In my experience, freewill theists frequently misunderstand what Calvinists mean when they say God does everything for his own glory, and I think some Calvinists (e.g. John Piper) have contributed to that misunderstanding. I've discussed that before.
But now, with the return of football season, I'll use a sports analogy. Suppose you were looking at the stats of a high school quarterback. In four years, he never scored a single touchdown. For that reason alone, you'd conclude that he's a dismal failure as a quarterback.
By contrast, his teammates have an impressive record of touchdowns. You wonder why one of them didn't replace him.
On the other hand, he excels at intercepts, blocking, rushing touchdowns, hand-offs, and pass completion. If you were judging him on paper, you'd be puzzled by his uneven performance. How can he be so good at the other stuff, but never score a touchdown?
Suppose, though, you watch him practice with his team. After a while it becomes apparent that he's a very talented athlete while his teammates are mediocre. If he wanted to, he could just teach them blocking while he scored all the touchdowns.
It turns out that he's going out of his way to make them look good. Giving them opportunities to shine. They succeed because he's their enabler. His objective is to pass the ball or hand off the ball so that each of them can score touchdowns.
Despite the fact that it's his teammates who always score the touchdowns, if becomes evident, if you know what to look for, where the real talent is coming from. So the stats are misleading.
There's a paradoxical sense in which our quarterback glorifies himself by avoiding self-glorification and glorifying his teammates instead. He has the talent, but he diverts his talent and channels his talent into his teammates. He makes them look far better than they really are. His unobtrusive generosity is far more glorious than flaunting his athletic prowess and making himself look good by using his teammates to clear the way.
Compare that to Phil 2:6-11. Everything redounds to the glory of Christ, but indirectly. He did not seek his own glory, yet his self-abnegation is glorious. He's not the beneficiary of vicarious atonement. Rather, he did that for the benefit of others. Yet he clearly gets all the credit.
Could you link to what you wrote previously, especially about how Piper contributes to this misunderstanding?
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/gods-glory.html
Deletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/01/piper-pacifism-and-christomonism.html
http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2008/12/volf-glory.html
http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2006/05/jealousy.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/10/jeremy-pierce-on-reformed-theodicy.html
Steve,
DeleteThanks for your faithfulness.
Do you have anymore posts to read on this ?
I read through all these posts and I agree that in Piper there is a subtle tendency to reduce the gifts of God into a sort of Christomonism.
In regards to the glory of God and his self motivation that seems to be very evident, from many texts. Perhaps it's not evident that it's the only motivation, but since the Love of God is his glory, and it is a summary attribute as you said, then it seems very highly tenable.
Your thoughts on the glory of God having a revelatory nature is insightful and clear. You mention that it's end is for us to image back to God his glory, I think Piper would agree with you there, that is the point he stresses, so that we remain God-centered. In your post you call that "indirect", I think, you are getting at Gods motivations or the nature of his showing his glory, but are you saying that ultimately is to come back to God? Then isn't it still In some way "Doing things for his glory". Do you just not like saying that because it hides the glory is for another aspect of it?
I do think Piper would definitely agree Gods glory is for his elect, but based on what you have said elsewhere, I suppose you would say he is too superficial in that regard?
Would love to hear your thoughts brother. God bless.
Peter
i) "Doing things for his own glory" sounds as if God has something to gain. However, God is the benefactor, not the beneficiary. In a way, God's actions are sacrificial. Not that he has anything intrinsic to lose, but he acts for the good of the elect.
Deleteii) And, yes, from what I've read, Piper seems to treat all human relationships as temporary disposable bridges. If so, that fails to appreciate human nature, and how God generally blesses us through created media.
Are you getting at a neglected side of Gods glory? God does things to shown his power and name (Rom 9:17). But are you getting at his self effacing way of glory as well?
ReplyDeleteNot just neglected, but the aim.
DeleteSteve,
DeleteI am pondering what you are saying, appreciating the fact that Gods glory gave us the submission and sacrifice of Christ at the cross. The humbling manner and the self effacing method. But there are loads of passages that say "for my Name say", "that I may be glorified", "I will be exalted, Now I will lift up myself." (Isa 33:10, 48:11, Ezek 36:21-23, etc.)
There are a lot of passages that speak like this, so are you saying whenever he is pointing back to himself and magnifying his name, it is so that he can reveal his self giving manner, his "sacrificial" giving, he is insisting on his own name so that he can be the giver? I know you know these passages, so I am trying to track how you are bring all these together. It sounds like you are saying it is Gods glory to primarily be focused on giving/revealing himself to another.
Yet, a lot of those passages don't sound like he is focused on another, but rather focused on himself. They don't sound indirect, they sound direct. I definitely see how Phil 2:5-11 is gloriously indirect, but are you saying it is all indirect? Are you saying all the "for my name sake" passages are through his humble self giving, what passages do you use to substantiate this?
Would love to hear your thoughts brother, God bless.
Peter
Those passages are typically in contrast to pagan idolatry. And of course, "glory", "my name", &c. is synonym for God's unique deeds in creation, redemption, and judgment. There's no comparison in the creaturely realm, much less the nonentities of pagan pantheons.
DeleteConsider these two propositions:
Deletei) The good Samaritan gets credit for rescuing a child from drowning
ii) The good Samaritan rescued the child from drowning in order to take credit for his action
There's a difference between doing something admirable and doing something to be admired. In the case of (i), that's one consequence of the action whereas in the case of (ii), that's the primary purpose and motivation.
This is a very very subtle point, but an interesting point. So if I am understanding you correctly, the point you are emphasizing is that the way or method is not by flaunting himself and using his children as opportunities to get himself on the stage.
ReplyDeleteBut when texts say he is creating for his own praise, Albeit done in an indirect manner, is this purpose of his own praise his ultimate desire or is his goodness given to creatures his ultimate desire?
Also, this sounds like you are talking about in regards to his elect. But when it comes to judgment how do you view this? Does God not seek his own glory in judgment ?
ReplyDeleteThere's an anthropomorphic element to some of these texts. Take the famous negotiations between Moses and Yahweh (e.g. Exod 32:11-14; Num 14:13-16; Deut 9) where Yahweh is depicted as very jealous for his honor and reputation, so Moses manipulates Yahweh's imagine-conscious vainglory to dissuade him from destroying the ungrateful Israelites. What would the Gentiles say?
ReplyDeleteSo this involves a hermeneutical and theological issue. On the one hand, an open theist like Boyd would take that at face-value while a classical theist will say that's anthropomorphic. An example of divine accommodation where God casts himself in a very human role, to make himself relatable to his people, but if we think about it more deeply, from what we know about God's revealed attributes, does God's self-esteem depend on human opinion? Is God really like a member of a street gang who flies into a rage when he's disrespected?