jump to navigation

Is it useless to distinguish God’s acts and our own? December 12, 2008

Posted by Damian in Eastern Orthodoxy, Prayer.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

There’s an interesting conversation going on at Nick Norelli’s blog. In the comments, Esteban Vasquez linked to Orrologion, which has some fascinating Orthodox theology related to praying to the Saints.

I’ve argued before that ceasing to physically exist on earth is no cause for removal from the body of Christ. it’s not like the requirement for inclusion is having a physical body. And hence, we should not be treating departed saints (who are given eternal life in Christ) any different from the one’s that are still here – in fact, that scripture indicates we should do the opposite, giving them greater honour. However, I’ve looked largely at the official Catholic stance, which is that we pray with rather than to the departed saints, similarly to how we pray with rather than to the saints here on earth.

However, the author of Orroglion has a more Christological approach. Firstly, he has no problems with the saints actually answering our prayers, just as we have no problems accepting a physical human action as an answer to our prayers:

So, of course the saint himself hears my prayer and answers it. One need not necessarily participate in a game of telephone where I ask a saint to pray to God for me rather than me praying to God directly for some reason. The saint is able to answer my prayer because his life is prayer to God, communion with God, union with God in the God-man, Jesus Christ.

Secondly, as God is the ultimate source, then it is useless to distinguish God’s acts and our own:

The lifeguard saved me is just like saying St. Xenia got me a job, or St. Anna helped my wife to conceive. The lifeguard only had his health, his ability, only saw me drowning, only helped me stay above water long enough, etc. because of God. To note otherwise is an affectation or quibbling or a preference for the abstract and academic over real, live flesh and blood reality. I can thank God and the lifeguard for the same thing in different ways without footnoting who has done what and in what order. Thanking the lifeguard takes nothing away from God; thanking God takes nothing away from the lifeguard.

This interests me because it is carrying two fascinating concepts to their natural conclusions. I’ve just never actually thought them through. The first is the concept of God as ultimate cause (hence being the cause of every subsequent action). The second is the concept of theosis (that by Gods’ becoming man in every way but his divinity, he gives man the opportunity to become God in every way but his divinity). Taking these concepts to these kind of extremes does border on panentheism and universalism; but not quite.

The first statement (Saints can answer prayers themselves) is not necessarily spelled out in scripture, but I believe it’s defensible, and is certainly not ruled out even in part. Silence on a subject means only silence. And I’m fascinated that this conclusion can be drawn from theosis. Truly, if God came to make us like Him (as Athanasius so famously articulated), who are we to draw the limits of how Christ-like we can be? And the second, to be honest, is incredibly biblical.

So, I have three questions:

Is it useless to distinguish Gods’ actions from our own? Why/why not?

Is there any biblical argument against the idea that a departed saint can answer prayers?

Given the concept of theosis, are there any limits given to us in scripture for exactly how Christ-like or God-like we as Christians can become?

I really have to spend some time studying Orthodox theology – it’s quite fascinating.

Following up on “Questioning the validity of the ‘Sinners’ Prayer’” October 7, 2008

Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation, Prayer.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
13 comments

One of my most popular posts, and the one that’s attracted a lot of Google traffic, has been my post on the validity of the Sinners’ Prayer. There, I discussed my opinions on the Sinners’ Prayer as a means of salvation, and how I thought it was a symptom of a simplified and uninformed theology. But I didn’t go into detail about what I thought scripture truly tells us about our ‘Salvation’. So I thought I’d take a look at the scripture involved in my belief that the Sinners’ Prayer is a load of baloney.

There are many verses where Jesus speaks specifically about ‘inheriting eternal life’. Luke 10:25-37 gives us two criteria for inheriting eternal life:

  • Loving God with all your heart
  • Loving your neighbour as the good Samaritan loved his neighbour; that is, show mercy.

