 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Carefrontation: Family Matters | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2007 11:20 AM (GMT -6) |   | Here's something.
To begin...
I have TREMENDOUS, TREMENDOUS respect for my brother and heavy influence, Dr. John Piper.
I thank God for how the Kingdom has been built through Dr. Piper's ministry.
I believe in his allegience to Jesus and his Gospel...and his ministry has definitely developed my own lesser theologizing process.
Now...
Having said that....
I believe that I can say that his is despair is evident.
As was Jonathon Edwards. (The very man who said that God was PURE BEAUTY also preached "Sinners in the Hands of an ANGRY God!)
And when we are in despair...
sometimes we fall into the traps of FALSEHOOD.
There's one particular falsehood I'd like to deal with today.
Now...to start...
Dr. Piper had the math HALF-RIGHT.
Like Jonathon Edwards, he understood that the ground of genuine happiness HAD to be in God.
That if it weren't the case that ETERNAL God were the seat of happiness, there would be no certainty of it's continued existence and preservation.
That was right.
But he was quit inaccurate in a certain area.
An area that TWISTED things...
From my perspective, Dr. Piper neglected to truly CONSIDER the possible implications of God's aseity in his theology.
Truly.
From what I see, it's all over his theology.
Basically he interprets God "creating us for his glory" as meaning that God's happiness could ACTUALLY be dimished by activity in Creation...and so to prevent that from ever happening, God just meticulously controls everything.
Piper also makes it look like ALL God cares about is getting people to ACTIVELY PRAISE and ACCLAIM him. And that even LOVE is subservient to God's desire that everything glorify him.
So, even though any normal person would see great EGOISTIC (contra ALTRUISTIC) tendencies in this whole thing...
We are THEN told that God has the RIGHT to think of Himself over and above EVERYTHING ELSE.
Because he's God.
Now...
Stop right here.
THINK about PERFECT LOVE
PERFECTLY FREE LOVE
Does perfectly free love DEMAND that another person THANK THEM for "good" gifts given to them?
Does perfectly free love consider ONESELF before others...and actually only considers others as EXTENSIONS of the self?
Hmmm...
Is THAT what a God who says "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES" does?
I don't think so.
So what does that mean?
Let's keep moving...
I would like to submit that making a statement anything like...
God loves HIMSELF more than He loves YOU!
is an outright FALSEHOOD about the perfectly free, perfectly loving God.
Look at this...
This was done just LAST YEAR...August.
-------------------- "The ultimate ground of our joy is the fact that God's chief goal is to glorify himself forever.
John Piper writes in Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (p. 31):
God's saving designs are penultimate, not ultimate. Redemption, salvation, and resotration are not God's ultimate goal. These he performs for the sake of something greater: namely, the enjoyment he has in glorifying himself. The bedrock foundation of Christian Hedonism is not God's allegiance to us, but to himself.
If God were not infinitely devoted to the preservation, display, and enjoyment of His own glory, we could have no hope of finding happiness in him. But if he does employ all his sovereign power and infinite wisdom to maximize the enjoyment of his own glory, then we have a foundation on which to stand and rejoice.
This can be perplexing at first glance. Listen to John Piper discuss this more fully in the above audio link. Also, see especially the related link to the right for the message, "Is God for Us or for Himself?" ---------------- and in the "Is God for Us of for Himself" sermon. ------------------- "From beginning to end, the driving impulse of God's heart is to be praised for his glory. From creation to consummation his ultimate allegiance is to himself. His unwavering purpose in all he does is to exalt the honor of his name and to be marveled at for his grace and power. He is infinitely jealous for his reputation. "For my own sake, for my own sake I act," says the Lord. "My glory I will not give to another!"
My experience in preaching and teaching is that American evangelicals receive this truth with some skepticism if they receive it at all. None of my sons has ever brought home a Sunday school paper with the lesson title: "God loves himself more than he loves you." But it is profoundly true, and so generation after generation of evangelicals grow up picturing themselves at the center of God's universe."" --------------------------------- I will call this what I think it is. This is FALSEHOOD.This is a clear FALSEHOOD about God. (I am NOT condemning ANYONE or calling ANYONE a heretic!) I am just saying what is. The very idea that God loves HIMSELF more than US undercuts that idea that PERFECT LOVE is EVER OUTWARDLY FOCUSED! This is to say that Perfect Love is ULTIMATELY egoistic...which is NOT TRUE.It goes against Johannine concepts of agape and 1 Cor 13 stuff. But I'm willing to take disagreement... Can someone help me see how it is TRUE that God is SO DEPENDENT upon Creation for the satisfaction of his heart, that he MUST absolutely control EVERYTHING...and DEMAND attention from his Creation? More than this... Can someone help me see how the Cross demonstrates that "God loves Himself more than He loves us!"?Those things will help me. I am really willing to hear other perspectives. Otherwise, I contend that the belief that "God loves Himself more than he loves us" is NOT true. Again, Dr. Piper is my brother in New Humanity...and I still have tremendous respect for him, and I hope that he (and others) hear that I have tons of love for him in my heart. But I do think this is something for he and others to think about . Mad love to all. Especially to the Good Doctor himself. 
