 |
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/8/2005 6:34 AM (GMT -6) |   | Ok, peeps. Something else.
Read this...from John Piper's writing, "Christian Hedonism: Forgive the label, but Don't Miss the Truth"
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/christian_hedonism/chr_hed.html
If you must, forgive me for the label. But don't miss the truth because you don't like my tag. My shortest summary of it is: God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. Or: The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever. Does Christian Hedonism1 make a god out of pleasure? No. It says that we all make a god out of what we take most pleasure it. My life is devoted to helping people make God their God, by wakening in them the greatest pleasures in him.
and...
Sunday at 11 a.m., Hebrew 11:6 enters combat with Immanuel Kant. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him." You cannot please God if you do not come to him as rewarder. Therefore, worship which pleases God is the hedonistic pursuit of God in whose presence is fullness of joy and in who hand are pleasures for evermore (Psalm 16:11).
What a difference it will make if we are Christian hedonists and not Kantian commanders of duty! Jonathan Edwards, the greatest preacher-theologian that America has ever produced, daringly said, "I should think myself in the way of my duty to raise the affections of my hearers as high as possibly I can, provided that they are affected with nothing but truth, and with affections that are not disagreeable to the nature of what they are affected with."7 The ultimate reason Edwards believed this was his duty is his profound and biblical conviction that
God glorifies Himself toward the creatures . . . in two ways: 1. By appearing to . . . their understanding. 2. In communicating Himself to their hearts, and in their rejoicing and delighting in, and enjoying, the manifestations which He makes of Himself. . . . God is glorified not only by His glory's being seen, but by its being rejoiced in. When those that see it delight in it, God is more glorified than if they only see it. . . . He that testifies his idea of God's glory [doesn't] glorify God so much as he that testifies also his approbation of it and his delight in it.8
This is the ultimate foundation for Christian Hedonism.
Ok. Watch this...
Here's what I don't understand about John Piper's (or I should say Jonathon Edwards') idea.
He says that God is the MOST GLORIFIED by us when we are MOST SATISFIED in Him. More to the point, God gets the most glorification from any sentient being when said being is completely satisfied in God and REJOICES in God's glorious self-revelation. God has to be the "ultimate treasure" to a being, Piper has said!
Second, Dr. Piper also believes God is ALL about his own glorification and it's maximization. Everything God does goes towards this end. God's love, mercy, and goodness are all instruments of God's essential existence that are used towards this end, according to Dr. Piper.
Third, God ordains EVERYTHING according God's own purposes, right? God foreordains absolutely EVERYTHING that comes to pass. So there is no "free will defense" available for him, like there is for an Arminian.
Assuming all these things, I have a simple question for Piper and any other card-carrying theological determinist who's a Christian hedonist:
If God's ultimate goal is His glory and it's maximization, doesn't this NECESSITATE post-judgement, eventual universalism???
Think about it. It's one thing to say, like Edwards does, that God wanted to reveal all dimensions of his glory (including Savior, Judge, etc)...and that's the reason why sin, death, and "hell" exist; in order that those facets may be revealed. I can get that. I can easily see how a Calvinist or Reformed person can believe that God's glory is best served by the foreordination of the world that we have now. That this is the "best possible world" for God's glorious purposes. That's consistent. How? In essence, theological determinists will say that God wanted to display various aspects of his Glory (ie His wrath and judgement) as well as contrast his glory towards those he shows mercy, from Romans 9:18-23. And this is why sin and such were allowed to be. Johnathon Edwards and John Calvin states this quite clearly.
But...
in Piper saying that God's HIGHEST GLORIFICATION occurs when sentient beings are MOST SATISFIED in God, he effectively dooms the consistency of the Calvinistic or Reformed perspective. Because in positing an eternal hell, even WITH Romans 9:18-23, you still have to come to the conclusion that God's glorification is NOT maximized. It's simple logic, actually. If God is truly after the complete maximization of his own glorification by Creation, it would make NO SENSE for God to create an eternal hell! Dr. Piper makes it very clear (via Edwards) that God's glorification is not consummated by merely SEEING God's glory or ACKNOWLEDGING that glory (like people in an eternally long hell probably could)...but in REJOICING in that glory and finding one's complete satisfaction in it. (which people in hell definitely would NOT!)
So let's do some friggin math. What is the ONLY way that God's glory can be completely maximized throughout eternity? That's right. Every sentient being would have to end up being completely satified in Him. If even ONE BEING ended up not completely satisfied in God, then God's glory would not be maximized. Really think about it.
It is complete feasible to say that divine justice in a hellish existence occurs and is eternal...but not in terms of time duration. (Check out the possible ideas of "aionion" What this means is that hell ends up being purgatorial...with all beings coming to be satisfied in God after various "sentences" have been served, for the sake of justice. With this view, God's terrible wrath and judgment could STILL exist...while in the end, all would find satisfaction and joy in God. Actually, you could have ALL beings glorying in the idea of God as Righteous Judge and Punisher of sin, even SATAN! This would definitely be more maximizing to God's Glory, given Dr. Piper's Edwardian thesis.
What makes the situation even worse is that John Piper, with his Edwardian thesis, doesn't have any type of free will defense to fall back on. He's not Arminian in the least. God gets EVERYTHING God wants, ordains all things, and that's what makes God happy, so Piper must say. So now we have a dilemma...
On one hand, we are supposed to accept the thesis that God is completely about His glory and CREATION ITSELF is ordained such that His glory will be fully maximized...
while...at the same time...
God purposefully ordains all things such that God does NOT receive maximal glorification from His creation. If more than half of human beings end up in an eternal hell, I'm pretty sure that they will NOT be finding their satisfaction in God.
So, God has the complete power, passion, and intention to maximize His glory...but for some mysterious reason, chooses to ordain things such that His Glory is NOT fully maximized.
I'm extremely confused as to how John Piper can maintain the thesis of "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him"...and NOT come to the conclusion of a post-judgement, eventual universalism! If Piper's beliefs are true, he'd have to come to this conclusion.
Bottom line: How can it be reconciled that God wants nothing more than to maximize and display his glory...but then ORDAINS things such that His glory is not maximized? This is a blatent contradiction that needs to be considered.
Thoughts?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/8/2005 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | | Meph,
I didn't completely finish your post for lack of time, but I think I follow your argument and agree with it. But as an LFW'er and an OV'er I'm not convinced that God intended to show His wrath until He was actually provoked thereto. Plus, it would be nice to have some verses that demonstrate that God's goodness is used as a MEANS towards His glory, as opposed to God's goodness just being an essential attribute of His nature.
wjs Post Edited (jefscott) : 2/8/2005 7:05:10 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 2/8/2005 9:59 AM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal said...
What a difference it will make if we are Christian hedonists and not Kantian commanders of duty!
Hi, Meph. Since I'm probably the only poster on this discussion board who holds to a rigorously Kantian ethical position, I suppose I should comment!
MephEternal said...
Sunday at 11 a.m., Hebrew 11:6 enters combat with Immanuel Kant. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him." You cannot please God if you do not come to him as rewarder. Therefore, worship which pleases God is the hedonistic pursuit of God in whose presence is fullness of joy and in who hand are pleasures for evermore (Psalm 16:11).
Obviously, it is necessary to have faith in God and to believe that he rewards those who seek him, if you wish to draw near to him and please him. But why should we want to draw near to him, or please him? Answer: Because he is *good*, because he is *righteous*. We don't just do it to get a hedonistic thrill. Suppose that we took Hebrews 11:6 in isolation, and discarded the Bible's teaching about God's goodness. In that case, perhaps we would be better off not pleasing God or drawing near to him: maybe he'd just be a tyrannical dictator and better to have nothing to do with. It's only the fact that he is *objectively good* that provides the background that makes Hebrews 11:6 itself legitimate as a moral principle.
Why do I want to draw near to God? Because it is *the right thing to do*. Because it is *my duty*, as Eccl. 12:13 so clearly states. God does not want us to follow him because it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling and hedonistic pleasure. He wants us to follow him because it's the right thing to do.
