# To Enjoy God Forever: Puritan Hedonism?



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Q1 What is the chief end of man? 
Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. 

Very few Christians would debate the assertion that mankind was created for the glory of God. In Isaiah 43:7, God says of Israel, “I have created [you] for my glory.” Paul tells believers in 1 Corinthians 10:31, “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” To the Christians in Rome, he exclaims, “For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36). 

But why did the Puritans add the phrase “and enjoy Him”? Why not simply “glorify God.” After all, there were earlier Catechisms that simply defined man’s chief end in terms of glorifying God. Why did the framers of the Westminster Catechism add “and to enjoy him.” If they had to add a phrase, why not “glorify God and believe in him”? Why not “glorify God and serve him”? Why did they choose “and enjoy him”? Is it even biblical to describe man’s chief end in terms of enjoying God? 

I believe this is an important question for at least four reasons: 

*(1) Because of the vital importance of the topic*

Why are we here? What are we to live for? What should be the primary motivation for all that we do? What’s God’s ultimate design for our life? What could be more important than to consider these questions? These are questions asked by people all over the world—young and old, rich and poor, philosopher and simple man. 
*
(2) Because of our love for the Reformed tradition*

The Shorter Catechism is an essential part of the doctrinal heritage of many on the Puritan Board. We love our tradition, but we love the Scriptures more. Is this part of our tradition Scriptural? 
*
(3) Because some Reformed expositors of the Catechism appear to ignore or to minimize “the enjoyment of God” as man’s chief end.*

For example, Alexander Archibald Hodge (the son of Charles Hodge) wrote a commentary on the Catechism which was published in 1888. Though Hodge refers to the glory of God as man’s chief end, he does not once mention the enjoyment of God. It’s as if the Catechism never used that phrase. More recently, G. I. Williamson published a study guide for the Catechism, and the main headings are (1) The Two Mind Sets, (2) Glorifying God, and (3) What ‘Chief End’ Means. In the first section, he contrasts a selfish mindset with a God-centered mindset. In the second section, spends most of his time explaining what it means to glorify God, though he does say at the end, “and [those who glorify God] do enjoy him forever.” And in the final section he defines the phrase “chief end.” He doesn’t completely ignore the phrase “and enjoy him,” as Hodge did. But he does appear to minimize its importance. According to Johannes Vos (1903-1983), the framers of the Catechism placed “glorify God” before “enjoy God” because the most important element in the purpose of human life is glorifying God, while enjoying God is strictly subordinate to glorifying God. In our religious life, we should always place the chief emphasis upon glorifying God. The person who does this will truly enjoy God, both there and hereafter. But the person who thinks of enjoying God is in danger of supposing that God exists for man instead of man for God. To stress enjoying God more than glorifying God will result in a falsely mystical or emotional type of religion. ​And Vos’ concern to subordinate the act of enjoying God to the act of glorifying God was shared by other Reformed writers who lived before him. Thomas Boston, for example, writes, “Man’s chief duty is to glorify God…. And this is man’s chief, and last or farthest end. Man’s chief happiness is, to enjoy God as his God…. And this is man’s chief subordinate end.” John Brown offers the following series of questions and answers to clarify the meaning of the Catechism:Q. Is our delight in the glory or glorious excellencies of God as satisfying to us, to be our chief end or motive in our actions, religious or moral?
A. No; but our shewing forth the honour of these glorious excellencies, Isa. ii. 11. Psal. xvi. 4. Isa. xliii. 21. 

Q. Why may we not make our own delight in the glory of God as satisfying to our desires, our chief end and motive? 
A. Because this would be a setting up of our own happiness above the glory of God. ​Ebenezer Erskine, James Fisher, and Ralph Erskine also wrote a catechetical exposition of the Catechism that was published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication in 1753. Similar to Brown the authors ask,Q. 46 Is not our delighting in the glory of God, to be reckoned our chief end? 
A. No; we must set the glory of God above our delight therein, otherwise, our delight is not chiefly in God, but in ourselves, Isa. ii. 11. ​These authors obviously don’t ignore the phrase “and enjoy him.” But they certainly seem to minimize its importance in relationship to the phrase “glorify God.” And they seem to be motivated by a concern that by giving the phrase “enjoy him” equal weight with the phrase “glorify God,” we run the risk of promoting a man-centered, mystical, or overly emotional kind of religion. 

*(4) Because of the popular and influential teachings of John Piper*

John Piper is the senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In 1986 Piper published a book entitled _Desiring God_ with the subtitle, _Meditations of a Christian Hedonist_. Because of its popularity, a second expanded edition was republished in 1996. In that book, Piper begins by citing the Shorter Catechism and by suggesting that the answer to the question of man’s chief end can be better understood by simply changing one little word. 

Instead of “Man’s chief end is to glorify God AND enjoy Him forever,” Piper suggests, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God BY enjoying Him forever.” Or as he paraphrases it later in the book: “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.” This is the essence, Piper argues, of Christian Hedonism. And Piper has written several other books that are in many ways expositions and applications of that theme. 

For better or for worse, Piper’s emphasis upon the enjoyment of God has caused a stir in the Reformed community. Some have accused him of greatly altering the teaching of the Catechism by changing the wording. Others, like Peter Masters, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, have accused Piper of reductionism. In a critique of Piper’s teaching, Masters asserts,Dr. Piper’s formula … undoubtedly alters the understanding of sanctification long held by believers in the Reformation tradition, because it elevates one Christian duty above all others…. As soon as you substitute a single ‘big idea’ or organizing principle, and bundle all the strands into one, you alter God’s design and method. ​Dr. Masters argues that Piper has departed from the Puritan view of sanctification which he calls “multi-track.” He says, “If it is possible to see one duty lifted a little higher than the others in Puritan literature it is probably obedience, not the pursuit of joy ….” Nevertheless, as the Shorter Catechism demonstrates, the Puritans did sometimes elevate one duty above the rest and in this case the duty is the enjoyment of God. 

Is it right to think of man’s chief end as the enjoyment of God? How we answer that question will affect our view of the Puritans, our view of John Piper, and most importantly, our view of the Christian life. Therefore, I think it is a question worthy for our consideration. Brothers, please offer your feedback.


----------



## Richard King

You know honestly I don't know the answer to your question 
...but this gives me a chance to share something about the phrase.
I saw the question and answer to Q1 on a coffee cup once about 3 or 4 years ago.

I had never heard it before in my life. I had always been in Baptist churches or charismatic churches etc. and believe it or not I had not a clue what the Westminster Catechism was.

But I was always wondering what this ride on this crazy planet is all about 
and when I saw the coffee cup with the this question and answer it seemed incredibly profound. I could not get it out of my mind. So I sought out its origins and that opened up a world of truth for me.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

From Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity, (Banner of Truth) pages 20-26.



> II. Man’s chief end is to enjoy God for ever. Psalm 73: 25. 'Whom have I in heaven but thee?’ That is, What is there in heaven I desire to enjoy but thee? There is a twofold fruition or enjoying of God; the one is in this life, the other in the life to come.
> 
> _ The enjoyment of God in this life. It is a great matter to enjoy God's ordinances, but to enjoy God's presence in the ordinances is that which a gracious heart aspires after. Psalm 63: 2. 'To see thy glory so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary.' This sweet enjoyment of God, is, when we feel his Spirit co-operating with the ordinance, and distilling grace upon our hearts, when in the Word the Spirit quickens and raises the affections, Luke 24: 32, 'Did not our hearts burn within us?', when the Spirit transforms the heart, leaving an impress of holiness upon it. 2 Cor 3: I8. 'We are changed into the same image, from glory to glory.' When the Spirit revives the heart with comfort, it comes not only with its anointing, but with its seal; it sheds God's love abroad in the heart. Rom 5: 5. 'Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.' I John 1: 3. In the Word we hear God's voice, in the sacrament we have his kiss. The heart being warmed and inflamed in a duty is God's answering by fire. The sweet communications of God's Spirit are the first-fruits of glory. Now Christ has pulled off his veil, and showed his smiling face; now he has led a believer into the banqueting-house, and given him of the spiced wine of his love to drink; he has put in his finger at the hole of the door; he has touched the heart, and made it leap for joy. Oh how sweet is it thus to enjoy God! The godly have, in ordinances, had such divine raptures of joy, and soul transfigurations, that they have been carried above the world, and have despised all things here below.
> 
> Use one: Is the enjoyment of God in this life so sweet? How wicked are they who prefer the enjoyment of their lusts before the enjoyment of God! 2 Pet 3: 3. 'The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, the pride of life,' is the Trinity they worship. Lust is an inordinate desire or impulse, provoking the soul to that which is evil. There is the revengeful lust, and the wanton lust. Lust, like a feverish heat, puts the soul into a flame. Aristotle calls sensual lusts brutish, because, when any lust is violent, reason or conscience cannot be heard. These lusts besot and brutalise the man. Hos 4: 11. 'Whoredom and wine take away the heart;' the heart for anything that is good. How many make it their chief end, not to enjoy God, but to enjoy their lusts!; as that cardinal who said, 'Let him but keep his cardinalship of Paris, and he was content to lose his part in Paradise.' Lust first bewitches with pleasure, and then comes the fatal dart. Prov 7: 23. 'Till a dart strike through his liver.' This should be as a flaming sword to stop men in the way of their carnal delights. Who for a drop of pleasure would drink a sea of wrath?
> 
> Use two: Let it be our great care to enjoy God's sweet presence in his ordinances. Enjoying spiritual communion with God is a riddle and mystery to most people. Every one that hangs about the court does not speak with the king. We may approach God in ordinances, and hang about the court of heaven, yet not enjoy communion with God. We may have the letter without the Spirit, the visible sign without the invisible grace. It is the enjoyment of God in a duty that we should chiefly look at. Psa 13: 2. 'My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God.’ Alas! what are all our worldly enjoyments without the enjoyment of God! What is it to enjoy good health, a brave estate, and not to enjoy God? Job 30: 28. 'I went mourning without the sun.’ So mayest thou say in the enjoyment of all creatures without God, 'I went mourning without the sun.’ I have the starlight of outward enjoyments, but I want the Sun of Righteousness. 'I went mourning without the sun.' It should be our great design, not only to have the ordinances of God, but the God of the ordinances. The enjoyment of God's sweet presence here is the most contented life: he is a hive of sweetness, a magazine of riches, a fountain of delight. Psalm 36: 8, 9. The higher the lark flies the sweeter it sings: and the higher we fly by the wings of faith, the more we enjoy of God. How is the heart inflamed in prayer and meditation! What joy and peace is there in believing! Is it not comfortable being in heaven? He that enjoys much of God in this life carries heaven about him. Oh let this be the thing we are chiefly ambitious of, the enjoyment of God in his ordinances! The enjoyment of God's sweet presence here is an earnest of our enjoying him in heaven.
> 
> This brings us to the second thing:
> 
> [2] The enjoyment of God in the life to come. Man’s chief end is to enjoy God for ever. Before the plenary fruition of God in heaven, there must be something previous and antecedent; and that is, our being in a state of grace. We must have conformity to him in grace, before we can have communion with him in glory. Grace and glory are linked and chained together. Grace precedes glory, as the morning star ushers in the sun. God will have us qualified and fitted for a state of blessedness. Drunkards and swearers are not fit to enjoy God in glory; the Lord will not lay such vipers in his bosom. Only the 'pure in heart shall see God.' We must first be, as the king's daughter, glorious within, before we are clothed with the robes of glory. As King Ahasuerus first caused the virgins to be purified and anointed, and they had their sweet odours to perfume them, and then went to stand before the king, Esth 2: 12, so must we have the anointing of God, and be perfumed with the graces of the Spirit, those sweet odours, and then we shall stand before the king of heaven. Being thus divinely qualified by grace, we shall be taken up to the mount of vision, and enjoy God for ever; and what is enjoying God for ever but to be put in a state of happiness? As the body cannot have life but by having communion with the soul, so the soul cannot have blessedness but by having immediate communion with God. God is the summum bonum, the chief good; therefore the enjoyment of him is the highest felicity.
> 
> He is a universal good; bonum in quo omnia bona, 'a good, in which are all goods.’ The excellencies of the creature are limited. A man may have health, not beauty, learning, not parentage, riches, not wisdom; but in God are contained all excellencies. He is a good, commensurate fully to the soul; a sun, a portion, a horn of salvation; in whom dwells 'all fulness.’ Col 1: I9. God is an unmixed good. There is no condition in this life but has its mixture; for every drop of honey there is a drop of gall. Solomon, who gave himself to find out the philosopher’s stone, to search out for happiness here below, found nothing but vanity and vexation. Eccl 1: 2. God is perfect, the quintessence of good. He is sweetness in the flower. God is a satisfying good. The soul cries out, I have enough. Psalm 17: I5. 'I shall be satisfied with thy likeness.’ Let a man who is thirsty be brought to an ocean of pure water, and he has enough. If there be enough in God to satisfy the angels, then sure there is enough to satisfy us. The soul is but finite, but God is infinite. Though God be a good that satisfies, yet he does not surfeit. Fresh joys spring continually from his face; and he is as much to be desired after millions of years by glorified souls as at the first moment. There is a fulness in God that satisfies, and yet so much sweetness, that the soul still desires. God is a delicious good. That which is the chief good must ravish the soul with pleasure; there must be in it rapturous delight and quintessence of joy. In Deo quadam dulcedine delectatur anima immo rapitur [There is a certain sweetness about God’s person which delights, nay, rather, ravishes the soul]: The love of God drops such infinite suavity into the soul as is unspeakable and full of glory. If there be so much delight in God, when we see him only by faith, I Pet 1: 8, what will the joy of vision be, when we shall see him face to face! If the saints have found so much delight in God while they were suffering, oh what joy and delight will they have when they are being crowned! If flames are beds of roses, what will it be to lean on the bosom of Jesus! What a bed of roses that will be! God is a superlative good. He is better than anything you can put in competition with him: he is better than health, riches, honour. Other things maintain life, he gives life. Who would put anything in balance with the Deity? Who would weigh a feather against a mountain of gold? God excels all other things more infinitely than the sun the light of a taper. God is an eternal good. He is the Ancient of days, yet never decays, nor waxes old. Dan 7: 9. The joy he gives is eternal, the crown fadeth not away. I Pet 5: 4. The glorified soul shall be ever solacing itself in God, feasting on his love, and sunning itself in the light of his countenance. We read of the river of pleasure at God's right hand; but will not this in time be dried up? No! There is a fountain at the bottom which feeds it. Psa 36: 9. 'With the Lord is the fountain of life.' Thus God is the chief good, and the enjoyment of God for ever is the highest felicity of which the soul is capable.
> 
> Use one: Let it be the chief end of our living to enjoy this chief good hereafter. Augustine reckons up 288 opinions among philosophers about happiness, but all were short of the mark. The highest elevation of a reasonable soul is to enjoy God for ever. It is the enjoyment of God that makes heaven. I Thess 4: I7. 'Then shall we ever be with the Lord.' The soul trembles as the needle in the compass, and is never at rest till it comes to God. To set out this excellent state of a glorified soul’s enjoyment of God: (I.) It must not be understood in a sensual manner: we must not conceive any carnal pleasures in heaven. The Turks, in their Koran, speak of a paradise of pleasure, where they have riches in abundance, and red wine served in golden chalices. The epicures of this age would like such a heaven when they die. Though the state of glory be compared to a feast, and is set out by pearls and precious stones, yet these metaphors are only helps to our faith, and to show us that there is superabundant joy and felicity in the highest heaven; but they are not carnal but spiritual delights. Our enjoyment will be in the perfection of holiness, in seeing the pure face of Christ, in feeling the love of God, in conversing with heavenly spirits; which will be proper for the soul, and infinitely exceed all carnal voluptuous delights. (2.) We shall have a lively sense of this glorious estate. A man in a lethargy, though alive, is as good as dead, because he is not sensible, nor does he take any pleasure in his life; but we shall have a quick and lively sense of the infinite pleasure which arises from the enjoyment of God: we shall know ourselves to be happy; we shall reflect with joy upon our dignity and felicity; we shall taste every crumb of that sweetness, every drop of that pleasure which flows from God. (3.) We shall be made able to bear a sight of that glory. We could not now bear that glory, it would overwhelm us, as a weak eye cannot behold the sun; but God will capacitate us for glory; our souls shall be so heavenly, and perfected with holiness, that they may be able to enjoy the blessed vision of God. Moses in a cleft of the rock saw the glory of God passing by. Exod 33: 22. From our blessed rock Christ, we shall behold the beatific sight of God. (4.) This enjoyment of God shall be more than a bare contemplation of him. Some of the learned move the question, Whether the enjoyment of God shall be by way of contemplation only. That is something, but it is one half of heaven only; there shall be a loving of God, an acquiescence in him, a tasting his sweetness; not only inspection but possession. John 17: 24. 'That they may behold my glory;' there is inspection: Verse 22. 'And the glory thou hast given me, I have given them;' there is possession. 'Glory shall be revealed in us,' Rom 8: I8; not only revealed to us, but in us. To behold God's glory, there is glory revealed to us; but, to partake of his glory, there is glory revealed in us. As the sponge sucks in the wine, so shall we suck in glory. (5.) There is no intermission in this state of glory. We shall not only have God's glorious presence at certain special seasons; but we shall be continually in his presence, continually under divine raptures of joy. There shall not be one minute in heaven, wherein a glorified soul may say, I do not enjoy happiness. The streams of glory are not like the water of a conduit, often stopped, so that we cannot have one drop of water; but those heavenly streams of joy are continually running. Oh how should we despise this valley of tears where we now are, for the mount of transfiguration! how should we long for the full enjoyment of God in Paradise! Had we a sight of that land of promise, we should need patience to be content to live here any longer.
> 
> Use two: Let this be a spur to duty. How diligent and zealous should we be in glorifying God, that we may come at last to enjoy him! If Tully, Demosthenes, and Plato, who had but the dim watch-light of reason to see by, fancied an elysium and happiness after this life, and took such Herculean pains to enjoy it, oh how should Christians, who have the light of Scripture to see by, bestir themselves that they may attain to the eternal fruition of God and glory! If anything can make us rise off our bed of sloth, and serve God with all our might, it should be this, the hope of our near enjoyment of God for ever. What made Paul so active in the sphere of religion? I Cor 15: 10. 'I laboured more abundantly than they all.' His obedience did not move slow, as the sun on the dial; but swift, as light from the sun. Why was he so zealous in glorifying God, but that he might at last centre and terminate in him? I Thess 4: I7. 'Then shall we ever be with the Lord.’
> 
> Use three: Let this comfort the godly in all the present miseries they feel. Thou complainest, Christian, thou dost not enjoy thyself, fears disquiet thee, wants perplex thee; in the day thou canst not enjoy ease, in the night thou canst not enjoy sleep; thou cost not enjoy the comforts of thy life. Let this revive thee, that shortly thou shalt enjoy God, and then shalt have more than thou canst ask or think; thou shalt have angels' joy, glory without intermission or expiration. We shall never enjoy ourselves fully till we enjoy God eternally._


