click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Questions I Hope No One Asks: Is God an Egotistical Maniac?
by C Michael PattonFebruary 20th, 2011
42 Comments
“Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God . . . so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever.” 1 Peter 4:11
“Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” 1 Corinthians 10:31 31
“It is absurd to believe that the deity has human passions, and one of the lowest human passions, a restless appetite for applause.” -David Hume
There is a popular notion among Evangelicals that I think has become part of our folklore. Indeed, it is the shibboleth (secret pass code) of my fellow Calvinists. When I call this “folklore” I don’t necessarily mean “not true” (as we will see), I simply mean that it is uncritically accepted without much thought. Many would say that God’s sole purpose, intent, and motivation for creating humanity and all of creation was for His own self-glorification. If you were to ask this question to God: “God, why did you create us?” His answer, without hesitation, would be, “Easy, to glorify myself.”
Many unbelievers will bring this up as a primary point of departure from the Christian faith. They would say that the Christian God is an egotistical maniac, only out for his own self-glory. As one person put it: “If I had a child I would not bring him into this world and say, ‘Congratulations, I created you to worship me’. I would not want a son simply to serve me.” He goes on, “I never asked to participate in this game of life. I was nothing and then I was created simply to serve him or I’d have to burn for eternity?” He goes on to accuse God of being egotistical, sharing in the most base traits of humanity. Is this true? Does God have a “relentless appetite for applause”?
Wrong Answers
Wrong answer #1: Yes, God is an ego maniac. But it is okay since he is God.
This is the answer that many people would give (though not in so many words!). The idea is that being self-serving and demanding of recognition is acceptable so long as the recognition is warranted. What makes it bad for us is because we don’t deserve it. Therefore, God’s egotism is a “righteous egotism.” What is base and sinful for man is not so with God.
I am going to let you in on a little secret. I am from Oklahoma. We have a certain way of getting by with things here though the way we talk. We can sanctify many conversations by using certain qualifiers. For example, we can get by with any gossip by simply adding the words “God bless his/her/their soul” to the end of the sentence. “Did you hear about Bobby and Susan? They are having marital problems, God bless their soul.” “I hear that Rick is starting to drink again, God bless his soul.” I think we have something similar in Christianity. We can attribute just about anything to God so long as we tag it with the word “righteous.” God is vindictive, but it is a “righteous vindictiveness.” God is jealous, but it is a “righteous jealousy”. God is cruel, but it is a “righteous cruelty.” I think we need to be careful here. Sometimes these things are true such as God’s jealousy (Deut. 5:9). But simply placing the word “righteous” in from of it does not often do justice to what is trying to be said.
To say that God is egotistical or a glory monger without lots of qualification can do great damage to his character. It is not okay for us to ascribe attributes that do not fit God’s personality as revealed in Scripture.
However, let me first say this: God could very well be egotistical and self-consumed and we, as His creation, could not say anything to change that. We don’t have a vote in truth. Our ballots won’t get tallied in the heavens. God is who he is and we simply discover this. We don’t create him. But the fact still remains that even among the best and brightest of our kind, we do not honor glory mongers. Why? Because anyone who only seeks to draw attention to themselves is seen as a dysfunctional human who needs physiological help. We understand that one of the greatest characteristics that humans can possess is being focused upon others even in their own greatness. Do we really want to allow God to bear a great dysfunction and call it a virtue simply because His is deserving? I would be very careful with this.
Theological Considerations: When we, without qualification, concede that God is only out for his own glory we can implicitly deny His aseity thus implying some sort of lack or need in God. The aseity of God is a doctrine which says God is without any need. Literally, he is “of himself.” This means that God does not need man in any way whatsoever. He was not in heaven twiddling his thumbs before creation and therefore decided to create us to avoid eternal boredom. It was not that God was lonely and needed companionship. Neither was God in need of someone to respond to him by giving him glory.
I love this passage of Scripture:
Psalm 50:7-12
“Hear, O My people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you; I am God, your God. 8 “I do not reprove you for your sacrifices, And your burnt offerings are continually before Me. 9 I shall take no young bull out of your house Nor male goats out of your folds. 10 For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills. 11 I know every bird of the mountains, And everything that moves in the field is Mine. 12 If I were hungry I would not tell you, For the world is Mine, and all it contains.”
God does not need people’s sacrifices. God does not need people’s prayers. God does not need people’s love. God owns everything. He is fully self-satisfied. And God did not and does not need us to glorify Him. Unless qualified with the reality of God’s aseity, saying God created us to glorify himself will do more harm than good.
Analogous Consideration: Consider an analogy for a moment. The closest that you and I can come to understanding the motive for creation is in having children. We have the ability to decide whether or not to have children. While we are not the ultimate creator of our children, we do serve as secondary causes and, from a human standpoint, do have a choice to make in the decision making process. When Kristie and I decided to start having children, we had reasons. But what if someone were to ask me why I had my first daughter Katelynn and I said, “Because I wanted to glorify myself. My primary purpose is that she would one day know how great I am.” You would probably send me off somewhere in a paddy wagon and rightly so. But this is not the case. Kristie and I had Katelynn because it was a joy to share life with others. We receive great pleasure from this. We wanted someone to love, not necessarily someone who would love us. Katelynn will naturally respond in recognition of us and bring honor and glory to us so long as we deserve it. But our deserving of this does not equate to the motive behind our decision. I believe it is the same way with God. God is perfect and deserving of glory, and we, as His children, should recognize Him for who He is and thereby give Him glory. But this does not imply that His purpose in creation was for this end (again, unless qualified).
Biblical Consideration: If I were to hand a person a Bible who has never read it before and ask them to tell me why they think God created everything, I doubt that they would ever say at the end of the day, “The best I can tell is that God has created all things with the purpose that He receives glory.” What they would probably do is be overwhelmed by the generosity and mercy of God. I think the most natural conclusion from Scripture is to say that the God of the Bible created all of creation so that He could share of Himself. Therefore, generosity and grace would be the primary motive in creation, not self-glorification.
Notice, from the very beginning, God is seen as a giving God with no explanation as to why. I flip the pages of Scripture as if reading it for the first time and ask “Why is he doing all of this for man?” Adam was given life. God gave Adam the earth to rule over. He gave him the animals. If that weren’t enough, He then gave him Eve. Even when they rebelled, God initiated a plan to give man redemption. He gave them children and began to work through the line of one of them so that He could eventually redeem man who did not deserve to be redeemed. He gave Abraham a promise that He would be a father of many nations and that through him he would give the world a great blessing. When the fullness of time came, He gave His own Son over to a terrible death for man.
I am sorry, but I do not find an egotistical God whose sole unqualified purpose in creation is self-glorification. It is just not there, but maybe I have missed something.
But we are not done. If God is so concerned about some egotistical self-glorification, why is it that he is found consummating all things by sharing in his glory with us. Finally, when all is complete and the restoration of all things has come to pass, he gives his own glory over to humans.
“The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.” (Romans 8:16-17; emphasis added)
“And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.” (Romans 8:30; emphasis added)
“Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.” (Daniel 12:3)
Shining like the stars is a vivid illustration of receiving glory. I do not believe that God is presented in the Scripture as one who is egotistically seeking to puff himself up. On the contrary, he is one who is continually giving of himself and sharing in his glory.
Wrong answer #2: No, God does not care about his own glory.
I think that this answer is just as bad as the first. God does care about his own glory. God does seek to be worshiped. God does demand the allegiance of every created thing. But the reason is not because he needs these things. Nor is it because he has this one small eternal vice. The reason why he seeks his own glory because he wants all of creation to be brought into concert with reality. He wants his beauty to be seen because he created us in such a way to find the most fulfillment and satisfaction in a recognition of the way things actually are. And the way things actually are is found in his glory.
Is it egotistical for the ocean to roar. Is it egotistical for the sun to shine so bright. Is it egotistical for romantic love to make our hearts drop? Is it egotistical for chocolate to make our mouth water? Is it egotistical for the expanse of the universe to cause us to stand in awe? Is it egotistical for sex to feel good? Is it egotistical for music to effect our emotions? Is it egotistical for the sky to be blue? Yes, all of these are attributes of impersonal things. But they all call out for recognition nonetheless. This recognition brings fulfillment to us, not to the things themselves. When we see a personal God who not only created all these things that beacon us to joyful recognition but is also the very embodiment of them calling on us to glorify him, he is doing nothing else but what is expected from a loving God. He is calling us to recognize him and his beauty. In doing so, we experience the greatest pleasure existence has to offer. His call for us to recognize him is nothing other than a call for our own ultimate fulfillment.
Not only this, but it brings glory to God to be who he is and to act out his character. When God says through the prophet Isaiah “Everyone who is called by My name, and whom I have created for My glory, whom I have formed, even whom I have made” (Isa. 4:7; emphasis mine), he is not talking about an egotistical trip that he went on at creation, but the glory that he receives by being who he is—the creator.
