Okay…cutting through the babble (which, they must babble…for all of their comprehensive Calvinist euphemisms and high-minded double speak, they still haven’t figured out a way to simply summarize what they are trying to say in a way that doesn’t make people agree with them just to shut them up, or confuse people to the point of capitulation), allow me to explain precisely what Doug is saying here:
There is no YOU in any of it. You are irrelevant. All you contribute is you sin, thus, you are of no consequence to God at all (even your faith and obedience-DIRECT QUOTE-is not of YOU). Everything God does is in service to Himself, not for you, or with you, but in SPITE of you. Thus, God works through your lump of flesh to have faith in Himself (“your faith isn’t from you”), in order to save Himself (“your salvation isn’t from you”), so that He may sanctify Himself (“your sanctification isn’t from you”), and thus spend eternity with Himself, which is a reward to Himself (“you cannot earn a reward because you didn’t do anything”). Man does not functionally exist…that is, there is no reason for you to have been born.
This is why Calvinism eventually dies…but not before destroying the lives and faith of so many people. It is narcissism AS religion (there is you, the wicked worm, and you, which is really ALL God, because YOU can do nothing except be a slimy little piece of crap). It is an impossible contradiction at its root. It is false, it is a lie, it needs to be dismantled. It destroys both man and God, nothing more.
paulspassingthoughts said, on September 18, 2012 at 9:40 AM
Argo,
I simply cannot add anything to your spot-on treatise. This is the crux of the matter, and the false gospel is the means to the end.
Andy,
This is something that I am thinking of more and more, and you have touched on it. If only God could provide a way of salvation to begin with, what’s with all of the wrangling to take us completely out of the picture for both salvation and sanctification?
And like all good Calvinists he has to torture Ephesians 2:8 to make faith the gift instead of salvation. He sure was squirming around a lot in that video. Seems like he used a lot of words but said very little.
Paul,
What you said to Andy…EXACTLY!! This was precisely the question which WAS the schism between me and Calvinism. The only answer is: Calvinism is a lie.
I would say that, at best, much of what Wilson says is confusing; what is worst, I’ll get to later.
1) As Paul pointed out: “Definitive” justification? The interviewer said “future” justification; since Wilson didn’t correct him, I assume he believes there is such a thing. “One word you could use for [vindication] is justification.” That important word is carelessly thrown around by him.
2) Co-operation with grace: “That co-operation is itself a grace.” I think there’s some truth to this, but it so emphasizes grace that the one co-operating sort of disappears.
3) How do we co-operate with grace? a) By doing things (esp. Word and sacrament). b) By faith in God. The way he said it, a) seemed to be subsumed in b). Why not just say it as Hebrews does?: “By faith, Moses…”
4) His most disturbing sentence: “We do not contribute anything to our salvation autonomously.” This implies that we *do* contribute to our salvation – just not autonomously. Since, from what he said on the video, we absolutely contribute nothing to our justification, he must mean our sanctification. But he said that our works contribute nothing to our salvation. So could he mean our continued *faith* during sanctification? In co-operation with grace, since we do not do it autonomously?
At the end, he said that he does not teach this: “We begin by God’s grace, and then it’s up to us to keep ourselves – to keep it maintained or to co-operate with God’s grace. And if we drop our end, then it’s all over.”
I’ve read little of Wilson’s work, so maybe elsewhere he’s more “definitive.” But, going by this video, he strongly implies that we must do *something* to contribute to our salvation. If it’s faith, then he definitely combines (confuses) justification with sanctification.
Paul, would you show me where New Calvinists say that they believe that Christ’s sinless obedience to the law was imputed to us for our sanctification? My apologies if you’ve already done that elsewhere.
paulspassingthoughts said, on September 18, 2012 at 1:24 PM
Jeff,
I have in many places, but I don’t fault you since after all there are well over 700 articles presently posted on this blog not including videos and links to files. First, if you carefully evaluate what Wilson is saying here, it can be deducted logically. If we are justified by faith alone “from beginning to end”, but yet our justification is vindicated “in the last day” by good works, who has done the good works? Secondly, Wilson, like all Authentic Calvinists, say it specifically, as Wilson did in this video, that we are saved by faith alone by the “life” and “death” of Jesus Christ. He came to live a perfect life for our sanctification and the imputation thereof, and died for our justification. They call this “definitive” sanctification, but here, Wilson calls it “definitive” justification.
If you have my book, I quote the Australian Forum on pages 116 and 117 in their apt exegesis regarding what Luther believed about this:
“The Holy Spirit gives the sinner faith to accept the righteousness of Jesus. Standing now before the law which says, “I demand a life of perfect conformity to the commandments,” the believing sinner cries in triumph, “Mine are Christ’s living, doing, and speaking, His suffering and dying; mine as much as if I had lived, done, spoken, and suffered, and died as He did . . . ” (Luther). The law is well pleased with Jesus’ doing and dying, which the sinner brings in the hand of faith. Justice is fully satisfied, and God can truly say: “This man has fulfilled the law. He is justified.”
“We say again, Only those are justified who bring to God a life of perfect obedience to the law of God. This is what faith does—it brings to God the obedience of Jesus Christ. By faith the law is fulfilled and the sinner is justified.”
Ie, our faith brings the perfect life of Christ lived out when He came as part of the atonement to the Father and we continue to be justified. At any given time that we stop offering the perfect works of Christ to the Father in sanctification (“jumping directly from the imperceptive to the command”) we loose both justification and sanctification. So states Michael Horton on page 62 of “Christless Christianity”:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
This is also why the Reformed camp greatly deemphasize eschatology as a “secondary issue” because the postmillennial view of one resurrection and one judgement is consistent with progressive justification. If justification is progressive, why would there be 2 judgement? Because one isn’t based on the perfect keeping of the law and sees justification as a finished issue–that’s why.
More specifically, I could site CCEF crony Dana Stoddard:
“It is by virtue of Christ’s perfect life, death on the cross and resurrection-plus nothing-that we are justified (made and declared right with God) and sanctified (set apart, kept, and viewed as right with God) and sanctified (set apart, kept, and viewed as right in the Lord’s eyes by virtue of His obedience). Christ is our holiness. Christ is our sanctification.”
Um, this seems pretty clear to me.
Actually, I go into this in massive detail in chapters 11, 12, 13 of “The Truth About New Calvinism” and quote many others in regard to this.
lydiasellerofpurple said, on September 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM
Argo, I want you to read this post and keep a few things in mind:
The author is a Calvinist although I believe he claims to be a 4pter of something of the sort. The point is what they teach about God’s Sovereignty and how it is presented. What this student asked him is quite relevant to how they present the concept. (this is a reformed pastor blog, btw, although they do have non Cals write occassionally. But most non Cals get attacked there quite a bit by the angry arrogant YRR. I stopped commenting there a while ago as it gets old interacting with constant ad hominem from the youngen’s)
I would be very interested on your take on this post. Do you think the author missed the point? (Keeping in mind the YRR/NC on this blog are constantly harping onSovereignty)
lydiasellerofpurple said, on September 18, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Ok guys, here is the bottomline of their teaching: If we contribute NOTHING including “faith” or any obedience according to what they claim scripture teaches—- then why on earth would I listen to THEM? It would be the same for them that they are teaching about others. It means they have no credibility and should not be listened to. They are totally depraved. :o)
(Nevermind Wilsons views on slavery, his assocations with white supremecists, pedophiles marrying and authoritarian beliefs….he has rotten fruit anyway)
My bad. I’ve read 12 chapters of your book, but not recently; still, I’m without excuse. I’ll review, and then finish it. Thanks for taking the time to write a long answer.
If you have the time, I’d like to know your thoughts on item # 4 of my comment. Thanks.
Lydia,
Yes…let me take a look at that post and get back to you. Thanks. Incidentally, I recently read an article by a Jewish psychiatrist (or as one who presents himself as an expert in such matters, anyway) in which he details why Jesus suffered from NPR (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). It was pretty awful, and the conclusions were not supported by Biblical fact. For one, he does not deny Jesus performed miracles of healing, among others, but he said that Jesus first demanded unjustly people worship him unequivocally; and that only those who swore devotion to Him were healed. Of course, this is factually untrue. Many of those healed by Christ never returned to devote themselves to Him or follow Him, and I’m not sure where in the Bible it is shown that Jesus makes such a “demand” on those He healed. And in addition, how can you claim that on the one hand Jesus had the power of the deity, freely admitted that He was God proving it by His awesome power, and then disavow Him for explaining that worshiping Him might be a good idea, and perhaps, a good thing for the PERSON, not for Him, necessarily? So, it was awful and merit-less, to the point that anyone with even a passing understanding of the NT could throw softballs through the holes in the theory.