_

Watson wrote this in 1692._


----------



## ChristianHedonist

Another important person to consider in this discussion is Jonathan Edwards. Piper's thinking is quite heavily influenced by Edwards, especially by Edwards dissertation _The End for Which God Created the World_, where Edwards argues that God's glory and the creatures true joy are not separate ends, but are one end. Edwards's dissertation, plus Piper's extensive introduction to it, is available as a free PDF book here: http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_gpfg/gpfg_all.pdf


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/christian-hedonism-john-piper-right-articel-59/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/pipers-christian-hedonism-10017/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/reformed-look-christian-hedonism-1-a-16019/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/reformed-look-christian-hedonism-5-a-16072/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/piper-down-repeat-we-have-piper-down-5974/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/christian-hedonism-good-bad-32236/


----------



## CarlosOliveira

A Reformed Look At Christian Hedonism-2
A Reformed Look At Christian Hedonism-3
A Reformed Look At Christian Hedonism-4
A Reformed Look At Christian Hedonism-6


----------



## ManleyBeasley

I believe enjoying God is elevated above all other duties because all other duties will flow from that. If God is our treasure and joy then obedience IS our passion. Obedience not caused by JOY in the one being obeyed is less honoring to the one being obeyed. 

Augustine said, grace is "God gives sovereign joy in God that triumphs over the joys of sin."

I agree with Augustine on this one.


----------



## Scott1

> Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desire of thine heart.


 Psalm 37:4


This is an imperative. Time and time again, explicitly God tells us to "delight" in Him. Explicitly and implicitly to seek satisfaction in Him. By extenstion, His Word (Law), His person, His mercy.

I think enjoying God is a corollary of worship, praise, and thanksgiving, which is a chief end of man and is related to glorifying Him.


Another advantage of having a Confession is the scripture proofs of every statement and proposition, a theology that is both systematic and line-by-line. Consider the Scripture proofs for the proposition man is to enjoy God:


Westminster Shorter Catechism question 1b Scripture proofs:



> Psalm 16:5-11. The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot. The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage. I will bless the LORD, who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons. I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore. Psalm 144:15. Happy is that people, that is in such a case: yea, happy is that people, whose God is the LORD. Isaiah 12:2. Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. Luke 2:10. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. Philippians 4:4. Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice. Revelation 21:3-4. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/christian-hedonism-john-piper-right-articel-59/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/pipers-christian-hedonism-10017/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/reformed-look-christian-hedonism-1-a-16019/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/reformed-look-christian-hedonism-5-a-16072/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/piper-down-repeat-we-have-piper-down-5974/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/christian-hedonism-good-bad-32236/



Adam, thanks for the links. Unfortunately, I can't seem to reach the article "Piper is Down." And the 5th link to a Reformed look at Christian hedonism takes me to the author's blog but not the article.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

I'm actually aware of some of the critiques of Piper, like that of Peter Masters. But what of the Shorter Catechism's placing the enjoyment of God coordinate with the glorifying of God as man's chief end? I've formed my own tentative opinion. But I'd be interested to hear more from others.


----------



## Casey

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (2) Because of our love for the Reformed tradition[/B]
> 
> The Shorter Catechism is an essential part of the doctrinal heritage of many on the Puritan Board. We love our tradition, but we love the Scriptures more. Is this part of our tradition Scriptural?


Seems to me to be an Augustinian emphasis that the Reformed embraced.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/christian-hedonism-john-piper-right-articel-59/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/pipers-christian-hedonism-10017/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/reformed-look-christian-hedonism-1-a-16019/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/reformed-look-christian-hedonism-5-a-16072/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/piper-down-repeat-we-have-piper-down-5974/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/christian-hedonism-good-bad-32236/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam, thanks for the links. Unfortunately, I can't seem to reach the article "Piper is Down." And the 5th link to a Reformed look at Christian hedonism takes me to the author's blog but not the article.
Click to expand...


You're welcome. Perhaps Jerrold can provide a current link to his entire article. Here is a link to the article section (installments 5-7) that you mentioned (scroll down): Kerugma, "I preached as never to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men" ~ Richard Baxter~

BTW, my name is Andrew.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> ... But what of the Shorter Catechism's placing the enjoyment of God coordinate with the glorifying of God as man's chief end?...



Thomas Watson said it this way:



> If we glorify God, he will glorify our souls forever. By raising God's glory, we increase our own: by glorifying God, we come at last to the blessed enjoyment of him.



And let's not forget that it is not some sense of christian hedonism that directs how to enjoy God, but the Scriptures themselves (cf. Westminster Shorter Catechism Q.2).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

William Gouge, _The Whole Armour of God_, p. 32:



> God's glory is the most principal and supreme end of all. As at the next (but subordinate) end, God in His Providence aimeth at His children's good.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> You're welcome. Perhaps Jerrold can provide a current link to his entire article. Here is a link to the article section (installments 5-7) that you mentioned (scroll down): Kerugma, "I preached as never to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men" ~ Richard Baxter~
> 
> BTW, my name is Andrew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops. Sorry, Andrew. And thanks for the link. I've actually requested a copy of the entire series from the author.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

In one of the threads recommended above, someone mentioned an article written by J. I. Packer critiquing Piper but when I clicked on the link I found the article is no longer available. Does anyone else know where to find it?


----------



## py3ak

Dr. Gonzalez, I don't think saying that John Brown minimized the role of enjoyment is accurate. Of course he, like the Catechism, puts "glorifying" first, but not only does he have many questions relative to the topic of enjoyment of God, he also addresses this matter directly.



> Q. Why is the glorifying of God placed before the enjoyment of him?
> A. Because the glory of God is of more value than our happiness, Isa. xl. 17.
> 
> Q. Whether is our glorifying or enjoying of God first in order?
> A. We must first enjoy God in his gracious influences, and then glorify him; and this leads on to further enjoyment of him, Psalm cxix. 32.
> 
> Q. Is our delight in the glory or glorious excellencies of God as satisfying to us, to be our chief end or motive in our actions, religious or moral?
> A. No; but our shewing forth the honour of those glorious excellencies, Isa. ii. 11, Psal. xvi. 4, Isa. xliii. 21.
> 
> Q.Why may we not make our own delight in the glory of God as satisfying to our desires, our chief end and motive?
> A. Because this would be a setting up of our own happiness above the glory of God.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Q. Why are the glorifying and enjoying of God joined as one chief end?
> A. Because none can obtain or rightly seek the one without the other, 1 Cor. xv. 58.
> 
> Q. How do we most highly glorify God?
> A. By receiving and enjoying him most fully.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Dr. Gonzalez, I don't think saying that John Brown minimized the role of enjoyment is accurate. Of course he, like the Catechism, puts "glorifying" first, but not only does he have many questions relative to the topic of enjoyment of God, he also addresses this matter directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. Why is the glorifying of God placed before the enjoyment of him?
> A. Because the glory of God is of more value than our happiness, Isa. xl. 17.
> 
> Q. Whether is our glorifying or enjoying of God first in order?
> A. We must first enjoy God in his gracious influences, and then glorify him; and this leads on to further enjoyment of him, Psalm cxix. 32.
> 
> Q. Is our delight in the glory or glorious excellencies of God as satisfying to us, to be our chief end or motive in our actions, religious or moral?
> A. No; but our shewing forth the honour of those glorious excellencies, Isa. ii. 11, Psal. xvi. 4, Isa. xliii. 21.
> 
> Q.Why may we not make our own delight in the glory of God as satisfying to our desires, our chief end and motive?
> A. Because this would be a setting up of our own happiness above the glory of God.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Q. Why are the glorifying and enjoying of God joined as one chief end?
> A. Because none can obtain or rightly seek the one without the other, 1 Cor. xv. 58.
> 
> Q. How do we most highly glorify God?
> A. By receiving and enjoying him most fully.
Click to expand...


Ruben, thanks for the extra input from Brown. I was actually aware of these other statements and agree with a number of the points he makes. But I do not find the two points I cited above particularly helpful or completely accurate. He is closer to the truth when he asserts that "none can obtain or rightly seek the one without the other." If that's true, then _with respect to the specified focus of the question itself_ (What is the chief end of _man_?), I do not find it helpful to speak of one being more important than the other.


----------



## py3ak

Dr. Gonzalez, I don't see the inconsistency. The Shorter Catechism joins the two (as Brown acknowledges) but puts one first. It seems to me that Brown is faithful to the catechism in his exposition.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Dr. Gonzalez, I don't see the inconsistency. The Shorter Catechism joins the two (as Brown acknowledges) but puts one first. It seems to me that Brown is faithful to the catechism in his exposition.



Ruben,

First, word order does not necessarily entail level of importance. When, for example, God reveals himself to Moses as "Yahweh-Elohim, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth" (Exo. 34:6), are we to infer a kind of hierarchy of value among these attributes based on the word order? God's being "merciful" is more important than His being "gracious"? Etc.? Second, since the catechism speaks of only one end and, as Brown himself notes, the two are inseparably joined as the one end, then I don't believe it's helpful to give one priority over the other since the very language is designed to keep them joined _as one semantic unity_. Third, the catechism is addressing the chief end of man, not that of hills, trees, steams, clouds, stars, birds, fish, animals, etc. These may do the one and not the other. Man _cannot _fulfill his chief end without enjoying God. Hence, what the framers of the Catechism put together, let no man put asunder.


----------



## py3ak

Dr. Gonzalez, word order does not always indicate an importance of ranking. But consider the point John Brown made, that our enjoyment of God comes before our glorifying of him in the order of time; I can't imagine that the Assembly was unaware of that. And yet they put "glorify" first. There must have been a reason.

I don't believe Brown is sundering what the Assembly joined; I think he is commenting on things that come up in our actual experience, and doing an excellent job of maintaining the truth that nothing is to matter to us more than the glory of God (the spine of Christianity), and that we must be willing to lose our lives, while recognizing that those who follow God are never the losers thereby.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Dr. Gonzalez, word order does not always indicate an importance of ranking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But consider the point John Brown made, that our enjoyment of God comes before our glorifying of him in the order of time; I can't imagine that the Assembly was unaware of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said before, I don't find this assertion of Brown to be helpful. How can one enjoy God without glorifying God in the very act of enjoying him? There is no temporal priority. Impossible! Brown lived and expounded the Catechism some time after it was written. So it is possible that the Assembly (or at least some in it) were unaware of Brown's distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet they put "glorify" first. There must have been a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps they wanted to look at the same end from two different perspectives. Or, perhaps they used a literary device. Have you ever heard of a hendiadys?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe Brown is sundering what the Assembly joined; I think he is commenting on things that come up in our actual experience, and doing an excellent job of maintaining the truth that nothing is to matter to us more than the glory of God (the spine of Christianity), and that we must be willing to lose our lives, while recognizing that those who follow God are never the losers thereby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brown does maintain that the two are inseparable. That was a helpful remark. I'm not so sure that "our actual experience" corresponds to the temporal priority or order that Brown maintains. To say, "nothing is to matter to us more than the glory of God" is the same as saying "man is to enjoy God forever."
> 
> For that reason, I prefer Vincent's exposition of this Question better than Brown's. Just twenty-six years after the Catechism had been published Thomas Vincent published an exposition (1674) that 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​Cordially yours,
Click to expand...