My Answer:
The reason why this made my list of questions that I hope no one asks is not because the answer is that mysterious. Neither is it because (like so many of these) I don’t really want anyone to ask it. It is because it takes some deep thinking and is so often misunderstood. God is not an egomaniac. Far from it. I think it is clear from Scripture that he is the most giving and loving God that we could imagine. He is a God who created us to share with us all things, including his glory.
While becoming man was the most humbling thing God has ever done (Phil. 2:5-8), I think creating man has to come in a close second. He knew that man would reject him. He knew that without drastic intervention the very work of his hands, to whom he gave so much, would raise their fists in the air in defiance. He knew that he would have to sacrifice his own Son to rescue the ones who hated him. Yet he did it anyway. And we want to call that egotistical? An egotistical God would not have dared creating man knowing how much his ego would suffer from such a cause.
God’s purpose in creating us was to give to us life, love, and joy. His purpose in creating us was for us to share in his glory. He calls on us to worship, serve, and adore him precisely because he wants us to be fulfilled. His glory is reality. Our glorifying him is merely a recognition of that reality. Therefore, our purpose in life is to bring God ultimate glory in hopes that all of creation will be completely fulfilled.
“Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” 1 Corinthians 10:31
Similar Posts:
- Was God’s purpose in creation to glorify Himself?
- Don’t forget to enjoy life
- Stephen Hawking Worships the “Unknown God”
- Questions I Hope No One Asks: Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone?
- Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone? (Sam Storms)
Loading ...
42 Comments
Like or Dislike:
1
ultimate ends vs. proximate ends?
Like or Dislike:
0
God made us to share in his love.
Well done on the God shares his glory with men. Moreover, I think God is even more glorified in this.
I do wonder whether there is a difference in God wanting glory and God being offended when men attempt to deny him his due. It is one thing to emphasise one’s own ability, it is another when men seek to diminish the magnitude of another’s due.
Do we see God rebuking men because, though they glorify him, they just don’t fully grasp how wonderful he is? I think not. God is pleased with our feeble attempts. But if we diss God, then he tells us this is unacceptable.
By the way, a paddy wagon is a police car and will take you to the cop shop, not the nut house (the latter I perceive was your intention?)
Like or Dislike:
0
Maybe Matt. Which are the ultimate and which are the proximate?
Like or Dislike:
0
Yeah, need to update the paddy wagon thing! What do you call the white vans that pick up crazy people? Anything?
Like or Dislike:
1
Who would ever argue that God’s purposes of self glorification have to do with ego? Glory is always for the purpose of displaying oneself to another. It is that which brings out what an individual is. In the case of God, He is displaying who He is for the purposes of relationship. He gives us our own glory, but it’s not His glory because we are not Him. His disclosure to us is through His glorification and it is therefore salvific in nature. I know of no one who would paint it in terms of ego, either explicitly or implicitly. Can you give an example? I think there seems to be a confusion as well between the terms “glory” and “exaltation,” although I would still say God’s exaltation is in relationship to His creatures and for salvific purposes. Exaltation and glory are not egotistical for God because He is to be exalted and glorified as God. We are not to be exalted and glorified as God. Ergo, the sin of self glorification and exaltation can only be committed by humans.
Like or Dislike:
1
BTW, I’m pretty sure the paddy wagon was once used to haul mentally ill individuals to institutions.
Like or Dislike:
1
Hodge, you have never heard anyone accuse God of being egotistical?
There were two examples in the post. I bet you could google “God” and “egomaniac” and find plenty of examples. Paul Copan has spoken on it in a recent apologetics seminar. Joh Piper wrote on it in “Let the Nations Be Glad” I think.
Like or Dislike:
1
I think the phrase “white van” would have the desired effect in your sentence!
Like or Dislike:
1
Great video of John Piper answering the same question that many people have used as an excuse for not believing in Jesus. It’s almost an hour long…
Is Jesus an Egomaniac?
http://vimeo.com/9450037
Like or Dislike:
1
I just tell people that God is the greatest good by virtue of His being. If He treats something else as a good greater than Himself, then He is not a God of truth.
Like or Dislike:
1
Sorry, Michael. I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about people giving this as a defense, as though people say that God is egotistical and it’s OK for Him to be so (i.e., it’s OK for Him to do what is wrong, since we view egotism as a sin).
