Does God Hear the Prayers of Non Christians?

 

  The Guy recalls the famous prayer fuss in 1980 when Oklahoma pastor Bailey Smith, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, made this off-the-cuff comment: “It’s interesting to me at great political battles how you have a Protestant to pray and a Catholic to pray and then you have a Jew to pray. With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew. For how in the world can God hear the prayer of a man who says that Jesus Christ is not the true Messiah? It is blasphemy.”[1]

 This issue has arisen on a message board with atheists asserting that God wont hear the prayers of sinners (oddly enough, since he doesn't exist--one would think an non existent God hears no prayers).

God clearly hears everything in the sense of knowing about it. By "hear" is meant a special relationship. If God never heard the prayers of a sinner how could sinners ever repent? So the real question is "how does God regard the prayers of non Christians? Or, how does he regard the prayers of other faiths? There are Christians who assert bold faced "God doesn't prayers of non Christians." It's tragic but amusing what they have to do to scripture to justify saying this. Let's look at a "typical" example by someone I would call a "fundamentalist": main verse John 9:31. This is so ironic because it's actually saying the opposite.

Jack Wellman

 The Bible clearly says that God will not answer prayer requests of those who are not saved nor will He even listen to their prayers (John 9:31).  Believers have had their sins forgiven but those who are not Christian are separated from God by their sin (Isaiah 59:2).  I Peter 3:12 plainly says that God will hear a believer’s prayer but not those of the unsaved: “For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”[2]

Read more: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/does-god-answer-the-prayers-of-the-unsaved-or-unbelievers/#ixzz2r2al6icA

 Let's take a quick look at that passage in John (9:31). First of all who is speaking? Did Jesus say  this? No, first the guys who are marveling that the man born blind has been healed! These are the guys who are saying this. Then the pharisees confront the man healed and actually tell him he has not been healed. The spiritual giants show us their Biblical acumen by telling the guy who has been healed that he's not healed. This is pure irony, yes it is intentional. They are so blind themselves, they are telling the guy who got healed that he's not healed! They refuse to believe that Jesus is anybody. These guys are in the same theological camp (pharisees) as those who blasphemed the Holy Spirit. How much more Biblically ignorant we get? Could we find a more ignorant and narrow minded segment?

The passage begins with the Apostles ignorantly asserting that the man was born blind either because he sinned or his parents sinned. How the guy could be born with sin I don't know. Some might think this is a proof of reincarnation in the Bible, I'll leave that for another time. Of cousre Jesus says neither one, he was born this way "so the works of God might be displayed in him." To me that does not mean God creates people to have bad things happen to them just so he can make examples of them and heal them. Literally that is the logical inference, and I can't prove the didn't mean that, but I just think this is just a euphemistic way of saying "it just happened." Everything is an opportunity for god to manifest his glory. He doesn't need to create people born with infirmity to do that. It's a poetic way of saying "'stuff' happens." I just offer as evidence that statement in Matthew 5:45: "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." He brings good to both. 

One caveat before continuing. The healed man also echos the notion that God doesn't listen to unsaved people. He's arguing with the pharisees and his argument is, if Jesus was a sinner, as they had asserted, then he couldn't have healed me. He says:

³⁰ The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. ³¹ We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. ³² Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. ³³ If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

Of cousre this doesn't convince them they assert that the healed man can't tell the truth or know what's what.³⁴ "To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out." So that ends the interview with the narrow minded crowd refusing to even examine the evidence. That seems familiar. What about the healed man echoing this idea? "Se know that God Does not listen to sinners." Obviously it must mean he doesn't listen to sinners (which is everyone--all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God--) except and unless they are sincerely seeking forgiveness. The man born blind, the healed me, he was not a sinner. Jesus says he wasn't a sinner. Since we are all sinner we can assume this means he wasn't living in sin. He was seeking to do right even though like all of us he screwed up from time to time he was not living in a manner that took the concept of sin lightly. That he healed man believed what he said about God not hearing the prayers of sinner, he was arguing for Jesus not being a sinner. He was no Bible scholar either.I will argue and prove that God listens to "sinners," not in a manner that ignores their sin, but when they are seeking truth, forgiveness, are just desperately turning to God for help. He did me. That's the first bit of evidence i present. If God did not hear sinners at such a time I would never have been saved.

