All Christ's prayers effectual?

[KGP]

This is a post copied over from a previous thread. Don't want to hijack that one, so I made a new one. The blue text is the portion I am responding to.
So two questions, but they are interrelated.

1. What was the nature of Christ's prayer on the cross. Was it effectual and for his own? Or generally for the whole group and an example for us to follow?

2. Are all of Christ's prayers effectual?


My post starts below.





One of the primary purposes of prayer is to align us with the will of God; that we might desire what God desires. If the adopted sons have the promise that they will receive what they ask for when they pray according to the will of God (1 John 5:14); how much more did the eternal son both pray according to the will of God and receive what he requested?

Father, forgive them... ACT. Do this thing! And I believe he did.


I agree that the prayer for forgiveness from the cross is very different. However, I don't believe it was an effectual prayer for His own. He was fulfilling all righteousness. In other words, we can imitate Him in this.


I agree with you in that he was fulfilling all righteousness in his attitude toward those who were his enemies; as per Matthew 5. Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you. Indeed that is the fulfillment of the law. But I have never believed that the prayers of Jesus have been anything but effectual. Christ has the Spirit without measure. How then could his prayer be anything but according to the volitional will of God, and thus effectual? Thus in this case, he was praying for the forgiveness that leads to salvation for his own who were present, crucifying him in deed or assent.

Gethsemane will come to mind as an exception. As THE exception. But taken as a whole, it is an effectual prayer in accordance with the will of God. "Abba, Father, everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will". It was one prayer, and while the impossible request was made, it was made under the umbrella of a prayer of submission to God's ultimate will. If he had prayed simply, "Lord, take this cup from me." and left it there, there would be problems.

I'm open to being wrong on this. I've been wrong before. It's not thaaaat bad

Anyone who has waded these waters before would be welcome to chime in on this point, set me straight if need be.

 

[MW]

When looking at the life of Christ there is an old distinction which can be helpful -- ministerial and mediatorial. It should be kept in mind that our Lord not only came as the Mediator between God and man but He also served as a minister to the Jews to confirm the promises made to the fathers. Romans 15:8. As Mediator of the covenant He knew who were His own and prayed for them alone. As minister to the covenant people He prayed for all.

 

[Loopie]

If I am not mistaken, that particular passage (Luke 23:34) is a textual variant, so we ought to be careful before we base entire theological doctrines on it.

From the Lips of Jesus or a Scribal Hand? “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” | Alpha and Omega Ministries

That being said, if the saying were original, the question is: who was Jesus referring to? Was he referring to the Roman soldiers casting lots, the Pharisees, or the crowd of commoners who were stirred up against him and calling for his death? It seems likely that Jesus was either referring to the Roman soldiers or the crowd, who were either doing what they were ordered to do, or had been stirred up by the propaganda of the Pharisees. Certainly the Pharisees knew what they were doing. When looking at the pronouns, immediately after Jesus says "forgive THEM, for THEY..." the next passage is, "and THEY cast lots...". From all of the other gospel accounts it seems like only the Roman soldiers were casting lots for his clothes. Is it possible then that Jesus was specifically referring to the Roman soldiers? Perhaps they were ultimately forgiven of their sin, especially since at least one of them, a Centurion, expressed faith after having seen Jesus die. I'm not really sure, but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

 

[MW]

If I am not mistaken, that particular passage (Luke 23:34) is a textual variant, so we ought to be careful before we base entire theological doctrines on it.

This text has good second century attestation. If one cannot rely upon it one has little basis for relying upon anything.

 

[KGP]

If I am not mistaken, that particular passage (Luke 23:34) is a textual variant, so we ought to be careful before we base entire theological doctrines on it.

