God and His Eternal Glory

[Mike Miller]

The following is the dialogue following an excellent question posed to me privately by a church member in a private message. He has given me permission to post it here. It deals with some fairly deep theological and philosophical issues, so if I can clarify anything, or if you would like to join the discussion, feel free to post your questions or comments.

Question:

For some time now, I have had as a fundamental axiom that God's utmost affection is His own glory. A corollary would then be that whatever God does is for His own glory.

I believe that the purpose of the creation of the universe is to be (if you will) glory mirrors, that is, this world is a means by which God's glory is reflected back to God.

Several months ago, I came across the self-critical rebuttal which said, "if this is true, then God 'needs' creation to glorify Himself, just like I 'need' a mirror to see myself."

I understand that perhaps a hangup is any kind of 'need' we have has to come from outside ourselves (air, water, etc.) whereas God can just create it out of nothing. So maybe it is just a misunderstanding of the word 'need.' I also understand (from the guest speaker) that God's desire to glorify Himself is not an ontological need, that is, if He does not get it, He will not mutate (grow sick, die, cease to exist), and so this is not really a need.

As you may have discerned, I am trying to avoid issue with Acts 17, where God does not need man or anything for that matter.

I am also aware though that in order for God to 'flex' His attributes of forgiveness, mercy, patience, etc. He "needs" someone to show forgiveness, mercy, patience, etc. These attributes do not seem to be possible to be shown within the Trinity, because God does not sin. I am aware that God for eternity past did not, therefore flex some attributes. Now God does not necessarily need to display His attributes in order for them to actually exist, but He does seem to "need" an object for them to terminate on in order for them/Him (doctrine of the simplicity of God) to be glorified.

I suppose my question is, is this axiom just not true?

Answer:

Let's look at this another way. Why does God need for His attributes to be displayed in order for Him to be glorified? You stated that He doesn't need to display them in order for them to exist, but you imply that He needs to display them in order for Him to be glorified. That would also imply that God was not (not fully, at least) glorified before creation. While an object of certain of His attributes is necessary for God to display those attributes, I would suggest that God is no less glorified if those attributes are never displayed. Therefore, ultimately God does not need to display His attributes to anyone other than Himself (within the Trinity) in order to be glorified. Since those attributes exist, God is eternally glorified within Himself with and by the perfect understanding and appreciation of all that He is. This is no less true before creation than after.

Now, if God chooses to display certain attributes, then He is logically required to meet the conditions that His very nature demands in order to put those attributes on display. In other words, for God to choose to display His creativity, He had to create. That creativity did not come into existence the moment He created, but it was displayed in what He did (does). Similarly, His grace did not begin when Adam fell, but it was put on display. So, God did not (and does not) need man in order have any ontological needs met or in order to be glorified in all His attributes. Instead, He freely chose to put those attributes on glorious display through the creating and saving of sinners.

Did any of that make any sense?

Question:

Yes it makes sense. The reasoning seems very similar to Jonathan Edwards in his work, "The End for which God Created the World." There is one paragraph where he tries to angst this rebuttal, and I know for me, the light just did not come on in my head.

After thinking about it and rereading the section in Jonathan Edwards' work, I know where my hangup is. The question is easy to ask:
How does an immutable God have feelings?

Answer:

Immutability applies to God's being and purposes (and, by extension, His promises). I hold to the immutability of God, but I reject the idea that He does not have emotions. In Scripture, we see a God who does not change in who He is or what He wills (or what He says He will do). We also see a God who rejoices, burns with anger, loves, and grieves. However, His grief is not subject to the whims of man, but--as is articulated in the doctrine of impassibility--He grieves (and experiences other emotions) as He has determined in Himself to do so.

Question:

So would this be classified more like a mystery?

Answer:

This is a mystery in that we tend to think of God's attributes and His emotions in terms of human attributes and emotions. Since we do not hold His incommunicable attributes or experience emotions as He does, we can talk about such things, but we can never fully grasp them.

Question:

After listening to your input and rereading the paragraph in "The End for which God Created the World." I have a thought that I would like you to hear and see what you think if you don't mind.

God created the universe to be a means by which God's glory could be reflected (or refracted) back to Himself. God did this because He desired to. How do we avoid God needing creation to glorify Himself? Because it's existence is because of God's desire to create it; it's existence is dependent on God, not the other way around (you and Edwards).

How then does it not seem that God somehow was unable to glorify Himself fully in eternity past before He created creation?
Answer: The reality is that all things that come to pass have been ordained by God before the foundation of the world. Since God's decrees are as certain as if they have already happened (I am thinking about the prophetic past in Hebrew almost), then the moment before He created creation, He was being glorified as if it was already existing, because since God decreed it, it is just as good as done.

In my mind, this answers a myriad of questions like God changing His mind. This also solidifies even more the reality that no one can rob God of glory, for at the moment of creation, all the glory that God will receive from all the events that will happen (our perspective), are as good as if all of eternity future had already occurred because God has decreed all that will occur, and therefore God is "already" glorified because it is as good as done. God is just as glorious and glorified in eternity past without creation because He had decreed that He will glorify Himself in a Creation.

I hope that makes sense.

Answer:

It does make sense, particularly when we accept that God's decrees are eternal and immutable.

[guest]

I had a question kind of related to this topic. How would you respond to someone's statement that "when people focus all the time on their own glory, it's wrong, but God can do it and it is okay?" How would you explain to someone that it is not the same for God to seek His own Glory?

[athanasius]

I have thought about this in the past. Dr. Miller may have a different (or better) response.

It would seem that reality reveals that it is always good to protect that which is most valuable. An analogy could be if a dog and a little girl are in a burning house and a firefighter can (for whatever reason) only save one of them and the firefighter decided to save the dog instead of the little girl, this would seem wrong (I am assuming a closed system, so the dog does not contribute anything like (for example) an antibody to stop some deadly virus). It is evil to spare the dog, when the girl's life could have been saved.

At this point, imagine that God is not defending His glory, but seeking the glory of the most valuable being in the universe. Since God is perfectly good, He can do no other, for to do so is wrong. Since God is perfect and holy, He is the most valuable being in the universe. If God's utmost affection is something else's glory, God would be choosing to "save" the less valuable being or object. If God seeks the glory of anything other than Himself as the highest good, God is not perfectly good. Therefore, since God is the most valuable being, the highest good is nothing else except to glorify Himself supremely.

If this is true, then this also explains why we are not to be about the glory of ourselves, but about the glory of God for the same reason. We are not the most valuable beings in the universe, and so we should pursue the glorification of that which is most valuable, and that is God.

I was faced with this when John Piper in "Desiring God," quoted the Westminster Shorter Catechism. " The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." He said that we could take this and say, "The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." The above reasoning is what gave me eyes to see the beauty of such a thought.

[Mike Miller]

I agree with Athanasius, but let me clarify a bit further.

To begin with, if I seek my own glory, it is wrong because it is selfish. I am seeking to fulfill some kind of personal need when I try to draw attention to myself. Since God has no such needs, His motives for glorifying Himself must be pure.

So what are God's motives? For one thing, I would say that He is motivated by what is right. God is the highest value that exists. Not to draw attention to Himself would be wrong. To draw attention to anything lesser than Himself would be in a sense to hide what is highest and most wonderful. I would also say that He is motivated by love. If God is perfect in His being and His doing, then the most loving thing He can do is to reveal Himself to others. Consequently, the most loving thing we can do is also to point people to Him, because to draw attention to anything else is to keep others from seeing and savoring the splendor and beauty of the highest good.