Prayers for Salvation (Includes editor's comments by Poster)

The Bible tells us that anything we ask according to his will, we shall have (1 John 5:14-15). How is it, then, that not all prayers for the salvation of others are answered?
—Amy Lynn Nuttall, Brooklyn, New York

All Christians, I suppose, like myself, have prayed for the conversion of loved ones without seeing it happen. So did Paul (Rom. 9:1-3, 10:1), and so did prayer giant George Müller in at least one case (though the prayed-for person came to Christ at Müller's funeral).

Much is uncertain here; we cannot tell, for instance, how God may deal with holdouts who, as we say, "know it all" in the moments of their dying. But we know the pain of the love that makes us pray for them, and while they continue impervious to Christ, the pain stays.

Now, our heavenly Father is indeed a promise-keeping God who answers all proper prayer in positive terms. Proper prayers flow from faithful, obedient hearts bringing to God real needs that we beg him to meet. His answer may be "Yes, here and now, as requested," or "Yes, but in a better way than you asked," or "Yes, but you must wait—I will take the right action at the right time, which is not yet."

God, the perfect Father, loves to give good gifts to his children but reserves the right to give only the best, and only in the best way. What he gives, therefore, is not always what the praying believer had in mind.

But proper prayers are made according to his will; what does that mean? The Lord's Prayer shows. All our requests are to be a spelling out of our motive, purpose, and desire, which matches God's own, for the hallowing (honoring, glorifying) of his name (that is, of God himself as revealed in the Bible and its Christ).

The bottom line here must ever be that God's will (command and plan) be done—not just in others' lives but in ours too. In our lives God may have lessons for us in the way he answers our askings.

As children growing up in God's family, we are to work out what we think will most advance the divine glory, and pray for that (as did Paul when he asked that his thorn in the flesh be healed). Then we must wait and watch to see what God, in his greater wisdom, does in answer (as when he strengthened Paul to live with the thorn unhealed).

But, given all that, does not God categorically state in 2 Peter 3:9 that he wants everyone on Earth to come to repentance? Well, no; not there, anyway. "The Lord," says Peter, "is patient toward you (my Jewish-Christian fellow believers, whom I am addressing), not wishing that any (of you) should perish, but that all (of you) should reach repentance." Texts must be understood in context, which often limits their application, as it does here.

My Observation: This interpretation makes little sense of the entire passage. Peter was explaining to believers why His coming was delayed:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 ¶But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 ¶The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Verse 7 states the effect of Christ’s second coming – namely a day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. This in effect is the reason for the delay given in verse 9. The fact that Peter states that God is longsuffering to “us-ward” simply implies that we are a part of mankind. Not being a Calvinist, Peter would have no reason to make a distinction between Christians and non-Christians, as God loves all of His children, even those who continue to rebel and dishonor Him. What Packer is really saying here is, “God loves the elect and hates the non-elect.” That Peter is referring to “all” men (he does say all, after all) is further illustrated in verse 9 when Peter equates the promise with the phrase “as some men”, not as some saints “count slackness.”

Here we have another example of the Calvinist telling us that the word “all” means something other than all, and we are amazed at the hermeneutical gymnastics one has to perform in order to make this verse fit their theology.

But does not God call everyone who hears the gospel to come to Christ and be saved? Yes, but be careful; there is mystery here, the mystery of God's sovereignty. The gospel message is a bona fide, good faith, "whosoever will" invitation to Christ, who is truly present to save all who truly turn to him in faith and repentance.

My comments: IOW, God calls “everyone” insincerely since it is God Himself who has already passed them over, and that from eternity past. How then can Packer assert that the gospel message is a “bona fide, good faith, whosoever will invitation?” Apparently we are to take J. I. Packer on “good faith”, as he makes no attempt to defend his view with either Scripture, reason or experience, instead appealing to that mass nebulous place of classical theology known as “mystery.”

To us who thus turn, the New Testament explains that God reached out to open our eyes, renew our hearts, and raise us from spiritual death into new birth and new life. Hence he is to be praised no less for our conversion than for providing our Savior. But not all turn, and the unbelief of those who do not is diagnosed as their own fault. Beyond this, the mystery of some-but-not-others is left unexplained, and humbly we have to settle for that.

My comments: Packer is correct to state that “not all turn, and the unbelief of those who do not is diagnosed as their own fault.” This is because the Scripture makes it plain that unbelief is the fault of the unbeliever and that God bears no guilt for the willful choices of free moral agents. In Ezekiel, God categorically states: “Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. 33:11) Calvinism states that all things happen in accordance with God’s “good pleasure”; well, here is a case where God Himself states that he has “no pleasure in the death of the wicked.” From the Calvinist’s own interpretation, we must conclude that the “death of the wicked” is not a part of God’s sovereign plan.

Elsewhere, Jesus accused the Pharisees of “making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” It is clear that God’s will and commandments were being thwarted by the self-righteous traditions of the Pharisees, and obviously this was contrary to God’s will.

Yet, though our prayers do not make God dance to our tune, they do make a difference. When, as so often, those who have come to faith learn that someone was praying for them, they know that they owe their salvation, under God, to that person.

My comments: I’m not trying to be unkind, but this borders on the absurd. We’ve just learned that God saves only those He has elected to save from eternity past and now we’re told that our prayers in this regard make a difference. Furthermore, the person saved owes “their salvation, under God, to that person.” Ridiculous. The person’s prayers just happened to coincide with the effects of regeneration in another person’s life that was arbitrarily decided eons ago before either of them came into existence. Whether the person prayed or not, or even witnessed or not, had no impact on the other person’s faith. Even if we allow that God predestined this salvation in such a way as to necessitate the prayers and/or witnessing of one person (the word “person” is beginning to lose much of it’s meaning), it is clear the person is only praying as a puppet, his words being chosen, his tongue and/or thoughts being manipulated.

Furthermore, one has to wonder, if some prayers are answered in accordance with God’s perfect will; why then are some not? A Calvinist may answer that question by saying, “Duh? Because some prayers are not prayed according to God’s perfect will.” But then, why not? Why would God so predestine it that some of our prayers are in accordance with His perfect will while other prayers are not? One can say, it’s because we are sinful and sometimes are in accordance with God’s perfect will and other times we’re not.

This opens up another whole can of worms in the area of sanctification. If the doctrine of Perseverance is true (The ‘P’ in TULIP), why then does God’s predestination make us anything less than perfect in holiness? At first glance, this question might seem stupid, but it’s only because we are not thinking the problem through. If God’s sovereignty is such that he irresistibly regenerates the sinner (in such a way as the sinner could in no way resist, after all that’s what “irresistible” means, should God choose to save you, you could not choose otherwise), why must God stop short of entire sanctification in this life? Why does God leave the sinner-turned-saint with a will of some sorts whereby he must “choose” (even if the choice is merely an illusion) to “work out his salvation with fear and trembling” and be progressively sanctified? This simply leaves us with no alternative but to say that in our present state, “we are as holy as God wants us to be.” This of course, is why Wesley himself found the Calvinist doctrine of predestination to be unacceptable, and if left to follow its’ logical outworking would lead to antinomianism.

And when God moves me to love and pray for someone (with verbal witness to them also, as God gives opportunity), I should assume that God means to bless that person. He is privileging me to be a link in the chain and will answer my prayer in positive terms, whether or not I see how.

My comments: Here we see the danger of Calvinism begetting Hyper-Calvinism. If God only loves the elect, how can we as Christians be expected to love more than God? Packer asserts that God must “move” him “to love and pray for someone” and then witness “as God gives opportunity.” This puts the onus for evangelism on God, when God has clearly put the onus on us (pun intended). Even more disturbing is the assertion that one must be moved to love someone. First of all, love is a choice, not a feeling. If my wife nags me all day, I may not feel love towards her, but I am commanded to love her regardless. A command is something that is either obeyed or disobeyed, by definition – a choice. A feeling is amoral. It has neither virtue nor vice. This has more in common with the “burning bosom” of the Mormon experience as well as some extremes within the charismatic movement, rather than an intelligent faith that loves God and sinners by “choice.” How can we expect otherwise from a theology where choice is valued so little, if at all?

Second, if one doesn’t “feel” love towards someone, and therefore doesn’t pray for or witness to that person, then what does one “feel” toward that person? You might respond that you “feel” nothing towards that person, that you “feel” neutrality, but I would argue that you might not “feel” anything, but you are “choosing” hatred. Heavy? I think it’s a fair description when we are talking about withholding the very plan of eternal life to someone based on whether or not we “feel” love towards that person which we interpret as an indication that they may be one of the elect. And this is of course in keeping with Calvinism, which states that “God hates the non-elect.” Here again, we see the end-result of a theology when it is consistently applied.

Packer asserts that when he is moved this way, he assumes that “God means to bless that person.” Rather than exalting the “sovereignty of God”, he has now made the God of the Universe respond to his “feeling”. Of course, he would argue that his “feeling” is in response to God’s sovereignty, but how would he know? It could just be gas.

Regardless, assuming that he is correct (and I have no problem in believing that God gives specific burdens for lost souls, in accordance with how much we “choose” to be sensitive and already have a heart for the lost in general), Packer’s assumption that somehow “God means to bless that person” is unfounded. The onus is on that person on whether or not to receive the free offer of salvation. God will plead, draw, convict, etc. the sinner, but one thing he will not (indeed cannot) do, if the word “choice” is to have any coherent meaning left in the term, is choose for another. Packer is indeed experiencing the love of God when he prays for another in deep intercession. Like God, he is able to rejoice when he sees the fruit of his labors; like God, he is able to grieve when he sees man respond in rejecting the truth.

As the late Leonard Ravenhill so often implored us, we should all learn to pray: “Break my heart with the things that break the heart of God.” First, we have to believe that His heart is capable of being broken.

Keep loving, then, keep praying, keep expecting, keep trusting God to know what he is doing, and keep praising him for his unsearchable wisdom. So did Paul (Rom. 9-11, especially 11:33-36), and so should we.

My comments: Amen. Indeed we should “keep praising God for His unsearchable wisdom, but we should not fail to praise Him for the things He has already revealed about Himself. – Carlton G. McLemore

But, given all that, does not God categorically state in 2 Peter 3:9 that he wants everyone on Earth to come to repentance?

No He does not, if He did every one would be saved..as His word always accomplishes what it was sent to do. The same gospel that saves some damns others As for Peter 3 it does not say that God wants every man saved. Peter 3 In context

Who was the letter sent to?

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance

The beloved are the saved

What is it's topic? It is not a salvation teaching it is an end time teaching

What is the theme? Judgment and destruction of the wicked

The passage in question begins with the remembrance of the first judgment on the world. The Flood

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

The judgment theme continues ;

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Again Peter restates who these words stating who they are written to.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

It is a teaching for the elect

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Now the text in question. Who is the Lord longsuffering to? To us-ward , to the saved, the elect, to the beloved..God is long suffering . He will not rain down the punishment until all the elect are saved.

If we were to read the Arminian reading the Lord could never return because there will never be a day when the entire creation of men will be saved.

Back to a judgment text :

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Referring back to 3:6 &7

The reading of the text as a salvation teaching or promise in the center of a text that tells how God intends to judge the reprobates in the last days gives this text an impossible rendering . Because it would be saying the judgment He has just taught could never occur ,because God is long suffering to ALL men .
That makes is an impossible rendering of the text .

Not being a Calvinist, Peter would have no reason to make a distinction between Christians and non-Christians, as God loves all of His children, even those who continue to rebel and dishonor Him. What Packer is really saying here is, “God loves the elect and hates the non-elect.” That Peter is referring to “all” men (he does say all, after all) is further illustrated in verse 9 when Peter equates the promise with the phrase “as some men”, not as some saints “count slackness.”

Jesus and all the apostles were "Calvinists". They were all all to sure that God had chosen them..they had not chose Him.

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1Pe 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Peter was addressing the saved that is why he said "us-ward...he was speaking about and to the elect.

Us ward means us ward..preacher.The option to read it to your preference is not an option

Notice that Paul also uses it to the saints

Eph 1:19 And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.