From the Lips of Jesus or a Scribal Hand? “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” | Alpha and Omega Ministries

That being said, if the saying were original, the question is: who was Jesus referring to? Was he referring to the Roman soldiers casting lots, the Pharisees, or the crowd of commoners who were stirred up against him and calling for his death? It seems likely that Jesus was either referring to the Roman soldiers or the crowd, who were either doing what they were ordered to do, or had been stirred up by the propaganda of the Pharisees. Certainly the Pharisees knew what they were doing. When looking at the pronouns, immediately after Jesus says "forgive THEM, for THEY..." the next passage is, "and THEY cast lots...". From all of the other gospel accounts it seems like only the Roman soldiers were casting lots for his clothes. Is it possible then that Jesus was specifically referring to the Roman soldiers? Perhaps they were ultimately forgiven of their sin, especially since at least one of them, a Centurion, expressed faith after having seen Jesus die. I'm not really sure, but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

Thanks for this; I never made the connection with the use of THEM, THEY, etc.

Your response and reasoning is solid, makes sense...

 

[KGP]

When looking at the life of Christ there is an old distinction which can be helpful -- ministerial and mediatorial. It should be kept in mind that our Lord not only came as the Mediator between God and man but He also served as a minister to the Jews to confirm the promises made to the fathers. Romans 15:8. As Mediator of the covenant He knew who were His own and prayed for them alone. As minister to the covenant people He prayed for all.

Rev. Winzer, would you say then that this specific prayer has a double referent then?

 

[earl40]

When looking at the life of Christ there is an old distinction which can be helpful -- ministerial and mediatorial. It should be kept in mind that our Lord not only came as the Mediator between God and man but He also served as a minister to the Jews to confirm the promises made to the fathers. Romans 15:8. As Mediator of the covenant He knew who were His own and prayed for them alone. As minister to the covenant people He prayed for all.

I can see the distinction made, but would this not be Our Lord asking for the forgiveness of this sin based on the horribleness of such and not on His work upon the cross?

Are there any other passages that the "ministerial" work of Jesus can be shown to have certain sins forgiven outside His work on the cross?

 

[MW]

In Gethsemane we are given an example of Christ praying from a sense of human self-preservation but then resigning Himself to the cup He must drink as Mediator. In His full and sinless humanity our Lord loved His neighbour as Himself and undoubtedly sought the well-being of all to whom He ministered without making question of the secrets of election and reprobation.

 

[earl40]

In Gethsemane we are given an example of Christ praying from a sense of human self-preservation but then resigning Himself to the cup He must drink as Mediator. In His full and sinless humanity our Lord loved His neighbour as Himself and undoubtedly sought the well-being of all to whom He ministered without making question of the secrets of election and reprobation.

I can see what you are saying, though ministering to all as neighbors can entail kindness based on the view man is His creation and not based on the mediatorial work as described in Luke 23:34. This verse alone seems to be the only one in scripture that suggest that the cross and its effects are conditioned on something other than the cross. Of course many assume they came to faith later though this passage still has The Lord asking something, forgiveness of sin, based on their ignorance. So far as Jesus not wanting to drink the cup I can understand Jesus saying, in His humanity, it would be proper to ask "if there be any other way".

 

[MW]

and not based on the mediatorial work as described in Luke 23:34.

I don't see why you regard this as necessarily mediatorial. Stephen's prayer, Acts 7:60, in obvious imitation of our Lord's, was not mediatorial. The fact that it could be imitated is a good indication that it was simply a moral act. The prayer upon the cross could only be mediatorial insofar as it relates to those for whom Christ prays as their Intercessor, John 17:9.

 

[earl40]

and not based on the mediatorial work as described in Luke 23:34.

I don't see why you regard this as necessarily mediatorial. Stephen's prayer, Acts 7:60, in obvious imitation of our Lord's, was not mediatorial. The fact that it could be imitated is a good indication that it was simply a moral act. The prayer upon the cross could only be mediatorial insofar as it relates to those for whom Christ prays as their Intercessor, John 17:9.

My thought on this would be that if the Father forgives any sin it would be because of the atoning work of His Son. Are we to suppose that God forgives some sin based on something other than this? If The Father forgives a price would have to been paid. I am afraid to suggest to anybody that some sin will be forgiven apart from the work of Jesus towards the unelect that is not paid for. In other words, to suggest some sin may be forgiven without the "necessarily mediatorial" work of Jesus is in my opinion against what scripture tells us.

 

[MW]

My thought on this would be that if the Father forgives any sin it would be because of the atoning work of His Son. Are we to suppose that God forgives some sin based on something other than this? If The Father forgives a price would have to been paid. I am afraid to suggest to anybody that some sin will be forgiven apart from the work of Jesus towards the unelect that is not paid for. In other words, to suggest some sin may be forgiven without the "necessarily mediatorial" work of Jesus is in my opinion against what scripture tells us.

I do not follow you. It is certainly true that in the covenant of grace a satisfaction has been provided for sin so that sin may be forgiven in a manner that upholds the honour and righteousness of God, but that does not exclude one man from simply desiring the forgiveness of another man. Stephen did not know for whom Christ had died, yet he sincerely and freely sought peace for his persecutors.

 

[earl40]

My thought on this would be that if the Father forgives any sin it would be because of the atoning work of His Son. Are we to suppose that God forgives some sin based on something other than this? If The Father forgives a price would have to been paid. I am afraid to suggest to anybody that some sin will be forgiven apart from the work of Jesus towards the unelect that is not paid for. In other words, to suggest some sin may be forgiven without the "necessarily mediatorial" work of Jesus is in my opinion against what scripture tells us.

I do not follow you. It is certainly true that in the covenant of grace a satisfaction has been provided for sin so that sin may be forgiven in a manner that upholds the honour and righteousness of God, but that does not exclude one man from simply desiring the forgiveness of another man. Stephen did not know for whom Christ had died, yet he sincerely and freely sought peace for his persecutors.

I think you sum up what I am trying to say. For "the honour and righteousness of God" is not upheld if the sin was forgiven apart from the cross. We can say our sin is forgiven because Jesus died for us. In Luke 23:34 we appear to have sin forgiven apart from the cross and because they "they know not". Of course their may be other variables that may come into play here we have not touched on that may explain the apparent difference in the instrumental cause for the forgiveness toward the people Jesus was praying for. One being that this verse may be not in the original manuscript. I know that you hold strongly it is but for the reasons I state here I am afraid this may not be the case. For the perspicuity of scripture is clouded if one believes any sin is forgiven apart from the death of Jesus. I assume that if Jesus asked The Father the sin was forgiven and thus was laid at the foot of the cross. Of course in His own words the foot of the cross was not in view but ignorance as the reason (or because) they were forgiven.

 

[earl40]

It is certainly true that in the covenant of grace a satisfaction has been provided for sin so that sin may be forgiven in a manner that upholds the honour and righteousness of God, but that does not exclude one man from simply desiring the forgiveness of another man. Stephen did not know for whom Christ had died, yet he sincerely and freely sought peace for his persecutors.

Also I have no problem with Stephen asking such for we all should ask God to forgive our enemies though the difference is that maybe Stephens prayer was not answered in the positive sense. This in my opinion opens a can of worms to ask God to forgive in a limited way.

 

[MW]

Also I have no problem with Stephen asking such for we all should ask God to forgive our enemies though the difference is that maybe Stephens prayer was not answered in the positive sense. This in my opinion opens a can of worms to ask God to forgive in a limited way.

In both this and your previous response you assume that the prayer of our Lord was answered "in the positive sense." Why could it not be a prayer of the same nature as that uttered in the garden, namely, one appropriate for a man who takes the revealed will of God as the rule of prayer? I must assert again, the fact that Stephen prayed after this manner shows that the request is moral by nature. There is nothing distinctively mediatorial.

 

[earl40]

Also I have no problem with Stephen asking such for we all should ask God to forgive our enemies though the difference is that maybe Stephens prayer was not answered in the positive sense. This in my opinion opens a can of worms to ask God to forgive in a limited way.

In both this and your previous response you assume that the prayer of our Lord was answered "in the positive sense." Why could it not be a prayer of the same nature as that uttered in the garden, namely, one appropriate for a man who takes the revealed will of God as the rule of prayer? I must assert again, the fact that Stephen prayed after this manner shows that the request is moral by nature. There is nothing distinctively mediatorial.

I am with you %100. My false assumption was that The Father answered His Son's prayer in the positive sense. An assumption which is not warrented from scripture. This angle I have never heard of before...and I been around a while.