 |
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/3/2005 3:52 PM (GMT -6) |   | Ok...after this...I'm gone for real!
First read this...
The Happiness of God
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/83/091183.html
and this, if you where...
Chapter 1 of "Desiring God": The Happiness of God
http://www.desiringgod.org/dg/id6.htm
What I intend to show is that Doc and Dr. John Piper are NOT as far apart as they may want to seem...particularly when it comes to Christian Hedonism and when it comes to the glorification of God in evil.
First, I want to get to the heart of what I believe the BEDROCK FOUNDATION of John Piper's theology's all about.
Stating it VERY simply...God is happy. God is VERY happy. Why? There are two major reasons:
1) God finds infinite worth, value, and delight within Godself.
2) God is sovereign and free, meaning that God can do whatever thing proper to God that God wants to do. God's willing is subject ultimately to no one elses.
So, God is happy because:
--God really enjoys Godself
and...
--God can have whatever God wants.
Ok...
Now an implication of all of this, for Dr. Piper, is that WE can find total happiness in God in a sure ground BECAUSE God is completely happy. We wouldn't be able to have total happiness in God if God weren't totally happy. He says...
"Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases" ( Psalm 115:3). The implication of this text is that God has the right and power to do whatever makes him happy. That is what it means to say God is sovereign.
Think about it for a moment: If God is sovereign and can do any thing he pleases, then none of his purposes can be frustrated.
The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nought; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. ( Psalm 33:10-11 )
And if none of his purposes can be frustrated, then he must be the happiest of all beings. This infinite, divine happiness is the fountain from which the Christian Hedonist drinks and longs to drink more deeply.
Can you imagine what it would be like if the God who ruled the world were not happy? What if God were given to grumbling and pouting and depression like some Jack-and-the-beanstalk giant in the sky? What if God were frustrated and despondent and gloomy and dismal and discontented and dejected? Could we join David and say, "O God, thou art my God, I seek thee; my soul thirsts for thee; my flesh faints for thee, as in a dry and weary land where no water is" ( Psalm 63:1)?
I don't think so. We would all relate to God like little children who have a frustrated, gloomy, dismal, discontented father. They can't enjoy him. They can only try not to bother him, and maybe try to work for him to earn some little favor.
Therefore if God is not a happy God, Christian Hedonism has no foundation. For the aim of the Christian Hedonist is to be happy in God-to delight in God, to cherish and enjoy his fellowship and favor. But children cannot enjoy the fellowship of their father if he is unhappy. Therefore the foundation of Christian Hedonism is the happiness of God.
But the foundation of the happiness of God is the sovereignty of God: "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases." If God were not sovereign-if the world he made were out of control, frustrating his design again and again-God would not be happy.
Just as our joy is based on the promise that God is strong enough and wise enough to make all things work together for our good, so God's joy is based on that same sovereign control: He makes all things work together for his glory.
Dr. Piper even considers the issue of issue of God SUFFERING as well as being completely happy. He deals with it in a typical "greater good" fashion...
The other observation that helps me with this question is that God's attitude toward tragic events depends on the focus of the lens. God does not delight in pain and evil considered simply in themselves. When his lens is narrow and focused just on that, he can be filled with abhorrence and grief. But when he opens his lens to take in all the connections and effects of an event even to eternity the event forms part of a pattern or mosaic which he does delight in, and which he wills. For example, the death of Christ was the work of God the Father. "We esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted … It was the will of the Lord to bruise him and he has put him to grief "(Is. 53:4,10). Yet surely as God the Father saw the agony of his beloved Son and the wickedness that brought him to the cross, he did not delight in those things in themselves. Sin in itself and the suffering of the innocent in itself is abhorrent to God. But according to Hebrews 2:10 God the Father thought it was fitting to perfect the Pioneer of our salvation through suffering. God willed what he abhorred in the narrow view because in the broad view of eternity it was a fitting way to demonstrate his righteousness (Rom. 3:25f) and bring his people to glory (Heb. 2:10). When God in his omniscience surveys the sweep of redemptive history from beginning to end, he rejoices in what he sees. Therefore I conclude that nothing in all the world can frustrate the ultimate happiness of God. He delights infinitely in his own glory; and in his sovereignty he does whatever he pleases.
