Mind you, I ended the discussion with a smile and a shrug knowing that this argument was going to go nowhere and the man is older and wiser than me, so I had better rethink things once more.

So here I am thinking aloud.

I think we can agree that God is perfect and perfectly self-sustaining. There is nothing in his character that is flawed or in variance with perfection. In fact, I think we can agree that God is independent in His (I refer to the tri-unity here) existence. If he is perfect I think we can say that his independence is perfect as well.

So if God is perfectly independent why would He need man to bring Him glory? I mean, sure the mountains sing to his glory and the rivers clap their hands but it is the only just response by a creation that acknowledges its master. It would stand to reason that God had perfect glory before the creation of the Universe and He will have perfect glory after the Universe is rolled away. He may not be receiving perfect glory from His creation now, but it doesn’t mean that He doesn’t have it. For instance, Jesus has perfect authority but he hasn’t removed the Prince of the Power of the air from his position just yet.

So if God had perfect glory in His independence would he need anything to bring about more glory? Why would He need to depend on creation to give Him due glory at all? Would His glory be tarnished if it weren’t for creation? And if creation was adding to His glory, was God then really perfect? If everything is a Plan A before the annals of time to bring about maximum glory to a member of the trinity does that mean that that member of the trinity did not have maximum glory before creation?

So now that leaves me in a bit of a stump. Maybe there’s something missing in the argument like “Since God is perfectly loving He must create creatures which can appreciate His glory” but then it winds up not being about only for the glory of God but also for the enjoyment or appreciation of that glory.

Now, how can we say that God doesn’t have a plan B? Is it possible that God could’ve completely wiped out mankind showing his righteous indignation and therefore the angels would experience His love that He didn’t do likewise to them? And beyond that, is it possible that the Godhead would have experientially known perfect Love and glory within the tri-unity without the need of a Creation?

It all seems to me as putting God in as much as a box as the Open Theists who say “God can’t know” but then again, I probably took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

[Update: Pastor Russ mentions this guy Peter Lynds and this blogger linked to the archive with a pretty interesting look at Peter Lynds work to look at what God determines. Keep up the good bloggin' PhilThreTen!]

-r-

Comments (7)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Rebecca, July 11, 2005

So if God is perfectly independent why would He need man to bring Him glory?

He doesn't need man to bring him glory. He doesn't need to create, either. However, once the free decision was made to create, the right goal (or end) for creation is to glorify God. God deserves all glory, right? God, being just (or righteous) must always work toward what is just (or right). He can't be working toward something less than right or just, so he must be working to bring glory to himself, since he deserves all glory.

Now, how can we say that God doesnt have a plan B? Is it possible that God couldҒve completely wiped out mankind showing his righteous indignation and therefore the angels would experience His love that He didnt do likewise to them?

Yes, he could have. But since he didn't, we can know that it must somehow be better that he didn't. God is always purposeful and he always does things in the best possible way, so we can know that there was some better purpose in doing things this way than in doing things the way you suggest.

It all seems to me as putting God in as much as a box as the Open Theists who say ғGod cant knowҔ but then again, I probably took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

I don't think it's putting God in a box. It's letting God be fully who he is--righteous, purposeful, holy, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. There are indeed boundaries around what God does, but those boundaries are not a "box", as if one is placing God inside something separate from him that contains him, as if there is something external to him that makes him different than he would be otherwise. The boundaries are the boundaries of his own unchanging character.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by PastorRuss, July 11, 2005

Rey - I've been bouncing this stuff around in my head ever since reading Peter Lynd's material on time (see some articles here). If he is right (in short, he states that time is not dimensional per se and therefore has no specific relevance to either mass or motion - instead, he states that time is simply the sequence of events - though we can measure 'time' between sequences, there is no predetermined substance of time that can either be traveled on or measurable at a specific moment) than it changes our whole concept of God's foreknowledge (but in many ways makes easier the question of how God can be both in time and outside of time at the same 'time').

I agree with your suggestion that God does not need our glory and is perfectly glorified in Himself. However, I also think that once God created, the whole equation changes. Now there are all sorts of created things and beings that can or cannot bring Him glory as they were created to do - and thus, in this sense, once God created, there was a component where His creations could bring Him the glory He deserved (as Rebecca already pointed out).

Taking Peter Lynd's information and combining it with the idea that creation changes the equation, allows for the possibility that instead of God having every miniscule detail of all history already predetermined, that He actually reacts to His creatures. I know that may sound blasphemous to some, but what else is Scripture filled with if not the reaction of God to His creatures? Let me firmly say that in that reaction, God never becomes subservient to man and that even though the future may not be determined (in the timeline sense), that God can bring about the sequence of events that bring about the end that He has desired and/or prophesied. But rather than the prophecies being something where God has seen the future, it is instead a statement of what God is committing Himself to bringing about (through a sequence of events that He orchestrates either through obedient creations or through direct intervention). Thus, if Peter Lynd is right, there is no Plan A or Plan B - there is that which God has committed to bringing about; we can get on board or off board with that goal which changes God's reaction to how He will bring about His committed goal; but either way, His goal will be accomplished in the end. I hope that all makes sense

I'll be the first to admit that I don't completely understand either the scientific or theological implications of Peter Lynd's material, but it seems to answer some of the perplexing questions both on the side of determinism and open theism.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Rey, July 11, 2005

Sister Rebecca, maybe you have this figured out but if God were to determinedly make sure that He receives the glory why make a creation that falls at all? Angels fell…Humans fell...so that he could work it so that they bring Him all the glory? What is less right about a creation which would have automatically given him due glory without falling? Don’t worry—I’m not questioning what God did or didn’t do…I’m merely questioning the (seemingly) fatalistic thinking that was going on in that discussion verses my own studies and my own preconceptions.Brother Russ, I'll check out that Peter Lynds site since this stuff is pretty mindboggling. This specific determinist's outlook is pretty bleak especially when at one point in the discussion he was explaining how the Fall was a good thing he went onto agree that a woman being raped could be seen as a good thing. Basically an argument of ends justifying means because The One working the means is perfectly good so it’s okay for Him. As for:

man and that even though the future may not be determined (in the timeline sense), that God can bring about the sequence of events that bring about the end that He has desired and/or prophesied. But rather than the prophecies being something where God has seen the future, it is instead a statement of what God is committing Himself to bringing about (through a sequence of events that He orchestrates either through obedient creations or through direct intervention).

How does this differ from Open Theism? I think I know how but I was merely asking to let you flesh it out…or perhaps ask for a post...

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Rey, July 12, 2005

Um, I just reread my comment to Rebecca and it sounds like I'm being nasty. What I meant to do was highlight how she seems to have a better understanding of some of this than I do and then I was asking questions accordingly. It wasn't a brushing away of what she was saying.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Rebecca, July 12, 2005

Hehe! Good thing you posted that last post--not because I thought you were nasty, Rey, but because that was the only response I got an email notification of. I was oblivious to the continued conversation.

I shall be over again to respond later today....

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Rebecca, July 12, 2005

Sister Rebecca, maybe you have this figured out but if God were to determinedly make sure that He receives the glory why make a creation that falls at all?

I hesitate to answer questions like this because there's always the temptation to go beyond what we're told. Here's what I can know, though: Saving sinners glorifies God, particularly God's attribute of grace (Ephesians 1:5, 14; 2:7). Perhaps that creation fell doesn't glorify God in and of itself, but we know that the redemption that comes as a result of creation falling glorifies God because we're told that. Even the final destruction of wicked people glorifies God by demonstrating his wrath and power (Romans 9). And the creation of the church, which comes about as a result of God saving sinners, too, shows the multifaceted wisdom of God and it was part of his eternal plan that it do so (Ephesians 3:10,11). At least those particular aspects of God's character are demonstrated more fully with a fallen creation than they would be without a fallen creation, and demonstrating an attribute more fully glorifies God more fully by revealing more clearly all that God is.

What is less right about a creation which would have automatically given him due glory without falling?

I'm not going to answer this because I don't know the answer, but I do think that this question shows something of the difference in the way we're thinking about this. It seems that you are assuming that the only way that God gets glory is by creatures glorifying him, and if that's the case, then it makes perfect sense that the fall doesn't work to God's glory, since because of the fall, there are people who will never glorify God--who will spend eternity as God's enemies. I think that's not necessarily the case, however, because I think those verses that I gave suggest that having creatures glorify him is not the only way God is glorifies. God glorifies himself, too, by demonstrating the depth of his various characteristics.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Rey, July 13, 2005

This is exactly why I love discussing these things with you sister. You point at the boundary of scripture and purposefully remind us to tread lightly.

It seems that you are assuming that the only way that God gets glory is by creatures glorifying him, and if that's the case, then it makes perfect sense that the fall doesn't work to God's glory, since because of the fall, there are people who will never glorify God--who will spend eternity as God's enemies.

Yeah, it sounds like that but basically the question is more targeted at the concept that things are somehow better because God allowed the fall to happen. I actually believe that God already had glory within the Godhead...eternal at that and perfect. I have no problem saying "I don't know why He didn't wipe out creation and still remain perfectly just and loving". I just have a problem when in a discussion a person starts using the Finite to explain the InFinite. We don't fully have 3 dimensions of space all about figured out and yet have no problem coming to terms with an eternal omniscient, omnipresent God picking between two choices because one is so-called better. I think this is specifically why Paul merely falls in worship at the wisdom of God in Romans 11 after several heavy paragraphs of why Israel doesn't believe. He never says that "man their unbelief is a great thing" but he does say "man, if God is able to save distant sinners because they don't believe imagine what He'll do when He lifts up those Israelites! Oh can you imagine it? Don't go boasting you gentile branches...God can graft those native branches in quite easily--easier than He grafted you gentiles in i'm sure!"

I gotta get back to my Romans series at some point in time. :sad:

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Name

Website

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment