Final 2016 Presidential Argument -- Anti-Anti Trump

Some evangelicals, fundamentalists, religious conservatives, and political conservatives either will vote or have already voted for Hillary Clinton, a third party candidate, a write-in candidate, or skipped the presidential race altogether.  Trump announced on June 16, 2015.  Others were already running.  We've been at this over a year.  509 days.  Some will say 509 wasted days.

I've had plenty of time to read arguments for following the path of the anti-Trump crowd.  It's not that hard not to vote for Trump.  You just don't vote for Trump.  There, you did it, or didn't do it.  Made your point.  Way to go.  I'm going to take their reasons why and deal with them in this post, not necessarily in any order, just as they come to mind.  I'm not going to assign representatives to these points of view.  Some of them are theological and some political.  I'll separate these into the two categories of arguments.

THEOLOGICAL

Conscience.  I've already written about this.  I want to be helpful here.  Let's argue that you are a spiritually mature person who can recalibrate his conscience.  The conscience operates according to the highest perceived standard.  If you are a Moslem, it accuses you of not praying your five times a day, even if that isn't in the Bible.  If you converted from Islam, your conscience might tell you to keep praying five times a day.  You can take whatever energy and discipline that went into fulfilling that demand of Islam, and recalibrate it.  The same can be done with your standard for voting.

The "conscience argument," as I've read it, is something like the following.  Trump is too bad or immoral a person, and when I vote for him, I'm compromising standards.  My conscience won't allow me to do that.  It might even relate to conservatism.  I believe in conservative principles.  Trump violates those principles with his trade stance as an example.  My conscience won't allow me to support his transgression of those principles.

I think it is possible to violate a conscience with a vote.  However, recalibrate your conscience by looking at voting standards at the most as non-biblical.  You are not supporting Donald Trump by voting for him.  Scripture doesn't say who to vote for.  1 Timothy 2:1-2 does say the following:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

I ask, "How can I vote in a way that will allow for my family and me to lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty"?  If you are praying in faith for that, then you should vote for that too.  Trump is the best opportunity for that, so I vote for that.  Recalibrate your conscience to obey that standard, a biblical one.  Based on objective criteria, I believe that the anti-Trump voter, violates scripture.  He should recalibrate his conscience to scripture, which should be his highest perceived standard.

Hillary says, it takes a village.  Her village says same-sex marriage, no spanking your children, no preaching against homosexuality, and the end of home and church schools.  Not doing what she wants is akin to a hate crime.  That will not allow for a quiet and peaceable life.

Acceptance of God's Judgment.  As I understand this anti-Trump argument, if you vote for Trump, then you are attempting to find a way out of God's judgment, and you need to repent of that. Repenting of that is some form of anti-Trump vote, because it embraces judgment.  In this case, it can't be voting for Hillary, but it must be one of the three other options.  That will still only help Hillary, but that's OK, because that will still result in the judgment we deserve.  If you're repentant, then you are receptive of God's judgment, and a Hillary presidency is a full acceptance of God's judgment.  This all seems very complicated way as a protest to what people don't like about Trump.

It seems also with the complicated acceptance of God's judgment, that only the Trump vote isn't an acceptance of God's judgment.  You are voting with him for less severe judgment, slower and less in your face.  You want things to be better, and you are relying on Trump, which is to be relying on something that gives a false sense of security.  Instead, you need to rely on God and that means judgment for America.  Judgment for America is someone besides Trump, because that will bring Hillary, which is to accept judgment.

My evaluation is that God's judgment will come when it comes.  I agree it's already here in the way of God turning America over to our own lusts.  That's here already with same sex marriage and transgenderism and abortion as the solution of an unwanted pregnancy.  We can admit that we're under God's judgment and in a deserved way.  Participating in a bad vote is doing something to be judged.  It isn't asking for judgment in a legitimate way.  I pray for God's kingdom to come.  God's judgment will come.  In the mean time, I want my days on earth to be the best they can be.  You should too. Trump is that way.

POLITICAL

Conservative Purity.  Trump isn't my conservative party.  I have to have my conservative party.  I vote against until I get it.  I'd rather suffer defeats until the Republican Party learns to be more like me.  If we have to start completely over, it will be worth it.

There will never be conservative purity again.  It's like the abortion issue.  If you want to do away with abortion, you have to vote for doing away with some abortion at least.  You can be happy about third trimester abortion ending.  You might not get what you want, but you can take the best you can get.  Some call this incrementalism.

Conservative purists seem to think that the acceptance of Trump means moving the Republican party the wrong direction.  Politics don't work that way.  I understand not compromising theological convictions.  In the realm of politics, you work at getting the most you can get.  Trump represents that.  You only have to accept what you accept.  There is more to accept with Trump than there is Hillary, unless I'm missing something, which I think I am.

Here's what I am missing, but since I'm writing it, I don't think I am missing it.  The establishment Republicans like illegal immigration for cheaper labor.  They like some type of globalism in the way of removing the impediments to trade even with corrupt foreign nations, who also might rip us off in trade deals.  They like heavy overseas intervention, almost to an imperialistic level, what people call nation building.  They believe we can export conservative political principles, based on a wrong view of man's nature.  Their view of a strong military means these types of activities.  This has become a brand of political purity that coops with conservative purity for a large confluence of anti-Trumpism. Even though they might not vote for Hillary, they see her as holding more of these values than Trump does.

