(posted 12/10/2019)
Raj wrote in the comments of one of my blogposts:
rgbrao December 8, 2019 at 9:29 PMOK. So I am going to think out loud and will make a comment here with respect to something in the above post.
Note that Murray does not explicitly tell us what in the Bible constitutes a promise. I have this same issue with John Piper and Jay Adams. They will tell you to claim God's promise, but they rarely give you examples of what God's promises are. At least in terms of what I have read. Anyway, I will spell out this issue in two ways.
(1) Collective: What promises are applicable to Christians today vs. the OT Israelites.
and
(2) Individually: What promises are specifically applicable to Jane Doe's situation today.
~~~~~~~
So? How does one know what is an applicable promise or is not an applicable promise?
~ We might respond and say, "Look. Isn't it obvious what the promises of God are? They are scattered throughout the Scriptures. There are even very many little books out there containing lists of Promises from the Bible."
Then this is where the problem comes. You go off and read "For I know the plans I have for you ... a hope and a future" (Jer. 29:11), and say to yourself, "This is a promise that I will put on my fridge."
But then along comes the apologist, who says "Hey! Wait a minute! That is only for the Israelites of old. That is not for you. That is N/A for us today."
So that is one problem - distinguishing what Promises are for us or not for us. Some might just be for the OT Israelites vs. what is for us today.
(2) Applicable/Non-Applicable to Jane Doe Specifically?
The next problem is this. You cannot open up the Bible and find a promise that God will give you a new Honda or a promotion at the workplace. You won't find it. These things are wants, not needs.
George Müller seemed to have circumscribed God's promises as being applicable to "...necessaries" only. So speaking in terms of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, God will definitely provide for you food, clothing or shelter (= bottom of Maslow's pyramid), however there is no guarantee that He will provide for you friendship (= midway up the pyramid). A person who might be in prison for life, and who comes to faith while there by way of reading a Bible, might fail to have friends for the rest of his life. The latter is not strictly speaking necessary for you to continue to live.
~ The above are two issues, that have come up for me here and there, in particular through Piper's work. I am sure you address them here and I will be continuing to read. Thanks for the blog! There is lots of food for thought here.
In Him,
~ Raj
P.S. For my devo tonight, I read 1 Samuel. It is interesting to note that Hannah, with respect to her barrenness basically had two options:
(1) Quit praying because surely a child was not the Lord's will,
or
(2) Keep praying anyway.
She opted for (2) and persevered in prayer for years. Amazing!
This, of course, is a continuation of our conversation in the combox HERE and then later in the combox HERE. I'm tempted to give the exceptions and qualifications to what I'm about to say up front, now, but have decided to leave them for the latter part of this blogpost.
I admit that there's a level of subjectivity on the topic of determining which promises can apply to New Covenant Christians. First off, I haven't been a Dispensationalist for nearly 20 years. I think Dispensationalism with its 1. strict discontinuity between Israel and the Church as well as its 2. strict distinctions between the [unconnected] Dispensations is a major foundation for why we allegedly shouldn't haphazardly claim a Biblical passage as applying to ourselves. However, I think Dispensationalism has been disproven by books like "Rightly Dividing the People of God" by Keith Mathison, and "House Divided: The Break Up of Dispensational Theology" by Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry. While I'm not a theonomist, I think Bahnsen's book "By This Standard" does a great job showing how all of the Tanakh applies to Christians in some sense. The last two books are freely online at theonomist Gary North's website HERE. But Mathison's book is a better introduction to the problems of Dispensationalism.More resources refuting Dispensationalism can be found at Monergism's website HERE.
Even many modern proponents of "Dispensationalism" think that Normative Dispensationalism (i.e. Classic, and Revised Dispesationalism) and [all the more] the various Ultra-Dispensational views have major problems. See the literature put out by Progressive Dispensationalists like Darrell Bock, Robert Saucy et al. They rightly deny a clear cut distinction between Israel and the Church, as well as affirming that the various Covenants progressively build upon each other. My personal views are closer to a mediating position between Covenant Theology, Dispensational Theology and New Covenant Theology, called Progressive Covenantalism. See the book "Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies" edited by Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker. Even some Normative Dispensationalists are willing to say that "All of the Bible is FOR Christians, but not all of it is TO Christians". That's fair, but they don't take the "FOR" part seriously enough in my opinion. The Apostle Paul says, ALL Scripture is profitable for Christians [2 Tim. 3:15-16], and were inspired for our example and instruction [Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11].
I'll answer your specific questions below. But here are some preliminary statements that will answer your questions generally/broadly. In my estimation God seems to respond to faith. Faith in the general goodness and power of God to help and bless. The woman with the issue of blood thought in her mind that if she could just touch the hem of Jesus' garment she would be made well. There was no divine promise for her to come to that conclusion. Some might argue that others were touching Jesus previously and that she decided to do so too and picked the hem/fringe of Jesus' garment in order not to ritually defile Him. But, it might also be that the reverse is the case. That those other people who were touching him did so because the story of her touching Him spread by word of mouth. That all you needed to do was touch Him to be healed. Nor is there any record of Jesus saying, if they want to be healed, they should touch Him. So, there's no recorded promise that touching Jesus would heal anyone. Yet, it worked.
The relevant passages include: Mark 3:10; 5:24ff.; Mark 6:56; Matt. 9:20ff. Matt 14:36; Luke 6:19; Luke 8:43ff.
To the best of my reconstruction, it seems that people started touching Jesus for healing because they first noticed that when HE touched them they were healed. So, they started touching Him for healing. Then, later the woman with the issue of blood decided to touch His hem and got healed. Then, after that, some people started to focus on just touching His garment because, apparently, they were getting more success in getting healed when they did so. Why? Probably because they were more actively believing. Maybe in a superstitious way which God nevertheless honored and responded to. There are other cases in the Bible where God might have honored superstitious faith, because it was ultimately in HIM, or ultimately in relation to Him and His reputation/honor. [cf. Gen. 30:37ff.; Acts 5:15; 19:11-12]
That pheneomenon of people touching Jesus and being healed seems to have been an outworking of the principle of Jesus' repeated statements that we can receive according to, or in proportion to, our faith. See for example: Matt. 9:22; Matt. 9:28-29; Matt. 8:13; Matt. 17:19-20; Matt. 9:2; Matt. 15:28; Mark 5:34; Luke 8:48; Mark 9:23; Mark 5:36; Luke 8:50; Luke 7:9-10; cf. Acts 14:9 (et cetera). As well as in keeping with the principle of Mark 9:23:
And Jesus said to him, "'If you can'! ALL THINGS are possible for one who believes."- Mark 9:23 ESV
Having said all that, I believe we can now, with warrant/justification, look at the general promises of the Old Testament and claim them for ourselves. "For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us" (2 Cor. 1:20 NKJV). Even some of the specific promises that were for individuals. Though, obviously not all of them, since some of them just cannot be applied outside of their original context. For example, the dreams of Joseph virtually constitute prophecies and promises. We may not claim those as promises that we will personally rule over our siblings or become virtual heads of states in THIS AGE. But generally speaking, and applied in a broader and looser sense, we see God's promises of rulership for believers in the Age to Come (Rev. 2:26-27; 3:21; 5:10; 20:4-6; Luke 19:17ff.; 2 Tim. 2:12; Dan. 7:22, 27, 18). The command to the Israelites to take the Promised Land by lethal [physical] force when necessary, along with God's promise of success, doesn't apply to New Covenant believers in the sense of their original context and meaning. But, by typology they can apply in terms of spiritual warfare. As Paul says,
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh.
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.
5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,
6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.- 2 Cor. 10:3-6
Even some of the promises to individuals might apply. For example, the author of Hebrews applies to all believers a promise that originally applied to Joshua (cf. Heb. 13:5 with Josh. 1:5-9). As well as applying the statement of faith of a psalmist to all believers (cf. Heb. 13:6 with Ps. 118:6). Some Old Testament promises to individuals have New Testament counterparts such that it would seem that we can claim them too. For example, God's promise that he would guide Moses' speech have some parallels in the New Testament.
Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak."- Exo. 4:12
for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict.- Luke 21:15
Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.- Col. 4:6
Examples could be multiplied with respect to many other OT promises.
Now for exceptions and qualifications.
Some Exceptions.
Exceptions would include things like: if we are believing for something that is contrary to the promises, or commands, or prophecies, or revealed decrees or revealed principles/methods/ways of God. Some examples: You may not pray to successfully rob a bank or seduce your neighbor's spouse, since those things would violate the commands against theft and adultery. You may not pray for Universalism since the Scriptures seem to clearly state not everyone will be saved. You may not pray for Jesus to never return because that violates God's promises and prophecies that Jesus WILL Return. You may not pray to receive your future glorified body now. Et Cetera...
You can pray for things contrary to God's secret decrees if you don't know it was decreed by God, yet is still in keeping with God's general promises. For example, there are many promises in the Scriptures regarding believing couples having children. An infertile Christian couple may claim those promises even though it might be the case that God hasn't decreed that they will have any children. Since, God's secret decree that they wouldn't have children was, as stated, Secret. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deut. 29:29). As a continuationist, I believe God can supernaturally reveal His decrees on things which we normally wouldn't know. So, God could tell a Christian couple it's His will that they have children, or have no children, or to adopt, or to have both biological children along with adopted children.
One of the criticisms of my view is that this approach to God's promises can (obviously and truly) set people up for great disappointment. That it's pastorally foolish to promote such views because it can lead to disillusionment when people expect great things from God and they don't come to pass. That's why I recommend people would also become Calvinists so that they can better theologically understand and cope with disappointment and unfulfilled prayers. Since Calvinism makes the distinction between God's Revealed/prescriptive/preceptive Will and 2. God's Decretive Will. See my 6 types of God's Will in my blogpost:
Distinctions in God's Will from a Calvinist Perspective
I believe we should be willing to believe God's promises even if it means we're setting ourselves up for failure and disappointment. God has the right to disappoint us. God owes us nothing, and if in His grace and mercy He gives us promises, it would be ingratitude on our part for us to not strive to believe them and receive those things which He has promised. Nothing can take away or dilute the strong promises given in passages like John 14:12-14; 15:7, 16; 16:24; 1 John 3:21-22; 5:14-15; Matt. 17:19-20; 21:21-22; Mark 9:23; 11:22-24; Luke 17:5-6; Matt. 7:7-11; Luke 11:5-13; 18:1-8 et cetera.
But even some of those exceptions I've listed above might not be absolute. See for example Vincent Cheung's article Overriding Faith. He points out that even though Jesus specifically stated it was not His intention to heal the Syrophoenician's daughter, she still got the healing she was asking for because of her persistent faith. And CONTRARY to the initial expressed statement and intention of Jesus, who is God in the Flesh. There's a sense in which I agree with Cheung when he says, "Faith trumps everything". I recommend you read that article slowly and meditate on the argument that he masterfully presents in that article.
I've already mentioned my disagreements and criticisms I have with Vincent Cheung's views and approach, but I was more exhaustive HERE in terms of what I disagree with, AND some of the resources of his that I recommend. I don't always agree with the way Cheung states or argues his points. Since sometimes he overstates his claim. Or makes claims beyond what he can actually mount a good argument for. Nevertheless, the general sweep of his arguments and points are absolutely Biblical.
ONLY AFTER reading Faith Override, should you read:
All Things Are Yours by Vincent Cheung
The Extreme Faith Teacher by Vincent Cheung
Some qualifications.
