Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks, Joshua. As I ask above, I'd like those who answer "yes" to provide an explanation of how their answer coheres with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism, which includes the enjoyment of God as an essential part of man's "chief end." Certainly, Judas neither did nor does presently enjoy God. Please explain, then, how "of course he is" fits with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism.
Thanks,
I am not sure I agree that the Puritans meant that the enjoyment of God was an 'essential' part of man's chief end. As Fisher states above, "he has made our aiming at his glory, as our chief end, to be the very way and means of our attaining to that enjoyment, Psalm 50:23"
In other words,, the essential part of our chief end is the glorification of God. The enjoyment is an inevitable byproduct.
In the case of Judas, he was without Christ and therefore could neither glorify or enjoy God.
Thanks, Joshua. As I ask above, I'd like those who answer "yes" to provide an explanation of how their answer coheres with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism, which includes the enjoyment of God as an essential part of man's "chief end." Certainly, Judas neither did nor does presently enjoy God. Please explain, then, how "of course he is" fits with the teaching of the Shorter Catechism.
Thanks,
I am not sure I agree that the Puritans meant that the enjoyment of God was an 'essential' part of man's chief end. As Fisher states above, "he has made our aiming at his glory, as our chief end, to be the very way and means of our attaining to that enjoyment, Psalm 50:23"
In other words,, the essential part of our chief end is the glorification of God. The enjoyment is an inevitable byproduct.
In the case of Judas, he was without Christ and therefore could neither glorify or enjoy God.
Ken,
To suppose that the Puritans did not mean that the enjoyment of God was an 'essential' part of man's chief end is to ignore the plan language of the Catechism. Both "to glorify" and "to enjoy" are identified as "THE chief end" of man. Accordingly, I don't think Fisher's exposition on Q1 is the best. It was published in 1753 (at least the version I have).
Thomas Vincent was a contemporary of some of the Westminster divines. His commentary was endorsed by 40 Puritan pastors including John Owen, Joseph Caryl, James Janeway, Thomas Manton, Thomas Brooks and Thomas Watson. In that book, Vincent asks the question, “Why is the glorifying of God and the enjoyment of God joined together as one chief end of man?” To which he answers,Because God hath inseparably joined them together, so that men cannot truly design and seek the one without the other. They who enjoy God most in his house on earth, do most glorify and enjoy him. ‘Blessed are they that dwell in thy house; they will be still praising thee.’—Ps. lxxxiv. 4. And when God shall be most fully enjoyed by the saints in heaven, he will be most highly glorified. ‘He shall come to be glorified in his saints.’—2 Thess. i. 10.
Benjamin Wadsworth’s exposition (1714) concurs with Vincent’s interpretation. Wadsworth draws the following inference from the wording of the Catechism:Glorifying and Enjoying God, are Inseparably joined together; there can’t be the one without the other. [We] must be Holy, or can’t be Happy; but those who are Holy shall be Happy, Mat. 5.8. Heb. 12.14Consider also the testimony of James Harper who wrote An Exposition in the Form of Questions and Answers of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (1905). Harper raises the question, “Why may the glorifying and enjoying of God be counted as one end, not two ends?”
Because he who desires to glorify God desires also to enjoy Him, and he who desires to enjoy God feels the impulse to glorify Him. The two desires, although distinguishable in thought, are inseparable in fact.By joining the two inseparably together, the Puritans were making a vitally important theological and practical point: God’s revealed will demands nothing less than “heart-religion”
Q. 4. What connexion is there between the glorifying God, and the enjoyment of him?
A. They are connected by rich and sovereign grace, persuading and enabling the sinner to embrace Jesus Christ as the only way to God and glory. Eph. 2:8 -- "By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." John 14:6 -- "I," says Christ, "am the way; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
My purpose for asking the question is to see how Reformed people tend to interpret the WSC Q1.