----------



## py3ak

Dr. Gonzalez, on your view it would seem unnecessary to spell out the different elements of glorify and enjoy: they may not be separable, but they are distinguishable. Clearly the Assembly thought it worthwhile to list both aspects of that, while inseparably uniting them. It still is not clear to me why you think Brown is inconsistent or is disagreeing with Vincent.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Dr. Gonzalez, on your view it would seem unnecessary to spell out the different elements of glorify and enjoy: they may not be separable, but they are distinguishable. Clearly the Assembly thought it worthwhile to list both aspects of that, while inseparably uniting them. It still is not clear to me why you think Brown is inconsistent or is disagreeing with Vincent.



Ruben,

Before I respond, let me first affirm that it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance on the PB. A disadvantage with web-based discussions is that one often does not have the pleasure of seeing the brother's smile conveying goodwill as he's writing.  Also, I always rejoice to meet a hispanic brother who loves the Reformed faith. For the past several years, I've been traveling to the Dominican Republic and Colombia to teach theological modules as part of our seminary's "Marrow of Theology" program. I have a deep burden to see Latin American pastors better grounded in the faith. I'm glad to see that you have a Spanish weblog to promote Reformed theology among Spanish speaking brothers. 

As I said above, I agree that the two are both inseparable yet distinguishable. That's why I suggested that the framers of the confession may have intended us to look at _the same end_ from _two different perspectives_ or _emphases_. Or, they may have been employing a common literary device known as hendiadys, which derives from three Greek words: _hen_ = "one"; _dia_ = "through"; _dys_ = "two." Hence, _one basic meaning through the use of two nouns _(nominal hendiadys) _or verbs_ (verbal hendiadys). 

Let me offer you some biblical examples of this grammatical phenomenon: Genesis 25:1 literally reads, “And Abraham added and he took a wife,” which is appropriately rendered as one basic idea: “Now Abraham took another wife” (NAS). In Exodus 34:8, we read that Moses, in response to a theophanic revelation, "made haste and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped (NKJV). Some modern versions drop the “and” and accurately capture the single idea expressed by the first two verbs, rendering it "Moses quickly bowed" (NET, ESV) or “Moses bowed to the ground at once” (NIV) or “Moses immediately bowed down” (CSB). Another example is the oft repeated phrase in Deuteronomy that literally reads, “be careful and do,” and which is appropriately translated “carefully do” or “observe carefully” or “be careful to do” (Deut. 4:6; 5:1, 32; 6:3; 7:11, 12). I think the prayer in Psalm 27:7, “Be gracious to me and answer me,” may also be understood as a plea that God would “graciously reply” or “mercifully answer” his prayer. 

The point I’m trying to make is that “and” need not always function to distinguish two mutually independent ideas. Sometimes it functions _to fuse two ideas into one inseparable concept_. It seems likely to me that our Puritan forefathers were trying to do that very thing. 

So while I find some of what Brown says helpful, I'm not helped by other comments he makes. Consider Benjamin Wadsworth’s exposition (1714), which 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 [emphasis added]​You might wonder where I'm going with all this? Well, I'll let you see my cards. I fear that some within the Reformed community tend to depreciate or give "back seat" to _the enjoyment of God_ while trumpeting loudly _the glorifying of God_. And many of these brothers seem to have "Piperphobia." So, I like to try to provoke my fellow brothers and sisters to think about the implications of the Puritan's tying together the glorifying and enjoying of God into one bundle. 

Cordially yours,


----------



## py3ak

Dr. Gonzalez,

If there is one thing that consistently comes across in your posting here it is your goodwill. I was born in Colombia, though I grew up in Mexico, so if you would like some company on a trip there I'd be happy to tag along!

I haven't read enough of Piper to comment on that aspect of the question. But to me it seems that John Brown affirms that the two distinguishable aspects of man's chief end are insusceptible to separation, but goes on to make some additional remarks. I don't find those additional remarks to be contradictory to the Catechism, to what he has affirmed in the immediate context, or to what I understand to be your main point. Your posts haven't convinced me that there is any inconsistency here. But that means that I do think it's unfair to John Brown to say as your original post did that he minimizes the importance of the phrase "and enjoy him". I realize that probably isn't the substantive discussion you were hoping to start, since I'm not even talking about the merits of your case in general or the right of the matter, but only the use of John Brown as a witness to a minimizing tendency. I will confess to a streak of pedantry as wide as a 747's wingspan in my personality.


----------



## Grace Alone

Dr. Gonzales,

I am just an observer on this thread. But I just wanted to comment that I have read a couple of books and have seen videos by John Piper. From those, I see a picture of someone who truly loves the Lord and glorifies AND enjoys Him! I wish I could have the joy in the Lord that he so obviously does (I pray that I will!). I do not see how anyone can fault him on this issue because his motives seem so pure to me, and his testimony reflects what he teaches. In fact, I am not sure I would understand the meaning of that first catechism answer if I had not read or watched Piper (just as my understanding of the holiness of God was enriched by reading Sproul).

So I do agree that both things are intertwined.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Dr. Gonzalez,
> 
> If there is one thing that consistently comes across in your posting here it is your goodwill. I was born in Colombia, though I grew up in Mexico, so if you would like some company on a trip there I'd be happy to tag along!
> 
> I haven't read enough of Piper to comment on that aspect of the question. But to me it seems that John Brown affirms that the two distinguishable aspects of man's chief end are insusceptible to separation, but goes on to make some additional remarks. I don't find those additional remarks to be contradictory to the Catechism, to what he has affirmed in the immediate context, or to what I understand to be your main point. Your posts haven't convinced me that there is any inconsistency here. But that means that I do think it's unfair to John Brown to say as your original post did that he minimizes the importance of the phrase "and enjoy him". I realize that probably isn't the substantive discussion you were hoping to start, since I'm not even talking about the merits of your case in general or the right of the matter, but only the use of John Brown as a witness to a minimizing tendency. I will confess to a streak of pedantry as wide as a 747's wingspan in my personality.



Ruben,

I understand your concern that I not misrepresent John Brown. I share that concern and believe it to be an application of the 9th commandment. I'm not so self-confident to think that I'm beyond committing this sin so I want to take your concern seriously.

In my initial post, I tried to give examples of Reformed writers who attempt to subordinate enjoying God under glorifying God as man's chief end. I cited the two following references of Brown as an example of this tendency I perceived:
Q. Is our delight in the glory or glorious excellencies of God as satisfying to us, to be our chief end or motive in our actions, religious or moral?
A. No; but our shewing forth the honour of these glorious excellencies, Isa. ii. 11. Psal. xvi. 4. Isa. xliii. 21. ​First, Brown appears to be arguing that "showing forth the honour [glory?] of [God's] glorious excellencies" takes precedence over "our delight in the glory or glorious excellencies of God as satisfying to us." He appears to be saying that our chief end and motive *should be* to glorify God and our chief end or motive _*should not be*_ to delight in God's glory as satisfying to us. He then justifies his statement in the following Q/A: 
Q. Why may we not make our own delight in the glory of God as satisfying to our desires, our chief end and motive? 
A. Because this would be a setting up of our own happiness above the glory of God. ​Here I'm having difficulty following Brown's logic. In the question, he speaks of delighting *in the glory of God* as satisfying to our desires. Note carefully, _the human delighting is inseparably linked to God's glory_. But in the answer he seems to separate the two: "our happiness" vs. "the glory of God." Of course, any believer would agree that human happiness abstracted from the object of that joy, viz, God himself should not be our chief end. But in this case, he's failed to answer the initual question he posed and has created with this answer, perhaps unwittingly, a false dichotomy. 

Of course, he does go on to say, as you've noted, that "none can obtain or rightly seek the one without the other." That's good. Indeed, his next Q/A sound very Piperish:
Q. How do we most highly glorify God? 
A. By receiving and enjoying him most fully. ​Writes Piper, 
"God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him." ​So perhaps I should not include Brown as an example of someone who tries to distinguish the one from the other in terms of importance. But it seems to me, at the very least, that his comments, when taken together, are somewhat confusing and not consonant. 

Thanks for your input and I don't mind a little pedantry.


----------



## py3ak

Dr. Gonzalez, I appreciate your desire to be careful on this matter. Thank you for clarifying where you think the problem resides. I think the solution to the tension is not far off. If you aim at your own happiness, at your own enjoyment of God, you are not likely to get it. This is a point that C.S. Lewis has emphasized well. John Brown is speaking of our own thoughts and attitudes, at what we aim at. Hence the phrasing of the question, "Is our own delight, etc." If my goal is my own happiness I will lose that and will not actively glorify God. If my goal is to glorify God, I will find that God's glory and my enjoyment are blessedly inseparable.


----------



## Scott1

> Scribner Bantam dictionary
> 
> Enjoy [1]To feel, sense, or perceive with pleasure; [2] to have the use or possession of


With the secondary definition, "having God" is part of enjoying Him. Since seeking God is part of this, I have no hesitation in saying that seeking God, enjoying God is indeed a chief end of man.

Think of this another way. We are going to enjoy (sense with pleasure, or possess) something primarily in this life. If not God, it will be "things" He has created, rather than Him or it will be "us" (also created by Him). 

There is nothing more fitting than that man, as God's creation, both glorify and enjoy Him forever.

One side note, I read an article by Mr Dave Hunt (probably best known for his debating "Calvinism") a critique of Mr Piper's book, "Christian Hedonism." It was curious to me that after listing a long line of Scripture that say basically to delight ourselves in God, Mr Hunt concluded by saying "I find no evidence in Scripture that we are to seek pleasure in God."


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Dr. Gonzalez, I appreciate your desire to be careful on this matter. Thank you for clarifying where you think the problem resides. I think the solution to the tension is not far off. If you aim at your own happiness, at your own enjoyment of God, you are not likely to get it. This is a point that C.S. Lewis has emphasized well. John Brown is speaking of our own thoughts and attitudes, at what we aim at. Hence the phrasing of the question, "Is our own delight, etc." If my goal is my own happiness I will lose that and will not actively glorify God. If my goal is to glorify God, I will find that God's glory and my enjoyment are blessedly inseparable.



Brother,

You are quite correct about Lewis. In his autobiography, he writes, 
Joy in itself, considered simply as an event in my own mind, turned out to be of no value at all. All the value lay in that of which Joy was the desiring. And that object, quite clearly, was no state of my own mind or body at all.... Inexorably Joy proclaimed, 'You want--I myself am your want of--something other, outside, not you nor any state of you (Surprised by Joy [1955], 220-21). ​Likewise, John Piper carefully qualifies "Christian Hedonism" when he remarks,
It should be obvious from this, but may not be, that desire and delight have this in common: Neither is the Object desired or delighted in. God is.... Our goal is not high affections per se. Our goal is to see and savor 'the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God' (2 Cor. 4:4). (_When I Don't Desire God: How to Fight for Joy_ [2004], 29).​If this is what Brown intended, then I have no problem with this statement. Yet, the two Q/A side-by-side seem a little unclear to me. First he says, 
Q. Is our delight in the glory or glorious excellencies of God as satisfying to us, to be our chief end or motive in our actions, religious or moral?
A. No; but our shewing forth the honour of these glorious excellencies, Isa. ii. 11. Psal. xvi. 4. Isa. xliii. 21. ​ That sounds like he's trying to distinguishing "shewing forth" [i.e., glorifying God] from "enjoying" God's glory and argue for the superiority of the former over the latter. But I think his second explanation may indeed convey the thought of Lewis and Piper:
Q. Why may we not make our own delight in the glory of God as satisfying to our desires, our chief end and motive? 
A. Because this would be a setting up of our own happiness above the glory of God. ​Perhaps Brown is placing the emphasis on "our own" instead of "delight in the glory of God." If so, then I agree, and you have helped clear up what was unclear to me before. Thanks!

Since we're on the subject, I'll share two more helpful commentaries. James 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 (_An Exposition in the Form of Questions and Answers of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism_ [1905], 17). ​B. B. Warfield remarks concerning the Catechism's wording,
It does justice to the subjective as well as to the objective side of the case. The Reformed conception is not fully or fairly stated if it be so stated that it may seem to be satisfied with conceiving man merely as the object on which God manifests His glory—possibly even the passive object in and through which the Divine glory is secured. It conceives man also as the subject in which the gloriousness of God is perceived and delighted in. *No man is truly Reformed in his thought, then, unless he conceives of man not merely as destined to be the instrument of the Divine glory, but also as destined to reflect the glory of God in his own consciousness, to exult in God: nay, unless he himself delights in God as the all-glorious One* [emphasis added] (“The First Question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism,” _The Princeton Theological Review_ [1908] printed in _The Westminster Assembly and Its Work _[1931; reprint, Baker Books, 1991], pp. 396-97).​


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson

...and this is where I think Piper goes off the tracks. I listen a lot to Piper and have much of his work but it's too "me focused". In the end, if your focus is your own joy, you've made yourself God. Yet, on the other hand, the Scripture seems to indicate that if you pursue God in Christ and all He offers, you will find joy as a byproduct. That seems to be the scripture balance.



py3ak said:


> Dr. Gonzalez, I appreciate your desire to be careful on this matter. Thank you for clarifying where you think the problem resides. I think the solution to the tension is not far off. If you aim at your own happiness, at your own enjoyment of God, you are not likely to get it. This is a point that C.S. Lewis has emphasized well. John Brown is speaking of our own thoughts and attitudes, at what we aim at. Hence the phrasing of the question, "Is our own delight, etc." If my goal is my own happiness I will lose that and will not actively glorify God. If my goal is to glorify God, I will find that God's glory and my enjoyment are blessedly inseparable.


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> According to Johannes Vos (1903-1983), the framers of the Catechism placed “glorify God” before “enjoy God” becausethe most important element in the purpose of human life is glorifying God, while enjoying God is strictly subordinate to glorifying God. In our religious life, we should always place the chief emphasis upon glorifying God. The person who does this will truly enjoy God, both there and hereafter. But the person who thinks of enjoying God is in danger of supposing that God exists for man instead of man for God. To stress enjoying God more than glorifying God will result in a falsely mystical or emotional type of religion. ​And Vos’ concern to subordinate the act of enjoying God to the act of glorifying God was shared by other Reformed writers who lived before him. Thomas Boston, for example, writes, “Man’s chief duty is to glorify God…. And this is man’s chief, and last or farthest end. Man’s chief happiness is, to enjoy God as his God…. And this is man’s chief subordinate end.” John Brown offers the following series of questions and answers to clarify the meaning of the Catechism:Q. Is our delight in the glory or glorious excellencies of God as satisfying to us, to be our chief end or motive in our actions, religious or moral?
> A. No; but our shewing forth the honour of these glorious excellencies, Isa. ii. 11. Psal. xvi. 4. Isa. xliii. 21.
> 
> Q. Why may we not make our own delight in the glory of God as satisfying to our desires, our chief end and motive?
> A. Because this would be a setting up of our own happiness above the glory of God. ​Ebenezer Erskine, James Fisher, and Ralph Erskine also wrote a catechetical exposition of the Catechism that was published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication in 1753. Similar to Brown the authors ask,Q. 46 Is not our delighting in the glory of God, to be reckoned our chief end?
> A. No; we must set the glory of God above our delight therein, otherwise, our delight is not chiefly in God, but in ourselves, Isa. ii. 11. ​



Some really killer quotes that sure make it hard on Piper. Much appreciated.