Like or Dislike:
1
CMP,
I can struggle with the thought of God being a glory monger. Though it doesn’t dissuade me from giving Him the glory He rightly deserves, I enjoyed your post greatly and found it illuminating.
Like or Dislike:
1
His insistance on his own glorification can seem egotistical, but as we were made to know him, more God is the best thing for us.
Like or Dislike:
1
To give glory to anything that God has created, would be idolatry. This is something that fallen mankind has a propensity towards, and the apostle Paul deals with Romans chapter 1.
Like or Dislike:
1
This is one problem faced when one over anthrpomorphizes a perfect sin-less God, with the image of fallen sinful man. God is not needy, but when we give glory to anything that God created, it will ultimately destroy us.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Michael Patton, Judyallbrite. Judyallbrite said: RT @CMichaelPatton: Is God an egotistical maniac? http://bit.ly/fTPQ6N [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Another problem answered by the doctrine of the Trinity. While the Godhead receives ALL the glory, each Person, in humility, can redirect glory to the other Persons of the Godhead
Like or Dislike:
0
Here is an interesting and related post: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/11/for-god-so-loved-himself-is-god.html
Like or Dislike:
1
That was really well explained. Love it! thanks
Like or Dislike:
1
[...] Pyromaniacs Israel’s Modern Exodus: Faith in Egyptian Democratization – Carlo Strenger Questions I Hope No One Asks: Is God an Egotistical Maniac? – C. Michael Patton Beware: The Bible is About to Threaten Your Smartphone Focus – John [...]
Like or Dislike:
1
Piper gives the short answer to Brad Pitt:
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/brad-pitt-why-emphasize-gods-god-centeredness
Like or Dislike:
1
“God’s purpose in creating us was to give to us life, love, and joy. His purpose in creating us was for us to share in his glory.” He did not create everyone for this purpose. Woe to those who will suffer eternal torment. They will glorify God with their suffering. How fortunate are we few who He chose to save.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I believe that some of the confusion comes about because 11 entirely different Hebrew words were translated “glory” at least once. But when we see the word “glory” that Moses face shone with, but it faded, and when Christ’s face shown with glory, it was brighter than the sun. These earthly vessels cannot contain that glory. They would be destroyed. We need to be recreated before we can ever “shine brightly…
like the stars” (Dan.12:3). … God foreshadowed the work that was necessary to prepare the tabernacle/temple for His presence. After the cross and resurrection, men become a temple of God. God’s hidden plan is now manifested: Christ in us, our hope for glory. As we are placed in Christ, our flesh is crucified(Gal. 2:19; Rom. 6:1-6) and circumcised -removed
(Col. 2:11). Baptized into Christ we are clothed with Christ (Gal. 3:27) and Jesus Christ now dwells in our hearts (Eph. 3:17). That is a new creation! Those who have been called by His name have been created for His glory (light, not exaltation) (Is. 43:7). When God gives His glory (light) to Jesus Christ, then by virtue of being “members of Christ’s Body”, and having Christ in us then we receive God’s glory too.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I love Psalm 50 as well. It reminds me of the Babylonian legend of Atrahasis flood story. At the end of the flood the gods realize they can’t get rid of the humans like that because they NEED them. The flood caused the sacrifices to cease. The fickle gods begin to starve. When Atrahasis finally makes a sacrifice, the gods come pouring out upon it like blood thirsty dogs. They were so hungry. I see this Psalm as mocking those gods. Thank God he is not those gods.
Like or Dislike:
0
John B,
Your understanding of God as seen in His working with men as stated in comment #21 goes so against what I believe the Bible as a whole teaches about God that I just can’t accept it. I see Him spoken of as Michael did in the OP.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cherlu,
I’m back. The Bible is clear that God does everything after the counsel of his own will and does so for his glory(see esp Eph 1; Rom 9 etc). God does not have to justify himself to his creatures (ex: Job). I really am not being mean when I say to you and others like you that what you believe the Bible says and what you can or cannot accept sounds like a personal problem – it is not God’s problem. God’s ways are not our ways and we can’t force him into a box of our making (calvinist, arminian, open theism). If there are things in Scripture that don’t make sense to us we can not just dispose of them as we like. The Bible is not a buffet for us to pick and choose what we like and ignore what we don’t.
Like or Dislike:
0
Harley,
The trouble is, those of us that aren’t Calvinists find way too much in Scripture that just doesn’t fit the Calvinist mold or way of understanding things. It appears to us that you are trying to fit a whole lot of square pegs into round holes to make it all fit and your arguments aren’t all that convincing.
