"For God so loved Himself?" Is God a Narcissist?
I was recently reading through the proofs of a new book on New Testament Theology, and it was stated that the most basic theme or thesis of NT theology is --'God magnifying himself through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit'.
There were various nuances and amplifications to the discussion, but the more one read, the more it appeared clear that God was being presented as a self-centered, self-referential being, whose basic motivation for what he does, including his motivation for saving people, is so that he might receive more glory. Even the sending of the Son and the work of the Spirit is said to be but a means to an end of God's self-adulation and praise.
What's wrong with this picture? How about the basic understanding of God's essential and moral character?
For instance, suppose this thesis stated above is true-- would we not expect John 3.16 to read "for God so loved himself that he gave his only begotten Son..."?
Or again if this thesis is true, would we not expect Phil. 2.5-11 to read differently when it speaks about Christ emptying himself? If the Son is the very image and has the same character as the Father, wouldn't we expect this text to say--'who being in very nature God, devised a plan to glorify himself through his incarnation' if God really is so self-referential? In other words I am arguing Christ, the perfect image of God's character, reveals that God's character is essentially other directed self-sacrificial love. God loves people, not merely as means to his own ends, but as ends in themselves.
Or take Heb. 12.2-- we are told that Jesus died for our sins, not 'for the glory set before him', and in view of how this would improve his honor rating but rather 'for the joy set before him'. That is, he despised the shame of dying on the cross, which death was the least self-glorifying thing he could do, because he knew of how it would benefit his people thereafter, and he took joy in that fact.
Or re-read Hosea 11 where God explains that his love for his people is not at all like the fickle, self-seeking love of mere human beings. But rather God keeps loving his children, whether they praise or love or worship him or not.
Let me be clear that of course the Bible says it is our obligation to love, praise, and worship God, but this is a very different matter from the suggestion that God worships himself, is deeply worried about whether he has enough glory or not, and his deepest motivation for doing anything on earth is so that he can up his own glory quotient, or magnify and praise himself.
If we go back to the Garden of Eden story, one immediately notices that it is the Fall and sin which turned Adam and Eve into self-aware, self-centered, self-protecting beings. This is not how God had created them. Rather, he had created them in the divine image, and that divine image involves other directed, other centered love and relating. It follows from this that not the fallen narcissistic tendencies we manifest reflect what God is really like, but rather other directed, self-giving loving tendency.
I like the remark of Victor Furnish that God's love is not like a heat-seeking missile attracted to something inherently attractive in this or that person. Rather God's other-directed love bestows worth, honor, even glory. Notice exactly what Psalm 8.5 says--God has made us but a little less than God (or another reading would be, 'than the angels') and crowned human beings with glory and honor. Apparently this does not subtract from God's glory (see vs. 1) but simply adds to it. God it would appear is not merely a glory grabber, but rather a glory giver.
I suppose we should not be surprised that in a culture and age of narcissism, we would recreate God in our own self-centered image, but it is surprising when we find orthodox Christians, and even careful scholars doing this.
posted by Ben Witherington at 4:53 PM
103 Comments:
I'm curious: was the writer in question was from a Reformed background?
Ben,
You said, "Even the sending of the Son and the work of the Spirit is said to be but a means to an end of God's self-adulation and praise." Sadly, this is not a sentiment isolated to this particular book draft you were reading through. I spent my teenage years in the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) and at a PCA college and I can tell you that they would totally identify with a statement like this. The basic idea for them is that God does everything for his own glory and it's not an uncommon view in reformed circles so your post is more relevant than maybe you even know. But you're pretty in tune with theological circles so I'm sure you are and that's probably one thing that prompted you to post this. It sounds like something R.C. Sproul or John Piper would say. Nothing against them. They have very important roles in American Christianity, but this particular idea of God needs some rethinking by them and their ilk.
AMEN!!! I actually just wrote a paper on Piper's "Let the Nations Be Glad" for a class in seminary. This was his very thesis of the book (and every other book he has ever written). "The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy himself forever".
Have we really become so distorted into thinking that God is this narcissitic self-centered being that is all caught up in himself and does everything for his glory. This makes me feel depressed and like crap. It makes me feel like God doesn't love me or care for me. Ben's comment on this being a sign of our age is exactly right. Simply because Jonathan Edwards says this does not make it true.
God loves people and does not do everything to glorify himself. If there were a characteristic to describe Jesus, it would be humility. If Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15 I believe), then this belief about God is completely anti-biblical. God being into himself is anything but humble.
Piper likes to quote his proof-texts from the psalms particularly (not quite the theological genre of literature), and he thinks statement like "For my name's sake" and "for my glory" indicates God as doing everything for himself. What he does not see is that God wants all to come to know him (1 tim 2:4), and when people do things to degrade and slander his name, it puts this in jeopardy. God cares about his name and wants his people to represent it for the purpose of the nations coming to know him, not for the purpose of him being narcissistic and egotistical. God loves people, period, and when we read scripture and can't see that then we have some seriously distorted lenses we're viewing scripture from.
Dr. Witherington, I assume you're probably talking about Dr. Schreiner's upcoming NT theology text. If you are, then I'm not suprised, because he, Piper, and many other Reformed individuals are all on the same page.
If I may disagree, I find that God's primary motive in doing what he does (including loving creatures) is to glorify himself. How could God want to glorify something outside himself? Would that not be to betray his own supreme worthiness? Is man really worthy to be glorified?
Actually, besides venting, I have a serious question for you Dr. Witherington. How do you take the last phrase of Colossians 1:16 that says all things were created through Christ and for Christ? I take that to mean for his glory, but would you disagree? How do you take the word for there?
Dr. Witherington,
I'm not sure how I found your blog a few weeks ago, but you're in my favorites and I'm really enjoying reading your thoughts.
My first thought was, "Was the author John Piper, or one of his heroes?" :)
I used to struggle with this "hyper" self focus. I have sense landed somewhere in the middle, partly because of Ephesians 1, which I would love to hear you comment on...the nature and works of God concluded by 2 phrases "to the praise of his glory."
