Open Theism & the Prosperity Gospel
Open theism is a model that insists that true human freedom requires that God cannot know in advance human choices and actions. Because people have not made their decisions yet, God knows the future in possibilities rather than certainties. Since the future does not yet exist then logically God cannot even know it. Choices made by human beings work with God to bring about future realities. In other words, God is sovereign because he does not ordain each human choice, but rather works in cooperation with his creation to bring about his will.
Salvation and prosperity is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond); man’s response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, choose to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. And God wants each one of us to prosper, but to do so we must respond to His guidance. At any crucial point, man’s will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be recipients of God's gifts.
Clark Pinnock offers a succinct summary of the key principles, doctrinal commitments, and values of open theism:
"In this book we are advancing the . . . open view of God. Our understanding of the Scriptures leads us to depict God, the sovereign Creator, as voluntarily bringing into existence a world with significantly free personal agents in it, agents who can respond positively to God or reject his plans for them. In line with the decision to make this kind of world, God rules in such a way as to uphold the created structures and, because he gives liberty to his creatures, is happy to accept the future as open, not closed, and a relationship with the world that is dynamic, not static. We believe that the Bible presents an open view of God as living and active, involved in history, relating to us and changing in relation to us. We see the universe as a context in which there are real choices, alternatives and surprises. God’s openness means that God is open to the changing realities of history, that God cares about us and lets what we do impact him. Our lives make a difference to God—they are truly significant. God is delighted when we trust him and saddened when we rebel against him. God made us significant creatures and treats us as such."
"The “open view of God” terminology intends to set forth the idea that God is open to the possibilities of the future. In other words, God’s understanding (just like human understanding) is contingent upon future human and divine choices and actions. God does not know all future events with certainty because they have not yet happened." (Greg Pinnock, “Systematic Theology” in The Openness of God)
Before going any further, let us look at the seven basic tenets of open theism:
1. God’s greatest attribute is love This interpretive hermeneutical center elevates love above all other divine attributes Since God loves everyone and wants everyone to be saved, He mourns over their loss
2. Man’s free will is truly free in the libertarian sense Man’s free will is not restricted by his sinful nature; he is equally able to make choices between different options Compatibilist free will states that a person is restricted and affected by his nature, and this fallen nature not only affects his free will choices, but also limits his ability to equally choose among different options
3. God does not know the future According to Clark Pinnock – God limits Himself (His sovereignty and knowledge) because if God knew the future choices of man, those choices would no longer be free
4. God takes risks (It follows that since God does not know the future exhaustively) God must take risks with people whose future free will choices are unknowable The future is shaped by human choices
5. God learns (It follows that since God does not know the future exhaustively) God learns as the realities of the future occur Pinnock states, “We should try to learn as God learns.”
6. God makes mistakes (It follows that since God does not know the future exhaustively) God makes mistakes because He is dealing with creatures who make free choices that are unknown to Him God can be mistaken is His learning just like any risk-taker; thus, God can make future mistakes just like any human being
7. God changes His mind (It follows that since God does not know the future exhaustively) God changes His mind on issues depending on what He learns and what He discovers people do God changes His mind because something surprises Him or catches Him off guard that He did not plan for or expect
Biblical arguments
Open Theists read the Bible as showing that God desires to be in relationship with the people He has created, that He sometimes changes His mind as a result of dialogue with His people, and that He seeks to accomplish His goals for the world in concert with human agents.
Knowing what will happen does not mean that we are preventing or causing that thing to happen. The sun will rise tomorrow. I am not causing it to rise nor am I preventing it from rising by knowing that it will happen. Likewise, if I put a bowl of ice-cream and a bowl of cauliflower in front of my child, I know for a fact which one is chosen - the ice cream. My knowing it ahead of time does not restrict my child from making a free choice when the time comes. My child is free to make a choice and knowing the choice has no effect upon her when she makes it.
Logically, God knowing what we are going to do does not mean that we can't do something else. It means that God simply knows what we have chosen to do ahead of time. Our freedom is not restricted by God's foreknowledge; our freedom is simply realized ahead of time by God. In this, our natural ability to make another choice has not been removed any more than my choice of what to write inside the parenthesis (hello) was removed by God who knew I would put the word "hello" in the parentheses before the universe was made. Before typing the word "hello," I pondered which word to write. My pondering was my doing and the choice was mine. How then was I somehow restricted in freedom when choosing what to write if God knew what I was going to do? No matter what choice we freely make, it can be known by God, and His knowing it doesn't mean we aren't making a free choice.
In order to defend open theism, open theists also tend to focus on verses that tell of failed or subverted prophecies and instances where God changes his mind through interaction with people. The following is a quick overview of where the Bible expounds ideas that seem to support the concept that the future - even in God's perception - is at least partly composed of possibilities:
• Genesis 6:6-7 (KJV) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
• Exodus 13:17 (KJV) And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:
• Exodus 32:7-14 (RSV) And the LORD said to Moses, "Go down; for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves; they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, `These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!'" And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people; now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; but of you I will make a great nation." But Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, "O LORD, why does thy wrath burn hot against thy people, whom thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, `With evil intent did he bring them forth, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou didst swear by thine own self, and didst say to them, `I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it for ever.'" And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.
• Exodus 33:4-6 (KJV) And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments. For the LORD had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people; I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee. And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb.
• Isaiah 5:4, 7 (KJV) What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
• Isaiah 38:1-5 At that time Hezekiah became very sick; he was almost dead. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to see him and told him, "This is what the Lord says: Make arrangements, because you are not going to live, but die." Hezekiah turned toward the wall and prayed to the Lord, "Lord, please remember that I have always obeyed you. I have given myself completely to you and have done what you said was right." Then Hezekiah cried loudly. Then the Lord spoke his word to Isaiah: "Go to Hezekiah and tell him: 'This is what the Lord, the God of your ancestor David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears. So I will add fifteen years to your life.
Open Theists argue that the God revealed in the Bible clearly desires to be in relationship with the people He has created. From the beginning, we have been created in God’s image and given responsibility to care for His creation (Gen. 1:26). God’s relationship to His creation is clear throughout the narrative of the Old Testament. Both Abraham and Moses, among others, speak, and indeed argue, directly with God. Abraham questions God about how His promises will be fulfilled (Gen. 15), and prevails upon Him to spare Sodom if only ten righteous people can be found living there (Gen. 18). Immediately after Abraham shows himself faithful to God by his willingness to obey God even to the point of sacrificing his son Isaac, God states that it is because of Abraham’s obedience that He will maintain His promise to bless Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 22:15-18). Abraham questions God, dialogues with God, affects God’s decisions, and his actions of obedience are credited by God as at least partly responsible for Him fulfilling the promise of blessings that He has revealed to Abraham. Moses speaks with God, and because He lacks confidence to speak to his fellow Israelites, God appoints Aaron to speak for Him (Ex. 4: 1-18). God reveals His law to Moses, and when the Israelites turn their backs on their Deliverer, Moses reminds God of His promises and asks Him to relent from His anger and spare His people (Ex. 32: 9-14). It is clear throughout the Pentateuch that God speaks to chosen leaders of His chosen people, and that He not only commands them, but also listens to their concerns, often adjusting His original plans in light of His dialogue with them.
In both the Old and New Testaments, God presents Himself as working with human agents, and as being disappointed in His hopes for them, rather than as compelling them to act in prescribed ways. This is clear throughout the narrative of Israel, and in passages such as Is. 65:1-2, in which the Lord bemoans the stubbornness of those who will not call on Him, despite His many revelations to them. The Bible teaches us that we can thwart God’s desire that we freely return His love. This is suggested by passages such as Mark 6:5-6, in which we are told that Jesus could not perform many miracles in his hometown because of the lack of faith of its people, and it is explicit in Luke 7:30, in which we are told that the Pharisees rejected God’s purpose. God asks us to follow and obey Him; He does not compel obedience. Nor should every calamitous event be assumed to be divine punishment for disobedience (Job, Lk. 13:1-5, Jn. 9:1-3).
A classic example of an open future is the 2 Kings story of Hezekiah. We find these words: “Thus says the Lord: Set your house in order, for you shall die, you shall not recover” (20:1). This passage sounds like a straightforward decision on God’s part. Hezekiah’s future has been decided, and God knows it as settled.
But the Bible says Hezekiah prayed earnestly. He persuaded the Lord to add fifteen years to his life (v. 6). This suggests that the future was actually open – even for God. If God foreknew when Hezekiah would die, this biblical passage implies that God lied to Hezekiah about this knowledge.
Open theology provides a way to affirm that God did not lie to Hezekiah. Open theists say God changed his mind and answered Hezekiah’s prayer. Presumably, God changed plans out of love.
Numerous biblical passages state or imply that God does not know the future exhaustively. Passages stating that God has regrets – e.g., regret about creating or regret over Saul’s kingship (1 Sam. 15:11) – make little sense if God foreknows all things and the future is settled.