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson

...and yet, when Christ was asked what is the greatest commandment, He did not reply, "Enjoy the Lord your God with all your heart..."

You make a good point in that service that is not out of love is not as glorifying as God deserves BUT setting that as the primary motivator makes my joy the primary motivator and that dethrones God and enthrones me.



ManleyBeasley said:


> I believe enjoying God is elevated above all other duties because all other duties will flow from that. If God is our treasure and joy then obedience IS our passion. Obedience not caused by JOY in the one being obeyed is less honoring to the one being obeyed.
> 
> Augustine said, grace is "God gives sovereign joy in God that triumphs over the joys of sin."
> 
> I agree with Augustine on this one.


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson

Note Psalm 37:4 in its context...

*1* Do not fret because of evildoers,​ Be not envious toward wrongdoers.​ 2 For they will wither quickly like the grass​ And fade like the green herb.​ 3 Trust in the Lord and do good;​ Dwell in the land and cultivate faithfulness.​ 4 Delight yourself in the Lord;​ And He will give you the desires of your heart.​http://www.puritanboard.com/#_ftn1 http://www.puritanboard.com/#_ftnref1_New American Standard Bible : 1995 update_. 1995 (Ps 37:1-4). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.



Notice that verse 4 comes after the admonitions of verses 1-3. In other words, after the Psalmist has viewed the world around him from God's eternal perspective, then the "Delight..." of verse 4 comes.




Scott1 said:


> Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desire of thine heart.
> 
> 
> 
> Psalm 37:4
> 
> 
> This is an imperative. Time and time again, explicitly God tells us to "delight" in Him. Explicitly and implicitly to seek satisfaction in Him. By extenstion, His Word (Law), His person, His mercy.
> 
> I think enjoying God is a corollary of worship, praise, and thanksgiving, which is a chief end of man and is related to glorifying Him.
> 
> 
> Another advantage of having a Confession is the scripture proofs of every statement and proposition, a theology that is both systematic and line-by-line. Consider the Scripture proofs for the proposition man is to enjoy God:
> 
> 
> Westminster Shorter Catechism question 1b Scripture proofs:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psalm 16:5-11. The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot. The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage. I will bless the LORD, who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons. I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore. Psalm 144:15. Happy is that people, that is in such a case: yea, happy is that people, whose God is the LORD. Isaiah 12:2. Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. Luke 2:10. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. Philippians 4:4. Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice. Revelation 21:3-4. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## FrielWatcher

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> ...and this is where I think Piper goes off the tracks. I listen a lot to Piper and have much of his work but it's too "me focused". In the end, if your focus is your own joy, you've made yourself God. Yet, on the other hand, the Scripture seems to indicate that if you pursue God in Christ and all He offers, you will find joy as a byproduct. That seems to be the scripture balance.



I would consider the use of the word byproduct here because byproduct is typically that which is unexpected and generally not useful. Joy is central because it comes from a perfect source - the LORD and His goodness. And I think if anyone took any argument against Piper regarding joy with God and tried to apply it to their own marriages, they would find that it wouldn't work. We enjoy our wives and husbands because we are completely satisfied in the spouse. If we are not satisfied, you know what happens. If we are not satisfied with God, we know what happens. (Please do NOT bring up idolatry because you know where I am coming from). 

If you focus on your own joy apart from God, you will have hedonism and it won't be joy - it will be happy-seeking. If you focus on the joy that you have because of God and Christ, true salvation and atonement, it is not me-centered.


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> You might wonder where I'm going with all this? Well, I'll let you see my cards. I fear that some within the Reformed community tend to depreciate or give "back seat" to _the enjoyment of God_ while trumpeting loudly _the glorifying of God_. And many of these brothers seem to have "Piperphobia." So, I like to try to provoke my fellow brothers and sisters to think about the implications of the Puritan's tying together the glorifying and enjoying of God into one bundle.
> 
> Cordially yours,



...and this is where the issue lies. Truly, one cannot obey God with a heart that is not behind it (Pharisees). On the other hand, one cannot pursue the joy of the heart first and use obedience to God as the touchstone as that is idolatry. 

As in all things, the importance here is balance. In the end, glorifying God must be the primary motivation here or something else has taken God's place. When God is glorified, joy will follow.


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson

FrielWatcher said:


> If you focus on your own joy apart from God, you will have hedonism and it won't be joy - it will be happy-seeking. If you focus on the joy that you have because of God and Christ, true salvation and atonement, it is not me-centered.



...but isn't this the issue in the nutshell? What is the highest motivating factor? When stated this way, isn't it joy? God and everything He is then simply becomes a means to the ends? That's what concerns me.


----------



## Leslie

Aren't "enjoy" as regards persons and "love" coextensive? One does not enjoy being with someone hated or despised or unknown. One does not love a person without taking pleasure in his presence. 

One who does not love/enjoy God inevitably has a bitter/complaining spirit as regards painful providences. At least in attitude if not in words he reflects that discontent. This is not glorifying to God as it is critical of what He has done.


----------



## py3ak

Dr. Gonzalez, thanks for the useful interchange. I can't, as I said, comment on Piper: I wouldn't be surprised if John Brown would consider that Piper's way of putting things needed some refinement.

Is it not true that we ought to be willing to glorify God even at the cost of our own happiness? I understand that _in the long run_ it does not work out that way. But when you are faced right now with a choice between obedience to God and keeping peace in your family, or when God calls upon you to leave everything and everyone you love, or when the desire of your eyes is taken from you and God will not allow you to so much as mourn: in those circumstances, I say, do we not _feel_ a choice between enjoying and glorifying? And at such times what is our rule?


----------



## FrielWatcher

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> FrielWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you focus on your own joy apart from God, you will have hedonism and it won't be joy - it will be happy-seeking. If you focus on the joy that you have because of God and Christ, true salvation and atonement, it is not me-centered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...but isn't this the issue in the nutshell? What is the highest motivating factor? When stated this way, isn't it joy? God and everything He is then simply becomes a means to the ends? That's what concerns me.
Click to expand...


I don't think that you have it in the correct framework. God is the means toward the end which is God. God is both. If God is the means, entirely, with joy for God and His all sufficiency, it won't lead us to us because He is beyond glory enough to show us how unworthy we are of praise and adoration. If we would use God as the means to some other ends, that person is not saved and I know that would be evident. 

It all has to be put in the proper frame that God takes full pleasure and glory in Himself and that He created and does all for His glory and righteousness. When we try to add a me component to it, God's glory in Himself will break down and we will be trying to glorify ourselves. This I know. This I see in me. Then pride sets in.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> ...and yet, when Christ was asked what is the greatest commandment, He did not reply, "Enjoy the Lord your God with all your heart..."
> 
> You make a good point in that service that is not out of love is not as glorifying as God deserves BUT setting that as the primary motivator makes my joy the primary motivator and that dethrones God and enthrones me.
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe enjoying God is elevated above all other duties because all other duties will flow from that. If God is our treasure and joy then obedience IS our passion. Obedience not caused by JOY in the one being obeyed is less honoring to the one being obeyed.
> 
> Augustine said, grace is "God gives sovereign joy in God that triumphs over the joys of sin."
> 
> I agree with Augustine on this one.
Click to expand...


If your joy in God Himself is the motivator then there is nothing selfish in that but only honor to God. If your joy is gifts from God then it certainly would be self centered. If you wanted to spend time with a loved one and they (for some weird reason) asked you why you want to spend time with them, and you responded; "because I enjoy your presence and being with you."; could they possibly consider that selfish motive? They may ask; "Are you wanting something from me?". If you respond "only to be with you" then they cannot see what you are wanting as selfish but ONLY honoring to them. When the person is the object of desire and not any outside thing that they could give you then there is only honor for them. I believe that "Love the Lord your God" IS a command to make him your passion, pleasure, and highest joy. It is a command to enjoy God (which as I said before cant be separated from obedience to Him)


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Dr. Gonzalez, thanks for the useful interchange. I can't, as I said, comment on Piper: I wouldn't be surprised if John Brown would consider that Piper's way of putting things needed some refinement.
> 
> Is it not true that we ought to be willing to glorify God even at the cost of our own happiness? I understand that _in the long run_ it does not work out that way. But when you are faced right now with a choice between obedience to God and keeping peace in your family, or when God calls upon you to leave everything and everyone you love, or when the desire of your eyes is taken from you and God will not allow you to so much as mourn: in those circumstances, I say, do we not _feel_ a choice between enjoying and glorifying? And at such times what is our rule?



Ruben,

The all important qualifier in both the Shorter Catechism and John Piper's statement is enjoying GOD. On the one hand, Jesus said, "If it be possible, take this cup from me?" His perfect humanity rightly recoiled against the prospect of suffering and being abandoned by his father. There certainly were not a lot of prospects for immediate temporal gratification awaiting him. Yet there was something deeper driving Jesus. The key is found in Psalm 40:8:
*I delight* to do Your will, O my God, 
And Your law is within *my heart*.​The word translated "heart" is actually the Hebrew _me'eh_, meaning intestines, which, metaphorically, are the seat of one's _affections_. So Jesus delighted in God and his will more than mere temporal comforts and ease. Moreover, the author of Hebrews tells us that he was motivated to endure suffering because of "the joy set before him" (Heb. 12:2). 

So neither the Puritans nor Piper preach a health, wealth, and prosperity gospel. They're both arguing for the greatest joy of all, not any thing that falls short of that. I'd encourage to listen to the brief clip of Piper's thoughts on the health, wealth, and prosperity gospel, which is posted on YouTube. That should dispel any notions that Piper is preoccupied with simply a here and now joy. 

Of course, it is possible to have joy in God now in the midst of suffering. Jonathan Edwards treatise on the Religious Affections is predicated on the passage that underscores this fact:
NKJ 1 Peter 1:6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, *you have been grieved by various trials*, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, 8 whom having not seen* you love.* Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, *you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory* [note: not just, "you will someday rejoice, but you are presently in the midst of suffering rejoicing], 9 receiving the end of your faith -- the salvation of your souls.​Hope this helps.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> ...and this is where I think Piper goes off the tracks. I listen a lot to Piper and have much of his work but it's too "me focused". In the end, if your focus is your own joy, you've made yourself God. Yet, on the other hand, the Scripture seems to indicate that if you pursue God in Christ and all He offers, you will find joy as a byproduct. That seems to be the scripture balance.



David, I'm not sure if you're reading the posts carefully. But it seems you missed this citation of John Piper:
It should be obvious from this, but may not be, that desire and delight have this in common: Neither is the Object desired or delighted in. *God is*.... *Our goal is not high affections per se*. Our goal is *to see and savor 'the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God*' (2 Cor. 4:4). (_When I Don't Desire God: How to Fight for Joy_ [2004], 29).​So Piper's focus is ultimately on God not on himself. By the way, I have two close friends on staff at his church and Desiring God ministry who have been in his home and spent many hours with him. They speak very highly of his testimony. He's anything but sinfully self-centered. 

Having said that, I wonder if you think David was too ego-centric in Psalm 27:4 when he wrote:
NKJ Psalm 27:4 One thing *I have* desired of the LORD, that will *I seek*: That *I may* dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to inquire in His temple.​One cannot abstract *the man* from *man's* chief end. Again, I close with Benjamin B. Warfield's take on the Shorter Catechism's assertion that our chief end is to enjoy God:
It does justice to the subjective as well as to the objective side of the case. The Reformed conception is not fully or fairly stated if it be so stated that it may seem to be satisfied with conceiving man merely as the object on which God manifests His glory—possibly even the passive object in and through which the Divine glory is secured. It conceives man also as the subject in which the gloriousness of God is perceived and delighted in. *No man is truly Reformed in his thought, then, unless he conceives of man not merely as destined to be the instrument of the Divine glory, but also as destined to reflect the glory of God in his own consciousness, to exult in God: nay, unless he himself delights in God as the all-glorious One* [emphasis added] (“The First Question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism,” _The Princeton Theological Review__The Westminster Assembly and Its Work _[1931; reprint, Baker Books, 1991], pp. 396-97)[1908] printed in ​So, according to Warfield, you're not truly Reformed unless you keep include the subjective with the objective. 

Cordially,


----------



## ChristianHedonist

py3ak said:


> Dr. Gonzalez, thanks for the useful interchange. I can't, as I said, comment on Piper: I wouldn't be surprised if John Brown would consider that Piper's way of putting things needed some refinement.
> 
> Is it not true that we ought to be willing to glorify God even at the cost of our own happiness? I understand that _in the long run_ it does not work out that way. But when you are faced right now with a choice between obedience to God and keeping peace in your family, or when God calls upon you to leave everything and everyone you love, or when the desire of your eyes is taken from you and God will not allow you to so much as mourn: in those circumstances, I say, do we not _feel_ a choice between enjoying and glorifying? And at such times what is our rule?



In circumstances such as these, I don't see how their is a choice between glorifying God and enjoying God. The choice is whether we enjoy God more and glorify him by following his calling, or enjoy and glorify ourselves and/or other created things more and follow after them. It glorifies God when we find more joy and delight in him and his calling for us than we do in worldly things, including our happiness.


----------



## py3ak

Dan and Dr. Gonzalez,

I grant that Piper is speaking of enjoying God. Even I, who have not bothered to read more than one book by him, know that much. The point is that if you make your own happiness in God to be of MORE importance than glorifying God, you have ceased from glorifying God in that particular. But if you define enjoyment of God without any reference to "enjoyment" in itself, then it seems you might as well use the word "obedience" or the controlling concept of "glorification".


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Dan and Dr. Gonzalez, I grant that Piper is speaking of enjoying God. Even I, who have not bothered to read more than one book by him, know that much. The point is that if you make your own happiness in God to be of MORE importance than glorifying God, you have ceased from glorifying God in that particular. But if you define enjoyment of God without any reference to "enjoyment" in itself, then it seems you might as well use the word "obedience" or the controlling concept of "glorification".



Precisely, Ruben! 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 doBut 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! 
ESV Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.​And since God detests those who draw near to him with their lips [_mere outward service_] while their hearts are far from him [_no heart affection_] (Matt. 15:8), then saying "man's chief end is to glorify God and serve [or obey, or know] him forever" is inadequate. Hence, the wisdom of the Puritans in highlighting the essential place of heart affection for God by use of the term "enjoyment."


----------



## MW

The key words are "for ever." The enjoyment is not temporal. Moses and Paul could wish themselves accursed so far as this world is concerned, if it advanced the salvation of their countrymen.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

py3ak said:


> Dan and Dr. Gonzalez,
> 
> I grant that Piper is speaking of enjoying God. Even I, who have not bothered to read more than one book by him, know that much. The point is that if you make your own happiness in God to be of MORE importance than glorifying God, you have ceased from glorifying God in that particular. But if you define enjoyment of God without any reference to "enjoyment" in itself, then it seems you might as well use the word "obedience" or the controlling concept of "glorification".



