separate entity from God. But, if God is going to directly connect to man anyway, He doesn't really need to provide a facade for how He's going to do it. Just like if He's in full control, without variation, there's no reason to present prayer as an illusion of human influence. But, we certainly do have prayer, and God certainly sent Jesus.
I think the larger picture in both issue, prayer and predestination, is of direction. Predestination and the idea of inept (or unnecessary) prayer, is a belief that God is directly acting towards man, and that is it. Salvation is from God to the men He selects, and God's will is enacted on man without man's influence. However, the view I hold, is that salvation and God's plan are both in need of, or at least subject to, reciprocity from man's end. To be sure, both still start with God, but in the sense that He offers and provides salvation, yet requires man's acceptance. He has a plan and acts out His will, but offers man a method of response and communication. And here, Jesus is necessary. Christ is both the method and message of our salvation, and He is also the avenue of communication to the Father. Throughout the Old Testament, the story of interaction with God is one of specially chosen middle-men: Noah, Moses, priests, judges, kings, and finally, Jesus, that Judge, King and High Priest who ascended above all previous mediators to be the Mediator. I don't know (and correct me if I'm wrong) of any stories where an Israelite suddenly repented of His sin outside of a prophet's message, and without being directly spoken to by God (in essence, made to be the next prophet, such as Moses being spoken to by God through the burning bush). There is always someone sent by God, like Jesus was sent by God, to speak to the masses and require a message of repentance to be sent back to God, through the messenger, just as Jesus requires us to request forgiveness from God, through Him.
This point is probably the longest, because as I said, it parallels two questions. I'm not sure I've fully presented all there is to this point, but I hope I have added some clarity. In essence, interaction between God and man is defined by communication, and relationship, not control and disassociation. God commands, persuades, and directs man, and allows man to respond with obedience, questions, and requests. As to whether the ability to change minor events removes God's ability to know the future, no. That is placing God within time, as if He only knows events in chronological order. Perhaps, if man comes in to change some part of the reel, God will have to watch the movie again to find out what effect the switch had. There is a distinction between knowing events, and causing them. I can watch a fight, and know who's in it, and yet not have had anything to do with it. In the same way, God is present in every moment, ever, and yet may not have directly caused each. That is what we mean by disobedience, is it not? That God is watching some moment of our lives where He wishes us to do one thing, and yet we cause another to happen. If God only knew the future because He was directly causing each event, there would be no sin (James 1:13). Freedom of the angels, and of man, is the only Scriptural precedent for sin.
3. Prayers surely change us. They do so in the way that we've talked about, that prayer is communication with God and as much listening to Him as speaking to Him. Ultimately, listening to God may be considered the highest form of prayer. Lewis writes that "To be in the state in which you are so at one with the will of God that you wouldn't want to alter the course of events even if you could is certainly a very high or advanced condition." Yet even the Lord's prayer asks for bread, forgiveness (remember that we are called, required, to ask for forgiveness; how so, and why, if forgiveness is predestined?), and escape from temptation. Asking of God is equivalent to recognizing the power of God, and His position as the Sustainer of our lives. In that sense, by silencing our own requests, we better understand God's.
As a closing, I'd like to make an observation. If either of us truly believed in predestination of knowledge or events, this blog would not exist. Should we hold the belief that God pre-designed whether or not we would know who He is, and how He works, we would not take it upon ourselves to discover it. Action, request, question, these are not sinful, they are God's nature; they are Freedom.
Jason
No comments:
Post a Comment