4
Open theists affirm on the other hand that their view of God genuinely allows
petitionary prayer to be efficacious and impetratory. Contrary to process theism, the open view
believes God can unilaterally act in the world, so he can answer our prayers and "can use
petitionary prayer to bring about desired ends."
9
And contrary to classical theism, the open view
believes that the future is, in part at least, open and undecided.
10
This is demonstrated by the
the God of specific sovereignty wanted you to have it, then he would ensure that you asked
for it. If God's will is never thwarted in any detail, then we can never fail to receive
something from God because we failed to ask for it. Moreover, James says that we
sometimes petition God from wrong motives and so we do not receive (4:3). But if the God
of specific sovereignty desires to give us something, we can rest assured that he will get us to
ask properly because there is no risk that God's desires will be frustrated in any way.
Consequently, proponents of specific sovereignty may rightfully claim that petitionary prayer
is justified because God has decreed that he would perform a certain action after the request
is made. Moreover, in this model it makes sense to say that God has ordained such prayers
for therapeutic benefit to those who pray as well as to those who are aware that others are
praying for them. But proponents of the no-risk model cannot legitimately claim that God
responds to our prayers or does something because we prayed. There is no room for
impetratory prayer in this model." (Ibid., 270-271).
9
Basinger, "Practical Implications," in The Openness of God, 160.
10
A key openness claim is that any element of the future that is causally dependent on the