# Did & is Judas Iscariot fulfilling his "chief end" (WSC Q1) for which God created him



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

I am working on a paper that will address the teaching of the Shorter Catechism Q1: "What is the chief end of man?" Answer: "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever." Do you believe Judas Iscariot is fulfilling the ultimate end for which God created him? If so, how does your belief cohere with the teaching of the Catechism?

Your servant,


----------



## ww (May 1, 2009)

Even with the Wicked God is glorified as His Justice is exacted and His Holiness upheld. 



> "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known..." (Rom. 9:22-23).


----------



## TimV (May 1, 2009)

They are two different questions!

"chief end" means "goal", or "What is the highest level you as a human can attain". If the question was speaking of ultimate outcome, the word "enjoy" wouldn't be in there. So the question isn't for the Judases of this world.

So no, Judas didn't focus on mankind's chief end, and didn't attain this state.

The other question has naturally to do with the difference between God's revealed will and His secret will.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

TimV said:


> They are two different questions!
> 
> "chief end" means "goal", or "What is the highest level you as a human can attain". If the question was speaking of ultimate outcome, the word "enjoy" wouldn't be in there. So the question isn't for the Judases of this world.
> 
> ...



Tim,

I'm not sure I agree with part of your answer. I don't believe chief end can be reduced to an either present or future status. It's both. It has both an eschatological and present referent. It refers to motivation, design, and destiny. 

I do agree, however, with the point you make that the question has naturally to do with God's secret and revealed will. The question, then, is what did the framers of the Catechism have in view when speaking of man's chief end? God's Secret or Revealed Will.

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 10:06:48 EST-----



whitway said:


> Even with the Wicked God is glorified as His Justice is exacted and His Holiness upheld.
> 
> 
> 
> > "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known..." (Rom. 9:22-23).



Hey, Wayne. Thanks for taking the time to answer. I'm curious how you would harmonize your reply with the answer of the WSC? Judas is certainly not "enjoying" God present. Indeed, he didn't enjoy God while on earth. So how can it be said that he's fulfilling his "chief end" as circumscribed by the Catechism?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe Judas Iscariot is fulfilling the ultimate end for which God created him?
> ...



Thanks, Joshua. As I ask above, I'd like those who answer "yes" to provide an explanation of how their answer coheres with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism, which includes the enjoyment of God as an essential part of man's "chief end." Certainly, Judas neither did nor does presently enjoy God. Please explain, then, how "of course he is" fits with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism. 

Thanks,


----------



## ww (May 1, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > They are two different questions!
> ...



Good question Bob! I don't believe he enjoyed God in that sense so although God is glorified in his destruction ultimately as referenced this goes into God's secret Will and the WSC is seemingly speaking of His revealed Will. Hope that makes sense as I tackle this aloud here. So Judas did not fulfill his chief end in that sense.


----------



## Scott1 (May 1, 2009)

A good theological question, that requires care to understand.

In the sense that God allows whatever to happen, He ordains whatsoever comes to pass. This includes the actions man does that come from man's evil intentions.

But God uses the secondary causes of man's free will actions to cause His will (God's will) to be done. This is sometimes called the theology of concurrence.

[Remember, man has free will. God has free will. God's will is more free than man's and is in no way limited by man's will.]

Judas Iscariot got what he wanted when he betrayed the Son of Man.

God got what He wanted in that Judas' free will act of betrayal was used to accomplish God's plan for redemption for His people. It led to Christ, having lived a perfect, sinless life, to die as the once-and-forever perfect sacrifice for our sins on the cross.

Judas' evil actions could never have even possibly thwarted God's will or plan. Not even possible. What God wants to happen, will come to pass in His universe.

So, was Judas "glorifying God and enjoy Him forever"? Not at all in terms of his (Judas') intentions. 

Also since you are dealing with a conjunctive 'and' here, it would be pretty easy to say "no" to your question because Judas was not 'enjoying' God. Judas was never saved, never elect so it was not even possible for Judas to 'enjoy' God.

But God still glorified Himself, despite Judas' intentions. 

Bob, if you keep asking questions like this and you will wake up some night, a blinding light will go on in your head, and you will realize...

you really need to be Presbyterian!


----------



## ww (May 1, 2009)

> Bob, if you keep asking questions like this and you will wake up some night, a blinding light will go on in your head, and you will realize...
> 
> you really need to be Presbyterian!


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...



What the framers meant is essential to this discussion. The question is about "_man's_ chief end" as revealed by God. Judas was and is, after all, a man. So did Judas and is Judas fulfilling his chief end in the sense intended by the Shorter Catechism?

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 10:37:46 EST-----



Scott1 said:


> A good theological question, that requires care to understand.
> 
> In the sense that God allows whatever to happen, He ordains whatsoever comes to pass. This includes the actions man does that come from man's evil intentions.
> 
> ...



Scott,

I affirm _ex animo_ the doctrine of God's decree and absolute sovereignty. One need not be a Presbyterian to affirm that.  The fact that the framers of the catechism used the conjunctive and spoke only of one end is essential to interpreting their intent. Moreover, the second question removes any ambiguity. Consequently, the correct answer, in keeping with the intent of the WSC Q1 is clearly "no." 

But in interacting with many Calvinists, I've found that they haven't always thought through the precise intention of the WSC Q1. Because of their commitment to the decree of God and the fact that God even turns the wrath and sin of men to his praise, they tend to answer the question "yes." I find this curious.