So, let's spell everything out.
God is supremely happy because 1) God finds infinite worth and delight in Godself and 2) God is sovereign to do whatever God wants. Given number 2, any pain that God experiences from Creation is, on the ultimate level, SELF-ALLOWED, and is mitigated by an OVERALL happiness that emerges from the painful events.
Ok.
Now, if we take this view...how is all this NOT compatible with the open view? It totally is. The ONLY difference that I'm seeing is that Piper wants to deny that the existence of beings that have relative ontological autonomy in Creation. Seriously. And he seems to do so for weird reasons. It seems to come clear in his sermon "Brothers, God is Love!"
God Is Love
God's love in no way conflicts with His holiness and righteousness. On the contrary, the very nature of God's holiness and righteousness demands the He be a God of love. His holiness is the absolute uniqueness and infinite value of His glory. His righteousness is His unswerving commitment always to honor and display that glory. And His all-sufficient glory is honored and displayed most by His working for us rather than our working for Him. And this is love.
Love is at the very heart of God's being because God's free and sovereign dispensing of mercy is more glorious than would be the demand for humans to fill up some lack in Himself. It is more glorious to give than to receive. Therefore, the righteousness of God demands that He be a giver. Therefore, the Holy and Righteous One is Love.
Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God's love. And when He came He said, "The Son of Man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45).
The Son of Man has not come seeking employees. He has come to employ Himself for our good. We dare not try to work for Him lest we rob Him of His glory and impugn His righteousness. The apostle Paul says, "Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. And to one who does not work but trusts Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:4-5). Even when we work out our salvation in fear and trembling, the only reason we can will to lift a finger is that God is the one "at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
Though Paul worked harder than any of the other apostles, he declares, "It was not I, but the grace of God which is with me" (! Cor. 15:10). Therefore, in Romans 15:18 he avows, "I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me." Paul is utterly convinced that no blessing in life is finally owing to man's willing or running, but to God, who has mercy (Rom. 9:16).
God aims to get all the glory in our redemption. Therefore He is adamant that He will work for us and not we for Him. He is the workman; we stand in need of His services. He is the doctor; we are the sick patient. We are the weak; He is the strong. We have the broken-down jalopy; He is the gifted mechanic. We must beware lest we try to serve Him in a way that dishonors Him, for He aims to get the glory. As Peter says (1 Peter 4:11), "Whoever renders service [let him render it] by the strength which God supplies: in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To Him belong glory and dominion forever and ever."
So God is love, not in spite of His passion to promote His glory, but precisely because of it. What could be more loving than the infinite, holy God stooping to work for us? Yet in working for us rather than needing our work, He magnifies His own glorious self-sufficiency. It is the stream that glorifies the fullness of the spring. And the stream that flows from God is love. If He ceased to seek His own glory He would be of no value to us. But, praise God, He is holy, He is righteous, and therefore, He is love.
In other words, God being loving is God giving of Himself out of grace to beings who are NOT worthy...and NOT receiving anything from those beings! Dr. Piper seems to come to the conclusion that saying that God could want an asymmetrical, yet mutually influential relationship with sentient creatures is an IMPLICIT declaration that God NEEDED the relationship for some reason...or that the relationship made up for SOME LACK in God's existence. Of course, this is surely NOT the case. It is completely intelligible to say that God made the free, SOVEREIGN choice to create beings with relative ontological autonomy because God simply WANTED asymmetrical, yet mutually influential relationship with his creations. No "need" or dysfunction needs to be postulated to account for this. What I'm dying to ask Piper is this:
1. Would it be within the scope of God's SOVEREIGN and free choice to create relatively autonomous beings with whom God could have an assymetrical, though mutually influential relationship? In other words, if God REALLY WANTED TO, would God be within His rights to create beings with real, yet bounded freedom?
and...
2. If it IS within God's rights to create beings with relative ontological autonomy, what would this look like? What would the God/world relationship look like? What impacts, if any, would this have on the idea of EXHAUSTIVE definite foreknowledge and/or EXHAUSTIVE predestination of all things?
Personally, I don't see how Dr. Piper could say NO to #1...not if truly believes God to be sovereign and free. Moreover, pondering #2 would, IMO, lead one necessarily towards some form of openness. I'm actually thinking about going over to Bethlehem Baptist and asking him this stuff face to face...but anyway...moving on...