So I'm afraid the whole Christian hedonism thing doesn't get to first base for me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/8/2005 10:43 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Mephi-
Good thinking. You express well the fundamental feeling of uneasiness about Piper’s (and Edwards, and most Calvinists who adopt this approach to divine glorification) position that a lot of us feel but have never put into words. And you’re perfectly right. Piper is inconsistent. 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.
To maintain both (a) and (b) one would have to argue that God unconditionally determine that all be most satisfied with God (which God obviously hasn’t done). In my opinion, not even adjusting this by adopting universalism fixes the inconsistency, and that's where I'd disagree with you. For a world in which all are always most satisfied with God would amount to more glory for God than a world in which all not always but eventually are most satisfied in God. Even if Piper adopts universalism, as a determinist a MORE glorious scenario can be imagined.
Personally, I agree that God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in him. I just don’t see that God is always as glorified as he could be. Here’s where I am, though. Since so much less-than-maximized glory is already behind us and God (given the world’s course up to this point in time), I don’t see that universalism makes it all better by eventually maximizing God’s glory. Maybe. I don't know. It just seems to me that even if universalism were true, we and God will still spend eternity knowing that the world could have taken a more glorious-for-God route, God could have been more glorified than he was. The bank account of glory could have been more than even universalism admits it ends up being. So we’ll always live with knowing God’s glory was not maximized, regardless of the fact that every one eventually made it in. That makes US feel better because folks aren't in hell. But what happened to heaven being about GOD? Once we wake up to the infinite worth of God and realize what a crime the tiniest second of unrequited divine glory amounts to, past less-than-glorious events will be mourned as greatly as future less-than-glorious events (if the "we'll-be-mourning-hell-forever" argument holds weight for anybody). It makes a relative difference to us, but would it to an infinitely worthy God, one who understands there is no limit to his value? He'll know (and we ought to) for all eternity that his worth was never really affirmed as he deserved.
I’m not saying this is firm and nailed down for me. I’m just thinking out loud. But on the Piper stuff you’re right on. He’s inconsistent. The only out he has to take is to say that the vast majority of human beings’ not being most satisfied in God is a necessary means to what REAL maximized glory for God is. But what glory would that be if it’s also true that God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in him? Seems to me that if it's really true that God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in him, then the argument that God really WANTS the glory that comes from being recognized as judge of evil and determines evil for that reason fails. God can't want the glory that he receives from our recognizing him as judge of human and angelic sin (because he wants to maximize his glory) AND also really believe that he's most glorified when people are NOT sinning but satisfied in him instead. Piper could define his belief that God created to "maximize his glory" by saying "maximally great and maximally diverse" so as to include glory he gets from dumping on evildoers. But then Piper couldn't say God is 'most' glorified in our being most satisfied in him.
In fact, what in the world is a determinist like Piper doing even talking about the notions of “less glory” and “more glory” for God? A God who unconditionally determines all things for the sake of maximizing his own glory by definition gets precisely as much glory as he wants, nor more, no less. If he thought he deserved more glory than he’s getting, an all-powerful God who unconditionally determines whatever he wants would by definition determine more glory for himself. And if he really gets more glory through our being satisfied in him, he needs only to determine more human satisfaction with himself.
But of course! God has two wills. I forgot. That fixes it all.
Tom Post Edited (TGB) : 2/8/2005 10:04:10 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/8/2005 11:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Good thinking. You express well the fundamental feeling of uneasiness about Piper’s (and Edwards, and most Calvinists who adopt this approach to divine glorification) position that a lot of us feel but have never put into words. And you’re perfectly right. Piper is inconsistent. 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.
Thank goodness! I didn't think that I was crazy. It seemed so obvious when I first looked at it, part of me thought that I HAD to be wrong! LOL 
******************************
Actually, Tom, here we have to remember a key thought in theological determinism ala Edwards and Calvin: God's glory is inextricably linked to God's self-revelation...and VARIOUS FACETS of that revelation.
