Ben Witherington takes down the idea that everything God does he does for the sake of magnifying his own name.
Check out the comments for some more commentary on the issue from BW3.
Also, if you’re wondering what the tie-in here is, its the theological background of the idea in question.
I also loved this quote from the comments:
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.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, November 21st, 2007 at 8:24 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
46 Comments(+Add)
God is august and dwells in infinite and absolute glory. Everything God does reflects that glory but His motivation is outward. This is a magnificent mystery that we attempt to neatly package in a systematic theology.
Does it ever occur to us that God’s love is such that He desires to share His glory, not gather more? God’s nature is much more giving than gathering, and I reject those theologies that say they have everything all figured out including the invisible motives of God Himself.
There are some doctrinal truths that are redemptively indespensible, but to portray ourselves as knowing completely the glory of God and all His invisible workings is without merit.
Rick,
Your second paragraph is heavily represented in the comments of that article. I find myself in agreement with it, but also have to wonder that if God’s glory comes from teh fact that he is God, then why would any active steps have to be taken to reflect that glory? We worship God for his Godness.
Tim – I am in agreement with the article, however my point was not that God has to do anything to reflect His glory, but that everything God does automatically reflects His glory.
Rick,
I meant that question as a challenge for those who disagree with us.
The thing is, though, that the comment that you quote contains a fatal flaw that throws off the whole premise. While I doubt the writer would see it this way, the comment leans heavily on the concept of God as little more than the perfect extrapolation of man.
Scripture tells us that we should not seek our own glory. But that does not automatically mean that God should not seek His own glory.
Scripture tells us that to seek our own glory would show a lack of humility. But that does not automatically mean that if God seeks His own glory, that He is showing a lack of humility.
Conversely, we are told that we ought to seek God’s glory. Wouldn’t it be hypocritical of Him to not do the same?
Is everything that God does for the seeking of His own glory? Not sure — still working that one out. But please remember that until you get elected God, the same rules don’t necessarily apply to you as to God.
Brendt,
Then why the command by Paul to imitate God? If we’re supposed to imitate God, then we would be doing things for our own glory.
Also, the bit I posted does pose, at the very least, an interesting question. If we don’t dispute the deity of Christ, then how does the humility of Christ, which includes the deliberate putting off of glory, bring glory to God? Or is this just like one of those questions like, can God microwave a burrito so hot that not even he himself can eat it?
Although the “super man” image of God is wanting, it is true that we are made in His image. We do have some of His characteristics in an extremely finite form.
Are you guys political writers?
“Witherington takes down” I must have read the wrong post as he “took down” nothing. This is simply putting spin on your point to make it appear as if you are right.
Isaiah 43:
5 Fear not, for I am with you;
I will bring your offspring from the east,
and from the west I will gather you.
6I will say to the north, Give up,
and to the south, Do not withhold;
bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the end of the earth,
7everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made.”
Isaiah 42:
5Thus says God, the LORD,
who created the heavens and stretched them out,
who spread out the earth and what comes from it,
who gives breath to the people on it
and spirit to those who walk in it:
6″I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness;
I will take you by the hand and keep you;
I will give you as a covenant for the people,
a light for the nations,
7 to open the eyes that are blind,
to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
from the prison those who sit in darkness.
8I am the LORD; that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to carved idols.
Two of many examples. Why did God create man? Was He lonely and needed someone to love? That is one of several touchy feely explanations given by many.
When one’s goals are to deconstruct the “evil” Reformation, to declare all men to be Pharisees and fundies that read the word as if God actually wrote it (or is it not God’s Word?),
to attack Ken and Ingrid, and to dislocate your shoulder from patting yourself on the back for your “proper” exegetical efforts, well………..God receives no glory from that effort, to be sure.
I see nothing from scripture to support anything you state, but hey I burn incense before my Bible, and sings songs to it, so what do I know?
BTW Witherington’s misuse of Phillipians 2 is sad.
In context
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Jesus did not count equality with God as a thing to be grasped because He is God. The equality was always His, and he was never in any danger of losing it. So He laid it aside to come down as man to die and having done that He is now given greater glory, to the “greater” Glory of the Father.
So did He come to save us because we deserve it, or did He save the undeserving to bring glory to Himself?
Tune in tomorrow…….
“While I doubt the writer would see it this way, the comment leans heavily on the concept of God as little more than the perfect extrapolation of man.”
Brendt you hit the nail on the head! It’s called open theism.
You created your own point Chris and went with it without addressing the nuance of the post.
Ah the purpose driven by is back in town for Thanksgiving.
Thanks for the laugh Chris P, your antics never cease to amuse.
God IS Glory. It’s just His nature.
Jesus wins!
Happy Thanksgiving guys and gals, love to ALL!!!
Joe
Joe,
I agree, Jesus is the Glory of God…
God is not narcissistic, He cannot be as He is Glory itself. In that He can only be what He is. It is narcissistic when one is self focused… God is not JUST self focused but is focused on Love… in that Love of others, He is Glorious and the expression of that Love was Jesus Christ.
be blessed,
iggy
Hi tim and all,
I disagree with the idea that God focusing on himself is Narcissistic. I guess my response is expected.
To bw and anyone interested:
If God were to love man more than loving himself, God will make an idol out of man. If God were to love man as his equal, it would make an god the equivalent of God, which is wrong. Hence, it can only be deduced that God loves man because it is intrisically beneficial to Himself.
It would seem that the writter misunderstood many pasages despite being called a Dr and Phd. Apparently titles don’t mean anything.
John 3.16 – if one were to look at John 3:17-21, it is clear that
[17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God]
It does not defeat the notion that God glorifies himself more than others. BW simply imputes a faultly understanding of the word ‘love’ and insists that this love must involve God esteeming man more than himself, which is not the context of the passage, and does violence to the context of the passage. In fact, v18 states clearly that
[ 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son]
If God esteemed man ABOVE or EQUAL to God, their opinion would be obviously MORE important than that of God. Hence, the opinion of the apostate and the wicked who form part of the ‘condemned already’ party MUST be respected because God esteems their opinions over His, is it not? [i use caps cause i dunno how to bold]. Then how can God condemn anyone? The act of being able to condemn implies clearly that God is not only clear of his position to judge, but he executes his duties with a clear mind to put down all those who defy him.
[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? ]
Again he misses the point entirely when God says
[9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.]
BW ought to look at verse 11. To whose glory? “to the glory of God the Father.” (v11b). It in fact destroys BW thesis and suspicions. Again, context is king and BW failed to read context again.
[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'. ]
BW is providing a specualtion that is not backed neither by proof nor context. I shall then:
Hebrews 1 [the setting by which the entire Hebrews book shall refer]
[ 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. ]
Jesus is the representation of God’s being and glory. So verse 3b-4 set the reason why Jesus died and this was the ‘joy’ that Hebrews 12 was referring to – Jesus’s inheritance of a superior name + seating at the right hand of God . i.e glorification.
Ben betrays his lack of searching for context because when he says this
[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]
hebrews 2 has stated clearly who this psalm is referring to.
[5It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. 6But there is a place where someone has testified:
"What is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
7You made him a little lower than the angels;
you crowned him with glory and honor
8 and put everything under his feet."
In putting everything under him (i.e. referal to verse 8), God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him (so who is the 'him' here?). 9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. ]
Its NOT referring to man. Its Jesus – v9. BW fails in the reading department again. BW, please read scripture clearly on this again.
[r 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.]
Again, BW fails the context test. (Hosea 11)
[ 10 They will follow the LORD;
he will roar like a lion.
When he roars,
his children will come trembling from the west.
11 They will come trembling
like birds from Egypt,
like doves from Assyria.
I will settle them in their homes,"
declares the LORD.]