Man was created to be the image of God, instructed to be fruitful and multiply, therefore spreading the image of God throughout the earth. This was repeated in the Great Commission to make disciples. Obviously there is greater good from the earth being filled with God's glory than man's. I believe that God himself knew this. Not that he is so self-centered, but knowing that the greatest gift to us is actually himself. What else could God do but so boldly proclaim himself.
However, I do agree that part of what makes the concept of God so glorious is his self-sacrificial love. I appreciate hypothetical spin on the on those NT and OT texts that reminds of his heart for us. Great insight.
I am not submitting these thoughts, but rather hoping for your further comment. Like, I said, I'm enjoying your blog. Besides, I'm not even a full-time student. I'm currently in a distance program at DTS, so the more profs teaching me and the less tuition I have to pay, the better. :)
Grace & peace,
jon owen
It is honestly irrelevant what the writer in question's background is. We should discuss ideas on the basis of their soundness and consonance with the Bible, or not, not make the issue one of personalities.
Col. 1.16 mentions nothing about glory at all. The issue is the origin of all things (from the one who is the image of the invisible God) and the end of all things (for him).
Let's take an analogy. I have a good friend who created a beautiful drawing especially for me. He did not create it to glorify me or to glorify himself, he did it simply because he was a friend and wanted to express his love. He created it so that I would have something that belonged to me which came from him.
Similarly, all of creation was created 'for him', that is in order to belong to Christ. The issue of glorification, whether self-glorification or some other sort is not raised by this verse.
If you ask the question how could God want to glorify something outside of himself, then of course you are not paying attention to what Psalm 8 says which says he crowned us with glory.
Furthermore, the NT is all about our coming to share in glory--- look at 2 Cor. 4.17-- 'our light and momentary sufferings are achieving an eternal glory for us that outweighs the suffering'. What Paul is referring to is our regaining the glory we lost in the fall, by being conformed to the image of God's Son.
The glorification of human beings is completed when we are raised from the dead and are finally fully conformed to the image of our Savior.
Notice as well that our glorification is not only intended by God in 2 Cor. 4, it brings God glory to do this for us. In other words this is not a zero sum game-- you are not subtracting from God's glory by talking about the numerous passages in the Bible which talk about God sanctifying. loving, honoring, and yes glorifying us, not in the sense of praising us, but in the sense of making us like God's Son both inwardly and outwardly.
BW3
When I was an undergraduate, I came across this rather disturbing theology in a campus ministry. Actually, I felt that it was more like a cult than a ministry, but that is somewhat beside the point.
This organization was extremely missions oriented, to the extent that some of the leadership attempted to make people feel guilty for going to college to learn, instead of going to college with the sole objective of using collgee to proselytize. Aside from unbelievable guilt trips, the primary argument for such things tended to be that doing so increases God's glory. This idea was that God is so glorious that he deserves worship -- something which I do not dispute -- but also, as you here describe, that everything God does is to bring glory to himself. I thought that this was strange. (Interestingly, they were huge fans of Pipe, whom someone here has already cited).
There were some hyper-Calvinists among the people in this group, as well, and they, like Augustine before them, seemed to think that sending people to eternal torment increased God's glory somehow. I suppose that, under their system, it would have to. I was happy to read someone's exposing this for what it is. It is not only fallacious but dangerous to say that something which God does (or supposedly is) is somehow good simply because he does it. I think that that kind of reasoning is one of multifarious reasons that we have doctrines such as these.
The only thing that I doubt here is the notion that this is something new. I think that this kind of reasoning has been around for ages, in various forms, perhaps even before Jesus, and particularly in any doctrine which takes as an assumption God is some kind of a distanct, egomanical monarch.
I also thought of John Piper almost immediately, though I think this goes much further than what he would say.
It seems to me the way God brings glory to himself is by loving and blessing others, and by enacting redemption. It's not as if God has in mind the primary motive of bringing glory to himself. Of course, if all creation comes to be brought to right relationship with God and worships God as he should be worshiped, then yes God will be glorified - clearly. But it seems to me... not incidental so much as as it is an inevitable consequence, a result of the proper harmony between God and creation.
It's not unlike how I see the relation between the early church and the Roman empire - I don't see their proclamation of Christ as Lord as necessarily intended first and foremost to impinge on Caesar's claim to lordship. I see them primarily intending to affirm positively Jesus' status as Lord. But there can be no doubt that a necessary consequence of proclaiming Jesus as Lord necessarily implies saying any other claimants to the position are illegitimate.
I cannot of course comment on the intent of the author quoted by Dr Witherington, but I suspect it is problematic to identify God glorifying himself, or the Spirit glorifying Jesus, with God being a narcissist.
Narcissism is a pathological condition and as such cannot exist in God. Not all self-love is narcissistic.
I think that what we need to realize is that the Bible does not contain everything there is to know about God, but only what God judged fit for us to know and what is necessary for us to love and follow him.
I am sure that there are depths to the motivation God has for doing everything he does which go way beyond what has been revealed to us; a temptation in theology is to state, in our summaries or systematic theologies, more than has actually be revealed, or to narrow God down to what has been revealed, thinking that this is all there is to God.
Thus, the author quoted seems to fall prey to that temptation when he reduces God's motivation to increasing his own glory. But we need to beware against falling prey to this temptation ourselves when we imply that God's love would somehow be invalidated or deficient if his glory were also part of his motivation for his love for us. That would be true if God were but a man, but he is not -- he is God, and we cannot even begin to really comprehend his motivation and more generally, the working of his mind.
Another text worth thinking about is of course 'Christ in you, the hope of glory'. Here clearly the reference is to human beings obtaining glory in the future. God doesn't hope for glory, God is simply glorious. Here again we find the Pauline notion of the glorification of human beings at the eschaton, of which Christ's living presence in us gives a foretaste and thus produces hope for such a consummation.
BW3
To get my bias out of the way, I would roughly concur with the picture of God's motivation alluded to in your post. I have replies to two of your scriptural citations.
First, John 3:16 is not an adequate rebuttal of the idea in question. No necessary conflict between God's love of himself and God's love of his creation exists. Consider Eph 2:1-10. Verses 1-6 detail humanity's fall into sin and God's gracious saving activity among fallen humanity. Verse 7, however, amends a purpose to this activity: "so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." God is magnifying his grace throughout all eternity by his kindness to us. Verses 8-10 are the grounds of this truth. Because God saves by grace and because we are his workmanship, God gets the glory in the salvation of humans.