The back up reference Wellman offers: 1 Peter 3:12 

For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
    and his ears are attentive to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil

Of course this passage doesn't really say what he wants it to. It doesn't say God doesn't  hear sinners, it says he searches for the righteous and his face is against those who do evil. It doesn't say that he doesn't hear the prayers of sinners his face is against those who do evil. So that would mean those who live in a manner that sloughs off sin and takes lightly the idea of pleasing God. That would be those not calling out to God in desperation or seeking truth or seeking to repent. So we can assume that when the Bible asserts that God doesn't hear the prayers of sinners it means those who actively peruse sin not just anyone who has sinned. We can see this in the cross references. These cross references I found on Bible Hub when I looked up John 9:31.

One example is the house of Cornelius in Acts 9:11. He was praying to God and he was not a Jew, or a Christian. He was a Roman solider. God sent Peter to him to preach the gospel. Obviously then God does hear the prayers of non Chrsitians who are seeking God.[3]

Cross References

Deuteronomy 1:45
You came back and wept before the LORD, but he paid no attention to your weeping and turned a deaf ear to you.

In this one he was not taling to unbelievers, he wasn't talking to people of other faiths who worshiped other God's but the Children of Israel who followed Moses in the wilderness. So they were the believers. Here he's not listening to the prayers of believers. They had not been faithful and  not been faithful. This verse can't be used to say that God doesn't listen to the prayers of non Christians. From a Christian standpoint the Children of Israel were the Christians of heir day so to speak, we Christians are spiritually part of Israel according to Paul.

Job 27:8
For what hope have the godless when they are cut off, when God takes away their life?

That does not say that he doesn't hear their prayers. It's speaking of after they die. So if you die in teh condition of enmity with God and you have repented then you are cut off from God. It's too late to pray anyway.

Job 35:13
Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.

First of all, he might not listen becuase it's empty. Meaning, they are sincere. They didn't quote the full passage:

12He does not answer when people cry out
    because of the arrogance of the wicked.
¹³ Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea;

The plea is empty becuase they are prideful and arrogant and they don't seek truth or to seek to change.

Psalm 34:15
The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous, and his ears are attentive to their cry;

That's casting an inference but it's really argument from consequent. We are supposed to think well if God is listening to the righteous then he must not listen to the unrighteous. Not logically proven. It's an informal fallacy. This comes under the heading of my first comment that "hearing" refers to a special relationship. The eyes watching the good that is also a special relationship.It does not mean that God is no attentive to people seeking help or who want truth and want to do what's right, or want to change who realize they are separated from God and repent. The view Bible Hub takes in using this to back the idea that God doesn't' hear sinners is in contradiction to the guy in Job Elihu who is not rebuked, the only non rebuked friend and he is not rebuked specially becuase he says God  punishment on both, good and evil, for different reasons. [4] 

Psalm 66:18
If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened;

By now it should be obvious how to answer this one; it doesn't pertain to all non Christians, all sinners, but to those who cherish evil, not seeking to change, don't seek the good.

Psalm 145:19
He fulfills the desires of those who fear him; he hears their cry and saves them.

Again, just becuase it says he hears one group doesnt' mean he never heards another group.

Proverbs 15:29
The LORD is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayer of the righteous.

 He doesn't have this special relationship with those who seek evil and who do not seek truth and don't care about the good, or about God. In addition to this we are told he does listen to those who seek good, that doesn't' say "to Christians only."