Yes, I would say generally Dan misses the point. I mean, I agree that we cannot limit God by time or our human understanding of existence, thought, ability, etc.. As such, yes, we could never legitimately peg God with a psychological personality disorder. By definition, He is the Creator of everything, therefore, He can have no “disorder” so to speak because He can never be measured against a standard. He IS the standard, so, in Him, there is just God, who is perfect…thus, any disorder is impossible.
But, that said, I get the question I guess. I have a couple answers.
First, even if we were to compare God to the textbook understanding of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder), it would not work. I think that many people don’t understand what narcissism actually is. It is not merely a person of vanity; one who lives for their own glory. The problem is much deeper than that…almost schizophrenic-like. It is a very, very serious psychological problem which actually, in certain stages can seriously loosen the narcissist’s grip on reality. It is a regression of a person to infantile psychological status…one normally whereby a baby gains an acceptance of him/herself by a combination of outside affirmation from parents (caregivers) and boundary settings (discipline). This blossoms into a sense of inherent self-worth which is garnered from within, which emanates outward in the form of healthy relationships and a sense of well being. Narcissism develops when the child’s outside affirmation is distorted (usually by an overly doting or abusive parent)…the child never moves beyond the stage of getting all their affirmation from outside “objects”. The child is affirmed in such a way that the affirmation denies what the child comes to understand he/she actually is…there is a disconnect, where the feedback doesn’t match the truth of what they know of self. This does not allow the child to develop a sense of worth from the inside, but a sense that, in order to get affirmation, he must be this OTHER person, this outside person, which is the one who garnered the (unearned) praise or expectations from the caregiver (that is, the child is never loved or adored for what he/she is, but on some unreal, twisted and inflated “idea” of the child…a “false” child, or “false self”). So, this “other” child, the false one, is created by the “true” child (the narcissist…by now) to be a picture of utter perfection in order to be adulated and loved, and a person that the narcissist knows deep down he could never really be. The true self creates the false self then as a coping mechanism…against the crushing agony of the truth that his/her true self is the epitome of categorical failure and worthlessness. This knowledge of the true self by the narcissist creates a hatred for his true self, by what psychiatrists call the superego, which is the thing that hates and wants to destroy the true self, which is kept at bay by the “omnipotent” false self. Thus, narcissism occurs when the false self spends all of its time protecting the true self from its own sadism (the superego) by treating everything and everyONE as merely sources of narcissistic supply. People are not people…they are only external objects by which the narcissist can use to feed his/her own “ego”, and thus keep the gap between the false self and the inadequate and worthless true self at bay…for if this narcissism ceases to be fed, there can occur a very serious narcissistic episode, where the superego comes into contact with the true self; with suicide a possibility. But the narcissist gets very cunning and very adept at generating supply from people to feed his/her narcissism. He/she does this is many ways, all generally despicable by moral standards, usually involving using, lying, and abusing (even violent, sudden, and disproportional outbursts when things do not go the way the narcissist “demands” they go from their object of narcissist supply…child, spouse, parent, etc.). But the absolute worst trait of the narcissist is the inherent lack of empathy this kind of psychological condition depends upon. The narcissist cannot care about anyone but himself. If HE is not the greatest, the most needed, most loved, most adored, for no other reason than he exists, then he comes that much closer to seeing reality for what it is: his true, utterly failing, worthless self.
Now, this doesn’t sound anything like God to me. God is ONE. God is only TRUE (only IS). There is no false self with God. And being a narcissist implies that the person understands CONSCIOUSLY on some level (they are NOT insane…they are just utterly uncaring) that they are deeply flawed, weak and fallible. This is of course impossible for God. Since God can never view Himself as flawed, nor help BE the TRUTH and GOOD which simply IS, which means that He is so TRUE and GOOD that there are no contrasts in Him (no false, no bad…rendering, by definition TRUE and GOOD to be merely GOD). It is impossible for God to be a narcissist because God is ONE, can only ever theologically, philosophically, and metaphysically as ONE. There can never be two Gods. God can never be two selves…and I say this because it is impossible for God to think theoretically. His very thoughts ARE…He cannot have a thought that is not real; all of His thoughts are Him (there is no part of God that is not fully God…any part of God is God completely…e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity), thus if He thinks He is two, then He is two. Impossible. Summary: it’s impossible for God to be a textbook narcissist.
My last point is going to ruffle feathers. I’m sorry, but this is logically supported. And beyond that, the points I make are biblically supported. So: where does it say in the Bible that the most important thing we can do is bring God glory? This is more false Calvinist humility. A humble sounding idea that will almost never be objected to, but which denies God and man on the most basic of levels. First, the greatest good we can do is love God. And how do we do this? By obeying Him. And why is this important? Because it is in obedience to God that we realize OUR OWN true, and free, eternal existence (SELF). The act of obedience is directly, purposefully correlated to OUR success in being OURSELVES; that is, the choice we make to obey and pursue God, and to do it, is the goal of our existence; it is how man can exist utterly and perfectly himself, because God is the very definition of freedom of self, HE is how we do this. God’s glory is a byproduct (a natural and good one) of that obedience to God by people with minds that freely recognize that He is GOOD, and thus, should be pursued. God is not a narcissist because He did NOT create us to FIRST give Him glory. If that were the case, it would imply a narcissistic NEED from God to have praise and glory. God does not need any OBJECT to give Him praise and glory…He is the very definition of self-derived self worth: the complete contrast and utter opposite of narcissism.
So, yes, in general Dan misses the point. He misses it because, once again, Calvinists couch their gnosticism cleverly behind a veil of false humble-sounding doctrine. They are so terrified (or power hungry) to actual concede that humans have any reason or relevance to existence that they will do, ironically, the VERY thing Dan vehemently denies they do in this post: make God a narcissist.
If Dan was being doctrinally consistent, and consistent to his blog, his answer to the question “is God a narcissist” should have been: Of course! Your greatest good is to give God glory. Your only reason for existing is to be God’s constant source of narcissistic supply. You are not human to God the narcissist. You are an object…a vessel only to feed God’s addiction to outside, unwarranted, unearned adulation and praise.
And THAT, in a nutshell, is Calvinism. Calvinism is truly a “textbook” narcissistic religion at its core. (In addition to being nihilist, gnostic, and basically every other pretty bad metaphysical thing that God and Christianity are not).
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
Okay…cutting through the babble (which, they must babble…for all of their comprehensive Calvinist euphemisms and high-minded double speak, they still haven’t figured out a way to simply summarize what they are trying to say in a way that doesn’t make people agree with them just to shut them up, or confuse people to the point of capitulation), allow me to explain precisely what Doug is saying here:
There is no YOU in any of it. You are irrelevant. All you contribute is you sin, thus, you are of no consequence to God at all (even your faith and obedience-DIRECT QUOTE-is not of YOU). Everything God does is in service to Himself, not for you, or with you, but in SPITE of you. Thus, God works through your lump of flesh to have faith in Himself (“your faith isn’t from you”), in order to save Himself (“your salvation isn’t from you”), so that He may sanctify Himself (“your sanctification isn’t from you”), and thus spend eternity with Himself, which is a reward to Himself (“you cannot earn a reward because you didn’t do anything”). Man does not functionally exist…that is, there is no reason for you to have been born.
This is why Calvinism eventually dies…but not before destroying the lives and faith of so many people. It is narcissism AS religion (there is you, the wicked worm, and you, which is really ALL God, because YOU can do nothing except be a slimy little piece of crap). It is an impossible contradiction at its root. It is false, it is a lie, it needs to be dismantled. It destroys both man and God, nothing more.
LikeLike
Argo,
I simply cannot add anything to your spot-on treatise. This is the crux of the matter, and the false gospel is the means to the end.
Andy,
This is something that I am thinking of more and more, and you have touched on it. If only God could provide a way of salvation to begin with, what’s with all of the wrangling to take us completely out of the picture for both salvation and sanctification?
LikeLike
And like all good Calvinists he has to torture Ephesians 2:8 to make faith the gift instead of salvation. He sure was squirming around a lot in that video. Seems like he used a lot of words but said very little.
LikeLike
Paul,
What you said to Andy…EXACTLY!! This was precisely the question which WAS the schism between me and Calvinism. The only answer is: Calvinism is a lie.
LikeLike
I would say that, at best, much of what Wilson says is confusing; what is worst, I’ll get to later.
1) As Paul pointed out: “Definitive” justification? The interviewer said “future” justification; since Wilson didn’t correct him, I assume he believes there is such a thing. “One word you could use for [vindication] is justification.” That important word is carelessly thrown around by him.
2) Co-operation with grace: “That co-operation is itself a grace.” I think there’s some truth to this, but it so emphasizes grace that the one co-operating sort of disappears.
3) How do we co-operate with grace? a) By doing things (esp. Word and sacrament). b) By faith in God. The way he said it, a) seemed to be subsumed in b). Why not just say it as Hebrews does?: “By faith, Moses…”
4) His most disturbing sentence: “We do not contribute anything to our salvation autonomously.” This implies that we *do* contribute to our salvation – just not autonomously. Since, from what he said on the video, we absolutely contribute nothing to our justification, he must mean our sanctification. But he said that our works contribute nothing to our salvation. So could he mean our continued *faith* during sanctification? In co-operation with grace, since we do not do it autonomously?
At the end, he said that he does not teach this: “We begin by God’s grace, and then it’s up to us to keep ourselves – to keep it maintained or to co-operate with God’s grace. And if we drop our end, then it’s all over.”
I’ve read little of Wilson’s work, so maybe elsewhere he’s more “definitive.” But, going by this video, he strongly implies that we must do *something* to contribute to our salvation. If it’s faith, then he definitely combines (confuses) justification with sanctification.
Paul, would you show me where New Calvinists say that they believe that Christ’s sinless obedience to the law was imputed to us for our sanctification? My apologies if you’ve already done that elsewhere.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I have in many places, but I don’t fault you since after all there are well over 700 articles presently posted on this blog not including videos and links to files. First, if you carefully evaluate what Wilson is saying here, it can be deducted logically. If we are justified by faith alone “from beginning to end”, but yet our justification is vindicated “in the last day” by good works, who has done the good works? Secondly, Wilson, like all Authentic Calvinists, say it specifically, as Wilson did in this video, that we are saved by faith alone by the “life” and “death” of Jesus Christ. He came to live a perfect life for our sanctification and the imputation thereof, and died for our justification. They call this “definitive” sanctification, but here, Wilson calls it “definitive” justification.
If you have my book, I quote the Australian Forum on pages 116 and 117 in their apt exegesis regarding what Luther believed about this:
“The Holy Spirit gives the sinner faith to accept the righteousness of Jesus. Standing now before the law which says, “I demand a life of perfect conformity to the commandments,” the believing sinner cries in triumph, “Mine are Christ’s living, doing, and speaking, His suffering and dying; mine as much as if I had lived, done, spoken, and suffered, and died as He did . . . ” (Luther). The law is well pleased with Jesus’ doing and dying, which the sinner brings in the hand of faith. Justice is fully satisfied, and God can truly say: “This man has fulfilled the law. He is justified.”
“We say again, Only those are justified who bring to God a life of perfect obedience to the law of God. This is what faith does—it brings to God the obedience of Jesus Christ. By faith the law is fulfilled and the sinner is justified.”
Ie, our faith brings the perfect life of Christ lived out when He came as part of the atonement to the Father and we continue to be justified. At any given time that we stop offering the perfect works of Christ to the Father in sanctification (“jumping directly from the imperceptive to the command”) we loose both justification and sanctification. So states Michael Horton on page 62 of “Christless Christianity”:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
This is also why the Reformed camp greatly deemphasize eschatology as a “secondary issue” because the postmillennial view of one resurrection and one judgement is consistent with progressive justification. If justification is progressive, why would there be 2 judgement? Because one isn’t based on the perfect keeping of the law and sees justification as a finished issue–that’s why.
More specifically, I could site CCEF crony Dana Stoddard:
“It is by virtue of Christ’s perfect life, death on the cross and resurrection-plus nothing-that we are justified (made and declared right with God) and sanctified (set apart, kept, and viewed as right with God) and sanctified (set apart, kept, and viewed as right in the Lord’s eyes by virtue of His obedience). Christ is our holiness. Christ is our sanctification.”
Um, this seems pretty clear to me.
Actually, I go into this in massive detail in chapters 11, 12, 13 of “The Truth About New Calvinism” and quote many others in regard to this.
LikeLike
Argo, I want you to read this post and keep a few things in mind:
The author is a Calvinist although I believe he claims to be a 4pter of something of the sort. The point is what they teach about God’s Sovereignty and how it is presented. What this student asked him is quite relevant to how they present the concept. (this is a reformed pastor blog, btw, although they do have non Cals write occassionally. But most non Cals get attacked there quite a bit by the angry arrogant YRR. I stopped commenting there a while ago as it gets old interacting with constant ad hominem from the youngen’s)
http://sbcvoices.com/is-god-a-narcissist/
I would be very interested on your take on this post. Do you think the author missed the point? (Keeping in mind the YRR/NC on this blog are constantly harping onSovereignty)
LikeLike
Ok guys, here is the bottomline of their teaching: If we contribute NOTHING including “faith” or any obedience according to what they claim scripture teaches—- then why on earth would I listen to THEM? It would be the same for them that they are teaching about others. It means they have no credibility and should not be listened to. They are totally depraved. :o)
(Nevermind Wilsons views on slavery, his assocations with white supremecists, pedophiles marrying and authoritarian beliefs….he has rotten fruit anyway)
LikeLike
Paul,
My bad. I’ve read 12 chapters of your book, but not recently; still, I’m without excuse. I’ll review, and then finish it. Thanks for taking the time to write a long answer.
If you have the time, I’d like to know your thoughts on item # 4 of my comment. Thanks.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I thought it was a good and astute point. I think it is worthy of notation in how these guys use words in their doublespeak.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Yes…let me take a look at that post and get back to you. Thanks. Incidentally, I recently read an article by a Jewish psychiatrist (or as one who presents himself as an expert in such matters, anyway) in which he details why Jesus suffered from NPR (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). It was pretty awful, and the conclusions were not supported by Biblical fact. For one, he does not deny Jesus performed miracles of healing, among others, but he said that Jesus first demanded unjustly people worship him unequivocally; and that only those who swore devotion to Him were healed. Of course, this is factually untrue. Many of those healed by Christ never returned to devote themselves to Him or follow Him, and I’m not sure where in the Bible it is shown that Jesus makes such a “demand” on those He healed. And in addition, how can you claim that on the one hand Jesus had the power of the deity, freely admitted that He was God proving it by His awesome power, and then disavow Him for explaining that worshiping Him might be a good idea, and perhaps, a good thing for the PERSON, not for Him, necessarily? So, it was awful and merit-less, to the point that anyone with even a passing understanding of the NT could throw softballs through the holes in the theory.
Can’t wait to check out your link.
LikeLike
Hi Lydia,
Yes, I would say generally Dan misses the point. I mean, I agree that we cannot limit God by time or our human understanding of existence, thought, ability, etc.. As such, yes, we could never legitimately peg God with a psychological personality disorder. By definition, He is the Creator of everything, therefore, He can have no “disorder” so to speak because He can never be measured against a standard. He IS the standard, so, in Him, there is just God, who is perfect…thus, any disorder is impossible.
But, that said, I get the question I guess. I have a couple answers.
First, even if we were to compare God to the textbook understanding of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder), it would not work. I think that many people don’t understand what narcissism actually is. It is not merely a person of vanity; one who lives for their own glory. The problem is much deeper than that…almost schizophrenic-like. It is a very, very serious psychological problem which actually, in certain stages can seriously loosen the narcissist’s grip on reality. It is a regression of a person to infantile psychological status…one normally whereby a baby gains an acceptance of him/herself by a combination of outside affirmation from parents (caregivers) and boundary settings (discipline). This blossoms into a sense of inherent self-worth which is garnered from within, which emanates outward in the form of healthy relationships and a sense of well being. Narcissism develops when the child’s outside affirmation is distorted (usually by an overly doting or abusive parent)…the child never moves beyond the stage of getting all their affirmation from outside “objects”. The child is affirmed in such a way that the affirmation denies what the child comes to understand he/she actually is…there is a disconnect, where the feedback doesn’t match the truth of what they know of self. This does not allow the child to develop a sense of worth from the inside, but a sense that, in order to get affirmation, he must be this OTHER person, this outside person, which is the one who garnered the (unearned) praise or expectations from the caregiver (that is, the child is never loved or adored for what he/she is, but on some unreal, twisted and inflated “idea” of the child…a “false” child, or “false self”). So, this “other” child, the false one, is created by the “true” child (the narcissist…by now) to be a picture of utter perfection in order to be adulated and loved, and a person that the narcissist knows deep down he could never really be. The true self creates the false self then as a coping mechanism…against the crushing agony of the truth that his/her true self is the epitome of categorical failure and worthlessness. This knowledge of the true self by the narcissist creates a hatred for his true self, by what psychiatrists call the superego, which is the thing that hates and wants to destroy the true self, which is kept at bay by the “omnipotent” false self. Thus, narcissism occurs when the false self spends all of its time protecting the true self from its own sadism (the superego) by treating everything and everyONE as merely sources of narcissistic supply. People are not people…they are only external objects by which the narcissist can use to feed his/her own “ego”, and thus keep the gap between the false self and the inadequate and worthless true self at bay…for if this narcissism ceases to be fed, there can occur a very serious narcissistic episode, where the superego comes into contact with the true self; with suicide a possibility. But the narcissist gets very cunning and very adept at generating supply from people to feed his/her narcissism. He/she does this is many ways, all generally despicable by moral standards, usually involving using, lying, and abusing (even violent, sudden, and disproportional outbursts when things do not go the way the narcissist “demands” they go from their object of narcissist supply…child, spouse, parent, etc.). But the absolute worst trait of the narcissist is the inherent lack of empathy this kind of psychological condition depends upon. The narcissist cannot care about anyone but himself. If HE is not the greatest, the most needed, most loved, most adored, for no other reason than he exists, then he comes that much closer to seeing reality for what it is: his true, utterly failing, worthless self.
Now, this doesn’t sound anything like God to me. God is ONE. God is only TRUE (only IS). There is no false self with God. And being a narcissist implies that the person understands CONSCIOUSLY on some level (they are NOT insane…they are just utterly uncaring) that they are deeply flawed, weak and fallible. This is of course impossible for God. Since God can never view Himself as flawed, nor help BE the TRUTH and GOOD which simply IS, which means that He is so TRUE and GOOD that there are no contrasts in Him (no false, no bad…rendering, by definition TRUE and GOOD to be merely GOD). It is impossible for God to be a narcissist because God is ONE, can only ever theologically, philosophically, and metaphysically as ONE. There can never be two Gods. God can never be two selves…and I say this because it is impossible for God to think theoretically. His very thoughts ARE…He cannot have a thought that is not real; all of His thoughts are Him (there is no part of God that is not fully God…any part of God is God completely…e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity), thus if He thinks He is two, then He is two. Impossible. Summary: it’s impossible for God to be a textbook narcissist.
My last point is going to ruffle feathers. I’m sorry, but this is logically supported. And beyond that, the points I make are biblically supported. So: where does it say in the Bible that the most important thing we can do is bring God glory? This is more false Calvinist humility. A humble sounding idea that will almost never be objected to, but which denies God and man on the most basic of levels. First, the greatest good we can do is love God. And how do we do this? By obeying Him. And why is this important? Because it is in obedience to God that we realize OUR OWN true, and free, eternal existence (SELF). The act of obedience is directly, purposefully correlated to OUR success in being OURSELVES; that is, the choice we make to obey and pursue God, and to do it, is the goal of our existence; it is how man can exist utterly and perfectly himself, because God is the very definition of freedom of self, HE is how we do this. God’s glory is a byproduct (a natural and good one) of that obedience to God by people with minds that freely recognize that He is GOOD, and thus, should be pursued. God is not a narcissist because He did NOT create us to FIRST give Him glory. If that were the case, it would imply a narcissistic NEED from God to have praise and glory. God does not need any OBJECT to give Him praise and glory…He is the very definition of self-derived self worth: the complete contrast and utter opposite of narcissism.
So, yes, in general Dan misses the point. He misses it because, once again, Calvinists couch their gnosticism cleverly behind a veil of false humble-sounding doctrine. They are so terrified (or power hungry) to actual concede that humans have any reason or relevance to existence that they will do, ironically, the VERY thing Dan vehemently denies they do in this post: make God a narcissist.
If Dan was being doctrinally consistent, and consistent to his blog, his answer to the question “is God a narcissist” should have been: Of course! Your greatest good is to give God glory. Your only reason for existing is to be God’s constant source of narcissistic supply. You are not human to God the narcissist. You are an object…a vessel only to feed God’s addiction to outside, unwarranted, unearned adulation and praise.
And THAT, in a nutshell, is Calvinism. Calvinism is truly a “textbook” narcissistic religion at its core. (In addition to being nihilist, gnostic, and basically every other pretty bad metaphysical thing that God and Christianity are not).
LikeLike