Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"And those who were standing watched, and walked carefully near him, not knowing what he'd do--they'd all seen wonders, but nothing like this. And some said he was witchcraft, a phantom, and were afraid to answer him . . ."--Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
Posts
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(45)
-
▼
January
(21)
- TGIF
- To the Glory of God and Praise for Me?
- Is the NT a Story About God's Desire to Glorify Hi...
- A Roman Boxer in Jerusalem
- McKnight on the Now-Reversed Mexico City Policy
- A Humble Foreign Policy
- Envoys, Part 2
- Syriac Monastery in Turkey
- Brooks On Human Nature and Economics
- About The Messiah . . .
- Envoys, Part 1
- Mad Dog
- The Maker's Diet--Not So Good?
- Christians in the (Ancient) Cities
- Happy Birthday to Albert Schweitzer
- Philippians 2:16-18
- A New Pair of Sox
- Hamas's Recent Elections: Change You Can Believe In?
- Plutarch On Governing
- Philippians 2:14-15
- Israel's Upcoming PM Elections
-
▼
January
(21)
Links
- Abnormal Interests
- All Things Beautiful
- Annette Yoshiko Reed
- Apollos
- Ben Witherington
- Biblical Studies, UK
- Books and Culture
- Chris Tilling
- Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology
- Euangelizomai
- Evangelical Textual Criticism
- Fact Check
- Faith and Theology
- Jesus Creed
- Jim Davila's PaleoJudaica Blog
- Jim West
- Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism
- Karis Blog
- Laudator Temporis Acti
- Mark Nanos
- My Journey
- NT Gateway Weblog
- NT Resources
- NT Wright Page
- Pajamas Media
- Philip Harland
- Primal Subversion
- Project on Ancient Cultural Engagement
- Reformissionary
- Stephen Carlson
- Subverting Mediocrity
- Theopedia
- Tyndale Bulletin
4 comments:
Pretty interesting. I sympathize with the sentiment as I have always struggled to see self-magnification as the lynch pin of all biblical theology.
I think shoots himself in the foot a bit by the over-compensating with language like "perverse." That might cause some to completely dismiss the argument altogether (unless they already agree with him).
What do you think of it?
Yeah, he probably comes on a little strong with that language. However, there is some good discussion in the comments section, wherein Myers claries his objection:
"I'm not objecting to the idea that God is glorified (of course, the works of the Johannine Jesus are also aimed at glorifying the Father). Instead, I'm disputing this particular Edwardsean understanding of "glory" — the idea that God ultimately values only one thing, his own magnificence; that God ultimately takes pleasure only in this one thing; that the only thing God ultimately enjoys is himself (other things bringing God pleasure only to the extent that they serve this goal). As I mentioned above, this particular interpretation of "glory" is something that you can't find even in Calvin's lofty doctrine of predestination: Edwards is far more ruthless than that!
So it's not a question of whether God is interested in his own glory: it's a question (as Nate also observes) of what kind of glory — and therefore also: what kind of God?"
I have heard this argued before. this seems a bit like God has low self esteem. At least this is what others in our culture would percieve if we argue this way.
Why does God have to glorify himself? Doesn't he automatically have glory? I think that God is more concerned with restoring glory to a fallen creation; and as a result, he is glorified and acknowledged as the Lord of all. Just some initial thoughts....
Thanks for your thoughts, Kurt. Surely from the Bible God does seem to be interested in his own glory (read the Psalms and prophets for instance).
Even God's restoring his fallen creation seems ultimately to be aimed at his own glory, don't you think?
One the main questions, though, is wherein this definition of Christian theology--i.e., God pursuing his own glory--does one fit Jesus?
Post a Comment