 |
| 
D.R.
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 13
| Posted 3/29/2005 5:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Meph,
Honestly I am at a loss to understand your rationale on this one. I can ALMOST agree with your parallel statement, but I do not understand how you moved from it to claiming that the essence of existant sentient beings is in seeking happiness AND finding their happiness in God and glorifying Him for it. How is this true according to Christian Hedonism? You just seemed to assume that arguement and then to show it was irrational. I just don't understand how you established the arguement. I am sorry, but I really need you to explain it again for clarification.
And I am really sorry, but you are not going to convince me of universalism (if that indeed is what you are angling for) so you might as well not bring that subject up and stay on task in arguing Christian Hedonism's consistancy or inconsistancy. I think it is an unBiblical position, but I am not going to argue with you on it because you already have your mind made up. Still it has little to do with this deate which is on whether or not Piper's position is tenable with Calvinistic theology.
And finally, not to throw up my own red herring, but just for curiosity sake, why do you say "Godself" instead of "Himself," knowng that "Godself" in not a real word? Are you trying to make a statement about the gender of God or just trying to be PC?
D.R. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/29/2005 8:23 PM (GMT -6) | | D.R.:
Honestly I am at a loss to understand your rationale on this one. I can ALMOST agree with your parallel statement, but I do not understand how you moved from it to claiming that the essence of existant sentient beings is in seeking happiness AND finding their happiness in God and glorifying Him for it. How is this true according to Christian Hedonism? You just seemed to assume that arguement and then to show it was irrational. I just don't understand how you established the arguement. I am sorry, but I really need you to explain it again for clarification.
I'm wondering what the "parallel statement" is to which you refer. But as far as the statement about sentient beings, I believe that it comes straight from Edwards' and Piper's view about sentient beings. From what I understand, Edwards' and Piper believed that a fundamental element of personality that seemed ubiquitous was the quest for happiness. From this, it was surmise that the quest for happiness is NOT something to be shunned as being incurably self-centered, but it is something to be embraced. Why? Because it's true fulfillment was in God and did NOT need to conflict with the idea of a theocentric view of life. In fact, it's said that we CANNOT truly glorify God unless we ENJOY God. Now, if you look at things, God is the locus of God's own joy in very much the same way. In other words, ALL sentient beings can find their greatest satisfaction in God, including God. And God's glorification is increased with every being who finds their greatest satisfaction in God. All of this made LOTS of sense to me.
My problem, DR, was that in order to say what I think Calvinists who believe in eternal punishment HAVE to say, they'd have to say that God is most glorified in non-elect sentient beings when they are NOT most satisfied in God. So...for these beings the principle by which Christian hedonism is a coherent idea has to be NEGATED. Why? Because for God to be most glorified in the lives of the non-elect, they MUST NOT end up finding their greatest satisfaction in God. But if "the CHIEF END OF MAN is to glorify God by enjoying him forever", then this doesn't make sense. See the problem?
I'm really not trying to be obtuse or anything. But to me it's simple. If God is MOST GLORIFIED in us when we are most satisfied in him (which is a restatement of the idea "the CHIEF END of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever" , then it's contradictory to say that the chief end of ANY PERSON is to glorify God by NOT enjoying God forever.
Is this a bit more clear?
******************************
DR:
And I am really sorry, but you are not going to convince me of universalism (if that indeed is what you are angling for) so you might as well not bring that subject up and stay on task in arguing Christian Hedonism's consistancy or inconsistancy. I think it is an unBiblical position, but I am not going to argue with you on it because you already have your mind made up. Still it has little to do with this deate which is on whether or not Piper's position is tenable with Calvinistic theology.
The point is NOT to convince you of universalism. The point is that, as I see it, the consistency of Christian hedonism depends within a Calvinistic framework NECESSITATES some form of post-mortem, post-judgement universal reconciliation. If the chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever, then it stands to reason that a major way of maximizing God's glorification is to make sure that at least all HUMAN beings end up enjoying God forever. Remember, the more sentient beings that find their ultimate satisfaction in God, the more glory God receives. The argument that a universalistic world would be "less glorious" to God than one where divine attitude towards sin is expressed is based on a LIMITED VIEW of universalism. A possible world is conceivable where divine wrath and judgement are poured out and all sin and wickedness are utterly destroyed...AND all beings end up finding their ultimate satisfaction in God. Given the presuppositions of Christian hedonism and Edward's perspective about God's glory being linked to God's self-revelation, this, it seems to me, would be the way that God would MAXIMIZE God's glorification in Creation.
So, again. The point is not to convert you. It's to show that applying Piper's principle CONSISTENTLY, all things considered, would LOGICALLY end up with a universalistic world.
*****************************
DR:
And finally, not to throw up my own red herring, but just for curiosity sake, why do you say "Godself" instead of "Himself," knowng that "Godself" in not a real word? Are you trying to make a statement about the gender of God or just trying to be PC?
God is triune. I don't want to say "they" or "he" because both are slightly inaccurate when referring to the Triune God. So I say "Godself" I'm definitely not the only person who does this. Is there a problem with that to you?
"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 7/8/2005 10:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Sup, peeps. Been a long time. Can't tell you how crazy things have been at the church. For real.
At any rate, I've been doing a lot of thinking about Calvinism. John Piper's Christian hedonism brand to be specific. And there's something that I've been reconvinced of: God truly does do all things for God's own glory. In other words, God's chief telos is NOT love (as Doc would try to say). God's chief telos is the manifestation, reception, and enjoyment of God's own being. Now, this is not to say that love is not in there, because God is love. But this is to say that God's desire to display God's love to us and have it reflected back to Godself is PRIMARILY to maximize God's own glory and enjoyment of that glory. Doc and Piper are very similar in this: Both theologians would ultimately say that there is no contradiction between God's glory and our aesthetic maximization ("happiness" to Piper) such that to find our complete identity and satisfaction in God IS our true source of actualizing our highest aesthetic appreciation levels.
As Piper would say "God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in Him."
As Doc would say "God's glory is expanded when we live with God as our Center and Source of all life"
Ultimately, the same thing. Which shouldn't be surprising. Again, both men LOVE Jonathon Edwards.
This is cool...because this just goes back to the the "glorification principle" that I've always been working by. Actually, after reading more Edwards, Piper, and others, my passion for a "God-entrenched", highly theocentric theology ALMOST brought me back to Calvinism. (Yeah) But there's something really different here. To the extent I'm really believing what Piper (and Doc) is saying...I mean REEEEEALY believing it...I am more assured than ever about universalism. Even more assured than I was previously! This is what I figure:
If these things are true...
1) God really always seeks to maximize God's own glorification.
2) God is ultimately sovereign over all things.
3) God is MOST GLORIFIED in a being when said being acknowledges, internalizes, reflects celebrates, and rejoices in God's manifold aspects of perfection. (all of this is "satisfaction" in God)
4) There exists a possible world that CAN be actualized by God where all sentient beings can end up satisfied in God.
Then God's burning desire for God's own majestic glorification and love for Godself absolutely DEMANDS eventual universal reconciliation through Christ. Having a thoroughly God-entranced view DEMANDS saying that God has the ability and authority to do anything that is logically proper for God to do. And that includes creating a world where libertarian freedom exists...and eventual universal reconciliation is overwhelmingly probable to occur!
Not "suggests" Not "warrants" Not "leads to" DEMANDS!
Now, something I read from Piper really made me think that he and people like Him should be open to this...
From Desiring God site, "What happens to Infants Who Die?"
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/theological_qa/infant_salv/infants.html
------------------------------------------------
Now from a man who has stuck to his proverbial theological guns during both Sept. 11th and the Indian Ocean tsunami, I expected him to stick to them with respect to thi issue. But I was VERY surprised. See, given his stance on original sin and salvation by faith alone, I thought I knew that he would just go ahead and say the obvious: Babies who die in their depraved state are going to hell. But he doesn't do this. He COMPLETELY grasps at straws not to say this. Read the essay yourself! Here's some of it...just to show you...
If we are all born under sin, and salvation is by faith in Christ (which infants do not seem to have the mental capacity to exercise), then it might at first seem that no infants can be saved. We are not, however, aware of anyone who actually takes this position. We are convinced that it would be a premature, unbiblical conclusion.
One reason is that there are apparent examples in scripture of infants who were saved. We are told that John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit while yet in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15). In Luke's theology, being filled with the Spirit is consistently seen as an aspect of the Spirit's work among those who are regenerate (Luke 1:41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5; 9:17; 11:24).