Luke 18:18-37 also says a few more things about inheriting eternal life:

  • Obey God’s commandments
  • Be willing to sacrifice everything in order to follow Jesus

Notice there’s no mentioning any prayer. Acts (2:38-41 and 8:35-36) speak of baptism as the salvation act:

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Again, notice it doesn’t say anything about praying. Rather it speaks instead of repentance and baptism, which is, of course, mentioned in many other places in the context of salvation: John 6:40 also speaks of receiving eternal life. Whilst John 6 is very complex text, it concludes in a fairly straightforward manner:

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

So, from these two passages, three more criteria for inheriting eternal life:

  • Looking on Christ and believing in him
  • Baptism
  • Repenting and turning away from your sins

Now, on repentance, I think it’s fairly obvious from the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13 or Luke 11:2-4), which is something we are supposed to pray regularly, that repentance is not supposed to be a once off thing, but rather an ongoing lifestyle. We’re supposed to repent whenever we pray, and we’re supposed to pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17). Acts 26 tells us that we must show repentance through our actions, not simply through one-off statements. So it should be noticed that it is ongoing repentance and turning from our sins that is important in salvation.

As you can see, there is a fair amount of scripture that doesn’t mention any ‘Sinners’ Prayer’. But there are a few passages in scripture used to support the concept:

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:8-9)

And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God, but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God. (Luke 12:8-9)

Are there any others I missed? Let me know, but reading the whole of these verses in context (Romans 10 and Luke 12), I feel that they’re clearly not in the context of ‘achieving’ salvation, but rather in the context of living a life of faith publicly. Hence I don’t think they can be applied in the context of validating the practice of a Sinners’ Prayer as a salvation act.

So, what we’ve found are a number of criteria for obtaining eternal life:

  • Baptism
  • See Christ and believe in him
  • Repent and turn away from your sins
  • Obey God’s commandments
  • Love God with all your heart
  • Love your neighbour as the good Samaritan loved his neighbour (that is, show mercy).
  • Be willing to sacrifice everything in order to follow the Lord

Only one criteria is a once-off action, and it’s Baptism, not the sinner’s prayer.

Now, a sermon could be preached on each of these points, and I won’t do that. It should be noted, however, that these criteria are not mutually exclusive, but rather interconnected and related to each other.

It should also be noted that each of these are ongoing processes. Salvation is, therefore, and ongoing process. You are not saved by one decision, but by ongoing decisions throughout your life. I believe with all my heart that these – scriptural – criteria should be well-known and clearly identified as what salvation is. Because a focus on a prayer – the Sinners’ Prayer for example – can assure those who are not saved that they are. The concept of a Sinners’ Prayer that transports you into the kingdom of God and promises eternal life is the concept of magic, not the Gospel. The Gospel tells us that we can enter the kingdom of God.

Am I affirming salvation by works? I don’t think so. I think I’m saying that faith is not simply something in mind and heart, but in your actions. I think this is evident in scripture, and I think that simplifying salvation does the Gospel injustice. As I’ve said before:

We don’t know how it works, and we should give up pretending that we know these things absolutely. All we can do is say, if the Gospel is true, and God has triumphed over sin and death, and Jesus is in charge, and will redeem the earth, then I how should I act accordingly?

The Lord’s Prayer: Prayer or framework for prayer? September 24, 2008

Posted by Damian in Biblical Exegesis and Interpretation, Prayer.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
9 comments

I was planning to post on this subject, but the discussion generated by Kevin Sam’s recent post, as well as reply to it by Rich Rhodes, has prompted me to post it earlier than I’d intended. I wouldn’t want what I have to say to be old hat. I’m not posting on the Doxology in particular, but it’s addressed towards the end.

Catching up with a friend of mine, I mentioned to them that as part of my churches’ liturgy we say the Lord’s Prayer every week. I was surprised when she said something along the lines of “But we’re not supposed to pray the Lord’s Prayer are we? Isn’t it just a framework for prayer?”.

I have to admit, I was a little shocked. I’ve heard the Lord’s prayer proposed as a framework for prayer before, but solely as a framework for prayer? I’ve never heard that before.

There are two versions of the Lord’s Prayer, in Matthew 6:9-13 and in Luke 11:2-4. Most people ignore Luke’s, but here are both of them (in the NASB), because I think comparing them clarifies what the Lord’s Prayer should be to us:

Firstly, there is a distinct difference in Christ’s instructions between these versions. In Matthew, it says pray in this way. This certainly suggest the ‘framework’ interpretation. But Luke tells us to say this when we pray. Which suggest that we should use the exact wording.

Now, what is interesting is that it is Luke’s – that is, the shorter version – that suggests we use the exact words. Both these gospels are supposed to have drawn the Lord’s Prayer from a single source, so why are their versions so different?

