1.) “It’s not supported by the text.” The book of John, Jesus goes on an on about the purpose of his ministry is go give God glory. Imitate him. There is so much more throughout the Bible, it is exhausting.

2.) “It is one thing to say God is concerned about emanating or making known his glory.” I think that you may be misunderstanding that glory is God’s primary goal. Of course his character has many facets. The plan for glory and worship is primary. You may not be fair to your church or to “glory theology” to say that they ignore other facets. If you are going to be post, you should be fair. Primary is primary, though.

3.) “...it is another to say God is primarily concerned with absorbing it or enjoying it.” If you don’t understand how good God is, then you can’t understand this. If God is just another ‘buddy’, then you are missing who God really is. We are all missing who God really is. “No eye has seen” In other words, you have no idea what your in for.

4.) “...God distorts the good acts of God.” Your point is a little unclear to me. “God’s profession of love for us, of knowing even the hairs on our head, his willingness to go to all lengths to redeem us from our sin and shame” That doesn’t make you want to give him glory and worship him?

None of glory theology can be understood outside of the context of missions in my mind. Still, if you are interested in a down to earth message about this, try “Cat and Dog Theology.” They take some time to respond to your concerns.

The greek word for glorify is doxazo which means to praise. Praise is much more than compliments, it is a thankful enjoyment of the gift of God Himself!! (1 Peter 3:18, Ephesians 2:18). So it must follow that God values us (our good) as highly as He values Himself being glorified because they are one and the same endeavor. The chief END of man is to glorify God and/BY enjoying Him forever. (Psalm 37:4). I think Piper is right to say that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him but I do believe that Piper made God look selfish. Remember that God does not have to have any kind of self-concern because He is self-sufficient.

“the absolute difference between God and the world presupposed by the doctrine of creation from nothing becomes also a way of asserting the continuity between the being of God and the act of creation as the utterance and ‘overflow’ of the divine life. Belief in creation from nothing is one reflective path towards understanding God as trinity; and belief in God as trinity, intrinsic self-love and self-gift, establishes creation, while not ‘needed’ by God, is wholly in accord with the divine being as being-for-another. To put it provacatively: God creates ‘in God’s interest’ (there could be no other motive for divine action); but that ‘interest’ is not the building-up of the divine life, which simply is what it is, but its giving away. For God to act for God’s sake is for God to act for our sake.”

This is from On Christian Theology (Blackwell, 2000), p. 74.

I think this gets to what you were wondering about why matter and creation cannot be eternal. Of course it also shows how and why the “glory theologians” don’t understand the trinity—that’s too bad.

To say that the same God revealed in Israel and Jesus is the Triune God is not, I take it, the same as saying that God-in-God’s-self is reducible to salvation-history, which is what your comment above, Isaac, seemed to me to imply.

Does that distinction make sense?
Peace,

(By the way – to self-promote for the sake of conversation – if anyone is interested in a paper I wrote in which I conclude with Hart on God’s “being” as love, you can access it here.)

Peace,
Scott

Cheers,

Lee