This is how the Lord decides to go about “loving his children” (v9 i suppose, BW?) He ROARS and makes his children TREMBLE in fear. Loving man more than god……….riiiiight. God roars to show that they mean more than God? note. God loving human beings does NOT mean that he cannot love them for his own glory. Hosea11 does nothing to discredit this idea. It supports it in fact, by the fact that the God makes people tremble to obey him, but he is still considered loving. And if BW reads Hosea 13, God did NOT spare Israel. until REPENTANCE in chapter 14.
The chief end of man to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Happy Turkey Day guys, Tim say hi to your family from me =)
Typo:
[In putting everything under him (i.e. referal to verse 8), God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him (so who is the ‘him’ here?). 9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. ]
Strange how come theres a smiley face there
Its
(i.e. referal to verse 8 ) God left nothing…
Hey guys,
Just an observation, please don’t get mad.
If we are going to accept sub-standards such as BW’s article as a putting down of other theories, its not gonna look good on us. we’ve got find real proof, not non-contextual types. Lets not give keningridmike et al more junk to tar and feather us. Lets give them real proof so that they have absolutely nothing to say!
I yearn for this blog to be a place of discernment and where ‘emergents’ and ‘reformers’ meet to really discuss at a truth level. Honestly, BW’s article’s a tad bit off at the accuracy department.
No offence Tim, nothing here is ever directed at you [i'm scared you might take it personnally seeing that you are the writer of the post]
I really hope you meant BW’s article as a parody or some sort – just for us to think about. I believe wholeheartedly that you had your reservations about his article too.
The core of God’s glory is that in spite of all sufficiency in Himself, He loves and gives out side Himself and all those attributes naturally glorify Him but that was not His intention. It is a mystery that human minds cannot fully envelope.
Ummmm…I think there’s a strong case based on the hebrew scriptures that God’s glory (kabod) is grounded in God’s being.
God is in no need for “more glory”. God’s being is infinite and thus out of that God’s glory is such.
When God speaks (How do like that Chris P? I believe God actually speaks in Scripture!) of “for his glory” etc., God is speaking of making that which bears witness to an infinite glory of being that can not be added to, but merely expressed and made plain to US who are not infinite and cannot directly experience the fullness of the being of God.
This makes sense because the Scriptures are witnesses of the self-disclosure of God to us to the extent necessary to make God KNOWN as the ground of our redemption TO GOOD WORKS…
(There is no redemption from God whose purpose is merely unto itself alone. (i.e. Redemption is NOT the point of Redemption. chew on that before you tantrum or attack my point.)
It (redemption) is unto good works…read Ephesians. That’s not “attacking the reformation” that’s called a complete view of grace as a MEANS to something more than getting a self-righteous reminder that you aren’t going to hell)
But back to God’s glory.
This isn’t an issue with God.
This is an issue with where people STOP when they speak of God, God’s glory, etc.
If we collide the OT grasping of God’s being/glory with I John then we get an AMAZING understanding of God within the limits of our human limitation.
God’s being (I John) IS love. Not smarmy, you’re ok, I’m ok, cloying love. But in the Trinity a mutually addressing, outward flowing, self-donating, love.
Augustine says that “Love is so much God that that is what God is called.”
There is no “in spite of” for God. God, as LOVE expressed in the Trinity, naturally flows out with generative life giving self-donation.
Thus creation is a natural outflowing of the delight and love of the Trinity.
Thus redemption is a natural outflowing of the delight and love of the Trinity.
It is not that God is compelled. Or forced to do what God really does not want to do…
It is God being God as God is. Being what God is…Loving.
To make sovereignty the fixed point of definition of God’s being–as SOME do–is a misreading of the text, IMVHO. (There’s that opinion, ChrisP, not an attack or demeaning of others like you do.) It leaves us with the ultimate value in the universe is POWER. It leads to people celebrating or fixating on revelation as Armageddon being the end and speaking of blood of to horses bridles.
But the END of Revelation is a universe made new. The healing of the nations. No more night. No more pain.
