Comments on: The self-glorying God? http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/ The cyberstalkable freelance writer making retractions on the web since 2000.... Oops, 1993? Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:13:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: fanboy theology « sed contra http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/comment-page-1/#comment-435459 fanboy theology « sed contra Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:28:27 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/#comment-435459 [...] “most theology is really just a substitute for listening to heavy metal or reading comic books... [...] [...] “most theology is really just a substitute for listening to heavy metal or reading comic books… [...]

]]> By: mark http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/comment-page-1/#comment-88788 mark Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:15:34 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/#comment-88788 Well, it could be a substitute for other kinds of fanboyism.... Well, it could be a substitute for other kinds of fanboyism….

]]> By: Ros http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/comment-page-1/#comment-88778 Ros Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:08:04 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/#comment-88778 Now I know why seminaries aren't attractive places for women! Who wants to hang out with the heavy metal/comic book/Van Til geeks?!?! I've never understood the fanboy mentality but you're quite right that it's rife among theologians/wannabe theology geeks. Boys! Now I know why seminaries aren’t attractive places for women! Who wants to hang out with the heavy metal/comic book/Van Til geeks?!?! I’ve never understood the fanboy mentality but you’re quite right that it’s rife among theologians/wannabe theology geeks. Boys!

]]> By: Paul Baxter http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/comment-page-1/#comment-88269 Paul Baxter Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:12:53 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/#comment-88269 Mark, I'm not sure if you saw Ben Witherington's recent post on this point. The post itself is not actually terribly substantive, but it does take issue with the notion of self-glorification. Mark,

I’m not sure if you saw Ben Witherington’s recent post on this point. The post itself is not actually terribly substantive, but it does take issue with the notion of self-glorification.

]]> By: garver http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/comment-page-1/#comment-88227 garver Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:13:30 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/#comment-88227 And I wanted to add, Mark, that I agree quite strongly with your basic point here and find it helpful - I just don't think it counts directly against Van Til, though I understand "Van Til" may be somewhat a stand-in here for other trends and figures. And I wanted to add, Mark, that I agree quite strongly with your basic point here and find it helpful – I just don’t think it counts directly against Van Til, though I understand “Van Til” may be somewhat a stand-in here for other trends and figures.

]]> By: Beyond Words http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/comment-page-1/#comment-88124 Beyond Words Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:28:22 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/#comment-88124 Thanks, Mark. This is rich and deep. Forget the buckets, I think you've described the God Jesus showed us how to imitate. Thanks, Mark. This is rich and deep. Forget the buckets, I think you’ve described the God Jesus showed us how to imitate.

]]> By: Steven W http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/comment-page-1/#comment-88047 Steven W Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:25:21 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/#comment-88047 What Garver said. What Garver said.

]]> By: garver http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/comment-page-1/#comment-88044 garver Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:38:29 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/mark/2007/12/04/the-self-glorying-god/#comment-88044 Hmm. I always interpreted the "full-bucket problem" to mean that within the overflowing communication of love that constitutes the Trinity, God is always already as fully glorious as he could ever be and thus stands in no need of the creation in order to make himself more God than he already is. Thus God's act of creation is fully free. And yet, it is also most gloriously fitting that God should create, not in order for God to have something he lacks or to fulfill himself more fully as God, but in order to bring something more into that already all-sufficient overflowing communion of love that God himself is. The "full-bucket problem" affirms that there is no "reason" that would compel God to create rather than not create (or to create this world rather than another), except that anything God might create (or even if he created nothing at all) would manifest his fundamental character as gift and grace. Van Til on this point should be read through Augustine, Aquinas, and scholasticism rather than through, say, the Children's Catechism's teaching that God creates us and all things "for his own glory," which for some conjures up images of a greedy child who can never amass enough toys. Hmm. I always interpreted the “full-bucket problem” to mean that within the overflowing communication of love that constitutes the Trinity, God is always already as fully glorious as he could ever be and thus stands in no need of the creation in order to make himself more God than he already is. Thus God’s act of creation is fully free.

And yet, it is also most gloriously fitting that God should create, not in order for God to have something he lacks or to fulfill himself more fully as God, but in order to bring something more into that already all-sufficient overflowing communion of love that God himself is.

The “full-bucket problem” affirms that there is no “reason” that would compel God to create rather than not create (or to create this world rather than another), except that anything God might create (or even if he created nothing at all) would manifest his fundamental character as gift and grace.

Van Til on this point should be read through Augustine, Aquinas, and scholasticism rather than through, say, the Children’s Catechism’s teaching that God creates us and all things “for his own glory,” which for some conjures up images of a greedy child who can never amass enough toys.

]]>