All that I've said above is never meant to undermine or deny other Biblical teachings. For example, the Bible's teaching on how we WILL suffer, have difficulties and endure tribulation in this world [John 16:33; Acts 14:22], along with persecution [2 Tim. 3:12; John 15:20; Matt. 5:10-12 etc.]. Sometimes we might suffer lack as well. The Apostle Paul said he was able to do all things in the context of learning to be content with being in either a state of abundance OR a state of LACK [Phil. 4:12-13]. This is part of our discipline as children of God, without which we are illegitimate [Heb. 12:4-11]. I think some of this is partially mitigated by the possibility of the truth of Partial Preterism. If true, then some of the tribulation, difficulties and set backs implied in the pessimistic passages of the New Testament have their main fulfillment during the Apostolic Age. All the more if Post-Millennialism is true with its concomitant success of the Gospel in reaching and saving the majority of mankind and having effects in all areas of life. See my blogpost:
Why I'm Provisionally a Postmillennialist Succinctly Stated
Another Biblical doctrine that qualifies what I've said above is the teaching that we might sometimes incorrectly ask for things out of our sinful desires or rebellious wills contrary to God's [revealed and/or decretive] will.
The Apostle James says:
You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your [evil inordinate] passions/pleasures/desires.- James 4:3
The Devil's temptation of Jesus to turn stones into bread was a temptation for Jesus to violate God's present will for Him at that time and in that situation. It's not that the Father didn't want Jesus to have His hunger sated. It just wasn't proper for Jesus to satisfy His natural and understandable desire for food at that time and in that way. Because it was time for Him to overcome the Devil by successfully rejecting the Devil's enticements and temptations. Yet, on other occasions Jesus did transmute water into wine (instead of stones into bread). He even multiplied bread and fish to feed thousands of people on at least two occasions. He even had Peter catch a fish with a coin in its mouth to pay for both His and Peter's tax.
Now for your specific questions:
//Then this is where the problem comes. You go off and read "For I know the plans I have for you ... a hope and a future" (Jer. 29:11), and say to yourself, "This is a promise that I will put on my fridge."
But then along comes the apologist, who says "Hey! Wait a minute! That is only for the Israelites of old. That is not for you. That is N/A for us today."//
A denial of Jer. 29:11 as applying to believers I think only works if you assume Dispensationalism or a Dispensational-like hermeneutic. Something which even some anti-Dispensationalists are unintentionally guilty of. I've already addressed Dispensationalism and given book recommendations that show its errors. If you're only going to read one book, read Mathison's book. Furthermore, all the promises of God have their ultimate fulfillment in the Age to come. However, we can often [not always] have foretastes of them in this life. That promise in Jer. 29:11 can be claimed and stood upon by New Covenant believers in some sense in this life knowing that the ultimate fulfillment is in the Age to Come [i.e. full establishment of the Kingdom of God].
Normative Dispensationalists are wrong in thinking that the Kingdom is only future. The Kingdom is both "already" and "not yet" as popularized by Gerhardus Vos, and later by George Eldon Ladd. It's now a staple distinction accepted by many contemporary theologians. It's the "already" sense in which we can enjoy foretastes of the Kingdom promises now. That includes things like healing, provision &c. But they aren't absolute guarantees. And they are often obtained by faith. By a faith that we must develop, but which God is in sovereign control over. In God's wisdom He knows and determines when we have [and when we will have] exercised "enough" faith, in terms of degree and temporal persistence, that it is appropriate and to our good to give us what we are asking and believing for. I've address this briefly when it comes to healing at the footnote HERE. Remember too that I said that God can also sovereignly grant things in the absence of faith.
Moreover, Jer. 29:11 has a parallel in Prov. 23:17-18:
17 Let not your heart envy sinners, but continue in the fear of the LORD all the day.
18 Surely there is a future, and your hope will not be cut off.- Prov. 23:17-18
That's a general promise that we ought to claim. Some Amillennialists might even argue that the Israelites to whom Jeremiah was communicating in Jer. 29:11 are in a similar/comparable situation as the Church is in today with respect to the Israelite Kingdoms [northern and/or southern kingdoms of Israel and Judah] and our situation in the Kingdom of God. If so, then that might be another reason for thinking it is appropriate for Christians to claim Jer. 29:11 for themselves.
To continue with your specific questions:
//(2) Applicable/Non-Applicable to Jane Doe Specifically?
