My argument was not that God received Glory from creation, but that He could not receive any more Glory by creating than by not creating. If He were to receive more glory through creating than not creating, than we can speak of God as having a deficit, of being on need of something. How is this so, well if one has more of something, than under different conditions one would have less, thus a deficit. God can not lack anything by definition though. This then forces me to say that God receives the same amount of Glory whether He created or didn't.
This then would lead to the conclusion that although God surely receives Glory though Creation, it was not His motivation for Creating. Muslims would say different. God can only receive Glory through creation, and creation can only exist with God. They both need each other. This is not the case in Christianity, God doesn't need th Universe for anything, including Glory.
Which brings me to my next point- the Trinity.
I would say, with out a doubt that the Trinity is a Biblical teaching. Where do I get my proof, multiple places. Lets take a look. I first refer us to
John 14
7
8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." 9Jesus said to him,
Romans 8:9
9You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
This Spirit of God is also the Spirit of Jesus. Christians belive from various Scriptures that Jesus lives inside of them. How then can the Spirit also live inside? The answer is that the Spirit contains all that the Father and Son are, or to put it a different way, the Son is in the Spirit, and the Spirit in the On.
Also we know that Paul was a very strict Jew. Worshiping anything but the one true God would be blaspheme, and against Levitical Law and his conscious. But we read in
Philippians 3:3
For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—
How can we worship the Spirit if it is not equally God. And how can we say there is one God unless there is a trinity, a single God manifesting itself in three persons. We know from
Deuteronomy 6:4 that
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
So the Lord is one, but three persons. More than this, the words in Hebrew here for the Lord is one is actually a word that is also used for weddings. Here two become one. It is the same verb. The Lord is one actually refers to a plural becoming a singular, just a little further proof for the Trinity in the Old Testament, although there are plenty more.
It may not feel right ot say that the Father is in the SOn, or visa versa, but that is just the case. It it definitely beyond me to explain how this works, however the Biblical evidence for it is incontrovertible. The Trinity is what makes Christianity unique. It also speaks to the truth of Christianity because it is not simple. We could not have made this up by observation like a gaggle of Gods who act like us (i.e. Greek Myth, etc.) of a monotheistic God who is transcendent and beyond all understanding, (i.e. Mormons). We have a personal God who lacks nothing. He is in relation to things with or without the Universe, is Glorified with or with out the Universe, and is Eternal, with or with out th Universe.
God is manifest in three persons, all equally God, and all equally Persons. Sure they play their own unique role in this creation saga, but they are all in each other. This is beyond comprehension, and at times doesn't sit right, but that doesn't make it any less awesome or true.
6 comments:
Of course they do...the why in "Why did God create" is that so God could be glorified..
Also - while the Concept of the Trinity is in the Bible... as Jen correctly stated it is not explicitly stated as in Jesus doesn't tell his followers "I and the Father are Three and One"
Nicea and Chalecedon are the creeds for you to reference on that one Nate.
How ironic that three trinitarians are agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.
Nate, what I appreciate most about your blog can also be irritating sometimes. You don't regurgitate what you read in commentary--you think for yourself. Because of this, you'll be wrong occasionally. But I'm encouraged by the fact that when you are challenged you go straight to Scripture, not commentary.
Keep truckin' dude. I'll admit that I trust the two Johns for for more reliable commentary, but reading your blog reminds me that God is doing a great work in you as he glorifies himself in this crazy place.
Here's some scripture for you to chew on Nate:
God speaks throughout the scripture about himself being the end of all things:
Isaiah 44:6
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel
and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
“I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god.
48:12 “Listen to me, O Jacob,
and Israel, whom I called!
I am he; I am the first,
and I am the last.
Revelation 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
1:11
1:17
21:6
22:13
God is the first cause of all these things that are made.... i.e.: his existence causes these things
He is also the last final cause for which these things are made... i.e.: he is the end of all these things...all THINGS terminate with God
Romans 11:36
36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
Supports the conclussion that God is the beginning and the end of all things...
Colossians 1:6 NOTE THE FOR HIM
6 For by [1] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Hebrews 2:10 note the from him and by him
10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.
Some translations render Proverbs 16:4
4All things hath Jehovah wrought for Himself, And also the wicked [worketh] for a day of evil.
(Youngs Literal Translation)
I think the trouble with your argument has to do with this idea of there being a deficit IF God created for himself. The argument is weak. By saying God couldn't have created anything for himself because that would imply he was lacking something, you're at the same time saying that by creating for the purpose of blessing someone else he isn't lacking. But isn't that lacking? If, by your definition, God can have no deficit, then he shouldn't create anything at all. Because that would imply that the universe was/is insufficient in some way.
I agree with the idea that God can have no deficit, but I'm going to have to go with Chris on this one.
The end goal of creation has to do with the glorification of God, and it is also the motivation. If God were to be motivated for any other purpose, I don't think he would be acting within the orthodox understanding of who God is.
I don't think we're very comfortable with this idea of creation, because it takes the focus off of us. And rightly so. As humans, we're all pretty self-centered enough already. The focus of everything God does has to do with himself. Pretty full of himself, but you sorta have to be when you're the Lord of the universe. Glory to glory, it's all for God.
I don't have time to read all this now, but check back to the original post for some thoughts. I guess I'm a little behind...
Post a Comment