Why Pray/Fast if God is Sovereign and everything is already determined by God

[OzSpen]

I have made up my mind...we are Israel. It's talking to us...to God's children. Romans 9:26 proves this.

So you are into Replacement Theology???

 

[98cwitr]

So you are into Replacement Theology???

Not exactly but I see how you would say that. I can understand the logic, but there's a bunch of holes in that belief as I understand it. The [Messianic] Jews, as well as Gentiles, as well as the nation of Israel are littered with the elect. I think Replacement Theology may have a good basis or foundation, but in the end is simply an over-generalization.

 

[Hammster]

 

[JM]

Those passages of Scripture in which God is said to repent, are to be interpreted on the same principle as those in which He is said to ride upon the wings of the wind, or to walk through the earth. These create no difficulty. Hodge Systematic Theology, I.5,7​

To believe prayer manipulates and bends God to do our bidding, that is, to do our will rather than His will, you must assume a few things:

1) God's knowledge (omniscience) is limited;

1) by man's actions and thoughts performed in time
2) by man's will​

2) God's sovereignty is limited;

1) by man's actions and thoughts performed in time
2) by man's will​

I don't really want to rehash posts I have already made so I'll point you back to Post #5 to explain the anthropomorphisms found in the passages cited in support of limiting God's knowledge and sovereignty.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[twin1954]

So you are into Replacement Theology???

Covenant theology is not replacement theology and you know it. Though there are some, not covenant theologians, who hold to a replacement theology, Campbellites if I remember correctly, the term is commonly used as a perjorative which I believe you also know.

Why would you ask such a question if you did not intend to stir the pot?

 

[98cwitr]

View attachment 175104

Great point. Prayer is effective, but not causal.

 

[OzSpen]

Great point. Prayer is effective, but not causal.

As you understand it, how can prayer be effective?

 

[98cwitr]

As you understand it, how can prayer be effective?

How else would you talk to God?

 

[OzSpen]

How else would you talk to God?

My question to you was: 'How can prayer be effective'. You have not answered this question. Instead, you answer my question with another question.

Does this conversation with God include John 14:13-14 (ESV) for every believer? 'Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it'.

 

[98cwitr]

My question to you was: 'How can prayer be effective'. You have not answered this question. Instead, you answer my question with another question.

Does this conversation with God include John 14:13-14 (ESV) for every believer? 'Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it'.

Prayer [through the Spirit] is effective because it permits us communication with God.

 

[OzSpen]

Prayer [through the Spirit] is effective because it permits us communication with God.

You still are not answering my question:

Does this conversation with God include John 14:13-14 (ESV) for every believer? 'Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it'.

 

[Hammster]

You still are not answering my question:

Does this conversation with God include John 14:13-14 (ESV) for every believer? 'Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it'.

Of course it died. Hope thst helps you.

 

[OzSpen]

Of course it died. Hope thst helps you.

What is that intrusion meant to mean? That you don't want to become involved in a reasonable conversation???

 

[Hammster]

What is that intrusion meant to mean? That you don't want to become involved in a reasonable conversation???

You seem to be looking for answers, so I answered.

 

[twin1954]

What is that intrusion meant to mean? That you don't want to become involved in a reasonable conversation???

No one can have a reasonable conversation with you unless they agree with you.

 

[OzSpen]

You seem to be looking for answers, so I answered.

This is what you intended to do:

 

[Hammster]

This is what you intended to do:

View attachment 175505

My post was on topic. Your responses, as usual, are not.

 

[OzSpen]

My post was on topic. Your responses, as usual, are not.

You did not respond to the content of my post but went off with your own tangent, so it was a red herring fallacy. You engaged in fallacious reasoning by doing such. We cannot have a reasonable conversation when you do this.

But this has been typical of some of your responses to me over many years.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

You did not respond to the content of my post but went off with your own tangent, so it was a red herring fallacy. You engaged in fallacious reasoning by doing such. We cannot have a reasonable conversation when you do this.

But this has been typical of some of your responses to me over many years.

Oz

My post was on topic. It appears, though, that you may not have understood it. That doesn't make my post a red herring. If you'd like, I'll explain it so that it makes more sense to you.

 

[OzSpen]

My post was on topic. It appears, though, that you may not have understood it. That doesn't make my post a red herring. If you'd like, I'll explain it so that it makes more sense to you.

Your post did not reply to the content of what I wrote so it WAS a red herring. And then do you want me to explain to you why your comment is a red herring (but I've already done that)?

No thanks.