Even through all the righteous judgement of God, the END is a world whose ultimate value is LOVE expressed in Worship to the ONE GOD who is Love.
Bottom line:
OT: God’s BEING is God’s glory.
It (God’s Being) is holy (THAT MEANS: OTHER, CATEGORICALLY DIFFERENT)
NT: God’s BEING is LOVE
Put that together and what’s that spell…?
A being of such magnitude, generosity and wild extravagant giving in God’s self and outward to the world that we cannot help but be filled with reverence, awe and JOYFUL THANKS and a sense of deep integrity and freedom knowing that in the image of THAT LOVE we are made and meant to live.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
God is less like some glory balck hole and more like a glory pulsar!
Lance,
I don’t particularly have reservations about this article (some of the comments perhaps, but not the article itself, or BW3s earlier comments). I don’t believe that everything God does is done only to glorify himself. Had God wanted he could have simply gone ahead and meted out the punishment for sin and still been glorified. The motivation for the atonement was not a pursuit of glory by God, but done out of love.
I think NC hit the nail on the head with this:
I think that BWIII is hitting on a good point here. Whether intentional or not, I’ve always thought that the Calvinistic presentation of the Gospel present God as somewhat narcissist. I’ve always found it an odd thing to present God to people in a way that God says you’re worthless and will kill you unless you worship Him. Now, granted, I’ve not heard people say in those stark of terms, but I’ve heard people who get that impression from hearing more Calvinistic presentations.
When I think of God’s glory, I think of it being synonymous with beauty. God’s glory is essentially His beauty, and when we get a glimpse of it, it seems there are two reactions. Some are drawn and some are repulsed. His glory and beauty is based on the revelation of His charactre through Christ ultimately.
Phil,
I agree with you about Calvinist theology. The more I’m exposed to it the more repulsive it becomes, this is especially true as I experience more and more Calvinists.
Tim:
Be careful.
You’re expressing your opinion about YOUR experience with certain people.
When you describe YOURSELF suddenly that’s mean spirited and vicious.
It’s not that Calvinists are wrong. I just don’t think they say enough when it comes to the issue of God’s glory.
They stop short.
And it leaves with an impression of divine narcissism.
It doesn’t help that if you ask about it you get routinely dismissed with “God can do whatever he wants!”.
Which is true, but misses the point of the question.
And it’s just the epitome of being pastoral in response…
The question is to THEIR delivery and explanation that raises some confusion for some folk.
The question isn’t about God.
Calvinism is abject fatalism and renders the whole human experience meaningless. That is why they must teach that God does everything for His own glory since that provides their only purpose.
But as unbiblical as that is, the self righteousness of some about their “doctrines of grace” is the burm that eliminates any real fellowship. The “You have reasons I have the Bible” attitude is unchristian.
Jesus said that he only did what he saw His Father doing, and that whatever the Father did the Son did (John 5:19). Therefore the act of washing feet, laying down His life, being gentle and humble (Matt 11:29) are all examples of who God is. If Jesus is supposed to show us God then that is what God is like.
Ian,
I couldn’t agree more, and that’s why I have so much trouble with the theology that everything God does he does for his own glory. The life of Jesus is not a life of glory, if anything its a life of glorifying others, a pouring out of the self for the sake of others. And so, to continue in the writings of John I see the scriptures saying “God is love”, not “God is glory”.
Tim, et al — not blowing you guys off — got caught up in some stuff. Real responses later today or tomorrow. Hope you had a great Thanksgiving!
Tim: Then why the command by Paul to imitate God?
I’m assuming you are referring to Ephesians 5:1. This is (IMHO) one of those unfortunate occasions where the chapter divisions do the reader a disservice. At the end of the previous chapter, Paul was detailing several specific commands, and even wraps it up with a command to forgive others, as God forgave you. He then says, “Therefore be imitators of God…” It’s my understanding that Paul was referring to the things that he just laid out (particulary forgiveness) — that’s what the “therefore” is there for.
