Aristotle and Happiness

Aristotle is wrong about happiness. I don't care that he is a prominent philosopher. Aristotle teaches in "The Nicomachean Ethics" that happiness is the virtuous activity of the soul and therefore the happy man is one who continues in life until death in this activity. The Bible alone, however, is God's word and it says that "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," - Romans 4. The Christian is made happy by knowing and accepting the gospel as the only means of righteousness before God. As the Westminster Catechism says that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. We do so by knowing and believing the truth. Proverbs says, 13Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. James teaches us that the wisdom of the Christian is from above. And Paul, in 1 Corinthians, says, that God in His wisdom made the world and everything in it. And by God's wisdom the world did not know God. But rather the cross is the wisdom of God.

Clarkian's Revelation and Morality

I have been reading Gordon H. Clark's work Religion, Reason and Revelation in order to under the issues better of Equal Ultimacy which I have slim knowledge of.
It has been good so far, yet some things I have difficulty understanding. Might be worth another read through sometime. But there is a quote from Newman Smyth (I have not heard of him) whom Clark quotes which says, 

Old theology is always becoming new in the vitalizing influence of ethics. . . . It is reason enough for doubting and for restudying any traditional teaching or received word of doctrine if it be felt to harass or confuse the Christian conscience of an age. Nothing can abide as true in theology which does not prove its genuineness under the ever renewed searching of the Christian moral sense. . . . Still less can we allow in Christian ethics any dogmatic belief which would put in bonds the Christian ethical principle itself; as, for instance, the tenet that morality is dependent upon the divine will. . . . Christian ethics cannot consent to commit suicide in any supposed interest of theology.

Clark does not agree with the quote (Neither do I). But he says the reason why is that Smyth separates as Kant and Plato does the truth and the practical. That is truth is set in one arena while ethics is what matters here and now. That the practical is the judge of what is true based upon what the quote says is interesting. It kind of informed me that as a Christian I am to be both the dispenser of truth and while also (not watering the truth down) but showing its practicalness or applying the very truth to the hearers of truth.

On the End of the Christian Life by Tobias Crisp

"But you will say further to me (for, except a man be a mere Papist, I am sure he cannot deny but that the righteousness by which I stand righteous before GOD, is the righteousness Christ doth for me, and not that I do for myself, you will ask me, I say, Doth not this take off all manner of obedience and all manner of holiness?
I answer, and thus much I say, It takes them off from those ends which they aim at in their obedience: namely, The end for which Christ’s obedience served: as much as to say, Our standing righteousness, by what Christ hath done for us, concerns us in point of justification, consolation, and salvation. We have our justification, our peace, our salvation, only by the righteousness Christ hath done for us: but this doth not take away our obedience, nor our services, in respect of those ends for which such are now required of believers. We have yet several ends for duties and obedience, namely, That they may glorify God, and evidence our thankfulness, that they may be profitable to men, that they may be ordinances wherein to meet with God, to make good what he hath promised." Tobias Crisp (Found this one on a website)

Some might say that Tobias Crisp was Antinomian. I do not think so. But again I have not read his works as of yet. I recently bought his Christ Alone Exalted. So I am looking forward to that.

What is the cheif end of Man?

"Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever."


Lee Williams - Chapter and verse?
 
Mark Austin - I think Kirk was quoting the first question of the Westminster Catechism. It provides biblical references.
Man's chief end is to glorify God (1Cor. 10:31; Rom. 11:36) and enjoy Him forever (Ps. 73:24-26; Jn. 17:24-26).
 
Lee Williams - I knew the origin of the quotation. I question that the context of those passages will support the interpretations of the Westminster Confession. The 1st Cor. and Romans passages do not speak of glorification as the "chief end" of mankind, nor can the end of "enjoying" God be derived from the passages from Psalms and John.
 
Mark Austin - Mr. Williams, fair enough. I take this as an opportunity to learn. So, wIth all respect, what is the chief end of man? Or even, Is there a chief end of man?
 
Lee Williams - Perhaps we could clarify purpose by looking at the words of God in Gen. 1:26-28. It would seem that part of our "chief end" is to display the purposive understanding of the image of God.
 
Mark Austin - I can see how Gen. 1:28 could be seen as purposive. Yet, that is far from a chief purpose of man. The question remains, is there no chief purpose of man? Based upon your response, is it then better to look at each imperative given to humanity in order to determine man's purpose(s)? As for Gen. 1:26f, that is a statement of ontology *not* teleology. Are you grounding man's teleology in his ontology?
 
Lee Williams - It would seem to me that, teleologically, man was to represent God to the creation, since man was created in the image of God. This is possible because, ontologically, God is the Creator and Sustainer of that creation.
 
Mark Austin - I agree with you. So then, in light of Gen. 3 and say Jn. 1 what are the new teleological implications for man (especially in light of the ontology and teleology of Jesus)?