Promises: God Hears Your Prayers
The promise of God to hear prayers is for all those who come confessing their sins and seeking divine pardon in and through Christ alone, who made atonement for our sins on Calvary’s tree where He hung despised and rejected for our sakes.
A few years back, there was a clever trend afoot that brought light amusement to some and great annoyance to others. Friends and family members would record a voicemail greeting that began with a cheery “hello,” only to pause for a few seconds before launching into the rest of the greeting, “I can’t come to the phone right now.” That brief interlude was just long enough to prompt many of us – myself included – to launch into conversation. Having been greeted by a familiar voice, you could reasonably assume to be speaking with (and heard by) your loved one on the other end of the call. But instead you had fallen prey to cheap trickery. What few words passed your lips dissipated in futility, left unheard like the crash of a tree in an uninhabited rainforest. The promise of a friendly hearing was broken as the rest of the voicemail greeting bombarded your unsuspecting ears. With thanks to God and confidence in His promises, we can be grateful that such is never the case when we call upon His Name in prayer.
God in His Word speaks of an unbreakable promise of what we might call “a friendly hearing” at His throne of grace. Christians in the midst of spiritual warfare are counseled, “draw near to God and He will draw near to you” (Jas. 4:8). This assurance of God’s readiness to commune with us in our acts of devotion flows out of the very nature and character of God, whom David addresses with the salutation, “O You who hear prayer” (Ps. 65:2). We might render David’s words as “O Hearer of Prayer” or “O Prayer-Hearer.” This is rightly to be regarded as a divine title, for it is our Triune God who guides us in prayer by the Spirit, perfects our prayers in and through Christ, and receives – or hears – our prayers before the Father’s throne. He promises to hear the prayers of His people, for He cannot deny Himself.
However, God’s Word does confront us with solemn warnings and threats against impenitent prayer. Christ cautioned His disciples not to pray like the hypocrites do, for social advancement and the esteem of men (Matt. 6:5). Neither should we pray like heathens, with vain multiplication of words and phrases (Matt. 6:7), divorced from any kind of intelligible meaning or spiritual efficacy. To call upon the Name of the Lord as a godless hypocrite or as a superstitious unbeliever is powerless. This sobering reality finds expression in Job’s rhetorical questions, “What is the hope of the godless (KJV: hypocrite) when he is cut off, when God requires his life? Will God hear his cry when distress comes upon him? Will he take delight in the Almighty? Will he call on God at all times?” (Job 27:8-10).
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
A Definite Atonement: John Murray’s Case for a Disputed Doctrine
The extent of the atonement should be determined by faithful readings of the Bible—thick readings, if you will, as opposed to thin readings of Scripture. Murray does that well, and all those who take up this doctrinal debate should read him and follow his exegetical method.
For whom did Christ die? For all nations without distinction? For all persons without exception? For everyone? Or only for the elect?
In any doctrinal exposition of the cross of Christ, the question of the atonement’s extent (or intent) is necessary. And throughout church history, especially since the Protestant Reformation, a great debate has arisen in response to the question. That dispute has divided Calvinist from Arminian, Reformed from Wesleyan, and Particular Baptist from General Baptist—to name only a few. Thus, it is not possible in one blog—let alone in one book—to resolve all the difficulties, but it is possible to lay out some of the issues and a few of the exegetical debates.
To that end, I offer ten points from John Murray. His little book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, provides a concise argument for the extent of the atonement that comes from a Reformed position. If I were writing a chapter on the extent atonement, I would do it differently, but I appreciate Murray’s commitment to biblical exegesis in his chapter. Even though he leaves many proof texts unchecked, what he does say sets his readers in the right direction. And for that reason I offer the following points from his chapter as a superb model for entering this debate.Ten Arguments for Definite Atonement