And for a God that defines Himself as being “love” creating some people for the sole purpose of unimaginable eternal suffering so He can be glorified is the ultimate square peg that doesn’t fit into a round hole as far as I can tell.
BTW, in case you haven’t seen me saying it before, I don’t claim to be an Arminian either as I think they also have some square pegs that don’t fit. I think it is either a mystery that we will likely never solve, or there has to be a better way of understanding all of this. Calvinism doesn’t solve it for me.
Like or Dislike:
0
Harley,
I guess I am ‘one of those others” as well. I live my christian life in tension with some doctrines and realize I could be wrong. However as with cherlyu I find what you are suggesting from scripture is not as black and white as you think.
Cherylu ……love the square pegs /round holes visual reference…
Like or Dislike:
0
cherlu/jim,
look closely and you will see I put calvinism in there with the others. I didn’t even mention any doctrines. As far as black and white, Scripture seems very clear that God does what he wants and for his purposes. As far as love goes, who are we (creatures) to say the God (Creator) what love is? It was love that crucified Christ and had him suffer for our sakes. Would you do that to your child for people who hate you? Would your child consider it loving of you? There are many things that God did in the OT that you would not consider to be loving and yet they were. There are mysteries in/of God, which we may never understand. It is arrogant to think we can explain everything or demand that God explain. (again see the last chapters of Job)
Like or Dislike:
0
Besides Piper’s answer (which I won’t pretend to improve on), perhaps it would help to distinguish motive from goal. God’s ultimate goal in creation is to glorify himself. He will achieve this goal. God’s motive in accomplishing this goal is his love for that creation. I think Piper has persuasively shown that these are not in competition with each other.
So I would just tweak your first answer to say, “Demanding recognition is acceptable so long as the recognition is warranted… and so long as that recognition is the best thing for the one doing the recognizing.” In fact, if this is the case, it would be doubly offensive for God not to demand that we recognize his inestimable value.
Like or Dislike:
0
Harley,
I asked this question somewhere on P and P before but if anyone answered it I don’t recall.
We are told in the NT by Jesus Himself to love others and even our enemies. I would assume that is part of what we do when we are conformed to the image of Jesus is it not? Nothing at all in any kind of love a human knows, Christian or unChristian, would create most of humanity to send them to hell so that the creator would be glorified. If we are to be conformed to His image and His image is one of creating billions of people to suffer, we have a problem here don’t we?
Try having a child for the purpose of making them suffer for all of their life and see how far that gets you!! Probably to prison for many years–perhaps even a lethal injection.
The whole thing is totally incongruent as far as I can tell. One certainly has to stand all concepts of love on their heads to say that love creates for the sake of making to suffer.
Like or Dislike:
0
cherylu,
see Prov 16:4 – God has made even the wicked for the day of trouble. The day of trouble is literally “the day of evil” and refers to the day of judgment or punishment. What God’s purpose is in creating the wicked for punishment the proverb does not say. (A Handbook on Proverbs, UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (New York: United Bible Societies, 2000), 348.)
God’s love, as an attribute of God, can’t be separated from the others. There are layers of love: God loves his creation, he provides for them but there is the special love of God for his people. Our love is a dim reflection of God’s (1Cor 13:12). Jesus demonstrated the difference when he prayed not for the world, but only for the ones the Father gave him and would give him. It is oversimplification to speak of love as only we see it or wish it. Only at the end will we see how all things work together for God’s glory.
Like or Dislike:
0
Harley,
Well it is totally beyond human comprehension, that is for sure, that God could create the largest share of humanity for the purpose of suffering eternally and that could be loving in any way. I somehow don’t think those people that were created to endure unending torment are going to think they were loved much, (or at all.)
The whole concept seems to be an oxymoron. It just doesn’t work in my mind at all.
Like or Dislike:
0
cherylu,
I think that there will be more people in Heaven than hell, but only God knows for sure.
God is the only one who has intrinsic worth, our worth is derived from him. If he decides that something , like evil for example, will ultimately serve to glorify him then by definition that thing is good and justified. Our worth is derived from and given by God, in light of the purpose for which our creator made us. God as creator has the right to do whatever he wishes with his creatures. Because he is good and has defined goodness for us by revealing his nature and commands, it is logically impossible to accuse God of doing anything morally wrong. No person judges God – God judges every person. He is LORD -in authority, with power, righteousness-over all.
