The difference is that the Bible is clear that our motive is love for God and there is no such clarity in the concept of self interest. Maybe for you, but you are not the general public.
A parable to be valid must make your point and yours does not, as I pointed out.
The fact is Love is the moral guide for the Christian. If there is no love, then all the enlightened self interest in the world will not make it right.
It is obviously not clear to you, but there is certainly clarity, one.more.time, in Hebrews 12:2.It is quite explicit. And it is also quite clear in the other two things I mentioned, the motivation for running the race and laboring for a “Well done!”
A parable must be understood before anything can be pointed out about it. You failed to understand it, so it is impossible for you to have pointed out anything about it, valid or otherwise.
Once again, your argument flounders and falls as flat as the fish because you do not understand what enlightened-self interest even is. If there is no enlightened self-interest, there is no love.
If you love someone, you desire their well-being. Note the word desire. When the object of your love is doing well, and even if through your motivation of love you have sacrificially contributed to it, your desire is gratified. How selfish.
It is clear that you are blind to adjectives. We are talking about enlightened self-interest, not naked self-interest. The Bible is very clear that it is not incompatible with but complimentary to love and that we are to follow Jesus’ example by clearly looking at him, because there is something that you are not seeing:
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Hebrews 12:2
Please see an ophthalmologist at the earliest opportunity, and have someone else drive.
All this about the motivation of enlightened self-interest is not to say that it is something that anyone is necessarily thinking about prior to any given action, and in fact probably not. It is something that is more likely realized in retrospect and upon analysis. Desire is the motivation, and @Relates may be correct about that, that the desire that comes from love may be the more conscious motivation.
But maybe not, too. A first responder or even a passing motorist who stops and springs into action to pull an accident victim from a burning car is acting in love, right? What are they thinking about, their motivation? There may be a quick conscious analysis questioning, “Should I do this or not?”, but they are much more likely thinking about feasibility and not pondering motivation! So in essence their action springs from who they are in their heart, and it is not unloving and callous to another’s need.
I guess you don’t understand Hebrews 12:2 either.
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
The future joy of Jesus in Hebrews 12:2 is the anticipation of eternity with his family, iow, us, those whom he rescued and were adopted, if you belong to him.
Recommended reading: Future Grace. It’s about what motivates us.
I would agree that the term “enlightened self-interest” may be rather unfortunate, because those unfamiliar with the way it actually works, like you and @Relates, immediately infer a concentration on self, a self-centeredness. That is certainly understandable, given the term itself.
So if anyone has a suggestion for an alternate way of describing the motivation of “for the joy set before him” besides the one under discussion which is offending, I would certainly entertain it. But also please note, the term would also apply to the ex post facto motivation of the first responder or passing motorist.
As well as applying to the cited verse in Hebrews, said proposed term would also apply to the highly egocentric love previously described:
Maybe ‘the self-gratification of love’ or simply ‘the gratification of love’, or ‘the gratification intrinsic to love’. Remember, it needs to describe the motivation “for the joy set before him” as well as the motivation of the first responder or passing motorist.
@moderators – may we want to split a bunch of these to a new thread since there is a definite subthread here? Nah, since there are so many replies, maybe just leave it since the subthread appears to start all the way back at #14. It should be my mea culpa for not splitting it back then.
If you want to message the moderators with the post #s of what should be split off, I will do it. But I am not going to read 114 posts and organize them for you, because I have other things to do, and I suspect the other moderators do too.
That is exactly why I suggested leaving it. It would be a chore for me, too, and there could be some inherent overlap with the main thread.
???
Have I hurt your peelings?
Hardly. From what did you infer that? More likely I yours, by my more than implying that you didn’t understand the extreme selfishness of Jesus’ motivation as stated in Hebrew 12:2, “for the joy set before him” – you seem to be ignoring it and pretending it isn’t there. Have you a better term to suggest than ‘enlightened self-interest’ or do you want to vote for one of mine?
it appears you suggest that Jesus went to his death nor to submit to the father but to get the ultimate fix after the show. That is an interesting point of view shared by a number of translators by the looks of it, so the translation of “anti” would actually come out as “Instead of” or “for” as in substitutional and might reflect their thinking. It is in my eye as incompetent as confusing thyself with yourself as in oneself and would really suggest he endured the cross in expectation of ultimate bliss. There is a pathological trait for that but it is not what I would have called enlightened self interest nor associated with Jesus.
You’re not a stand-up comedian, by any chance, are you? I’m not sure why you are intentionally distorting my words. You could afford to read at least the first couple of chapters of the aforementioned book, Future Grace. “It’s about what motivates us.”
Also note the word love. Do you really not get it?
If you were thinking way better than you are, it’s remotely possible you might realize that the ultimate fix after the show is shared. I think it’s clear to most of us already, those of us who understood the earlier analogy, anyway:
I’m looking forward to a shared embrace, except it will be me who will have received the gift, the gift of additional future grace.
ETA: Oh, replying with your ultimate fix nonsense, I bet the irony in “the extreme selfishness of Jesus’ motivation” went whoosh right by you, didn’t it.
Still?
Because by his death and resurrection he is rescuing sinful delinquents off the streets and out of jail so they can be adopted into his Father’s family? A larger family with reciprocated familial love has more joy than a smaller one. Capisce?
So Jesus’ death increases his joy because he has more happy siblings to spend eternity with. That might just happen to please Father and increase his joy as well, not to mention the Holy Spirit’s?
Hey, we agree on something! Where in the little parable was there anything said about the gift being required to prove love? Your point is good for us all to understand and remember, but it is superfluous to the argument.
If you love someone, you desire their well-being. Not a problem. Therefore, you would do things to increase that wellbeing. Fine, but why not leave it there.
Love leads to good works and everyone is happy, but, No, Piper has to add something to the equation, which is not Biblical and is not right.
Enlightened self interest either means something or it does not. Ig it does not mean anything, then it must be dropped Occam’s razor so to speak. If it means something, if it adds to the command to Love your neighbor as yourself, then what is it? It says that we should love our neighbor, because we will receive a benefit from that love. In some sense that might be true, but it sounds too much like works righteousness to be taken seriously.
Christianity is not Judaism, although Piper seems to think they are very close. “Piper considers that Christians, living under the New Covenant, are not under the Old Covenant law but able to fulfill its intent through faith in Jesus Christ.[70][[71]]”(John Piper (theologian) - Wikipedia)
I will give you more than some citations. I will give you a whole book that started this whole sorry mess. * John Piper and Wayne Grudem (editors). Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (RBMW). Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1991 and 2006.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.