I also see that Matt Henry agrees with me on this point. Smart guy.
I think there’s a lot of things that God does that we are not supposed to imitate. If we were supposed to imitate everything He does, then we’d go around declaring who is and isn’t saved, and we’ve already got Steve Camp to do that for us.
Love your burrito analogy. Beats the heck out of the old rock analogy. And yeah, I think that most issues surrounding the “mechanics” of the incarnation are beyond our finite understanding. Even beyond that, though, each member of the Trinity (whether incarnate or not) seems to be deflecting attention to the other two.
Chris P: I didn’t say anything about open theism, nor would I ascribe anything so nutty to the author. Yes, I can see that open theism could spin off a form of that belief, but please don’t put words in my mouth.
iggy and nc: Good points all around. I won’t burn more electrons on that as you guys both nailed it.
Rick F: Love the “glory pulsar” idea!
Brendt,
I’m actually sorry I used the imitate God line, while I think it holds up as a supporting idea, its not my primary problem with God primarily or solely acting as the glorifier of Himself.
My biggest problem is the method and message of Jesus’ teachings. the entire lesson was one of anti-glory. Additionally, as I added before John writes “God is love” not “God is glory”.
I’m in no way advocating for a gloriless God, rather I’m advocating that God’s actions are motivated primarily by love, he just happens to be omnigloriful while doing so.
Whoa, hoss! All of the sudden, the anti-Calvinist barbs are getting thrown about. Some of the blanket statements being made — you guys are sounding like Calvinists.
You know how Donald Miller says that he tries “to be a Christian without being an [excretory orifice]“? I’ve been a Calvinist longer than a blogger, but ever since I hit the blogosphere, I’ve realized that I need to try to be a Calvinist without being an excretory orifice.
Specifics:
Phil Miller: Now, granted, I’ve not heard people say in those stark of terms, but I’ve heard people who get that impression from hearing more Calvinistic presentations.
I’m sorry, but someone else’s inference of what a third party said is hardly representative of the true nature of a belief system. But let’s assume that what they inferred is what the speaker was implying. That still doesn’t mean that the speaker got it right. If we adopt that view, then we’d have to say that Fred “God Hate F*gs” Phelps is a correct representation of Christianity.
Tim: The more I’m exposed to [Calvinism] the more repulsive it becomes, this is especially true as I experience more and more Calvinists.
To our profound shame, is not many unbelievers’ disdain for Christianity because of their experience of more and more Christians? Doesn’t mean that the unbelievers’ impression is right, or that we are being properly representative of Christ/Christianity. See also the Phelps illustration again.
Rick F: Calvinism is abject fatalism…
Yikes! Don’t tase me, bro!
This statement sounds like the cousin of the idea that espousing irresistible grace means that evangelism is unnecessary. I argued against that idea here (without relying on anything of a Calvinistic bent).
Whether you were going there or not, Calvinism is not fatalistic. Does it espouse the idea that some things are already determined? Certainly. To me, fatalism implies either pure (bad) luck or a malevolent force determining the events beyond human control. That interpretation is not compatible with belief in the God of Romans 8:28.
Summation: (if I may use such a high-falutin’ word)
Stop the average guy on the street and ask him to name 5 Christians. Odds are very high that for 4 of the 5, you’re gonna think, “Yuck! This guy identifies me with that person?!?!” And it’s not because the guy is stupid. It’s just that those 5 people — inane as they may be — are some of the most promiment and/or vocal professors of Christ out there.
So why would the same not be true (on a smaller scale, of course) of Calvinism?
Yeah, lots of Calvinists (esp in the blogosphere) are extremely caustic, self-righteous, and — by deeds, if not words — have no interest in fellowship with non-Calvinists. Many of them make blanket statements — hence my little dig at the outset of this comment. And, oddly enough, many of them don’t truly believe in the sovereignty of God — I call this bunch QRs — for “Quote Reformed”.
But we’re not all excretory orifices. Throw me a frickin’ bone!