Notice that our last two Republican presidents, George H.W. and George W. are voting for Hillary. Colin Powell is voting for Hillary.  Conservative purists, you join them, when they aren't conservative purists.  Please don't.

Trump Is a Liar.  Whatever Trump says he's going to do, he's lying about.  What he says is better, but you can't trust him, so you can't trust he'll do what he says he will do.  He donated to Democrats.  He contributed to Hillary herself.  Once he uses Republicans to become president, he'll shift left, and it won't make any difference anyway.

The best argument against this, and I don't quite believe the argument, because I don't think he is going to lie to that extent, is that we know what Hillary will do but we don't know what Trump will do.  Do you choose what you know is bad over what could be good or at least better?  Trump has published his Supreme Court candidates.  Trump will say he's against abortion.  Hillary will never say that.  Trump is much more accountable for whatever lies he's telling.  Hillary isn't accountable for anything except to be worse than she is already.

Cynicism.  I hate it all.  I'm going to show I hate it all by not voting for either of the main candidates.

Can you for a moment consider whether some self-righteousness exists in portraying how much you hate Trump?  Hating Trump can make one look good.  Calling him a dumpster fire means that we're what?  There could be spiritual or moral pride in saying or showing that you are "above the fray."  It's all beneath you.  You live in a different moral or spiritual dimension and you can't enter to dirty yourself.  You don't have to become tainted by voting for Trump.  You don't like Trump.  You have a more severe dislike for Hillary.  It will work.  Put away the cynicism.

If you are a Christian, you can never love it all.  Love not the world.  His kingdom is not of this world.  While you live in this world, you are to be a wise steward, however, who uses his vote the best way possible.  Allowing Hillary to win isn't a good use of the vote.  If you are in anything close to a battleground state, you've got to vote for Trump at least to defeat her and them.  You don't even have to hold your nose.  Enjoy defeating her.  Breathe that in with both nostrils.

Part Two Will Be My Argument For My Vote

Christians! Vote For Trump--Three Reasons (out of many)

Note: After Trump's disgraceful conduct after the election and second impeachment trial, I agree with Mitch McConnell that Trump bears moral responsiblity for the capitol riot, but that he should not have been convicted on impeachment.  His tyrannical behavior and advocacy of things like the vice president unilaterally rejecting election results are serious threats to the American republic.  I thank God for many good policies that were put in place during Trump's presidency, but may God in His mercy keep him from ever running for office again and from doing more damage to the United States with his terrible personality and inability to discern between truth and wild falsehoods. 

If you are reading this post, you should vote for Donald Trump for President of the United States.  Do not vote for Joe Biden.  Do not vote for the Constitution Party candidate.  Do not abstain from voting.  Vote for Donald Trump.  Here are three reasons.

1.) If you pray 1 Timothy 2:1-4, you should vote for Donald Trump, since he will defend religious liberty.

The New Testament specifically tells us to pray as follows:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.  For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

When you pray for something, you should put "feet" to your prayers.  When you pray for daily bread and are trusting in God (Matthew 6), you then go to work, because God provides through the ordinary use of means the vast majority of the time.  Donald Trump as President will allow you to live a quiet and peaceable Christian life in peace.  Trump will appoint judges who believe that the First Amendment means what it says. His justice department will not force you to violate your conscience to keep your job. He will not force Christian adoption agencies to place children in the "families" of filthy sodomites.  He will not try to shut down and destroy Christian schools and colleges.  He will stand with business owners who are unwilling to violate their consciences and call good evil and evil good.

Joe Biden and Democrat leaders have promised to pass the Orwellianly-named "Equality Act," which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories in federal law.  You want to have a counselor help your son, who is getting brainwashed into thinking he is a girl in public school? Even if he wants to be normal and not a pervert, it would be against the law to help him.  You realize you have made a big mistake in putting your child in a public school and so you put him in a Christian school? Biden would try to destroy your Christian school by forcing it to hire teachers that are sodomites. You have a business that offers health insurance? You will be forced to pay for employees if they want to mutilate their bodies and pretend to be the other sex. You don't want a grown and morally twisted man taking off his clothes with your daughter alone in a locker room?  Too bad, so sad.  Sodom and Gomorrah, here we come!

You don't want to pay for the murder of little baby boys and girls in the womb?  Joe Biden will not only force you to pay for abortion with your tax dollars, you will be forced to pay for bloody murder with your own dollars--your conscience does not matter.  Even without the abomination of the "Equality Act," Joe Biden has fully endorsed the Obama administration's policies when it tried to destroy Wheaton College because the school would not pay for abortion.  Obama wanted to destroy the Little Sisters of the Poor because they would not pay for health insurance that included abortion and contraception for nuns.  Forget helping the poor--destroying nuns unless they were willing to pay for abortion was more important, even to the point of making celibate nuns pay for abortion.  Biden will appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will through judicial tyranny destroy the First Amendment in favor of the sexual revolution.

2.) If you sigh and cry over the abomination of abortion, you must vote for Donald Trump.

Donald Trump has enacted many pro-life policies, and it is very possible that his judicial appointments will finally result in Roe v. Wade being overturned.  Joe Biden is extremely pro-abortion.  He is committed to making sure that children can be murdered all the way up to birth.  He is part of a Democrat party that opposed the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act--even infanticide is acceptable.  Babies do not even get the painkillers given to dogs and cats before the children are ripped limb from limb in excruciating pain and thrown in the garbage.  A vote for Biden, or a vote for the Constitution party candidate or any other person who has 0% chance to actually win, is failing to do what you can to help stop this continued mass murder.

