22
Secondly, the love that open theists affirm is central to the nature of God is by
definition universal and impartial.
48
Yet problems arise when this kind of divine love is held
together with the openness conception of the efficacy of petitionary prayer. Specifically, how is
a God of love justified in withholding a good gift from his children simply because they have not
asked him for it? It is understandable that God would want to teach his children the value and
necessity of prayer by withholding some benefits until they ask him. Yet it becomes harder and
harder to justify this divine withholding the longer it continues and the more desperately his
child needs the good gift. The dilemma is even more severe when it comes to the case of God
withholding a benefit for one person because someone else has failed to intercede for him or her.
Can God legitimately withhold the good that he knows one person needs just because another
person is negligent or disobedient? Sanders affirms that this can happen:
What God decides to do for others sometimes seems to depend on my prayers. That is,
God might sometimes refrain from acting beneficially in one person's life because others
have failed to pray. This may not sound fair to those of us in the West with our high
value on individualism, but God values community and desires that it be fostered, in part,
by our concern for one another and by our manifesting this concern in intercessory prayer
internet, 3-19.
48
Basinger cites as one of his five summary points of the basic tenants of open theism the
following statement, "God always desires our highest good, both individually and
corporately" ("Practical Implications," in The Openness of God, 156emphasis mine.) In an
earlier article, Basinger argued that "an omnibenevolent God is obligated to maximize the
quality of life for those beings he chooses to create" ("In What Sense Must God be
Omnibenevolent?" International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 14 [1983], 3).