 Grace to You does a good job of explaining, on their page "Does God answer the Prayers of unbelievers?[5]

 http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA160

 Acts 10:2 House of Cornelius. Donald P Ames Truth Magazine good article arguing that God does hear all prayers. We can also look at Paul's message to the Greeks on Mars hill. He didn't tell them "you old Homsexualite Greeks are just a bunch hell bound pagans!" What did he say?

 Acts 17:

²² Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. ²³ For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.
²⁴ “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. ²⁵ And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ²⁸ ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’^[a] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’^[b]
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill.

He made us to inhabit the earth that we might find him. He quotes Greek poets saying he is not far from us. In saying they are ignorant of what they worship he's saying they know God, they just don't understand the set up. Why didn't he tell them God doesn't hear their prayers? In Romans he says:

Romans 2:

⁶ God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”^{[a] 7} To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. ⁸ But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. ⁹ There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; ¹⁰ but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. ¹¹ For God does not show favoritism.
¹² All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. ¹³ For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. ¹⁴ (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.¹⁵ They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

If you are following the moral law upon he heart you are following Jesus even though you may not understand that. To that extent the heart  may excuse them or defend them. they may be justified because they are living up to the light that they have. I'll explore this theme more compeltey in reference to the Church next time.

SOURCES

[1] Richard Ostling, "Does God Hear Prayers from Just Anyone," Get Religion, December 2, (2013)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/12/does-god-hear-prayers-from-just-anyone/

accessed 1/21/14

[2] Jack Wellman, "Does God Answer the Prayers of The Unsaved or Unbelievers?" What Christians want to Know. May 21, 2011. Blog: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/does-god-answer-the-prayers-of-the-unsaved-or-unbelievers/

accessed 1/21/14

[3] Donald P. Ames, "Will God Hear the Prayer of  a Non Christian?" Truth Magazine.
http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume32/GOT032285.html

accessed 1/21/14

[4] "Interpretations of Elihu in Job," Stack Exchange biblical Hermeneutics,
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/164/interpretations-of-elihu-in-job

accessed 1/21/14

[5] No author given,   "Does God answer the Prayers of unbelievers?" Grace to You, Blog

 http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA160

accessed 1/21/14

Prayer 4 (final): "Abide in Me."

The attention to answered prayer and unanswered prayer is always so focused on "getting stuff" I have said this several times in the three previous sections. I stated last time I wanted to use this last one to talk about the other aspects of prayer, which is really backwards. The major point of prayer is not getting stuff and the petition type of prayer is a small segment of the whole phenomena of prayer which is complex and immense.This top still, even though not about answered prayer or "getting stuff" still runs up against the concepts and problems of faiht and other faiths because we have the problem of having faith to believe that prayer is doing something, even if it is just being near God, and we have the point about other faiths because those other guys are getting up close and personal with their concepts of God too.

One other issue must be addressed as well, that is the link between prayer and mystical expedience. Prayer is the major aspect of knowing God. Prayer is the Major way to know God! Prayer is the key to faith. Time spent in prayer is gold in the religious life becuase the exent to which one will be able to hand fast in the crisis and to hold to that which we know is true even when things look totally hopeless and we think God has abandoned us, it's all related to the time we spend in prayer. Shallow prayer life equals shallow faith. It's not related to getting things. The extent to which one is a staring lion fighting Christians is not about the number of answers one got to prayer, but the time spend feeling God's presence, and expressing love for God and receiving voe form God. These are the true maturity and faith building aspects.The key to all of that is not number of answers, but time spent on your knees in the private prayer life. That is what does it, that's what make nurture spiritual life, period.What about the other guys, the guys in other faiths who spend their time with their concept of God?

