 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/9/2005 7:11 PM (GMT -6) |   | Quote: "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him."
I have to run to catch up -- probably can't.
I'd ask "What is Glorified." Calvin wrote of God's glories as being His energies at work. Following that trail, glorified might portray God's creation including mankind filled with God in a way that completes their created purposes. I must say that I like that.
God-shaped hole (Augustine?)
Man = Creature created to find completion in the uncreated and infinite.
Turning from the infinite to trying to find fulfilment in the finite, but only finds the addiction of needing more and profiting less = Sin.
Common sense = the basketball gets pumped up best when the valve is best engaged.
Seems fine.
(Jump ball?) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/9/2005 10:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: (emphases mine)
You know what I’m thinking Mephi. I’m thinking that this effectively entails the denial of God’s freedom, for God is not free (in Edwards' thinking—it’s “not proper” of divinity) to not determine all that’s necessary for the realization of every logically possible manner in which God’s glory and majesty may be revealed. The whole assumption is wrong (in my view). Why must we assume this? Why must we assume that it’s improper for history to come and go and some possible exercise of divine power go unrealized, unspent? I wonder really if Edwards truly believed God was free not to create at all, for this would entail unrealized aspects of God’s glory. If God is free not to create at all (and so not to reveal any aspects of his glory), surely God is free to create without having to reveal every possible worship-inspiring aspect of who he is
Very, very perceptive, Tom. But I shouldn't have been surprised! You are exactly right! When you work everything out, Edwards' ideas end up positing a necessary God-world relationship. Doc even mentions this in "Trinity and Process." Edwards' just kind of makes an ad-hoc adherence to an more orthodox view. But if Edwards were to be totally consistent with his own thesis, he would have to say that Creation was NECESSARY for God's glorification to be maximized and that Creation wasn't free. Good catch, Tom!
This is why I don't go all the way with Edwards' ideas. He was VERY intelligent and had some great ideas...but his consistency wasn't all the way there.
****************************
Tom:(emphasis mine)
I see your point. But given this assumption then, how many souls need to be predetermined for hell (even assuming its temporary) in order to simply reveal the “aspect” of judgment on sin? Looks like overkill to me.
I guess if you’re into attempting to show how Piper may be inconsistent given Piper’s own system, fine. I’m not into that especially since I don't buy the assumptions, but I’m happy to turn you lose on him!
That's pretty much the point. Dr. Piper's inconsistency is truly within his own system. And you know how I am about inconsistency. Grrrr....
***************************
Mephi: Even though Doc talks about the glory of God, he only really speaks of it in terms of what we see in the New Testament in Jesus. Here, Doc's christocentrism becomes a little bit like neo-Marcionism, in my opinion.
Tom: Count me in. I can’t think of anything more unbiblical for Edwards to do than to remove Christ from the center and replace him with his own assumed notion of what it means to be glorious. I think Jesus was right: “If you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father.” Christ really IS the glory of God. He really is the ultimate authority for our understanding of who God is. I’d never think of attempting to interpret the OT apart from Christ. I’m saying enough here to complicate things and not to solve anything, sorry. I just want to register my hopelessly Christocentric view of EVERYTHING. I’ll sink or swim with that.
1) In defense of Edwards, he was anything but unbiblical. He never removed Christ as being the absolute Word of God. And he never would have denied that Christ is the glory of God. What he did was look at a heavy theme in scripture, being God's glory, and expounded on that. I don't agree with everything that Edwards' says (obviously), but at the same time, I don't think it's accurate OR fair to say that Edwards' was unbiblical. Inconsistent? Yes. Unbiblical? Not on your life. Ask Doc about that. Jonathon Edwards is one of his favorite theologians.
2) To be truly Christocentric is to take the Old Testament very seriously. Why? Because Christ did. Remember. Pretty much the MAIN REASON why Doc gives a damn about the Old Testament is because Jesus conveyed a large amount of authority to it, even as he reinterpreted aspects of it. In Doc's mind, if Jesus is the Son of God, and he authorizes the OT as being authoritative, then that holds mad weight. This is a PART of being "christocentric" And this is a healthier way of doing so...than ending up like Marcion!
"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 | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/10/2005 4:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, M-E.
Interesting little couplet, for man (created a little lower than the angels...), both as 'creature' and as 'created for the infinite.' And 'created' yet 'open to eternity.' | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/10/2005 6:09 PM (GMT -6) | | | So, God makes a world where sin has to exist, because if He doesn't not all of His glory will be revealed.