1. Proof texts are not sufficient to prove the extent of the extent of the atonement.
John Murray begins his chapter highlighting a few verses which appear to support a universal atonement (i.e., that Christ died for all persons without exception). But quickly, he calls us to consider if isolated proof texts can adequately support the doctrine. He writes,
We are not to think, however, that the quotation of a few texts like these [Isa. 53:6; Heb. 2:9; 1 John 2:2] and several others that might be quoted determines the question. From beginning to end the Bible uses expressions that are universal in form but cannot be interpreted as meaning all men distributively and inclusively. Such words as “world” and “all” and such expressions as “every one” and “all men” do not always in Scripture mean every member of the human race. For example, when Paul says with reference to the unbelief of Israel, “For if their trespass is the riches of the world . . . how much more their fulness” (Rom. 11:12), are we to suppose that he meant that the trespass of Israel brought the riches of which he is speaking to every person who had been, is now, and ever will be in the world? Such an interpretation would make nonsense. The word “world” would then have to include Israel which is here contrasted with the world. And it is not true that every member of the human race was enriched by the fall of Israel. (59)
2. Universal language does not mean a universal atonement.
Closely connected to the point that we must read texts in context, Murray goes on to say that universal language does not automatically produce a doctrine of definite atonement.
So it will not do to quote a few texts from the Bible in which such words as “world” and “all” occur in connection with the death of Christ and forthwith conclude that the question is settled in favor of universal atonement. (61)
Proving his point, he appeals to Hebrews 2:9 (“so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone”) and its following context.
We can readily show the fallacy of this procedure in connection with a text like Hebrews 2:9. What provides the denotation of the “every one” in the clause in question? Undoubtedly the context. Of whom is the writer speaking in the context? He is speaking of the many sons to be brought to glory (ver. 10), of the sanctified who with the sanctifier are all of one (ver. 11), of those who are called the brethren of Christ (ver. 12), and of the children which God had given to him (ver. 13). It is this that supplies us with the scope and reference of the “every one” for whom Christ tasted death. Christ did taste death for every son to be brought to glory and for all the children whom God had given to him. But there is not the slightest warrant in this text to extend the reference of the vicarious death of Christ beyond those who are most expressly referred to in the context. This texts shows how plausible off-hand quotation may be and yet how baseless is such an appeal in support of a doctrine of universal atonement. (61)
The point Murray makes in this passage can be made throughout the New Testament, which means that universal language does not automatically result in a doctrine of universal atonement. More on this below.
3. Extent is the wrong question, intent is the right one.
Moving from the language of Scripture to the language of doctrine, he asks if the extent of the atonement is even the right question.
The question is not the relation of the death of Christ to the numerous blessings which those who finally perish may partake of in this life, however important this question is in itself and in its proper place.
The question is precisely the reference of the death of Christ when this death is viewed as vicarious death, that is to say, as vicarious obedience, as substitutionary sacrifice, and expiation, as effective propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption. In a word, it is the strict and proper connotation of the expression “died for” that must be kept in mind.
When Paul says that Christ “died for us” (1 Thess. 5:10) or that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3), he does not have in mind some blessing that may accrue from the death of Christ but of which we may be deprived in due time and which may thus be forfeited. He is thinking of the stupendous truth that Christ loved him and gave himself up for him (Gal. 2:20), that Christ died in his room and stead, and that therefore we have redemption through the blood of Christ. (62, emphasis mine)
4. Definite atonement does not deny universal, non-saving benefits.
Once we ask the right question, and ascertain the proper relationship between priest and new covenant people (my emphasis, not his), we can begin to see how the cross relates to the whole world, even to those who reject it or never hear about it.
The unbelieving and reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. The mediatorial dominion of Christ is universal. Christ is head over all things and is given all authority in heaven and in earth. It is within this mediatorial dominion that all the blessings which men enjoy are dispensed. But this dominion Christ exercises on the basis and as the reward of his finished work of redemption. “He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him the name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:8-9).
Consequently, since all benefits and blessings are within the realm of Christ’s dominion and since this dominion rests upon his finished work of atonement, the benefits innumerable which are enjoyed by all men indiscriminately are related to the death of Christ and may be said to accrue from it in one way or another. If they thus flow from the death of Christ they were intended thus to flow. It is proper, therefore, to say that the enjoyment of certain benefits, even by the non-elect and reprobate, falls within the design of the death of Christ. The denial of universal atonement does not carry with it the denial of any such relation that the benefits enjoyed by all men may sustain to Christ’s death and finished work. (61)
To those well-versed in argument for universal atonement, they will not readily accept this universal, non-saving benefit as logically consistent. But it is important to see that those who hold definite atonement do not deny a universal effects of the cross (see Colossians 1:20 and my theological exposition of that passage). What those like Murray deny is a universal procurement of salvation that does not actually save.