Second, the Phil 2 passage does, contrary to your post, mention glory as a motivation. Because of Christ's active obedience, God will exalt him. The purpose/result of this exaltation is the pervasive praising of Christ among all humanity.
Finally, we must be careful using narcissism as a caricature for this position. When the narcissist label is used for a human, a negative connotation results. People are disgusted with narcissists because these people do not deserve the attention and adoration that they apply to themselves (e.g. "he ain't all that").
However, this connotation would not be fitting for God. He is, in fact, the being than which no greater can be conceived. Therefore, because of all his perfections, he deserves adoration and attention.
This proposal--that God's perfections merit God's devotion to himself--is the basis for many affirmations of God's devotion to his glory. In fact, Piper, who has been mentioned in many comments, produces this sort of argument, but his source is Jonathan Edwards's The End for Which God Created the World, wherein Edwards argues that for God to be righteous he must chiefly regard himself.
One must admit that it is not a long step from the concept that 'everything God does glorifies Him' to the concept that 'everything God does is FOR THE PURPOSE of glorifying Him'.
Ben, you haven't dealt with Jon Owen's question about Ephesians 1. That amazing long Greek sentence says that all of our salvation has been done "to the praise of the glory of his grace."
Further, I've always thought of magnifying relatively literally, as in "making something appear more clearly visible."
Ironic that you bring up Hosea, where God passionately blasts his people for not loving him despite how much he loves them.
God's not a egotist. He's a jilted Lover! It is not narcissistic for a groom to want his bride's love. It is the most natural thing imaginable.
I don't like the idea of God being presented as self-centered. SElf-referential, sure. He is the major character in the story. I also don't like the idea that his "basic motivation... is so that he might receive more glory."
That is the natural result of God's actions, and while I can understand a certain amount of confusion between natural result and primary motivation, I cannot understand how a group of theologians could read through the NT and conclude that "glory-seeking" is God's prime motive.
in HIS love,
Nick
i, too, had similar thoughts as most of the commenters regarding the theology that usually espouses this line of thinking. i never could get on board with reformed thinkers in this regard (or in many other regards, really). in fact, someone who follows Piper, et al once told me that "God gets glory out of sending people to hell" and I don't know if I have ever heard a more repulsive statement!
You wrote that “God’s character is essentially other directed self-sacrificial love. I totally agree with that. Even before creation God’s love was other oriented. The intra-Trinitarian love that the Father has for the Son, and the Son for the Father, has always been other oriented. We are told multiple times that the Father loves the son. And it seems that this intra-Trinitarian love is the basis for God’s love for us. “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you”. Since the intra-Trinitarian love is other oriented (the Father wants to glorify the Son and the Son wants to obey the Father) and because God is one, is there not a way in which God’s love for the Son is also a self love or a self focus?
How would that relate to God’s love for us? Is there a way in which God’s love for us is related to God’s self love or a self focus?
For God to admit that he is not the center of everything is hard for me to understand. It seems against the very thing that makes him God.
Ephesians 1 does not say that everything that is created or everything that is redeemed is done FOR God's glory. The phrase doing something 'to the glory of God' has a very specific meaning in ANE culture namely that it is done in a way that comports with God's character, brings honor to God's name. This is very different from Owen's notions about Ephes. 1. It's one thing to say that God acts with integrity and in a manner that is consistent with his character and should lead humans to praise God, it is another thing to say that God's motive for doing such things is applause, or so that he could have more glory.
And while we are at it-- the Trinity is certainly not solely self-referential. In particular NT Christology is a clear refutation of this-- Christ came for our benefit and our behalf to rescue us. A by product of that is that God is glorified by such actions-- but the purpose of the coming and the object of the action was not either for God to add to his impressive resume, nor to bump up the praise quotient so God could have more glory.
BW3
I appreciate that you all are discussing this issue. But rather than base our statements on past experience ("those 'hyper-calvinists'" or choosing Apollos or Paul (or Piper or non-Piper)) or stating what scripture hypothetically could have said (i.e. "for God so loved himself") or starting with philosophical positions instead of scripture--can we look at texts to support arguments?
If Ben is right, then how do we explain Isaiah 48? (I am not saying it can't be explained--I simply want to know how we explain that God is not aiming to glorify himself in this passage.)
Isaiah 48:9-11 (ESV)
"For my name's sake I defer my anger,for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. [10] Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver;
I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. [11] For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another."
Doesn't God argue in v 9 that he is compassionate and merciful to them for the sake of HIS praise?
I'm not a huge John Piper follower but I do think that a lot of what has been said is not accurate, lets be careful before we put words into his mouth, Luke. He says, "the cheif end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever."
I still think the point we're discussing is motive. Let's start at the beginning.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Before there was anyone but the triune God watching, God created. Everything else flows from that. God's motive has not changed since before creation. His motive is still love.
However, one cannot underestimate the awesome and totally healthy love for himself that God possesses. If he does not love himself perfectly, he cannot love the "neighbors" he has created perfectly.
God doesn't want applause in itself. He wants love.
What about this?
IF the best possible life for humanity is a God-glorifying life;
AND IF God wants what is best for humanity;
THEN by wanting what is best for us, God wants himself to be glorified.
Again, the question is one of motive. We are mixing human ideas of megalomania, narcissism, and tyranny with our understanding of the mind of the one true God whose glory will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. Should he pretend to be other than what he is?
God FIRST wants what he knows is best for creation. Ironically (one might even say serendipitously), what is best for us is to glorify him with our lives.
Simply put, God does not seek glory for glory's sake. He seeks glory for OUR sake. From a human, that would be facetious at best. From the Worthy One, it is trustworthy.
in HIS love,
Nick
Thanks for pointing to Isaiah 48, which should be part of this discussion. These verses are not a random comment on God's jealousness about his own name and protecting his good name. They are a comment on the way God is relating to Israel. More specifically the issue is that Israel's behavior reflects either well or badly on Yahweh. Notice how in Is. 48.4ff. God refers to their going after pagan idols and images etc. The problem is this--- if God were to fully execute his wrath on Israel their pagan captors would say-- 'see Yahweh is no god as he could not protect his people' Therefore, here Yahweh says that he must act to protect his own good name. Notice as well, however that we are told that the other reason God doesn't fully exercise his wrath on Israel is that he does not want them to be utterly destroyed.
The issue here then is not God glorifying himself per se, but rather God not wanting his name defamed through either the bad behavior of Israel or the destruction of Israel, both of which would lead to 'defamation of the divine character'. In short, this is an honor and shame passage which assumes a collectivist understanding of things such that 'if the child is shamed or acts shamefully it besmirches the parents name'.
BW3
But Ben,
What the "honor and shame" paradigm presupposes is that it is in the best interests of the child to honor and glorify the parent.
Or, covenantally speaking, it is in the best interest of the client to glorify the lord.
With a human patron, this is clearly a risky proposition. But it is altogether true with God.
Nick
You seem to be missing the point altogether Nick. The desire to protect the honor of one's name is by no means the same issue as the desire to 'glorify' one's self in the modern sense. The problem here is the anachronistic importation of western notions about glory and self-glorification by latter day Reformers into an ancient text.
BW3
Ben-
Nick commented on the motivation of God. What would you say is the motivation of God? Edwards would say that for God, though his ultimate motivation is to glorify himself, his penultimate motivation is love for lost sinners (among others). So yes, Ps. 8 describes us as getting glory. But to what end?
I doubt you would say that God is not in it to get glory. But how does this motivate him? To a large degree? To a lesser degree than his love for us? It seems that your answer to this question will be helpful.
Thanks.
-Ryan
Dr. Witherington, thanks for this post. Something has always bothered me about that type of reasoning about God's glory, but I was unable to name what it was. You put words to my discomfort with that type of theology. Now that you mentioned it, it seems so obvious, but sometimes that type of theology sounds so pious and reverent that it is an easy trap to fall into.
God is concerned about the integrity and honor of his name. When a text speaks of God glorifying himself or acting in a fashion that amounts to this, this is what we are talking about. We are not talking about love, or self-love at all.
Furthermore, the love shared between members of the Trinity is not really a form of self-love, in the sense that we might talk about loving ourselves as we love our neighbors. There are three different persons in the Godhead, not just one, and when one member of the Godhead loves another-- say the Father loves the Son or vice versa, we are dealing with inter-personal relating. This too has nothing to do with God glorifying his name.
Glory in the Hebrew Kabod, in the Greek doxa, in the primary sense refers to the divine presence, hence the Shekinah glory. It can also refer to the light emminating from the divine presence as well. For example when in John 1 we hear that Christ's glory has been seen, this is not a reference to witnessing his self-adulation. It refers to seeing the one in whom the divine presence dwells.
Blessings,
BW3
Shea Cole,
Before you make claims about misquoting Piper, try to catch up on his works. In "Let the Nations Be Glad", I think around page 23 and many other pages, Piper makes the claim that "The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy himself forever". He said he is adding to the westminster catechism which states "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever".
So Piper says exactly these words, not just in "Let the Nations Be Glad", but in virtually every book he has ever written (since they're all basically the same, he's ripped me off like 3 times). I am not putting words into Piper's mouth when I make this statement, rather I am quoting something he precisely says...numerous times.
It is this statement that worries me so much about our view of God, b/c the statement in itself is a very narcissistic, egotistical statement about our Father...2 qualities I believe the Father (nor son or spirit) does not possess.
We can quote proof-texts all day and make the Bible say anything we want it to (Isaiah 48), the tough part is building a biblical theology (rather than an informal systematic theology that does injustice to the individual authors) and then building a consensus on the whole character of God. The mistake we have made in evangelicalism is believing everything Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards said. While they said many good things, they were fundamentally flawed about this aspect of God.
The other problem we have is believing everything Piper says. For some reason, he is absolutely admired among people my age (college-age and mid-20s), I assume partly b/c the Passion movement and partly b/c pastor's quote his works thus giving them authority from the pulpit. I have the utmost respect for the man, he lives right and is a radical follower of Jesus Christ. However, he has some serious theological problems, particularly this belief.
So, I'm not trying to be unkind, but next time you claim that I am misquoting an author, make sure you are familiar with what that author has said and believes. In this instance, this particular belief and statement is extremely prevalent in all of Piper's works.
Luke
I guess I don't see the necessity of an either/or approach in talking about God's purposes (EITHER He does what He Does for His own glory OR He does it out of other-oriented selfless love) any more than I see the necessity of an either/or approach to the doctrines of God's sovereignty and human responsibility. I think that both are taught in Scripture and I think that, in light of the Trinitarian nature of our God (He IS relationship as well as having relationship with us), even when He seeks His own glory, He does it in a self-giving rather than a self-seeking kind of way. The key to understanding God's seeking His own glory as something other than narcissism is to always keep His Triune nature in mind. If God was the God of Isalm or Unitarianism, His seeking His own glory would be narcissisitc, but this is a false view of God. God is a relationship in His very essence and so there is a mutual bestowing/receiving of glory amongst the three persons of the Godhead.
"God's love is not like a heat-seeking missile attracted to something inherently attractive in this or that person. Rather God's other-directed love bestows worth, honor, even glory."
Your blogs are a tad more academic than I'm used to, which is great--thank you for this quote. I am glad to have found your site.
-Allie
I'm still waiting for Dr Witherington to respond to someone's point about Philippians 2:5-11. Dr Witherington, you quote this passage as if it ends with Christ's self-sacrifice, but in reality, it ends with God exalting Christ, who is confessed by all as Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This is also a good indication of the false dichotomy that you have set up: that God can't act out of the motivation of loving others and the motivation of His own glory. And it's an unfair characterization of the opposing position (not to mention Christian brothers & sisters).
Hi Danny:
Look again at the text of Phil. 2.5-11. God actually gave glory to the God-man Jesus on the basis of his obedience even unto death on the cross. And far from glorifying the God-man causing a subtracting from the glory of the Father, it added to it.
But here's the catch. God is not glorifying the divine nature of the Son of God-- this is not an example of the divine nature of the Father glorifying the divine nature of the Son.