God makes the world, destines some to hell because this is fitting with his reason for having predestined sin in the first place; someone has to be there to fulfill it's purpose: to glorify God.
People are in hell either eternally, thus constantly glorifying God, or they are not there eternally, thus glorifying God even better than what they were while in hell.
I don't know, but something really doesn't smell too good in Denmark!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/10/2005 6:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | S-, Is that just a reading of the word "glorify" that fits the modern age? Why use it? | | Back to Top | | |
|
GODesteem
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 2/20/2005 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Back from the dead? :c)
Hey Tom... don't know what led me back into this. "Happened" to notice Piper's name, and had to read. Makes me wonder if you all have too much time on your hands, but let me say that this is definitely intriguing stuff! I really don't have much time anymore for long discussions, with an ever growing family (third child is on the way!) and many restless nights. But let me make a few quick comments, and hopefully I can expand a little as soon as possible!
You wrote (in response to some of Jonathan Edwards words):
"Tom: Duh. So maybe creation isn’t about God exhausting every possible manner in which his worth and glory may be revealed (which is Edwards’ whole assumption). If even one possible aspect of God’s worth and glory goes unrevealed (that is, if creation does not exhaustively reveal all there is to reveal about God—all of which would surely redound to his glory), then the whole house of cards falls. But do we really want to claim that in the end God will have revealed all there is to reveal about Godself? I don't."
Godesteem: Actually, Edwards wrote quite a bit about heaven, and it turns out that Edwards believes that we will have ever increasing joy in heaven, because God will take an eternity to "exhaustively reveal all there is to reveal about GOD." Our vapourous pilgrimage on this earth is but a drop in the ocean.
"Edwards: 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.
Tom: This is a crock of **. Our finitenss alone constitutes our need of God’s grace and goodness and so provides all the reason we need to realize that grace and goodness. Sin isn’t necessary to this."
Godesteem: Thanks for the editing. My confusion rests in what your definition of "grace" and "goodness" entails?!?
"Edwards: 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.
Tom: Of course our knowledge of God will always be imperfect. We will never plum the depths of God and understand all there is to know about him. Does Edwards really believe we’ll know all there is to know about God? I’m sure our knowledge of God will be as perfect as glorified finiteness will permit. I’m sure the intimacy will be genuine and true. But will our understanding “contain” God? Is God containable? Will our praise of God really exhaust his worth and glory leaving nothing about God unrevealed and no truth about him unrealized? I don’t think so. So in the end Edwards’ God (in my view) will not have revealed all there is to reveal about God (and so not all there is to glorify him for), in which case there’s no reason to argue God MUST reveal any particular number of “aspects” about himself at all. Something is required surely if we are to know him. But is everything required? If it’s not, then Edwards can’t argue that a ceiling or limit to the number of truths God must reveal about himself."
Godesteem: Not quite following you here. When Edwards talks about "imperfect knowledge", he is simply referring to the "facets" of God's nature and character. You rightly stated that "we will never plum the depths of God and understand all there is to know about him." Yet I do not see any evidence that Edwards is trying to argue for a "ceiling or limit to the number of truths God must reveal about himself." In fact Edwards is trying to expand the number of truths, and points more towards how (as I previously alluded to above) God will spend forever revealing himself to us, where our joy will increase forever as well.
Good talking with you again.... while I certainly enjoy Edwards, I have read little of him - takes me hours just to get through a few pages of his writings! Something I should delve more into though.... thanks for the indirect promotion, and maybe I will stumble onto more of his words to this "dilemma"...
God loves Himself more than anything... He is our greatest treasure! | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 2/22/2005 9:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | I'm not convinced that pipers theses are inconsistent, I think that there are ways of reconciling them; the things is that we when thinking through this take all of humanity as our natural starting point - but what if you start instead of with them with 'the elect' and then suggest that the elect are more satisfied in God if they have the benefit of seeing his wrath/judgment against those who are not elect displayed? | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 2/22/2005 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | |
I didn't take it as "unloving." Sometimes a crock of **** is just a crock of ****. 
Love,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 3/18/2005 4:11 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Hey Meph,
Check out Piper’s sermon on Job, you might find some additional fuel to flame the “universalism” fire. http://desiringgod.org/library/sermons/85/080485.html
Job 42:7-17
Neither bad theology nor good theology gives us the knowledge of God which changes a person's heart. "Taste and see that the Lord is good!" (Psalm 34:8). There is a knowledge that only comes through tasting. Five seconds of honey on the tongue will show you more sweetness than ten hours of lectures about the sweetness of honey. "Taste and see that the Lord is good." Until God gives you a taste of his goodness all the theology in the world will not give you a knowledge of his goodness that changes your heart and saves your soul.
When Elihu was finished speaking the truth to Job, Job said nothing. Only after God spoke (in chapters 38-41) did Job say, "I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee" (42:5). When God himself came to Job and spoke and took the initiative to make himself known to Job, Job tasted God! And his eyes were opened.
Now Job has a new sense of God's reality. It is more than intellectual or speculative knowledge. It is the knowledge of the heart. He has tasted. And now he sees. And the result is a broken and changed man.
Shalom,
Mark
 "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 3/18/2005 5:27:22 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
D.R.
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 13
| Posted 3/25/2005 12:22 AM (GMT -6) | | As a Piperite, I realize that much of what Piper says flows from a heart of absolute desire to reconcile the scriptures with the character of God that He sees in them. Hence, Piper (as well as I) see that God is seen as Something of great worth when we are completely satisfied in Him and nothing else. No one I imagine would argue with this, especially if you have seen that first hand in a person's life. And what I think Piper is trying to do is not so much make a theological propositon as to make a maxim for our own striving. Though Piper is a hard-determinist he would say that we should STRIVE to seek God and that we should ACT in order to make Him our treasure. That follows logically with his view of salvation (which we do not have time to get into). Therefore, when we STRIVE to be satisfied in God we glorify Him as much as we possibly can. At the end of the day, we look at Philippians 2 and say "God was willing it to be and thus He gets the glory," but in the midst of it, we seem to be the ones striving. Thus God is shown to be most glorified in our lives to others (God is most glorified IN US . . . ) when we are most satisfied in him. At least that is the way I take it . . . as a means of exhortation. I do have Calvinistic friends who do oppose Piper on this point, however, but I do think he is at least on to something even it if doesn't quite make sense in our finite minds. Now I realize the way I explained that is not how he sets it up in the book, but I do think that is how he lives it out.
Secondly, I would like to say that there has been no creedance given to the idea of God's work on this earth being done for a future glorification that will outweigh what we see through our own eyes now. What I mean by this is that the maximization of God's glory may not be done on earth and in the immediate afterlife, but may be a process that continues indefinately. Therefore, what we see as a lack of maximization now may indeed prove to be only the beginnings of what God may do in the eternal future, so we shouldn't be so quick to say "maximization has to come this way or that." In the end I don't think you can prove Calvinism to be wrong (or even Open-Theism for that matter) on the basis of peripheral (to the logical end) conclusions. It can only be examined in light of exegetical work. That is why I ascribe to Calvinism. It, to me, makes the most sense when all the exegetical data is laid out side by side, not because determinism looks better than openness as a philosophical system. As one of my professors in Seminary said, "No one in their right mind would ever dream up a God that is like that of Calvinism, unless they got it from somewhere." Trust me, if it were not for the Word of God and my belief that it comprises one single God and not a dualistic or schizo God, then I be an open theist as well.
And whatever you might say about Piper or Edwards, these are two men who dug deep and have given their all. You cannot say one bad thing about John Piper no matter what. What he has done for college students and young adults like me in loving God with all my heart and what he is doing with his church and his life for the sake of missions will be remembered until Christ comes back. He will go down in history with George Mueller, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitfield, and a host of others, if for nothing more than his passionate love for God which should both shame and encourage us all.
And I don't know if it was just a tongue-in-cheek comment made by the person before who had the meeting with Piper who said she (I guess) said before she left that her intention was to finish her M.Div and go on to be a woman preacher, but if it was true, I do not know a better example of a clash of arrogance (on her part for making such a jerk comment to a man who gave his time) and humility (on his part for holding his tongue and being gracious). So please someone tell me that was just a bad joke.
In the end, I pray that whichever position is wrong those who hold it will repent, because God knows it is desperately important that we know the true character of God.
D.R. | | Back to Top | | |
|
VisitingAgain
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 3/25/2005 1:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | Hi D.R., I am neither Calvinist nor Open Theist but I fully agree with you about John Piper. What an intelligent, godly, highly-respected man! Actually I was not really familiar with him until I heard of Open Theism. When I did a little research, I discovered just what you said about Piper being a man who has "dug deep" and given his all and also who will "go down in history" with Mueller and others. One thing I found when I looked at his books and read some about him is how HIGHLY respected he is among other Christians, and it is only among Open Theists that I have ever seen such negative (negative bordering on mockery) things about him. I suppose because he is so outspoken against Open Theism (which is something I appreciate and respect). I really am not extremely familiar with all of his theology but I've read some things at his websites and from his books that have blessed and helped me. Oh, and I did visit his church before. I had been attending another church (won't name names here) and I remember when I visited his church, I felt like a starving person eating at a feast! I felt like I was really getting fed with good, solid meat, and I knew deep in my spirit... well, I had a very strong desire to attend that church, but had family members that were open theist and literally pouted the whole time they were there and treated me like cr** because I liked John Piper and decided to reject Open Theism. And that's a whole other story, but I enjoyed reading your post and wanted to comment. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/25/2005 9:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Well. Isn't this interesting...
D.R:
As a Piperite, I realize that much of what Piper says flows from a heart of absolute desire to reconcile the scriptures with the character of God that He sees in them.
and...
And whatever you might say about Piper or Edwards, these are two men who dug deep and have given their all. You cannot say one bad thing about John Piper no matter what. What he has done for college students and young adults like me in loving God with all my heart and what he is doing with his church and his life for the sake of missions will be remembered until Christ comes back. He will go down in history with George Mueller, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitfield, and a host of others, if for nothing more than his passionate love for God which should both shame and encourage us all.
about Dr. Piper.
I think I've said this before, but I'll say it again. I do tremendously respect Dr. Piper as a intelligent, biblically-astute person who is CRAZY passionate about Jesus and his glory. Though I disagree with some of his theological stances and some of the manners in which he has opposed open view theism, I respect and honor him as a fellow servant of the Living Triune God...and think that he's a great asset to the Kingdom of God. None of these very true accolades prevents to ardent believers from disagreeing. And that's what happening here.
**************************
D.R.:
Hence, Piper (as well as I) see that God is seen as Something of great worth when we are completely satisfied in Him and nothing else. No one I imagine would argue with this, especially if you have seen that first hand in a person's life. And what I think Piper is trying to do is not so much make a theological propositon as to make a maxim for our own striving. Though Piper is a hard-determinist he would say that we should STRIVE to seek God and that we should ACT in order to make Him our treasure. That follows logically with his view of salvation (which we do not have time to get into). Therefore, when we STRIVE to be satisfied in God we glorify Him as much as we possibly can. At the end of the day, we look at Philippians 2 and say "God was willing it to be and thus He gets the glory," but in the midst of it, we seem to be the ones striving. Thus God is shown to be most glorified in our lives to others (God is most glorified IN US . . . ) when we are most satisfied in him. At least that is the way I take it . . . as a means of exhortation. I do have Calvinistic friends who do oppose Piper on this point, however, but I do think he is at least on to something even it if doesn't quite make sense in our finite minds. Now I realize the way I explained that is not how he sets it up in the book, but I do think that is how he lives it out.
about D.R.s explantation of Dr. Piper
Even if what D.R. says about Piper's thought being more of a praxeological maxim than a theological assertion is true, it is STILL the case that the praxeological maxim would be based upon an IDEA that spans larger than the maxim itself. The fact remains that for the maxim to be workable, it must be the case that a person who strives with all intensity to be satisfied in God truly does bring more glory to God and show more of God's glory to others than they would otherwise. And NONE of this changes the idea that God always seeks the maximization of God's own glory. If this is the case, then the theological assertion remains true. See, it's the PRINICIPLE that makes the MAXIM accurate, when carried out.
*****************************
D.R.
Secondly, I would like to say that there has been no creedance given to the idea of God's work on this earth being done for a future glorification that will outweigh what we see through our own eyes now. What I mean by this is that the maximization of God's glory may not be done on earth and in the immediate afterlife, but may be a process that continues indefinately. Therefore, what we see as a lack of maximization now may indeed prove to be only the beginnings of what God may do in the eternal future, so we shouldn't be so quick to say "maximization has to come this way or that."
about D.R.s Ideas on Glory Maximization.
Your point doesn't really touch the crux of my argument. My point is simply that if the PRINCIPLE behind Dr. Piper's "maxim" (We'll go with that for now) is true, then it stands to reason that God will get the maximum amount of glory from Creation if ALL sentient beings end up finding complete satisfaction in God...and displaying that satisfaction to each other and to God. It's logic, man.
****************************
D.R.
In the end I don't think you can prove Calvinism to be wrong (or even Open-Theism for that matter) on the basis of peripheral (to the logical end) conclusions. It can only be examined in light of exegetical work. That is why I ascribe to Calvinism. It, to me, makes the most sense when all the exegetical data is laid out side by side, not because determinism looks better than openness as a philosophical system. As one of my professors in Seminary said, "No one in their right mind would ever dream up a God that is like that of Calvinism, unless they got it from somewhere." Trust me, if it were not for the Word of God and my belief that it comprises one single God and not a dualistic or schizo God, then I be an open theist as well.
Take this however you want. I truly believe that if a Calvinist were REALLY to see how much power God actually CAN HAVE in open view theism to unilaterally act...and God's ability to ordain certain things to occur...then they may not feel so bad. What people need to understand is this. Within open view theism, there is a CONTINUUM of providential ability that God can be said to have. If a open theist wanted to, they could believe that God micromanages a VAST AMOUNT of creation by God's own directives. If a open theist wanted to, they could believe that God only micromanages the bare minimum it takes to keep things together and give Creation maximal freedom. Me, personally? I fall somewhere in between. I don't believe that God is in absolute control of ALL THINGS that occur anymore...but I do think that God has far MORE CONTROL than many open view theists give God credit for.
Basically, what I'm saying is that a person could take all the exegetical arguments about God's "sovereignty" in the bible very seriously as an open view theist.
"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 | | |
|
D.R.
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 13
| Posted 3/28/2005 4:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph,
I think you make some good point regarding the logic of Piper's argument. Still, I do think there is something to be said for maximization coming not with the present age, but in the future. So Piper's arguement would be stated as such
God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.
God will maximize His glory in all aspects.
God's maximization of His glory is not relegated to the Earthly (physical) world, but also includes maximization that will occur in judgment and in the doling out of rewards in heaven.
The rewards (or lack thereof) in heaven based one God's work in each man's life is in itself a tool for the maximization of God's glory.
Therefore, what God, through believing men, does not accomplish in the maximization of His glory on Earth, will be completed in heaven through the judgment and the offering of rewards in heaven.
Hence, my argument above was that you were requiring God to maximize His glory on this side of heaven if Piper's maxim was true. However, that is not necessary if we insert the idea that heaven is the true and eternally-planned arena for the maximization of God's glory. That is why I felt it did indeed speak to your position. I just may not have explained it as well as I should have. And so hopefully what I have explained in the above will now qualify to you as logic, man.
D.R. | | Back to Top | | |
|
D.R.
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 13
| Posted 3/28/2005 4:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah,
I don't know if you withdrew your post regarding Piper's arrogance or if the moderator did, but I wanted to respond to it nonetheless. You argued that Piper was the arrogant one because he was against women pastors and because he told couples who lost children that God's sovereign will was behind it and that they should rest and take comfort in that. Further, you suggested that those views were damaging to people. If I have misquoted you, please repost your original comments, if you can.
1. On the arguement that Piper is arrogant BECAUSE he opposes women pastors, I believe that is really bad logic. I don't know what type of fallacy it would be, but it has to be one. Regardless of your view on this subject, which we can discuss as a separate topic, simply holding a position does not mean that you are arrogant. I could flip that right back on you and say that because you are for women pastor's you are arrogant (or cessationalism, or open-theism, or calvinism, or any of a hundred other amoral positions). I have never heard of Piper going to a church and standing outside and protesting their woman pastor. In fact, if you read his opening statements in Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, he is rather cordial toward those of the opposite position.
2. I think the above logic applies to the second charge of arrogance as well, since it deals with a theology and a way of counseling. Additionally, John Piper has 20+ years of pastoral counseling experience. I think he knows how to deal with his congregation. Besides, if you ever read the comments back to him from those grieving parents, I think you would see that he has plenty of positive reinforcement for continuing his line of counseling. His methods are also approved by a whole wing of Christian counseling, who ask him to write for their journal often.
3. To the charge that he hurts people with his views, that as well could be lobbed back at open theism. I have heard stories of people who were involved in churches who told them that God couldn't do anything to help their loved one, or couldn't prevent a death and they have turned away from Him citing His lack of power. In the end, no matter what you say to someone about God, many will reject and be hurt because that is not what they want to hear. Jesus could be charged with the same accusation, for He turned many away with His words (even those who wanted to follow Him, but did not want to pay the price).
