Comments on: Misquoting the Westminster Catechism

By: Jessie Sandberg

Jessie Sandberg — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:38:05 +0000

Stephen:

The struggle of understanding God, does not ultimately depend on John Piper or J. I. Packer or even the Westminster Catecism. The “where was God?” questions you raise are common to every generation and every culture. They include the questions asked by Job who said (with tears running down his face) “I cry out for help, but no one hears me. I protest, but there is no justice. God has blocked my way and plunged my path into darkness…” (Job 19:7, Of course, at the end of the book we find out that God says to Job, “This isn’t about you; it’s about Me!” Finally Job gets a complete picture of God and he says, “I was talking about things I did not understand, things far too wonderful for me. …I take back everything I said, and I sit in dust and ashes to show my repentance.” (42:2, 6)

I think all our “whys” about God will be answered — not by the theologians or writers or song writers but by the Word of God itself. God says about Himself in Isaiah 55:8: “My thoughts are completely differe from yours. …And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thought higher than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 04:30:14 +0000

Shaun,

I agree, and I think we have to question the viewpoint that says self-preservation is preeminent if we look at Christianity outside of our American bubble.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 04:04:41 +0000

Cach,
While I have not read a whole lot of what Piper says about this, I don’t think he would say he can describe God “in full”.

One reason I lean toward Piper’s teachings about this is that he backs up his statements from scripture. And I’m not talking about proof-texting. He arrived at his current position through study, rather than deciding on an end and then figuring out how to get there. The only arguments I’ve heard that claim that we are most important to God have been based on sloppy sentimentality, not scripture.

If we are the most important thing to God, He wouldn’t be fulfilled without our attention. Which do you think is closer to the truth, that we are made for God or that He is made for us? I think that is what Piper is getting at, in part.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 03:49:34 +0000

Striker_21, from what I know of Packer’s writings, I think he would be the last person to just “dismiss what the scripture says and insert their own preferred meaning in its place.” I’m working my way through Knowing God now, so I’ll let you know what I think when I finish.

By: thecachinnator

thecachinnator — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:03:18 +0000

I can certainly appreciate the misunderstandings that are cleared up by realizing that we are not the chief aim of God. It’s been an unfortunate side-effect of our obsession with de-mystifying everything that we think we not only are the point, but that we are capable of understanding God’s aims. But that’s just the problem. I disagree with Piper when he spells out an alternative ‘chief aim of God.’ I think that’s beyond our knowing. We can describe it in pieces and in glimpses, but not in full.

By: Shaun Groves

Shaun Groves — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 03:12:00 +0000

We may have talked about this before Stephen but God loving Himself MOST (not only) also makes Christian non-violence possible. You and I know, we’ve heard, that the number one argument against non-violence is self-preservation. “What are we supposed to do – just let them kill us?”

To which I ask, “Is it possible that God’s plan may require some of His followers, some innocents, to die?”

That really gets at the guts of it all doesn’t it? If God’s plan is to further His empire, He may squash mine in the process. That’s possible. And once that’s possible we need a better argument against Christian non-violence than self-preservation. Preserving my physical life (or democracy or freedom) is not on the top of God’s To-Do list.

By: Striker_21

Striker_21 — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:48:34 +0000

I’d be interested in seeing J. I. Packer’s agument in more detail because it rings a couple of alarm bells in my mind. I guess part of me fears that its just another way for humans to dismiss what the scripture says and insert their own preferred meaning in its place. Its easy for me to agree that humans shouldn’t assume that God is exactly like them because of our sinful nature, but it bothers me to simply dismiss them as some people do. Perhaps this is where I feel the most sympathy for the arguments laid forth by the Openness of God movement. I find myself preferring ways which stay closest to the plain meaning of the text. I am leary of approaches that say “well I can understand how you would get that impression, but here is how it really happened”.