The next problem is this. You cannot open up the Bible and find a promise that God will give you a new Honda or a promotion at the workplace. You won't find it. These things are wants, not needs.//
The English word "want" can mean "desire[s]" or "lack". For example, Ps. 23:1 states, "Yehovah/Yahweh, is my Shepherd, I shall now WANT". The word "want" there means "lack". If you need 1. money to survive and 2. need a job to have money, and 3. need a car to dependably go to work, then you are free to believingly ask God for all three things. Why assume a Honda is out of the realm of possibility? Maybe God has a Ferrari in store for you. However, it's less likely since that's a super-extravagance. But it's not outside the realm of possibility since value can be relative. In many cases an infertile BILLIONARE couple would GLADY give up many multiple millions of dollars to conceive a child. Something which most couples can easily do. Even to their sinful regret such that they seek an abortion. So, asking God for a Ferrari in one sense is insignificant in comparison to asking for a successful pregnancy and birth of a child. Asking for a Ferrari may be only asking for something that's worth $300,000, while asking for a child might be worth 100 million or 10 Billion to someone else. A bottle of water to a dehydrated man in the desert might be worth his entire trillion dollar fortune. God isn't impressed or moved or limited by our value system. As Paul said, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave/delivered him up for us all, how will he not also along with him graciously/FREELY GIVE US ALL THINGS?" [Rom. 8:32]. And that God, "...gives us richly all things to enjoy [NKJV]/...who richly provides us with everything to enjoy [ESV]." Once again, I recommend you read the three article by Cheung in the order I gave them.
Don't put limitations on God since:
11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield; the LORD bestows favor and honor. No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly.
12 O LORD of hosts, blessed is the one who trusts in you!- Ps. 84:11-12
He fulfills the desire of those who fear him; he also hears their cry and saves them.- Ps. 145:19
8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!
9 Oh, fear the LORD, you his saints, for those who fear him have no lack!
10 The young lions suffer want and hunger; but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.- Ps. 34:8-10
In the context of Jesus talking about the Father providing our earthly needs, He says:
"Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.- Luke 12:32
By extension therefore we ought to expect the blessings of the Kingdom. In context Jesus tells us not to "seek" earthly things. I take Him to mean as if it were ultimately up to us to provide for ourselves these things. As if God weren't our Father and ultimately the source of such blessings. Notice Jesus says:
28 But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith!
29 And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried.
30 For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them.
31 Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.
It's only then that Jesus says in verse 32:
"Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."
The Lord isn't promoting indolence. But faith that the Father will provide for His children. The Father will provide, but we often need to gather in that provision by faith and works.
Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?- Matt. 6:26
31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'
32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
34 "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself.- Matt. 6:31-34
Three verses before the Lord teaches us to pray for our daily bread, He says, "Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him" (Matt. 6:8).
You made a distinction between needs and desires. But the Scripture address desires too.
Delight yourself also in the LORD, And He shall give you the DESIRES of your heart.- Ps. 37:4
He will fulfill the DESIRE of those who fear Him; He also will hear their cry and save them.- Ps. 145:19
If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you DESIRE/WISH, and it shall be done for you.- John 15:7
LORD, You have heard the DESIRE of the humble; You will prepare their heart; You will cause Your ear to hear,- Ps. 10:17
May He grant you according to your heart's [DESIRE], And fulfill all your purpose.- Ps. 20:4
You have given him his heart's DESIRE, And have not withheld the request of his lips. Selah- Ps. 21:2
I can't believe that in every single instance these passages never refer to desires over and above one's basic needs. What did the Father tell the elder brother of the Prodigal Son?
"And he said to him, 'Son, you are always with me, and ALL THAT I HAVE IS YOURS.- Luke 15:31
I think the correct interpretation of Ps. 37:4 is that if we truly desire God has your highest love and joy, then our desires for other things will be so affected and sanctified that they'll naturally be within God's will. That coupled with the fact that those who do delight in God are also obedient and believing leads to God all the more willing to grant those additional desires.
