Hey everyone! Today I got a job offer for the summer from a civil engineering firm here in Knoxville! YAY! I will be able to stay here in the church. Also, from my very first contact with this company, this is exactly the job that I wanted to get. Thank the Lord for his provision! I have known for a while that Gresham Smith (the company) was going to offer me a job, but I had been told it was in Nashville. But then I was told that Knoxville is also an option and was able to get the job here. YAY!
Now I just need somewhere to live...
Monday, March 27, 2006
Friday, March 17, 2006
A close call
Whew, if I had know that all of our chances of beating Winthrop rested on this shot going in, I don't think that I would have been very confident in our chances. But it did indeed fall, and we escaped Winthrop, even though they had the whole-hearted support of Walt Alexander, into the second round of the NCAA tournament. If we can't play better than we did against Winthrop, Witchita State will kill us. Oh yeah, Vision Quest is two days away. Forget basketball, I want to go worship God.
Monday, March 13, 2006
VQ....
...is just six days away. Only six more days until I crowd into a GMC Yukon that is NOT going to have the starter removed from it, WITH AC, and prepar efor hte best beach trip ever. There is going to be Harlen-bashing galore, and lots of Bowman music, so much Bowman music that I am currently asking for prayer for increased patience in my reaction to these unintentional offenses from Bowman. So, if you are going to VQ, take heart! I'm the one that has to endure Matt's music for eight hours, not you.
I'm super pumped, how bout you?
I'm super pumped, how bout you?
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Repentance
I brought this up in my response to the philosophy professor, but ever since I wrote that, I have been a little challenged by a particular question that I raised in my response but did not attempt to answer. And that is, "What is it about the redemption of a lost soul that delights God so much?"
In Luke 15 there are three familiar parables that illustrate God's love for hte recovering of what was lost. These parables are the lost sheep, the lost coin and the prodigal's son. You guys all know these. These last verses of each of these three parables show what I am thinking about.
v. 7 I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.
v. 10 Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
v. 31-32 “And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours. It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.’”
So, why is this? Why, in the eyes of God, is repentance so highly esteemed? I can think of a few reasons. First, a soul that was completely in bondage to sin looking to God and esteeming him as better than their sin glorifies him much. Secondly, (and obviously) It is because God loves sinners, and loves that they will be accepting Christ's sacrifice.
I believe that this is why God created the world as he did. I believe that creation as it is, is perfect in the sense that God has chosen the perfect means of glorifying himself. Is there a better way for God to be glorified in repentance than by slaves of sin turning from their sin and towards him? Is there a better way for him to show his sacrificial love than to actually become a sacrifice for us? Is there a better way for him to show the majesety of his justice and holiness than by justly punishing sinners?
I believe that you can tell a whole lot about this God of ours by looking at what he created and why he created these things. Anyways, this is fun to think about.
In Luke 15 there are three familiar parables that illustrate God's love for hte recovering of what was lost. These parables are the lost sheep, the lost coin and the prodigal's son. You guys all know these. These last verses of each of these three parables show what I am thinking about.
v. 7 I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.
v. 10 Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
v. 31-32 “And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours. It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.’”
So, why is this? Why, in the eyes of God, is repentance so highly esteemed? I can think of a few reasons. First, a soul that was completely in bondage to sin looking to God and esteeming him as better than their sin glorifies him much. Secondly, (and obviously) It is because God loves sinners, and loves that they will be accepting Christ's sacrifice.
I believe that this is why God created the world as he did. I believe that creation as it is, is perfect in the sense that God has chosen the perfect means of glorifying himself. Is there a better way for God to be glorified in repentance than by slaves of sin turning from their sin and towards him? Is there a better way for him to show his sacrificial love than to actually become a sacrifice for us? Is there a better way for him to show the majesety of his justice and holiness than by justly punishing sinners?
I believe that you can tell a whole lot about this God of ours by looking at what he created and why he created these things. Anyways, this is fun to think about.
Vision Quest
It's just 11 days away now. I'm pumped. Are you pumped? You better be, because it's gonna blow your face into a trash heap somewhere if you aren't ready for extreme awesomeness. YAY!
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Conversation with a philosophy professor
Well, I think that this dialouge may be over, so I thouhgt that some of you guys might actually want to know what this professor and I talked about since I have mentioned the fact that I have been conversing with a philosophy professor about theology for a while. This conversation started when Julie K. began to witness to this professor in Borders nearly a month ago. He began to present intellectual reasons why he could not accept the gospel, so I conversed with him about these reasons. At the end of the conversation at the bookstore, he had stated several things that are simply unstated in the following dialouge.
First, he couldn't see how the following three statements could be true.
1. God is all-powerful, and whatever he wills shall come to pass.
2. God desires that all should be saved.
3. Some are not saved.
Secondly, he thought that God acting to glorify himself was vain..
Thirdly, he stated that rational beings were ends in themselves. When I asked him why this was, he said that that is the definition of what it means to be a rational being. A little while later, I emailed him, then he responded, and I responded to him. (He may still respond, but it has been 4 or 5 days since I sent him the email, and I'm not holding my breath.) I deleted all references to his name in case anyone knows him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Dr. _____,
This is Paul Steele, I was the Calvinistic engineering student that you talked
to at Borders last week. I found links to two arguments that I thought you
would be interested in reading based on our discussion last week. The first
is that Jonathan Edwards argument about God seeking to glorify himself in
creation above anything else. That argument can be found here.
http://www.jonathanedwards.com/text/2D/The%20End%20chpt%201.htm
The second one is by a contemporary Calvinistic pastor and theologian named
John Piper about how God can not save everyone even though he states that it
is his desire to do so. It can be found here.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/2wills.html
I hope that you find these articles interesting, and I enjoyed our discussion
from last week.
-Paul Steele
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Mr. Steele,
Nice to hear from you. I'm glad that you are still considering these matters.
Be careful not to take the easy way out, which would consist in going in search of answers which support what you are already committed to believing, rather than honestly asking yourself where the truth of the matter lies.
For our purposes, the dispute between the hard-line Calvinists and "the Arminians" -- that is, almost all other Christians who are not Calvinists, including other the vast majority of Protestants, all Catholics, the Orthodox, etc. -- is beside the point. The problem with Piper's essay is clearly revealed in the following quotation: "What are we do say of the fact that God wills something that in fact does not happen. There are two possibilities as far as I can see. One is that there is a power in the universe greater than God's which is frustrating him by overruling what he wills. Neither Calvinist nor Arminian affirms this. The other possibility is that God wills not to save all, even though he is willing to save all, because there is something else that he wills more, which would be lost if he exerted his sovereign power to save all. This is the solution that I as a Calvinist affirm along with Arminians. In other words both Calvinists and Arminians affirm two wills in God when they ponder deeply over 1 Timothy 2:4. Both can say that God wills for all to be saved. But then when queried why all are not saved both Calvinist and Arminian answer that God is committed to something even more valuable than saving all. "
The problem can be stated simple: The "two possibilites" that Piper "can see" are not the only two possibilites. A third possibility is precisely the point at issue, namely, there cannot be a situation in which God wills something AND that something does not happen. Clearly, few or no Christians will accept option (1) that there is another power which thwarts God's will. Hence, Piper opts for (2), that God is committed to "something more valuable than saving all."
What is it, then, that God values more than saving all? Piper's answer: "The answer given by Calvinists is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God's glory in wrath and mercy (Romans 9:22-23) and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Corinthians 1:29). "
This does indeed "solve" the problem to a certain extent, but it leads necessarily to the further proposition that:
"God values His own glory and humbling man so he can get credit for His gift of grace MORE that God values saving human beings from eternal damnation."
And this, speaking frankly, seems to make God into a vain monster, who acts primarily out of self-pride rather than self-sacrificing love. In other words, it seems to make God act indistinguishably from Satan.