Like or Dislike:
0
Harley,
It seems to me and also many others that it is logically impossible to say that “good” includes creating many people for the sheer purpose of undergoing eternal torture. You have to totally disregard any human understanding of good, love, etc. in order to be able to do that. We can just as well throw all our definitions completely out the door if that is the case, because they simply do not work at all.
Have you ever considered the possiblity that you are one of those created for the sheer purpose of being tortured eternally? I assume you believe yourself to be one of the elect. But what if you are wrong–does it seem good, right, and loving to you by any humanly known definition to consider the fact that you might have only eternal, unimaginable torture ahead of you because God created you for that “good” purpose? How in the world do you even begin to live with such a thought? I would hope it horrifies you as much as it does me.
Like or Dislike:
0
cherylu,
yes, I have thought of that and all I can say is whatever God does is good. Peter says to make our calling and election sure and that is what I try to do, but I might not be elect and if not then I deserve hell. I think that is what most people forget – we all DESERVE hell, not heaven.
The other thing I think that many forget is that God is LORD. He is way above us, his ways, thoughts,etc are not like ours. We image him, he doesn’t image us, and we are a marred image. He accomodates his language so that we can understand only what he has revealed. And all for his glory. Too many christians think that God and his actions must be fully explained to us, which is just flat wrong. We are to walk by faith, not sight. Prov 16:4, 16:9, 20:24, 21:1,Dan 4:35, James 4:13-15, and on and on. We submit to Scripture (only) in matters of God and faith. more Lam 3:37-38,Is 43:6-7,45:7, 53:10-
Like or Dislike:
0
Harley,
Yes, we all deserve hell. But in the scheme of things we have been talking about here, it isn’t because we all deserve hell that we are going there. The crux of the matter in this discussion is that God created us for the specific purpose of going to hell. Remember, that is where this conversation started–by someone saying that God didn’t create all for His love and goodness but that God created the largest share of humanity to go to hell for his glories sake. There is quite a bit of difference between saying someone is going to hell because they deserve it and someone going to hell because they were created for that explicit purpose because God needed that to happen for His glory.
Like or Dislike:
0
cherylu,
the crux of the matter is that God created us knowing/permitting the fall, thus knowing that we all deserved to go to hell. The fall was not a surprise to God. Regardless of your favorite doctrinal stand, that means that God knowingly created some that would perish eternally. And he did this for his glory. And he did not, for reasons only he knows, feel it necessary to explain himself to us. And I still think that the glory of God is best served by what he determines, not what his creatures think would be best.
Like or Dislike:
0
Harley,
One more comment on this subject, then I think I am done because we simply do not agree. But what you are talking about in your last comment as “the crux of the matter” is not what I have been specifically arguing against in this particular thread. I have been referring to the statement John B made in comment # 22 which I read to refer to double predestination–not simply knowing or permitting the fall, but actively before time began decreeing that some were to be created to go to hell to show God’s wrath for His glory’s sake. They are in my mind two totally different things. Maybe I misunderstood what John meant, I don’t know. Here is his quote:
“God’s purpose in creating us was to give to us life, love, and joy. His purpose in creating us was for us to share in his glory.” He did not create everyone for this purpose. Woe to those who will suffer eternal torment. They will glorify God with their suffering. How fortunate are we few who He chose to save.
Like or Dislike:
0
Harley,
Again the way we use our words is confusing. You said he permitted the fall, I agree. But he did not create or will the fall. As Cherylu has stated this is where we tend to stray apart. I agree with most everything you said except that God purposely creates people to go to hell for his glory. You may disagree, but I cannot get past this with the love that God shows through all of scripture.
I am going away for awhile and won’t be able to discuss for the better part of a week, Take care and God Bless you in your walk.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jim,
A good share of the reason that I think the Calvinist understanding of things must be off somewhere is that I don’t think the love that I see as God’s character in the Bible even fits with deliberately passing over some and not giving them a chance for salvation when they were born sinners and can be nothing else. But that more moderate Calvinist stance is nothing compared to the thought that God actually created some people for the purpose of sending them to hell for His glory. That is an idea that leaves me completely cold.
Like or Dislike:
0
unless you want to deny that God knows the future, you are stuck with accepting that God creates people that He knows for absolute certain will face judgment.
but the world is full of people who are fond of their notion of “God” and even “Jesus” who cheerfully reject the bible when it teaches something that offends their personal definition of “love” or “morality.” they are ok with john 3:16 but balk at psalm 2 – too mocking and violent for a God of “love…”
More Comments: