Cited by 0Theology and Philosophy of EvilKarl Barth and Christian TheologyStudy and Philosophy of Religion

The Influence Aim Problem of Petitionary Prayer: A Cosmic Conflict Approach

Open access
Peckham, John C.·2020·Journal of Analytic Theology

Abstract

This article addresses the problem of whether petitionary prayer, aimed at influencing God, is consistent with the traditional Christian affirmations of divine omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. In this article, I first briefly articulate the problem of petitionary prayer, then briefly introduce and discuss some common approaches to resolving the problem. Finally, I introduce and discuss some implications of retrieving a cosmic conflict approach with rules of engagement as a possible avenue that warrants further consideration relative to the problem of petitionary prayer.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12978/jat.2020-8.0914021504-65

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Adams, Robert Merrihew. 1972. "Must God Create the Best?" Philosophical Review 81 (3): 317-32.
  2. Arnold, Clinton. 1992. Powers of Darkness: Principalities & Powers in Paul's Letters. IVP Academic.
  3. Barth, Karl. 2002. Prayer. 50th Anniversary Edition. Westminster John Knox.
  4. ________. 2018. "How Could Prayer Make a Difference?" European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 10 (2): 171-85.
  5. Heiser, Michael S. 2015. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Lexham Press.
  6. Pickup, Martin. 2018. "Answer to our Prayers: The Unsolved But Solvable Problem of 432 Petitionary Prayer." Faith and Philosophy 35 (1): 84-104.
  7. Stump, Eleonore. 1979. "Petitionary Prayer." American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (2): 81-91.
  8. Woznicki, Christopher. 2017. "Is Prayer Redundant? Calvin and the Early Reformers on the Problem of Petitionary Prayer." JETS 60 (2): 333-48.
  9. ________. 2018. "What Are We Doing When We Pray? Rekindling a Reformation Theology of Petitionary Prayer." Calvin Theological Journal 53: 319-43.

Authors
Peckham, J. C.
Affiliations
Andrews University (US)
Corresponding author
Peckham, John C.
Venue
Journal of Analytic Theology
Published
2020-09-21
Volume
8
Pages
412-432
ISSN
2330-2380 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3088190984
Cited by
0
References
37
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Analytic Theology (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - Andrews University (Andrews University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Theology and Philosophy of Evil
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Karl Barth and Christian Theology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
Keywords
petitionary prayer, divine omniscience, divine omnipotence, cosmic conflict, rules of engagement, divine attributes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review