One observation about the differences is that Matthews version has a clear two-part structure: Our father/In heaven. Kingdom come/will be done. On earth/as in heaven. Lead us not into temptation/deliver us from evil. Luke’s has only the first part of each of these structures.

To me, this suggests additions. Why additions to Matthew, and not subtractions in Luke? The possible reasoning relevant here, is found in those first few words, “Pray, then, in this way”. If the author of Matthew looked at the words of Christ as a framework, based on this instruction, and hence expanded upon the original in this way, it would explain the additional content. If the author of Luke, in contrast, understood Christ to say “When you pray, say”, he would not have expanded on the words of Christ as one would a framework.

I think this theory explains the differences between the two versions, and hence I think there’s ample evidence for both readings of the Lord’s Prayer as framework for prayer and as prayer itself. Hence, I think there is a place for both – sometimes, a simple prayer to the Lord is all that is required: “Father, your name is holy. Your kingdom come. Supply us with sustenance and forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us. Lead us not into temptation.”. Sometimes a longer prayer is required, in which case, take the example of Matthew in using Christ’s prayer as a framework for our communication with God.

Before I stop talking about the Lord’s Prayer, I’d like to make a few side notes, that I consider important but aren’t really related to the subject I’m addressing.

Firstly, notice that the Lord’s Prayer is not in the singular, but in the plural. We’re not simply praying for ourselves, but for all man. In using the Lord’s Prayer as a framework, remember that Christ taught us to pray for our fellow man, and not for ourselves.

Secondly, Matthew’s Gospel in some versions also includes the doxology, “For yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever and ever, Amen.”. This, too, is an addition, a line of praise for glory of God. I think that, if you’re expanding upon the Lord’s prayer, it’s good show to include a little bit of praise.

Thirdly, when expanding on the Lord’s Prayer, remember the words in Matthew 6:7, that tell us not to pray long-winded prayers. God knows our hearts, so simple prayers are best. That’s why He gave us the Lord’s Prayer in the first place.

So, that’s what I believe the Lord’s Prayer should be to us.

Update: Doug Chaplin just posted summarising this. I thought I should give him a shout out, as he’s far more authoritative than I, and I feel nice that he made a similar, yet more succinct, argument.

The desert fathers on to-the-point prayer September 14, 2008

Posted by Damian in Early Christian Belief and Patristics, Prayer.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Chris Hall is still posting sayings of the desert fathers over at his blog, This Side of the Pulpit. I’m constantly astounded (should I be? Probably not.) at their wisdom. I’ve commented recently about desiring to-the-point prayer, rather than the long, attention-seeking treatises we often hear prayed in churches these days, and this desert father seemed to agree, seventeen hundred years ago:

Abba Macarius was asked, “How should one pray?” The old man said, “There is no need at all to make long discourses; it is enough to stretch out one’s hand and say, ‘Lord, as you will, and as you know, have mercy.’ And if the conflict grows fiercer say, ‘Lord, help!’ He knows very well what we need and he shows us his mercy.”

Good on you, Papa Macarius. If only more people read read the desert fathers. Or, for that matter, the Gospel of Matthew.

Blessing Meals August 25, 2008

Posted by Damian in Judaism and Christianity, Prayer.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

I’ve talked here before about how I appreciate the Jewish prayer tradition. Rachel over at Velveteen Rabbi gives one such example, which I find elegant, beautiful, and reverent, where she describes the simplest blessing of food possible: “blessed is the merciful one, ruler of the world, creator of this bread”.

One of the beautiful things about Jewish prayer is that it’s sung, or chanted. So even such a prayer as this simple, one-line blessing, suitable only “if one were being pursued by robbers on the highway and didn’t have time to pray the whole grace after meals”, is sung to a variety of tunes.

Rachel demonstrates a few of them, here and here, in the Aramaic (there are more at her site, she posts recordings of many Jewish prayers – if you’re interested, you should check it out).

I wonder that Christianity has not lost much in it’s divorce from Judaism, just as Protestantism has lost much in it’s divorce from Catholicism. There are so many traditions lost by those seeking to overcome the limitations of the past, needless to say that more attention should be drawn to the reconciliation aspects of the gospel.