PRAYER AND PROVIDENCE: WHAT DOES PETIONARY PRAYER DO? by Grant Glover Box #878 A PAPER Submitted to Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course ST 5201 Theology I: The God of the Gospel at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Deerfield, Illinois December 2018 As Western civilization has become more obsessed with human freedom, the providence of God has come under more fire. One of the commonly asked questions about God’s control over human affairs goes something like this, “if God has planned everything, and knows the future, what is the point of praying to him for anything?” Since there isn’t enough room to argue what type of freedom humanity possesses, the focus of this essay will be how God’s sovereignty and petitionary prayer coexist. My argument is that the God of the Bible is completely sovereign and cannot have his mind or plan changed, and that this view does not render prayers useless. The main focus will be the latter part of this argument. I will explain my view of God’s sovereignty, respond to Biblical objections, and show petitionary prayer is still effectual and important under this understanding of God’s providence. Even though petitionary prayer cannot change anything in God, I will argue for its necessity in Christian life by showing its true value. In order to properly respond to a common criticism against an Augustinian model of Providence, the model itself must be explained. An Augustinian model of God’s sovereignty holds that God took no risk in creating the universe and human beings, as every little detail of the unfolding events of this universe has been planned and ordained by him. He “keeps all created things existing and maintaining the properties with which he created them” (Heb. 1:3, Col. 1:17, Acts 17:28, 2 Pet. 3:7, Job 34:14-15).1 He “cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do” (Eph. 1:11, Ps. 135:6, Prov. 16:33, Prov. 21:1).2 Lastly, he “has a purpose in all that he does in the world and he providentially governs or directs all things in order that they accomplish his purposes” (Rom. 8:28, see also Ps. 103:19, 1 Cor. 15:27, Phil. 2:10-11).3 1 Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 316 Ibid., p. 317 3 Ibid., p. 331 2 These ideas have been held by prominent figures in church history and are held by Reformed theologians today. This theology could also be called soft (or hard) determinism or a belief in God’s specific sovereignty. In Aquinas’ view, “God moves the natural cause to action as an instrument of his own power to produce the effect.”4 A couple centuries later, Calvin proclaimed that, “the will of God is the one principal and all-high cause of all things in heaven and on earth.”5 These theologians emphasize the fact that God’s Providence necessarily leads to the idea that he is the primary cause of all things, but they attribute secondary causes to creatures, thereby keeping them morally responsible for their actions. If God is truly the primary cause of all actions and sovereign over all creation, as the Augustinian view advocates, then his mind cannot be changed – even by petitionary prayer. It would not make sense if God sovereignly ordained all events of history to occur but was able to have his mind changed by fallible creatures. If his mind could be changed, then his plan would change. Since he determines the outcome of every event in Creation, and has planned the outcome of Creation, then his plan cannot change. If he works everything in accordance with the counsel of his will – as Paul writes in Ephesians 1:11 – then all things have been determined by him and we cannot change the outcome of anything. Instead, we act within the plan that God sovereignly ordained. It is at this point where many will bring up the Biblical accounts of God seeming to relent from his ways after somebody prayed to him as a challenge to soft determinism. The most famous and problematic example of such a prayer is Moses’ intercession for the people of Israel, with Abraham’s intercession of Sodom and Gomorrah a close second. If we can rectify an Augustinian view of God’s sovereignty with Moses’ prayer, then the same solution would work 4 5 Tiessen, Terrance. Providence & Prayer. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 180. Ibid., p. 180 for Abraham’s. In Exodus 32, the people of Israel had worshipped the golden calf, and the Lord burned with wrath. He told Moses, “Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them” (Exodus 32:10). Moses then pleaded with the Lord, that he would “turn from [his] burning anger… and the Lord relented” (32:12,14). It would appear that Moses had changed God’s mind, casting doubt on the specific sovereignty of God. However, Old Testament scholar Douglas Stuart shows that since God tells Moses what he is going to do, it parallels other instances of him announcing his intentions to prophets (Amos 7:1-6, Jonah 3:1-4). In these cases, God tells his representative what he would do if repentance isn’t shown. By telling Moses to “let me alone,” he is “challenging Moses rather than commanding him.” 6 Moses had no power to stop whatever God wanted to do, so he’s not asking for permission. Thus, the Lord’s statement “was a rhetorical way of saying to Moses: ‘Here is what I will do unless you intervene.’”7 He is telling Moses that he will wipe out the people Israel if there is no intercession for them. Furthermore, Moses’ argument for God sparing the people of Israel was built on actions God had done in the past, including “[the people] you have brought out of the land of Egypt” and “Abraham, Isaac, and Israel…to whom you swore by yourself (Exodus 32:11,13). These were not events that God had forgotten, for that’s impossible. This shows that Moses “reminding God of his promises was… a means of showing his faith in who God was.”8 Moses had not changed God’s mind, for he had made a promise to Abraham and the people of Israel already. Rather, God was testing the faith and commitment of Moses as the chosen leader of the people of Israel. With this understanding, we can show that an Augustinian view of God’s sovereignty is not ruled out by instances such as Moses’ intercession. 