3.) If you value free speech and oppose communist Antifa thugs Burning, Looting, and Murdering (BLM), then you must vote for Donald Trump.

Donald Trump stands against Antifa and all other violent criminals who burn, loot, and plunder, whether anarchists, white supremacists, black supremacists, etc.  Joe Biden has been very weak and wobbly on condemning left-wing political violence as it rages unchecked through Democrat-controlled parts of the country.  Kamala Harris, Biden's Vice President who, in light of Biden's age, is very likely to seize power if Biden wins, has made ridiculous statements in support of the anarchists in Portland--oh, and by the way, she would confiscate your firearms too, and do so even without Congress solely by executive branch tyranny, so you can't even defend yourself when the bad boys come for you.

Right here in San Francisco, last Saturday (as I write this) when I was driving home from work, I saw a lot of police in riot gear.  I did not stop to find out what was going on--when you see a lot of police in riot gear, keep going.  I found out later that they were there because of a protest in favor of free speech organized by a black conservative man, Philip Anderson (pictured below):

Mr. Anderson and other supporters of free speech had peacefully gathered to petition in favor of free speech. (It wasn't even a rally in favor of Trump--just in favor of free speech.) They were greeted by mobs of Antifa thugs holding BLM signs.  One of the BLM /Antifa thugs punched Mr. Anderson in the face twice, bloodying him up and causing him to lose several teeth:

Mr. Anderson had done absolutely nothing to justify this vicious assault. The Antifa crowds helped to protect the thug who battered Mr. Anderson while they shouted "nig-r" and various four-letter words at Mr. Anderson while holding their Black Lives Matter signs.  Another one of the supporters of free speech was taken away in an ambulance because of Antifa violence, and several police officers were injured--and that was all in about 15 minutes before the police ended the free speech rally and whisked away the conservatives before the rest of them were bloodied, beaten, or killed.

The mayor of San Francisco condemned Antifa and said that free speech must be defended. (Sorry, just kidding.)

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, and representative from San Francisco, condemned the violence against Mr. Anderson and others. (Sorry, just kidding again).

What actually happened is that the San Francisco Chronicle and other leftist news outlets reported that there were "clashes between pro and anti Trump groups" that resulted in "six injured." rather than the truth, that communist Antifa criminals had with no provocation violently assaulted defenders of free speech and the police.

This is just one of the countless examples of violence that leftist radicals and criminals have perpetrated all around the country, aided and abetted by leftist politicians like Joe Biden who want their votes.  Can you imagine what would be happening if one person wearing a MAGA hat punched and knocked the teeth out of a leftist black man?  Would it not be inconceivably more coverage than the thousands of acts of illegal violence orchestrated by Antifa have received?

There are many other reasons to vote for Donald Trump, but the three above should be far, far more than enough.

Please note that one reason to vote for Donald Trump is not because of his character, because he is a great moral example, or because he is constitutionally fit to be President. (Joe Biden has extreme character problems as well.)  Trump is very frequently embarrassing and he was far, far from my first choice in the Republican primary.  I am not for Donald Trump the way that I am actually for Mike Pence.  But by voting for Trump I will be able to cringe at his crazy tweets from my home in peace, or shake my head at what he says from my church in peace, instead of having to do it from prison for standing against the homosexual agenda, or from a soup kitchen line because Biden and Harris have destroyed my business for not paying for abortion, or from a hospital because an Antifa thug has burned my house down and smashed a bottle over my head, or from a morgue--no, excuse me, they don't bury the babies murdered by abortion, so more correctly--or from a garbage bin filled with little bloodied hands and legs and ribs and eyes that, instead of being able to look up at a smiling mother and father caressing and kissing them, are ripped in pieces and covered with gore--knowing that I am being forced to support this mass murder under a Biden-Harris administration.

Learn more about the Biblical role of government here.

-TDR

More About Prayer III

Hey, I'm done with this, and it goes together with the last one, so, hey, let's have it all here.  Go at it.  I won't be writing any more this week, but I'm guessing there might be some new comments in the comment section.

****************************

Thomas Ross's post is coming on the heels of this late edition, but someone has written along the same way of thinking here (good article on prayer).  I think you should consider it.  I don't know that he would agree with these articles that I have written, but I agree with his.

***********************

Some I've heard equate not praying for an unsaved person's salvation to not caring for the lost.  They treat that equation like it's an argument.  I consider this a form of sentimentalism.  Obeying the Bible pins the needle on love.  You can't love more than the love of obedience to Scripture.  But that's the "Christian world" we live in, one where you have to convince people that God is more loving than they are.  Will more people be saved if we pray an unscriptural prayer?  Does more of anything unscriptural or even non-scriptural help more in any way?

I'm continuing this series on prayer, and you'll find links above the last post.  I began dealing with the following points:  the prayer for healing, the prayer for an unsaved person to be saved, faith and the will of God and prayer, again, and then last explore a little history.  We're to the second of these.

Can God heal people?  Yes.  Can God save people?  Yes.  Will He heal everyone and save everyone? We know He won't.  Who will He?  We don't know.  Do we need to know in order to pray that prayer?

I'm going to get to more about this in weeks to come, but I remind you that Jesus said this in Mark 11:24:

What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

We have the model prayer.  We have that verse.  As it relates to interpretation of the Bible, I apply the following statement:  When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.   We should look at what Jesus said to do.  We shouldn't be going out of our way to discover a nuance from a statement that will change what Jesus said to do.

The Prayer for an Unsaved Person to Be Saved

Four arguments come to mind that I've read defending the praying for someone to be saved.   These have made their way into the comment section:  (1)  Moses' prayer for Israel in Exodus 32:11-14, (2) the "Father, forgive them" of Jesus and Stephen, (3)  Paul's instruction in 1 Timothy 2:1-4, and (4) the Apostle Paul in Romans 10:1.

Again, if we were supposed to be doing this, it would seem that this teaching would be more plain than what people use for this practice that often makes up pages of church prayer lists.  What justifies that? When churches and believers don't actually follow the model of Jesus, but do vocalize name after name in these various categories, something has gone awry, could we not admit?  But let's look at the arguments that open the door for this practice, that make it permissible with really no criticism.  I think most men are just happy someone is on his knees and his mouth is moving, pronouncing prayer cliche after prayer cliche.

(1)  I'm arguing this, because it is used as an argument.   I fully understand someone not wanting this used as one of the arguments though.  It looks very much like our dealing with Old Testament examples in the prayer for healing.  Moses prays a scriptural prayer.  He relies on and even quotes the Abrahamic covenant as a basis of his intercession.  On top of this, we're talking here about physical preservation of a people, not spiritual salvation.  There is a physical component to everyone's salvation, because saved people inherit a real, physical millennial kingdom, saved through real bodily resurrection.  But Moses' prayer was based on a promise to Israel that we don't have.  We should move on.

(2)  Jesus said, "Father, forgive them," from the cross in Luke 23:34.  Stephen cried, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge," while being stoned to death in Acts 7:60.  Some have argued those are prayers for salvation, perhaps because to them they don't make sense any other way.  How can someone be forgiven without repenting?  And there is no forgiveness without conversion.  That represents the way of thinking, I believe.  Since every prayer of Jesus is answered, then His prayer for their conversion is answered.  Therefore, this argues for praying for individual conversions.

When I have heard the prayer of Jesus on the cross used as an argument for praying for conversion, the argument is that we know in fact people who were there do get saved.  You've got the centurion at the cross (Matthew 27:54).  In Acts 6:7, we read that a great number of priests were converted.  Of course, there were all those people saved on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.  When Jesus says "them," according to this argument, He is talking about the selective individuals who do get saved and not the ones who don't.  Only the saved ones are forgiven.  Does it read like that?

Could everyone admit that these two texts don't read as a prayer for conversion?  Could everyone at least admit that almost no one (I've never heard it) uses this type of language when they are praying for the conversion of someone?  But I'm still going to argue it.

Luke 22:34 reads in the following way, as I read it.  You've got lost soldiers crucifying Jesus. Omniscient Jesus says they know not what they do.  The prayer is connected to "they know not what they do."  You can't remove "Father, forgive them" from "they know not what they do."  They are following orders.  They are not adequately enlightened spiritually and theologically, no Old Testament scholars or students of the teachings of Jesus.  They were crucifying Jesus out of ignorance.  In His righteous forbearance, Jesus intercedes for the soldiers similarly to Moses' intercession for Israel. This is a very specific forgiveness to allay the wrath of God the Father against these men.  Jesus wanted them spared at this time, not for all of eternity.  Ignorance does diminish guilt, not completely but enough that God in compassion could overlook it or wink at it in the short term for this specific act (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:8).  That makes far more sense.  The prayer reveals the forbearance of the Lord Jesus Christ in the midst of utmost pain. We shouldn't be reading further into it than that.

Stephen's prayer was like Jesus'.  I believe he was being similarly forbearing and the same explanation is the best explanation.  In a sense, ditto the last paragraph for Stephen.  He followed the example of Jesus in his own death.

(3)  1 Timothy 2:1-4 reads:

1  I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;  2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.  3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Here is a passage that says to pray for lost people.  I haven't argued against praying for the lost.  The lost fit under the category of "all men" in v. 1.  The general "all men" transitions to the specific, "for kings, and for all that are in authority," in v. 2.  For what purpose do we pray for our governmental rulers?  A hina clause shows the purpose, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life."  Proverbs 21:1 reads, "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD."  We have examples of that all through the Old Testament.  One that comes to mind is Esther 6:1ff, where the king reads the books of the chronicles and finds out that Mordecai had saved his life.  God uses this to save Israel.

Our prayers for governmental authorities, including unsaved ones, is so that we will have the freedom to live our Christian lives in a peaceful way.   In this country, the Supreme Court can make a ruling that will allow Christians to live according to their convictions.  Praying has an impact on that.  We can know that it is affecting the ones for whom we pray.  I don't believe it means that we'll have the government we want, but it does help.

Some have connected vv. 1 and 2a with v. 4 to say that the praying for all men and for kings and for those in authority is for those latter people's salvation.   They say these verses teach that we pray for men to be saved.  If these verses were to say that, it would have been easy for them to say that.  There is a way to say that, which makes it easy to understand that's what these verses are saying, but they don't say that. Our being able to live godly and honest lives in a peaceable way is not salvation.

I believe there is an evangelistic purpose communicated here.  When Christians are more free to evangelize, because they are not hindered from doing so by government, this being part of living godly and sincere, then more people might get saved.  We want to keep preaching the gospel and not be stopped by the government from doing that, so let's pray for the government to preserve that freedom as much as possible.  You can't disconnect evangelism from the godly living of a Christian.  That's why we have v. 4 like we read it.