Hundreds of years before John the Baptist, David wrote: "Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God." (Psalm 22:9-10). Because of David's apparent mention of having faith in God while still an infant, some have concluded that God saves infants by giving them a "primitive" form of faith. That conclusion, however, is not necessary to our point; the main thing to see in this passage is that David evidently was in a saving relationship with God from his mother's womb.
------------------------------------------------
Oh my GOD! Can we say "reaching"???? I can't even believe he did this. But it gets wierder...
------------------------------------------------
In light of these things, some have held that God saves some infants who die and not others. They point that this is seems most consistent with the doctrines of election and original sin.
John Piper and many others, however, believe that there is one more biblical strand of evidence which must be considered. This evidence leads us to conclude that God saves all infants who die.
In a funeral sermon several years ago for an infant, Dr. Piper summarized the basis for his conclusion:
Jesus says in John 9:41 to those who were offended at his teaching and asked if he thought they were blind-he said, "If you were blind, you would not have had sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."
In other words, if a person lacks the natural capacity to see the revelation of God's will or God's glory then that person's sin would not remain-God would not bring the person into final judgment for not believing what he had no natural capacity to see.
The other text is Romans 1:20 where Paul is dealing with persons who have not heard the gospel and have no access to it, but who do have access to the revelation of God's glory in nature:
Romans 1:20 "Since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
In other words: if a person did not have access to the revelation of God's glory - did not have the natural capacity to see it and understand it, then Paul implies they would have an excuse at the judgment.
The point for us is that even though we human beings are under the penalty of everlasting judgment and death because of the fall of our race into sin and the sinful nature that we all have, nevertheless God only executes this judgment on those who have the natural capacity to see his glory and understand his will, and refuse to embrace it as their treasure.
Infants, I believe, do not yet have that capacity; and therefore, in God's inscrutable way, he brings them under the forgiving blood of his Son.
------------------------------------------------
But this is the biggie!!!
------------------------------------------------
In another sermon, he adds:
God in his justice will find a way to absolve infants who die of their depravity. It will surely be through Christ. But beyond that we would be guessing. It seems to me that the most natural guess would be that babies will grow up in the kingdom (either immediately, or over time) and will by God's grace come to faith so that their justification is by faith alone just like ours.
I was absolutely floored. I mean it. Floored. Some things:
1) He leaned on the idea of God being JUST as far as why infants would be ABSOLVED by God, even though they were depraved and deserving of death and hell.
2) He says that this NON-FAITH movement would be done thorugh Christ.
3) He proposes a post mortem arrangement where the babies develop and come to faith so that they CHOOSE Christ [Note: this is EXACTLY what Doc says!!!]
When I saw this, I literally had to take a 15 min break to ponder what I just saw. Here was one of the most consistent Calvinists besides Gordon Clark that I had ever seen...going so far as postulating an EXTRABIBLICAL, postmortem state of affairs because of a idea of divine justice that lead to the SALVATION of literally a whole category of beings (all babies) who were depraved and deserving of death! I really couldn't believe my eyes.
At any rate, this was my instant thought.
Surely, he knows what this means. Surely, he sees the immediate implications for people who have mental retardation. Surely, he see the implications that this has for people who are blind and deaf like Helen Keller. Surely, he sees that he is basically saying that IGNORANCE truly is an excuse to God...that even BYPASSES the original sin and depravity that all human beings supposedly have.
If all this was the case, I wondered, than how could ANY person who believes this idea actually think that post-mortem evangelism (even of the rock-bottom type) is an IMPOSSIBILITY. They couldn't do so consistently. Piper would have been better off sticking to his proverbial guns and saying that all babies that died when to hell. But with this idea, he's opened the door wide open. As far as Doc goes, he's always believed something like this, which is why he formally held to post-mortem evangelism!
So...
Let's rename the previous 4 and add one...
1) God really always seeks to maximize God's own glorification.
2) God is ultimately sovereign over all things.
3) God is MOST GLORIFIED in a being when said being acknowledges, internalizes, reflects celebrates, and rejoices in God's manifold aspects of perfection. (all of this is "satisfaction" in God)
4) There exists a possible world that CAN be actualized by God where all sentient beings can end up satisfied in God.
and...