The point Piper makes is that you cannot separate them that way. God's glorification in us IS our enjoyment of Him. Its not enjoyment verses glorification, it is glorification by enjoying Him. The way God is glorified by His elect is by Him being their greatest love, joy, and treasure. This is Augustine, Edwards, and Piper (along with many others) defintion of the work of grace in us that glorifies God.

God being our joy is the reason we obey and serve Him. We desire to please and honor the One we love through obedience.


----------



## py3ak

Dr. Gonzalez, thank you for your thoughts. They are helpful in affirming that this is truly one chief end. But without John Brown's further qualifications, I don't know how to fit in the realities of Christian experience; or as Mr. Winzer pointed out, Moses and Paul's remarkable heights of willingness to sacrifice self.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> The key words are "for ever." The enjoyment is not temporal. Moses and Paul could wish themselves accursed so far as this world is concerned, if it advanced the salvation of their countrymen.



Matthew,

Let me make two observations regarding the meaning and function of “forever” in the Catechism. First of all, the term “forever” does not refer exclusively to that period of time that we often call “eternity” which begins with the Return of Christ. Rather, they are referring to the point of each man’s existence, *which begins in this life and extends into eternity*. God’s ultimate purpose for man begins the moment he is born. 

Secondly, *the word “forever” in the Catechism modifies both verbs*, not just the verb “enjoy.” James Green in his Harmony of the Westminster Standards (1951) describes “to glorify God” as the “duty of man” and “to enjoy him” as the “destiny of man.” The proof texts given for the Catechism, however, make it clear that both glorifying and enjoying God are to begin in this life (cf. 1 Cor. 10:31; Psa. 73:25-28). John Brown of Haddington (1722-87) expresses it more accurately in this exposition of the Catechism that appears in the form of questions and answers:
Q. Where and when to the saints enjoy God? 
A. *On earth in this life*, and in heaven hereafter.
Q. Wherein doth the enjoyment of God on earth, and that in heaven agree?
A. It is the same God who is enjoyed; *and the enjoyment of him here as truly humbles and satisfies the heart as that in heaven.*
Q. In what do they differ?
A. *In manner and measure* of enjoyment. ​Consider also Thomas Watson's take:
II. Man’s chief end is to enjoy God for ever. Psalm 73: 25. 'Whom have I in heaven but thee?’ That is, What is there in heaven I desire to enjoy but thee? There is a twofold fruition or enjoying of God;* the one is in this life,* the other in the life to come.​And once again, isn't this consistent with what the apostle Peter says when he describes the enjoyment of God through Christ that is experienced by believers who are in the midst of a sin-cursed world?
ESV 1 Peter 1:6 In this [the prospect of a heavenly inheritance] *you rejoice* [now, not just in heaven], though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith--more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire--may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 8 Though you have not seen him, *you love him* [now, in the present]. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him *and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory* [not just in eternity, but right now, in the midst of your suffering].​


----------



## MW

Bob, Undoubtedly "for ever" begins now for the Christian. He "hath life." But the "for ever" enjoyed now is not a temporal consideration. Hence the temporal order is duty now and enjoyment hereafter. One does not need to read much Puritan literature to see that in their way of thinking "happiness is dependent on holiness." Christian "joy and peace" is the byproduct of "believing" in Jesus Christ, not an end to be obtained in and of itself. Christian hedonism is an oxymoron: "even Christ pleased not Himself," Rom. 15:3.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Dr. Gonzalez, thank you for your thoughts. They are helpful in affirming that this is truly one chief end. But without John Brown's further qualifications, I don't know how to fit in the realities of Christian experience; or as Mr. Winzer pointed out, Moses and Paul's remarkable heights of willingness to sacrifice self.



I think the Puritans and Piper would fit joy and self-sacrifice together by pointing to passages like the following:
NAU Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are you *when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me* [self-sacrifice]. 12 "*Rejoice and be glad* [now], for *your reward in heaven is great*; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

NKJ Matthew 6:19 " Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal *[i.e., self-sacrifice now] *20 "but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal *[so that you can obtain a better and more lasting treasure, i.e., the enjoyment of God].*

NKJ Matthew 13:45 " Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, 46 "who, when he had found one pearl of great price *[the enjoyment of God]*, went and sold all that he had *[self-denial and self-sacrifice] *and bought it *[the greater treasure].*​Take time to read Piper'sbooks _Desiring God_, _Don't Waste Your Life_, and _Let the Nations be Glad_, and you'll see that he portrays *the enjoyment of God* both in this life and the life to come as what fuels genuine self-denial and self-sacrifice. 

Your servant,


----------



## py3ak

I've read _Let The Nations Be Glad_. I realize that Piper doesn't deny self-denial, and I don't doubt that he is more self-denying than I am. But I find John Brown's approach more helpful.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Bob, Undoubtedly "for ever" begins now for the Christian. He "hath life." But the "for ever" enjoyed now is not a temporal consideration. Hence the temporal order is duty now and enjoyment hereafter. One does not need to read much Puritan literature to see that in their way of thinking "happiness is dependent on holiness." Christian "joy and peace" is the byproduct of "believing" in Jesus Christ, not an end to be obtained in and of itself. Christian hedonism is an oxymoron: "even Christ pleased not Himself," Rom. 15:3.



Matthew, I think you're walking on thin ice. 

First of all, the syntax of the Shorter Catechism does not allow the interpretation that sees the enjoyment of God merely as a "byproduct" of believing and obeying God. It is described as the purpose for which man was created and the motivation that is to drive our obedience. If one insists that* the enjoyment of God* is merely a "byproduct" (not a motive) then one must, according to the syntax, accord the same to *the glorifying of God*. Once again, as I've done several times above, I'll offer some Puritan and Reformed interpretations. Thomas 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 [emphasis added]​James 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* [emphasis added].​Finally, B. B. Warfield weighs in on the wording of the Catechism:
It does justice to the subjective as well as to the objective side of the case. The Reformed conception is not fully or fairly stated if it be so stated that it may seem to be satisfied with conceiving man merely as the object on which God manifests His glory—possibly even the passive object in and through which the Divine glory is secured. It conceives man also as the subject in which the gloriousness of God is perceived and delighted in. *No man is truly Reformed in his thought, then, unless he conceives of man not merely as destined to be the instrument of the Divine glory, but also as destined to reflect the glory of God in his own consciousness, to exult in God: nay, unless he himself delights in God as the all-glorious One* [emphasis added] ​Moreover, as it turns out, Piper was not the first one to coin "Christian hedonism." It appears that the great Reformed biblical theologian, Geerhardus Vos, beat him to it. In his book _Pauline Eschatology_, Vos remarks in a footnote, 
Of course, it is not intended to deny to *Paul that transfigured spiritualized type of ‘hedonism,’* if one prefers so to call it, as distinct from the specific attitude towards life that went in the later Greek philosophy by that technical name. *Nothing, not even a most refined Christian experience and cultivation of religion are possible without that. It is concreated with ‘the seed of religion’ in man* [emphasis added] (p. 71, n. 10).​In support of that statement, Vos cites Augustine who writes, “For there exists a delight that is not given to the wicked, but to those honoring Thee, O God, without desiring recompense, the joy of whom Thou art Thyself! *And this is the blessed life, to rejoice towards Thee, about Thee, for Thy sake*.” (Confessions X, 32). 

Blessings,


----------



## MW

Bob, I think you have quoted these authors on a previous occasion. It falls into the trap of the fallcy of quotations because it fails to provide the context in which the statements were made and hence might be misused to answer an issue they did not address by those words. Multiplication of quotations also falls into the "ad nauseam" basket.

"Joy" is something which must be "counted" in trials, hence it cannot be a present attainment. The Scriptures often speak of fulfilment of joy under certain conditions which will only be perfectly found in heaven. If it requires conditions which can only be found in heaven then obviously present joy cannot be an end to be sought in and of itself in this life.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Bob, I think you have quoted these authors on a previous occasion. It falls into the trap of the fallcy of quotations because it fails to provide the context in which the statements were made and hence might be misused to answer an issue they did not address by those words. Multiplication of quotations also falls into the "ad nauseam" basket.
> 
> "Joy" is something which must be "counted" in trials, hence it cannot be a present attainment. The Scriptures often speak of fulfilment of joy under certain conditions which will only be perfectly found in heaven. If it requires conditions which can only be found in heaven then obviously present joy cannot be an end to be sought in and of itself in this life.



Matthew, I don't think I'm misreading the Puritan authors. In fact, I'm preparing an article entitled, "To Enjoy God Forever: Puritan Hedonism?" The interchange on this thread is providing me more input. But I've read a number of works and am quite convinced that they definitely speak of "joy in God" as a "present attainment" *in this life*. Of course, neither I nor the Puritans will argue with you that such joy will "only be perfectly found in heaven." That's precisely what John Brown said. Sorry to nauseate you, but read again:Q. Where and when to the saints enjoy God? 
A. *On earth in this life*, and in heaven hereafter.
Q. Wherein doth the enjoyment of God on earth, and that in heaven agree?
A. It is the same God who is enjoyed; *and the enjoyment of him here as truly humbles and satisfies the heart as that in heaven.*
Q. In what do they differ?
A. *In manner and measure* of enjoyment. ​


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> "Joy" is something which must be "counted" in trials, hence it cannot be a present attainment. The Scriptures often speak of fulfilment of joy under certain conditions which will only be perfectly found in heaven. If it requires conditions which can only be found in heaven then obviously present joy cannot be an end to be sought in and of itself in this life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes joy must be reckoned or anticipated. But the Bible also COMMANDS us to rejoice in the Lord NOW:
> ESV Psalm 37:4 *Delight yourself in the LORD* [now, not just in heaven] and he will give you the desires of your heart.​ESV Psalm 43:4 Then I will go to the altar of God, to God my *exceeding joy*, and *I will praise you* with the lyre, O God, my God.[now, not later]
> 
> ESV Habakkuk 3:17 Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food, the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, 18 *yet I will rejoice in the LORD* *I will take joy in the God of my salvation*.[not just someday in heaven, but now]
> 
> ESV Philippians 4:4 *Rejoice in the Lord always*; again I will say, Rejoice.
> 
> ESV 1 Peter 1:8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and *rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory* [now, in the midst of a life of suffering]​Sorry if I'm wearying everyone with the quotes. There are many more passages from Scripture and the Puritans I could produce. But our chief end to glorify and enjoy God begins NOW. Not just in heaven.
> 
> Respectfully yours,
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Bob, your quotation from John Brown proves nothing so far as this issue is concerned. It proves there is an enjoyment of God in this life. That is undisputed. It is the plain statement of the Catechism. What you fail to prove is that the enjoying of God is an end in the same way that glorifying of God is an end. The reformed heritage teaches that glorifying God is the means to obtain the end of enjoying Him for ever. Please consider Thomas Boston's careful statement:



> Glorifying of God is put before the enjoying of him, because the way of duty is the way to the enjoyment of God. Holiness on earth must necessarily go before felicity in heaven, Heb.12:14. There is an inseparable connection betwixt the two, as between the end and the means; so that no person who does not glorify God here, shall ever enjoy him hereafter. The connection is instituted by God himself, so that the one can never be attained without the other. Let no person, then, who has no regard for the glory and honour of God in this world, dream that he shall be crowned with glory, honour, immortality, and eternal life, in heavenly mansions. No; the pure in heart, and they who glorify God now, shall alone see God, to their infinite joy in heaven.


----------



## Iconoclast

I am not sure if this totally fits in here or not, however many times when scripture speaks of Joy, it is juxtaposed against some sort of painful trial.


> 20Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.
> 
> 21A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.
> 
> 22And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.
> 
> 23And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
> 
> 24Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Sometimes joy must be reckoned or anticipated. But the Bible also COMMANDS us to rejoice in the Lord NOW:



This is undisputed; but it does not contribute anything in terms of determining how God is to be enjoyed now.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Here's another of my favorite passages:

CSB Deuteronomy 28:46 These curses will be a sign and a wonder against you and your descendants forever. 47 Because you didn't serve the LORD your God *with joy and a cheerful heart,* even though you had an abundance of everything.

Comments Jeremy Taylor, “God threatens terrible things if we will not be happy." 

Your servant,


----------



## Christusregnat

*One Chief End*

Just a few quick thoughts:

There is only one chief end: to glorify and enjoy. 

If, therefore, we make this two things, we have missed the point of the Catechism (by the way, I believe Westminster got this from Calvin's Catechism: Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org ). Keep in mind that, historically speaking, the Westminster Assembly was largely a response to Calvin's letters to Duke Somerset, and to Calvin's teaching in general.

Second, if this is one chief end, there are two ways we could look at it:

1. That the enjoyment of God is defined in the context of glorifying Him

2. That the glorification of God is defined in the context of enjoying Him

This is very anecdotal, but I have a brother who is very deeply committed to Piperian principals. Over the time he has come under the influence, he has become less and less concerned with truth, and more and more with "enjoying". Perhaps he is misunderstanding the message, but if (as I believe is the case) the idea of enjoyment is given primacy, then whenever I enjoy God, I'm glorifying Him. This seems to tend toward idolatry; not that Piper or any of his followers are, but I think the principal can be misunderstood as such, very easily. Here are some examples: "I enjoy contemporary worship", or "I enjoy the happy side of God", or "I enjoy the positive, encouraging stuff about God", and therefore I glorify Him with my enjoyment, and if I begin to encounter things I don't "enjoy" about God, then I have to recast them in an "enjoyable" frame of reference.

On the other hand, we may say that man can never truly enjoy God (or anything, for that matter) unless he glorifies God. In other words, conformity to the divine Law is primary to enjoying God. This is the message, for instance, of Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, John 15, Isaiah 1, and too many other passages to name. 

The problem with the second-hand Piperian things I've heard from my brother (so please correct me if I'm wrong), is that it does not seem to be framed in the biblical, covenantal structure of blessings and curses. Of Law and Authority. In other words, it is not pro-nomian, it is pro-hedonism. This is why the emphasis of Watson and Brown is on the "spiritual graces of God" and our conformity to the divine will as basic to what it means to "enjoy" God. They were pro-nomian, and framed their thoughts in terms of covenant blessings and curses.

Just a few (very anecdotal) thoughts.

Cheers,


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes joy must be reckoned or anticipated. But the Bible also COMMANDS us to rejoice in the Lord NOW:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is undisputed; but it does not contribute anything in terms of determining how God is to be enjoyed now.
Click to expand...