Verse 4 is not a prayer for people to be saved.  It is connecting evangelism to the godly living that is enabled by the government refraining from interfering with evangelism so much.  Prayer can turn the heart of the king and rulers toward allowing evangelism.  There are prayers like this that we can pray for lost people.  God won't make them get saved, but He will intervene in their decision making in favor of Christians in answer to their prayers.

When v. 3 says "for" (gar), some, such as Albert Barnes, say, "That is, it is good and acceptable to God that we should pray for all men."  So Barnes skips what is closest in proximity -- the kings, the authority, the ability to live godly and sincere Christian lives in peace -- to get to "pray for all men."  If these verses were to tell us to pray for all men to be saved, they could have said, "pray for all men to be saved," but they don't.  They say, 'pray for all men, and in particular, pray for governmental powers, so that we church members, believers, can live out our Christian lives as freely as possible.'

Evangelism is a motivation to pray for men.  I don't want a law passed by state or local government that says I can't go door-to-door preaching the gospel.  I don't want the police arresting Christians for telling someone he's a sinner.  I don't want confrontation of a homosexual for his eternal soul to be judged by our state authorities to be criminal hate speech.  This is how the prayer of vv. 1-2 relates to the salvation of v. 4.  It isn't teaching us to pray for an individual to be saved.

(4)  Romans 10:1 says,

Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

In Romans 10, Paul is answering the argument that he doesn't care about Israel and doesn't care about Israel's salvation.  Paul himself gives several arguments for why that isn't true.  He says that the real reasons why are because these people of Israel are ignorant and rebellious.  He says that it isn't because the plan of salvation isn't accessible or easy.  It is both.  It is nigh unto them.  It's easy to understand.  You confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and so forth.  But before he gives those arguments, he makes one simple argument.  You can't say Paul doesn't care if Israel is saved, because it is his "desire and prayer to God for Israel...that they might be saved."

First, this doesn't read like a prayer for someone to be saved.  His prayer isn't that Jethro or Saul or Benjamin or Rachel might be saved, but that Israel would be saved, they might be saved.  A literal translation of this verse could be:

Brethren, in contrast to what you are saying the good pleasure of my heart and the prayer which (is) to God concerning Israel is unto salvation.

Paul's desires and prayers were in the direction toward salvation concerning Israel.

Will Israel be saved?  Yes.  There are many promises in the Old Testament that Israel will be saved.

Isaiah 10:22 For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.
Isaiah 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.
Isaiah 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
Jeremiah 33:16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness. 

In the next chapter, Paul writes (11:26),

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Paul could pray for Israel to be saved, because God promised that Israel would be saved.  The disciples could pray for the Holy Spirit to come (Luke 11:13), because Jesus had promised the Holy Spirit would come.  We can pray for the kingdom to come, because the kingdom is promised to come.

Someone has said that Paul isn't praying for the future salvation of Israel, but for the present salvation of Israel.  10:1 says literally "unto salvation" (eis soterian).  We shouldn't be reading the present salvation of individual Israelites from Paul's prayer.  His prayers are in tune with what God is going to do in the end, save Israel.  Israel shouldn't think otherwise.  This is not a 'pray for individuals to be saved' verse in its context.

So What Are Evangelistic Prayers in the New Testament?

First, Luke 10:2:  "pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest."  The tares are going to be separated from the wheat, judgment is coming, so we should pray that God would send laborers into that harvest, the implication being evangelism.  That's a good prayer. Are you praying that?

Second, pray like Paul asked for prayer in Ephesians 6:19-20:

19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

Pray for utterance.  Pray that I might open my mouth boldly (this fits Acts 4:31, praying and then speaking the Word of God boldly, characteristic of Christians who are filled with the Spirit).  Pray that I make known the gospel.  Pray that I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.  Are you praying that?

Third, pray like Paul asked for prayer in Colossians 4:3-6:

3  Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds: 4  That I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak. 5 Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. 6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

Pray for a door of utterance to be opened.  Pray that I may make it manifest as I ought to.  Pray that I use my time wisely in evangelizing.  Pray for my speech in evangelism.  Pray that I would know how to answer every man.  Are you praying that?

In addition to these, I pray for wisdom.  I pray for Holy Spirit conviction, because I know He will convict -- Jesus said He would.

We won't see more people saved praying prayers not in scripture.  We won't see less people saved by praying prayers we do see in scripture.  It is my opinion that people don't want to pray scriptural prayers, because they don't like them.  They would rather pray for someone to be saved, sort of like Paul would rather pray for God to take away the thorn in the flesh.

God is not going to save everyone.  Few there be that find the narrow way that leads to life eternal. Few there be that be saved.  Jesus dusted His feet of an entire Samaritan town, and surely there were others like them.  But the way He does save is through the preaching of the gospel.  When we pray for boldness and doors to be open, then we can preach the gospel and that is in fact the power of God unto salvation.  Are you praying for boldness, or do you not like boldness?  Maybe you like to be tentative and instead pray that people will be saved, perhaps through some other means than boldness?

Praying for Your Own Children

I added this section because someone asked about it.  Should we pray for our own children to be saved?  I didn't pray for my children to be saved.  I prayed for the wisdom to be clear.  I prayed for understanding -- that's a biblical prayer (Colossians 1:9).  What is sufficient for children to be saved? 2 Timothy 3:15:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

If you want your children to be saved, teach them until they know the holy scriptures.  The Bible is sufficient for this.  Many parents depend on someone else for this and put little time into it.  The word "knowledge" is deep knowledge.  Israelite children were taught Leviticus and Numbers.  Ours get pictures and little diddies.

More to Come

Trump Follow-Up

Most of the 2016 Word of Truth Conference Audio Is Up.  Much of the Video Is Up Too.

When I consider all the shots I've taken for supporting Trump, it's easy to understand that I don't like Trump's immorality.  I would have been fine with other Republican candidates winning the primary, but I still stuck my neck out for Trump.  A lot of people comprehend it, because they did too. Opponents want you to feel guilty for that support, attaching his immorality to your support.  I dislike it.  It isn't true.  It's really a cheap shot in my opinion.

I just watched thirty some minutes of the CBS 60 minute interview, posted at RCP, and Trump said one thing about the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade that I've never heard anyone say -- no politician.  It says something about Trump that explains support from someone like me.  Before I mention it, Trump is someone who doesn't sit and take it from the media.  He knows what they are doing and he calls them on it.  Very few, perhaps two or three, would do what he does, and no one as good as him.

Trump was asked about who he would choose for Supreme Court justice.  Maybe you watched, but he said, someone pro-life and someone pro-second amendment.  You put those together and you have now narrowed it down to a very, very small number.  It's got to be a conservative person.  She asked, will the person overturn Roe v. Wade?  Trump said even if someone did overturn it, it would go back to the states.  She said, women couldn't get an abortion.  He said, yes they would.  She said, they couldn't get it.  He said, they'll have to go to another state.

They'll have to go to another state.  What other Republican would say something like that?  Who?  Maybe no one.  Those criticizing Trump, who can't be happy about him, I guess you can't be happy about that?  It's sad really.

Only one comment really gave me pause, and that was Mat's quotation of Proverbs 29:2.  I want to consider it for a moment.  I won't squirm at all with it, but deal with it head-on.  I think people very often take wrong Old Testament texts.  We want to take them like the people in the day would have taken them, not just use them as proof texts.  Solomon, of course wrote that Proverb, the man with 300 wives and 700 concubines.  I'm not supporting Solomon's lifestyle, but he would have been excluding himself, Mat would have to agree.  If he was thinking sinless perfection, that also puts everyone out.

The idea of "ruler" is mostly unlimited power, like a monarch, someone who has absolute authority.  If you have an unjust person in that position, people won't be happy.  It's got to be someone who will be fair, like Solomon was.  He wasn't personally righteous, but he was a fair ruler overall, as you look at it.  The "wicked" person that makes people mourn, literally, sigh, is used in various ways.  It's not always talking about someone who is "righteous," like "justified."  It is a person who isn't guilty of crimes, someone who isn't a criminal.  I think that's it in this context.  People don't want someone who will abuse his position of authority in an unfair way.

Hillary Clinton was a criminal.  She was a politician who used her position for political favor. That's not someone you want in a position of authority.  People don't get treated fairly.

I can tell you right now that the country was headed a direction where if you said you were a Christian, you would be persecuted.  If you said anything that was different than the way political correctness was going, you would get treated very badly.  Trump, I believe, will at least slow that down.  Or, we'll have a more quiet and peaceable time, a more just time, fair time, and I will rejoice in that.

Is globalism righteous?  When someone can move a job overseas and then bring the product back to sell it without punishment to the person who lost the job, is that just?  If I'm against same-sex marriage, I should be able to show it without recrimination, shouldn't I?  I could list pages of these types of questions that indicate the justice by which this election was voted.

When I supported Trump in the primary, it was because I thought he could win.  I thought he would win, and I wanted people to be prepared for that.  If you go back, you'll know I was saying that.  I was mocked by a lot of people, very few of which are now saying, you were right.  Those people joined the mainstream media and about every liberal in doing that with them.

When someone, like Jon Gleason, says I endorse Trump, he makes it sound like I'm endorsing all there is about his character.  Everyone knows that isn't true.  If someone were to say otherwise, that would be crazy.  It isn't just to treat my support as anything but what I say it is.  That is righteous in the Proverbs 29:2 sense, that is, fair.

I don't think Trump is repentant, because there is only biblical repentance, but he did say he was wrong.  He also said he regretted the failure in his marriages.  I know what he should do to repent.  I think someone can support him for president without supporting his immorality.

There is something to rejoice with Trump.  Mainly I say I'm happy he won.  I'm happy he won.  When someone uses "rejoice," "righteous," and "repentant," those are loaded words.  All rejoicing is tempered and very focused.  He is righteous in that he is someone who will be just, certainly more just than the alternative.  If you save unborn children, that is just.  If you put in a conservative Supreme Court justice, the land will be more just by far.  Is he repentant?  He said he was wrong and he regretted.  That isn't repentance.  All of that, however, still misses the point.  We are not even electing a ruler.  He represents one branch of government, and under his leadership, we now have something we have seen very, very rarely in our lifetime, a Republican house, Senate, and Presidency. Then with a conservative Supreme Court justice, we will have a 5-4 majority again.

I'm happy.  If you want to be sad, I still don't get it.

One more thing to close.  If Hillary won, nothing would have changed for me.  I would still be and do what I've already been doing.  It would change nothing.  I'll do the same whether it was Trump or Hillary.  However, I foresee it being a little easier with Trump, maybe a lot more easy.  We don't know.  I would do the same, but it will be easier.  Quiet and peaceable.

More About Prayer V

To find the links for all posts in this series and then all the related posts in this series, look at the last post here.  Hopefully, your mind isn't completely made up about prayer and that you are interested in prayer.  I'm going to be on the road starting late tonight, which is why I have posted this early.  I won't have anything again at least until Sunday or Monday, but it's possible later.  Read the posts on prayer.

*****************************

Related to this series on prayer, as I better understand the other primary position, one different than my own (the scriptural one :-D ), I am getting a handle on the various iterations of that position, and I'd like to talk about that.  In general, the position is that we pray for what we have faith that God can do.  If we do that, He might hear us and He will answer us with a no, maybe, or yes.  "Praying in the will of God" is praying for whatever God might permit.  It just can't be a wrong prayer, a sinful one, and if it isn't, it is in the will of God.  So you can and really should pray for whatever you want, as long as it isn't wrong and you believe God can do it.  And God can do anything.  As I read through this presentation thus far, I can see why prayers aren't criticized very much, because that position leads to a very wide latitude.

Now as someone reads the first paragraph, he might say that it isn't the actual position.  But using the very argumentation of the ones who would say it isn't, you get that as the position.  However, the iteration that modifies it slightly in a way that will fit Mark 11:24 is the following.  You are allowed to pray for whatever it is that God gives you the faith to pray for.  This is what I'm hearing.  Now, perhaps because I am not well read and I don't get out much, I had never heard that view in my entire life.  But I have a question for this most conservative version of the other viewpoint.  How do you know that God has given you the faith to pray that prayer and it isn't just something you want to pray for?

What I am saying is there is absolutely no means of verification of whether God has given you that faith or not.  As I see it, it is the sister or brother of God speaking to you.  What is the verification that God is speaking to you?  When a pastor says, "God told me," how do you know that God told him?  You just have to take his word for it.  And perhaps there are some experiential manifestations that authenticate his experience, which he can list off.

So.  The reason these men don't pray for the two blind men in our church to see is because God hasn't given them the faith to pray it.  However, God evidently has given him the faith to pray for his child with leukemia or the person in his church with a brain tumor.  You can't question it.  It just is what it is. You've got to go with that.  I don't see this as faith, but as mysticism.  It is entirely subjective and can't be questioned because it is beyond criticism.  There is little objective criteria for evaluation, only it isn't wrong to do, it's permitted to do.  You couldn't pray to sin, but outside of that, it is permissible. And if he doesn't pray for every sick person in the hospital, his out on that is that God hasn't given him the faith to pray for those things.  Subject over.  You'll have to assume he got that message from God.

"Faith" in this case is a form of extra-scriptural revelation.  Giving you the faith to pray is giving you the knowledge of who to pray for, that is, telling you who to pray for.  You aren't going to pray for everyone who is sick, so you've got to depend on God giving you the faith to do it.  Jesus said God has the power to move mountains, but how many people are praying for the men whose legs have been blown off by an improvised explosive device?  It's not that God can't replace those, so why not?

What I also see is that there is something on the degree of answer to prayer in which these who think that almost anything goes themselves will stop.   In many cases, they would say that they don't pray for new legs for a man, because that is of a category that is not normative in the era in which we live.  You can pray for a barren (infertile) woman, but she has to be in the right age category for God to answer that or give you the faith to pray it.  And all of these are God telling them what faith is and what is not. Do you see the problems here?

Someone might say, "You can't pray to consume it upon your own lusts."  OK.  But what is a prayer request that is in the category of "your own lust"?  This is almost impossible to determine when accompanied by an appropriate explanation.  Let's say you need a new car.   Can you pray for a Mercedes or are you left with a Ford Taurus and an older year of one of those if it's not "your own lust"?  I want to take people to an African country to preach on a weekly basis, so I want a passenger plane and fuel for every week.  That isn't for me.  It's for a gospel work.  It's not my own lust.  So why is it that is not a permitted prayer?  This is where we might get back to, "God hasn't given you the faith to pray for that."  The president  and his surrogates fly all over the world on someone else's tab, so it might not even be a "miracle."

Are we limiting God by asking for some of the little things we ask for?  This is where the Charismatics come through.  They do ask and suggest that everyone ask for lots of big things.  What is holding me back from praying for a church of 1,000?  But, really, why stop there?  Why can't I have a church the size of the state of California?  Is that not possible with God?  He created the world.  The answer: God hasn't directed in that way.  Why?  No explanation.  He just hasn't.  On the other hand, the Charismatics would be proud of me if I said I wanted a church the size of Joel Osteen's.  Way to go!!

And if we do venture out in a prayer that goes beyond what medicine could do (which God created, so He did that too), if it doesn't get answered, what difference does it make?  You got a no answer.  Again, the no answer doctrine, gleaned from 2 Corinthians 12 by those who take this view.  You can't hardly pray a prayer that is not in the will of God.  And faith is diminished to something based on what you were moved to do through some mystical feeling that you had.

There are many reasons why I have pointed out the trajectory of this other view, not my own, and one I see as unscriptural, from revivalism and Keswick theology.  It fits right with those.  Nudge it a little further and a person will be Charismatic.  But there are acceptable forms of revivalism and Keswick to varying degrees, sometimes heap fulls of it, among independent Baptists and fundamentalists.  Some would say that it for sure isn't that with them, because they are opposed to revivalism and Keswick.  And yet I see extra scriptural revelation and mysticism.

All of what I've talked about so far would be tempered the exact right amount by Jesus' model prayer.  I have none of those problems when I use His outline, as if what Jesus would say about prayer would be sufficient.  What other passage in the Bible do you have that actually tells us how to pray?  Jesus says some things about it.  The Apostles say some things that are not and could not be in disagreement with Jesus.  But then we have a few scattered examples, which don't have complete information.  I am one to assume those are not going to contradict the other passages.

Some have asked, "If we're praying for what we know we'll receive, how does prayer make any difference?"  James said that scriptural prayer avails much.  It does make a difference.   When I pray for wisdom, I get wisdom that I would not have already had, because God gives it to me in answer to prayer.   When I'm in temptation and I pray, I get help that I would not have received if I had not prayed, to keep me from sinning.  When I pray for those in authority, God works in a manner in which I have a more quiet and peaceable life.  When I pray for boldness in evangelism, I get boldness that I would not have had if I had not prayed.  These are God's will in the sense that He will answer them.  I know He will, and I based that on scripture.

Scriptural prayer avails much.  That particular point in James 5 describes what occurs when one prays like I'm explaining.  The unsure, uncertain prayers do not avail, even if they look like it.  I would contend that most of the unsaved people "prayed for" with these prayers do not get saved and of those with deadly diseases, they don't get healed.  I think the statistical analysis would be something not much better or worse than the statistics for Charismatics.  Something is wrong with a prayer that does not avail.  All of my scriptural prayers avail.  How do I know?  They are based on scripture and God doesn't lie.  He isn't going to heal everyone and He isn't going to save everyone, but He will do all the things He said He would do, that are a basis for our prayers.

What about the backslider?  That question was posed.  When you pray for his love to abound, does it abound?  Is he filled with the knowledge of God's will?  The backslider is a sort of keswick category of carnal Christian.  When that term is used in the Bible, it's an unsaved person.  Is there a saved backslider, a sort of Christian who lives for long periods of perpetual carnality?  Sometimes we don't know how to pray as we ought.  This is not speaking of someone who just ignores scripture.  This is talking about someone who is struggling through the categorization of a particular person.  Is he weak, feebleminded, unruly?  Has he crept in unawares?  Does his disobedience represent the inability of an unsaved person or the struggle of a saved person?   What I'm describing in this paragraph is one reason why the Holy Spirit prays for us, because He does know, when we don't.  I pray sometimes for a better understanding of how to pray, to know better how to pray.  This is not because I don't know what scripture says to pray, but because I don't know the specific need of a particular individual.  Sometimes these types of problems are because we are depending in an unscriptural way upon prayer.  Not everything is solved through prayer.  Paul kept praying for the removal of the minister of Satan sent to buffet him, but the right thing was to take care of it himself -- God's grace was sufficient.  God wasn't going to do it for him.  He was going to have to obey the means by which God accomplishes these things.

Some may want to extrapolate from the previous paragraph that it represents an uncertainty that opens the door to pray without assurance.  What we pray, we should know the Lord will answer. We know what God said he would do.  We have the Bible.  To pray with wisdom, you pray for wisdom.  He'll give it if you desire it and ask for it, but the wisdom might require you to do something other than pray.  Sometimes prayer is a cop-out, not the intended path of obedience.  That is why you are uncertain and why you can't ask in faith, believing.  Prayer isn't a brainless activity.  You've got to think about praying as you ought.  Scripture is sufficient to supply the knowledge you need, but you've got to apply it.

Surely you won't always pray a right prayer.  It won't fulfill scripture or it won't be prayed with the fulfillment of scriptural prerequisites.  Sometimes you won't pray in faith, sometimes you won't pray with the knowledge that you will receive what you are praying for, sometimes you won't pray according to God's will, sometimes you will pray to consume it upon your own lusts, and sometimes you will pray like a Pharisee, who stands on a street corner praying to be seen of men.  Sometimes you just won't pray.  However, doing it the wrong way doesn't justify more wrongdoing.  That people don't pray as they ought is not license to mimic them.

Like some depend on experience and myticism to determine what to pray for, they also decide what constitutes an answer.   To some, when a believer prays for men in authority in order to obtain peace and quiet, if he doesn't reach 100% peace and quiet, then the prayer wasn't answered.  If the prayer wasn't answered, well, then prayer is uncertain.  And if prayer is uncertain, then pray for whatever you want, except to sin, with permission.  A fraction more peace and quiet is an answer to prayer and the prayer was worth it.  I assume it.  I don't look for some external measurement, but sometimes I "see" what I believe is the answer.  The Supreme Court gave Christian businesses an opportunity for peace and quiet with the Hobby Lobby decision.  That looked like an answer to prayer to me.  My belief that God answered is not dependent on obvious measurables.  When I look for answers, I might see answers that aren't even answers, but I see them, because I want to see them.  Sometimes I think I see them, but my basis for believing they occurred is because God said they would.

The above consideration goes the other direction.  I've heard many stories about the prayer for power. People pray for power, and then they go about doing things that evidence power.  The evidence they produce authenticates the power.  They didn't get any more power, but they testify they did.  This allows experience to become authority.  This is why, again, you believe it based upon what God said, not based upon your own witness.  Can we say that we have seen answers to prayer?  Sure, but what you rely upon is scripture.

More to Come