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

[Idelette]

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

Carry on.......

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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. 12.14
​

Consider also the testimony of James Harper who wrote An Exposition in the Form of Questions and Answers of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (1905). Harper raises the question, “Why may the glorifying and enjoying of God be counted as one end, not two ends?”

Because he who desires to glorify God desires also to enjoy Him, and he who desires to enjoy God feels the impulse to glorify Him. The two desires, although distinguishable in thought, are inseparable in fact.
​

By joining the two inseparably together, the Puritans were making a vitally important theological and practical point: God’s revealed will demands nothing less than “heart-religion”

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

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

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

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

Your servant,
​

 

[KMK]

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. 12.14
​

Consider also the testimony of James Harper who wrote An Exposition in the Form of Questions and Answers of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (1905). Harper raises the question, “Why may the glorifying and enjoying of God be counted as one end, not two ends?”

Because he who desires to glorify God desires also to enjoy Him, and he who desires to enjoy God feels the impulse to glorify Him. The two desires, although distinguishable in thought, are inseparable in fact.
​

By joining the two inseparably together, the Puritans were making a vitally important theological and practical point: God’s revealed will demands nothing less than “heart-religion”
​

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

Q. 4. What connexion is there between the glorifying God, and the enjoyment of him?

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

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

 

[CharlieJ]

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

 

[Theognome]

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

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

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

Theognome

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[py3ak]

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

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

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

 

[KMK]

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.

Hence Fisher:

Q. 11. Do not the heavens and the earth, and all inferior creatures, glorify God?

A. Yes; in a passive way, all his works praise him. Psalm 19:1, and 145:10.

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. Bob Gonzales]

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

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

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

Ruben,

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

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

Your servant,

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

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.

 

[py3ak]

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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

Q. 4. What connexion is there between the glorifying God, and the enjoyment of him?

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

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

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.

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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.

Matthew,

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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.

Matthew,

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

(1) All men do fulfill God's ultimate creative design or intention (Exod. 9:16; Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:33-36).
(2) All men do not fulfill God's ultimate creative design or intention (Rom. 3:23).
​

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

Respectfully yours,

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

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.

Matthew,

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

לַיְלָה טוֹב!

 

[Theognome]

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.

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

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

Theognome

 

[py3ak]

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

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

 

[KMK]

Ken,

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

Thomas Vincent was a contemporary of some of the Westminster divines. His commentary was endorsed by 40 Puritan pastors including John Owen, Joseph Caryl, James Janeway, Thomas Manton, Thomas Brooks and Thomas Watson. In that book, Vincent asks the question, “Why is the glorifying of God and the enjoyment of God joined together as one chief end of man?” To which he answers,

Because God hath inseparably joined them together, so that men cannot truly design and seek the one without the other. They who enjoy God most in his house on earth, do most glorify and enjoy him. ‘Blessed are they that dwell in thy house; they will be still praising thee.’—Ps. lxxxiv. 4. And when God shall be most fully enjoyed by the saints in heaven, he will be most highly glorified. ‘He shall come to be glorified in his saints.’—2 Thess. i. 10.
​

Benjamin Wadsworth’s exposition (1714) concurs with Vincent’s interpretation. Wadsworth draws the following inference from the wording of the Catechism:

Glorifying and Enjoying God, are Inseparably joined together; there can’t be the one without the other. [We] must be Holy, or can’t be Happy; but those who are Holy shall be Happy, Mat. 5.8. Heb. 12.14
​

Consider also the testimony of James Harper who wrote An Exposition in the Form of Questions and Answers of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (1905). Harper raises the question, “Why may the glorifying and enjoying of God be counted as one end, not two ends?”

Because he who desires to glorify God desires also to enjoy Him, and he who desires to enjoy God feels the impulse to glorify Him. The two desires, although distinguishable in thought, are inseparable in fact.
​

By joining the two inseparably together, the Puritans were making a vitally important theological and practical point: God’s revealed will demands nothing less than “heart-religion”
​

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

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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

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

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

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-----

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

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

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.

 

[py3ak]

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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

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

Thanks, Ruben. I'm not sure I agree that the paradox ceases when the equivocation is grasped. Equivocation refers to similar language or concept with different meanings. Interestingly, many dictionaries include the idea of "ambiguity" in equivocation, thereby conceding that the semantic difference between the two words, concepts, or propositions are not always immediately clear. Be that as it may, one may acknowledge on the basis of the Scriptures own authority that two seemingly incongruous statements are, in fact, congruent. So when I hear the following propositions,

(1) Christ's nature is human
(2) Christ's nature is divine
​

they at first may appear contradictory and incompatible, especially in light of the biblical teaching on the Creature-creator distinction. One may think he has solved the paradox by simply asserting that the two natures are united in one person. So that the divine person now has both a divine nature and a human nature. Very well, to some degree by means of this explanation "the equivocation is grasped."

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

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

Here's another example: John Calvin opens his Institutes by telling us:

(1) We must truly know God if we would truly know ourselves (I, 1.1).
​

But then he reverses the proposition:

(2) We must truly know ourselves if we would truly know God (I, 1.2).
​

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

I believe the same is true with respect to the following two propositions:

(1) God purposes to save some sinners (John 6:37, 44; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4)
(2) God desires that all sinners would be saved (Deut. 5:29; Isa. 45:22; Luke 13:34; John 5:34).
​

I believe these two statements are equivocal on the basis of God's authority. Nevertheless, though I embrace the fact of their equivocacy, I may not fully understand how these two biblical realities cohere. Hence, I'm content to live with some "paradoxes" (i.e., not real contradictions but only apparent in the sense that the human mind cannot completely comprehend how they cohere), not on the basis of human reason but on the basis of Scripture.

Some, I know, try to deny the paradox above by denying the second of the two propositions. In their minds, the statements above are not equivocal and are contradictory. Hence, they fail constrained to "reinterpret" texts supporting the second proposition in order to do remove the "tension." I have read their arguments and found them exegetically and theologically analogous to Arminian attempts to re-interpret texts supporting proposition #1 above. Indeed, one writer summed up this misguided interprise well when he wrote,

"There is but one step between the responsible interpretation of the Bible which believing in its theological unity, refuses to so interpret any text as to transgress that unity; and, on the other hand, the dogmatic interpretation of the Bible which assuming its system to be biblical, refuses to allow the Bible to speak. This latter method gags the Bible under the pretense of the analogy of faith" (emphasis his)..
​

Thanks for the interaction!

 

[py3ak]

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

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

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

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

 

[Puritan Sailor]

If I may just add my

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Patrick,

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

Your servant,

 

[KMK]

Flavel can be found here: Westminster Shorter Catechism Project

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Flavel can be found here: Westminster Shorter Catechism Project

Ken,

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