Saturday 1st May 2010 The chirf end of man

I confess. I am confused. For me the sovereignty of God has always been a major issue. I am unable to understand a god who would prescribe some people to hell and damnation for ever. That is a god who would say that this person - I decide before that person is born - is going to be a right bastard and is going to spend forever adfinitum is torment and does that deliberately by act of his will. That for me is unthinkable.

That is like me saying that I am going to father a child who I am going to torment and cause to be tormented deliberately. That is, I am deciding this and that child will have no say in that what ever no matter how hard that child might try. And from where I am standing that is what I understand by a 5 point Calvinist double predestinationists say. That is unthinkable unbelievable and makes God evil. That's issue one.

Here is issue two.

Quote "The ultimate ground of Christian Hedonism is the fact that God is uppermost in his own affections" and "My conclusion there is that God's own glory is uppermost in his own affections. In everything he does, his purpose is to preserve and display that glory. To say his glory is uppermost in his own affections means that he puts a greater value an it than on anything else. He delights in his glory above all things. " End quote. This is from Desiring God by John Piper, 1996.

Ouch, ouch and double quadruplicate ouch. God delights in "His own" glory. Sorry but there is a fundamental problem with my understanding here.

Now this statement I have no problem with: What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him for ever.

That statement I can understand embrace and act upon. I have no issue with this. Simply because the God I experience every day is good kind and just and loving and forgiving and is totally unselfish.

"The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy himself forever" Hello? God is selfish? When did that happen? Oh, and that is from John Piper's book, Desiring God also.

There is something dreadfully wrong with either John's understanding, my reading of his book, or my understanding of what he is saying.

Enough for now.