Check the Greek. You’re importing a concept of “holy” from elsewhere. Daniel Wallace, author of the standard NT seminary textbook Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, is a faculty member of DTS and one of the primary translators of the NET Bible New Testament.
Yes, many times. But thanks for asking.
Despite the smiley face, you’re just being an overall jerk, so I have no interest in continuing dialogue with you. Take care.
Importing implications from the OT is not all bad. I think Jesus would concur. (And the first three of the Ten Commandments are relevant too, if not the fourth as well.)
I don’t think Jesus would concur with your phrasing.
Of all the issues to dispute in Scripture, God’s demand for worship is one I never would have thought possible.
Granted most people don’t understand this with respect to God’s righteous narcissism, which would be emotional troubling if it were not for his triune nature.
God is love and sin is first and foremost not worshipping him - not loving him as the most worthwhile, most beautiful, most valuable, most trustworthy of all.
That bears repeating (not because I said it), so I did. 
That’s it, Jesus is the reward!
“Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.”
Hebrews 12:28
Check this out, it was pretty well ignored, but I think it’s pretty cool:
Only a narcissist would accept worship.
“It is no argument of the emptiness or deficiency of a fountain, that it is inclined to overflow.”
Jonathan Edwards Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World
Mike - you leave it as if you’re possibly quoting MacDonald in the post above, not directly; but since it comes from that thread, that’s the impression you leave. Did MacDonald ever actually write those words? If so, please provide a reference.
Otherwise, what appears to have actually happened if one goes to look is that you’re quoting your own words from another thread. Or can you provide some reference as to who wrote that - whether it be MacDonald, or anybody else other than yourself?
My impressions (which I hope are shaped from actually reading a lot of MacDonald, not to mention the scriptures themselves that MacDonald steeped himself in) is that God shows us the ultimate example of non self-centeredness in the person of Christ, who is like his Father. And that is why we can be exhorted to also be perfect like our Father in heaven.
That looks like a problem with how discourse previews the link. If you select the drop down arrow to expand the box to include the entire comment, I believe it’s clear as to who is saying what.
Before the introduction of sin, this would have been unnecessary. People would have worshipped God, God would be glorified and people would have experienced happiness in glorifying God. Presumably like the angles in heaven who were made to be like musical instruments to praise God’s excellent nature.
Yes, Jesus sacrificed to the uttermost, but it was for the joy set before him. Like a bridegroom before a long awaited and suffered for marriage.
Don’t think I am saying God doesn’t love us. He loves us so much he makes us happy when we glorify him.
I am puzzled as to what people think loving God means, if it doesn’t mean worshipping him. And God is pretty clear about his demand, not need, that he be worshipped.
Not clear enough - even then. And most people won’t ever click that dropdown arrow.
Love is always freely volunteered (pretty much by definition) - and never compelled. God’s creatures worship God because God is worthy of that worship, not because God demands that they do so. What parent would want their children’s “love” to be a response to a parental compulsion? Wouldn’t you rather your children actually loved you … for real? And how much more so God? Far be it from God to be satisfied with a 2nd-rate “love” that would not be sufficient even for any earthly creatures.
I’m wondering if we are reading the same Bible.
God is so loving he demands it, because he knows we can’t be happy without him.
You no doubt have the Shema in mind: “Love the Lord your God…”
But what I’m asking you is this: What is the hoped for nature of such love? How petty do you imagine God must be to be satisfied with a kind of “love” that wouldn’t even satisfy most earthly parents?
We read the same Bible. That we can have such opposite notions of what entails “love” just shows how much we all bring to the table even prior to any Biblical exegesis we claim we are doing.
As a sinful parent I understand how empty praise would be for me.
Some attributes of God are entirely foreign to us and this nature of his which receives worship would have been completely incommunicado even before sin entered the equation.
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what the LORD says: Let my people go, so that they may worship/serve me.
Exodus 8:1
I’ve noticed a healthy amount of discussion on this forum about sola Scriptura, and now I’m interested to see how a discussion about soli Deo gloria goes.
Rather fitting that it should surface in a thread on original sin.
Which now leads me to reopen that remarkable chapter Enjoying God by Enjoying Creation:
“In fact, what if, in the spirit of Piper, I tried out my own AugustinianKuyperian gloss on the first question of the catechism? On that rendering, the answer to the question, “What is the chief end of man?” might be: “To glorify God by enjoying his creation forever.””
From “Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition” by James K. A . Smith.
Okay, let’s see.
Rude, and a violation of community guidelines (imputing motives to others).
Rude.
Rude.
Sorry, but I’m moving on.
“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.