What does the text say-- the Son stripped himself of his having of equality with God (or as I would prefer to put it, he put the divine prerogatives on hold without setting aside his divine nature), and took on fully the nature of a human being, and even a servant amongst human beings.
Now I sincerely doubt you would want to argue that God the Son's divine nature died on the cross. So the question is-- why has God exalted the God-man who was obedient even unto death? Not because of something he did in his divine nature, but for something he did in his human nature, indeed could only do in his human nature, since the divine nature is bullet proof.
Are you getting the drift here? Christ is Adam gone right, obedient even unto death. He is the true human being dying on the cross for our sins. 'Ecce homo...' God has exalted Jesus for his actions as the God-man, more specifically for his human actions including death. And when God glorifies the God-man in this way, it does not detract but rather adds to the glory of the Father.
In other words, we must notice that it is at the name of Jesus, (the human name the Son acquired at his birth, not his divine title), that every knee must bow, and call this human one Lord, risen Lord.
Now again, Jesus risen is an example of something that can happen to a human being. God can neither be killed nor raised in the divine nature. The exaltation happens because of the obedience unto death and through death comes the resurrection.
In short, we are talking about Christ being the clear example of the glorification of a human being at his best, and further more, when Paul talks about our being conformed to the image of the risen Son in Rom. 8 and 1 Cor. 15, this is precisely what he pre-supposes.
QED-- this text is not about God the Father in his divine nature glorifying God the Son in his divine nature. Exaltation comes for what he did as truly and fully human for he was like us in all respects, save without sin.
Blessings,
Ben W.
Dr. Witherington,
Was Jesus not fully God as well? When God the Father turned His back on Jesus, was He turning His back on His Son or on a man. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
Was His death not Spiritual as well? He did not come to save us from physical death but spiritual death. So, if He only "died" physically the the spiritual death has not been paid.
John 17:1 - 5 (KJV) These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Was Jesus fully human BEFORE the world? He obviously had the glory before he was human. Did Jesus ask for Himself to be glorified as a MAN or as He WAS BEFORE the world?
Of course Jesus was fully God as well as fully human, as the NT teaches. But that is irrelevant in these texts as glory is interestingly associated with his human actions.
And yes, in regard to Jn. 17 it looks like what we are talking about there is God glorifying the Son's human actions namely his coming death, since he already had the divine presence and hence was glorious by nature in that sense. Jn. 17 then is much like Phil. 2 in this regard.
BW3
Dr Witherington, unfortunately, you didn't deal with the part I was most concerned about- namely, the ending of this passage: that all this happened to the glory of God the Father.
Now, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying in your response. The point, however, is that it doesn't deal with the issue at hand. I'm not denying that God glorified Jesus for what He did on this earth; I don't disagree that God the Father shares His glory with God the Son. And I certainly don't disagree with the fact that we, too, will experience the glorification that the Son has secured for us.
But none of that has anything to do with what I pointed out, that you haven't dealt with the climax of Phil 2:5-11: that Christ is exalted and confessed as Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Dr. Witherington,
I believe you are missing one important aspect of His perfect human side. Did He not rely TOTALLY on the Holy Spirit to live this perfect life?
Who gets the glory...the Giver (Holy Spirit) or the receiver (His human nature)? It has been my experience and belief that the Giver gets the glory because it is only due to Him that He lived the perfect human life. If Jesus did not have the Divine nature He could not have lived the perfect human life...just as we can't and must lean totally on Jesus' righteousness for our righteousness.
Based on this, who is actually being glorified? His human nature or His divine nature?
Everything God does always glofifies Him, but that it not His motive. How can God get more glory than absolute glory? His actions reflect His glory, but His motive is love.
After all is distilled and sifted, the entire subject is a magnificent mystery regardless of how we attempt to neatly package it withing the organized pages of our systematic theology.
I think your treatment of verses is pretty one-sided in your post. You've also made a straw man of your opponent I think. If I'm guessing the opposing view's authors, I think you have misrepresented the full depiction of the issue at stake here.
All sides agree God loves mankind. The question is why? Is there something inherently good that makes us loveable? Or is there something inherently good in God that makes Him loving? I think the latter is the Bible's answer. Now that makes God more glorious, because He loves us because of Himself, rather than because of ourselves.
"he predestined us for adoption through Jesus CHrist...to the priase of his glorious grace." Eph 1:5-6
It's not a conflict in these peoples theologies between the glory of God and the love of God, its all about primacy. But I'm sure you know that.
If God is the best thing in the universe, if He promotes Himself as first to us, He is giving us the best He can. Maybe I don't see the problem of having a self-promoting God, but I welcome it. I don't want a God who is all about me and my feelings, my heart is wicked and wants self-worship. I worship myself too much, I don't need God joining in on my idolatry.
The quote does seem to be from John Piper, or someone influenced by him.
I'm not going to jump into the fray over individual verses, but I do think a false dichotomy is being made here between God desiring glory to accrue to Himself alone, and for His love to be outward focused. I heard Piper give his presentation in 1998 at my church (without the Calvinism) and I thought it was very biblical. (I still have the tapes, even though I disagree with Piper on soooo much.)
Piper's argument was that God MUST seek His own glory in our lives, as it is the MOST loving thing (towards us) that He can do. God's essential nature (love, outwardly focused) is expressed in ways that always bring Himself more glory, because if He expressed Himself in a way that brought someone else more glory and Himself less glory, then it would not be the most loving thing He could do for us.
My understanding was that God's glorifying Christ because of actions performed while incarnated as a man did not invalidate the basic concept. And Piper's explanation of it in no way painted God as narcissistic or self-focused. He is completely focused on others because it is His nature, but this love is expressed in ways that bring Himself the most glory because that is the most loving thing He can do.
(Ugh, I hate systematic theology. Can't we talk about something more fun like eschatological dualism or the synoptic problem?)
God bless you,
Happy Thanksgiving,
Chuck
This puzzle has always been interesting to me. I always thought it interesting why God should care so deeply about his own glory. Wittgenstein believed most of the problems of all philosophy were really all problems of language. I wonder if something similar is not also the case here. The puzzle for me has always been what does it mean for God to be glorified or to get glory?
