It's even worse than your let on. The post title is: "'For God so loved Himself?' Is God a Narcissist?"

This entirely ignores the fact that God, being triune, can do something for "himself" as God, and at the same time do it for another person of the Godhead.

There's some major confusion here about why it's bad for us to be oriented toward our own glory. It's not bad because glory is a bad thing. It's bad because we're not God.

If God weren't interested in his own glory, why would he command us to worship him?

And you as well; it's definitely a species of confusing the creature with the Creator.

Good points...but I still think there is a fundamental problem he does point out:

Is the CHIEF end of God His own glory? Or is God's glory a thing that (generally) comes about naturally as a result of his other actions?

I find the former rather scary. It means that in EVERYTHING that God does, there's a very unknowable motive--and it is primary.

(For instance: God is glorified because people go to heaven; God is glorified because people go to Hell.)

This implied equality between all of God's answers seems, to me, to underscore a lot of the normal commonsense things the Scriptures have to say about God.

iMonk: I totally agree with this:
Once you have a truth, you can over-compliment that truth to the point of distortion, lack of ability to read Biblical texts honestly, rejection of those who use different language than you do and overall clarity.

It is partly why I wrote They're exegeting the relevant texts in the comments there, and mostly doing it right in the post and this post at GDC a while back.

But it's the explicit aversion to the idea that God might actually be chiefly interested in his own glory that really confuses me. No, not confuses me -- freaks me out.

It's "disturbing"?
I understand that God receiving glory when a child dies isn't wise/timely pastoral counsel to grieving parents, nor to those grieving a departed unbeliever.
But doesn't Paul suggest these hard truths in Romans?

The texts must speak for themselves, I agree, whether they are saying Christ emptied himself, God loves us very much . . . or God is interested in receiving honor above all.
I mean, when Jesus tells people to leave their dead fathers to follow him or that he is the only way to know YHWH, isn't that kind of self-centered? Uncharitable?

One thing I hadn't seen mentioned in the BWIII thread is the chief commandment: Have no other gods before me.
That indicates a God not willing to share place with anything or anybody else.

YHWH is a jealous God.

I think the trouble may be that when you're describing God to people who don't believe in God, what they hear is you describing your religion - simply because they don't have anything else to hang your words on.

So "God is all about His glory" translates into "Our church is all about its glory" which obviously doesn't go over terribly well.

And making the same mistake about themselves is of course something teachers have to constantly be cautious of -- although I agree with Jared that, clearly understood, the idea of God's glory ought to be a guard against this, rather than a temptation to it.

We are valuable because God has declared us to be such. In a purely material universe value does not exist.

Zack N

You might want to go the Piper Youtube clip on the Prosperity Gospel- a clip that's had thousands of replays- and listen for yourself.

Peace,

MSpencer

iMonk,

Yeah, I have heard that and I see what you are geting at, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to be branded in a certain way based on only one statement you made.

My only point is that he has said other things than this clip and he should be given the benefit of the doubt that his views are probably a bit more complex than just "Smile! God is Sovereign!" We both would like to receive that in this type of situation, especially when we are being represented by others.

Again, he is far more nuanced in this clip:

http://takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com/2007/11/piper-on-npr-on-suffering.html

Does God's experiment with Job yield any light on this?

I hesitate to comment, but still . . .

I understand that we must present the truth in love, taking thought for a painful context, but I don't understand how all that matters is not God. Moses asked God his name, and he said, "I Am that I Am. . . . [tell them] 'I Am' hath sent me unto you." He is the Alpha and Omega, which means everything doesn't it?

I have a feeling this is what BW is offering: does Piper's God "come off" as a Narcissist when we hold conference after conference and publish book after book saying all that matters is God God God?

To be blunt: no. Why should it?

It ISN'T narcissistic of God to be concerned with His own glory because He's GOD. Us, in our fallenness, thinking about ourselves - yep, that's narcissism. But to think about God in that way is thinking backwards - it's thinking of Him in our terms rather than His... He's revealed His character to us in His Word - and He's good, kind, loving, and very much in love with His people... there's not a trace of narcissism there.

I don't have the slightest problem with God being glorified - or with being someone who occasionally manages to somehow give Him/bring Him glory. He deserves it - because He's God. I just wish I was better at bringing Him glory sometimes - but I guess that's part of what grace is for... :)

Hammer, meet nail. :)

it's not going to happen except out in the Arminian world

What makes you think it's going to happen there? Unless by "critical discussion" you really mean "negative discussion"; but a true critical discussion requires understanding, and that seems to be sorely lacking here. (On both sides, I realize; I'm not claiming that Piper understands Witherington any better than Witherington understands Piper.) Which, it seems to me, is the bottom line in this thread: it isn't about whether you like Reformed theology, be it Piper's version or anyone else's, it's about whether Witherington's reaction to Piper's theology is objectively reasonable. For my part, as someone with a family and personal connection to Asbury, I think Asbury deserved better from him than that.

Then what are you saying?

I mean, just as Jared mentioned, I get that over-emphasizing one doctrine to the detriment of others is a bad thing. But I didn't see anything wrong with what Piper said in that clip, and that's where you said to look. He didn't even discuss God's sovereignty. So what are you resenting, other than the implication you created and I responded to?

Frankly, I think you left your statement vague enough so that you could claim this kind of plausible deniability when anybody called you out, but you either won't really say or don't know what your problem is with Piper.

BW's provocative statement of John 3:16 is a good example. Would that statement- God so loved himself that he gave...- disturb most young Calvinists today? I tend to think a significant number wouldn't see any problem.

Your statement would seem to indicate that you would see a problem with that; and yet when Alan asked you if in fact you do have a problem with that, you said that you resent the implication. I'm confused here.

If this is going to be a discussion of my orthodoxy, let me save you some time: according to a rather lengthy list of Reformed Baptists, I'm not a Christian.

Who cares? I certainly don't; from your tone, it rather sounds like you do, but I'm not sure why. For my part, I prefer the approach of Harold O. J. Brown, as described by S. M. Hutchens: "A strong Protestant, Joe was a friend of Christians wherever he found them."

I will say this, however: if that sort of thing bothers you, I'd suggest you could be rather less judgmental of other people's orthodoxy.

No matter how you want to theoogically justify it, the Bible doesn't ever say God loves himself. It says the Father loves the son, etc, but that's a far different expression.

No, actually, it isn't. That's what I mean by understanding this discussion in the light of the reality of the Trinity. What is meant by statements about God loving himself is precisely the love among the three Persons of the Trinity. I think you're construing this in terms of the Father gazing adoringly into a mirror--and that's just not what's on here; you're not critically interacting with the actual beliefs of those against whom you're setting yourself, you're just attacking a straw man. I make no pretense to set myself up as a judge of orthodoxy--that was the job of the ecumenical councils--but I do claim the right to insist that my position be fairly represented and challenged on its own merits.

With saying "God loved himself so he gave his only son...?" Yeah, as a rewording of scripture into an equally true statement, I absolutely would have a problem.

In the first place, that's a misquote. In the second place, when Alan rephrased your position into the equivalent assertion "that God didn't also send his Son to glorify his name through the redemption of creation," your response was, "I am not saying that, and I resent the implication." So, which is it? Are you saying that, or aren't you? And if you think these two are not in fact equivalent, why?

The questions might be "Does God bring glory to Himself?" or "Does God love Himself"?

Actually, my question would be this: for the purposes of this discussion, is the distinction between those two questions actually significant? I don't think it is. If the latter is narcissistic, then so is the former. With the removal of human motives such as compensation for insecurities, what reason would there be for God to glorify himself except that he loves himself? And from a trinitarian point of view, if this isn't about the Father endlessly adoring himself, but rather about the Father endlessly adoring and desiring to glorify the Son and the Spirit, and so on, then what's the problem with either proposition?

The other thing I'd say is that the singular pronoun is the cause of a lot of our problems here. After all, if 1 John is right to tell us that "God is love," this must mean that God was love before we were created; the root and source of love must be the intra-trinitarian love of God, not his love for his creation. This is why I said that Witherington is actually threatening what he desires to uphold--it's only because God loves Themself that he created us in order to extend the circle of divine love. It's only the phrasing that makes this sound narcissistic. And yet, if we can't say, "God loves himself," problematic though the limitations of our language and grammar might be, then we cannot say that God loves us.

BTW, one clarification: TR?