When God commands you to believe, does that command contribute anything in terms of determining how God is to be believed now? When God commands you to obey, does that command contribute anything in terms of determining how God is to be obeyed now? When God commands you to rejoice always in the Lord, does that command contribute anything in terms of determining how God is to be the object of our greatest delight? _God is to be enjoyed now in obedience to his many commands to prefer Him as our highest treasure in this life above all other earthly treasures. _

Does that help?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Christusregnat said:


> Just a few quick thoughts:
> 
> There is only one chief end: to glorify and enjoy.
> 
> If, therefore, we make this two things, we have missed the point of the Catechism (by the way, I believe Westminster got this from Calvin's Catechism: Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org ). Keep in mind that, historically speaking, the Westminster Assembly was largely a response to Calvin's letters to Duke Somerset, and to Calvin's teaching in general.
> 
> Second, if this is one chief end, there are two ways we could look at it:
> 
> 1. That the enjoyment of God is defined in the context of glorifying Him
> 
> 2. That the glorification of God is defined in the context of enjoying Him
> 
> This is very anecdotal, but I have a brother who is very deeply committed to Piperian principals. Over the time he has come under the influence, he has become less and less concerned with truth, and more and more with "enjoying". Perhaps he is misunderstanding the message, but if (as I believe is the case) the idea of enjoyment is given primacy, then whenever I enjoy God, I'm glorifying Him. This seems to tend toward idolatry; not that Piper or any of his followers are, but I think the principal can be misunderstood as such, very easily. Here are some examples: "I enjoy contemporary worship", or "I enjoy the happy side of God", or "I enjoy the positive, encouraging stuff about God", and therefore I glorify Him with my enjoyment, and if I begin to encounter things I don't "enjoy" about God, then I have to recast them in an "enjoyable" frame of reference.
> 
> On the other hand, we may say that man can never truly enjoy God (or anything, for that matter) unless he glorifies God. In other words, conformity to the divine Law is primary to enjoying God. This is the message, for instance, of Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, John 15, Isaiah 1, and too many other passages to name.
> 
> The problem with the second-hand Piperian things I've heard from my brother (so please correct me if I'm wrong), is that it does not seem to be framed in the biblical, covenantal structure of blessings and curses. Of Law and Authority. In other words, it is not pro-nomian, it is pro-hedonism. This is why the emphasis of Watson and Brown is on the "spiritual graces of God" and our conformity to the divine will as basic to what it means to "enjoy" God. They were pro-nomian, and framed their thoughts in terms of covenant blessings and curses.
> 
> Just a few (very anecdotal) thoughts.
> 
> Cheers,



Thanks, Adam. Read Pipers works, as I have, and you'll find he has plenty to say about obedience to God's commands. He would point out with the Scripture writers that conformity to the divine will in both heart and actions is the pathway to fulfilling one's chief end. 
CSB Deuteronomy 10:13 Keep the LORD's commands and statutes I am giving you today, *for your own good.*​


----------



## Christusregnat

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Thanks, Adam. Read Pipers works, as I have, and you'll find he has plenty to say about obedience to God's commands. He would point out with the Scripture writers that conformity to the divine will in both heart and actions is the pathway to fulfilling one's chief end.
> CSB Deuteronomy 10:13 Keep the LORD's commands and statutes I am giving you today, *for your own good.*​



I will definitely pick up some of his books; any in particular that you suggest on this topic?

Also, do you know if he frames his discussion in terms of the covenantal blessings and curses found throughout scripture, but especially in the passages mentioned? Just wondering what to expect...

Cheers,


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Bob, your quotation from John Brown proves nothing so far as this issue is concerned. It proves there is an enjoyment of God in this life. That is undisputed. It is the plain statement of the Catechism. What you fail to prove is that the enjoying of God is an end in the same way that glorifying of God is an end. The reformed heritage teaches that glorifying God is the means to obtain the end of enjoying Him for ever. Please consider Thomas Boston's careful statement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glorifying of God is put before the enjoying of him, because the way of duty is the way to the enjoyment of God. Holiness on earth must necessarily go before felicity in heaven, Heb.12:14. There is an inseparable connection betwixt the two, as between the end and the means; so that no person who does not glorify God here, shall ever enjoy him hereafter. The connection is instituted by God himself, so that the one can never be attained without the other. Let no person, then, who has no regard for the glory and honour of God in this world, dream that he shall be crowned with glory, honour, immortality, and eternal life, in heavenly mansions. No; the pure in heart, and they who glorify God now, shall alone see God, to their infinite joy in heaven.
Click to expand...


With all due apreciation and respect for Thomas Boston, I am constrained by a plain reading of the catechism to conclude that *he is wrong*. He is ignoring the syntax of the Catechism itself and reading his own theology into the text. The other Puritan and Reformed commentators on the catechism that I cited above disagree with Boston and they are to be preferred for the following reason:

The structure of Catechism’s language renders human enjoyment inseparably linked to God’s glorification as man’s chief end. Note carefully that the language of the Catechism inseparably binds together the glorification and enjoyment of God.
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.​*a. There’s only one chief end*

This is evident in the fact that the framers speak of man’s chief “end” (singular) not “ends” (plural) and use the verb “is” not “are.” Apparently, the Puritans did not view the concepts of glorifying God and enjoying God as mutually independent in relation to man's chief end. But why, then, did the Puritans use two separate verbs separated by the coordinate conjunction “and” if they only intended one unified idea? 

*b. The flexibility of “and”*

English speakers are most accustomed to read that word as a coordinate conjunction joining two words or phrases that may or may not be interdependent. When I speak of "work and play," I usually have in mind two distinct ideas that are syntactically independent. In other words, I don't mean "playfully work" or "play by working" but two separate activities that may or may not be related. But sometimes the conjunction "and" is used to connect two ideas that are mutually dependent. I’m thinking here of the literary device known as hendiadys (from three Greek words meaning, ‘one-through-two’). There are examples of nominal as well as verbal hendiadys. 

Webster’s Dictionary, for instance, offers the example “grace and favor,” meaning something like “gracious favor.” Biblical examples include the expression in Luke 21:15, which literally reads, “a mouth and wisdom,” probably signifying “a wise mouth” or “words of wisdom.” The reference to “ministry and apostleship” in Acts 1:25 is best understood as “apostolic ministry.” A good exegetical argument can be made for understanding the phrase “grace and truth” (John 1:17) as conveying one basic theological idea, namely, “grace in the fullest or truest sense of the word” (cf. John 4:23-“in spirit and truth”). 

There are also examples of verbal hendiadys in the Bible. Genesis 25:1 literally reads, “And Abraham added and he took a wife,” which is appropriately rendered as one basic idea: “Now Abraham took another wife” (NAS). In Exodus 34:8, we read that Moses, in response to a theophanic revelation, "made haste and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped (NKJV). 

Some modern versions drop the “and” and accurately capture the single idea expressed by the first two verbs, rendering it "Moses quickly bowed" (NET, ESV) or “Moses bowed to the ground at once” (NIV) or “Moses immediately bowed down” (CSB). Another example is the oft repeated phrase in Deuteronomy that literally reads, “be careful and do,” and which is appropriately translated “carefully do” or “observe carefully” or “be careful to do” (Deut. 4:6; 5:1, 32; 6:3; 7:11, 12). I think the prayer in Psalm 27:7, “Be gracious to me and answer me,” may also be understood as a plea that God would “graciously reply” or “mercifully answer” his prayer. 

The point I’m trying to make is that “and” need not always function to distinguish two mutually independent ideas. Sometimes it functions to fuse two ideas into one inseparable concept. Accordingly, when Piper suggests that the statement “glorify God and enjoy Him forever” may mean something like “glorify God by enjoying Him forever,” it will not do simply to point out that he’s omitted the word “and” and replaced it with the preposition “by.” One must first demonstrate that the preposition “by” distorts the proper meaning of the phrase. His basic point, I think, is that the glorifying of God and the enjoyment of God are inseparably joined together. 

A fellow laborer for your joy,


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Does that help?



No; because the Scripture specifically teaches that joy flows from believing. They do not simply say "rejoice." The unqualified prominence you are giving to "joy" has disastrous consequences in terms of confusing the order of the religious affections.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Christusregnat said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Adam. Read Pipers works, as I have, and you'll find he has plenty to say about obedience to God's commands. He would point out with the Scripture writers that conformity to the divine will in both heart and actions is the pathway to fulfilling one's chief end. CSB Deuteronomy 10:13 Keep the LORD's commands and statutes I am giving you today, *for your own good.*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will definitely pick up some of his books; any in particular that you suggest on this topic?
> 
> Also, do you know if he frames his discussion in terms of the covenantal blessings and curses found throughout scripture, but especially in the passages mentioned? Just wondering what to expect...
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


I would read _When I Don't Desire God_, _God is the Gospel_, _Desiring God, Don't Waste Your Life_, and _Let the Nations be glad_. I think you'll find Piper to be, in many respects, a modern Jonathan Edwards. His theology very much resembles that found in Edwards' treatise on _Religious Affections._ 

One of Piper's favor passages in the one I cited above, Deuteronomy 28:46-47, which definitely falls within the context of covenantal blessings and curses:
NKJ Deuteronomy 28:46 "*And they [i.e., the curses]* shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever. 47 " Because you did not serve the LORD your God *with joy and gladness of heart*, for the abundance of everything,​Your servant,


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that help?
> 
> 
> 
> No; because the Scripture specifically teaches that joy flows from believing. They do not simply say "rejoice." The unqualified prominence you are giving to "joy" has disastrous consequences in terms of confusing the order of the religious affections.
Click to expand...


Mathew, neither I nor Piper nor the Puritans exclude faith when we speak of man's chief end as enjoying God forever. That's assumed. Without faith it's not only impossible to please God but it's impossible to be pleased with God. So when Paul gives the simple command, "Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say rejoice," he doesn't pause and say, "Oops, I forgot to insert the verb "believe" in there. Rather, he assumes that he's speaking to a Christian audience who understand that genuine joy in God must spring from a believing heart. I think you are afraid of a phantom. Some call it "Piper-phobia."


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

One last citation before I lay my head on the pillow. This actually comes from a pre-Westminster Assembly catechism. William Whittaker’s “Short Sum of Christianity delivered by way of Catechism” (London, 1630): “What is the only thing whereunto all our endeavors ought to be directed? *To seek everlasting felicity or salvation in this life, that we may fully enjoy it in the life to come.” *Note, felicity in this life and fuller enjoyment in the life to come are both described as "the only thing whereunto all our endeavors ought to be directed." Man, I sure do love these Puritans!

Grace to you,


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> With all due apreciation and respect for Thomas Boston, I am constrained by a plain reading of the catechism to conclude that *he is wrong*. He is ignoring the syntax of the Catechism itself and reading his own theology into the text. The other Puritan and Reformed commentators on the catechism that I cited above disagree with Boston and they are to be preferred for the following reason:



The catechism places glorifying God before enjoying Him, so the syntax supports his view. The quotations you provided did not speak to the point in dispute, so their comments are irrelevant. John Brown, whom you quoted, follows Thomas Boston, and says the glorifying of God is placed before the enjoyment of Him because the glory of God is of more value than our happiness. Dr. Warfield, whom you quoted, agrees with Thomas Boston: "We say the whole Reformed conception. For justice is not done that conception if we say merely that man’s chief end is to glorify God. That certainly: *and certainly that first*. But according to the Reformed conception man exists not merely that God may be glorified in him, but that he may delight in this glorious God. It does justice to the subjective as well as to the objective side of the case." Dr. Warfield clearly makes glorfying of God first, as an objective end, and enjoying of Him secondly, as a subjective end. To this testimonmy may be added Fisher's Catechism, Willison's Explication, and nearly every reformed commentator who has taken the time to recognise the order of the words.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due apreciation and respect for Thomas Boston, I am constrained by a plain reading of the catechism to conclude that *he is wrong*. He is ignoring the syntax of the Catechism itself and reading his own theology into the text. The other Puritan and Reformed commentators on the catechism that I cited above disagree with Boston and they are to be preferred for the following reason:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The catechism places glorifying God before enjoying Him, so the syntax supports his view. The quotations you provided did not speak to the point in dispute, so their comments are irrelevant. John Brown, whom you quoted, follows Thomas Boston, and says the glorifying of God is placed before the enjoyment of Him because the glory of God is of more value than our happiness. Dr. Warfield, whom you quoted, agrees with Thomas Boston: "We say the whole Reformed conception. For justice is not done that conception if we say merely that man’s chief end is to glorify God. That certainly: *and certainly that first*. But according to the Reformed conception man exists not merely that God may be glorified in him, but that he may delight in this glorious God. It does justice to the subjective as well as to the objective side of the case." Dr. Warfield clearly makes glorfying of God first, as an objective end, and enjoying of Him secondly, as a subjective end. To this testimonmy may be added Fisher's Catechism, Willison's Explication, and nearly every reformed commentator who has taken the time to recognise the order of the words.
Click to expand...


Matthew, the point of dispute between us is whether the glorifying of GOd is temporally prior to the enjoyment of God. You said above, ""Joy" is something which must be "counted" in trials, *hence it cannot be a present attainment*." I've already shown that statement to false, which you later conceded: "Bob, your quotation from John Brown proves nothing so far as this issue is concerned. It proves *there is an enjoyment of God in this life. That is undisputed*." Oh, but I thought you were disputing this point. 

Then you said, "What you fail to prove is that the enjoying of God is an end in the same way that glorifying of God is an end." *Please take the time to read my exegesis of the Catechism's language (post #66), then reply*. Until you deal with the actual syntax, which clearly presents glorifying and enjoying God as ONE interrelated and inseparable end, you're not engaging in debate. You're simply dodging the issue. 

I'm quite aware that Warfield made the simple assertion, "We say the whole Reformed conception. For justice is not done that conception if we say merely that man’s chief end is to glorify God. That certainly: *and certainly that first*." I think he, like others, are afraid to place the subjective human response to God's glory [enjoyment] on the same level as the objective human act of glorifying God. But I think such prioritizing is unnecessary. As I've already demonstrated above, word order does not always connote priority of importance. Moreover, the Catechism is addressing man's chief end and it quite impossible to speak of man's chief end, as specified in the Catechism, without addressing the subjective element. As I said above, Judas presently is glorifying God in hell, but he is more certainly NOT fulfilling his chief end. To truly glorify God as the Catechism has in view CANNOT be fully done by man unless man is also truly enjoying God. In the words of John Piper, "God is *most glorified in us* when *we are most satisfied in him*."


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Matthew, the point of dispute between us is whether the glorifying of GOd is temporally prior to the enjoyment of God. You said above, ""Joy" is something which must be "counted" in trials, *hence it cannot be a present attainment*." I've already shown that statement to false, which you later conceded: "Bob, your quotation from John Brown proves nothing so far as this issue is concerned. It proves *there is an enjoyment of God in this life. That is undisputed*." Oh, but I thought you were disputing this point.



I'm confused. You say what the point of dispute is -- "whether the glorifying of God is temporally prior" -- but then proceed as if I have denied an enjoyment of God in this life. It is the former, not the latter. "Joy" cannot be a present attainment in the context of trials, where it is something to be "counted." I did not say joy in and of itself was something which could not be experienced.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I'm quite aware that Warfield made the simple assertion, "We say the whole Reformed conception. For justice is not done that conception if we say merely that man’s chief end is to glorify God. That certainly: *and certainly that first*." I think he, like others, are afraid



I simply acknowledge your concession. Hence your reformed quotations do not prove what you seek to draw from them. You will need to find other reformed quotations which speak to the point in dispute and not simply to a present enjoyment of God.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, the point of dispute between us is whether the glorifying of GOd is temporally prior to the enjoyment of God. You said above, ""Joy" is something which must be "counted" in trials, *hence it cannot be a present attainment*." I've already shown that statement to false, which you later conceded: "Bob, your quotation from John Brown proves nothing so far as this issue is concerned. It proves *there is an enjoyment of God in this life. That is undisputed*." Oh, but I thought you were disputing this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused. You say what the point of dispute is -- "whether the glorifying of God is temporally prior" -- but then proceed as if I have denied an enjoyment of God in this life. It is the former, not the latter. "Joy" cannot be a present attainment in the context of trials, where it is something to be "counted." I did not say joy in and of itself was something which could not be experienced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Matthew, you're a riot . You accept my "concession" below but appear resistant to make any concessions yourself. You apparently think I've misunderstood you. So I'll squeeze a little harder this time.
> 
> First, you said, "Joy" is something which must be "counted" in trials, *hence it cannot be a present attainment*." You may be alluding to James statement, "My brethren, *count it* all joy when you fall into various trials" (James 1:2). The word translated "count" means "to regard or consider." So, one might infer from James' statement that suffering saints are only permitted to "think about" something which in no way can be, to use your words, "a present attainment." I've already cited 1 Peter 1:6-8, which describes believers "loving" Jesus and experiencing "joy inexpressible and full of glory" while they were in the midst of various trials. But that passage apparently didn't get your conscience. Perhaps you see the joy they experienced as taking place during the intervals of reprieve in between the suffering. So I'll try another passage. How about this one:NKJ Hebrews 10:34 for you had compassion on me in my chains, *and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods*, *knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven*.​Note the following: first, these brothers were enduring trials. They were suffering the plundering of their goods, perhaps because of their commitment to help the writer (who, according to some, may have been Paul) while he was imprisoned. Second, they willingly allowed their property to be confiscated (not a happy prospect) because they were *thinking about* a better prospect. So, like their Master, they were enduring suffering, being motivated by "the joy set before" them (Heb. 12:2). Third, concurrent with their trial and their contemplation of future blessing was an immediate experience of joy--they "*joyfully* accepted the plundering of their goods." In other words, joy in God in the midst of trials *IS A PRESENT ATTAINMENT*. So, touche.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite aware that Warfield made the simple assertion, "We say the whole Reformed conception. For justice is not done that conception if we say merely that man’s chief end is to glorify God. That certainly: *and certainly that first*." I think he, like others, are afraid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I simply acknowledge your concession. Hence your reformed quotations do not prove what you seek to draw from them. You will need to find other reformed quotations which speak to the point in dispute and not simply to a present enjoyment of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point of dispute is whether the Puritans intended a temporal priority or even a value priority by the word order of the Catechism. I concede that there are mixed voices. (Indeed, if you'll read my initial post on this thread I cited a number of Reformed authors who seem to emphasize the glorifying God part while minimizing the enjoying God part.) But a good many treat them as inseparably joined and argue that one must do the one in order to achieve the other. Warfield's one little statement, *"That [to glorify God] certainly: and certainly that first*," is infelicitous. I don't believe Warfield was suggesting by this phraseology a kind of temporal priority, viz, the Christian must glorify God first, in distinction from enjoying God, making the enjoyment of God only a "byproduct" of glorifying God. If that was his intention, then he's just uttered self-contradictory statement. For he has asserted (full quote this time):The peculiarity of this first question and the answer of the Westminster Catechisms, it will be seen, is the felicity with which it brings to concise expression the whole Reformed conception of the significance of human life. We say the whole Reformed conception. _For justice is not done that conception if we say merely that man’s chief end is to glorify God._ *[note: can't abstract the two; can't speak of glorifying God apart from enjoying him] *That certainly: and certainly that first.*[? temporal priority? priority of importance? What do you mean Warfield?] *But according to the Reformed conception _man exists not merely that God may be glorified in him, but that he may delight in this glorious God. _It does justice to the subjective as well as to the objective side of the case. *[BTW, one cannot speak of man fulfilling his chief end only in objective terms--impossible! He cannot fulfill his chief end unless his heart is subjectively engaged] *The Reformed conception is not fully or fairly stated if it be so stated that it may seem to be satisfied with conceiving man merely as the object on which God manifests His glory—possibly even the passive object in and through which the Divine glory is secured. *[so, to speak of glorifying God first and then to speak of the enjoyment of God as a temporal consequence that comes later is not possible, says Warfield. The two must go hand in hand.]* It conceives man also as the subject in which the gloriousness of God is perceived and delighted in. No man is truly Reformed in his thought, then, unless he conceives of man not merely as destined to be the instrument of the Divine glory, but also as destined to reflect the glory of God in his own consciousness, to exult in God: nay, unless he himself delights in God as the all-glorious One. *[Right, Benjamin! Now you're talking. Keep them together. One cannot fully glorify God as God intends unless he's doing it consciously (with mind and heart engaged), which is, according to Warfield, the whole point of adding the phrase, "and to enjoy him forever." Thanks, brother Ben, for clearing the matter up for us.]*​But, you ask, why then does Warfield and some (not all, since I've cited others above who treat them as coordinate and coequal) of the other commentators on the confession feel the need to accord some kind of priority to "glorifying God" over "enjoying God"? I believe Christians, like Warfield and many of us, have a natural tendency to give "glorifying God" some kind of value priority over "enjoying God" because we're zealous to maintain that God himself is more important than man. That desire is noble and biblical. _But such a concern misses the point of the Catechism._ The issue at hand is not who's more important, God or Man? The issue at hand is, What is *man's* chief end? For what purpose has *man* been created and what is *the heart motive* that should drive all this actions? Hence, to provide an answer that does not include and address the subjective involvement of the human heart would be incomplete and possibly misunderstood.
> 
> Allow me to expand on this thought a bit. One mistake sometimes made by interpreters of the Shorter Catechism is to confuse or conflate God’s decretive design for the entire universe with his moral design for humanity. God’s decretive design or his will of purpose refers to God’s eternal plan and his sovereign providence which embrace all of reality. It embraces everything that comes to pass, whether moral or non-moral, whether good or evil. In this sense, we may say that everything that ever has happened or that ever will happen shall bring glory to God. From the star that shines in the sky to the sparrow that falls to the ground; from the missionary who preaches the gospel to the young college student who rejects the gospel—one way or another, all things, events, and persons shall, in respect to God’s design of decree, fulfill His purpose and bring glory to his name.ESV Exodus 9:16 But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.
> 
> ESV Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.​ESV Romans 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--​In this sense, even Judas Iscariot’s act of betrayal, his suicide, and his present sufferings in hell are fulfilling God’s design of decree. However, the Scriptures also speak of God’s will of precept or his moral design for humanity. God’s will of decree refers to what is. But God’s will of precept refers to what should be—what God expects from his moral beings.
> Now which of these two designs did the framers of our Catechism have in view when speaking of man’s chief end? Does “man’s chief end” refer God’s ultimate decree for men—whether good or evil, whether heaven or hell? Or does “man’s chief end refer to God’s ultimate moral design for humanity—what God really desires man to be and to do?
> 
> The Catechism clarifies which of God’s designs for humanity is in view in the second question/answer. After identifying “man’s chief end,” the Catechism asks, “What rule has God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?” The answer: The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him. _Obviously, the authors of the Confession are placing man’s chief end within the narrower sphere of *God’s revealed will of precept*. _ESV Deuteronomy 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.​In one sense, it might be said that Judas Iscariot is bringing God glory in hell, since God ordains all things, even the damnation of the wicked for his own glory. _*Yet, it would not be appropriate to conclude that Judas is fulfilling his chief end in the way Scripture commanded him to do*._ To the contrary, Judas has “fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).
> 
> How then do the framers of the Catechism summarize man’s doing “all the words of this law”? The Catechism clarifies the phrase “to glorify God” with the phrase “to enjoy him” placing man’s chief end clearly within _God’s moral purpose for humanity rather than his decretive purpose_. By adding the phrase “to enjoy him” *the framers of the confession are limiting “man’s chief end” to those human beings who are saints on earth or in heaven*. It might be said that Judas Iscariot is bringing God glory in hell. But it cannot be said that Judas Iscariot is enjoying God in hell. *And to the extent that Judas is not enjoying God he is not glorifying God as his chief end in the sense intended by the authors of our Catechism. * According to the Catechism, God’s desires that men glorify AND enjoy Him as their chief end. Therefore, the concept of God’s chief end for humanity applies to the realm of _God’s revealed will _not _his decretive will_.
> 
> Why does God's revealed will demand the addition of "the enjoyment of God" to the prospect of "the glorifying of God"? *Because, and please don't miss this, God’s revealed will demands nothing less than “heart-religion.”* According to Scripture, all of creation was made to glorify God.ESV Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
> 
> ESV Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.​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!ESV Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.​Matthew, _if our chief end demands the engagement of our heart God-ward, then it certainly includes the enjoyment of God, does it not_? Is it possible to “love God will all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” and yet not enjoy Him? *Remember, the enjoyment of God refers to the gratifying of our desires* *in who God is and in what he does for us*. God has so designed the human heart so as to find its greatest pleasure and joy in God himself!
> 
> So this is why "to glorify God and to enjoy God must be viewed as ONE END (not two), and what the Puritans put together, let's not put asunder! Moreover, this is why Geerhardus Vos and John Piper can speak of a "spiritualized" or Christian form of hedonism.
> 
> A fellow worker for your joy (2 Cor. 1:24),
Click to expand...


----------



## shackleton

I have read "Desiring God" and have listened to a lot of Piper on mp3, the point I got out of what he was trying to say is that we seek to glorify God and have the mind of Christ and when we have this our desires are his, and when this happens we get joy from it. In other words, when our desires are his we get joy from this. The same way you get joy from doing what pleases your wife or kids, you do what makes them happy or gives them joy and you do this because you love them. Your joy is not the aim it is just something that happens. You make them happy and this makes you happy. It is an unintended end not the means. 

We gain the mind of Christ and do what pleases him because we love him, without our own joy in mind, we do it because his desires are our desires, and we get joy from this not as our goal but as a result of doing what pleases one that we love.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

shackleton said:


> I have read "Desiring God" and have listened to a lot of Piper on mp3, the point I got out of what he was trying to say is that we seek to glorify God and have the mind of Christ and when we have this our desires are his, and when this happens we get joy from it. In other words, when our desires are his we get joy from this. The same way you get joy from doing what pleases your wife or kids, you do what makes them happy or gives them joy and you do this because you love them. Your joy is not the aim it is just something that happens. You make them happy and this makes you happy. It is an unintended end not the means.
> 
> We gain the mind of Christ and do what pleases him because we love him, without our own joy in mind, we do it because his desires are our desires, and we get joy from this not as our goal but as a result of doing what pleases one that we love.



Erick,

Thanks for jumping into the discussion and offering the helpful input. I think I understand what you saying and agree with most of it though I'd like a little clarification on a few things you've said. Above you said, "When we have this [i.e., the pursuit of God's glory and the mind of Christ] our desires are his, and when this happens we get joy from it." Since God does everything for his own glory and finds the greatest pleasure in himself, then when we imitate God--not in the sense seeking our own glory and gratification in ourselves but in the most beautiful and soul-satisfying Being in the universe, i.e., God--then, yes, we do get joy from this. I agree. 

You seem a little uncomfortable with viewing enjoyment in God as *"our goal."* You prefer to review it *"as a result* of doing what pleases one that we love." I'm wondering why it can't be both? The reason I say that is because the Bible seems to speak of heaven and seeing God not merely as *a result* or *byproduct* of serving the Lord but as *a reward*, *as a goal*, which in turn serves as *a motivation *for faith and godly living. I think Piper would agree, and the Shorter Catechism portrays glorifying God as well as enjoying God both as *goals and motivations* for Christian living. Consider the following texts:
NKJ Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 "Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.​Notice that persecuted believers are to count themselves as favored and fortunate not merely because they're doing God's will but because God is going *to reward them* in heaven. True, heavenly reward will be *a result* of faithful service. But more than that, the very prospect of heavenly reward becomes *a motivation* to faithfulness and *a goal *after which we should strive. Of course, that reward is God himself!
NKJ Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself also in the LORD, and He shall give you the desires of your heart.​If we delight in God, then *the result* will be that God will fulfill the desires of our heart. I think this goes along with what you're saying. But I think the Psalmist is saying more. He's commanding us to pursue pleasure in God as a lifelong, yea, eternal *goal*. And *the motivation* for such a God-intoxicated life? *Reward*--"He shall give you the desires of your heart." 
NKJ Hebrews 12:2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.​Certainly, *the result* of Jesus' obedience unto death was exaltation and a name above every name (Phil. 2:8-11). Nevertheless, this text tells us that "the joy set before him" was not merely *a result* of his obedience but one of *the primary goals* of and *motivations* for his obedience. What is more, the author of Hebrews encourages believers to mortify sin and persevere through hardship "looking unto Jesus," that is, following his example. So believers are here encouraged to make "the joy" of heaven *a goal *and *a motivation* for self-denying, self-sacrificing devotion to God. 

Hence, I think it's fair to say that while the enjoyment of God is *a result* of glorifying God, it is also, like glorifying God, *a goal* and *motive* for Christian living. Similarly, one might speak of glorifying God not merely as *a goal *and *motive* for Christian living but as *the result* of our finding our highest joy and satisfaction in God as he is revealed in Christ Jesus. 

Blessings,


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> The issue at hand is not who's more important, God or Man? The issue at hand is, What is *man's* chief end? For what purpose has *man* been created and what is *the heart motive* that should drive all this actions?



The differences really come down to this point. I shudder to think where a theology would lead which does not emphasise the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The purpose for which man has been created is God's glory. The Lord hath made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. Even those who do not enjoy God for ever passively serve to glorify God. God is blessed for ever! Nothing man does can add to or detract from His perfect blessedness.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue at hand is not who's more important, God or Man? The issue at hand is, What is *man's* chief end? For what purpose has *man* been created and what is *the heart motive* that should drive all this actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The differences really come down to this point. I shudder to think where a theology would lead which does not emphasise the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The purpose for which man has been created is God's glory. The Lord hath made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. Even those who do not enjoy God for ever passively serve to glorify God. God is blessed for ever! Nothing man does can add to or detract from His perfect blessedness.
Click to expand...


Matthew, 

Let's be careful that we're not misunderstanding or talking past each other. 

First, I affirm with you that God is more important than man. In fact, both propositions--glorifying God and enjoying God--are designed to keep God at the center of man's existence. 

Second, I affirm with you the fact that God has created all thing for his glory, even the wicked for the day of judgment. Hence, Judas Iscariot is glorifying God in hell by displaying God's almighty power and perfect justice. 

Thirdly, I affirm that God doesn't ultimately need man. Indeed, He was never obliged to create man in the first place. But out of sheer grace, God created man as his image both *to reflect *and also *to enjoy *His glory. 

It is _this last point_ that the framers of our Confession are addressing. They are referring not merely to what the universe does but to what beings made in the image of God *ought to do*. This is supported by the fact that Q2 of the Catechism immediately focuses our attention not on God's decree but on God's *revealed word*, which serves as the rule to direct man how to glorify and enjoy God. 