I see religious tradition as vehicle for loading the experience of God into cultural constructs and giving meaning to that which is beyond words. Certainly I embrace the Nicene creed, and I do believe that Jesus is the incarnate logos. I also believe what Paul said about God working in all cultures (Acts 17:21-29), and God placing the moral law upon the heart of all people…”their may excuse them…” (Romans 2:15). In my view the purpose of apologetics is to demonstrate the human need to know God. The basis of exclusivity in Christian tradition is not the sort of exclusivity that derides other traditions. I realize it has been so construed in the past but it need not be. It is merely the sort of exclusivity that focuses upon the efficacy of Christ in redeeption and the value that offers to the world. I am not arguing that the following is the only way to reconcile the seemingly universal nature of mystical consciousness with Christianity. It’s the way I do it. It has to do with my own theological understanding. I am not saying it’s the only possible understanding.

The Phenomenological aspects of mystical consciousness are found in the Christian tradition. The idea of “knowing Christ” the personal relationship with God all contains the elements that James incorporates into the “knowledge about” and “knowledge-by-acquaintance.” In the New Testament this is expressed in the use of different Greek words for knowledge. The words that are used when the author speaks of “knowing Christ” invariably refer to personal knowledge, personal experience, first hand knowledge of something one experiences for one’s self. One example of such as term is epiginosko. There are other Greek words that pertain to book learning and knowledge about a subject that one leanrs second hand. These words are never used to describe the relationship between believers and God or Christ.

Anotehr such word is the term first used in Pauline literature, referring to proto Gnostic groups, and it was the Orthodox Church’s term, Glnosko (1097 Strong’s) for example means: Definition

1. to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
1. to become known
2. to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
1. to understand
2. to know
3. Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
4. to become acquainted with, to know [i]

Used in Hebrews:

Heb 3:10 "Therefore I was angry with this generation, And said, 'They always go astray in their heart; And they did not know My ways'; Heb 8:11 "And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, And everyone his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For ALL SHALL KNOW Me, From the least to the greatest of them.” In that passage we see clearly the idea of first hand knowledge through personal experience. One does not have to be taught what one experiences first hand. It’s. “They will all know me,” means they will all first hand personal knowledge of me. This means being a Christian turns upon personal experience of God at some level. That doesn’t mean having mystical experiences saves one. We all experience God at the subliminal level but being “saved” is a matter of recognition of what we have experienced already, the thing that draws us to Christ.

1. Like the similar and related word epiginosko. (1921 Strong’s). to become thoroughly acquainted with, to know thoroughly
1. to know accurately, know well
2. to know
1. to recognise
1. by sight, hearing, of certain signs, to perceive who a person is
2. to know i.e. to perceive
3. to know i.e. to find out, ascertain
4. to know i.e. to understand

Used 1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known. 1Co 14:37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. 1Co 16:18 For they have refreshed my spirit and yours. Therefore acknowledge such men. [ii]

The idea that we know “in part” might possibly include the understanding that we experience God at a subliminal level beyond words and have to encode that into cultural constructs.

The term for the knowledge used of Gnostics, Gnosis is contrasted in that even though it bears the notion of perfection knowledge, it deals more with the understanding of rules and facts, of knowing ideas and doesn’t seem to bear the idea of the personal face to face knowledge.

Definition

1. knowledge signifies in general intelligence, understanding
1. the general knowledge of Christian religion
2. the deeper more perfect and enlarged knowledge of this religion, such as belongs to the more advanced
3. esp. of things lawful and unlawful for Christians
4. moral wisdom, such as is seen in right living [iii]

Another word for Knowledge that could be used for knowing Christ, but is not, a word that carries the implication of factual knowledge is isemi, which means generally just “to know.”

eb 12:17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

Another factually based word for knowing is suneidon:

Definition

1. to see (have seen) together with others
2. to see (have seen) in one's mind with one's self
1. to understand, perceive, comprehend,
3. to know with another
4. to know in one's mind or with one's self, to be conscience of

1Co 4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

Used: Eph 3:19 “and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.” That seems to contrast the kind of knowledge known from the heart and from experiencing God with general knowledge, including book learning.