The question, therefore, is whether this claim can be supported in the face of the competing claim that God is all-loving, or indeed, that God IS Love. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would here be made into some sort of perverse act of self-glorification, rather than a self-sacrifice carried out out of pure love. One has to face the question squarely, and ask, is a doctrine which ranks God's love lower on His list of priorities than his pride (or glory, if you prefer) a genuinely Christian doctrine? This is, of course, a very old and very common argument against Calvin -- that Calvin makes God into a monster. The reason that this argument is made so often against Calvin is that Calvin does, in fact, made God into a monster -- at least so it seems to me, and also to the vast majority of non-Calvinist Christians.
So let's put the trilemma into other terms:
(1) God wills all to be saved but some other power thwarts His will.
(2) God "wants" all to be saved but he wills that most are damned because he is a monster who values His own glory over self-sacrificing love for His creatures.
(3) God wills all to be saved and (therefore) all are saved.
Piper takes his point of departure from the following: "We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will." otherwise, expressed as the thesis of "two wills" in God.
One must ask whether this is theologically tenable. It would entail that God is not One, but is rather divided against himself. This seems right away to deny the perfection of God. Piper argues from Scripture that we must recognize two wills in God. However, one might argue that, on the contrary, "any reading of Scripture which forces to deny God's perfection is an erroneous reading." Piper's exegesis entails that God is not perfect. Therefore, Piper's exegesis is incorrect.
Similarly, we run across a problem whereby Piper, a Calvinist, places himself in a position to denying God's power (!) -- just the thing that, as a Calvinist, he least wants to do! His "solution" to the problem is to say that God "wants" X but values Y more than X and than having Y entails not having X -- so when God wills Y he also wills not-X even though he "wants" X. I ask: What is it that prevents God from realizing both X and Y? WHY does having Y entail not having X? Is it some other power that thwarts God here? Is God too weak to arrange the world such that BOTH X and Y are realized? Or does he lack the knowledge to do it? Or does he, after all, not really "want" X?
As I said in the bookstore, it seems that one must reject at least one of the following:
(1) God can realize whatever He wills (i.e. He is all-powerful)
(2) God wills all to saved (He is all-loving)
(3) Some people are damned for all eternity
Piper is set on holding (3), so he (like all consistent Calvinists) gives up (2) -- and then goes on to inadvertently give up (1) for good measure! Piper's "solution" is a fudge: he tries to give lip-service to (2) by saying "God wills that all be saved but not really because He will something else which is incompatible with this more." But that's simply trying to "have his cake and eat it too" -- and it forces him to introduce either a spurious distinction between "wanting X" and "willing X" (which distinction is untenable for an all-powerful being) or to posit the existence of two contradictory wills within God, which undermines God's unity and perfection. (We need to modify Moses here: "I AM THAT I AM ... EXCEPT WHEN I'M NOT" or again "Hear o Israel, the Lord your God is One ... except when He is Two".)
So we arrive at a "Christian" theology wherein God's love is feebler than His pride and desire for self-glorification, and He is not perfect because He experiences conflicting desires, and furthermore He is too impotent or ignorant to harmonize His conflicting desires or to realize all His desires (even though He wants all to be saved -- even if He "wants" it less than his own self-glorification). This is not at all a conception of God that I can harmonize with the Christian understanding of God (as I understand it). If I were persuaded that this was the genuine teaching of the Christian faith, I would be forced to see in Christianity a great evil and a curse on mankind, rather than the teaching of peace, God's love, and God's grace. "God is a monster" hardly seems like the substance of the "good news."
best,
_Dr. _____
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afterwards I responded with this....
Dr. _____,
Sorry about the delay in responding to your last email. I had a busy week, and never had time to devote to an adequate response.
Before I get started I wanted to say two things. First, the Piper article I sent to you, I sent mostly because it poses a solution to the logical problem that you had, but I don’t believe that it is sufficient to prove philosophically that the Calvinistic solution is the only logically acceptable one. The article was originally published in a book called Still Sovereign, which was written as a response to Arminian doctrine. This is why Piper doesn
’t consider other possibilities as he is discussing 1 Timothy 2:4, he is merely concerned with the two most widely held views among Christians.
Secondly, I have received numerous proofs through apolegetics and experience of the existence of the God of the Bible, that I do not consider reading theology written that does prove that God exists as searching after that which I already held to be true. Two years ago I was an Arminian, when I was presented with a Calvinistic explanation of a few verses in the Bible. I recognized the argument as better than the Arminian explanation, and as I have studied, I have found the belief system to be more and more representative of what the Bible actually says. So although I do not start out with trying to prove the existence of God in every argument I read, I do not believe that I am guilty of only seeking out arguments that support what I already believe. (I will however, when presenting my own views, present articles that do support those conclusions that I hold.)
With that out of the way, I wanted to address your objections. First, I would state that if you feel that Calvin makes God into a monster, it is because Calvin is reflecting the clear teaching of the Bible which show that God acts primarily for his own glory. If that makes God into a monster, the source is the Bible, not Calvin. Perhaps the clearest text showing this is Isaiah 48:9-11.
"For my name's sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you,
that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.
In these three verses, God references actions which will glorify himself six times. This passage is not alone in the Bible in showing this. There are others. I will cite a few. Look at Ezekiel 36:22-23, Malachi 2:2, John 12:27-28, John 17:4, 1 Corinthians 10:31 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10. This list is by no means all, but I feel that it is a sufficient enough sample to prove that this belief did not originate with Calvin.
So, the more pertinent question is this, “Does this make God monstrous in his vanity and desire for praise?” As you would expect, I would say no. What, other than God, could be the end of God? If God existed to serve man and do what was best for him, God would be an idolater. He MUST be at the center of his own affections. This sounds extremely vain, because this is a terrible quality for a human to possess. If I were at the center of my own affections, you would call me a self-centered jerk. So is it different for God?
Again, I would say that it is different for God, because he is perfect. Many times we, as people, view a life devoted to some ideal as a supremely righteous life. Perhaps someone who is ultimately devoted to the display (or glory) of compassion we would say is living very righteously. Or perhaps the same person might be living to display truth, or justice, and live they then their lives for those ideals. These most would consider righteous lives. But where is compassion and love and justice and truth and righteousness and every other good thing perfected? These things are perfected in God. So God, in living for himself, is in effect living for the perfect manifestation of everything that is good that we see in the world. This is not vain fancies, because it is not vanity to glory in the perfect.
I have heard it said that the essence of righteousness is to place supreme value on what is supremely valuable with all of the just actions that follow. Furthermore, it is the essence of unrighteousness to place supreme value on that which has little or no value with all the unjust actions that follow. What happens when a man values money more than human life? He may kill to get something as menial as money at the great cost of human life. I found that upon pondering this, it seemed to be true. And, if it were indeed true, having God set his highest affections on something lower than himself would be unrighteous.
I also don’t believe that God not saving everyone because he is acting for the sake of his name makes him impotent to fulfill all that he desires. Perhaps the best parallel that I can make to illustrate this is in the death of Christ. God ordained the death of his son. He foresaw it and planned it, but I don’t think that it would be possible to say that everyone of God’s desires was fulfilled during the entire course of events that took place. The sacrifice pleased him, but no father is glad to watch his son die, and I think that the same would have to be said of God. He doesn’t delight in suffering or take pleasure in death, but he uses those things to save sinners.
Is it logically required that God cannot ordain something imperfect to display his own perfection?
This doesn’t completely answer the charge of God’s impotence and I understand that. I have not delved into the mind of God to understand fully why he would seek to glorify himself through the redemption of the lost, rather than fellowship with pure and sinless beings. However, Christ said, “I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.” (Luke 15:7) Apparently, repentance glorifies God more than someone who is already just. Why, I don’t know. But knowing that, it becomes clearer why God might desire a system where sinners repent, and those that don’t are judged.