This is why the glorification of God and enjoyment of God are inseparable when we are talking about what God's created images *ought to do*. Since Judas Iscariot is not enjoying God in hell _he is not fulfilling man's chief end as defined by the precepts of Scripture_. We may speak of him passively glorifying God. But as B. B. Warfield makes abundantly clear (and I truly don't intend to nauseate you with another quote):
The Reformed conception *is not fully or fairly stated* if it be so stated that it may seem to be satisfied with conceiving man merely as the object on which God manifests His glory—possibly *even the passive object in and through which the Divine glory is secured*. [The Reformed conception as reflected in the Shorter Catechism] conceives man also as the subject in which the gloriousness of God *is perceived and delighted in*. No man is truly Reformed in his thought, then, unless he conceives of man not merely as destined to be the instrument of the Divine glory, but also as destined *to reflect the glory of God in his own consciousness, to exult in God*: nay, unless he himself delights in God as the all-glorious One.​BTW, what did you think of the text in Hebrews 10:34? Didn't I score a point on that one?


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Since Judas Iscariot is not enjoying God in hell _he is not fulfilling man's chief end as defined by the precepts of Scripture_.



Agreed. Judas' chief end was to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. He did not glorify God and now he suffers from God forever. Every way we state the idea it is undeniable that temporal priority falls on the glorifying of God, and the enjoying of God is dependent upon it.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> But as B. B. Warfield makes abundantly clear (and I truly don't intend to nauseate you with another quote):
> The Reformed conception *is not fully or fairly stated* if it be so stated that it may seem to be satisfied with conceiving man merely as the object on which God manifests His glory—possibly *even the passive object in and through which the Divine glory is secured*.​



Also agreed. (Please remember the ad nauseam statement pertained to the formal argument which was being made, not to some personal feeling.) But this only goes to show that the enjoyment of God's blessedness is a part of man's chief end. The Catechism expressly states this and no person denies it.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> BTW, what did you think of the text in Hebrews 10:34? Didn't I score a point on that one?



This is also what is exhorted in James. But please note vv. 35, 36, "after that ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise." Again, fruition of God is dependent on glorifying of God.

Blessings!


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue at hand is not who's more important, God or Man? The issue at hand is, What is *man's* chief end? For what purpose has *man* been created and what is *the heart motive* that should drive all this actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The differences really come down to this point. I shudder to think where a theology would lead which does not emphasise the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matthew,
> 
> One last think. I affirm with you the vital and central importance of fearing God. Of course, the Scriptures also present loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. But I think Deuteronomy 10:12-13 is a helpful text that brings both heart dispositions together:
> NKJ Deuteronomy 10:12 " And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but *to fear* *the LORD your God*, to walk in all His ways and *to love Him*, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 "and to keep the commandments of the LORD and His statutes which I command you today for your good?​Note how Moses brings together the fear of God and the love of God as the supreme motivations for our service, i.e., walk in his ways, serve him, and keep his commandments. The fear of God reminds us that our *adoration* must contain the element of *awe*, which befits a relationship between the creature and his Creator/Sovereign/Redeemer.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Judas Iscariot is not enjoying God in hell _he is not fulfilling man's chief end as defined by the precepts of Scripture_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Judas' chief end was to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. He did not glorify God and now he suffers from God forever. Every way we state the idea it is undeniable that temporal priority falls on the glorifying of God, and the enjoying of God is dependent upon it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> But as B. B. Warfield makes abundantly clear (and I truly don't intend to nauseate you with another quote):The Reformed conception *is not fully or fairly stated* if it be so stated that it may seem to be satisfied with conceiving man merely as the object on which God manifests His glory—possibly *even the passive object in and through which the Divine glory is secured*.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also agreed. (Please remember the ad nauseam statement pertained to the formal argument which was being made, not to some personal feeling.) But this only goes to show that the enjoyment of God's blessedness is a part of man's chief end. The Catechism expressly states this and no person denies it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, what did you think of the text in Hebrews 10:34? Didn't I score a point on that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is also what is exhorted in James. But please note vv. 35, 36, "after that ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise." Again, fruition of God is dependent on glorifying of God.
> 
> Blessings!
Click to expand...


Thanks, Matthew. good observations on verses 35 and 36. By the way, do you have a favorite beer? Most Reformed guys I've met do. I noticed you're from Australia, and I have to say I've grown quite fond of Guinness Extra Stout. A good American brew is Samuel Adam's Cream Stout. 

Your servant,


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> One last think. I affirm with you the vital and central importance of fearing God. Of course, the Scriptures also present loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. But I think Deuteronomy 10:12-13 is a helpful text that brings both heart dispositions together:



Aren't fear and love in this context different actions of the objective requiring us to glorify God? Enjoyment or fruition of God properly relates to being blessed in Him. This enjoyment is announced in v. 13, "for thy good."


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> By the way, do you have a favorite *bear*?



Yes, the Koala.


----------



## SolaGratia

"We say, that God made man neither to damn him nor to save him; neither salvation nor damnation were God's ultimate end in making him, but His own glory, which will be answered one way or another, either in his salvation or damnation." -John Gill


----------



## shackleton

I think we should treat a relationship with God as we would any relationship. If we have been saved and exist in a loving relationship with God, through Christ, are we supposed to live in fear of him? Or do we do what pleases him because of the type of relationship we have with him? I believe it is the later. 

I don't think God created us to be miserable, the Fall has done that. The Fall has made it so that we do not want to do what is pleasing to God but only what pleases us. The fallen man's desires are to work to please the person he loves most, himself. The Christian man works to please the person he loves most, God. 

The Fall has not changed our obligation to glorify God and do what pleases him but it has made it impossible for the unregenerate man to do what pleases him. He does not want to because he is at enmity with God. The unregenerate man works to please himself, his greatest love. The regenerate man works to please his greatest love, God. Each type of person gets joy out of pleasing the one they love whether it is God or self. 

I would imagine God is not opposed to our seeking joy by pleasing him, maybe this is added motivation for us to please him. If we are adopted children bought with the blood of his Son are we still to live in fear of God or are we to have the relationship a child has with his father. A relationship where a child wants to please his father because he loves him and wants to please him and gets joy from doing so. That does not mean there is not respect but I think fear of punishment is no longer a motivation for the Christian. 

It is probably a lot like the relationship between Christian liberty and abstinence, or grace versus works people are afraid if we are allowed to much freedom or believe too much in grace we will go too far and think anything goes. 

*I apologize if this is rambling and incoherent I just read the book this month and I am formulating my thoughts about it as I write.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Since it was brought up I will have to say I'm a big fan of Young's Stouts. They make an oatmeal stout and a chocolate stout and I love them both. I gravitate towards stouts, ales and porters. Yuengling makes some good beer, especially their black n tan and their porter.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

ManleyBeasley said:


> Since it was brought up I will have to say I'm a big fan of Young's Stouts. They make an oatmeal stout and a chocolate stout and I love them both. I gravitate towards stouts, ales and porters. Yuengling makes some good beer, especially their black n tan and their porter.



Manley, have you every tried a Rogue Chocolate Stout? Comes in pints. Good stuff.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, do you have a favorite *bear*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Koala.
Click to expand...


Matthew, I'm going to have to try one if I can find it here in the states.


----------



## Grace Alone

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, do you have a favorite *bear*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Koala.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matthew, I'm going to have to try one if I can find it here in the states.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Grace Alone said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Koala.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, I'm going to have to try one if I can find it here in the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Look out for fur balls!


----------



## rescuedbyLove

You know, koalas aren't reeeeaaally bears.


----------



## SolaGratia

Seems to me like you guys are enjoying God already! 

Lets keep it that way,!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due apreciation and respect for Thomas Boston, I am constrained by a plain reading of the catechism to conclude that *he is wrong*. He is ignoring the syntax of the Catechism itself and reading his own theology into the text. The other Puritan and Reformed commentators on the catechism that I cited above disagree with Boston and they are to be preferred for the following reason:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The catechism places glorifying God before enjoying Him, so the syntax supports his view. The quotations you provided did not speak to the point in dispute, so their comments are irrelevant. John Brown, whom you quoted, follows Thomas Boston, and says the glorifying of God is placed before the enjoyment of Him because the glory of God is of more value than our happiness. Dr. Warfield, whom you quoted, agrees with Thomas Boston: "We say the whole Reformed conception. For justice is not done that conception if we say merely that man’s chief end is to glorify God. That certainly: *and certainly that first*. But according to the Reformed conception man exists not merely that God may be glorified in him, but that he may delight in this glorious God. It does justice to the subjective as well as to the objective side of the case." Dr. Warfield clearly makes glorfying of God first, as an objective end, and enjoying of Him secondly, as a subjective end. To this testimonmy may be added Fisher's Catechism, Willison's Explication, and nearly every reformed commentator who has taken the time to recognise the order of the words.
Click to expand...


For the benefit of those interested in what Willison and some others have to say on this point, I have quoted them as follows:

John Willison:



> Q. _Do we not promote our happiness, by making God's glory our chief end?_
> 
> _A_. Yes; and therefore glorifying God, and enjoying him for ever, are connected in the answer.



Joseph Alleine:



> Q. _What is mans chief duty?_
> 
> A. To glorifie God.
> 
> Q. _What is mans chief happinefs?_
> 
> A. To enjoy God.



John 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.



Thomas Vincent:



> Q. 7. Why is the glorifying of God and the enjoyment of God joined together as one chief end of man?
> 
> A. 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. 84:4. 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 The ss. 1:10.



A.S. Paterson:



> Obs. 3. The glorifying of God, and the enjoyment of him, are inseparably connected.
> 
> The glorifying and the enjoyment of God are here connected as one chief end, because God hath inseparably connected them, and no one can truly design and seek the one, without, at the same time, designing and seeking the other. And we may here remark, that the glorifying of God is here set before the enjoyment of him for ever, to show that the former is the means by which the latter is obtained ; that holiness on earth must precede happiness in heaven ; and that none shall enjoy God for ever who have no desire to glorify him in this world. Heb. xii. 14; Matt. v. 8.



Thomas Doolittle:



> _Q_. Is the principal to glorifie God? _Yes_.
> 
> _Q_. And the lefs principal to enjoy him for ever? _Yes_.
> 
> _Q_. Are thefe two joyned together with _And_? Yes.
> ...
> Q. _S.D. What is the firft Propofition?
> 
> A_. Man's chief End is to glorifie God, I _Cor_. 10. 31. _Whether ye eat or drink, or whatfoever ye do, do all to the Glory of God:_ Rom. 11. 36.
> 
> Q. _What is the fecond Propofition?
> 
> A_. Man's Chief End is, in, or next to to the glorifying of God, to enjoy him for ever, _Pfal_. 73. 25, to the end. _Whom have I in Heaven but thee? and there is none upon Earth that I defire befides thee_. 26. _God is the ftrength of my Heart, and my Portion for ever:_ Joh. 17. 21, 22, 23.



Thomas Lye:



> I. _Mans chief end is_,
> 
> 1. To glorifie _God_; _Proved_ out of 1 _Cor_. 10.31. Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatfoever ye do, _Do all to the glory of God_.
> 
> 2. Next to the glorifying of _God_, to _enjoy_ him for _ever_. _Proved_ out of _Pfal_. 73. 25, 26. _Whom have I in heaven but thee?_ and there is _none_ upon earth _that I defire befide thee_, _v_. 26. My flefh, and my heart faileth, but _God is_ the strength of my heart, and _my portion for ever_.
> 
> From his 'Plain Directions,' ie., his preface to his exposition of the Catechism:
> 
> Q. How many _Doctrines_ or _diftinct Truths_ are there in this firft Anfwer?
> 
> A. There are _Two_.
> 
> Q. VVhat is the _firft_ Doctrine in this Anfwer?
> 
> A. That _Mans chief end is To glorify God_.
> 
> Q. How is this Doctrine _proved?_
> 
> A. It is proved out of I _Cor_. 16.31. VVhether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatfoever ye do, _do all to the glory of God_.
> 
> Q. VVhere lies the _force_ of this Text to _prove_ this Doctrine?
> 
> A. In thefe words, _Do all to the glory of God_.
> 
> Q. How _know_ you, that the force lies in thefe Words?
> 
> A. By _two_ things.
> 
> 1. By the _fenfe_ of the words themfelves.
> 
> 2. Becaufe _thefe words are printed, with a different Character, or letter, from other words of the fame Text_.
> 
> Q. Wherein lies the _difference?_
> 
> A. _The words, wherein the force lies, are printed Text. with blacker, and lefs Characters:_ The others, in whiter, and bigger Letters.
> 
> Q. But what if at any time, _as it is very often in the Catechifm_, all the words of the Text are printed _alike_?
> 
> A. Then the Force lies not in any particular words of the Text, _but in the whole_.
> 
> Q. What is the _fecond_ doctrine in this firft Anfwer?
> 
> A. Next to the glorifying of God, to enjoy him for ever.
> 
> Q. Why fay you fo? This is no Doctrine: for A _Doctrine_ muft be _full_, and _perfect fenfe_.
> 
> A. It is fo printed in my Catechifm.
> 
> Q. It is fo indeed. But here you muft note with all Care, _That when ever you are bid to draw A Doctrine, either from the Anfwer, or Scripture, you be fure to give full, and compleat fenfe_.
> 
> A. Thats but fit indeed. But I know not how to help my felf herein.
> 
> Q. To help you therefore, _look narrowly into your Catechifm, and there you fhall find immediately after the Anfwer to the queftion, fome other words, which being added to what you have faid, will make the fenfe full, and compleat_.
> 
> A. I now fee thefe words -- _Mans chief end is_ -- standing _juft under_ the Anfwer.
> 
> Q. Adde them then to the words you faid before: and now tell me, what is the fecond Doctrine in this firft Answer?
> 
> A. That _Mans chief end is, next to the glorifying of God, to enjoy him for ever_.
> 
> Q. Now indeed you Anfwer rightly;
> How is this Doctrine _proved?_
> 
> A. It is proved out of Pf. 73. 25, 26. _Whom have I in heaven but thee!_ and there is _none upon Earth that I defire befides thee_. 26. My Flefh and my Heart faileth, but _God_ is the ftrength of my heart, and _my portion for ever_.
> 
> Q. Where lies the _force_ of this Text to _prove_ this Doctrine?
> 
> A. In thefe words, -- _Whom have I in Heaven but thee! none that I defire befides thee_, 26. _God is my portion for ever_.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> For the benefit of those interested in what Willison and some others have to say on this point, I have quoted them as follows
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew, thanks a bunch. I didn't have access to few of these you've listed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, I'm going to have to try one if I can find it here in the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look out for fur balls!
Click to expand...


That play on words was clever, wasn't it? "bear" vs. "beer"


----------



## shackleton

Well since this thread got so severely sidetracked from happiness in God to *beer* I figured I would quote Benjamin Franklin, "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

The bible does on more than one occasion associate beer with happiness so maybe it was providence that one topic lead to another.


----------

