I understand that God has called us to pray, but Scripture seems to speak clearly to the fact that God will hear only those prayers that are prayed in accordance with his will. This leads me to believe that prayer is therefore an act of obedience, not an agent of change. It is similar in this way to baptism. There is nothing in the act of baptism that transforms one into a Christian, but it is commanded by God. Why? It seems to be an outward showing of an inward change. So too is prayer an agreeing with God on His will. I can pray all day to move a mountain, but if it does not accord with the will of God, then no measure of faith will make a difference. It cannot even be faith if it is not in line with God's good pleasure.
The issue that I have with Piper and Co.'s explanation of God dispersing His grace through the prayers of his people is that it does not logically make sense with the concept a sovereign God. It is trying to have it both ways; a God that "...is in Heaven and does as he pleases", and a God that works through the prayers of His people. Either God acts independent of any outside stimulus or He is bound by causality. By definition, God is the first-cause, which means that He must necessarily act on His own volition. Were He to react to the prayers of men He would lose a measure of power.
My main point of contention, then, is in the term: unconditional election. If God is granting grace according to prayers of believers, isn't that a condition? I'm not trying to be cute, but it seems that conversion is conditioned on one's prayers. In theory, couldn't believers then damn someone to Hell by refusing to pray for them, or could they not do the reverse through the fervent prayers of many believers? It seems to bind God's hands, conditioning his election.
If I hold that God is completely sovereign it seems to me that I cannot be a factor in any one of His actions. Have I been called to pray, to witness, to be baptized, to fast, to study....etc? Of course, but it seems that these are acts of obedience on my part, and have no bearing upon the providence of God.
Like I said before, I do not doubt Scripture, and my goal is not to disprove anything, but in my opinion Christianity must stand up to philosophic scrutiny, and I don't know if this one does. I don't see the problem with acknowledging that my prayers do not accomplish one's salvation any more than I see a problem with realizing that though I thought I chose God, he in fact chose me. Why should that one make us uncomfortable and the other not? Just some thoughts; comments always welcomed.
All things done by God are done to his glory. That sounds selfish, and it would be if God was a sinful creature, but God isn't sinful and so glorifying himself is a good thing and beneficial for his children. Likewise, believers are commanded to do all things unto the glory of God. Prayer is one of those things which glorifies God. God chooses to hear the cries of his people and so have mercy upon them. If God did not hear our prayers in a responsive way there would be very little reason to pray (of which obedience to his commands would be the greatest). But the Bible speaks time and again of God hearing the prayers of his people and responding. Probably the most noteworthy of these instances is in Exodus 32.
The Israelites made a golden calf and Aaron built an alter before it for them to offer burnt offerings and peace offerings. God then told Moses that he would consume the Israelites and make a great nation of him. Moses' prayer that follows convinces God that he should not do that. The bible does not explain that God was testing Moses. Rather, God wanted to let his wrath "burn hot against them" that he "may consume them".
If God hears the prayers of his people and responds to them, does that make him a weak God? Not if he ordained it from the beginning of time. Do God's sovereignty and God's response to man's prayers conflict? I don't think so.
Now, about conversion and election, you are confusing two separate things. You are right that CONVERSION is conditional. In order for man to be saved he must do something. He must confess his sin, turn from it, and believe on the name of Jesus alone. These are all conditions. Forget the prayers of man, God doesn't NEED the prayers of man to save souls. But if he chooses to use those prayers to bring someone to salvation then it is his good pleasure to do so.
On the other hand, ELECTION is unconditional. You cannot exchange those two words freely. God elects whomever he chooses without regard to man's prayer, works, or anything else. God only equips the elect with the faith and eyesight necessary to repent and believe (conditions necessary for salvation).
In John 10 Jesus speaks of his sheep being either in the fold or not in the fold. But those who are not in the fold he will call them and they will recognize his voice. This second group is surely the elect who have not yet believed the gospel. We preach the gospel and pray for the lost because of those people alone, so that they may come into the fold.
I hope we can visit about this in person soon.
I don't disagree with the majority of your statements. But, "If God did not hear our prayers in a responsive way there would be very little reason to pray (of which obedience to his commands would be the greatest)", is troublesome, because it seems to infer something about prayer that I don't see. Perhaps we pray simply as an act of obedience to god. Isn't Christianity full of symbolic acts, of which baptism and eucharist are primary? There is nothing salvific about baptism or regenerative about the eucharist, but they are done in obedience to God as acts of worship.
Can prayer not also be a symbolic act? I worship God by agreeing with him in my prayers, or I worship him by begging for mercy, safety..etc. The truth of the matter seems to be, though, that no amount of fervency in prayer can alter the will of God. That must be accounted for. How else do we explain God's not answering our prayers? When 'grandma' dies of cancer, and her family has exhausted itself in pleas to God, it is stated that her death was God's will. Otherwise one would have to blame it on a lack of faith or on sinfulness in those praying, and I think Scripture is equally as clear on the errancy in that view.
How can we have it both ways? Either God's will is done independent of man or God's will is altered by man's prayers. To stand in the middle does indeed weaken God and/or elevate man. If God's plans are subject to the caprice of man, who is sinful, then God must necessarily be less than God. How can one be influenced by a lesser being and not be thereby corrupted in some sense? It also raises man to a level that is not commenserate with his depravity. How can sinful man judge anything better than God? Can a holy-God really seek the counsel of depraved-man in any issue?
I recognize that conversion and election or two different things, but the one hinges on the other. Only one who is elected can be converted, and doesn't Calvinism hold to the fact that one who is elected cannot resist the grace offered to him? So, in effect, I am praying for something that is preordained to come about whether I pray for it or not, right? To use an analogy, isn't it like praying that my clock reaches 10:30 in 25 minutes? The mechanism within it has already been set so that it will happen, and so what do my prayers add?
It would be fun to discuss this....I'm done with my semester one week from tonight.
I have so many responses to that I don't know where to begin. You need to come over to my house tonight.