I tried to figure out how to slightly revise the poll question to make its connection with the WSC Q1 more clear but could not find a way. I've sent a letter to the administrators to see if they can help. 

Your servant,


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > What the framers meant is essential to this discussion. The question is about "_man's_ chief end" as revealed by God. Judas was and is, after all, a man. So did Judas and is Judas fulfilling his chief end in the sense intended by the Shorter Catechism?
> ...



Joshua,

I think we're speaking past each other. When the framer's of the Catechism spoke of "man's chief end," they obviously intended "the chief end (motive, design, destiny) for which God created man as revealed by God's word (see Q2). So, in light of the intent of the WSC, God's chief end for Judas Iscariot, as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, was that Judas glorify and enjoy God forever. Hence, the distinction between "God's chief end" and "man's chief end" is not helpful here.


----------



## Scott1 (May 1, 2009)

comments below



> *Dr. Bob Gonzales*
> 
> Scott,
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

Joshua said:


> We're not speaking past one another, Friend. I think we just disagree on the matter. I don't find it unhelpful to make such distinctions because I believe that Judas, as well as Joseph's brothers, as well as those who crucified Jesus, all served the perfect end and purpose for which God created them. They did not do what God requires (i.e. His revealed will), but they all certainly did what He intended for them to do (i.e. His secret will, His purpose, His good pleasure).



Look, Joshua, had you read my opening statement, you would have seen that my question was in reference to the WSC Q1. Hence, IN CONNECTION WITH THAT THEOLOGICAL FORMULA, I don't find your distinction between "God's chief end" and "man's chief end" helpful. What I find more helpful is the distinction between God's decretive will and his revealed will. It may be said that God has a "chief end" and man has a "chief end" in relation to each of these aspect of God's will. Certainly, God decreed that Adam sin, that Israel apostatize, and that Judas Isariot betray Christ and fulfill the role of the "son of perdition." That chief end of God and of Judas is NOT in view in Q1 of the WSC. What is in view is God's creative _intention, _as revealed in the creation mandate, the conscience (and 10 words), and the innate eschatological drive for fulness (Eccl. 3:11). Accordingly, the chief end of man spoken of in the WSC Q1 is indeed both "man's chief end" and "God's chief end _for man_."


----------



## Pergamum (May 1, 2009)

John Piper "improves" upon this question by saying that "we glorify God BY enjoying Him forever." If we allow for this "improvement", then the answer is a BIG FAT NO, all sinners do not glorify God (at least by enjoying Him forever), however God goes glorify His justice even in the wicked.

A good question is whether God is JUST AS glorified by the wicked in hell as He is by the glorified in heaven. And which one does God enjoy more.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Thanks, Dr. Gonzales. I _did_ read your opening statement. It does not follow, though, because I read it, that I _must_ agree with you that one _may not_ make the distinctions I made. I apologize if I'm frustrating you, as it is not my intention (neither _revealed_, nor _secret_ ).



Joshua,

Thanks for the kind reply. I didn't mean to come across disrespectful. My purpose for asking the question is to see how Reformed people tend to interpret the WSC Q1. 

I believe it's referring to God's (revealed) chief end for men. However, I've found that many Reformed folk want to import God's decretive will into the Q/A. I find that curious in light of the fact that Q2 circumscribes the intention of Q1 to the sphere of God's revealed will, not decretive will. 

So far, 9 have voted "yes," 1 "no," and 1 "uncertain." I would have expected that the "yes" voters at least would have asked for clarification before responding to the question. Of course, it's possible that I could have rephrased the question to make a more clear link with the WSC. I tried to do that in my opening post, but some may have answered the question without reading the opening post.

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 11:46:02 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> John Piper "improves" upon this question by saying that "we glorify God BY enjoying Him forever." If we allow for this "improvement", then the answer is a BIG FAT NO, all sinners do not glorify God (at least by enjoying Him forever), however God goes glorify His justice even in the wicked.
> 
> A good question is whether God is JUST AS glorified by the wicked in hell as He is by the glorified in heaven. And which one does God enjoy more.



Hey, Perg, good to hear from you. Whether one thinks Piper's subordination of the second clause to the first clause (i.e., the making of the enjoyment of God a subordinate means by which he glorify God) captures the full intention of the original framers, I do think Piper's rephrasing of the proposition helps place the issue within the proper sphere of God's revealed will. And in that case, you are correct: "the answer is a BIG FAT NO." Indeed, according to Scripture Judas Iscariot did and currently is FALLING SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD (Rom. 3:23). WAY SHORT!

So, to respond to your follow up question, "Is God JUST AS glorified by the wicked in hell as He is by the glorified in heaven? And which one does God enjoy more?" The answer to these questions vis-a-vis the WSC Q1 and Romans 3:23 is (1) God MORE glorified by those who love him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength than by those who hate him with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and (2) God feels the love of complacence (delight, pleasure) for those who believe in his Son, love his Son, and keep his Son's commandments (John 14:21, 23; 16:27). True lovers and worshipers of Jesus Christ are, I would submit, what God enjoys most. 

Your servant,


----------



## Pergamum (May 1, 2009)

Romans 9:

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known,* endured with much longsuffering* the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 

It appears that God does endure one party and delights in the other, such that it might seem that God is MORE glorified in one party than the other. 

However, to say that sinners may rob God of some of His full pleasure is a distateful thing to say. 

.....But again, it also seems distateful to say that God gets just as much pleasure as those in hell as He does with those in heaven.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 1, 2009)

Notwithstanding the fact that Judas was used of God to fulfill His plan precisely as He intended, I answered No because the question in the WSC doesn't necessarily ask about whether or not God works all things together for the good but for the end that man is created.

Man's end (or purpose) is to obey his Creator and was created to live by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Judas disobeyed God even as he fulfilled God's larger purpose.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Romans 9:
> 
> 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
> 
> ...



Perg,

Helpful observations. In my humble opinion, these questions bring us to the realm of paradox and mystery. "The secret things belong to the Lord ...." (Deut. 29:29). When I preach to sinners, I tell them that God will be glorified in the end whether or not they respond positively to the gospel. Nevertheless, I also tell them that according to Scripture God wants them to return (via Christ) to the purpose for which they were created--to glorify and enjoy God forever. 
ESV Psalm 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, *you will not despise*.[litotes, i.e., literary device of understatement meaning, "O God, you are pleased with such"]

ESV Hebrews 13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices *are pleasing to God*.​Conversely,
ESV 1 Corinthians 10:5 Nevertheless, with most of them *God was not pleased*, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.​
-----Added 5/1/2009 at 12:10:27 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> Notwithstanding the fact that Judas was used of God to fulfill His plan precisely as He intended, I answered No because the question in the WSC doesn't necessarily ask about whether or not God works all things together for the good but for the end that man is created.
> 
> Man's end (or purpose) is to obey his Creator and was created to live by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Judas disobeyed God even as he fulfilled God's larger purpose.



Rich, very well articulated. Thanks!


----------



## jandrusk (May 1, 2009)

I would agree that God was, is, and shall be glorified through the reprobation of Judas. However, I do not think that Judas is "enjoying" being cast under the wrath of God. I think also that the WSC is directed towards the elect and not to the reprobate although certain portions of the WSC could and would apply to them as far as double-predestination goes.


----------



## Pergamum (May 1, 2009)

my brain hurts....


ouch....


----------



## PresbyDane (May 1, 2009)

Yes I think so, he was a tool in glorifying God


----------



## Skyler (May 1, 2009)

I voted, then read the thread. Now I wish I could change my vote.


----------



## JM (May 1, 2009)

The son of perdition was lost fulfilling scripture. John 17:12/Psalm 109:8


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

JM said:


> The son of perdition was lost fulfilling scripture. John 17:12/Psalm 109:8



JM,

I'm sure you understand the distinction between "fulfilling Scripture" in the sense of an event or one's actions fulfilling what was prophesied would happen and "fulfilling Scripture" in the sense of one complying with the purpose and design for which he was created according to the revealed will of God in Scripture. The question of this post relates to the WSC Q1 and, therefore, concerns the latter.

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 12:46:33 EST-----



Skyler said:


> I voted, then read the thread. Now I wish I could change my vote.



Jonathan,

Which way would you vote having read the thread?

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 12:48:31 EST-----



Re4mdant said:


> Yes I think so, he was a tool in glorifying God



Yes, this is undoubtedly true. I was also a tool in glorifying God when I was yet a "child of wrath even as the rest" (Eph. 2:3). But when I was a "child of wrath," was I really fulfilling the "chief end" for which God created me?


----------



## JM (May 1, 2009)

> I'm sure you understand the distinction between "fulfilling Scripture" in the sense of an event or one's actions fulfilling what was prophesied would happen and "fulfilling Scripture" in the sense of one complying with the purpose and design for which he was created according to the revealed will of God in Scripture. The question of this post relates to the WSC Q1 and, therefore, concerns the latter.



I do understand there is a distinction made but I do not understand why.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

JM said:


> > I'm sure you understand the distinction between "fulfilling Scripture" in the sense of an event or one's actions fulfilling what was prophesied would happen and "fulfilling Scripture" in the sense of one complying with the purpose and design for which he was created according to the revealed will of God in Scripture. The question of this post relates to the WSC Q1 and, therefore, concerns the latter.
> 
> 
> I do understand there is a distinction made but I do not understand why.



I believe the reason Reformed theologians have commonly made a distinction between God's decretive will and his revealed will is because the Scriptures make such a distinction:The *secret things* [i.e., that which has, is, or will happen in accordance with God's decree] belong to the LORD our God, but *the things that are revealed* [i.e., that which God reveals 'should be' vis-a-vis his moral creation, the rule to which He _wants_ all men to conform] belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law (Deut 29:29, ESV). ​Hope this helps.


----------



## PresbyDane (May 1, 2009)

hhmmm


----------



## Skyler (May 1, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > I voted, then read the thread. Now I wish I could change my vote.
> ...



I would have picked no, he wasn't fulfilling the chief end of man as per Q1. I didn't recall the "and enjoy him forever" part until I read the rest of the thread.


----------



## JM (May 1, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Hope this helps.



Sure, but I guess I've always understood John 17:12, Christ keeping the saints and Judas being lost, as having fulfilled a purpose. Judas being created with a purpose that was realized.

But I've been wrong before... 



> I didn't recall the "and enjoy him forever" part until I read the rest of the thread.



I didn't recall until I read the above.


----------



## KMK (May 1, 2009)

I think Fisher's catechism is helpful: Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

I will post just a highlight:



> Q. 44. Why is the glorifying God made the leading part of man's chief end, and set before the enjoyment of him?
> 
> A. Because, as God's design in glorifying himself was the reason and foundation of his design in making man happy in the enjoyment of him, Rom. 11:26; so he has made our aiming at his glory, as our chief end, to be the very way and means of our attaining to that enjoyment, Psalm 50:23.
> 
> ...


----------



## KMK (May 1, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Thanks, Joshua. As I ask above, I'd like those who answer "yes" to provide an explanation of how their answer coheres with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism, which includes the enjoyment of God as an essential part of man's "chief end." Certainly, Judas neither did nor does presently enjoy God. Please explain, then, how "of course he is" fits with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism.
> 
> Thanks,



I am not sure I agree that the Puritans meant that the enjoyment of God was an 'essential' part of man's chief end. As Fisher states above, "he has made our aiming at his glory, as our chief end, to be the very *way and means* of our attaining to that enjoyment, Psalm 50:23"

In other words,, the essential part of our chief end is the glorification of God. The enjoyment is an inevitable byproduct.

In the case of Judas, he was without Christ and therefore could neither glorify or enjoy God.


----------



## Idelette (May 1, 2009)

Thank you for starting this thread!!! I was actually going to start a very similar discussion.....I am curious to hear more from others!!! 

Carry on.......


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

KMK said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, Joshua. As I ask above, I'd like those who answer "yes" to provide an explanation of how their answer coheres with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism, which includes the enjoyment of God as an essential part of man's "chief end." Certainly, Judas neither did nor does presently enjoy God. Please explain, then, how "of course he is" fits with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism.
> ...



Ken,

To suppose that the Puritans did not mean that the enjoyment of God was an 'essential' part of man's chief end is to ignore the plan language of the Catechism. Both "to glorify" and "to enjoy" are identified as "THE chief end" of man. Accordingly, I don't think Fisher's exposition on Q1 is the best. It was published in 1753 (at least the version I have). 

Thomas Vincent was a contemporary of some of the Westminster divines. His commentary was endorsed by 40 Puritan pastors including John Owen, Joseph Caryl, James Janeway, Thomas Manton, Thomas Brooks and Thomas Watson. In that book, Vincent asks the question, “Why is the glorifying of God and the enjoyment of God joined together as one chief end of man?” To which he answers,Because *God hath inseparably joined them together*, so that *men cannot truly design and seek the one without the other.* They who enjoy God most in his house on earth, do most glorify and enjoy him. ‘Blessed are they that dwell in thy house; they will be still praising thee.’—Ps. lxxxiv. 4. And when God shall be most fully enjoyed by the saints in heaven, he will be most highly glorified. ‘He shall come to be glorified in his saints.’—2 Thess. i. 10.​Benjamin Wadsworth’s exposition (1714) concurs with Vincent’s interpretation. Wadsworth draws the following inference from the wording of the Catechism:Glorifying and Enjoying God, are *Inseparably joined together*; there can’t be the one without the other. [We] must be Holy, or can’t be Happy; but those who are Holy shall be Happy, Mat. 5.8. Heb. 12.14​Consider also the testimony of James Harper who wrote An Exposition in the Form of Questions and Answers of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (1905). Harper raises the question, “Why may the glorifying and enjoying of God be counted as one end, not two ends?”Because he who desires to glorify God desires also to enjoy Him, and he who desires to enjoy God feels the impulse to glorify Him. *The two desires, although distinguishable in thought, are inseparable in fact*.​By joining the two inseparably together, the Puritans were making a vitally important theological and practical point: *God’s revealed will demands nothing less than “heart-religion”*

According to Scripture, all of creation was made to glorify God (Rom. 11:36; Col. 1:16). This includes the inanimate creation, such as rocks, trees, mountains, rivers, sun, moon, and stars (Psa. 19:1-4; Rom. 1:19-20). This also includes the animate creation, such as birds, fish, and all manner of wild and domesticated animals (Psa. 104:11-32). 

However, it is vital to note that the first question of the Catechism _is not dealing with the question of the entire creation’s chief end_. Rather, our Puritan forefathers are focused upon one aspect of God’s creation: “What is the chief end _of man_?” they ask. And it is vitally important for properly interpreting the Catechism that we note this limitation. 

What makes man differ from all the rest of creation (excepting angels)? One of the primary differences between man and the rest of creation is the fact that man has been endowed with an inward spiritual faculty which the Bible often refers to as “the heart.” The worship of rocks, hills, trees, stars, and even animals is, in a real sense, “heartless” worship. They all glorify God, but they cannot enjoy him—at least in the sense man is able to do. 

But God has endowed men and women with a heart. And this inward faculty of the heart includes the mind, the conscience, the will, and the emotions. These spiritual or psychological faculties are what distinguish men inanimate and animal creation. Therefore, man’s chief end, as opposed to the chief end of rocks, trees, clouds, starts, birds, fish, and cattle, must involve the heart. The mountains and rivers may fulfill their chief end “heartlessly.” Even the animals may fulfill their chief end “heartlessly.” However, when it comes to mankind—made in the image of God—man’s ultimate purpose for existence must embrace a heart that is rightly oriented towards the creator. It is not enough for man to “draw near to God with his lips and yet have his heart be far from God” (Matt. 15:8). God must have man’s heart! That's one of the essential points underscored by the teaching of the WSC Q1.

Your servant,​


----------



## KMK (May 1, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> ...




I am sure you are correct in saying that I am in error, but if you read Fisher's catechism completely you will see that he agrees with everything you have quoted above. For example:



> Q. 4. What connexion is there between the glorifying God, and the enjoyment of him?
> 
> A. They are connected by rich and sovereign grace, persuading and enabling the sinner to embrace Jesus Christ as the only way to God and glory. Eph. 2:8 -- "By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." John 14:6 -- "I," says Christ, "am the way; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."



What would have been the difference, in your view, if the Divines had written, "The chief end of man is to enjoy him and glorify him forever?"​


----------



## CharlieJ (May 1, 2009)

Dr. Bob, I find the phrasing of WSC 1 strange. One (at least from a 21st century perspective) naturally infers teleology rather than revealed intention from the words "chief end." Indeed, it even seems odd to hear God's revealed will spoken of as being "chief." If I recall rightly, Aquinas dealt with this question teleologically, so he had to give an answer that encompassed the reprobate and the elect. It seems the WSC framers deliberately eschewed that approach.


----------



## Theognome (May 1, 2009)

I've read some, but not all, of the replies. But since I did answer yes and Dr. Bob did ask for the "yes'ers" to give reason, here's mine:

The catechism as a whole acknowledges the distinction between the saved and damned, and this distinction can be seen (though is not explained immediately) in the first question. There are two aspects of the answer- one which is general or common, and the other, special. Obviously, those outside of true faith will not enjoy Him. Indeed, they shall curse His name for eternity as they lie in torment where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. It would be a wonderful thing if all of humanity were redeemed... and it is a declared longing of the Lord for this in many places in Scripture. However, not all shall be receiving of His saving grace as His justice must also be sated and this is also well attested throughout His word. 

So the decretive and secretive will of the Lord is reflected here- That all of mankind is made to glorify Him in the decretive sense and that we should enjoy Him forever in the secretive. And, since no mere man can declare who fulfills God's secret will, there is no problem with the question or the answer. 

Theognome


----------



## MW (May 1, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> My purpose for asking the question is to see how Reformed people tend to interpret the WSC Q1.



Most commentators on Shorter Catechism 1 are careful to distinguish between an "active" and a "passive" fulfilling of man's chief end. Actively all men are obliged to glorify and enjoy God as their chief end, while passively they are made to serve for the glory of God according to the counsel of His immutable will. It is noted, though, that the question properly refers to what man is to actively strive after; but when the question is answered in this way it is always acknowledged that it is not dealing with God's ultimate end for which He created particular men because that can only refer to man's passive end.


----------



## py3ak (May 1, 2009)

Dr. Gonzalez, I think some people may become confused because your first post implies _divine intention_ and then a subsequent actually uses that term.

Of course in terms of _divine intention_ Judas is doing exactly what glorifies God - fulfilling His decree.

But in terms of _whole duty_, Judas is not fulfilling any part of that duty.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 1, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > My purpose for asking the question is to see how Reformed people tend to interpret the WSC Q1.
> ...



This also makes sense because Question 1 precedes the Fall and Redemption as it were, which occur in later questions of the catechism. Also, the question sort of implies what the chief end of mankind is rather than particular men.

It would be hard to explain this answer to a child if you tried to get into the "well you are fulfilling your chief end no matter what you do because God has ordained everything you ever do...."


----------



## KMK (May 1, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > My purpose for asking the question is to see how Reformed people tend to interpret the WSC Q1.
> ...



Hence Fisher:



> Q. 11. Do not the heavens and the earth, and all inferior creatures, glorify God?
> 
> A. Yes; in a passive way, all his works praise him. Psalm 19:1, and 145:10.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

py3ak said:


> Dr. Gonzalez, I think some people may become confused because your first post implies _divine intention_ and then a subsequent actually uses that term.
> 
> Of course in terms of _divine intention_ Judas is doing exactly what glorifies God - fulfilling His decree.
> 
> But in terms of _whole duty_, Judas is not fulfilling any part of that duty.



Ruben,

I used "intention" as synonymous with "design," which is defined as "to intend for a definite purpose." I am neither a hyper-Calvinist nor a High Calvinist, so I don't have any problem saying affirming the paradoxical propositions that (1) All men *do fulfill *God's ultimate creative design or intention (Exod. 9:16; Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:33-36), and (2) All men *do not fulfill *God's ultimate creative design or intention (Rom. 3:23). 

I believe Q2 of the WSC makes it pretty clear that the framers had sense #2 in view. That is, man's "active" duty is the concern. The category of the reprobate's "passive" fulfillment of God's secret purpose. But I'm not convinced that category belongs in an exposition of Q1 despite the fact that some Reformed expositors like Fisher seem to import that category into their exposition. The glorifying and enjoying of Q1 is the same as Q2 and is, therefore, ethical in nature. 

Your servant,

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 08:37:23 EST-----



Theognome said:


> I've read some, but not all, of the replies. But since I did answer yes and Dr. Bob did ask for the "yes'ers" to give reason, here's mine:
> 
> The catechism as a whole acknowledges the distinction between the saved and damned, and this distinction can be seen (though is not explained immediately) in the first question. There are two aspects of the answer- one which is general or common, and the other, special. Obviously, those outside of true faith will not enjoy Him. Indeed, they shall curse His name for eternity as they lie in torment where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. It would be a wonderful thing if all of humanity were redeemed... and it is a declared longing of the Lord for this in many places in Scripture. However, not all shall be receiving of His saving grace as His justice must also be sated and this is also well attested throughout His word.
> 
> ...



Bill,

This is an interesting read on Q1. However, to be consistent one must use the same line of reasoning with Q2. Are you saying the Word of God is *the rule* to direct the reprobate how to glorify God by means of unbelief, hatred, and disobedience (e.g., Judas) and the Word of God is also, *in the same sense as above, the rule* to direct the elect how to glorify and enjoy God? I just don't agree that "the decretive and secretive will of the Lord is reflected" in Q1 or Q2. Is it addressed, however, in Q7.


----------



## py3ak (May 1, 2009)

I don't think there's much question that Q1 refers us to what is normative for us, and what is original to our created constitution, so to speak.

But the "paradox" is simply an equivocation, it seems to me.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

KMK said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...


----------



## MW (May 1, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I'm using the term "paradox" according to its most common and widely accepted meaning, namely, _statements or propositions that *seem* self-contradictory or absurd but in reality are not contradictory and express complementary truths though the relationship of those truths may not be comprehended by the mind of man_. So I don't agree that "paradox" is simply an equivocation.



Correct, it is not an equivocation; it is a "real" contradition if you do not explain the "seemingness" of the contradicition but insist on understanding the same terms in the same way and thereby negate with one statement what you affirm with the other.


----------



## MW (May 1, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> But I'm not convinced that category belongs in an exposition of Q1 despite the fact that some Reformed expositors like Fisher seem to import that category into their exposition. The glorifying and enjoying of Q1 is the same as Q2 and is, therefore, ethical in nature.



Taking pains to divide things that are by nature distinct is the purpose of expositing truth. Leaving matters in a state of confusion only serves the interests of error. 2 Corinthians 4:2.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > But I'm not convinced that category belongs in an exposition of Q1 despite the fact that some Reformed expositors like Fisher seem to import that category into their exposition. The glorifying and enjoying of Q1 is the same as Q2 and is, therefore, ethical in nature.
> ...



Matthew,

I would put it this way: Taking pains to discern what the authorial intention of a biblical or theological proposition means in its context, i.e., _exegesis_, is the purpose of "expouding truth." _Eisegesis_, however orthodox the foreign matter imported into the text, is what breeds confusion and serves the interests of error.


----------



## MW (May 1, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I would put it this way: Taking pains to discern what the authorial intention of a biblical or theological proposition means in its context, i.e., _exegesis_, is the purpose of "expouding truth." _Eisegesis_, however orthodox the foreign matter imported into the text, is what breeds confusion and serves the interests of error.



We were speaking about the authorial intent of the Catechism, and the authors of the Catechism believed in the harmony of truth, and would have considered any exegesis which involved the Scriptures in rational contradiction as eisegesis of a corrupting kind. See Confession of Faith, section 9. If one Scripture could be understood in tension with another Scripture then obviously Scripture could not be used to "interpret" -- explain the meaning of -- Scripture.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > I'm using the term "paradox" according to its most common and widely accepted meaning, namely, _statements or propositions that *seem* self-contradictory or absurd but in reality are not contradictory and express complementary truths though the relationship of those truths may not be comprehended by the mind of man_. So I don't agree that "paradox" is simply an equivocation.
> ...



Matthew,

Please note carefully that the two following propositions seem formally contradictory but do not use "the same terms in the same way" and are therefore not contradictory:
(1) All men *do fulfill *God's ultimate creative design or intention (Exod. 9:16; Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:33-36).
(2) All men *do not fulfill *God's ultimate creative design or intention (Rom. 3:23). ​ Both propositions are biblical and, therefore, cannot truly be contradictory. On the one hand, God makes the wicked for his glory (Prov. 16:4). On the other hand, the wicked fall short of glorifying God (Rom. 3:23). Of course, the words "fulfill" and "design" are used differently in each example above--the first example relating the terms to God's decretive will; the second example relating to God's preceptive will. The statements above are paradoxical on both a linguistic level as well as a theological level since we cannot always understand all the ways in which God's decree relates to God's preceptive will. I'm well aware that some Calvinist (especially of the followers of Gordon Clark) don't like the idea of paradox. In my view, the doctrine of God's incomprehensibility and man's finitude demand it. But this topic should perhaps be reserved for a different forum. 

Respectfully yours,

-----Added 5/1/2009 at 09:37:39 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > I would put it this way: Taking pains to discern what the authorial intention of a biblical or theological proposition means in its context, i.e., _exegesis_, is the purpose of "expouding truth." _Eisegesis_, however orthodox the foreign matter imported into the text, is what breeds confusion and serves the interests of error.
> ...



Matthew, 

I was speaking what appeared to me to be an attempt to read more into Q1 than the authors intended. (That's why I compared Fisher to Gurnall.) True, the statement, "Don't muzzle the ox that treads grain" is interrelated to other biblical truths. But that doesn't mean I should use that single text as the basis of expounding every other theological and biblical truth in the Bible. 

On the issue of "contradition," see my comments above.


----------



## MW (May 1, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Both propositions are biblical and, therefore, cannot truly be contradictory.



They are not biblical statements, they are your summations of what you think the Bible teaches. In arriving at summations of biblical teaching humans use the ministerial function of human reason. All such ministerial function seeks to logically abstract the truth value of Scripture teaching. As such, it is human reason which has arrived at these paradoxical presentations of truth, not the Bible. We are not at liberty to use "reason" to violate "reason."



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I was speaking what appeared to me to be an attempt to read more into Q1 than the authors intended.



Fisher made no such attempt. He was "expositing" the Catechism. As already noted, a part of expounding truth requires distinguishing things that differ so that the hearer or reader might be clear as to what the individual is referring to when he makes specific claims. This thread is a testimony to the confusion which ensues when things that differ are not differentiated.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 1, 2009)

לַיְלָה טוֹב!


----------



## Theognome (May 1, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> > I've read some, but not all, of the replies. But since I did answer yes and Dr. Bob did ask for the "yes'ers" to give reason, here's mine:
> ...



I do not see how the emphasis on *the rule* is a challenge here. Paul explained this in Romans 7, concerning the knowledge of law and what it produces regarding conviction before it. The reprobate are devoid of the desire to please or glorify God and any such pleasing or glorification is accomplished by God Himself. Q2 is very obviously asking its question to those who _desire_ to glorify God. Q2 is still a true statement of what Gods word gives all men in terms of this rule, of course- and this rule will exonerate us through the blood of Christ or condemn us to eternal shame.

I also see no problem with a principle addressed in detail in Q7 being none the less present in Q1. Q1 is chock full of suggestive meaning that is explained elsewhere in the catechism. If every underpinning of doctrine were to be placed within Q1, you wouldn't have a catechism- you'd have another Institutes. 

Theognome


----------



## py3ak (May 1, 2009)

> Please note carefully that the two following propositions seem formally contradictory but do not use "the same terms in the same way" and are therefore not contradictory:



Not to engage in strivings about words, but using the same term in different ways is not a univocal use of language - hence, equivocation.


----------



## KMK (May 2, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Ken,
> 
> To suppose that the Puritans did not mean that the enjoyment of God was an 'essential' part of man's chief end is to ignore the plan language of the Catechism. Both "to glorify" and "to enjoy" are identified as "THE chief end" of man. Accordingly, I don't think Fisher's exposition on Q1 is the best. It was published in 1753 (at least the version I have).
> 
> Thomas Vincent was a contemporary of some of the Westminster divines. His commentary was endorsed by 40 Puritan pastors including John Owen, Joseph Caryl, James Janeway, Thomas Manton, Thomas Brooks and Thomas Watson. In that book, Vincent asks the question, “Why is the glorifying of God and the enjoyment of God joined together as one chief end of man?” To which he answers,Because *God hath inseparably joined them together*, so that *men cannot truly design and seek the one without the other.* They who enjoy God most in his house on earth, do most glorify and enjoy him. ‘Blessed are they that dwell in thy house; they will be still praising thee.’—Ps. lxxxiv. 4. And when God shall be most fully enjoyed by the saints in heaven, he will be most highly glorified. ‘He shall come to be glorified in his saints.’—2 Thess. i. 10.​Benjamin Wadsworth’s exposition (1714) concurs with Vincent’s interpretation. Wadsworth draws the following inference from the wording of the Catechism:Glorifying and Enjoying God, are *Inseparably joined together*; there can’t be the one without the other. [We] must be Holy, or can’t be Happy; but those who are Holy shall be Happy, Mat. 5.8. Heb. 12.14​Consider also the testimony of James Harper who wrote An Exposition in the Form of Questions and Answers of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (1905). Harper raises the question, “Why may the glorifying and enjoying of God be counted as one end, not two ends?”Because he who desires to glorify God desires also to enjoy Him, and he who desires to enjoy God feels the impulse to glorify Him. *The two desires, although distinguishable in thought, are inseparable in fact*.​By joining the two inseparably together, the Puritans were making a vitally important theological and practical point: *God’s revealed will demands nothing less than “heart-religion”*​




I see what you mean. Here is another example from Flavel:



> Q. 9. Why are the glorifying and enjoying of God put together, as making up our chief End?
> A. Because no man can glorify God, that takes him not for his God; and one takes him for his God, that takes him not for his supreme Good; and *both these being essentially included in this Notion of the chief End*, are therefore justly put together.



They are both essential, but one is subordinate to the other, correct?​


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 2, 2009)

KMK said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > > I see what you mean. Here is another example from Flavel:
> ...


----------



## py3ak (May 2, 2009)

Thanks for the clarification, Dr. Gonzales. I think it may be too minor a point to be worth pursuing much further, but if a paradox is based on equivocation, then it ceases to be a paradox when the equivocation is grasped and the terms are defined more narrowly (because there is no longer any _seeming_ contradiction). As such they are useful, because they lead people to think about terms and engage in disambiguation.

I don't think the other examples you gave of paradox fit the bill (because, e.g., "nature" and "person" are two distintict concepts), but following that up would lead us pretty far afield!


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 2, 2009)

py3ak said:


> Thanks for the clarification, Dr. Gonzales. I think it may be too minor a point to be worth pursuing much further, but if a paradox is based on equivocation, then it ceases to be a paradox when the equivocation is grasped and the terms are defined more narrowly (because there is no longer any _seeming_ contradiction). As such they are useful, because they lead people to think about terms and engage in disambiguation.
> 
> I don't think the other examples you gave of paradox fit the bill (because, e.g., "nature" and "person" are two distintict concepts), but following that up would lead us pretty far afield!



Thanks, Ruben. I'm not sure I agree that the paradox ceases when the equivocation is grasped. Equivocation refers to similar language or concept with different meanings. Interestingly, many dictionaries include the idea of "ambiguity" in equivocation, thereby conceding that the semantic difference between the two words, concepts, or propositions are not always immediately clear. Be that as it may, one may acknowledge *on the basis of the Scriptures own authority* that two seemingly incongruous statements are, in fact, congruent. So when I hear the following propositions,
(1) Christ's nature is human
(2) Christ's nature is divine​they at first may appear contradictory and incompatible, especially in light of the biblical teaching on the Creature-creator distinction. One may think he has solved the paradox by simply asserting that the two natures are united in one person. So that the divine person now has both a divine nature and a human nature. Very well, to some degree by means of this explanation "the equivocation is grasped." 

But, as I pointed out above, paradox and equivocation are not synonymous terms. Equivocation simply informs us that different senses are intended; hence, there's no real contradiction. Paradox, on the other hand, includes the idea of equivocation, but it's referring to a larger reality. Namely, even though one may understand the fact of the equivocatory relation of two propositions (often on the basis of divine revelation and not merely on unaided human reason), yet he may not fully understand how those two equivocatory propositions cohere. I embrace _the fact_ that Jesus is fully divine nature and fully human united in one person. I don't comprehend how this all coheres. I believe it does. But understanding how it does is another matter. 

Hence, paradox does not refer merely to the acknowledgement of semantic differences between two propositions. It refers, more broadly, to the conceptual challenging in understanding how two concepts, which may seem not merely linguistically but more importantly conceptually incongruous, do actually cohere. 

Here's another example: John Calvin opens his Institutes by telling us:
(1) We must truly know God if we would truly know ourselves (I, 1.1). ​But then he reverses the proposition:
(2) We must truly know ourselves if we would truly know God (I, 1.2).​Which is it, Dr. Calvin? That is, which comes first? Calvin's answer: "While joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern" (I, 1.1). So Calvin is admitting that there is a conceptual difficulty. We normally think in terms from cause to effect. Hence, we would expect one of the above to lead to the other. But Calvin cautions us against trying to explain the relation in an "either/or" fashion. He sees a kind of reciprocal relationship, but such a relationship introduces a degree of conceptual tension, a mystery, if I might use the term. 

I believe the same is true with respect to the following two propositions:
(1) God purposes to save some sinners (John 6:37, 44; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4)
(2) God desires that all sinners would be saved (Deut. 5:29; Isa. 45:22; Luke 13:34; John 5:34). ​I believe these two statements are equivocal on the basis of God's authority. Nevertheless, though I embrace the fact of their equivocacy, I may not fully understand how these two biblical realities cohere. Hence, I'm content to live with some "paradoxes" (i.e., not real contradictions but only apparent in the sense that the human mind cannot completely comprehend how they cohere), not on the basis of human reason but on the basis of Scripture. 

Some, I know, try to deny the paradox above by denying the second of the two propositions. In their minds, the statements above are not equivocal and are contradictory. Hence, they fail constrained to "reinterpret" texts supporting the second proposition in order to do remove the "tension." I have read their arguments and found them exegetically and theologically analogous to Arminian attempts to re-interpret texts supporting proposition #1 above. Indeed, one writer summed up this misguided interprise well when he wrote,
"There is but one step between the responsible interpretation of the Bible which believing in its theological unity, refuses to so interpret any text as to transgress that unity; and, on the other hand, the dogmatic interpretation of the Bible which assuming its system to be biblical, refuses to allow the Bible to speak. This latter method _gags the Bible_ under the pretense of the analogy of faith" (emphasis his)..​Thanks for the interaction!


----------



## py3ak (May 2, 2009)

If there is a conceptual difficulty it may be a paradox (or fuzzy thinking!). If there is a verbal difficulty it is equivocation or a mere pun.

I do think there are some conceptual difficulties, in that there are things that are hard for human minds, at least in their current weakened and sinful condition, to grasp. 

But I get the impression that I would identify fewer points as paradoxical than you would. 

So we can leave it at that, as getting into the specifics would definitely take this thread far off topic.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 2, 2009)

If I may just add my 

The intention of the Divines is clear. They are refering to the revealed will of God for man. Mankind was created to enjoy and glorify God. God provided mankind with a rule for this in the Scriptures, and tells us exactly what we need to believe concerning God and what duty God requires, all directing man how to glorify and enjoy him. The catechism here is dealing with man's obligation as creatures in covenant with God. All elect and reprobate share this obligation as creatures originally designed to glorify and enjoy God. 

How God glorifies himself in election/reprobation (by his secret will, Q7) is distinct from man's moral obligation to glorify God. 

So to answer the question from the perspective of Q1-3; No, Judas did not accomplish his cheif end to glorify God. He failed to give God His due, and acknowledge him for who He is. He failed use the rule God gave him, and rejected what the Scriptures principally teach. 

Did God accomplish his secret purpose to glorify Himself through passing Judas over and executing justice rather than mercy? Yes. But we can't confuse these two. The Catechism here is clearly dealing with man's obligation as a creature made in His image, not God's secret will. 

Perhaps this is what you have been trying to say all along.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 2, 2009)

Patrick,

You gave more than 2 cents. I believe you accurately captured and portrayed the intent and teaching of the WSC Q1. We're on the same page. Thanks so much for your contribution!

Your servant,


----------



## KMK (May 3, 2009)

Flavel can be found here: Westminster Shorter Catechism Project


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (May 3, 2009)

KMK said:


> Flavel can be found here: Westminster Shorter Catechism Project



Ken,

Excellent resource! Wasn't aware of it. Thanks for the helpful tip!


----------



## MW (May 3, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> One may think he has solved the paradox by simply asserting that the two natures are united in one person. So that the divine person now has both a divine nature and a human nature. Very well, to some degree by means of this explanation "the equivocation is grasped."



It is sound methodology to introduce a categorical distinction which shows in which way Christ is "one" and in which way He is "two." Equally, in the Trinity we distinguish between substance and person in order to categorise what appears to be a contradiction (Van Til excepted). It is the introduction of categorical distinction which shows the use of terms is an equivocation and that two mutually exclusive statements are in fact non contradictory. Where the categorical distinction is denied, and one insists that the contradictory terms must be understood in the same sense, there one is left with a contradiction which is not merely apparent but real.


----------