The terms used in the NT that deal with knowing Christ are terms that relate to first hand personal knowledge, knowledge-by-acquaintance. The term Ginosko, used throughout 1 John, implies an intimate experiential level of personal knowledge.

1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1Jo 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 1Jo 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. 1Jo 2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. 1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1Jo 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. 1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 1Jo 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 1Jo 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 1Jo 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. 1Jo 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 1Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. 1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 1Jo 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. 1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 1Jo 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

The nature of what it means to “know God” or “know Christ” in the Christian religion is this personal level of experiential knowledge.[iv]

Traditions

Mystical experience is inter-subjective (subjective but experiences in very similar ways by more than one mind). As has been documented by several researchers, the same commonalities come up over and over again. All mystical experiences have characteristics of undifferentiated unity, sense of presence, feeling of bliss, noetic aspects, ineffable nature, and so forth.

The Voyle stud is one of the studies on mystical experience that talk about and use in my soon to be released book, The Trace of God. The study demonstrates that the mature end of Christianity is found in those who have mystical experiences.

From the Voyle Study:

The contemporary interest in the empirical research of mysticism can be traced to Stace’s (Stace, 1960) demarcation of the phenomenological characteristics of mystical experiences (Hood, 1975). In Stace’s conceptualization, mystical experiences had five characteristics (Hood, 1985, p.176):


1. The mystical experience is noetic. The person having the experience perceives it as a valid source of knowledge and not just a subjective experience.

2. The mystical experience is ineffable, it cannot simply be described in words.

3. The mystical experience is holy. While this is the religious aspect of the experience it is not necessarily expressed in any particular theological terms.

4. The mystical experience is profound yet enjoyable and characterized by positive affect.

5. The mystical experience is paradoxical. It defies logic. Further analysis of reported mystical experiences suggest that the one essential feature of mysticism is an experience of unity (Hood, 1985). The experience of unity involves a process of ego loss and is generally expressed in one of three ways (Hood, 1 976a). The ego is absorbed into that which transcends it, or an inward process by which the ego gains pure awareness of self, or a combination of the two.[v]

Voyle demonstrates that the mystical end of the church is the mature end. That is to say, those who experience mystical consciousness represent a much more mature form of Christianity than do those who do not. He basis this upon his study in which he compares the two groups for depth of understanding and commitment.

Does the universality of religious experience invalidate religious truth?

Atheists often argue this point. They will say “they can’t all be right because they are all so different. So how can you establish that one is right and all the others wrong? I say, sarcastically, “you mean aside from the fact that God manifested as Jesus and rose from the dead? I don’t know.” I say that sarcastically because I know it wont meaning a thing to them. They do have a good point. We can be parochial and say, “well of course my tradition is the true one and all the others are damned.” But that has some obvious drawbacks.

Religious traditions are communities of discourse, their function is to create vocabularies in which one can receive guidance form those who have gone before, and make one’s own contribution to the conversation. Thus the experiences of God are filtered through cultural constructs and the meaningful nature of those constructs is relative to the various communities in which they take place. It is perfectly plausible that there is one truth behind all religious traditions. It is possible to maintain this position as a Christian, and to remain a Bible believing evangelical who seeks to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.. In fact, the Bible teaches that very thing. Paul comes up on Mars Hill he tells the Greek philosophers “you are worshipping the right God, ‘the unknown god’ you just don’t know enough about him.” He did not tell them “O you pagans are going to hell.” Other Christians, more conservative in their understanding, have told me that he was just using that as a trick. I can’t believe that Paul was just a con man who tried to trick people. If he said it had to believe it. This is just my personal way of rationalizing this problem. I’m not saying this is the only valid Christian outlook, but I think it is a valid Christian outlook. "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." From a human perspective, relatively speaking from one human to another there are, of course, well meaning people. There are good people all around us, from a human perspective. Relative to the Divine however, no one is good, no one is capable of meriting salvation. We all have our sins; we all have our human frailties. We are all caught up in "height" (our ability through the image of God in which we were created to move beyond our human finitude and seek the good) and "depth" (our nature burdened in the sinful wickedness to human deceit). These are Augustinian terms and they basically mean that we are, good and bad, saint and sinner. God knows the heart, He Knows what we truly seek. God is merciful and is able to forgive our trespasses. But, if we are really well meaning toward God we will seek the truth. If we are seeking the truth than God will make it plan to us.

abide in me

"If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you."
~ John 15:7 ~

This is one of those passages that atheist get up set about and start saying "he will not! He will not! just shut your eyes real tight and ask for a candy bar and he wont give you one." They start blathering about amputees. They can only think in terms of a big man in the sky and getting material things because that's surface level they can only relate to the surface level. When we look at the context of this passage, we see that it begins with a discussion about the vine and branches. Christ is the vine and we are branches. Any branch that doesn't bear fruit is pruned(1-3). this probalby doesn't mean kicked out of the Kingdom but chastised, disciplined, pruning is not destruction but cutting back to help the growth process. The tells that we must abide in him for us to bear fruit. So he's not cutting immature Christians out, he's disciplining us so we grow better, we grow better the more rooted in him we are.

John 15: 5-17

⁵ “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. ⁶ If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. ⁷ If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. ⁸ This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

⁹ “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. ¹⁰ If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. ¹¹ I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. ¹² My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. ¹³ Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. ¹⁴ You are my friends if you do what I command. ¹⁵ I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. ¹⁶ You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. ¹⁷ This is my command: Love each other.

He moves from talking about horticulture to love, he winds up saying they are not his servants but his friends. So he's showing us that through this abiding we move from the formal to the intimate from merely obeying God to really knowing God. One might argue that what he means by abide is not prayer but living, or obeying. He does speak of keeping commands. That's true and I'm not saying it means only prayer.He's talking about a total way of life. Abide in Christ means follow Jesus, do what he says, keep his commandments, think like he does, but it not limited to the surface of just obeying commands. Abiding is also prayer, the personal knowledge that is stated in the meaning of those Greek terms. The experience of God's presence comes through prayer. Prayer has to be integrated into your life in such a way it's not some boring routine that you make room for on Tuesday and Sunday morning, it's not some ritual that set aside two hours for each day. It's an integral part of the way of life. You are praying in the shower praying in the car, praying while slinging hash and so on. I also combine meditation with prayer. I think of them as going together. Mediate on God's presence is a very helpful way to abide in God. The discourse ends with "this is my command, love each other." So it's a lived practice. Prayer is not just conversing and talking and say words, any more than it is asking for things. It's "abiding" "com munition" and living the communion. Actually loving is an expression of that communion. Paul Tells us Romans 5:1 love is poured into our hearts through the holy spirit. So love itself is actually God's love flowing through us, and that is made possible by prayer and communion and mediating on God's presence and abiding in God.


A fine book in the vast body of mystical writigns in the Christian tradition is a short nice little text called The Practice of the Presence of God. by Brother Lawrence (1614-1691). He was just a monk,in France. That's really all he did other than writing this one simple little book. Yet the book has become a spiritual classic. Basically he gave his life to dish washing sense he was undercoated. that's about all he did. That is to say, all the did other than prayer. He developed a reputation by the end of his life as someone what an expert, a mystic and whose prayers were answered. That's another aspect that atheists are always overlooking. The passage above does not say "just ask and there it is, boda bing, boda boom." It says "abide in me." It's a way of life. Even getting answers to prayers is the result of abiding, it's not some automatic thing. It's an outgrowth of process of living by faith. This little monk was known for feeling God's presence. he was extremely happy washing dishes because the prayed while he washed dishes. He felts the ceiling open and heaven descend and the kitchen became the thrown room of God.

Christian Classics
Ethereal Library

Yet despite, or perhaps because of, his somewhat lowly position, his character attracted many to him. He was known for his profound peace and many came to seek spiritual guidance from him. The wisdom that he passed on to them, in conversations and in letters, would later become the basis for the book, The Practice of the Presence of God. This work was compiled after Brother Lawrence died by one of those whom he inspired, Father Joseph de Beaufort, later vicar general to the Archbishop of Paris. It became popular among Catholics and Protestants alike, with John Wesley and A. W. Tozer being among those who recommended it.

A lot of the imagery is squeamish, weepy, and doesn't communicate in this age. Yet the overall effect and tone of the book is hopeful and loving, not fearful or condemning at all. His God was love, and he uses the concept of being born again and born again imagery of nature even 500 years before it was popular to do so.

In the deep of winter, Herman looked at a barren tree, stripped of leaves and fruit, waiting silently and patiently for the sure hope of summer abundance. Gazing at the tree, Herman grasped for the first time the extravagance of God's grace and the unfailing sovereignty of divine providence. Like the tree, he himself was seemingly dead, but God had life waiting for him, and the turn of seasons would bring fullness. At that moment, he said, that leafless tree "first flashed in upon my soul the fact of God," and a love for God that never after ceased to burn. Sometime later, an injury forced his retirement from the army, and after a stint as a footman, he sought a place where he could suffer for his failures. He thus entered the Discalced Carmelite monastery in Paris as Brother Lawrence.(Ibid)

print your own copy (20 pages) here.

---

[i] from on line resource “crosswalk” Greek Lexicons. that means basically Strong's concordance.

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Ibid

[iv] all the material relating to Greek terms unless otherwise noted is from Cross walk

[v] Robert J. Voyle. “The Impact of Mystical Experiences on Christian Maturity.” originally published in pdf format: http://www.voyle.com/impact.pdf.
google html version here: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:avred7zleAEJ
:www.voyle.com/impact.pdf+Hood+scale+and+religious+experience&hl=en&gl
=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8

Parer prt 3: Prayers not Answered (Note to Hermit)

I was planing on making my series on prayer into a 3 part only, and ending with a discussion of "other uses" or prayer, not petition prayer. Yesterday there was a note on the comment section form long time reader and loyal opponent "Hermit" saying that his mother-in-law died. He added to this "where is her miracle?" I would like to address this briefly here, then do what would have been the third part on Monday.

Before saying anything else I wish to extend my sincere condolences to Hermit. I know he's told me in the past his mother-in-law was a neat person and they were friends. I know this is a loss he feels deeply, not only for his wife and kids but for his own friendship with her. So I am truly sorry for your loss man.

What does this mean, that my father was healed (even brought back from the doorstep of eternity) for a time and this lady was not, neat though she was. Being a neat person has nothing to do with it. Neat people die all the time. Being "neat" doesn't keep death from us. My father did die permanently. It was only three years latter that he did finally go. What's the piont then?

We make the same kind of mistake in thinking of miraculous healing as getting stuff, that we do when we think of prayer as a means of "getting stuff." Healing is not about emptying hospitals or fighting pain in the world. Pain is a part of life and so is loss. Some leave this moral existence very early, some late, but we all do leave it. The three extra years my Dad got were very important, though one might wonder from seeing him in that time if it was really a blessing. He spent most of that time hating the fact that he couldn't do the physical work he used to love doing (fixing cars, climbing all over the house, going in woods in his beloved Sulphur Springs--east Texas pine woods--where he grew up). He hated the idea of living in the 21st century and he prayed every day he would not have to. He died the very last day of the 20th century. There was also a friend in our Christian Cadre apologetic group, someone who comments on this blog form time to time. Her father also did not want to live in the 21st century. She prayed for my Dad and I prayer for her's as they were both sick at the same time. They both died on the same day. If we imagine that God granted both prayers how could it be that an answered prayer for one time led to a man being saved from death and the same man just three years latter, the answered prayer means he gets to die?