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
Therefore (YOU) go and introduce all peoples into the Way, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and intstructing them in following everything I have commanded you. (Great Commandments!)
And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/21/2007 2:18 PM (GMT -6) | | I think Piper would probably relieved to see, as Tom as said, that it need not be either/or. It can be both. It can be that BECAUSE God is omnicompetent, He can not but know that by pouring out His love, He will accomplish His greatest pleasure. And we DON'T have to assume that God is inwardly focused in such a way that He is always having to discursively convince Himself that His actions are truly in His own interest. Not at all. He can just KNOW that they are in His own interest by virtue of His own self-knowledge of His own competence. Hence, He can be outwardly-focused in terms of strategical implementation of love, without ever having to be oblivious to His own competence in bringing about universal bliss and joy. It's BOTH--not either/or.
I mean, isn't it that way with us? How many of us have to sit and do self-interest calculus in those areas where are character is sufficiently solidified? We just don't. We act with a completely outward focus. How many parents have to do self-interest calculus before risking life and limb for their children? We just don't. But in those areas where epistemic distance is great, we might give up supplication before proceeding in self-discipline.
This is what Christ did. For a moment, he couldn't help but wonder if there might be another way to accomplish God's purpose apart from the cross. But once he realized there was no other more fitting way, He humbly and TRUSTINGLY submitted himself to Him who is completely and competently interested in our highest good. This supplication was no indication of doubt or lack of love. It was simply the normal way a human, who thinks discursively, will approach an act of obedience that both requires great suffering and is NOT self-evidently necessary. But once God's will is sufficiently understood, there can be no further motive in perfect love to do other than obey.
I think the distinction between the eschatological (conditioned by fitting means) vs. the essential implementation of God's love is the very one that might help those, like Piper, who are trying to make sense of scriptures that say God is both Love AND that He will receive glory because of His love. It's all about seeing that it is BOTH rather than EITHER/OR. Once we do the EITHER/OR (and I've been there), one must dumb down "God is love" to mean less than is possible.
And the logical link that makes this all work, scripturally speaking, is the fact that God not only creates for Christ; but that He creates for Christ in such a way that the means-ends ORDER of creation must be maintained until Christ can become the beneficiary of creation in the manner that God committed Himself to. This means that freedom must be tolerated with all its ill effects until Christ has subected all things under his feet.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2007 2:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
It's all about seeing that it is BOTH rather than EITHER/OR. Once we do the EITHER/OR (and I've been there), one must dumb down "God is love" to mean less than is possible.
Completely agree. The problem is just saying that Perfect Love loves EVERYTHING perfectly. There is no more than or less than. But the reason that perfect love does this is because perfect love is not self-seeking. In other words, I'm saying that what GROUNDS the "both/and" is the PRIMARY aspect of love NOT LACKING ANYTHING. That's why Perfect Love is never egoistic. Talking about God's aseity helps with this.
But Piper makes Perfect Love SELF-SEEKING.
Perfect Love seeks what best for EVERYONE CONCERNED in a situation...simply because that's what love does.
That's not the same as "self-seeking".
But Piper is CLEAR that God IS ultimately and unchangably "self-seeking", even to the point of having to CONTROL ALL THINGS in order to get what God wants. And to the point of getting RIGHTEOUSLY ANGRY with sinners who DON'T give God his due glory!
That's egoistic, not altruistic.
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
Therefore (YOU) go and introduce all peoples into the Way, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and intstructing them in following everything I have commanded you. (Great Commandments!)
And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/21/2007 2:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Exousia: But Piper is CLEAR that God IS ultimately and unchangably "self-seeking", even to the point of having to CONTROL ALL THINGS in order to get what God wants. And to the point of getting RIGHTEOUSLY ANGRY with sinners who DON'T give God his due glory!
That's egoistic, not altruistic.
Jeff: I agree. But I suspect it is his interpretation of scripture that compels him to this dilemma. It did for me, too. Because, I didn't see how God's competence to make all volitional creatures pleasing to Himself could be reconciled with what I thought God's purpose was for creating volition under the conditions that He did. So long as I thought that volition was created under these conditions for the purpose of attaining His own satisfaction from it's proper use (i.e., proper voltional relating), I was stuck with the same incoherence Piper is stuck with.
Once I understood that volition could be created under current conditions for ANOTHER, that problem disappeared. It freed me, conceptually, to see even the very creation of freedom as disinterested in the proper sense of the word. Not disinterested in the sense that God gains no satisfaction from the satisfaction of ANOTHER, but disinterested in the sense that God ONLY gains satisfaction from the satisfaction of others!!
See the difference I'm talking about? This way He can never be zealous for His own satisfaction in the way that we can. Rather, He MUST be zealous for our interest to even BE satisfied. It's just another way of looking at it, but I think the logic works. I think Piper might be able to see how this can be consistent with scripture without jumping through hermeneutical hoops. It is certainly a more robust view of Christian hedonism, I think. And it's SO MOTIVATING!!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/21/2007 4:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | I've been thinking a bit more. I think I've come to see where you're coming from, D. Trying to understand God's self-disposing nature is a bit mystical as is trying to understand His perspective. In the same way that God knows without intellectual development, He is motivated without ever having to become solidified.
We speak of parental love as instinctual precisely because it seems to have no delevopmental history like other solidification does. But instinct is just another way of saying it's kind of inexplicable. In this same way, God's outward vs. inward loving perspective is somewhat inexplicable. We don't have an easy analogy for it any more than we do for parental instinct. It is SUI GENERIS.
With respect to anger, I think I see you're contention about the language. I think, on account of the above, that it's more proper to say that the objective of the intelligent direction of the impulse of anger is not resistance, per se, but RESTRAINT for the sake of another who is vulnerable in some way.
E.g., when Christ's glory is being postponed because of misrelation, he is vulnerable. There's nothing he can do but wait on the longsuffering of God to attain the objective of His reign. Likewise, God is vulnerable because He is constrained by the means necessary to obtain that objective. IOW, He can not restrain all misrelation without shutting down the whole project and thereby precluding the possibility of Christ's reigh. Hence, He forebears in vulnerability. It's kinda like what Lewis called the divine humility. He is vulnerable to misrelaters JUST LIKE WE ARE.
But restraint can be implemented in the form of resistance. I don't know if you follow me. But I hope I'm getting closer to your intuition.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/21/2007 3:13:36 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/21/2007 4:33 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2007 4:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
I've been thinking a bit more. I think I've come to see where you're coming from, D. Trying to understand God's self-disposing nature is a bit mystical as is trying to understand His perspective. In the same way that God knows without intellectual development, He is motivated without ever having to become solidified.
We speak of parental love as instinctual precisely because it seems to have no delevopmental history like other solidification does. But instinct is just another way of saying it's kind of inexplicable. In this same way, God's outward vs. inward loving perspective is somewhat inexplicable. We don't have an easy analogy for it any more than we do for parental instinct. It is SUI GENERIS.
With respect to anger, I think I see you're contention about the language. I think, on account of the above, that it's more proper to say that the objective of the intelligent direction of the impulse of anger is not resistance, per se, but RESTRAINT for the sake of another who is vulnerable in some way.
E.g., when Christ's glory is being postponed because of misrelation, he is vulnerable. There's nothing he can do but wait on the longsuffering of God to attain the objective of His reign. Likewise, God is vulnerable because He is constrained by the means necessary to obtain that objective. IOW, He can not restrain all misrelation without shutting down the whole project and thereby precluding the possibility of Christ's reign. Hence, He forebears in vulnerability. It's kinda like what Lewis called the divine humility. He is vulnerable to misrelaters JUST LIKE WE ARE.
But restraint can be implemented in the form of resistance. I don't know if you follow me. But I hope I'm getting closer to your intuition.
Dude, we are DEFINITELY on the same page with your stuff here!  EXCELLENT!!!!
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
Therefore (YOU) go and introduce all peoples into the Way, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and intstructing them in following everything I have commanded you. (Great Commandments!)
And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."
Post Edited (Exousia) : 1/21/2007 4:04:03 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/21/2007 5:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
Once I understood that volition could be created under current conditions for ANOTHER, that problem disappeared. It freed me, conceptually, to see even the very creation of freedom as disinterested in the proper sense of the word. Not disinterested in the sense that God gains no satisfaction from the satisfaction of ANOTHER, but disinterested in the sense that God ONLY gains satisfaction from the satisfaction of others!!
See the difference I'm talking about? This way He can never be zealous for His own satisfaction in the way that we can. Rather, He MUST be zealous for our interest to even BE satisfied. It's just another way of looking at it, but I think the logic works.
I do see the difference. God is perfect LOVE which means that God considers EVERYONE'S interest in God's sphere of influence. Good stuff, Jeff.
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
Therefore (YOU) go and introduce all peoples into the Way, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and intstructing them in following everything I have commanded you. (Great Commandments!)
And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/21/2007 5:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Exousia: Dude, we are DEFINITELY on the same page with your stuff here! 
Jeff: GREAT!! It's amazing. Like you've said before; by defending your own position, you can sometimes articulate things in a way where you enlighten your own self simply by thinking more discriminately and clearly!! That's what the parental instinct analogy did for me. This board is great. It's really been a great catalyst for us, ain't it?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/21/2007 5:10:02 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:12 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|