23
for others.
49
This understanding places a high value on the efficacy of intercessory prayer, but
it is hard to see how it is consistent with a God of genuinely universal and impartial love. David
Basinger is representative of other open theists who argue that
God would never refrain from intervening beneficially in one person's life simply
because someone else has failed to request that he do so.
50
This understanding certainly does more justice to the universal, impartial
character of God's love, but it seems in turn to jeopardize the efficacy of intercessory prayer.
Ware summarizes the dilemma that open theists face.
Either God's impartial and perfect love is maintained without compromise at the cost of
the efficacy of prayer (for God will do what is best regardless of whether or not people
pray); or it really does matter whether or not we pray for others (i.e., petitionary prayer is
efficacious), but only at the expense of compromising the impartial and perfect love of
God for all.
51
Conclusions
49
Sanders, The God Who Risks, 274. Basinger cites Hasker along with Sanders as
proponents of the openness model who "see no necessary incompatibility in affirming both
that God always seeks what is best for each of us and that God may at times wait to exert all
the noncoercive influence that he can justifiably exert on a given person until requested to do
so by another person" ("Practical Implications," in The Openness of God, 161).
50
Ibid., 161. See also Basinger, "Petitionary Prayer: A Response to Murray and Meyers,"
RelS. 31 (Dec. 1995): 482-483.
51
Ware, God's Lesser Glory, 173.