You seem angered by this man and for that I am sorry. But I assure you that he has never meant to hurt you personally. But please do not attack his character simply because he holds to positions that he and much of historic Christianity have for centuries. Sin, not theology, in the end is what causes arrogance.
D.R. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/29/2005 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | DR:
Hence, my argument above was that you were requiring God to maximize His glory on this side of heaven if Piper's maxim was true. However, that is not necessary if we insert the idea that heaven is the true and eternally-planned arena for the maximization of God's glory. That is why I felt it did indeed speak to your position. I just may not have explained it as well as I should have. And so hopefully what I have explained in the above will now qualify to you as logic, man.
Not so, D.R. My argument doesn't necessitate the glory maximization to ONLY occur this side of heaven. Actually, I take the opposite line. For God to be most fully glorified would ENTAIL some form of post-mortem, post-judgement universal reconciliation. Why? Because, using your ideas, God not only gets to reveal Godself in a distinctive way through God's judgement (and corresponding allocation of rewards), but God ALSO gets the maximal NUMERICAL amount of sentient beings finding ultimate satisfaction in God after that judgement.
The only way that I see out of this whole thing for Dr. Piper is to say that it is NOT true as a principle that God is most glorified in sentient beings when that are most satisfied in God. Why? Because, if he held to the idea of predestined eternal conscious punishment of sentient beings, he'd HAVE to say that for at least ONE BEING God is most glorified in sentient beings when they are NOT most satisfied in God. This ends in contradiction. It's just like Tom said...
You can’t believe both…
a) God determines all things with a view to maximizing his glory (including eternal conscious torment)
and
b) God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in him.
(a) entails the belief that all states of affairs actually DO maximally glorify God (or are the necessary means to that end). (b) admits that for sentient beings such as ourselves, being most satisfied in God is the state of affairs which most glorifies God. Any other state of affairs would diminish God’s glory.
One cannot consistently affirm both. It can’t be true that God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in him AND that God unconditionally determines with a view to maximizing that glory that the vast majority not be satisfied in him.
Now, it is possible to conceive of a completely predesinated situation where there is post-mortem, post-judgement universal reconciliation...and THIS goes along with the core of Dr. Piper's good idea.
What do you think, D.R.?
"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 | | |
|
D.R.
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 13
| Posted 3/29/2005 1:25 PM (GMT -6) | | | Ok, Meph,
Your point would be well taken if the "us" Piper refers to is all people. But I guarantee it is not. If Piper does say that then I would agree that it is inconsistant, but I don't think that he could or would say that, since his view is that sinful people do not glorify God except in receiving common grace, in acts that they were completely unaware of, or in final destruction. That final destruction maximizes God's glory because it reveals His distain for, His absolute separation from, and His need to punish SIN in order for the elect to enter His rest. Then your view of universalism would be less glorifying to God because in the end He would show that sin could be eradicated some other way than through the cross and faith (as in men paying for their own sin, which would take an eternity -- which is why I believe in eternal hell). So if you look at it like this,
a) God is most glorified in us (the elect) (in our earthly states) when we are most satisfied in Him.
b) God is about maximizing His glory,
c) God can use rewards in heaven and eternal revealing to the saints for the purpose of maximization
d) God uses the eternal destruction of the wicked to maximize His glory by showing His hatred of sin and its dishonor to a Holy God.
Then (a) is only a means, just as (c) and (d) are (by the way please excuse my sloppy and improperly organized argument, it's been too long since I actually worked a properly worded argument out) as well in order to accomplish (b).
What is wrong with that solution?
D.R. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/29/2005 2:19 PM (GMT -6) | | D.R.:
Your point would be well taken if the "us" Piper refers to is all people. But I guarantee it is not. If Piper does say that then I would agree that it is inconsistant, but I don't think that he could or would say that, since his view is that sinful people do not glorify God except in receiving common grace, in acts that they were completely unaware of, or in final destruction. That final destruction maximizes God's glory because it reveals His distain for, His absolute separation from, and His need to punish SIN in order for the elect to enter His rest. Then your view of universalism would be less glorifying to God because in the end He would show that sin could be eradicated some other way than through the cross and faith (as in men paying for their own sin, which would take an eternity -- which is why I believe in eternal hell).
When you say "sinful people", I'm taking it that you mean "those who are not elect". And let's make sure we keep this parallel with Piper's statement. So, you'd say...
God is most glorified in non-elect sentient beings when they are NOT most satisfied in God.
This has to be the case. Why? Because if a person were to hold to your view, they'd have to say that those who experience eternal damnation are INSTRUMENTAL in maximizing God's glory by way of being "vessels of wrath." God gets glory out of those sentient beings NOT being most satisfied in God...in order THAT God may judge them.
Now, this oughta give us some pause. In order for God's glory in Creation to reach it's optimum level, it must be the case to EFFECTIVELY DENY an essential tenet of what Piper (and Jonathon Edwards) constitutes as a fundamental orientation of ALL beings to the reality of God. Think about it. Christian hedonism says that the ultimate satisfaction and center of worth for ALL SENTIENT BEINGS including God is God Godself. Creaturely joy is based off of the facts that 1)God is the ultimate locus of joy and 2) God realizes that fact and rejoices in Himself. In this way, God is to be an EXEMPLIFICATION of creaturely relationship to God. To be an existent sentient being is to be a being who 1) seeks HAPPINESS and 2) finds their ultimate satisfaction in God and brings glory to God in seeking their own happiness. NO sentient being is supposed to be exempt from this principle, including God. Christian hedonism is BASED upon this idea.
But this very crucial idea has to be effectively NEGATED in order to posit that God's glory in a being can be maximized by them NOT being most satisfied in God. This should be sending up red flags all over the place. You have fundamentally ANTI-God sentient beings instrumentally maximizing God's glory AS anti-God beings IN their anti-God orientation. This doesn't make sense, dude.
ANd another thing. If NO ONE can truly know who the elect are (as I'm sure that you will grant), the maxim DEFINITELY wouldn't make sense. Because if the maxim ONLY APPLIES to the elect, but we cannot separate the elect from the non-elect who hear this maxim and understand this as being true...then the whole thing becomes MEANINGLESS. You may as well not say anything at all. And you may as well not try to propound Christian hedonism as an idea. Why? Because it IS possible that a person is predestined to maximally glorify God THROUGH their primarily self-orientation unto destruction. So, why try to sell the idea? See the issues?
All this can be avoided, though. Ask yourself, DR. Is there a possible state of affairs where God's disdain for sin and severe judgement obtain to the utter and ETERNAL destruction of any and all sin and wickedness...WHILE NOT negating the central idea of Christian hedonism? I think there is. If one holds to a post-mortem, post-judgement universal reconciliation, there is NO REASON to assert the absurd claim that, for some sentient beings, God actually gets the MOST GLORY from those beings NOT being most satisfied in God...in Piper's Christian hedonist framework. One can easily assert the UNIVERSALITY of Piper's (and Edwards) principle of God's glorification in sentient beings being MAXIMIZED as they find ultimate satisfaction in God...while at the same time affirming that God's righteous justice against sin and wickedness is demonstrated for ALL CREATION, thus enhancing God's glory.
And we need to get something straight. Even in my version of Christian universalism, it is ONLY the work of Christ that eradicates sin. All functionally inevitable universal reconciliation states is that EVENTUALLY everyone comes to realize, internalize, and live in this work. It may take eons and eons, but it occurs.
Let's look at your 4 points again...
a) God is most glorified in us (the elect) (in our earthly states) when we are most satisfied in Him.
b) God is about maximizing His glory,
c) God can use rewards in heaven and eternal revealing to the saints for the purpose of maximization
d) God uses the eternal destruction of the wicked to maximize His glory by showing His hatred of sin and its dishonor to a Holy God.
If I were a Calvinist, I could affirm the essence of these ideas thusly...
a') God is most glorified in ANY SENTIENT BEING (including God) who is most satisfied in God. [a PRIMARY PRINCIPLE of Christian hedonism!]
b') God is about maximizing God's glory
c') God uses God's self-revealing divine judgement and allocation of rewards and losses for the purpose of glory maximization.
d') God uses the eternal destruction of all sin and wickedness to maximize His glory by demonstrating Godself as a being who utterly HATES sin and dishonor of God's holiness.
...and STILL be a universalist...WITHOUT negating important aspects of Christian hedonism and WITHOUT falling into contradiction.
Now, I ask you. What's wrong with THIS solution?
"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 | | |
| 79 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:57 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 |
|
|