If we don't experience all good things, then it's either because we didn't have faith for it, or because God in His wisdom thought it wasn't for our ultimate good to have them. Of course, if Calvinism is true, then the only reason we did or didn't have faith for it is because of God's sovereign decision and wisdom. But one of the foundational teachings of the Reformers who held to a high view of providence [e.g.Calvin, Luther et al.] is that we ought to act and pray regarding the future in acknowledgement of our ignorance of what God has decreed with respect to the future. We don't know what God has decreed, and therefore ought to strive to bring about what is good, preferable and better in keeping with God's revealed/prescriptive/preceptive will, rather than fatalistically resign ourselves to the worst possibilities.
I believe what the following theologians say about salvation & election/predestination and how we are to make efforts by prayer, believing, striving and working should apply equally to other aspects of life like healing, provision, protection &c. Many Calvinistic theologians have said similar things regarding salvation and election and our ignorance of God's decrees regarding the future. Here are just a sample of quotations that exist among high predestinarians regarding this point:
"The decree of God does not affect my endeavour; for he that decreed my salvation decreed it in the use of means, and if I neglect the means I reprobate myself. No man argues thus: God has decreed how long I shall live, therefore I will not use means to preserve my life, I will not eat and drink. God has decreed the time of my life in the use of means, so God has decreed my salvation in the use of the Word and of prayer. As a man who refuses food murders himself, so he that refuses to work out his salvation destroys himself. The vessels of mercy are said to be prepared unto glory. Rom 9: 23. How are they prepared but by being sanctified? and that cannot be but in the use of means; therefore let not God's decree take thee off from holy endeavours. It is a good saying of Dr Preston, 'Hast thou a heart to pray to God? it is a sign no decree of wrath has passed against thee.’ "
- Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity
If the events of things be not in our power, as you [[[i.e. Erasmus]]] say, how can it be in man to perform the causing acts? The same answer which you gave me, the same receive yourself! Nay, we are commanded to work the more for this very reason, because all things future are to us uncertain: as saith Ecclesiastes, "In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening hold not thine hand: for thou knowest not: which shall prosper, either this or that" (Eccles. xi. 6). All things future, I say, are to us uncertain, in knowledge, but necessary in event. The necessity strikes into us a fear of God that we presume not, or become secure, while the uncertainty works in us a trusting, that we sink not in despair.
- Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will [translated by Henry Atherton] [pages 257-258 in the J.I. Packer & O.R. Johnston translation]
Since the future events are hidden and unknown to us we should be as industrious in our work and as earnest in the performance of our duty as if nothing had been decreed concerning it. It has often been said that we should pray as though everything depended on God, and work as though everything depended on ourselves.
- Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination, chapter 18
Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so apply himself to his office, as though nothing were determined about any part.
- John Calvin (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, (1552) trans. J.K.S. Reid, (London, James Clarke & Co. 1961, 171)
Wherefore, with reference to the time future, since the events of things are, as yet, hidden and unknown, everyone ought to be as intent upon the performance of his duty as if nothing whatever had been decreed concerning the issue in each particular case. Or (to speak more properly) every man ought so to hope for success in all things which he undertakes at the command of God, as to be freely prepared to reconcile every contingency with the sure and certain Providence of God. The Lord, moreover, promises His blessing upon the work of our hands. By this promise each godly man will acknowledge himself to be appointed of God, an instrument of His glorious Providence. And such godly one, relying on this same promise, will gird himself with alacrity to his undertaking, and will be persuaded that he is not casting into the air labour in vain; but, resting on the Word of God, he will believe that God, by His secret counsel, will direct all his labour to the issue that shall be best. In a word, as the Providence of God, rightly considered, does not bind our hands, but free them for work, so it not only does not hinder prayer, but strengthens and confirms its earnestness.
- John Calvin, A Defence of the Secret Providence of God, Introduction
Luther was the first of the Protestant Reformers. Watson and Boettner were both Calvinists, and Calvin is the person Calvinism is named after.
//George Müller seemed to have circumscribed God's promises as being applicable to "...necessaries" only. So speaking in terms of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, God will definitely provide for you food, clothing or shelter (= bottom of Maslow's pyramid), however there is no guarantee that He will provide for you friendship (= midway up the pyramid). A person who might be in prison for life, and who comes to faith while there by way of reading a Bible, might fail to have friends for the rest of his life. The latter is not strictly speaking necessary for you to continue to live. //
I wouldn't say it's an absolute promise. Since, in God's providence some genuine believers die of starvation, want/lack, sickness and due to accidents. Sometimes alone and lonely. Think of believers who died in the American Civil War, or the Holocaust, or the Inquisition, or the Great Plague in Europe from 1347 to 1351. Nevertheless, the general [and sometimes specific] promises is/are given for us to believe, and as we believe, God may grant us the fulfillment of His promises. Which include things like financial provision, healing, health, protection, families, friends (etc.). So, our focus ought to be in believing the promises of God, not on God's hidden decrees which we don't know until they are fulfilled and are part of our past. Focus on the Revealed God [Deus Revelatus], rather than the Hidden God and His Hidden purposes [Deus Absconditus]. There is no real contradiction between a "Theology of Glory" and a "Theology of the Cross". There's no real danger of an "Over-Realized Eschatology" as some theologians have claimed. In fact, Jesus asked: "...Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). The danger for Christians is not having too much faith, but not having enough faith or having [ill-informed] presumptuous faith.
God's promises of prosperity are given in order for us to have enough to fulfill God's plan for our lives. Our Assignment/Calling and smaller tasks. For one person that might just be a daily single bowl of rice because he's being persecuted in prison for the Gospel's sake. For another person it might be making BILLIONS of dollars because God wants him to fund Christian evangelism, missions, Bible translations/distributions, apologetics &c. Regarding having a friend in prison, Samuel Rutherford is a famous Calvinistic example. He found in prison the ultimate friend who sticks closer than a brother [Prov. 18:24], and who was born for adversity [Prov. 17:17]. Jesus the Son of God. Probably also the Father and the Holy Spirit too. Every Christian has at least three friends in the Triune God.
We can glory God in our sickness, by patiently enduring them. But that's not God's preferred and advocated method. God's method is for us to believe for our healing. If we fail to receive that healing, we will have at least glorified God in attempting/trying to appropriate the fulfillment of God's promises of healing. In God's providence He doesn't always bring it about that people are convinced that such promises exist or apply to them. That's why some Calvinists are, in some sense, glorifying God by patiently putting up with sickness. But technically, and in another sense, that's not what's best. God will judge and reward us based on our convictions. Convictions that He ultimately worked in our lives to cause us to believe. Yet, we're also, in another sense, responsible for our theology and convictions. Including the erroneous aspects.
//P.S. For my devo tonight, I read 1 Samuel. It is interesting to note that Hannah, with respect to her barrenness basically had two options:
(1) Quit praying because surely a child was not the Lord's will,
or
(2) Keep praying anyway. //
For most Christians the fact that a prayer request isn't answered immediately is almost a sure sign that God doesn't want to grant it. It maybe a sign, but it's never a sure/guaranteed sign. There's still a possibility so long as it's not logically/temporally/metaphysically/conceptually/causally impossible, or if it doesn't violate the other qualifications and exceptions I gave above. Namaan needed to dip in the Jordan 7 times. Elijah to pray 7 times. Seven of course, is the number of perfection or fulness or extremity. We need to believingly persevere in prayer. See again the articles by Cheung that I posted. Read them in the order I suggested.
It is not enough to begin to pray, nor to pray aright; nor is it enough to continue for a time to pray; but we must patiently, believingly continue in prayer, until we obtain an answer; and further, we have not only to continue in prayer unto the end, but we have also to believe that God does hear us and will answer our prayers. Most frequently we fail in not continuing in prayer until the blessing is obtained, and in not expecting the blessing.- George Muller
I also recommend John MacArthur's sermon Pray Boldly which I linked to HERE. What's ironic is that even though John MacArthur is vehemently against the Charismatic movement, that sermon of his has been criticized by some because he almost appears to be teaching a Charismatic understanding of presumptuous boldness in prayer. Speaking of sermons on prayer, see also Charles H. Spurgeon's sermon True Prayer–True Power!
If you respect A.W. Tozer as a spiritual writer, you might also benefit from this short article of his titled Our Unclaimed Riches.
