Desiring God - The Happiness of God

Chapter one is all about the happiness of God and whence it comes from. I was delighted myself to see that he opens up with the proper version of the first catechism question instead of his famous rendition of it. It seems to me that Piper is creedal at heart and used the alteration of "What is the chief end of man" to hammer a point home that our ultimate happiness and enjoyment, in this life and the next, is found in the Living God.

Throughout this section Piper does a wonderful job of defending the sovereignty of God and shows over and over again that His will is not thwarted. He even quotes ole Johnny Edwards to help the reader understand the difference between hidden and revealed will. Piper also shows that God delights in Himself, His Son, all His works, and His Glory He will not give to another.

The point I found most interesting was, of course, taken from C.S. Lewis' Reflections on the Psalms. I will not quote the whole passage, but at the end Lewis states,

I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation. It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete till it is expressed.

Wow! When I first read that my initial reaction was, "A Baptist agrees with this?" I have seen Lewis use this language many times before and is probably what helped me come to understand James' description of Faith and Works. None-the-less, it is a wonderful truth that our delight in God is not fulfilled until expressed outwardly in adoration of our Lord and Saviour. This is when Piper brings out is infamous thesis, "For God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him." I always read this statement as God’s Glory being based on our satisfaction in Him, but this is not a statement about God per say, but a statement about man.

One problem I see is that he seemed to base God’s happiness on the fact that His will is never thwarted, that is, God is happy only because He gets his way. This is why Piper spends so much time on defending hidden and revealed will. With out that doctrine, the happiness of God would fall. I tend to see God's happiness as an intrinsic attribute of God. Something that is innate in Him as a being and not a result of action.

Desiring God - Introduction

Lately I have been looking for books to give my sister that would help her understand theology a bit more. Several authors came to mind, Lewis, Packer, Chesterton among others. But one that I could not ignore was John Piper. I am not a big fan of the guy mainly because his followers scare the bejeezes out of me. But, I always said I thought his theology was alright. So, I decided that Pipers book Desiring God might be a good book to start out with. But, as anyone who has ever given someone a book knows, I must read it first before I recommend it. Hence I am starting a series outlining Desiring God not only to understand his position and get the full impact of his writing in my life, but to see where we might differ and why.

According to Piper, "Christian Hedonism" is based on five basic convictions.

1. The longing to be happy is a universal human experience, and it is good, not sinful.

2. We should never try to deny or resist our longing to be happy, as though it were a bad impulse. Instead we would seek to intensify this longing and nourish it with whatever will provide the deepest and most enduring satisfaction.

3. The deepest and most enduring happiness is found only in God. Not from God, but in God.

4. The happiness we find in God reaches its consummation when it is shared with others in the manifold ways of love.

5. To the extent we try to abandon the pursuit of our own pleasure, we fail to honor God and love people. Or, to put it positively: the pursuit of pleasure is a necessary part of all worship and virtue. That is, The Chief end of man is to glorify God BY enjoying him forever.

He gains these statements from various readings from the Scripture, Lewis and Edwards. For the most part I have enjoyed what he has to say and agree with the five statements above. The wording is a little strange, but that’s all. This of course being the introduction, I figure he will explain all of these in a more detailed fashion, but I must speak about one thing. I do not like the idea of changing the catechism’s language. I have my reasons, but I choose not to disclose them at this time. Maybe later on in the book if it seems necessary.

By the way, if anyone has any suggestions for a book for my sister feel free to tell me. She is moving to Mongolia for two years and will probably have to time to read.

Did I Miss Him?

This note is spawned from a recent discussion I had with a friend of mine about what will happen with the future of the church, along with a section of “The Worlds Last Night” by C.S. Lewis. In this essay, Lewis Quotes George MacDonald, “Do those who say, lo hear or lo there are signs of his coming, think to be too keen for him and spy his approach? When he tells them to watch lest he find them neglecting their work, they stare this way and that, and watch lest he should succeed in coming like a thief! Obedience is one key of life.”

I find in many Christian circles discourses about “end times.” It seems to be an exciting topic; for a Christian it ought to be. I personally look forward to the coming of our Lord, to behold Him in glory; this should make the lowliest child’s heart jump. But, as MacDonald points out, too many times we miss the point of certain passages. We see how our Lord tells us he will “come like a thief in the night.” So we sit on our porch with a baseball bat listening to every sound the passing wind might make. Staring this way and that, fearing a burglar in the midst. All the while, the house is in disarray, cobwebs on the walls, dishes in the sink, and bills unpaid.

I can remember sitting in the fellowship hall of my old church watching the news from Iraq during Desert Storm. Then turning around the next moment only to watch a documentary about Nostradamus and his prediction of a man with a blue turban from the middle east and how he was to take over the world. I was convinced Christ was coming back before I got to High School. Guess what, he didn’t. All of that worrying and freighting was for nothing.

The point is, we should not argue about what signs there might be, as if recognizing them might delay or speed Christ’s return, but be ready. Work out our salvation, clean our house, do the dishes, pay the bills. My opinion is that the “end times” literature was not meant to give us a road map to the future, but an end to work toward. To give us both hope and fear. Hope in the fact that Chris will return, and fear to push us forward in our works that we may be found blameless before the throne.

Nicaean Canon

Lately I have been reading through the seven Ecumenical Councils. These are the councils in which all of orthodoxy agree with. All except most Protestants, I think some of us would deny the council just for the sake of denial. Anyway, when I started reading, I thought the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) created the Nicaean Creed, excommunicated Arius, and that was it. But lo and behold, there are about twenty canons that was also given with lot of incite on the history of the church. The one I have been looking at lately is canon six.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Along with the Ancient Epitome

The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan, let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of no force.

It seems, and I am no authority, that the church had an idea. That is, let's separate the diocese according the government in charge! But when Rome conquered all, the Roman Bishop became head of all. So, why did he stay in charge when Rome fell?

   Well, I have moved yet again, and this time I hope is it more permanent; we shall see though. Anyway, come check me out at my new address!

http://thefriars.net/motherkirk

   It's a little easier to remember, and I guess I am part of a community now...oh boy!! See you there.