Sunday, 2 May 2010

Sunday 2nd May 2010 I feel better...

There is something liberating in making an admission which one has avoided for so long. It's like I have come to grips with this. I am not sure how I feel. But liberated is a good word.
What am I talking about? My last post of course. I have never really fitted into any camp I suppose. I am not in the Armenian Camp which says that God is not in control and don't know any thing and that we have to do it all.
At the same time, I don't fit into the Calvinist camp which says that we have no say in anything at all and when one gets right down to it, that God is basically a control freak bully. Ouch! Did I say that. One day I will put my thoughts in order and write about it. Maybe.
The other issue I raised was John Piper's book "Desiring God" in which his basic starting premise is that God is a self seeking egotist. Which is exactly the opposite of what God tells us to do and exactly the opposite of what He is. He paints God as some sort of "don't do as I do but do do as I say" maniac.
Consider this:
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. The italics are mine.
Now John asks the follow question and again I quote"
"But now the question arises: If God is so utterly enamoured of his own glory, how can he be a God of love? If he unwaveringly does all things for his own sake, how then can we have any hope that he will do anything for our sake? Does not the apostle say, "Love seeks not its own" ( 1 Corinthians 13: 5) ? "
I think in part the question is wrong. After all, it is not about us. My problem is in the way God is portrayed as an egotist. It is as though the only thing that makes God happy is His own glory. Not true. His glory is in fact is the Son-ship of the God head. But that's another story. To see the rest of what Mr Piper has to say, go read the book. For me he contradicts himself. For one one hand he is saying that God is self seeking then in the next breathe He is not. He then goes into great detail about what God has done/is doing.
Do I happen to believe Mr Piper is correct? No I don't. Does this mean that He doesn't delight in our praises? No, that also not true. He does. Just like any of us do when we are appreciated. Do we praise Him because He demands it? Nope. That is praise for the sake of praise. He does ask that we get our happiness from and in Him. That also is correct. As we live in Him, I believe, that will be a consequence. But it will/should be a consequence and not be a demand. Christ died for me and my sin. For that I am eternal grateful. I could never hope to pay the price for even one of those sins. I am also grateful that He guides my day and watches over me. I see that and praise Him for that. Not because He demands it, but because I see it and appreciate that.
Now this leads me to another question which came up recently in another conversation with a friend of mine who wanted to know if Christ died for those all the Jews who were born before Christ or only those who believed. It's called limited atonement. In other words Christ didn't die for the whole world, only for those who believe in Him. The sacrifices in the Old Testament pointed forward to Christ. They were a forerunner and didn't remove sin. They only covered it until that better and more complete sacrifice happened. But the Bible also states that God is not willing that any should perish. That simple statement shows me that Christ died once and for all, not a selected few who chose to believe or as the double predestinationist would have it, for those who God put the dot on.
Enough. Till next time.

No comments: