Comments on: Witherington’s Critique of Schreiner’s NT Theology

By: Matt B

Matt B — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 05:33:19 +0000

As far as glory being defined in more concrete terms I wonder if God’s glory encounter with Moses is helpful. In the text we find Moses explicitely asking to see God’s glory; God in turn grants the request of Moses and in the subsequent verse we find the text saying, “I will have my GOODNESS pass before you.” Could the central feature of God’s glory be his supreme goodness. That in and of itself may be a bit abstract but it may be helpful.

By: rey

rey — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:43:30 +0000

BrianW is right on in #6. The god of Calvinism looks so much like allah, a one person god who is a self-exalting egomaniac. The true God, Jehovah, is not concerned with this overarching self-adulation, but the Father is concerned with glorifying his Son, and the Son with glorifying the Father, and the Holy Spirit with both. But why? To receive bare praise from robots as allah does in Calvinism? No. Rather, to provide happiness for men, since the glorification of the Son by the Father and of the Father by the Son and of both by the Holy Spirit is good for men. The love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the father results in his love for man, for men were made by and for the Son, and therefore in seeking to glorify the Son, the Father will help men. And also, the Son in seeking to glorify the Father will provide for the adoption of men, for them to be joint heirs with him. How much better is this vision of the true God, Jehovah, than is the dark and dismal vision of Calvinism’s allah.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:31:45 +0000

I must say after following all this that I have to side with Piper/Schreiner in this controversy. The thesis of the book is right on the spot. Ben was trying to diagnose it to mean a narcisistic tendency on the part of God. God is worthy of ALL the glory, man on the other hand is totally depraved (spiritually) very worthy of death. So how can a perfect God be guilty of a human pathology in his dealing with man as revealed in the scriptures? Hard to imagine.

Jerry

By: Arminian

Arminian — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:32:22 +0000

This is not an Arminian/Calvinist issue. As my username testifies, I am an Arminian. But I agree more with Piper/Schreiner on this. I respect Ben Witherington, but the Bible seems clear that God’s glory is supreme. And it is precisely his nature as love that makes this not selfish but the most loving thing God could do. Part of the problem is that I think that many Calvinists (occasionally Piper) define God’s glory as fame or praise, which is part of it but not the whole. God’s glory has to do with the manifestation of his charcater and perfection and its magnificence and the loving/esteeming of it. For God to pursue his glory involves him pursuing our good and eliciting from us the loving of who he is (love) and being like him. It is one joy-filled blessing fest driveb by the blessing God, who is forever blessed; blessed be his name.

(I could say much much more, but I am short on time. I just did not want this to be wrongly framed as an Arminian vs. Calvinist issue just because Witherington is rightly and wisely an Arminian. I, and many other Arminians I believe, embrace God’s glory as the chief end of God and of man. It is in fact Arminianism that gives greatest glory to God in my opinion. That is one reason why I am Arminian.)

By: John

John — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:26:18 +0000

“[Arminians] … say that the Augustinian tradition subordinates the love of God to the will of God … But this is not what distinguishes the Augustinian tradition from the Arminian tradition. The distinction is between intensive and extensive love, between an intensive love that saves its loved ones, and an extensive love that loves everyone in general and saves no one in particular.

Or if you really wish to cast this in terms of willpower, it’s the distinction between divine willpower and human willpower. Or, to put the two together, does God will the salvation of everyone with a weak-willed, ineffectual love, or does God love his loved ones with a resolute will that gets the job done?… Which is more loving?

So the difference is not about love and glory, it is about what kind of love does God actually have toward his people: conditional or unconditional ?

By: Yvette

Yvette — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:25:40 +0000

Drew,

Your statements to BryanL were quite rude.
You wrote: “You just leave a bunch of nonsensical comments. If you need attention – call a friend.” It would be more useful for all of us to respond in the grace we would wish to receive.

In a conversation on glory, inquiring of Denny’s understanding of glory seems quite germane to the topic. Wesley had similar questions. Answers to both Bryan’s and Wesley’s questions would probably be beneficial to many in the community of faith. I know I would benefit from such concretization.

By: Ruth

Ruth — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:30:50 +0000

Excellent response!
I was very disappointed in the Witherington critique. You have dealt with it admirably.

By: Drew

Drew — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:44:46 +0000

Bryan L,

I think it would be better to start reading your systematic theology books than to ask irrelevant questions here. Especially in light of the discussion between Denny and BW. You just leave a bunch of nonsensical comments. If you need attention – call a friend.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:00:56 +0000

I agree with Bryan L that the word “glory” and the phrase “God’s glory” need to be better defined.

Paul (in Romans) states that “for all of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” As we have been brought near to Himself by His blood there is an indication in the scriptures that rather than falling short we are now progressively being taken from glory to glory in Christ.

I am curious of what you guys might have to say concerning the relationship between Gods love, man’s faith, and God’s glory. Could it be said that the “walk by faith” is a walk–by faith, on love, toward glory?

The way I understand faith in God to be possible is by a revelation of His love. In other words, as God has revealed Himself (His love) to me, my faith (trust) in Him has grown. Love has a way of simplifying things. I believe that it is this response by faith to His love that brings me into the knowledge of His glory and causes Him to be glorified in and through me. But it all begins with and upon God’s Love.

By: Bryan L

Bryan L — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:43:10 +0000

Denny,
Can you go more into what you mean by glory? What does it mean for God to do something for his glory? Does he receive glory or does he maintain or uphold (?) his glory? If he receives his glory who does he receive the glory from? Us or himself? Obviously like you said he doesn’t become more glorious ontologically, so what do you see happening?

Whenever I hear the word glory it sounds like such an abstract concept that I’m not sure that I understand it the way you do. When someone instead refers to glory as reputation or their good name or something like that it’s easier to understand.

Similarly it’s easier to understand God doing all this (creation, redemption etc…) because he loves us or because that is his character (that’s easy to picture), but to say he does all of this things for his glory is not so easy to picture. So maybe if you don’t mind your could flesh that out a little more and put it into more concrete terms.

Thanks,
Bryan L