You said, "God values His own glory and humbling man so he can get credit for His gift of grace MORE that God values saving human beings from eternal damnation." I agree with this statement although I wouldn’t typically use these terms. God is worthy, men are not. One of your fundamental assumptions that you approach the idea of God with is that all rational beings are ends in themselves. In the bookstore I asked you why you thought this and the answer you gave is that that is the definition of what it means to be a rational being. But, how, may I ask, does rationality necessarily imply that we are ends in ourselves and not means to and end of something greater than we are? I believe that the reason your view is held about our end is that we are the highest beings here on Earth. We are rational, and no other being here is. Therefore, we must treat other rational beings as ends, because we are no different from them.
But, God is far greater than us. He created us. How does one create something that is an end in itself? Is a painting ever an end in itself, or is it created for the end that the artist created it? True, a painting is not rational, and I cannot make an analogy that would fit, because we, as humans, are unable to create rational beings. (We can give birth to them, but I believe you see the distinction. We do not mold them to fulfill a task, as an automaker does a car.) You might say that we cannot do this because we cannot create a rational being in such a way. We create animals to perform such functions, but it would be immoral for us to create a clone to fulfill the purpose of spare body part for example. But can God, who formed us, and is much higher and wiser than us, use us, his creation for his purposes? And if he can use us for his purposes, does this not make us ends of his will, and not ends in ourselves?
Acting in this manner may make God out to seem gross to you. It is gross if we have natural rights to autonomy as rational beings. However, I firmly believe that neither you nor I are autonomous beings. I believe that we were created by God to fulfill his purposes here on Earth, whether that is to glorify him through our joy at accepting his sacrifice of his son, or through glorifying him as he justly punishes us in our sin. Romans 9:22-23 makes it clear that both will glorify him. What is amazing is that God did send his son to die on the cross that we can be reconciled to him, and in our imperfection glorify the perfect one by rejoicing in his gift of life that he gave to us though we did not deserve it at all. The subject of the good news is not the God is a monster, but that this loving God has provided a way for sinners to be reconciled to himself, although he had to sacrifice and forsake that which was dearest to him in order to achieve it.
-Paul Steele
First, he couldn't see how the following three statements could be true.
1. God is all-powerful, and whatever he wills shall come to pass.
2. God desires that all should be saved.
3. Some are not saved.
Secondly, he thought that God acting to glorify himself was vain..
Thirdly, he stated that rational beings were ends in themselves. When I asked him why this was, he said that that is the definition of what it means to be a rational being. A little while later, I emailed him, then he responded, and I responded to him. (He may still respond, but it has been 4 or 5 days since I sent him the email, and I'm not holding my breath.) I deleted all references to his name in case anyone knows him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Dr. _____,
This is Paul Steele, I was the Calvinistic engineering student that you talked
to at Borders last week. I found links to two arguments that I thought you
would be interested in reading based on our discussion last week. The first
is that Jonathan Edwards argument about God seeking to glorify himself in
creation above anything else. That argument can be found here.
http://www.jonathanedwards.com/text/2D/The%20End%20chpt%201.htm
The second one is by a contemporary Calvinistic pastor and theologian named
John Piper about how God can not save everyone even though he states that it
is his desire to do so. It can be found here.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/2wills.html
I hope that you find these articles interesting, and I enjoyed our discussion
from last week.
-Paul Steele
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Mr. Steele,
Nice to hear from you. I'm glad that you are still considering these matters.
Be careful not to take the easy way out, which would consist in going in search of answers which support what you are already committed to believing, rather than honestly asking yourself where the truth of the matter lies.
For our purposes, the dispute between the hard-line Calvinists and "the Arminians" -- that is, almost all other Christians who are not Calvinists, including other the vast majority of Protestants, all Catholics, the Orthodox, etc. -- is beside the point. The problem with Piper's essay is clearly revealed in the following quotation: "What are we do say of the fact that God wills something that in fact does not happen. There are two possibilities as far as I can see. One is that there is a power in the universe greater than God's which is frustrating him by overruling what he wills. Neither Calvinist nor Arminian affirms this. The other possibility is that God wills not to save all, even though he is willing to save all, because there is something else that he wills more, which would be lost if he exerted his sovereign power to save all. This is the solution that I as a Calvinist affirm along with Arminians. In other words both Calvinists and Arminians affirm two wills in God when they ponder deeply over 1 Timothy 2:4. Both can say that God wills for all to be saved. But then when queried why all are not saved both Calvinist and Arminian answer that God is committed to something even more valuable than saving all. "
The problem can be stated simple: The "two possibilites" that Piper "can see" are not the only two possibilites. A third possibility is precisely the point at issue, namely, there cannot be a situation in which God wills something AND that something does not happen. Clearly, few or no Christians will accept option (1) that there is another power which thwarts God's will. Hence, Piper opts for (2), that God is committed to "something more valuable than saving all."
What is it, then, that God values more than saving all? Piper's answer: "The answer given by Calvinists is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God's glory in wrath and mercy (Romans 9:22-23) and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Corinthians 1:29). "
This does indeed "solve" the problem to a certain extent, but it leads necessarily to the further proposition that:
"God values His own glory and humbling man so he can get credit for His gift of grace MORE that God values saving human beings from eternal damnation."
And this, speaking frankly, seems to make God into a vain monster, who acts primarily out of self-pride rather than self-sacrificing love. In other words, it seems to make God act indistinguishably from Satan.
The question, therefore, is whether this claim can be supported in the face of the competing claim that God is all-loving, or indeed, that God IS Love. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would here be made into some sort of perverse act of self-glorification, rather than a self-sacrifice carried out out of pure love. One has to face the question squarely, and ask, is a doctrine which ranks God's love lower on His list of priorities than his pride (or glory, if you prefer) a genuinely Christian doctrine? This is, of course, a very old and very common argument against Calvin -- that Calvin makes God into a monster. The reason that this argument is made so often against Calvin is that Calvin does, in fact, made God into a monster -- at least so it seems to me, and also to the vast majority of non-Calvinist Christians.
So let's put the trilemma into other terms:
(1) God wills all to be saved but some other power thwarts His will.
(2) God "wants" all to be saved but he wills that most are damned because he is a monster who values His own glory over self-sacrificing love for His creatures.
(3) God wills all to be saved and (therefore) all are saved.
Piper takes his point of departure from the following: "We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will." otherwise, expressed as the thesis of "two wills" in God.
One must ask whether this is theologically tenable. It would entail that God is not One, but is rather divided against himself. This seems right away to deny the perfection of God. Piper argues from Scripture that we must recognize two wills in God. However, one might argue that, on the contrary, "any reading of Scripture which forces to deny God's perfection is an erroneous reading." Piper's exegesis entails that God is not perfect. Therefore, Piper's exegesis is incorrect.
Similarly, we run across a problem whereby Piper, a Calvinist, places himself in a position to denying God's power (!) -- just the thing that, as a Calvinist, he least wants to do! His "solution" to the problem is to say that God "wants" X but values Y more than X and than having Y entails not having X -- so when God wills Y he also wills not-X even though he "wants" X. I ask: What is it that prevents God from realizing both X and Y? WHY does having Y entail not having X? Is it some other power that thwarts God here? Is God too weak to arrange the world such that BOTH X and Y are realized? Or does he lack the knowledge to do it? Or does he, after all, not really "want" X?
As I said in the bookstore, it seems that one must reject at least one of the following:
(1) God can realize whatever He wills (i.e. He is all-powerful)
(2) God wills all to saved (He is all-loving)
(3) Some people are damned for all eternity
Piper is set on holding (3), so he (like all consistent Calvinists) gives up (2) -- and then goes on to inadvertently give up (1) for good measure! Piper's "solution" is a fudge: he tries to give lip-service to (2) by saying "God wills that all be saved but not really because He will something else which is incompatible with this more." But that's simply trying to "have his cake and eat it too" -- and it forces him to introduce either a spurious distinction between "wanting X" and "willing X" (which distinction is untenable for an all-powerful being) or to posit the existence of two contradictory wills within God, which undermines God's unity and perfection. (We need to modify Moses here: "I AM THAT I AM ... EXCEPT WHEN I'M NOT" or again "Hear o Israel, the Lord your God is One ... except when He is Two".)
So we arrive at a "Christian" theology wherein God's love is feebler than His pride and desire for self-glorification, and He is not perfect because He experiences conflicting desires, and furthermore He is too impotent or ignorant to harmonize His conflicting desires or to realize all His desires (even though He wants all to be saved -- even if He "wants" it less than his own self-glorification). This is not at all a conception of God that I can harmonize with the Christian understanding of God (as I understand it). If I were persuaded that this was the genuine teaching of the Christian faith, I would be forced to see in Christianity a great evil and a curse on mankind, rather than the teaching of peace, God's love, and God's grace. "God is a monster" hardly seems like the substance of the "good news."
best,
_Dr. _____
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afterwards I responded with this....
Dr. _____,
Sorry about the delay in responding to your last email. I had a busy week, and never had time to devote to an adequate response.
Before I get started I wanted to say two things. First, the Piper article I sent to you, I sent mostly because it poses a solution to the logical problem that you had, but I don’t believe that it is sufficient to prove philosophically that the Calvinistic solution is the only logically acceptable one. The article was originally published in a book called Still Sovereign, which was written as a response to Arminian doctrine. This is why Piper doesn
’t consider other possibilities as he is discussing 1 Timothy 2:4, he is merely concerned with the two most widely held views among Christians.
Secondly, I have received numerous proofs through apolegetics and experience of the existence of the God of the Bible, that I do not consider reading theology written that does prove that God exists as searching after that which I already held to be true. Two years ago I was an Arminian, when I was presented with a Calvinistic explanation of a few verses in the Bible. I recognized the argument as better than the Arminian explanation, and as I have studied, I have found the belief system to be more and more representative of what the Bible actually says. So although I do not start out with trying to prove the existence of God in every argument I read, I do not believe that I am guilty of only seeking out arguments that support what I already believe. (I will however, when presenting my own views, present articles that do support those conclusions that I hold.)
With that out of the way, I wanted to address your objections. First, I would state that if you feel that Calvin makes God into a monster, it is because Calvin is reflecting the clear teaching of the Bible which show that God acts primarily for his own glory. If that makes God into a monster, the source is the Bible, not Calvin. Perhaps the clearest text showing this is Isaiah 48:9-11.
"For my name's sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you,
that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.
In these three verses, God references actions which will glorify himself six times. This passage is not alone in the Bible in showing this. There are others. I will cite a few. Look at Ezekiel 36:22-23, Malachi 2:2, John 12:27-28, John 17:4, 1 Corinthians 10:31 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10. This list is by no means all, but I feel that it is a sufficient enough sample to prove that this belief did not originate with Calvin.
So, the more pertinent question is this, “Does this make God monstrous in his vanity and desire for praise?” As you would expect, I would say no. What, other than God, could be the end of God? If God existed to serve man and do what was best for him, God would be an idolater. He MUST be at the center of his own affections. This sounds extremely vain, because this is a terrible quality for a human to possess. If I were at the center of my own affections, you would call me a self-centered jerk. So is it different for God?
Again, I would say that it is different for God, because he is perfect. Many times we, as people, view a life devoted to some ideal as a supremely righteous life. Perhaps someone who is ultimately devoted to the display (or glory) of compassion we would say is living very righteously. Or perhaps the same person might be living to display truth, or justice, and live they then their lives for those ideals. These most would consider righteous lives. But where is compassion and love and justice and truth and righteousness and every other good thing perfected? These things are perfected in God. So God, in living for himself, is in effect living for the perfect manifestation of everything that is good that we see in the world. This is not vain fancies, because it is not vanity to glory in the perfect.
I have heard it said that the essence of righteousness is to place supreme value on what is supremely valuable with all of the just actions that follow. Furthermore, it is the essence of unrighteousness to place supreme value on that which has little or no value with all the unjust actions that follow. What happens when a man values money more than human life? He may kill to get something as menial as money at the great cost of human life. I found that upon pondering this, it seemed to be true. And, if it were indeed true, having God set his highest affections on something lower than himself would be unrighteous.
I also don’t believe that God not saving everyone because he is acting for the sake of his name makes him impotent to fulfill all that he desires. Perhaps the best parallel that I can make to illustrate this is in the death of Christ. God ordained the death of his son. He foresaw it and planned it, but I don’t think that it would be possible to say that everyone of God’s desires was fulfilled during the entire course of events that took place. The sacrifice pleased him, but no father is glad to watch his son die, and I think that the same would have to be said of God. He doesn’t delight in suffering or take pleasure in death, but he uses those things to save sinners.
Is it logically required that God cannot ordain something imperfect to display his own perfection?
This doesn’t completely answer the charge of God’s impotence and I understand that. I have not delved into the mind of God to understand fully why he would seek to glorify himself through the redemption of the lost, rather than fellowship with pure and sinless beings. However, Christ said, “I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.” (Luke 15:7) Apparently, repentance glorifies God more than someone who is already just. Why, I don’t know. But knowing that, it becomes clearer why God might desire a system where sinners repent, and those that don’t are judged.
You said, "God values His own glory and humbling man so he can get credit for His gift of grace MORE that God values saving human beings from eternal damnation." I agree with this statement although I wouldn’t typically use these terms. God is worthy, men are not. One of your fundamental assumptions that you approach the idea of God with is that all rational beings are ends in themselves. In the bookstore I asked you why you thought this and the answer you gave is that that is the definition of what it means to be a rational being. But, how, may I ask, does rationality necessarily imply that we are ends in ourselves and not means to and end of something greater than we are? I believe that the reason your view is held about our end is that we are the highest beings here on Earth. We are rational, and no other being here is. Therefore, we must treat other rational beings as ends, because we are no different from them.
But, God is far greater than us. He created us. How does one create something that is an end in itself? Is a painting ever an end in itself, or is it created for the end that the artist created it? True, a painting is not rational, and I cannot make an analogy that would fit, because we, as humans, are unable to create rational beings. (We can give birth to them, but I believe you see the distinction. We do not mold them to fulfill a task, as an automaker does a car.) You might say that we cannot do this because we cannot create a rational being in such a way. We create animals to perform such functions, but it would be immoral for us to create a clone to fulfill the purpose of spare body part for example. But can God, who formed us, and is much higher and wiser than us, use us, his creation for his purposes? And if he can use us for his purposes, does this not make us ends of his will, and not ends in ourselves?
Acting in this manner may make God out to seem gross to you. It is gross if we have natural rights to autonomy as rational beings. However, I firmly believe that neither you nor I are autonomous beings. I believe that we were created by God to fulfill his purposes here on Earth, whether that is to glorify him through our joy at accepting his sacrifice of his son, or through glorifying him as he justly punishes us in our sin. Romans 9:22-23 makes it clear that both will glorify him. What is amazing is that God did send his son to die on the cross that we can be reconciled to him, and in our imperfection glorify the perfect one by rejoicing in his gift of life that he gave to us though we did not deserve it at all. The subject of the good news is not the God is a monster, but that this loving God has provided a way for sinners to be reconciled to himself, although he had to sacrifice and forsake that which was dearest to him in order to achieve it.
-Paul Steele
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Food
It's he morning, and I don't have any milk. I don't have any cereal. I have a little bit of oatmeal, but I'm afraid it will eat me. So here I am, trapped in my fear with hunger as my only companion. I despair of life... despair to death... until I realized, "Hey, I have eggs, and enough time to cook them."
Good bye, I'm going to make some breakfast.
Good bye, I'm going to make some breakfast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)