Passages stating that God’s will is not necessarily accomplished – e.g., that God is not willing that any perish (2 Pet. 3:9) – make little sense if God foreknows the future exhaustively.
God’s questions about the future – such as God’s question to Moses about how long the people will despise him (Num. 14:11) – make little sense if God foreknows all future things as settled.
Passages stating that God confronts unexpected events (Is. 5:2), that God gets frustrated and angry (Ex. 4), and that God tests people to find out their character (Gen. 22) all suggest that God does not fully know what will actually happen in the future.
Doctoral Dissertations and Masters Theses :
Doctoral Dissertations :
- Baker, Vaughn. Evangelism and the Openness of God: The Implications of Relational Theism for Evangelism and Missions . University of South Africa, 2011.
- Holtzen, William Curtis. Dei Fide: A Relational Theology of the Faith of God . University of South Africa, 2007.
- Ham, T. C. Relational Metaphors and Omniscience in the Hebrew Bible (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007).
- Holland, Richard. God and Time: Rethinking the Relationship in Light of the Incarnation of Christ (PhD, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, 2007).
- Ostrom, William Bruce. Divine Sovereignty and the Religious Problem of Evil: An Evaluation of Evangelical Models (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007).
- Rissler, James D. Divine providence and human libertarian freedom: Reasons for incompatibility and theological alternatives . University of Notre Dame, 2006, 322 pages.
- Calvert, Michael. Paradox Lost: Open Theism and the Deconstruction of Divine Incomprehensibility—A Critical Analysis (PhD, Trinity Theological Seminary, 2005).
- Harmon, Jerry. Exodus 24.6-7: A Hermeneutical Key in the Open Theism Debate (PhD, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005).
- Moore, Scott. The Problem of Prayer (PhD, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2006).
- Campbell, Travis. The Beautiful Mind: A Reaffirmation and Reconstruction of the Classical Reformed Doctrines of the Divine Omniscience, Prescience, and Human Freedom. Westminster Theological Seminary (2004).
- Gilbert, Kevin James. The rule of express terms and the limits of fellowship in the Stone-Campbell movement: T. W. Brents, a test case . The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004.
- Robinson, Franklin Webster. Adversity, crisis counseling, and the openness of God: An evaluation of open theism for pastoral response to victims of violence . Azusa Pacific University, 2002.
- Kersey, Kent Allen The freedom of God and man: A critical analysis of the relationship between providence and anthropology in Open Theism . Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary , 2002.
- Ladd, Steven Willis Theological indicators supporting an evangelical conception of eternity: A study of God’s relation to time in light of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo . Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002.
- Kersey, Kent. The Freedom of God and Man: A critical Analysis of the Relationship Between Providence and Anthropology in Open Theism. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002.
- Steven Roy, How Much Does God Foreknow? An Evangelical Assessment of the Doctrine of the Extent of the Foreknowledge of God in Light of the Teaching of Open Theism, Trinity International University, 2000. Now published.
- Tae Soo Park, A Biblical Response to Open Theism: Christology in the Four Gospels . Bob Jones University 2004.
Masters Theses :
- Worsfold, Cecily. Evangelical Responses to the Question of Religious Pluralism . Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, 2011. http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz//handle/10063/1594
- Conn, Jeremy. Developing Doctrinal Criterion for Evaluating Orthodoxy and Heresy: Open Theism as a Test Case . Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2011.
- Belt, Thomas G. A Critical Evaluation of the Religious Adequacy of Open Theism: Toward an Open Theistic Theology of Petitionary Prayer . University of Wales, 2007
- Manning, John. Does God Suffer? Australian College of Theology, November 2006.
- McLaughlin, Ryan Patrick. God of Authentic Rapport: A Tale of MeinIgenes . Ashland Theological Seminary, August 2006.
- Lim, Joung Bin. A Thomistic Account of Divine Providence and Human Freedom. Texas A&M University, 2005.
- Verhage, Kara Elizabeth. Prayer and a Partially Unsettled Future: A Theological Framework for Prayer From the Perspective of Open Theism Emphasizing Prayers of Supplication . Luther Seminary, 2004.
- Thompson, Matthew K., Openness and Perichoresis: An Analysis of Pentecostal Spirituality Toward a Pentecostal Doctrine of God . Saint Paul School of Theology, 2003.
- Nichols, Jason. Omniscience in the Divine Openness: A Critical Analysis of Present Knowledge in God. Trinity International University, 1997.
- Jason Brian Santos, Jean Calvin’s classical divine providence juxtaposed with John Sanders’s Risk theology and the pastoral implications of Theodicy. Wheaton College Graduate School, 2002.
- Pillai, Jessica D. God’s Change of Mind . Denver Seminary, 2004.
- Joseph Holt: Predicating Infinity of God: An Open Theist Perspective . Bethel Seminary, St. Paul, MN, 2001.
- Craig W. Thompson. John Sanders’s Philosophy of Religious Language: an Analysis of Divine Predication in the God Who Risks , Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002.
- Jonathan L. Master, Exodus 32 as an Argument for Traditional Theism . Capitol Bible Seminary, 2002.
- Irwin, Ben . The Sovereignty of God and the Biblical Narrative: A Response to Open Theism . Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, May, 2002.
Open theism created a controversy in the Baptist General Conference, a denomination with Swedish origins and with about 850 congregations. One of the most articulate open theists is Gregory A. Boyd, who is pastor of a Baptist General Conference mega-church in St. Paul who for sixteen years served also as a professor at the denominational college, Bethel College; one of the most articulate opponents of open theism is John Piper, who is pastor of another Baptist General Connference mega-church in neighboring Minneapolis.
In 1999 the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution opposing open theism. In 2000 the revised edition of the Baptist Faith and Message added to the article a sentence about God rejecting open theism (the new sentence is underlined):
"There is one and only one living and true God. He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe. God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures. To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience. The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being."
For the last several decades Thomas and Christine Lukashow have been discovering orthodox Christians from the 17th through the 19th centuries who were open theists and who, so far as I’m aware, no one else knew about. Over the last year they’ve been gracious enough to not only keep me informed about their on-going research but to also send me photocopies (and even a few original works) of the material they’ve retrieved. (Thank you Tom and Christine!).
To date, defenders of Open Theism have usually appealed to Calcidius in the 4th century and a number of 18th and 19th century theologians and preachers, including Adam Clark, Lorenzo McCabe, Billy Hibbert, Joel Hayes, T.W. Brents, Isaac Dorner and the renowned 19th century Bible commentator Adam Clark. In light of Tom and Christine’s research, it’s now beginning to appear that this may just be the tip of the iceberg. The open view seems to have been espoused and discussed much more frequently than we previously thought.
Of particular interest is an 18th century minister named Samuel Fancourt (1678-1786). He wrote several works in the early 18th century defending the view that the future is partly open, including Free Agency of Accountable Creatures Examined, Liberty, Grace and Prescience and The Greatness of Divine Love. These book generated a lot of discussion, as evidenced by the dozens of books, journal articles, pamphlets and letters published at the time which the Lukashows have uncovered. Other 18th and 19th century orthodox Open Theists I was unaware of are J. Jones, J. Greenrup, W. Taylor, and D. U. Simon. The Luckashows have also recovered a number of 18th century anonymous booklets espousing Open Theism, and Tom has recently uncovered some evidence of Open Theism being espoused by 17th century Arminians.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, however, a significant number of Wesleyan and Methodist theologians denied that God knew the future exhaustively. Drew Seminary theologian Lorenzo McCabe, for instance, wrote clearly and passionately advocating what we now call Open theology. Methodist circuit rider Billy Hibbard, Sr., became known for his denial of divine foreknowledge. (See Randy L. Maddox, “Seeking a Response-Able God: The Wesleyan Tradition and Process Theology: in Thy Nature and Thy Name is Love, Bryan P. Stone, and Thomas Jay Oord, eds. (Nashville: Kingswood, 2001), 111-142.)
Genesis 18:21
A simple question:
In Gregory Boyd’s article “The Open View of The Future” he states that God is omniscient. I believe there are overwhelming passages that affirm this. However, if God is omniscient why does he have to find things out: Gen 18:20,21 (the outcry against Sodom)? Are there things he chooses not to know and, if he chooses not to know does this mean that he not omniscient?
John O’Bryan
Reply to John O’Bryan: That is a good question John, let me see if I can help you out here. First, you have hit upon a distinct subtly of open theology. You have asked, “why does he have to find things out?” A legitimate question if ever I heard one. You look to Sodom as your example, and I would point out in the same way one could look to Genesis where God looks for Adam and Eve in the garden calling out for them.
These are tough verses, Gen 3:8-9, Gen 11:5, and Gen 18:21, but I will take a crack at them. For the sake of time, let’s stick to one verse on this, I’ll choose Gen 18:21, “I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know.” Several things, first, notice that the entirety of chapter 18 shows Abraham in definite dialogue with God. God is physically present with Abraham, on earth, in some form of incarnation not at all dissimilar to God walking in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. Also notice that God is well aware of Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin. He is not in the dark and indeed has already developed a plan of action before he intends to go take a look. We see him deliberate as to weather he should share his plan with Abraham. Ultimately, for the sake of the relationship he has developed and hopes to continue to develop, he tells Abraham and they discuss it in similar fashion to Moses on Mount Sinai appealing to God to spare the Israelites from a much deserved fate.
But, the crux of your question really falls on verse 21 itself, He says he will go down and see if things are as bad as it seems. Now this is interesting, if you page down through the story, after the Lord leaves Abraham, it moves to Sodom and tells us of the two men who arrive and are taken in by Lot. Are these messengers of God? Certainly they claim to have the power to destroy all the city and say they are intent to do so. I would suggest that these men have come to “test” the people of Sodom one last time before destruction comes. There is precedent for this to draw on. If we look back to God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, we see another test. Clearly in both cases, God is well aware of all that has gone on before. God knew Abraham had obeyed him well in the past, he knew Abraham gathered Isaac up and headed out with full intention to sacrifice him. In fact, God knew each detail right up to the point that Abraham made the final choice to slay Isaac in God’s name. But, the text still claims it was a test so God could be certain that Abraham would not change his mind at the last minuet.
I would make the claim that Sodom is the same sort of issue. In this case God sends men (angels I presume) to interact with the city and see if the citizens might repent at the last moment. There is always a chance. Clearly God has already indicated to Abraham that he intends to give them one. This is the whole point of going down to see.
The entire book of Jonah is based on the very same principal. Judgment has been made on the city of Nineveh, but hey, who knows, they might repent at the last moment, so in goes Jonah.
Back to the issue at hand. If we take Gen 22:12, as our case study your question still stands when you ask “if God is omniscient why does he have to find things out,” in this case, if Abraham is truly devoted to God to the very end. Or in Sodom’s case, will they really try to kill, rape, or hurt these strangers, or will they repent and behave?
This all depends on how you want to define the word “omniscient.” Generally, people define it simply by saying, “God knows everything” and they are satisfied with that. But is this really adequate? What if we asked in return “well. . . what is there for God to know?” If I do not own a computer, and God is not aware I own a computer, is God’s knowledge limited because he is not aware of my non existent computer? Surely not! There is not computer for God to know about. But what about the future? If the future already exists, then God ought to know about it. But, if the future does not exist, it does not seem as though it would limit God’s knowledge if he were not aware of the future that does not exist.
Open theists often say, “God knows all there is to know” The question is simply, what is there for God to know, or not know. So, why does God “have to find things out?” He finds out things that don’t exist yet like your unmade choices and mine. In Genesis 22:12, Abraham had not made a final choice yet. Once he did, God knew the answer. And yet retains his omniscience.
Exodus 32
Ex 32 is often used to support the open view — after all, God changed his mind. The problem with this passage is that it proves too much. In this passage, Moses convinces or persuades God to change his intentions. A God who can be persuaded by a human to change his mind is a God who was either not fully aware of all the facts of the present situation and/or taken the wrong moral stance toward the situation. But it is impossible for God to not know all present facts (God is omniscient) or to have the wrong moral attitude toward any situation (God is perfect in character). So the open view proponents have to explain how a perfect God could have been persuaded by a finite human? It appears that the open view of God proponents will have to say that what appears to be going on between Moses and God did not really go on (the same thing the traditionalists are forced to say).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Link Between Open Theism and the Prosperity Gospel
The logic runs something like this:
1) As an open theist, I don’t believe that God is completely in control of the world.
2) Therefore, the bad things in my life come from Satan, who is sometimes able to “get the upper hand” on God. (This means that God is just as shocked, wounded, and confused by the tragedies in my life as I am. Some find this comforting…?)
3) Therefore, the good things in my life come from God, who is “on my side,” although He is not quite omniscient enough to give me all that I want all the time. (should I feel sorry for Him…?)
4) Therefore, God always wants good things (health and wealth) for me, while Satan wishes for evil (sickness and poverty). Sometimes one wins, sometimes the other wins.
5) Therefore, pushed to its logical conclusion, if I only pray hard enough, and fast long enough, and (in other ways) get enough spiritual energy together to help God conquer Satan, both myself and God will get our collective wish of attaining perfect health and wealth for myself.