5. Christ’s redemption is effective. Glory! Hallelujah!
While advocates of universal atonement stress the greatness of the cross in terms of size and scope, advocates of definite atonement argue for its greatness in terms efficacy and design. All that God intended, he accomplished on the cross. To this point Murray asks the question, “What does redemption mean?” He answers,
Read More -
Pro-Gay Theology, the Film 1946, and the Multiverse
Even if the Pro-Gay Theology Avengers were to succeed in traveling back in time to prevent the word “homosexuals” from entering the Bible, it wouldn’t change the Bible’s teaching on marriage, homosexuality, and sexual ethics. Scripture would still tell us that Jesus’ design for marriage requires a man and a woman for the creation of a one-flesh union, and both Old and New Testaments teach that homosexual sex is sin.
Multiverse movies are all the rage these days. Spiderman, Avengers, The Flash…everyone wants to go back in time, correct a mistake in the past, and then live in a new “corrected” timeline that is free of the perceived defect.
What if the pro-gay theology advocates of the film 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture were able to harness that same power? If they could go back in time, what changes would they make, and what kind of ripple effect would that have on the new universe they created? Specifically, how would their timeline’s changes affect the Bible’s teaching on marriage, homosexuality, and sexual ethics?
The film 1946 claims the translation team of the 1946 RSV Bible wrongly translated the Greek word arsenokoitai as “homosexuals” in the Bible (specifically, in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10). As a result, they claim, the mistaken translation inappropriately influenced future English versions of the Bible to also include the word “homosexuals,” which has led to homophobia and persecution of the LGBT community.
Imagine, then, that the makers of the film 1946 contact Tony Stark and Marvel’s Avengers and borrow their time machine. They assemble their own intrepid team, the Pro-Gay Theology Avengers, travel back in time, and show up at the RSV translation team’s meeting to prevent the committee from translating arsenokoitai as “homosexuals.” If they were to succeed, what would the new timeline of history look like? Specifically, if the word “homosexuals” never occurred in any Bible verse, what changes would result in the new future? What would the Bible’s teaching on marriage, homosexuality, and sexual ethics look like today?
Here’s what would change: Nothing.
There would be no difference in the Bible’s teaching on marriage, homosexuality, or biblical sexual ethics. Of course, some things in the universe would be different. Obviously, even making a tiny change in history would cause a ripple effect in the future. Biblical sexual ethics, however, wouldn’t change. There would be no new permissions and no new prohibitions. The Pro-Gay Theology Avengers would return to the present moment disappointed because their position would remain hermeneutically unjustifiable even after removing the word “homosexuals” from the Bible.
Here’s how I know. Even if you erased 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 (the two verses that contain arsenokoitai) from the Bible, two biblical teachings would remain unchanged: 1) Scripture’s teaching on sex and marriage and 2) Old and New Testament teaching that homosexual sex is sin.
The Bible would still teach what sex and marriage should look like. Shortly after the creation event, God made humanity as “male and female” (Gen. 1:26) and outlined his blueprint for sex and marriage, explaining that “a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). It’s worth noting that only a man and a woman (not two men, two women, or any other grouping) are described in Scripture as being able to create a one-flesh union. God “blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’” (Gen. 1:27–28).
Jesus also endorsed this view in the New Testament when he quoted both passages:
Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. (Matt. 19:4–6)
Jesus cited the Genesis creation account of sex and marriage because he believed it’s still authoritative. His view can be summarized as one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime.
The Bible’s (and Jesus’) teaching on sex and marriage alone disqualifies homosexual sex as an option. Even if there were not a single passage referring to homosexuality in Scripture, it would still be evident that homosexual sex is sin simply because it deviates from the Bible’s positive teaching on sex and marriage. We know, however, that Scripture also addresses prohibited sex acts, one being homosexual sex.
The Bible would still teach that homosexual sex is sin in both Old and New Testaments.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Excerpt Taken From Chapter 3 of “A Still and Quiet Mind”
Fasting from information is one way for us to come away when taking time off work is not possible and the demands of ministry and family can’t be avoided. When times of solitude are few and far between, we can still reduce the surrounding noise.
A Still and Quiet Mind is scheduled to be released on June 22; pre-order here.
REST YOUR THOUGHTS
I’m sitting outside in my favorite chair while I write. The sun warms my face while a strong breeze hits my body. The temperature is perfect. I can’t help but pause from my writing to enjoy the simple pleasure of being outside.
I live in a suburban neighborhood, and it’s surprising how much wildlife I notice when I stop to pay attention. A squirrel trounces by like it owns our yard. Two red-breasted robins fly past, a crow lands on our fence, and a yellow bird of unknown variety pecks for juicy morsels in the grass. A bumblebee lazily drinks from a vibrant flowering bush.
I’ve been stuck inside all winter, and suddenly—it’s spring. I close my eyes and enjoy the surround-sound chorus of caws and whistles. The pleasant cacophony of bird calls is much louder than I realized when I was focused on my work. Good words and good feelings fill my mind and my soul. Warmth. Peace. Stillness. Sunshine. Rest. Thank you, God, for this moment.
I’m thankful for the break. Life is busy these days. I often spend the entire day working on my computer, only to find myself drawn to my phone every time I take a break. I love my work. I’m also thankful for the convenience, connection, and entertainment I find each time I open my phone. Still, the constant intake of information, data, and opinions sometimes leaves my mind filled with restless, racing thoughts by the end of the day.
Knowing my mind’s tendency toward exhaustion, I purposefully look for moments when I can set my phone aside and step outside. I don’t need to travel far. A few minutes sitting in my backyard or a short meander to the neighborhood park is often enough to help me to clear my mind. It’s good to breathe the fresh air and allow myself to simply exist without doing work or consuming information. My mind is most at peace when I create purposeful space to pause in restful and beautiful outside places without the company of my phone.
I think these moments help me to put into practice Jesus’s invitation to set aside my worries, stress, and fear. I look at the birds and the flowers and all he has created and thank God for his goodness and care for me (see Matt. 6:25–30). This is rest for my mind. It’s how I pull my attention away from the exhaustion of worry and work and choose to meditate on the beauty and goodness of all God has created.
REST FROM CONSTANT DISTRACTION AND HURRY
Our minds need rest just as much as our hearts and souls do. This rest can be difficult to find because many of us live in a constant state of hurry and distraction. We throw ourselves into work and schedule ourselves to the brim. We avoid silence and solitude and use digital technology every moment we are forced to be alone.
While I am quick to embrace the many benefits of technology, statistics force us to reckon with the concerning impact that smart-phones, social media, and mindless consumption of information and entertainment can have on the state of our minds. High levels of smartphone usage increase people’s likelihood of anxiety and their perceived levels of stress.1 Experts have attributed alarming rises in teen suicide and depression in part to the introduction of social media and the smartphone.2 Unchecked technology usage can disrupt sleep and decrease our desire to seek out in-person community. Without adequate sleep and people to help us sort through our thoughts, the process of change can become more difficult.
It’s ironic that we often turn back to technology to alleviate our thought-related problems. Our phones have become “digital pacifiers” that help us to avoid difficult feelings and problematic thoughts.3 I realized this tendency in myself when the Screen Time app was released on my iPhone. I was surprised by how much my phone usage increased on days when I was anxious. Instead of pausing to know my thoughts or pray through my thinking, I would reach for my phone and scroll.
Richard Foster has called the distraction of constant technology “the primary spiritual problem in contemporary culture.”4 The multitasking encouraged by internet-enabled technologies has hijacked our attentional capacity.5 This makes it more difficult for us to focus for any length of time on spiritual disciplines. We have less space, desire, and ability to examine our thoughts in the solitude of our own minds. We have fewer moments of quiet and less ability to concentrate on bringing our thoughts to God in prayer for any length of time.
In response to our hurry and distraction, God extends an invitation. As I look through Scripture, I imagine him speaking these words to you and to me: Come away to a restful place (see Mark 6:31). Slow down and savor the beauty and goodness in the world I have created. Let me show you how it reveals who I am (see Matt. 6:25–30).
COME AWAY AND GET SOME REST
When Jesus saw his disciples overcome by weariness from their work, he said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while” (Mark 6:31). Come away. It’s a needed invitation. To come away is to separate yourself from something. In the disciples’ case, they needed separation from the hustle of ministry. They moved away from people to an isolated place where they could be alone. They changed their location and context to better accommodate their need for rest and communion with God.
What about in your case? Consider what hurries and distracts you. What exhausts your mind? What puts your thoughts into hyperdrive? What blocks your self-reflection or comes between you and time spent praying your thoughts to God? What might you need to come away from?
For me, the answer is clear. My work hurries me. A constant intake of information distracts me. I read the news while eating lunch, listen to audiobooks while doing chores, and read books or watch TV in my spare moments. Text messages, video chats, meetings, and work projects fill my day. There is nothing wrong with all these activities. They are good gifts that often help me to make the best use of my time and mental energy. At the same time, too many of these activities without a break leads to information overload. My mind fills with restless thoughts that can distract me from looking at myself and connecting to God.
Incessant mental chatter.* This may be the type of thought I struggle with the most. The speed of my thoughts tends to correlate with the amount of mental work I do in any given season. My mental load follows me to bed, where I continue creating grocery lists, rewriting sentences, pondering work problems, considering how I will respond to a text, and reviewing my to-do list in my mind. To break this cycle, I need to purposefully step away from work at various points throughout the day. I need to come away.
For me, coming away looks like purposeful times of solitude away from other people. It looks like starting my morning with God through Scripture and prayer. It also looks like purposeful times when I distance myself from information overload.
I first completed a digital detox after reading Cal Newport’s book Digital Minimalism.6 A few years later, I was introduced to the concept of reading deprivation in Julia Cameron’s book The Artist’s Way.7 I have come to think of reading deprivation in terms of fasting from information. For a week in the summer of 2020, I stepped away from all unnecessary information. I spent a lot of time sitting outside journaling. I had more time to pray. Sometimes I didn’t think much and just rested my mind. Other times, I searched my thoughts deeply. I learned things about myself I had not previously known. The true content of my thoughts and state of my heart became clearer.
Fasting from information is one way for us to come away when taking time off work is not possible and the demands of ministry and family can’t be avoided. When times of solitude are few and far between, we can still reduce the surrounding noise.
I encourage you to try this type of fast at least once as you engage this process of changing your thoughts. You can do this by picking a time frame during which you will fast from all unnecessary intake of information. The time could be fifteen minutes, an hour, a day, or up to a week. During this time, you will avoid TV, music, books (except the Bible), social media, podcasts, video games, news, and all other forms of media and information intake.
Julia Cameron points out that stepping away from information in this way often frees up peoples’ time.8 Consider using some of this newly created extra space for the journaling, mental reflection, and prayer-based strategies we have already discussed. Then use the remainder of your extra time to slow down and practice activities that allow your mind to rest.
Pick up forgotten hobbies. Finish projects around the house. Set an hour aside for a walk or hike. Sit outside. Bake cookies and eat them slowly. Plant a tree. Play with your kids. Turn your attention toward savoring the beauty and goodness of all God has created. I’ll give you some ideas of how you might do this in the next section. Let these times of reflective meditation on God’s creation remind you of who God is and all he has done for you.
To pre-orders: https://www.amazon.com/Still-Quiet-Mind-Strategies-Changing/dp/1629959219/* The strategies in this chapter can be helpful for any type of thoughts, but they may be especially helpful for the category of racing thoughts and incessant mental chatter that was listed in the introduction.
See Sei Yon Sohn et al., “Prevalence of Problematic Smartphone Usage and Associated Mental Health Outcomes amongst Children and Young People: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis and GRADE of the Evidence,” BMC Psychiatry 19, no. 356 (November 2019), https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186 /s12888-019-2350-x.
See Jean M. Twenge, “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” The Atlantic, September 2017, https://www.theatlantic .com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/.
See interview with Tristan Harris in The Social Dilemma, directed by Jeff Orlowski (Los Gatos, CA: Netflix, 2020), https://www.netflix .com/title/81254224.
Richard J. Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth, special anniversary ed. (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2018), preface, Kindle (emphasis in original).
See Joseph Firth et al., “The ‘Online Brain’: How the Internet May Be Changing Our Cognition,” World Psychiatry 18, no. 2 (June 2019): 119–29.
Cal Newport, Digital Minimalism: Choosing a Focused Life in a Noisy World (New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2019).
See Julia Cameron, The Artist’s Way: A Spiritual Path to Higher Creativity, 25th anniversary ed. (New York: TarcherPerigee, 2016), chap. 4, Kindle.Related Posts: