Just a few quick comments. You wrote:

Let’s remove the C and A labels for a moment and consider what the bible does say about prayer. (Btw, I didn’t catch on right away about the C and A..duh!).

1) We are commanded to pray
2) We are to pray always
3) We are to pray according to God’s will

#3 is a problem for Calvinism in intercession as far as I am concerned. The Calvinist cannot pray for the salvation of the lost and know that it is in accordance with God’s will while the Arminian can. The Calvinist may even be at odds with God’s will by saying, “Lord move on that persons heart” since it may be God’s will to pass that person over (unless we want to take a rather strained view of what it means for God to move on someones heart).

I also believe that prayer is as much about our building our faith as it is moving the heart of God. Although, I would contend that our prayers are in response to what God has purposed in His heart anyway, and the Spirit inside of us guides our prayers to align with God’s purpose.

I agree that God moves our hearts to pray for the lost which I think creates further problems for intercessory prayer in Calvinism. You seem to agree that many who have been prayed for will never respond to God in faith, and yet God still moves our hearts to pray for them. If Calvinism is true then God is moving our hearts to pray for the salvation of those that He does not want to save and has already determined to damn for eternity. So why does the Holy Spirit guide us to pray for the very souls that He has determined to “pass over” and never visit with saving grace?

The Calvinist might want to say that this could be for the purpose of compounding their guilt for rejecting Christ, but again, that only really makes sense in Arminianism IMO. In Calvinism the reprobate isn’t really rejecting anything since God never intended for them to be saved nor provided salvation for them (which really begins to strain the meaning of “rejection”), so how could further “rejection” compound their guilt? However, in Arminianism God did indeed provide for the salvation of all and desires all to be saved (conditionally), so the continual work of the Holy Spirit in the reprobates heart could be grounds for further condemnation if they continue to spurn that grace and reject God’s provision.

But now we are quickly moving into other issues and I am not looking for a full-on debate of Calvinism vs. Arminianism. The point is that I believe Piper is wrong to assert that intercessory prayer makes more sense in a deterministic paradigm. There are questions that need to be dealt with in both views but intercessory prayer makes just as much sense from an Arminian perspective as from a Calvinist one; and of course I think it makes more sense from the Arminian perspective.

God Bless,
Ben

1) We are commanded to pray
2) We are to pray always
3) We are to pray according to God’s will

While every prayer that I utter will be heard, it may not necessarily be answered. Consider what James says in 5:14-15 regarding prayer for the sick. Now does God heal everybody who prays? No. We come to God in faith that He will move.

I also believe that prayer is as much about our building our faith as it is moving the heart of God. Although, I would contend that our prayers are in response to what God has purposed in His heart anyway, and the Spirit inside of us guides our prayers to align with God’s purpose. Consider Romans 8:26-27.

So getting back to the conundrum of praying for the lost, if I believe in unconditional election (which I do btw), the problem is I don’t know whom God has chosen. And my response to all should be “Lord move on that persons heart”. The A has no guarantee of a person coming to Christ anymore than the C does.

I think another subtle point you are missing is that the concept of unconditional election eliminates the self-determination. In either perspective, I do consider that it is the person making their choices equally and I think that this is Piper’s point and why our prayers are important.

I do not believe Piper is limiting the means of presenting the gospel to prayer and preaching, but using preaching as a contrast to prayer.

Your assertions about different means are correct. But since conversion is in response to the gospel message, there has to at some point be a proclamation of that message. Or then what is the person responding to, your friendship? No, I believe God will use anything He pretty much wants to as a means of drawing a person, whether it be friendship, public preaching, dreams, etc. But it still does come down to the gospel being heard.

I also think that “preaching the gospel” is not limited to public sermons. Preaching is just declaring, laying it out. If in the course of your friendship with someone is lost, you share the good news of Jesus Christ, that is preaching the gospel.

Piper paints prayer as superior in the C framework because God can truly force his will in C and not in A. The problem I see is that a C could then never pray, “God save so and so” any more than an A could, because the C does not know if God has decreed to save so and so. The C may in fact be praying directly against God’s will by asking God to save one whom He has irrevocably decreed to destruction. The A believes that God desires to save everyone and so can freely pray that God save so and so and be in full accord with God’s will, even if God will not save irresistibly (more on that in a minute).

So the best a C like Piper can do is pray, “if it is your will, save so and so” which has no Biblical precedent. Nowhere does the Bible tell us to pray in such a “if it is your will” way for the lost. The A believes that our prayers for the lost have a real influence on God and that God truly desires to save all those that we prayer for. Cs object that if such prayers cannot guarantee a faith response then they are pointless. However, It may be that through intercessory prayer, the work of God can become so strong in the sinner’s life that a negative response would become almost impossible. The “almost” preserves the integrity of the response and genuine nature of the subsequent relationship that results from it.

Now, you may have a problem with the idea that a positive response may not be guaranteed in an A view, but that should not dissuade us from praying that God save the lost. If my daughter grows up to reject God and I believe that my prayers can increase the likelihood of her conversion even the tiniest bit, you better believe that I am going to pray for her. But As believe that such prayers can do much more, even increasing the likelihood of conversion to the point of being nearly irresistible as explained above. So As have good reason to pray for the lost where Cs really do not because they cannot ever be sure that they are praying for the elect and reject the Biblical testimony that God desires to save all.

Piper makes a good point regarding preaching being the possible God ordained means for saving the elect in the C view, but I don’t think the argument follows for intercessory prayer. If our prayers do not really influence God to act, then they are not really accomplishing anything. If God unconditionally ordained the salvation of so and so before he even created that person or any person to pray for him, then God has already made up his mind and that decision to save is irrevocable. So it does not make sense to say that our prayers are effective since they have no real impact on God since God made up his mind long before he heard your prayers. Even if He ordained your prayers it does not follow that they make any real difference since God did not decree the salvation of so and so because He ordained that someone would pray for that so and so. That would really throw a wrench in God’s sovereignty according to the C view since God would essentially be ordaining that the prayers of so and so would irresistibly cause Him to save so and so in time according to His decree (does the C want to say that God is irresistibly caused to do things by man?). But again, if it is in accordance with His decree to save, then intercessory prayer really has no impact on the situation since God is not truly influenced by prayers and has already decided to save so and so.

So I think that Piper’s comments that,

“In other words, just as God will see to it that His Word is proclaimed as a means to saving the elect, so He will see to it that all those prayers are prayed which He has promised to respond to.”

…are simply false in a C framework since God is not really “responding” to our prayers at all. It should also be noted that most As do not believe that God cannot interfere with or powerfully persuade the will as Piper seems to be suggesting. They would only maintain that such persuasion would be resistible (at least with regards to responding in faith to God’s offer of salvation).

Hope that makes some sense. Just some thoughts from an Arminian perspective on the subject.

God Bless,
Ben

Thanks for stopping by over here. What I find so compelling about Piper’s statements and what I here in your concerns are the same thing. It is God who turns the hearts, not our human efforts. And this is why prayer is so vital. But at the same time He does work through our human efforts, including prayer and preaching the gospel. Through these efforts, we are asking that God move on hearts.

Thanks for posting this excerpt from John Piper.

I am beginning to have feelings about John Piper that soem people have towards John Calvin. Some things about him I really like/find attractive, other things about his teaching leave them a bit cold.

This is a touch too dogmatic for me. John Piper and his fellow preachers appear to like to think that the conversion of fellow Christians is solely due to the efforts of the preacher and the pray-er. Preaching and prayer are indeed human acts but so is another act which is equally important and powerfully human ..the initial befriending and getting alongside and quiet praying for people which is the major contributory factor in a person coming under the “sound” of the gospel” in the first place. They are not just magiced out of thin air under the sound of the gospel. it is often in response to a lot if time which has been invested in a particular relationship. .. And preeachers need to be aware in their approach to how they tackle a topic that they have the “power to convince/persuade” or the “power and ability” to turn people off Christianity for life, in doing so scuppering in one fell swoop the hard work that has gone into bringing them under the sound of the gospel in the first place.

And by that I don’t mean that the gospel is not offensive, it sometimes is, but sadly it is sometimes the case that the attitude and approach of the preacher is far more offensive than the gospel ever is!

If I was going to invite a person to hear someone preach I would want to be sure firstly, that it was covered in prayer, both for the person concerned and for the preacher, and to be sure that the motive of the preacher was to bring that person into a loving and saving knowledge of Jesus Christ first and foremost and not with the ulterior motive of advancing of a certain doctrinal stance/position.

With regard to what John Piper says I personally feel that it is more of a joint enterprise, whereby God’s Spirit takes the initiave, begins His convicting and convincing work, that we hopefully discern and co-operate with by our ongoing prayer allied to gentle, faithful and patient witness. Then God’s Spirit meets and works with the person’s spirit, in ways of His choosing and His directing, and He persuades them of what Jesus has done for them in his life, death and resurrection. Yes, God can and must ravish them with his beauty, but the problem is that we often lack the discernment to observe how and where God is working, and the wisdom to jnow the appropriate way to respond. Not everyone is won to Christ by a mere “preaching of the gospel”. The Ethiopian eunuch, probably the first African convert, was won to Christ by a one-to-one contact/Bible Study with Philip in obedience to a direct prompting from the Holy Spirit himself. No preacher asked for or required, merely an obedient follower of/responder to the leading of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.