Edwards (and Piper follows) makes the argument that God couldn't be completely glorified and enjoyed in UNLESS God was revealed to Creation as Savior, Judge, and Punisher of sin. Aspect of God's redemption and wrath. Now, of course, if sin and evil NEVER EXISTED, redemption and wrath would never exist...and as such, God would never be REVEALED to Creation as Savior, Judge, and Punisher of Sin. What Edwards would say is this, not in these words of course:
If there was a state of reality were sin and evil did not exist and all people enjoyed God all the time, this would be a LESS THAN MAXIMAL state of God's glorification. Why? Because the people are not rejoicing in God revealed as Savior, Judge, and Punisher of Sin. The glorification of God is a function of two things: 1) how many facets of God is revealed and 2) how many people are satisfied and rejoice in those revealed facets. What this means is the the maximal glorious state will be one where more facets of God's eternal nature are revealed and where more people are satified and rejoice in that revealed divine nature.
Here's Edwards' actual quote...from John Piper's Sermon, How God Makes Known the Riches of His Glory to the Vessels of Mercy...http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/03/021603.html
Now listen to one whose insight and understanding of these things is far beyond mine, Jonathan Edwards, answering the question why a good and holy God would decree that there be hardening and evil. Listen carefully. Think hard. This is not the Bible. This is a man who I believe understood the Bible correctly on this point:
It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent [=radiant], that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . .
Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great . . .
So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect. (Jonathan Edwards, "Concerning the Divine Decrees," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), p. 528)
See, Tom? This is how Calvinists and Reformed thinkers deal with the Romans 9:18-23 idea...particularly Dr. Piper. AND this is how Piper can consistently say that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. As we are most satisfied with God as revealed in ALL his facets (INCLUDING divine wrath, judgement, and redemption), God is most glorified. And when you think about it, it does make sense. [Digression: Actually, when I first came up with the "glorification priniciple" long ago, I intentionally made it such that it could incorporate, but not necessitate, this idea of God's glorification]
Dr. Piper, I think, is cool on that score. It's the thing that YOU mention that's way off. It is conceivable to say that God could have 1)revealed Godself to ALL PEOPLE as Savior, Judge, and Punisher of sin by way of a "hellish" existence while at the same time 2) insuring that ALL PEOPLE will eventually praise and enjoy God in all his revealed ways, INCLUDING being a Savior, Judge, and Punisher of Sin. This equals the post-judgement, eventual universalism!
so, Piper's consistent...but NOT consistent ENOUGH!! What do you think, everyone?
"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 | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/8/2005 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | | schoolwork break!!!
Tom, you should have seen me reading your post...I was holding my breath...waiting for your conclusion...then, I got there "two wills!" of course. I LAUGHED OUT LOUD. 
Hey, let me say I like/love John Piper. I have a few of his books. And have read much of his stuff cuz he's pretty well known around here. Even been to his website a lot. met with him in person. He's a lovely fellow.
Surprisingly I think meph was on to something when he said that doc and john are similar ... maybe not in the same way, but wait until you meet him!! I remember scheduling anonymously last summer - he didn't know me (from adam ) nor did he ask about my particular church affiliation. I let him lead the conversation. You wouldn't believe it...for about an hour all he talked about was the God of LOVE. I had to dig deep to find differences between his current view of God and that of Boyd. BUT,rest assured, we did find those differences. When I asked specific questions about his website/books/sermons etc. I found the great divide! I really felt the whole academic thing was there (that sense of pride in having to protect your VIEW just because you wrote about it back in the day). blah. yuck. There were times I just felt like saying "it's ok John, you can tell me how you moved on from there...I see it in your eyes!" "who cares if you pull that card out of your theology...just do it!" But, nah, I'm not in on his life ...and I know how that goes when it comes from an outsider.
All this to say, I think Mr. Piper is aware of the issues you raise...just can't do much about them now. The house of cards is built. That's my opinion anyway...and as I always hope to be the case, I'm willing to change it 
...oh, and as I was leaving I shared my plans to finish my M.Div and become a woman preacher. His response: "Ok bye bye now." (don't know if he'll change that one...then again, you know me)
Still, you'll love him. He's quite sweet...and very generous with his time.
For your steadfast love is higher than the heavens, and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
psalm 108:4 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 2/8/2005 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Bottom line: How can it be reconciled that God wants nothing more than to maximize and display his glory...but then ORDAINS things such that His glory is not maximized? This is a blatent contradiction that needs to be considered.
Welcome to the schizophrenic god of Calvinism.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 2/8/2005 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said...mark/spark...that is the saddest freakin thing to see prior to vday. what is it supposed to mean?
Five point Calvinist T.U.L.I.P.
Not to be confused with roses.
Happy Valentine’s Day Selah!
P.S. Meph, don’t forget be to bring your ukulele when you go tip toeing through the tulips with Mr. Piper.
 "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) : 2/8/2005 12:12:07 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 2/8/2005 6:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | I seem to recall both Calvin and Edwards saying that God was in fact "glorified" in the damnation of sinners; they apparently didn't think universalism was somehow more glorifying to God, or they would have definitely embraced it. Calvinism is all about the glory of God in everything, even sin, death, hell, Satan, the Fall, etc.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 2/8/2005 5:21:34 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Dave
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 2/9/2005 11:40 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Mephi,
I read this thread (quickly) yesterday and feel the need to jump in here with my two cents because I saw no one giving the perspective I am going to state. I am basing my statement on something I believe I read fairly recently from the Desiring God website (Piper ministry website), but for the life of me I can’t remember where it specifically is to go back and find the actual wording. My recollection is that the text was addressing a similar question to the issue you are bringing out. I am hesitant to speak too strongly for Piper himself as I don’t want to put words in his mouth, especially not having the actual text and my having a poor memory. So if you take this with a grain of salt, consider it fodder to ruminate on.
I believe the point was made in what I read (the Piper material) that there is a different perspective in mind when talking about “God is ALL about his own glorification and its maximization” (using your wording) versus “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.” In the first context we are looking at the big picture, at God’s plans for the universe as a whole, while the context for the second statement is from a personal, individual perspective.
In God’s big picture there is a dark backdrop of sin in the world, including those that rebel and end up in hell, against which God’s incarnation in Jesus, suffering, and saving is seen as all the more glorious in contrast and will lead to a greater overall display of God’s glory, and of the redeemed peoples’ joy. But if looking from the perspective of an individual’s life, we could ask, “Mephi, is God most glorified in your specific life when all your actions and heart responses to the situations around you give evidence of happily entrusting yourself to God and his leading, treasuring God above other competing allegiances, or when you spurn God and what he is for you in Jesus, and prove by your thoughts and actions that you believe greater joy is to be found in things other than God?”
So understanding there are two different perspectives in mind is important in trying to understand the concepts, global versus from one’s personal, individual perspective. I hope I am doing Piper justice here and that this helps. If I come across the actual text I read I will put it up here.
David | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/9/2005 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Absolutely marvelous!
Hello, David. Welcome to the board and thank you for your great interaction on this!
David:
I believe the point was made in what I read (the Piper material) that there is a different perspective in mind when talking about “God is ALL about his own glorification and its maximization” (using your wording) versus “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.” In the first context we are looking at the big picture, at God’s plans for the universe as a whole, while the context for the second statement is from a personal, individual perspective.
In God’s big picture there is a dark backdrop of sin in the world, including those that rebel and end up in hell, against which God’s incarnation in Jesus, suffering, and saving is seen as all the more glorious in contrast and will lead to a greater overall display of God’s glory, and of the redeemed peoples’ joy. But if looking from the perspective of an individual’s life, we could ask, “Mephi, is God most glorified in your specific life when all your actions and heart responses to the situations around you give evidence of happily entrusting yourself to God and his leading, treasuring God above other competing allegiances, or when you spurn God and what he is for you in Jesus, and prove by your thoughts and actions that you believe greater joy is to be found in things other than God?”
So understanding there are two different perspectives in mind is important in trying to understand the concepts, global versus from one’s personal, individual perspective.
The idea that "God is ALL about his own glorification and it's maximization" comes from Piper's ideas about God's chief end: enjoying glorifying Godself. Dr. Piper makes absolutely know bones about the fact the the primary telos of EVERYTHING in Creation is it's contribution to God's happiness by way of His glorification. If you check his "Desiring God" book...or his sermons under the "God's Passion for His Glory" section of his "Desiring God" website, you'll see what I mean. To say that God does NOT want to enjoy glorifying Godself to the fullest extent would be to either outright deny or relativize into insignificance the the chief telos. So I don't think that one's going any where.
As far as the "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisified in Him", yes, it is from the standpoint of personal, individual perspective. However, the truth in the statement is firm: God gets the most glory possible out of a specific person's life when they live lives that are completely satisifed in God and rejoice in who God is. For any person to live a life LESS THAN this is DIMINISH God's glorification in the individual life. (Simple logic that Edwards picks up on.)
So, when we look at this, we can easily see that the global and personal perspectives are interrelated. The personal, individual lives that maximally glorify God contributed to the OVERALL disply of God's glory. And THIS, Dave, is where the inconsistency lies. If a person wants to say that the CHIEF END of God is the enjoyment of his own self-glorification where he is ALWAYS after increasing his own glorification...AND that God has the total ability to do whatever God wants...then it stands to reason that God will use that ability to garner as much glorification from his Creation as is possible. As I hope that you've seen, God's glorification is a function of two things: 1) facets of the divine nature revealed to sentient beings and 2) said beings finding total satisfaction and joy in that revealed divine nature. Using this idea, we can see that the more facets of divine nature that are revealed...and the more people that get total satisfaction and joy in the revelations, the more that God is glorified overall.
If all this is the case, then positing an eternally enduring conscious punishment for sentient being would WORK AGAINST the goal of increasing God's overall glorification. Again, we can say that divine judgement via conscious punishment (which reveals God as Judge, Savior, and Punisher of sin) is necessary for more facets of God to be revealed. But this doesn't need to be eternally enduring. Indeed, what would be the MOST glorifying in this system is for EVERYONE to end up being satisfied and joyful in God as Judge, Savior, and Punisher of Sin...INCLUDING SATAN.
All this is the say that the global/personal divide really doesn't solve the inconsistency, I believe. Thanks for the interaction, Dave.
"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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/9/2005 3:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi-
If Piper admits that maximized glory is maximally DIVERSE (in the sense that it requires evil and hell to serve as the backdrop for the glory of God's mercy and salvation) then Piper isn't inconsistent. Everything is cool. True, God wouldn't be getting from those in hell the glory that comes from a person's being most satisfied with God, but this doesn't deminish God's overall glory since their being in hell serves as a necessary backdrop to heaven. Now, YOU claim that hell doesn't need to be eternally induring, that a temporary hell would be just as adequante a backdrop, but that's debatable. And I can just imagine an argument to the effect that an eternal hell is a darker and so better more appropriate backdrop to an eternal heaven. You may think otherwise, but I don't see how this wouldn't boil down to personal taste. Piper could argue diversity (which you'd grant) and then argue that an eternal hell serves as a better more approprate backdrop to an eternal heaven. It's not logically inconsistent with his claim, all we need to do is tweak that claim to have it express what's there anyway: "God is most glorified IN MY LIFE when I am most satisfied in him." It wouldn't follow that God is most DIVERSELY glorified when I am most satisfied in him. See? And since maximally diverse glory is what God is after, Piper isn't inconsistent. Whether or not God would think an eternal hell is necessary to an eternally diverse maximized glory is up to God. You obviously don't think so, but it's not a hands down thing. I mean, if it's the case that there will forever be those in hell who when considered within the boundaries of their own existence do not glorify God dirrectly, that doesn't mean God will not in the end have acheived a maximally diverse glory. And God may want to continue achieving a maximally diverse glory. I don't know how you can prove that this requires a temporary hell. It's conceding the diversity-is-necessary-to-glory argument for justifying evil that won't let you pin Piper down as inconsistent.
But I don't buy the diversity-is-necessary argument for justifying evil at all, so I don't think evil makes God more glorious in ANY sense of the word. (An aside: If God receives glory from our acknowledging him as the judge of sinners, I kinda think there will be some regret in in it for him; that's not unreasonable if God regretted creating us and having to wipe us out in Gen. 6.) After all, what about the glory that COULD HAVE been revealed in God's have successfully navigated humanity through a sinless history? Now THAT is glorious. For the Vickings to win the super bowl 21-20 is glorious. For them to win 49-0 is more glorious. You don't have to give the other team points to make your own victory greater. If we sailed through history sinless (just thinking abstractly here, I know nobody buys the possibility of it) I don't see God's glory being at all less. I mean, is my marriage more wonderful if I beat and abuse my wife some? I don't get it.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 2/9/2005 2:27:36 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/9/2005 3:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
If Piper admits that maximized glory is maximally DIVERSE (in the sense that it requires evil and hell to serve as the backdrop for the glory of God's mercy and salvation) then Piper isn't inconsistent. Everything is cool. True, God wouldn't be getting from those in hell the glory that comes from a person's being most satisfied with God, but this doesn't deminish God's overall glory since their being in hell serves as a necessary backdrop to heaven. Now, YOU claim that hell doesn't need to be eternally induring, that a temporary hell would be just as adequante a backdrop, but that's debatable. And I can just imagine an argument to the effect that an eternal hell is a darker and so better more appropriate backdrop to an eternal heaven. You may think otherwise, but I don't see how this wouldn't boil down to personal taste. Piper could argue diversity (which you'd grant) and then argue that an eternal hell serves as a better more approprate backdrop to an eternal heaven. It's not logically inconsistent with his claim, all we need to do is tweak that claim to have it express what's there anyway: "God is most glorified IN MY LIFE when I am most satisfied in him." It wouldn't follow that God is most DIVERSELY glorified when I am most satisfied in him. See? And since maximally diverse glory is what God determines, Piper isn't inconsistent. If it's also the case that there will forever be those in hell who when considered within the boundaries of their own existence do not glorify God dirrectly, that doesn't mean God will not in the end have acheive a maximally diverse glory. Introducing the diversity-is-necessary argument for justifying evil won't let you pin Piper down as inconsistent.
Ok. There's a very good reason why this idea won't work: The THEOCENTRICITY of Dr. Piper's whole program and thesis! The issue has never been about diversity of backdrops more than it has be about diversity of REVEALED ASPECTS of the character of God. The issue is not about trying to create the most polarized ground possible (ie eternal heaven vs. eternal hell). That would take things out of the scope which Jonathon Edwards HIMSELF sets out very adroitly. I'll highlight things so that you can see what I'm talking about.
It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent [=radiant], that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . .
Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great . . .
So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect. (Jonathan Edwards, "Concerning the Divine Decrees," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), p. 528)
Do you see, Tom?? This was never about diversity and contrast. This was about the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. As Edwards says in this last paragraph, the happiness of a creation IN God is directly proportionate to the PERFECTION of that knowledge. "Perfection" meaning HOW MANY FACETS of God's nature are understood by the creature. Bottom line: the MAIN importance of "hell" is to display to creation God's holiness, hatred of sin, etc. in order to "perfect" our knowledge of God...not to have some type of backdrop to an eternal heaven.
It is THIS that Piper takes from Edwards...and it is THIS, that my argument banks on.
Let is be that "God is most glorified in sentient beings, when they are most satisfied in God." If it is conceivable to say that God can create a reality where...
1) Sin and severe divine punishment exist such that God's holiness, hatred of sin, forgiveness, etc are displayed to ALL sentient beings. (All people are judged before God.)
and...
2) Eventually, ALL sentient beings (including Satan) end up being completely satified and joyful in God as revealed in SALVATION HISTORY and JUDGEMENT
...then THIS would be a reality where God is achieves the highest possible level of glorification from Creation.
See how air-tight this is, Tom? It fulfills the criteria set by Edwards...AND Dr. Piper. I think that the only reason Edwards himself doesn't take this line of thought is because he exegeted the universalist texts along Calvinistic lines...and went for the eternally long conscious suffering. (See "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" But just because they didn't think of it doesn't make it POSSIBLE as an option...especially if one has a different exegetical take.
NOW what do you think? Trust me, man. I've thought AAAALLLLL of this out!
"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) : 2/9/2005 2:47:13 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/9/2005 4:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
But I don't buy the diversity-is-necessary argument for justifying evil at all, so I don't think evil makes God more glorious in ANY sense of the word. (An aside: If God receives glory from our acknowledging him as the judge of sinners, I kinda think there will be some regret in in it for him; that's not unreasonable if God regretted creating us and having to wipe us out in Gen. 6.) After all, what about the glory that COULD HAVE been revealed in God's have successfully navigated humanity through a sinless history? Now THAT is glorious. For the Vickings to win the super bowl 21-20 is glorious. For them to win 49-0 is more glorious. You don't have to give the other team points to make your own victory greater. If we sailed through history sinless (just thinking abstractly here, I know nobody buys the possibility of it) I don't see God's glory being at all less. I mean, is my marriage more wonderful if I beat and abuse my wife some? I don't get it.
My thought is that Calvin, Edwards, and Piper all just tried to reconcile the biblical data as best as they could. And one has to admit, when you look at the Old Testament, the argument that they lay out is very compelling. I talked about this long ago. There are MANY cases in the OT where we see God either allowing or ordaining bouts of suffering for His NAME'S sake and for His glory. Do we even need to talk about the Exodus story and the hardening of Pharoah? Doc glosses over these passages time and again...and I've tried to tell him about it. It was these types of passages that led me to the "glorification principle" idea.
Dr. Piper masterfully shows how God's glory is an undeniable common theme in both Old and New Testaments. 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.
So, I can see how the Calvinist perspective here really is a BIBLICALLY ADEQUATE model for dealing with the notion of God's glorification and God's God-centered orientation.
"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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/9/2005 7:06 PM (GMT -6) | |
Mephi: NOW what do you think? Trust me, man. I've thought AAAALLLLL of this out!
Tom: You usually do Bro.
Mephi: Ok. There's a very good reason why this idea won't work: The THEOCENTRICITY of Dr. Piper's whole program and thesis! The issue has never been about diversity of backdrops more than it has be about diversity of REVEALED ASPECTS of the character of God.
Tom: 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!
Edwards: It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent [=radiant], that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all...
Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
Tom: 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.
Which leads me to ask, what right have we to reduce the possible aspects of revealed glory to those that in the end actually ARE revealed, which is a finite number of aspects? If God’s worth, value, and glory, are truly infinite, then even Edwards' approach fails, for surely God is greater and more majestic than however many finite number of "aspects" are in the end revealed to us. My point is, if God’s glory and worth are infinite, then it’s literally impossible for creation, even redeemed and glorified creation, to contain or realize all aspects of God’s worth and glory. God's own infinite worth, value, and glory just blew the house of cards down.
So if you can show Piper is inconsistent, go for it. But the whole premise of his (and Edwards) which you concede in order to get inside his system, is in my view wrongheaded from the start.
Edwards: If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it.
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.
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.
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.
Mephi: Do you see, Tom?? This was never about diversity and contrast. This was about the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. As Edwards says in this last paragraph, the happiness of a creation IN God is directly proportionate to the PERFECTION of that knowledge. "Perfection" meaning HOW MANY FACETS of God's nature are understood by the creature.
Tom: Yeah, I see. But I cannot agree that in the end God will have revealed every possible aspect of his worth, value, and glory. So I see no reason to agree that he MUST use this creation to reveal any particular number of “aspects” at all. Surely there are SOME things about God which any revelation to us entails, given our finiteness, freedom, responsibility, hard-wiring, whatever. But to argue that God MUST determine sin because GOD must reveal himself as judge of sinners and so receive glory for it is just wrongheaded to me. Christ doesn't even have to be the center for me to question this. If Christ is anywhere in the vicinity I'm disinclined to view God as THIS kind of God.
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.
Tom Post Edited (TGB) : 2/9/2005 6:28:41 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 79 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:38 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 |
|
|