well crafted, well done. i enjoyed it. i am way onboard with your thoughts on where physical suffering fits into God's way of doing things. i agree that God is far more concerned with our spiritual well-being. i, too, believe that the only way to real spiritual growth is through pain. again, beeson's second law comes into play here.
still, i see a gap in the reasoning. the text from II Corinthians is instructive in many ways, one of my favorites. but, it includes an element that seems to be overlooked. the way i read it, God answered paul; not in a vague, open-channel-ly, could be God or maybe not, but in words that bounced off paul's eardrum and made its way to his brain and ultimately, his heart.
'my grace is sufficient for you' - i totally agree with that fact. should i use that verse to cancel out all the others that say God will answer prayer? or, does that verse imply that God's silence is equal to 'my grace is sufficient for you'?
i can handle a 'no' answer; it may be painful, but i can do it. as a teenager, i could ask for the car keys to go on a date. my dad could say yes or no. to me, it is totally invalid, inappropriate, and inconsistent to simply not respond (or to respond in such an obtuse way that i cannot figure it out). if the answer from God is no to a prayer request of mine, why must it be so hard (read: impossible) to get it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I privately see the same problems in 2 Cor. 12. I loved your observation: "Should I use that verse to cancel out all the others?"
I did make a few statements in the sermon that admitted to a few inconsistencies. For example, at 07:30, I admitted that a few verses still give me trouble. I cited the James 5 "the prayer of faith will save the sick man" verse and admitted, "That has not often been my experience."
I don't mean to defend the sermon. After all, I would admit that it was somewhat filtered for popular consumption. (I didn't want people accusing me of using the sermon to promote doubt in God.)
But I, too, privately noticed that Paul gets a verbal answer, and I don't.
Your observations about not getting a No answer are right on target.
Here's where my mind has settled on that observation: Many people see prayer as a test of faith, i.e., "If you really believe, God will answer your prayer."
But I see prayer as a different and tougher test of faith, i.e., "When God doesn't answer your prayer, will you still believe in him?"
I once studied all the NT epistles, drafting a list of the admonitions that are mentioned the most frequently. In the top four is this one: "Remain steadfast in your faith" (see 1 Cor. 15:58; 16:13; Eph. 6:13; Phil. 4:1; Col. 1:21-23; 4:12; 1 Thess. 1:2-3; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:5; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 3:10; Hebrews 12:1; James 1:3-4; 1:12; 5:11).
Point: My frustration in prayer has become one of those critical challenges to my faith. And I have opted to remain steadfast, in spite of the temptation to give up.
Make sense?
i hope you don't feel the need to defend your sermon because of me. it was excellent, fair, balanced, refreshingly honest. i simply point out a question that has nagged me for a lo-o-o-ong time.
that 'if you believe God will answer' thing - total crap.
we are in a similar place about the awkward position we find ourselves in on prayer. i also choose to not give up in spite of my enormous frustration with God and prayer. for now, it is a great mystery that i must accept for what it is. perhaps i will come to know more as i get older.
Post a Comment