I wasn't that bad at taking care of him. He was not unhappy with life because of my care. Like most active adventurous men he hated being confined. He hated having to be helped to walk and having to move at a snail's pace, not being able to see well enough to read, and being too generally "out of it" to enjoy anything. Why did God even let him live? During those three years he got some crucial things done, and his survival inspired those of us who loved him.It was a clear answer to prayer and gave us all faith for the coming the struggles. I've written about how we lost our home, I lost my career, we were on the edge of homelessness, I had to start over on life and rebuild who I am one piece at a time; that genuine Christmas miracle was extremely crucial at a time when I truly believed that God had cursed me. Not to mention the fact that my father and mother enjoyed certain aspects of getting to say a three year long goodbye, and relationships were healed throughout the whole family because he was alive.

I was also inspired to do genealogy which he had always wanted to do, we leanred all about our heritage that we had never taken the time to do before. As a result I found out that my mother's mother's father did not die when she was two, but left his family. This turned out to be amazing because I made contact with that guy's grand son, my great grandfather's grand son who never new of his half sister, my grandmother. That contact with my distant cousin has been important to him in his old age. You never how your life might touch others. Each loss leaves a hole in a family sends ripple effects down the life that we can't know. God is sorting it all out and keeping track. A "no" answer can be as crucial as a yes. Death can be the reward. It's very hard to figure if you think about it one can see a lot more is involved than just pleasure over pain.

God looks on the heart. God knows what we need and the ultimate bottom line for God is not pleasure over pain or avoidance of pain but moving the heart closer to love. Where was Hermit's mother-in-law's miracle?? I don't know her, I'm sure she was a neat person if Hermit thinks she was. Yet, for all we know perhaps she may have been ready to go. We don't know these things. We can't say. An outsider might think my father's three extra years accomplished nothing I know they did. We used to sit on the back patio in the summer evening and my Alzheimer ridden mother would read thirty year old Reader's Digests to us, thinking they were brand new, then I would slowly take my Dad back in. Step by step at the snail's pace, up the stairs of the back porch we knew every single move to make and we made them all with excruciating deliberation and slowness. My mother would always say "These are our golden moments."

We also spend tons of time in the ER. We were always going to the ER it was practically our hangout. Once my mother pushed my father off the porch because he was moving too slow and she, in her degenerated condition was a nut case, he broke three ribs. In spite of such halarity I can't say the golden moments weren't worth it.

My parents would put their chairs side by side overlooking the grass of the back yard and our wonderful pub Arnie would give them a show. He would tear thing sup and do back flips and flop on his back and stick his legs up in the air and writhe around scratching himself. They watched it like they were watching a circus, laughing and going "O look him!" One might think this was just an agonzing time and nothing else but it was a lot more than that. No one but God has the right to say what was a productive life and what was a waste of time.

I believe that God is in our agony and in our joy. God does care about the personal level. I know it's not easy to see it that way when you are hurting of faced with loss. That's not exactly the best time to evaluate anything. Perhaps the miracle can be as much in when you go as how or as in being saved from going. The only way to really understand is through an inner life. Only somehow who is seeking God in the heart can really get it. Once you do that then you need never doubt. For those outside looking in it can all look very different. Before we try to determine "prayer doesn't work" we have to ask "work for what's?" What is to be accomplished anyway? It's turning the heart to God, that's ultimate bottom line and that can be accomplished any number of ways. Ultimately, and free will is obvious to me, we must decide. I am the only one who can incline my heart to God. I must decide to do so. I must make the choice. Once made it has profound consequences. If you get it you get it.

There is never a good time for them to go, not from the perspective of those of us who lose someone we love. If it was up to me my parents would live forever. They are living forever. I have full assurance they are together. It's not a pleasnt thing when we lose connections we love but that is not the end and doesn't mean it's all for nothing, nor does it mean God doesn't care. God is with us in the sorrow and God will work it all out. As Julian of Norwich said a lot "all will be well."