5) If God is MERCIFUL enough to bypass internal depravity and hell-deserving sin nature to EXONERATE a whole category of beings such that all of them would eventually receive salvation through a faith choice.
then there is absolutely, positively, categorically NO DOUBT in my mind at this point. Whether or not Calvinism or Open View Theism is true is irrevelant. The Almighty, Mericiful, Terrible, Loving, Sovereign God will not deny Godself the most glory due His name! God will maximize God's own glorification by making sure that all sentient beings end up eventually rejoicing in God as the loving, glorious Creator, Sustainer, Savior, Judge, Punisher of Evil, and other divine facets.
It's not about US at all. It's about God and God's glory. God will NOT do eventual universal reconciliation merely for OUR sake (even though we are glad beneficiaries) God will do it for God's own blessed NAME'S SAKE!
Now, I want any Calvinist or any Arminian out there to help me think through this. If anyone can explain to me how my thinking is flawed or how this just doesn't work, please show me. I'm open. But as this point, I have just gone from 97.9% universalist to 100%.
Gimme all ya got.
Nice to be back for a spell,
"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
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 7/8/2005 10:24:28 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/8/2005 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
I can say with all honesty that no one stretches me more than you do, Meph. I'm dizzy. I'm gonna have to sit a spell and take it all in. After all this beautiful country I've been through recently as I've seen Love as God's primary telos, and now it looks like you're suggesting we go back. Whew. Out of breath. Don't know that I'm up for it.
I hear ya. My problem was I couldn't get away from the overwhelming biblical theme of God's glory...and God seeking his glory. Pound for pound, it's huge. It's just as big, if not more, than the theme of God's love. In my opinion, Greg doesn't do the theme as much justice as he could. Reread "Repenting of Religion" and you'll see what I mean.
From the Old Testament to the New, God is all about declaring and sharing his glory. God is about doing things "for his Name's sake" This CANNOT be denied!
John 12:23-33
Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.
"Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!"
Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
Jesus said, "This voice was for your benefit, not mine. Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
There's no getting around it. God's seeking God's own glorification is at least AS important if not MORE important that God's love. God's self-relevation of love IS a means of God's self-glorification.
I don't see how it can be otherwise.
"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
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 7/8/2005 11:25:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/8/2005 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/8/2005 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
Could God be glorified in any other way than in expressing His love?
Absolutely not. God's glory is based upon God's self-revelation. If God is love, then God is glorified in people realizing and celebrating the fact...but they would not be able to do that if it were not expressed.
But God is MORE than God's love, is He not?
The point, though, is that God is truly more than God's love. Some theologians (like Doc) try to make love the END ALL, BE ALL such that every other attribute of God is a dimension of God's love. It is in this that I think that many Calvinists are right in correcting that idea. God's love is just as "central" to God as God's holiness or God's wisdom. And God wants to reveal ALL that he is in all the various facets that God can be seen. As Healer, Judge, Saviour, etc.
Think about this. Assuming that God's glory is based upon seeing the different facets of God's perfections, could God be completely glorified if sin NEVER existed? Would justice, mercy, forgiveness or anything like that even have MEANING if all were love? Nope not at all.
So we can imagine a possible world where God's love would be preeminent...but where God would NEVER be known or experienced as justice (against injustice), merciful (when unwarranted) or a forgiver of sins (when sin exists). Think about it.
This is the insight that Jonathon Edwards had.
"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 7/8/2005 11:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey (emphases mine):
Probably this isn't anything novel, but here's how I've been reconciling these two motifs in my own thinking: I think of God's glory as what happens when he reveals himself for who he really is. He shows off, as it were. He flexes, struts, makes it all look easy... all to impress the chick he's after: the Bride. In other words, his glory is what seduces us, woos us, makes us swoon in love with him. His glory draws us higher: mad love with him!
I think this is congruent with the passages you've listed.
The embolded part is the part I'm having issues with. Looking at the Old Testament and the New, it doesn't seem to me that God is primarily after seducing his Creation with his glory, but demonstrating his glory to and through Creation for God's own glory. God pursues us with God's love BECAUSE it manifests God's marvelous attributes in doing so, not for the MAIN purpose of the "wooing" effect (though the wooing effect does occur).
"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 | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/8/2005 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal said...
But God is MORE than God's love, is He not?
His natural attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence,) His spiritual nature, etc., in my view, are that "part" of Him which can be said to be "more than love." With regard to His character, however, I believe it to be quite demonstrably true that "God is love." His judgment, mercy, grace, etc., are all governed by His love/benevolence, as are every other one of his moral decisions. (Benevolence being to will the highest good of all).
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 7/8/2005 12:20:06 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/8/2005 12:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
I think this is congruent with the passages you've listed. I can't think of any passages stating to the effect, "God IS glory". I guess my picture of it is that God DOES glory, as a logical outworking of who he IS.
God IS Spirit (John 4) God IS light (1 John) God IS holy (Rev 4) as well, right?
Analogy time. The sun's rays and their characteristics (light, heat, etc) are natural outworkings of what the Sun is. The makeup of the rays are constrained by the nature of the Sun. However, it is possible to NOT experience all aspects of solar rays. If a person is blind, they cannot experience solar rays as light producing. If a person was far enough away from the Sun they could not full experience solar rays as heat producing. For a person to more fully appreciate solar rays for what they are, it would be necessary in some way for that person to experience solar rays as light and heat-producing. This means that said person would have to exist in a CONTEXT where the sun could be experienced as both light-producing and heat-producing.
Sun=God
Solar rays=God's glory
Heat-producing aspect of solar rays=God as just
Light-producing aspect of solar rays=God as merciful
This is just a brief example. Bottom line: God's glory is a natural outflow demonstration of who God is. God creates different contexts in which different aspects of his glory can be experienced.
****************************************
JEE:
In my view, all God's moral attributes are simply modifications of His love/omnibenevolence, and His GLORY is the expression/revelation of His heart of love.
I'm more with some Calvinists here. God's moral attributes (including God's LOVE) are aspects of God's GOODNESS. God's glory is the expression of God's perfect goodness and greatness.
"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 7/8/2005 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
His natural attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence,) His spiritual nature, etc., in my view, are that "part" of Him which can be said to be "more than love." With regard to His character, however, I believe it to be quite demonstrably true that "God is love." His judgment, mercy, grace, etc., are all governed by His love/benevolence, as are every other one of his moral decisions. (Benevolence being to will the highest good of all).
Your "natural attributes" = my category of God's "greatness"
You "moral attributes" = my category of God's "goodness"
Benevolence is a FORM of "goodness"
"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 7/8/2005 12:47 PM (GMT -6) | | The Exodus Story. Exodus 9:13-19
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. But I have raised you up [a] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go. Therefore, at this time tomorrow I will send the worst hailstorm that has ever fallen on Egypt, from the day it was founded till now. Give an order now to bring your livestock and everything you have in the field to a place of shelter, because the hail will fall on every man and animal that has not been brought in and is still out in the field, and they will die.' "
In other words, God acknowledges that he could have ended all the oppression against the Israelites VERY simply, killin' all the Egyptians long time ago...but why didn't God do that? Why did God "raise Pharoah up" supposedly? To create a context where his POWER could be displayed. So his NAME would be known...hmmm...
And who picks up on this...?
-----------------------------------
Romans 9:6-18
It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."[c]
Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d]Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Hmmm...
"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 7/8/2005 12:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Rapidly becoming my new favorite scripture passage...
Romans 11:25-35
All Israel Shall Be Saved w/ Doxology
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."[g]
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"
"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"[k]
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever!
Amen.
"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 7/8/2005 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid:
1) God really always seeks to maximize God's own glorification.
Are we sure? Hypothetically (because at this point in the argument we can't assume that it couldn't be the case), if his glory and my well-being were in conflict, would he choose selfishness over love? If we take away all ultimate conflict by adding post-mortem evangelism, do we have any basis for this move other than it making the system work? Maybe I'm rehashing an old question, but what is the basis for taking this premise to be true?
Excellent questions! One at a time.
1) Are we sure that God always seeks to maximize God's own glorification?
How about we phrase this another way: Is there ever a point where God, speaking about God's own glorification and delight in the same, says "Well, I think that's enough. I don't need to be glorified anymore right now." Personally, I don't think so. I definitely don't think that a biblical argument can be made for that. If anything, we consistently see God desiring for people to KNOW who God is and live joyously in that knowledge. We consistently see God taking opportunity after opportunity to declare who God is...even unto the glory demonstrated in Christ Jesus. Look at Revelation and how they talk about people worshiping and praising God NONSTOP talking about how holy and majestic God is. I think that there are plenty of reasons to say that God always seeks to maximize God's own glory in and through Creation.
2) If his glory and my well-being were in conflict, would he choose selfishness over love?
We'd talked about this long ago. (Some of the old heads will remember) If God is the supremely worthy being in the universe and the Absolute to which all other things are relative, would God be "selfish" in acknowledging this as a fact? Long story short, God is the one being in existence for whom being primarily self-oriented is a) not wrong and actually b) the most altruistic thing he could do. In God acting as the Source, Center, and Summum Bonum of all things, God provides the most solid foundation for our well being that can ever exist. There's much that goes into this but the bottom line is that God's pursuit of God's highest glorification is not ULTIMATELY contrary to our own pursuits of well-being, for they essentially dovetail together. That God is self-giving, sacrificial love is testified to in salvation history particularly in the work of Christ. What needs to be understood is that expression of love (perhaps the GREATEST BENEFIT we could ever receive) was not over and against God's glorification, but an important means through which God's glory is demonstrated in and through Creation. For God to seek God's highest glory is our GROUND for our own ultimate well being.
3) If we take away all ultimate conflict by adding post-mortem evangelism, do we have any basis for this move other than it making the system work?
My ultimate basis for post-mortem evangelism (in the rock-bottom effect) is the idea that God can only be maximally glorified in Creation iff all sentient beings in Creation end up in the loving dance of the Trinity, where all sentient beings are satisfied in God as God has gloriously displayed Godself. It's not an ad hoc thing to make things work. It's an outworking of what would be NECESSARY for God to have the most glory from Creation.
4) What is the basis for taking (#1) to be true?
I believe that it is the best articulation of what we see God doing throughout salvation history. Again, we see that God continuous pursues to be known and adored throughout the earth for being the God that God is. It doesn't take much to pick up this biblical theme. And it doesn't seem to me that God EVER gets tired of seeing his name or glory being magnified.
"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 7/8/2005 2:40 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm a flurry right now.
I'm having a deep epiphany right now. A synthesis of ideas.
The best way that we can live the Great Commandments and spread God's Reign is by so thoroughly seeking God's presence and fully enjoying the God's glory in our everyday lives that we BECOME what we BEHOLD and in all of our dispositions and corresponding actions towards ourselves and the world around us. We are conformed to the beautiful, magnificent image of God that we continously see and live that out! In doing this, we point, however dimly, to the ultimate Source of all life, love, and joy in that we enable others to see God more clearly through demonstrating Christ and His Reign being made manifest in us by God's Spirit. We do this with the hope that others will come to experience God as glorious Lord of all for themselves, and expand God's reign in Creation.
I know Doc and Piper would get down with this. As would Edwards. How about SK?
Works of Love, page 106-107 (emphasis mine)
Worldly wisdom thinks that love is a relationship between man and man. Christianity teachers that love is a relationship between: man-God-man, that is, that God is the middle term. However beautiful the love-relationship has been between two or more people, however complete all their enjoyment and all their bliss in mutual devotion and affection have been for them, even if all men have praised their relationship—if God and the relationship to God have been left out, then, Christianly understood, this has not been love but a mutual and enchanting illusion of love. For to love God is to love oneself in truth; to help another human being to love God is to love another man; to be helped by another human being to love God is to be loved.
Oh, yeah! 
"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 | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/11/2005 6:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: Think about this. Assuming that God's glory is based upon seeing the different facets of God's perfections, could God be completely glorified if sin NEVER existed? Would justice, mercy, forgiveness or anything like that even have MEANING if all were love? Nope not at all.
Starkman: I think this hits upon the heart of something that could easily be misunderstood in a conversation like this. It isn't that God's some egocentric being who absolutely insists that everyone see just how glorious He is. God is at a disadvantage, if you will, when working with the human race, at least in its fallen state. God is constantly having to negotiate the human will to break through the hard-headeness of those who define glory by starting with themselves. The problem is agravated by the innate knowledge that there is surely something true about man having glory and being glorious.
So God brings revelation to man about the reality of man's glory, but He does so in the context of God's glory. This ain't an easy thing to do with rebellion running rampant. In Christ, however, is found the centrality of God's glory, at least for fallen man. Get the "man" into Christ and there's hope for both man and God to come to a better understanding about who and what God is, and who and what man is. And I think that's important. God tries to get people to understand who He is and to enable people to see from Whom the glory comes.
Question: "If God never made man, would His glory be left unmaximized?"—better, does God HAVE to do anything and everything that can be done in order to find His glory fully maximized? I'd answer in the negative. I'd rather trust that God is God whether anyone else or anything else ever comes to know His glory. This much must stand, no matter, or God is found insufficient.
So, God is quite desirous of people coming to know who He is (obviously, because they should), and to know who they themselves are that they might appreciate that much more who they are in view of who He is. But just because God is glorious, and the only one with His glory, isn't enough, in my opinion to substantiate God having, or needing, the desire to maximize His glory for no other reason than because it exists. When we ourselves are in the New Jerusalem (read: theological means of conveying cessation of againstness of all that is at odds and enmity with God), we will see His glory, but we won't see it just because we need to or have to just because God has this great glory. We will see it because we will be free to see it. We will see it because it is the only thing that can make sense of this being who we call God, of which there is no other.
Finally, seeing God's glory—understanding why it is and who it is who reveals His glory—is the only possible way man can have a relationship with God. Without revelation of God's glory (that which speaks the loudest about what God is, who God is and what it is to relate to God), man is left with something in himself that will try to rise up and usurp the One True Glory. Seeing God's glory, then, is to have opportunity for secure and loving relationship between God and mankind (and other beings, I would imagine). It is, in other words, quite the grace of God, and blessing to us, that He is able and willing to show His glory, but it necessary if free-will beings are to understand why they themselves are not God, though they possess something of this image (glory) of God. One might say that glory is to God what the soul is to man, and God's glory will never become indistinguished by man's attempts to usurp God's glory.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/12/2005 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid:
Does this require that we take Satan to be non-personal, since God does not work for his redemption (i.e. God's glorification in his person)?
How do we know that God doesn't work for his redemption? All we "know" is that Satan's state is such that it's inevitable that he spend some soul-shaking, unimaginably painful time in "hell", being tortured for ages and ages. If my view of Christian universalism is true, this goes along with the idea of God continuously working for his redemption. As CS Lewis said, the door to hell is closed from the inside.
***************************
Starkman: (Underlining mine)
I think this hits upon the heart of something that could easily be misunderstood in a conversation like this. It isn't that God's some egocentric being who absolutely insists that everyone see just how glorious He is. God is at a disadvantage, if you will, when working with the human race, at least in its fallen state. God is constantly having to negotiate the human will to break through the hard-headeness of those who define glory by starting with themselves. The problem is agravated by the innate knowledge that there is surely something true about man having glory and being glorious.
So God brings revelation to man about the reality of man's glory, but He does so in the context of God's glory. This ain't an easy thing to do with rebellion running rampant. In Christ, however, is found the centrality of God's glory, at least for fallen man. Get the "man" into Christ and there's hope for both man and God to come to a better understanding about who and what God is, and who and what man is. And I think that's important. God tries to get people to understand who He is and to enable people to see from Whom the glory comes.
Let's try something. Hypothetical thought. Let's say that God, the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Source of all beauty, reality, freedom and worth truly believes that thoroughgoing enjoyment of God's glory in various contexts that reveal various facets is part and parcel of what it means for sentient beings to partake in the UTTER JOY that exists within the divine Triune reality. That seeing various dimensions of God's self-relevation in contexts of good (like blessing and benevolence) AND evil (like judgment and forgiveness) and rejoicing in that revelation truly operates as the highest aesthetic satisfaction possible for sentient being. Would God still be considered "egocentric" in telling us to seek for our highest happiness...which happens to be complete satisfaction in who God has revealed Godself to be?
I don't think so.
God is the ONLY BEING for whom commanding everyone glorify him is actually the same thing as commanding everyone to be the absolute most fulfilled being they could ever be.
God is the ONLY BEING for whom deferring ultimate reference to any other being but itself would be not only idolatrous, but unfulfilling for all concerned.
God is not a human being. God is not merely a very powerful non-coporeal entity. God is the ultimate reality wherein beauty and creativity have their true meaning.
We oughta think about that.
*********************************
Starkman:
Question: "If God never made man, would His glory be left unmaximized?"—better, does God HAVE to do anything and everything that can be done in order to find His glory fully maximized? I'd answer in the negative. I'd rather trust that God is God whether anyone else or anything else ever comes to know His glory. This much must stand, no matter, or God is found insufficient.
So, God is quite desirous of people coming to know who He is (obviously, because they should), and to know who they themselves are that they might appreciate that much more who they are in view of who He is. But just because God is glorious, and the only one with His glory, isn't enough, in my opinion to substantiate God having, or needing, the desire to maximize His glory for no other reason than because it exists. When we ourselves are in the New Jerusalem (read: theological means of conveying cessation of againstness of all that is at odds and enmity with God), we will see His glory, but we won't see it just because we need to or have to just because God has this great glory. We will see it because we will be free to see it. We will see it because it is the only thing that can make sense of this being who we call God, of which there is no other.
Some things...
1) No one is intuiting a necessary God-world relationship based on the glorification idea. Though Edwards' thoughts truly could be taken in that way, I do not. I affirm that the choice to create was a contingent expression of God's glory, such that God's self-glorification and self-giving love would exist with or without Creation. What is being said is this: in choosing to create Creation, God did so out of God's desire to DISPLAY and SHARE the beauty that is Godself with something other than God. In doing so, God is glorified.
2) I think it's helpful to ponder the possible reasoning (besides the ample biblical evidence about God seeking his own glory consistently) behind this. My line of thinking is this: Beholding God's beauty and experiencing God's love with singleheartedness is the only true way to divine joy and freedom. This is why the 1st commandment is SO important and why it's impossible to do the 2nd great commandment without the first. It doesn't help us to think that God's seeking his own glorification is completely antithetical to our highest good.
********************************************
Starkman:
Finally, seeing God's glory—understanding why it is and who it is who reveals His glory—is the only possible way man can have a relationship with God. Without revelation of God's glory (that which speaks the loudest about what God is, who God is and what it is to relate to God), man is left with something in himself that will try to rise up and usurp the One True Glory. Seeing God's glory, then, is to have opportunity for secure and loving relationship between God and mankind (and other beings, I would imagine).
Again, I ask the question. If evil were NEVER TO EXIST, what would we KNOW about God's forgiveness, grace, mercy, healing, and willingness to sacrifice? Would God's glory be more fully revealed to us? Forgiveness and grace would be literally a MEANINGLESS concept. It would be like a blind person who have even NEVER heard the word "light" trying to conceptualize and undersand the idea of reflection and refraction, or even more ridiculously, appreciate the beauty of a laser going through a prism! Things have to be COMPREHENSIBLE before they can be celebrated.
Take the Adam and Eve story literally just for a second. Let's say that the Adamic couple NEVER sinned. and NEVER experienced temptation at all. All was just pleasant and good. They never ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They would definitely have known God as creator and provider. But they NEVER could have understood God as being merciful (as he was in letting them live after their sin), grieved by sin (as he was when it happened), or forgiving of sin. Now, let's do the math. If singleminded enjoyment of God's glory in various dimensions is the ULTIMATE referrent...can we not imagine what GREATER KNOWLEDGE OF GOD...and thus GREATER JOY in God could be attained? Think about it. God possessing the knowledge of good and evil could be another way of talking about God's infinite intelligence, which would ALREADY have a concept of all the possible ways that God's glory could be expressed in the most heinous of possible situations. Human beings, however, would NOT have this innate knowledge of God's various expressions and
Now here's it's very important to note something. The extreme view as expressed in Romans 3:1-8...as well as 6:1. The idea that since evil circumstances allow different facets of God's glorious nature to be displayed (like God's justice) and God seems to use them anyway...that people should INTENTIONALLY promote evil circumstances such that God is even more "glorified" But the question is betrayed by the intention. If the purpose of witnessing God's glory is to rejoice in that glory and be TRANSFORMED by that glory, how can one who truly want to glorify God even think in such a way?? Paul deals with this magnificently in Romans 6 where he makes this type of thinking explicit. In essence, he says "Yo, how in the WORLD would a person want grace to 'abound' in such a stupid way, if that person is ALREADY dead to sin and slaves to God in Christ?? Such a person so dedicated to God would not even be asking that question..but would be manifesting a life worthy of the God to which they witness!"
What am I saying here? The glorification of God would be a reason for God to allow sin to exist in the world, but NOT a reason for HUMAN BEINGS to persist in sin. Sin permeates JUST FINE on its own. Am I saying that complete exhaustive determinism of ALL sin is true? Absolutely not. I am saying that I could see the EXISTENCE (read: eventual inevitability) of sin not only being anticipated by God but a part fo the PLAN to be used for God's glorification.
Hmmm...I'll just stop there.
Heh.
"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 3:19 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 |
|
|