I think the view of God as primarily Father resides in other theological traditions and makes them uncomfortable with these extreme Calvinist statements also.

Note that neither Piper nor Hays contradicts what Witherington says about God’s ultimate motivation – they critique his exegesis and whether he represented Schreiner fairly. Maybe all that’s happened here is that Witherington has headed off a distorting tendency, and must deal with rhetoric thrown at him to save face, but his opponents aren’t really disputing his basic premise.

I was wondering if you think it’s completely fair to say that the issues at hand are pertaining to “Piper’s theology?”

Twenty years ago, I sat in the basement of my SBC, arminian church with Mr. Hosea, our 3rd grade Royal Ambassador leader, and ten other boys my age when I first learned that God created me for His glory, and that God does everything, ultimately for his glory above all his motives. He even used Edward’s argument that since God is completely perfect, then he MUST value himself above everything. He explained sin grace to us in these terms, as well as God’s holiness using Romans 3:23. I learned this in 3rd grade. He used to ask us questions before cookie time, and this was one he asked often, “Why does God do what he does.” The right answer was not “JESUS” which was the sunday school answer, but “To show his Glory.”
Frankly, when I heard about Piper and Calvinism (from those who actually represented it fairly) in college, this aspect of reformed thinking seemed to fit with what I thought every Southern Baptist R.A. must have heard in 3rd grade-in other words, it was the believable part!

I know that Mr. Hosea was a devout baptist and a one-point calvinist and I know for afact he has never heard of John Piper, neither has more than a handful and the staff at that church today.

Micheal Patton had a great post on this issue last February

“There is a popular notion in the evangelical world today that I think has become part of our folklore and can very easily misrepresent the character of God by attributing to Him motivations for creation that I do not believe are true. Some would say that God’s purpose, intent, and motivation for creating humanity and all of creation was for His own self-glorification. I think that this is a difficult position to sustain biblically and theologically.”

I think that the confusion arises because Piper talks about God having a “chief end.” The word “end” implies that God desires to “gain” something. Once you use that kind of language, God then appears to be “narcissistic” or “self-centered,” since He appears to have created Creation in order to gain something for Himself.

I don’t know if anyone will find this is helpful, but here’s another way of looking at it. St. Thomas Aquinas suggests that God does not act to acquire any “end.” (He is supremely happy with Himself and needs nothing other than Himself.) God created Creation, not to acquire any end/gain for Himself, but with the sole intention of self-communication. (That’s how Aquinas interprets the phrase “for Himself” in Proverbs 16:4). God desired to communicate Himself (His goodness, His Being), and the very act of self-communication was Creation.

The love of each Person for the other is a perfect, selfless (and perfectly selfless) outpouring of love. Once you conceive of God as a Trinity, three Persons in one God, it becomes impossible to conceive of the One God as self-centered in any way. The Trinitarian God is the perfection, rather, of Love.

On this:

> Why can’t evangelicals engage in reasonable dialogue.
> Is there any reason we cannot humble ourselves and
> consider another position? Or to hear criticism of our
> position? This is the problem I have with so much that
> goes on in the blogosphere.

It is hard to escape the R.C. charge against Protestantism that the reason for this is the “everyone his/her own pope” syndrom inherent in Protestant ecclesiology and rejection of the Petrine magisterium. Not that I am convinced that the R.C. model is without problems — they are simply different.

I think part of it is Piper’s near-”adoration” of Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was, no doubt, brilliant, but he also had a decidedly scholastic streak which got him into trouble from time to time (e.g. his whole theory about the ever increasing union between the soul and God in heaven).

Some of this also goes beyond Edwards and reflects Piper’s other reading habits. I know that he is a huge fan of 17th and 18th century Puritan writers, and frankly as much as I respect the Puritans, one of their huge problems was their scholastic methodology and tendency to cram certain theological constructs into every verse of Scripture.