********************
I would like to submit to Dr. Piper and Calvinists like him that openness theologians can be Christian Hedonists too!
Let's use Doc here. Let's see if he would qualify to be a Christian hedonist. Doc would have NO PROBLEM affirming that God finds infinite worth, value, and delight within Godself. He argues this passionately in his book, "Trinity and Process" [Digression: The similarities here between Doc and Dr. Piper are not a surprise at all. They both LOVE the theological prowess and insight of Jonathon Edwards and HEAVILY rely on this.] Doc would also agree that God's supreme happiness also comes from God's sovereign freedom to actualize reality as God wishes. This is ALSO in "Trinity and Process" Doc would also agree with Dr. Piper's MAIN PREMISE that we can only find our true happiness (fulness) in God BECAUSE God is the true source of happiness and fulness. Greg argues this masterfully, though distinctly, in the first couple chapters of his newest work, "Repenting of Religion" and in "Trinity and Process" where he talks about God being the ABSOLUTE CENTER of all love and life. Check this out. Doc would EVEN agree with Piper that even though God can feel pain and sorrow for PARTICULAR EVILS that God can feel great joy and pleasure about the OVERALL PROGRESSION of the Creation project...making the project "worth it" to God. (Remember, both Calvinism and the open/warfare worldview are greater good arguments...and THIS is where the similarity really shows up!)
Look at this! As far as the essential ideas behind Christian hedonism, Gregory Boyd and John Piper would COMPLETELY AGREE. They would NOT disagree on idea of all of reality being God-centered. They would NOT disagree on whether God was sovereign or not. Where they would disagree would be in the belief of whether or not God freely chose to create "free" beings!
Well, there is ONE MORE thing...God's glorification as it relates to EVIL and SUFFERING.
Dr. Piper would want to say that God is glorified in evil in the following way (following Jonathon Edwards):
The shining forth of God's glory would be INCOMPLETE if evil didn't exist. God's glory is inextricably linked with KNOWLEDGE of God. Without sin, we would not know God as Savior, Healer, Reconcilor, etc. In short, in order for creatures to TRULY COMPREHEND the beautiful facets of God, we'd need evil and sin to exist to see those facets. Here's the actual quote from Edwards...from one of Piper's sermons: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/03/021603.html
It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent [=radiant], that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . .
Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great . . .
So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect. (Jonathan Edwards, "Concerning the Divine Decrees," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), p. 528)
Now, personally, I think that there are a LOT of problems with this view. Namely, that it would end up making a necessary God/world relationship. (Doc also talks about this in "Trinity and Process" But for right now...let's just go with it.
Would it be possible for an open view theist to say that God can be glorified by being revealed in contradistinction to evil and sin? YES. Would it be possible to say that God had this IN MIND before Creation? YES. Would it be possible to say that this "glorification idea" was possibly ONE of the reasons that God created? YES. The only difference would be this...
Where Calvinists like Dr. Piper would say that the emergence of evil was UNCONDITIONALLY PLANNED...open view theists like Doc would way that the emergence of evil was an INEVITABLE (but not necessary) STATE OF AFFAIRS that would exist, given the scope of God's intentions for a love-filled Creation. To use an analogy, whereas Piper's view of God has a person actively orchestrating all car accidents JUST SO THAT he can help the people that have them, and demonstrate his medical skills...Doc's view of God would have car accidents as being INEVITABLE given a bunch of free people zooming around in cars...and the person being READY to help someone and demonstrate medical prowess in the inevitable event of an accident. See the difference? For Piper, God is ALWAYS the orchestrator of the evil and receiver of glory for working with the evil. For Doc, God is NOT always the orchestrator...but ALWAYS the receiver of glory for working with the evil.
********************
In conclusion, open view theists can...
1) be Christian hedonists like John Piper
and...
2) believe that God ANTICIPATED getting glory from evil and suffering in Creation
Thoughts?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/3/2005 4:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh...I do have one last similarity to note between Doc and Dr. Piper.
They are both terribly inconsistent about their so-called "God-centeredness."
Dr. Piper seems to be on the right track with a sermon I read. In it, he basically makes a very USEFUL distinction where he asks the question: Do we love God BECAUSE he's full of grace...or do we appreciate grace because it allows us to to get to the God we love? What it comes down to is simply this: Is God truly revered JUST BECAUSE of who he is...or because of HOW WE SEE HIM or WHAT HE GIVES US. It's a damn good question.
But...
Both Piper himself and Doc seem to fail this test. Wanna know how? Simple. Both theologians feel like each other's "God" (represented in their different theologies) is NOT WORTHY OF WORSHIP! Doc thinks Piper's God is too micromanaging, insecure, and overbearing. Dr. Piper thinks God is too loosey-goosey, weak, and emotionally unstable. So what they do is effectively say the following:
If God is like the way YOU describe...then I don't want anything to do with God.
But doesn't this seem foolish for a GOD-CENTERED perspective??? By definition, a God-centered perspective would have God as their supreme good...and WHATEVER that God decided to do with Creation would be honored. In other words, a truly God-centered perspective who believed in God's utter sovereignty would allow God to be God...HOWEVER God was.
By Doc saying what he says, it's obvious that Doc values the LOVE of God more than God himself. By Dr. Piper saying what he says, it's obvious that he values the HOLY POWER of God more than God himself. Now both will say this ain't true...because love and holy power are a part of God's essential existence.
Well, so is God's exercise of grace. But the Piper's point is still valid DESPITE THIS. It is possible to seek the self-percieved characteristic traits of a person and how those traits affect us...NOT necessarily respecting the FREEDOM of that person to be as they may will...and accepting them on their OWN terms.
I think that both Doc and Dr. Piper fall into this trap.
Just my opinion.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 2/3/2005 5:22 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Meph,
Good work man. I agree with your first post especially. I read Desiring God in college and I thought it was great. As an Open Theist I would affirm most of what Piper says in Desiring God -- I think I had already developed most of the principles of Christian Hedonism from reading CS Lewis.
Want to make some comments on what you have to say in your second post when I get a little time tonight.
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 2/3/2005 11:57 PM (GMT -6) | | I really don't see how we can conclude from the whole testimony of scripture that God is supremely happy. I think there's simply too much grieving, repenting, sorrowing, and mourning by God that's revealed in scripture for us to reasonably conclude that God is "happy."
So, God is happy because:
--God really enjoys Godself
and...
--God can have whatever God wants.
This seems to leave out the rather obvious fact that God is NOT happy when any of his children goes astray, He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and that there is great JOY in heaven over ONE sinner that repents.
That said, I can see how a universalist (or another other kind of determinist) could reasonably buy into the idea that God is supremely happy. But talk about a sadistic beast that is not worthy of worship!
For the joy that was set before him, he endured the cross, despising its shame.
He takes NO pleasure in the death of the wicked.
These glaringly plain facts of scripture defeat the idea (or perhaps it is just an assumption within Piper's sermon) that because God does as He pleases, everything that happens pleases Him, and He is therefore always happy.
I'll never forget hearing a WoFer one time preach that because "God is always happy," we should be. I honestly wondered if this joker had even read Genesis 6.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 2/4/2005 12:17:44 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/4/2005 10:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi-
Good stuff Bro. I argued a long time ago that believing God is the ultimate worth, that God knows this, that God takes ultimate glory and pleasure in his own worth (a reason why WE cannot possess even by derivation a worth equal to that of God), and that our well-being and joy are found in affirming and displyaing the glory of God. I'm totally cool with this. In THIS sense Piper and Doc aren't different sides of the same coin, they're the same side of the same coin. The whole quesiton had to do with 'what glorifes God' and the conditional/unconditional creation has to possess if certain divine goals are to be met. I'd only point out too that a) for determinists, God always in every sense of the word gets what God wants while this is not the case in open theism, and b) our understandings of God "allowing" evil are quite different really. In fact, if you recall, Piper wrote an article after 9/11 entitled "Why I do NOT say 'God allowed 9/11'." Consistent determinists abhore the notion of God's "allowing" evil. Together with other differences, I think Piper and Doc and not two sides of the same coin, they're not even spending the same currency.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 2/4/2005 9:18:14 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:04 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 |
|
|