My purpose for asking the question is to see how Reformed people tend to interpret the WSC Q1.
Most commentators on Shorter Catechism 1 are careful to distinguish between an "active" and a "passive" fulfilling of man's chief end. Actively all men are obliged to glorify and enjoy God as their chief end, while passively they are made to serve for the glory of God according to the counsel of His immutable will. It is noted, though, that the question properly refers to what man is to actively strive after; but when the question is answered in this way it is always acknowledged that it is not dealing with God's ultimate end for which He created particular men because that can only refer to man's passive end.
My purpose for asking the question is to see how Reformed people tend to interpret the WSC Q1.
Most commentators on Shorter Catechism 1 are careful to distinguish between an "active" and a "passive" fulfilling of man's chief end. Actively all men are obliged to glorify and enjoy God as their chief end, while passively they are made to serve for the glory of God according to the counsel of His immutable will. It is noted, though, that the question properly refers to what man is to actively strive after; but when the question is answered in this way it is always acknowledged that it is not dealing with God's ultimate end for which He created particular men because that can only refer to man's passive end.
Q. 11. Do not the heavens and the earth, and all inferior creatures, glorify God?
A. Yes; in a passive way, all his works praise him. Psalm 19:1, and 145:10.
Q. 12. How ought man to glorify God?
A. Man being endued with a reasonable soul, ought to glorify God in an active way, Psalm 63:4, by declaring his praise, Psalm 103:1, 2; and essaying to give him the glory due to his name, Psalm 96:7, 8.
Dr. Gonzalez, I think some people may become confused because your first post implies divine intention and then a subsequent actually uses that term.
Of course in terms of divine intention Judas is doing exactly what glorifies God - fulfilling His decree.
But in terms of whole duty, Judas is not fulfilling any part of that duty.
I've read some, but not all, of the replies. But since I did answer yes and Dr. Bob did ask for the "yes'ers" to give reason, here's mine:
The catechism as a whole acknowledges the distinction between the saved and damned, and this distinction can be seen (though is not explained immediately) in the first question. There are two aspects of the answer- one which is general or common, and the other, special. Obviously, those outside of true faith will not enjoy Him. Indeed, they shall curse His name for eternity as they lie in torment where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. It would be a wonderful thing if all of humanity were redeemed... and it is a declared longing of the Lord for this in many places in Scripture. However, not all shall be receiving of His saving grace as His justice must also be sated and this is also well attested throughout His word.
So the decretive and secretive will of the Lord is reflected here- That all of mankind is made to glorify Him in the decretive sense and that we should enjoy Him forever in the secretive. And, since no mere man can declare who fulfills God's secret will, there is no problem with the question or the answer.
Theognome
I am sure you are correct in saying that I am in error, but if you read Fisher's catechism completely you will see that he agrees with everything you have quoted above. For example:
What would have been the difference, in your view, if the Divines had written, "The chief end of man is to enjoy him and glorify him forever?"Q. 4. What connexion is there between the glorifying God, and the enjoyment of him?
A. They are connected by rich and sovereign grace, persuading and enabling the sinner to embrace Jesus Christ as the only way to God and glory. Eph. 2:8 -- "By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." John 14:6 -- "I," says Christ, "am the way; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Ken,
I'm sorry if my reply to you came across condescending. My impression of Fisher's exposition of Q1 of the WSC is somewhat similar to my impression of William Gurnall's exposition of Ephesians 6. Plenty of orthodoxy. I'm just not sure that the whole counsel of God can be exegeted from Ephesians 6 or from Q1 of the WSC.
Your closing question is intriguing. I'm not sure I can answer that one right now because I need more time to research and reflect on the relationship between the two. As you know, John Piper makes the enjoyment of God subordinate to the glorification of God. The former is a means by which the latter is fulfilled. Presently, I lean towards interpreting "to enjoy" God as a synecdoche, that is, a part for the whole. The enjoyment of God highlights what the older theologians called "the love of complacency." It's the kind of love that finds gratification in an object because of the objects inherent virtue. Since God is the most virtuous and worthy object in the universe, then he is to be the object of our highest affections. Accordingly, when we affectionately love God with all our heart, soul, and strength, we're not only obeying the Greatest Commandment, but we're glorifying God according to our created design and His revealed desire.
Could we switch the two, making the glorifying of God subordinate to the enjoyment of God, ala, man's chief end is to enjoy God by glorifying him? Certainly, believing and obeying God's word is the pathway to happiness. In the words of the hymnwriter, "Trust and obey for there's no other way to be happy in Jesus but to trust and obey."
Nevertheless, I'm inclined to view the relationship between the glorification of God and enjoyment of God as intended in the Q/A #1 of the WSC as reciprocal and interdependent, much like Calvin viewed our knowledge of God and of man. We cannot truly know ourselves, said Calvin, unless we truly know God. Conversely, Calvin asserted, we cannot truly know God unless we truly know ourselves. Calvin did not dare to venture an answer as to which comes first. I think we should adopt the same posture with Q1 of the Catechism.
-----Added 5/1/2009 at 08:58:37 EST-----
I don't think there's much question that Q1 refers us to what is normative for us, and what is original to our created constitution, so to speak.
But the "paradox" is simply an equivocation, it seems to me.
Ruben,
I'm using the term "paradox" according to its most common and widely accepted meaning, namely, statements or propositions that seem self-contradictory or absurd but in reality are not contradictory and express complementary truths though the relationship of those truths may not be comprehended by the mind of man. So I don't agree that "paradox" is simply an equivocation.
I'm using the term "paradox" according to its most common and widely accepted meaning, namely, statements or propositions that seem self-contradictory or absurd but in reality are not contradictory and express complementary truths though the relationship of those truths may not be comprehended by the mind of man. So I don't agree that "paradox" is simply an equivocation.
But I'm not convinced that category belongs in an exposition of Q1 despite the fact that some Reformed expositors like Fisher seem to import that category into their exposition. The glorifying and enjoying of Q1 is the same as Q2 and is, therefore, ethical in nature.
But I'm not convinced that category belongs in an exposition of Q1 despite the fact that some Reformed expositors like Fisher seem to import that category into their exposition. The glorifying and enjoying of Q1 is the same as Q2 and is, therefore, ethical in nature.
Taking pains to divide things that are by nature distinct is the purpose of expositing truth. Leaving matters in a state of confusion only serves the interests of error. 2 Corinthians 4:2.
I would put it this way: Taking pains to discern what the authorial intention of a biblical or theological proposition means in its context, i.e., exegesis, is the purpose of "expouding truth." Eisegesis, however orthodox the foreign matter imported into the text, is what breeds confusion and serves the interests of error.
I'm using the term "paradox" according to its most common and widely accepted meaning, namely, statements or propositions that seem self-contradictory or absurd but in reality are not contradictory and express complementary truths though the relationship of those truths may not be comprehended by the mind of man. So I don't agree that "paradox" is simply an equivocation.
Correct, it is not an equivocation; it is a "real" contradition if you do not explain the "seemingness" of the contradicition but insist on understanding the same terms in the same way and thereby negate with one statement what you affirm with the other.
I would put it this way: Taking pains to discern what the authorial intention of a biblical or theological proposition means in its context, i.e., exegesis, is the purpose of "expouding truth." Eisegesis, however orthodox the foreign matter imported into the text, is what breeds confusion and serves the interests of error.
We were speaking about the authorial intent of the Catechism, and the authors of the Catechism believed in the harmony of truth, and would have considered any exegesis which involved the Scriptures in rational contradiction as eisegesis of a corrupting kind. See Confession of Faith, section 9. If one Scripture could be understood in tension with another Scripture then obviously Scripture could not be used to "interpret" -- explain the meaning of -- Scripture.
Both propositions are biblical and, therefore, cannot truly be contradictory.
I was speaking what appeared to me to be an attempt to read more into Q1 than the authors intended.
I've read some, but not all, of the replies. But since I did answer yes and Dr. Bob did ask for the "yes'ers" to give reason, here's mine:
The catechism as a whole acknowledges the distinction between the saved and damned, and this distinction can be seen (though is not explained immediately) in the first question. There are two aspects of the answer- one which is general or common, and the other, special. Obviously, those outside of true faith will not enjoy Him. Indeed, they shall curse His name for eternity as they lie in torment where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. It would be a wonderful thing if all of humanity were redeemed... and it is a declared longing of the Lord for this in many places in Scripture. However, not all shall be receiving of His saving grace as His justice must also be sated and this is also well attested throughout His word.
So the decretive and secretive will of the Lord is reflected here- That all of mankind is made to glorify Him in the decretive sense and that we should enjoy Him forever in the secretive. And, since no mere man can declare who fulfills God's secret will, there is no problem with the question or the answer.
Theognome
Bill,
This is an interesting read on Q1. However, to be consistent one must use the same line of reasoning with Q2. Are you saying the Word of God is the rule to direct the reprobate how to glorify God by means of unbelief, hatred, and disobedience (e.g., Judas) and the Word of God is also, in the same sense as above, the rule to direct the elect how to glorify and enjoy God? I just don't agree that "the decretive and secretive will of the Lord is reflected" in Q1 or Q2. Is it addressed, however, in Q7.
Please note carefully that the two following propositions seem formally contradictory but do not use "the same terms in the same way" and are therefore not contradictory:
Ken,
To suppose that the Puritans did not mean that the enjoyment of God was an 'essential' part of man's chief end is to ignore the plan language of the Catechism. Both "to glorify" and "to enjoy" are identified as "THE chief end" of man. Accordingly, I don't think Fisher's exposition on Q1 is the best. It was published in 1753 (at least the version I have).
Thomas Vincent was a contemporary of some of the Westminster divines. His commentary was endorsed by 40 Puritan pastors including John Owen, Joseph Caryl, James Janeway, Thomas Manton, Thomas Brooks and Thomas Watson. In that book, Vincent asks the question, “Why is the glorifying of God and the enjoyment of God joined together as one chief end of man?” To which he answers,Because God hath inseparably joined them together, so that men cannot truly design and seek the one without the other. They who enjoy God most in his house on earth, do most glorify and enjoy him. ‘Blessed are they that dwell in thy house; they will be still praising thee.’—Ps. lxxxiv. 4. And when God shall be most fully enjoyed by the saints in heaven, he will be most highly glorified. ‘He shall come to be glorified in his saints.’—2 Thess. i. 10.
Benjamin Wadsworth’s exposition (1714) concurs with Vincent’s interpretation. Wadsworth draws the following inference from the wording of the Catechism:Glorifying and Enjoying God, are Inseparably joined together; there can’t be the one without the other. [We] must be Holy, or can’t be Happy; but those who are Holy shall be Happy, Mat. 5.8. Heb. 12.14Consider also the testimony of James Harper who wrote An Exposition in the Form of Questions and Answers of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (1905). Harper raises the question, “Why may the glorifying and enjoying of God be counted as one end, not two ends?”
Because he who desires to glorify God desires also to enjoy Him, and he who desires to enjoy God feels the impulse to glorify Him. The two desires, although distinguishable in thought, are inseparable in fact.By joining the two inseparably together, the Puritans were making a vitally important theological and practical point: God’s revealed will demands nothing less than “heart-religion”
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.
I see what you mean. Here is another example from Flavel:
They are both essential, but one is subordinate to the other, correct?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.
Ken,
Where did you find that quote from Flavel? I have his works, but I didn't realize he expounds the Catechism. I like it. Thanks for pointing it out!
Regarding the subordination question, I confess I'm yet resolved in my mind how to answer that question. Part of me is inclined to follow Piper, making the enjoyment of God a subordinate clause, which highlights the chief means of how man "actively" glorifies God. Interestingly, though Piper makes the enjoyment of God subordinate, a means to a greater end, he's still criticized as transforming Q/A 1 into a man-centered formula. Be that as it may, I think his mode of construing the relationship between the two contiguous phrases is consonant with the teaching of Scripture.
On the other hand, others suggest that we enjoy God by glorifying God. This makes the glorifying of God a means to the end of the enjoyment of God. Some speak of the enjoyment of God, in this relationship, as a kind of unsought after "byproduct." I don't think that construction does justice to the biblical data that compels to seek our chief happiness in God. Nevertheless, I do think the statement is true in the sense that joy in God is often found in the pathway of our duty to God. Moreover, in this sin-cursed world, we will not experience the fullness of joy that awaits us in heaven. So there seems to be a kind of temporal order: glorify God (now) > enjoy him (in eternity). Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him (Heb. 12:2).
But even this doesn't explain completely the interrelatedness and interdependence of the two. We do experience joy in God here on earth even in the midst of suffering for his sake (1 Pet. 1:6-8). Moreover, the glorification of God is an eschatological or teleological goal (Rev. 5:6-14). So presently, I'm inclined to see their relationship as reciprocal, each contributing to the other.
Of course, I do affirm the doctrine that God causes all things, both good and evil, to redound, in the end, to his praise. In that sense, even Judas is bringing a kind of glory to God despite the fact that he's not worshipping God. But I don't believe that's the kind of "to glorify God" envisioned in Q1 of the WSC. In my opinion, those who read the so-called "passive" glorification of God into the intent of Q1 of the WSC are engaging in eisegesis, not exegesis. I think Q2 makes abundantly clear that Q1 is addressing the province of what men should do ala God's revealed will not what men will do ala God's decretive will.
Brother, thanks again for the Flavel quote. I'll have to search for it in my set of his Works.
-----Added 5/2/2009 at 10:28:26 EST-----
Not to engage in strivings about words, but using the same term in different ways is not a univocal use of language - hence, equivocation.Please note carefully that the two following propositions seem formally contradictory but do not use "the same terms in the same way" and are therefore not contradictory:
Ruben,
Sorry about the misunderstanding. Above you said, "the 'paradox' is simply an equivocation, it seems to me." By this, I took you to mean that a "paradox" is nothing more than an equivocation.
I do affirm that true paradox entails equivocation, that is, the using of the same terms in different ways. But the concept of paradox and equivocation are not synonymous. In many equivocatory propositions, the coherent relationship between the two different propositions is patently evident and easily comprehended.
But in some equivocatory propositions, the coherent relationship between the two (genuinely) different propositions is not patently evident or easily comprehended by the human mind. Jesus is fully God, but Jesus is fully man, for example. Or, Jesus has two natures, but Jesus is one person. These juxtaposed propositions are equivocal. But their coherence is not patently evident or easily comprehended by the mind of man. Accordingly, there is a "seeming" incongruence between these propositions.
Nevertheless, since God's word is true, and since all truth is ultimately coherent, we must conclude that any "apparent contradiction" is just that, "apparent" and not "real." This is what is meant by paradox.
Thanks for the clarification, Dr. Gonzales. I think it may be too minor a point to be worth pursuing much further, but if a paradox is based on equivocation, then it ceases to be a paradox when the equivocation is grasped and the terms are defined more narrowly (because there is no longer any seeming contradiction). As such they are useful, because they lead people to think about terms and engage in disambiguation.
I don't think the other examples you gave of paradox fit the bill (because, e.g., "nature" and "person" are two distintict concepts), but following that up would lead us pretty far afield!
Flavel can be found here: Westminster Shorter Catechism Project