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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
Okay, let’s see.
Rude, and a violation of community guidelines (imputing motives to others).
Rude.
Rude.
Sorry, but I’m moving on.
2 Likes
Tongue in cheek.
Justified on the basis of your responses.
Suggesting, not imputing, and based on textual evidence.
We shall.
Again. Or not?
That’s easy @jpm. You invent The Immaculate Conception.
See, I expect that sort of stuff from internet randos who show up just to argue and call me names. But we’ve been chatting here for years, and still you think it’s fine to “suggest” I want to make Jesus seem selfish (!) and haven’t read the OT. An apology would’ve been nice, but that was too much to expect.
Rude. But thanks for the reminder.
A definitive answer to a question we can agree on.
It is quite okay for God to love himself. It’s implicit. And we are to emulate him.
Jesus was ‘loving himself’ sacrificially (that’s not an oxymoron) in seeking future joy beyond the cross. It’s what first responders do too, putting themselves at risk. Their self-identity and self-worth is involved – if they fled danger, they would be betraying themselves.
You started this discussion with me and somehow got yourself sidetracked.
James Smith is a BioLogos approved name. I think it would be worthwhile to look at his chapter Enjoying God by Enjoying Creation
In case you missed it, this may be of interest:
While you may disagree with Piper on other grounds, I believe his opening to Desiring God cannot be disputed as easily. Consider this passage:
How can God be loving and yet be utterly devoted to “seeking His own” glory and praise and joy? How can God be for us if He is so utterly for Himself?
The answer I propose is this: Because God is unique as an all-glorious, totally self-sufficient Being, He must be for Himself if He is to be for us. The rules of humility that belong to a creature cannot apply in the same way to its Creator. If God should turn away from Himself as the Source of infinite joy, He would cease to be God. He would deny the infinite worth of His own glory. He would imply that there is something more valuable outside Himself. He would commit idolatry.
1 Like
This is a misinterpretation of Ezekiel 18…
consider the following verse in Chapter 18
26If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and practices iniquity, he will die for this. He will die because of the iniquity he has committed.
What the above text means (when compared with the Sanctuary Service Day of Atonement) is that it is unconfessed sin that results in eternal death. The bible clearly says that we are not saved by our works in the books of James and Ephesians.
We are saved only through our faith and the Grace of our Lord.
The gospel essentially tells us that no person can live on this earth and not sin, as Paul states “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” … there has been only a single individual that achieved this and that was Christ.
The problem here is, there are two parts of the equation, our nature and our physical actions. Both are responsible for sin, and it is our nature also condemns us before the action of sin itself.
Without salvation, we will ultimately die because, after the fall of Adam and Eve, they were cut off from God. Their lifeline to him ceased to exist. We are all cutoff from God the second we are born…we are born cutoff from him because of the sins of Adam and Eve in the Garden. The reconciliation process in the plan of salvation is about restoration of that link to Him (both physically and Spiritually). Unless that link is restored, none can ultimately experience salvation! That process will reach its conclusion at the time of the second coming of Christ
Why invoke the supernatural when the natural does just fine?
1 Like
Thank you for the explanation of how you interpret Ezekiel 18 and the rest of the teaching. It seems that your interpretation is a mixture of points where we agree and disagree.
The starting point of Ezekiel 18 was the proverb “The fathers eat sour grapes but it is the children’s teeth that have become blunt”. God did not like the teaching that children inherit the sins of their fathers and are doomed because of the sins of the fathers. “Yet you say, 'Why should the son not suffer the punishment for the father’s guilt?” (Ezekiel 18:19). What follows is a lengthy teaching that everyone is doomed because of his own sins “The person who sins will die”.
The will of God is not that people remain in their bad habits and sins, “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, rather than that he would turn from his ways and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23). According to the NT, we are not saved by our works but we need to turn towards God and receive the forgiveness that is offered through Jesus Christ. That saves.
We inherit the genes of our parents and much of the culture in our growing environment. The culture we inherit may lead us to do things that are against the will of God. This is an indirect way how the wrong habits of our parents may act as a curse in the family. Yet, we are doomed because of our own acts and words, not because of what our parents or ancestors did. This teaching is clear in Ezekiel 18.
Your interpretation that “our nature also condemns us before the action of sin itself” is interesting because it suggests that we carry in our genes something that condemns us before we do anything. It would mean that our genes are ‘bad’. Yet, the creation story in Genesis teaches that what God created was good. My understanding is that we still carry something about the good God created in our bodies, despite the fact that our acts have lead us far away from God and we need to turn towards God (‘repent’ or ‘turn around’) to be saved.
As you write, we are saved only through our faith and the grace of our Lord. It refers to our wicked acts and words and rebellion (‘sin’) that condemns us unless we receive forgiveness.
This was mainly theological interpretation but it has a link to life sciences through inheritance. Are our genes ‘bad’ in the sense that they condemn us just because we have these genes? Or does cultural inheritance doom us before we do anything? As can be seen from what I wrote above, my answer to both questions is ‘no’.