Tim, “omnigloriful” has to be the coolest word I’ve heard in a long time. (And accurate, to boot)
I see what you’re saying about Jesus’ teaching. I would just caution both of us to keep in mind both Jesus’ teaching and model for us as the God-man, **AND** the fact that He is the God-man.
The hypostatic union (100% God and 100% man) of Christ is not self-contradictory — even though it seems so to our finite minds. Similarly, I think there are aspects of what Jesus taught/modeled in His incarnation that may seem contradictory to God’s nature, but aren’t really.
It’s the burrito all over again.
I wouldn’t go using omnigloriful around anyone who is serious and smart, but it seemed to work in this case.
I do get what you’re saying about Christ as God and Man, but for a moment if we separate Christ and God entirely (not something I advocate as theology, merely as an exercise for a moment) and view Christ as only representative of God that representation is still one motivated by, and doing all things out of love rather than glory.
Although I will concede that I am a bit biased on this issue, I am particularly drawn to the humility and love of Christ during his ministry more-so than I am by his glorious return (please note, I’m not saying I don’t like it, or that I dispute it, or anything along those lines).
Brendt,
You’re right of course about the conduct of Calvinist.
I do try to differentiate between Calvinists who don’t eat babies and kick puppies and those who do by the use of the term “watchdoggie”. However, when every nasty attack I’ve ever come under has come from those claiming some variant of “TULIP” sometimes my gut level reaction to them gets the best of me and I start confusing the two.
The “100% God and 100% man” is man made. I still am not convinced that Christ was not God (Jehovah) living inside a human body. If Jesus had a human nature then He was two persons both of which are now in heaven.
Tim: serious and smart
Those two words go together so seldom that I think we’re both safe in using “omnigloriful” whenever it fits.
I hear you on the love/glory/humility thing. Although a bit over-generalizing, I like Driscoll’s statement. There are some who cling to the post-incarnate Jesus and miss the incarnation, and there are those who the reverse, and both groups are missing out on stuff. I probably fall more into the former than the latter, and your recent statements help to correct that.
I’ve never eaten a baby or kicked a puppy. Though, I did laugh the first time I saw Kyle Broflovski “kick the baby”.
“Watchdoggies” are a subset of QRs, in my book.
Rick F: I still am not convinced…
Nor am I on many things which I believe. Yeah, nowhere in Scripture will you find the word “hypostatic”. But the incarnation is impossible for the human mind to fathom anyway. So much so, that I don’t buy into the if/then of your final sentence.
Brendt,
Yeah, I’m a fan of Driscoll too, I forget he’s Reformed sometimes.
I do think this particular argument from Piper is just too extreme. I probably wouldn’t have even bothered to have posted this if it had been the same gist but not to the uber-degree Piper has expanded it to (He told me that it goes to 11).
Another gold nugget from Rick on Calvinism.
I admit, regarding this topic of God and glory and narcissism, that I am at a point in my walk with God to not fret all the nuances and focus on my life bringing glory to God in all that I am and do. I’m not concerned right now about if God is glory, if he’s a glory hog…all interesting discussion, but it’s one of those things I need to not focus on or else lose my focus.
But the Calvinism line — ’twas good.
Tim: I forget [Driscoll’s] Reformed sometimes
I hear ya. I love it when scamps say that he’s not really reformed. What they really mean is that he’s not a QR like they are.
QR?
QR – I linked to it earlier today. Here it is again.
So many acronyms. QR, TR (BTW, the irony of those initials also being my initials is not lost on me), CRN, SoL, and ODM.
M-O-U-S-E
BTW and FYI — if you haven’t read the post — “QR” is admittedly a spin-off of “TR”.
Speaking of initials matching acronyms, the first time that Lance wrote: To bw and anyone interested, I forgot about Ben and was trying to figure out how Lance knew my last name. Maybe you could rename the post “Brendt the Narcissist?”
I found this to be indicative of my own feelings on the issue: