Double Standards

[OBW]

Mr. Piper is a bit more provocative in his rewriting of part of an old creed:

"The chief end of man is to glorify God

By

Enjoying Him forever."

Page 18, Desiring God (2003 edition) John Piper.

I realize that this is not exactly what the old catechism/confession says (maybe the Westminster??) but it sort of is what it says.

And I have asked on more than one occasion whether there is anything substantial that makes "by enjoying Him forever" more than a really nice sounding statement. Is there more than inference from a verse or two, or is this something that can be founded in a substantial manner? I will be honest to say that I do not have the inclination to say that it is right or wrong, or to do the research to establish it one way or the other. Instead, I think that anyone who wants to say that it is simply true needs to establish that it really is true through more than declaring it to be so.

I have no problem with the idea of enjoyment — even experience. But when it is declared without qualifier or explanation that "the chief purpose of man is . . ." I really want more than "it's there in the Westminster Confession," or "Augustine [or whoever] said it." Neither of those are the source of truth, just repeaters of it when they are understanding truth rightly.

And the reason that I ask this question is because I wonder whether we (all of us in the majority of Evangelical Christianity, if not others as well) have focused too much of our attention on activities in this life that are not really the primary focus just because we have bought "the chief purpose of man . . ." or some other human oversimplification. Have we missed the real purpose because of it?

Surely the Children of Israel enjoyed the benefits of God's actions. But they also were left to live out the commands without a lot of intervention. And I don't think it was just for the purpose of proving that we couldn't do it. I think God expected obedience. And at some level they began to obey more once they got really battered by the period of captivity. But it was true that the kind of obedience that was truly called for generally requires more than a strong will. It also requires that something of the pre-fall existence be restored. Therefore salvation. But the purpose of that is not "to enjoy Him" but to reflect Him. I find that one in the Bible. Not sure about the other.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by OBW

I realize that this is not exactly what the old catechism/confession says (maybe the Westminster??) but it sort of is what it says.

And I have asked on more than one occasion whether there is anything substantial that makes "by enjoying Him forever" more than a really nice sounding statement. Is there more than inference from a verse or two, or is this something that can be founded in a substantial manner? I will be honest to say that I do not have the inclination to say that it is right or wrong, or to do the research to establish it one way or the other. Instead, I think that anyone who wants to say that it is simply true needs to establish that it really is true through more than declaring it to be so.

I have no problem with the idea of enjoyment — even experience. But when it is declared without qualifier or explanation that "the chief purpose of man is . . ." I really want more than "it's there in the Westminster Confession," or "Augustine [or whoever] said it." Neither of those are the source of truth, just repeaters of it when they are understanding truth rightly.

And the reason that I ask this question is because I wonder whether we (all of us in the majority of Evangelical Christianity, if not others as well) have focused too much of our attention on activities in this life that are not really the primary focus just because we have bought "the chief purpose of man . . ." or some other human oversimplification. Have we missed the real purpose because of it?

Surely the Children of Israel enjoyed the benefits of God's actions. But they also were left to live out the commands without a lot of intervention. And I don't think it was just for the purpose of proving that we couldn't do it. I think God expected obedience. And at some level they began to obey more once they got really battered by the period of captivity. But it was true that the kind of obedience that was truly called for generally requires more than a strong will. It also requires that something of the pre-fall existence be restored. Therefore salvation. But the purpose of that is not "to enjoy Him" but to reflect Him. I find that one in the Bible. Not sure about the other.

We've been reading Piper's book in SS and about half the class has dropped out. He's pretty ballsy messing around with one of the confessions. Several of the first chapters are a difficult read, not to mention his push for Christian hedonism! Some of what he preaches seems to map onto what Lee taught (made me wonder if Piper has been reading "THE MINISTRY"!). I don't think I want to spend time advancing Piper's Christian hedonism thesis here because I'm a bit skeptical. But, it's an interesting read and I have received some benefit. So far no one in class is calling him the MOTA, oracle, or the last Apostle!

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

We've been reading Piper's book in SS and about half the class has dropped out. He's pretty ballsy messing around with one of the confessions. Several of the first chapters are a difficult read, not to mention his push for Christian hedonism! Some of what he preaches seems to map onto what Lee taught (made me wonder if Piper has been reading "THE MINISTRY"!). I don't think I want to spend time advancing Piper's Christian hedonism thesis here because I'm a bit skeptical. But, it's an interesting read and I have received some benefit. So far no one in class is calling him the MOTA, oracle, or the last Apostle!

Hey! I just realized something! If half of Lee's congregation stopped attending every training where he spouted off nonsense, maybe it would have taken a bit of wind out his sails and trimmed his wings. It would not surprise me that if during their darkest moments some of the blendeds slipped a secrete prayer to WL.

[Cal]

Why is it not a grand enough purpose to be in God's family, be loved and chosen by him, promised eternity of relation with him, have thousands and even millions of brothers and sisters and friends in Christ, be co-workers with him in his work to bring others to himself, and share in his glory?

Why do we also need to "become God" for it to be grand enough?

The Bible never says anything close to plainly that we will "become God." Given that, as I said, we ought to hold back such a whopper of an assertion.

It seems that such overreaching was the sin of both Satan and the first people. Both were tempted to be "like God" in ways God forbade. Seems to me this "become God" thing is the same type of temptation. "I will be like the Almighty," said Satan. "You will be like God," he told Adam and Eve. It springs from ingratitude, the thought that there is something that God is keeping or hiding from us, some secret prize that he's withholding.

God has been gracious enough to reveal some of the mysteries he planned for us. Let's be careful of speculating about ones he hasn't made clear, especially when they are in the being "like God" category. Tap dancing with blasphemy is not the choice of sober minds.

Also, whatever "partakers of the divine nature" means, it certainly does not have to mean we "become God." As a matter of fact, extrapolating such an idea from that verse seems reckless interpretation.