First, I considered if God could get more glory in an ontological sense. For example, could He become more glorious than He was before? I think not. And most of the people who hold to this “glory” motif would agree. God is perfect and as such can not be improved in any way.
Therefore, I figured it must be in some kind of epistemic sense. That God getting glory must be in some sense related to someone recognizing or understanding how glorious God already is. Now, this growth in knowledge couldn’t be in God Himself. Because He already has perfect knowledge of how glorious He is. So, it appears to me that God getting glory can only mean human beings (or other created things) coming to a knowledge or recognition of how Great, Glorious, Awesome, Powerful, and Beautiful God already is. And the things He does glorify Him because they reveal who He is to the world.
But who benefits from God getting the glory? Is this for God’s benefit? Was God somehow unhappy or suffer from a low depression and needed some affirmation from humans in order to boost His self-esteem? Again, I think not. God is already perfect and self-sufficient. Therefore, it seems that the only people who benefit from God being recognized and shown to be God are human beings (or other created things: ie angels).
In conclusion, I don’t necessarily think the “God does EVERYTHING for His own glory” anthem is necessarily correct. Nevertheless, I don’t see how it is possible to claim that God doing things for His own glory is self-serving or narcissistic since it is only others who benefit from His being glorified. Rather, it appears, He does things for His own glory out of His missional character and grace. (Perhaps it may be better to say “God does everything He does because of Everything He is). I think much of the problem stems from the fact that these “glory” statements are worded in ways that appear to favor a self-serving interest, and then, like me, people are more puzzled than anything else. This is unfortunate and unnecessary. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.
The phrase "narcissism of God" suggests that God has an opinion of Himself? Does He? If so, it must be correct. Does God wish us to share that opinion?
JPM,
Well said! God only loves us because He wants to glorify His grace! Else, why would He have even created a world and allow sin to supposedly reign in it?
Without sin their is no grace or mercy!
Paul k,
This is a pretty clear "opinion" that God has about Himself:
Exodus 20:1 - 7 (KJV) And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
I commend the comments of Chip below, from the philosophical side of this discussion.
To Danny I say, of course all this was done in a fashion that brought praise to God. But something being done 'to the glory of the Father' is not the same as saying something was done 'for' much less 'exclusively for the glory of the Father'. The grammatical construction here does not warrant such a conclusion.
To JPM I would say there is indeed a reason why God loves us that is not simply because of God's nature. It is because we are all creatures of sacred worth, made in God's image.
God loves us in one sense for the same reason he loves Jesus-- we bear God's image and are of inherent sacred worth because of this fact. We of course since the fall are only God's adopted children while Jesus is the only begotten Son, but nevertheless God loves his offspring, like any good parent would.
In other words, it is false to say that God loves us simply because God is wonderful.
Finally, in regard to Ephes. 1.5-6 , itis part of a larger discussion about Christ being the elect one of God. We have 'in Him' and 'for Him' clauses repeatedly. Notice for example the end of vs. 6-- 'which he has freely given us IN THE ONE HE LOVES'.
Election is a concept applied here in the first instance to Jesus himself, not to us in any primary sense. We are only elect in so far as we are in Christ, the Elect One. It was the Son who was chosen before the foundations of the world, as he was the only one who existed back then, not us.
The failure to come to grips with the fact that election is a corporate concept which only happens in Christ, and when the author wants to talk about how one gets 'into Christ' he speaks of salvation by grace through faith, is a significant failure. Salvation is by grace, but through the free response of faith, not some other means, such as predetermination of individuals to be saved, which is not what this passage is about.
Those who are already in Christ the elect one are indeed destined in advance to be conformed to the Son's image, as Rom. 8 says, but that is another matter.
Finally, God's glorious grace is not the same thing as God's glory.
Blessings,
Ben W.
A friend of mine defines God's glory as "any manifestation of God's revelation of himself." If that is true, shouldn't we rather think that God does what he does, both automatically and intentionally, for his glory? And is this necessarily vanity? Couldn't it be grace to all creation that he reveals himself (is glorified) particularly in the satisfaction (Piper's term) of his people in him? I do struggle with the concept of Christian Hedonism, but mostly because I'm not up to the task.
How's this for rephrasing the question:
The Scriptures seem pretty clear that God is of his nature glorious, and that his actions will therefore (as all expressions of his nature do) bring him glory.
The question: Does this mean that God does all for his glory, or does this mean God does all out of his mercy/justice/righteousness/etc., and thus demonstrates his glory?
The distinction is important because it gets at the fundamental idea of the knowability of God. Calvinists often complain that they're judged by the standard of "hypercalvinists," but I do think one of the dangers of being so insistent on "the chief end of God is to glorify God" is a tendency to place God's (unknowable) glory above his (clearly defined) other virtues.
I just don't see the Scriptural call to do this.
i think Jon Owens comments were getting very close to the truth, if not right on it. God is the greatest gift (and His grace as well).He is the greatest being, the author of ALL being that is expressed in His name- "I AM."
i dont think God made creation as a gigantic mirror to adore Himself in- but we do Glorify Him and His Being- and this is for the nations. So that they can see and know that there is "I AM" and that the hopelessness of a lost world isnt all that there is.
i.e. Gods desire to Glorify Himself is not for His benefit, but for ours.
But there are many passages in Ezekiel where God says he acts not for Israel's sake but for the sake of his name. So the position you are critiquing, Dr. Witherington, has support within a certain strand of biblical tradition, though I can understand your problems with it.
I have a question that should clear things up for me.
Should God be praised when He sends people to hell?
Let's assume that it's judgment day and God divides those who are in Christ from those who aren't, then He takes them and throws them into Hell. Should God be praised for doing such a thing?
I am sorry but saying "God only loves us because he wishes to glorify his grace" is an utterly indefensible remark if one actually does the exegesis on the passages in the NT that refer to God's love for the world, his creatures, believers, and creation in general. There is nowhere in the NT a verse which says anything even remotely like this.
As for whether God should be glorified for sending people to Hell, much depends on what you mean by glorified. So far as I can see, it brings God nothing but sorrow when the lost refused to be saved. Think for example of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem who would not be gathered to Jesus, as chicks are by a hen'. I don't think anyone will be having a victory party after the lost judgment in regard to what happened to the lost. I do think there is more joy in heaven when one lost person is saved than in many other circumstances as Lk. 15.1-10 suggests.
Should God's justice and mercy be praised in the abstract--- sure. Should we be hooting and hollering when people go to Hell, and is God quietly celebrating this in heaven--- no, and no.
BW3
Since we're trying to rescue God from our modern, Western notion of narcissism, why don't we find a way out of worshiping God too? I mean, seriously! A being who commands worship - how narcissistic is that, right?
Somehow in this discussion, God doing things ultimately "for his glory" has produced a bitter taste in many mouths because its too narcissistc (how horrible for God). But God receiving and commanding worship seems to be ok with the same group of people. How ironic. If that isn't "narcissistic" I don't know what is.
Let God be God.
Jorge,
I think you're totally missing the point bro. Besides, you have an extremely prideful and arrogant tone to your post that is very offensive. You can let your God by your God, however, some of us just think this is a false thinking of God. Though we should give weight to certain authors in modern history and in church history, I personally think it's irrelevant what Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Owens, Warfield, and Piper say. In the end, the question should be "What does the text say".
The bottom line is, we can sit here and quote proof-texts for both sides of this discussion all day. However, this is a pedantic and poorly constructed method that unfortunately 99% of believers use for their theologically beliefs. I hope you're not so closed-minded to see the other side of this issue.
Since Jesus is the image of the invisible God, I think a good place to start is to look at his life and character. What we have here is the opposite of self-centeredness, a characteristic which you would certainly ascribe to God so it seems. You say "let God by God", this is easy to claim, but it is each person's task to figure out what that is, and this task is not easy, but very difficult and it includes wrestling with the text and not just reading systematic theology textbooks and popular church history and modern theologians.
Luke
It is amazing how like-minded people find each other and each other's works (blogs) and then compliment each other and their ideas and find themselves so appalled at the beliefs of those that disagree and then discuss it as if they are being objective.
We really are an arrogant people.
If this were posted on a "reformed" blog the readers would be in an uproar. If similar conclusions were drawn on the same topic about a more man-based theology (for example, one might say that it is in this narcissistic age that man would create a theology where God's primary focus was on man...) and then posted on a "reformed" blog, the readers would agree heartily.
Dear Luke,
I think you missed my point. My comment wasn’t about what such and such a theologian or church historian said. As you rightly suggested, primary importance goes to Scripture. No argument here. My point was on Dr. Witherington’s (and your) concern to rescue God from narcissism. I didn’t bring it up – both of you did.
As far as my “tone” goes – it’s called satire. I meant no offense. (I think a little satire can do some good once in a while.) Though I must say, I was a bit surprised by your reaction. After reading your criticism I had my wife read my comments and scan it for “pride” and “arrogance.” The results were negative, as I suspected. In any case, I apologize to you, my brother.
You mentioned the dangers of proof-texting. Point well taken. But can 1 Timothy 2:4 and John 3:16 be used as proof-texts too or are those verses “proof-text” proof? (You did use 1 Tim. 2:4 it in your first reply to Dr. Witherington.)
Back to my original point on narcissism. Is God worried about being labeled a narcissist? I don’t think so. Perhaps I have missed those scriptures which speak to this. If so please point them to me in context. Why does God command us to worship him? Is this or is this not a classic case of narcissism? I think that answering these questions will help put to bed our problems with God doing things in order to be glorified.
In Christ,
Jorge
One consideration that seems to be not fully expressed in this thread (although hinted at): God's person cannot be separated from his attributes. His Person is the source of his attributes. It's constitutive of them, so God desiring as his ultimate purpose to glorify Himself means at the very least a desire that we love righteousness and live righteously, an intolerance of sin, a desire that we love our neighbors, a will to see that justice is done, that mercy be shown, etc.
If people find the language of God's ultimate purpose being his own glorification upsetting (because they cannot distinguish between notions of Divine or human personhood, or they cannot grasp that God and his attributes are inseparable, unlike with humans), they can think of it as meaning that God's ultimate purpose is the enacting of his desires which flow from his attributes, and recognition and love of his attributes by his creatures.
Richard Pratt gave a lecture at Calvin seminary that touches on this. The topic is actually whether preaching should be God- or human-centered, but of course the answer to that question is shaped by a broader theological perspective on theo- vs. anthrocentrism. Pratt argues it is a false dilemma.
It can be accessed here:
http://www.calvinseminary.edu/calendar/lectureCalendar.php?archive=1
(scroll down to March 13, or search for Pratt on the page).
Dr. Witherington,
You said "Should we be hooting and hollering when people go to Hell, and is God quietly celebrating this in heaven--- no, and no."
Who has said that we should do this?
I do see the following in scripture:
Psalms 59:7 - 9 (KJV) Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips: for who, say they, doth hear? But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision. Because of his strength will I wait upon thee: for God is my defence.
As well as:
Proverbs 11:10 (KJV) When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting.
AND
Ezekiel 33:11 (KJV) Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
So, God laughs but has no pleasure in the death of the wicked? Hmmm. Seems that God's emotions are little more complex than our finite human brain can understand.
We tend to try to put God's emotions/actions into the box of our emotions/actions. It never fails that I hear a HUMAN analogy argument against Calvinism. We must come to a conclusion that God can actually LAUGH and CRY about a situation at the same time. How can He laugh at the calamity of the wicked and yet NOT take pleasure in it? Seems to me that there is another side to God than His love for people.
Anyway, is there ANYTHING in us that is truly loveable? If it were not for God wanting to show (or glorify) His grace then He WOULD NOT have created a world that He knew would fall into sin.
To the praise of the glory of His grace!
Ephesians 1:6 - 7 (KJV) To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Here's some scripture that I think speaks to the topic from Ezekiel 36:25-30.
25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God. 29 I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. I will call for the grain and multiply it, and bring no famine upon you. 30 And I will multiply the fruit of your trees and the increase of your fields, so that you need never again bear the reproach of famine among the nations. (NKJV)
Sounds like this is a very others-oriented description of the new covenant tucked away in OT prophecies. This is God saying what He is going to do for man.
The problem is I ripped those verses out of context. This section of scripture has "book-ends" both before and after it that express I think very clearly why God is doing this:
First, here's the two verses before this section:
22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD,” says the Lord GOD, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. (NKJV)
And here's the verses after that section:
31 Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good; and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities and your abominations. 32 Not for your sake do I do this,” says the Lord GOD, “let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel!” (NKJV)
I appreciate what Jorge said.
At our small group the other night we discussed why it was OK for God to seek his own glory when it would be repulsive for us. We went around and gave examples of how God glorifies himself in our lives: regenerating us, sanctifying us, being our provider for all good things that we enjoy, etc. Then I asked the question: how does it make you feel to see God glorified. It turns out, we were all at our happiest when Christ received glory through our recognition of his greatness. No one complained that God was selfish.
IOW, it's not selfish and cruel of God to call me to strive for and do what I love most: acknowledging His honor for his mercy in Christ. It is not repulsive. It is awesome.
BTW, John Piper has dealt with objections like "Is God a narcissist?" and "Is it unloving of God to seek his own glory?" It's not like this is a new (or illegitimate) objection, and his responses are helpful.
http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/divineNarcissism.pdf
here you go, everybody! (grin)
oh boy ... the blog-fight is on:http://theologica.blogspot.com/
Jorge,
Thanks for responding. I can totally appreciate the use of satire at times because it helps us get our points across, however, satire is a very offensive method to use at times. I just took your use of satire to be arrogant and hateful. However, you having responded the way you did to my remarks corrects my initial reaction. So your point is well-taken. My main problem was your "let God by God" remark at the end, because it is this task that we are all trying to figure out! That's the whole purpose for theology. We will never reach a point where we completely figure God out, and sadly most people have him in there little box and think they do (a very modernistic way of thinking).
The point is that no theological system completely has God figured out. I hope many of you very reformed individuals reading this do not seriously believe that the westminster catechism or the synod of Dort wrapped up the whole essence and character of God. We all have a set of lenses we view scripture from and those lenses are biased whether we believe it or not. There is no such thing as a completely objective reading of a text b/c we are all shaped somehow by our race, denomination, gender, etc. I am just fed up with hearing Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Owen, Warfield, and Piper quoted all the time because there is much more to church history and right theology than these guys. It's just the whole "let God by God" thing didn't sit well with me at first reading, but now I see your heart and apologize for my initial reaction.
Thank you for commenting on my statement about proof-texting. As you said, I did use one or two in my first comments on this topic. My point is that we can all do this and end up right where we started. This is the method everybody does for some reason, and I think it is very pedantic and poorly constructed, b/c we completely throw out context and the diversity of authorship. You can quote me 50 proof-texts about God's God-centerdness, and then I can counter-react with 50 proof-texts about God's people-centerdness. It's a method that just doesn't work. Granted, I'm not saying throw it out the window and never utilize it, I'm just saying on issues such as these it is better if we derive our theology from our exegesis, study the whole character of God, and base our decision from that. I don't think I'm quite at this point yet, but you might be, and if you still believe that God is all into himself, then that's fine.
I'm not denying that God demands worship. He deserves our worship and praise. Trough Christ all things came into being. So please don't think that I believe that God doesn't want worship or praise. I know this. If this is egotistical, then so be it. However, I want you guys to see God's love for people b/c I think it's an aspect that is almost absent from writers such as Piper (I said almost, not completely, so don't counter-react with links to sermons or quotes from Desiring God or something). One positive I see with the Calvinistic way of thinking is the emphasis it puts on God. However, I just think it goes further than what the biblical text states...and yes, that is possible. I find it no coincidence that people like Luther and Calvin were complete jerks b/c of their extreme thinking. They were all about God, which is great. However, there are 2 great commandments, not just 1. We cannot ignore the sacrificial love we are supposed to have for those around us, and when we love other people, we show our love for God.
Sadly, American reformed evangelicalism has substituted this belief with going to church, having quiet times, going to seminary, readying theology textbooks, having debates, right-wing politics, fighting to get "one nation under God" back in the pledge, the 10 commandments back in the court houses, etc. I hope you catch my drift. My criticism is that this extreme view of thinking neglects God's love for people, thus causing us to neglect our love for people. Because the most important thought we could every think is what we think about when we think about God, because it will determine every other element of our existence. I see dangers in Piper's theology, just like I see dangers in the Arminian way of thinking, our task is to balance these, find the good in both, and not label ourselves or those around us as "Calvinist", "Arminian", "Open-theist", etc, but rather as radical followers of Jesus Christ. We can't get caught up in defending systems, but we can and should get caught up in defending God and his word.
So, no scripture is proof-text proof (good terminology...I like that!). I just want you to see that everybody can use this method, and in the end it's faulty and dangerous. However, sometimes they're good when we're making a point. Unfortunately, pointing something out to you in context to argue my point will take up a whole bunch of space, and I've taken up too much already!
It is easy to point out the flaws of a particular theological system or mindset, the difficult part is finding the things to learn from and listen to. I hope we can all learn from one another, and not become closed-minded and arrogant and act as though we know it all and have all the answers. I admire Dr. Witherington for being bold enough to speak against this extremely popular way of thinking, because for some reason people just don't disagree with Piper or his kind these days. Thanks Jorge, for the comments, I look forward to interacting with you in the future.
Luke
"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."
C. Micheal Patton @ http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/02/12/was-gods-purpose-in-creation-to-glorify-himself/
last feb
Luke,
You said "I admire Dr. Witherington for being bold enough to speak against this extremely popular way of thinking, because for some reason people just don't disagree with Piper or his kind these days."
I do not see many people (other than the blogosphere) believing in the Calvinistic teachings. It may seem like it on the internet, but I don't think our churches are full of people believing "that way". Even Piper said he thinks only 5% (non-scientific) of professing Christians believe in the TULIP.
We would all be better off if we remember the following:
Romans 12:3 (KJV) For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
The key here is "not to think of himself more highly than he ought". Let's just learn to debate LOVINGLY and leave it to God to give His assigned "measure of faith" to all believers.