6 Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, vol. 2, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 670. 7 Ibid., p. 670 8 Ibid., p. 672 Now that I have established my view of God’s sovereignty, the implications must be examined. One of the main critiques of my view is that it takes away from the effectiveness of petitionary prayer. If God has sovereignly ordained for all things to occur and cannot have his mind changed, then what is the point of praying? Some argue that prayer becomes nothing but a show if it isn’t able to change God’s mind. The problem with this view is that it assumes that if our prayers cannot alter the future, then they are pointless. This does not need to be the case, and I will present several arguments from theologians on how prayer can still be effectual without altering the future in a way many think it should. John Feinberg, a Reformed theologian who believes in soft determinism, argues that prayer can still be effective by distinguishing between the means and goals of God’s providence. He argues God “decrees not only his goals but also the means to those ends.” 9 Thomas Tiessen elaborates, There is a sense, therefore, in which it is legitimate for us to say that if we had not petitioned God to do something, he would not have done it. God acts according to his own wise and perfect will, and yet our prayers are instrumental in the final outcome because of the occasions upon which he acts with the intention of giving us what we desire. In this sense we can say prayer changes things.10 Since God has ordained everything that will occur to occur, then in some cases he has ordained that prayer will be the means by which his goal is accomplished. In other words, God has determined the outcome of every event, and sometimes allows us to be the means that accomplish those ends. We see this in Job, where God tells Job’s friends “my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly” (Job 42:8). God had already decided that he would not punish Job’s friends for the lies they told throughout their conversations with Job, and also decided that Job’s prayer would be the means by which 9 Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 703. Tiessen, Providence & Prayer, 339. 10 they would be forgiven. Many render prayer useless if the future cannot be altered, but this isn’t how the Bible talks about prayer. Instead we see God allowing his creation to work alongside him in his acting, which means we can have a real impact on the world. The question remains why God would not just do the things he plans on doing without our asking. Why not just cut out the middle man and accomplish his purposes more quickly? Tiessen is convinced “that one of God’s reasons for choosing to involve us in the determination of outcomes, by inviting us to entreat him to act in the world, is that he is glorified in our gratitude for his responsive action on our behalf.”11 He cites an example of prayers for rain, which he can make supernaturally happen with or without prayer. If he chooses to do it in response to prayer, however, the ones who prayed to God for rain “now have two things for which to give thanks to God, the rain and the answer to prayer.”12 By ordaining prayer as one of the means by which he accomplishes his goals, he causes his glory to be multiplied among his creation and reveals himself as a caring Heavenly Father. Thus, prayer is effectual in carrying out God’s will in Creation by leading to a greater glorification of him. Another reason prayer is still effectual under the Augustinian model is that it transforms the one who is praying. Aquinas put it this way, “Prayer is not offered to God in order to change his mind, but in order to excite confidence in us. Such confidence is fostered principally by considering God’s charity toward us whereby he wills our good.”13 This confidence is placed in the fact that everything we have we received from God (1 Cor. 4:7). Since God chose prayer as a means by which his will is accomplished, it causes us to see his loving nature more clearly. Not 11 Ibid., p. 339 Ibid., p. 339 13 Ibid., p. 196 12 only do we have more to be thankful for, but God’s goodness causes us to be changed. When we understand who God is and see his love more clearly, we are transformed. C.S. Lewis wrestles with how one could even know his or her prayer altered the future in his essay, The Efficacy of Prayer. At the beginning, he poses the question, “‘What sort of evidence would prove the efficacy of prayer?’ The thing we pray for may happen, but how can you ever know it was not going to happen anyway?”14 He discusses that you cannot gain any evidence that petitionary prayer was effective in hindsight, for what if that which came to pass would have happened regardless? Lewis draws parallels to our earthly relationships, “We make requests of our fellow creatures as well as of God…we ask for salt, we ask for a raise in pay…we ask for a woman to marry us.”15 He then highlights the fact that even if we receive what we ask for, that doesn’t mean we changed their minds. “As for the lady who consents to marry you… your proposal… might have been the result, not the cause, of her decision.”16 When we think of our human relationships in this light, we realize how many things are not in our control, but that doesn’t mean we are powerless. Prayer should be thought of as the carrying out of a relationship with God rather than a means for our will to be done, which parallels our most intimate human relationships. Those who do not agree with my view may still object and argue this model of prayer seems to attribute to it less significance than the Bible advocates for. To them, this would seem to take away the power of prayer from changing the future. Instead of praying boldly, they would argue, we are forced to pray timidly, knowing that nothing we pray for can alter the future. We turn again to Lewis, as his question about prayer in Christian Reflections grants valuable insight. 14 Lewis, C.S. “The Efficacy of Prayer.” In The World's Last Night: And Other Essays. (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1973), 1. 15 Ibid., p. 2 16 Ibid., p. 2 In his chapter titled “Petitionary Prayer: A Problem Without an Answer,” he posits two kinds of prayer mentioned in the Bible: Pattern A and Pattern B.17 Pattern A prayer is in the form of “thy will be done,” while Pattern B exhibits, “faith that the particular thing the petitioner asks will be given him.”18 In other words, some prayers given in Scripture exhibit a complete trust in God’s goodness and wisdom, by asking God for his will to be done, and not ours. This is the kind of prayer Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done” (Luke 22:42). On the other hand, some prayers in the Bible ask God for a very specific thing the petitioner wants to happen. We see Jesus advocating for such prayer in Mark 11:23-24, Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Jesus declares here that if you have faith and bring a request to God, it will be granted to you. Lewis sees a troubling conflict between these two types of prayer, “if true prayer is… irresistible, was not it Christ who prayed in Gethsemane, using a different method and meeting with denial?”19 If we are told to be bold and ask God for things in faith, and he will give them to us, then why would Christ’s requests be rejected? He wasn’t lacking in any faith in the Father, so there must be something more to this dilemma. The answer becomes clearer when one considers some of Jesus’ earlier sayings about his death. He told the disciples he “must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised” (Matt. 16:21; parallel references in Mark 8:31 and Luke 9:22). Whether he knew 17 Lewis, C.S. Christian Reflections. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 176. Ibid., p. 178 19 Ibid., p. 183 18 because of divine foreknowledge or interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is irrelevant; the point is Jesus knew exactly what was going to happen to him. Why would Christ ask the Father for something he knew he wouldn’t receive? Doesn’t that make his prayer pointless? What does this tell us about prayer? From Christ’s example, we can understand a truth that may seem fundamental, but can be overlooked in this debate. It is this: prayer is, first and foremost, a relational, communicative activity. It should not be interpreted primarily as transactional – that God should let me alter the future by bringing him a request. Prayer is shown by Christ to be something that draws us closer to the Father, no matter what God does in response to our prayers. This is why he tells us to pray “your kingdom come, your will be done” (Matt. 6:10). By submitting to the Father’s will, and his providence, we are brought in closer intimacy to him. Paul alludes to this in Romans 8:15, “you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!” Even if our prayer is ineffectual in altering the future, just as Christ’s prayer in the Garden was, there is heavenly, eternal value in drawing closer to the Father by praying. This is the true effect of prayer – that we are able to be in closer communion with God. Our cultural moment has led us to place an incredibly high value on human freedom and cringe at the idea of a sovereign God. However, this causes us to lose focus on what is truly important in prayer – fellowship with God. Focusing on communion with God doesn’t lead to an Augustinian view of God’s sovereignty, but this model emphasizes it. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty raises important, weighty questions about how our actions can impact the world, but this model does not eliminate the efficacy of prayer. Rather, it paints a picture of prayer as joining in with the sovereign Creator of the universe, carrying out his purposes for the world. Instead of having our will be done, his will is always done, and our lives our spent seeking to have our will conformed to his. This is a true picture of submission to the God of the Gospel. Bibliography Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, vol. 2, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 670-672. Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 703. Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 316-331. Lewis, C.S. Christian Reflections. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 176-183. Lewis, C.S. “The Efficacy of Prayer.” In The World's Last Night: And Other Essays. (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1973). Tiessen, Terrance. Providence & Prayer. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 180339.