What Does it Mean For God to do Something for his glory?

[jimmyjimmy]

So why

So Why does God not choose everyone to become saved that they may all be in Heaven with Christ? All men are fallen, so those who God chose are no better than those he didn't, so why not choose everyone in the world?

We are not given an answer to this question, other than, He knows what He's doing, and that He does what He does for "His good pleasure".

You do understand that fallen man does not want to be saved, right? Even after a million years in Hell, an unregenerate man would not choose God's mercy over his autonomy.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Not that I disagree with you for certainly God is glorified in all that He does. I just wonder what the Scriptures actually emphasize. It seems to me that they emphasize His mercy and grace and His justice as what He must do rather than what He desires to do.

It seems to me to be just a logical conclusion instead of a Scriptural teaching that God is glorified in His just damnation of sinners.

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called,not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

 

[twin1954]

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called,not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

(Mic 7:18) Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.

 

[RDKirk]

it seems to me that when Scripture uses the word it uses it in different ways.

1. As beauty and splendor
-"And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. The glory of the heavenly body is one sort and the earthly another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars, for star differs from star in glory." 1 Cor. 15:40-41
-"So I got up and went out to the valley, and the glory of the Lord was standing there, just like the glory I had seen by the Kebar River, and I threw myself facedown." Ez. 3:23

2. As praise and worship
-"May glory be given to God our Father forever and ever. Amen." Phil. 4:20

That's the ones I can come up with at the top of my head.

I think that's pretty close. My men's group did a close study of how scripture uses the term, both in the OT and the NT.

First, we noted how "glory" is used in the OT Hebrew with regard to earthly kings. In short, with regard to earthly kings, "glory" refers to everything around them that exemplifies their exalted position: The throne, the carriage, the heralds, the palm bearers, the dancing girls, the entire entourage. It's all the pomp and circumstance that displays from a distance "there is a king over there" without one even seeing his face and recognizing his features.

And so, to "give glory to the king" meant to become part of the king's entourage.

For God, "glory" includes even the response of nature to His presence. When God was on Mount Sinai, nature itself responded to His presence with thunder and lightning--that's God's "glory." Nature itself calls out, "Our Creator is in the house! Woop! Woop!" "Even the rocks will cry out." To be without that glory--as Jesus was during His ministry--was for Him to travel without all His due pomp and circumstance, even from nature.

But when Jesus was crucified, the Father "glorified" Him--nature once again responded to His presence with darkness and earthquake.

 

[hedrick]

We are not given an answer to this question, other than, He knows what He's doing, and that He does what He does for "His good pleasure".

You do understand that fallen man does not want to be saved, right? Even after a million years in Hell, an unregenerate man would not choose God's mercy over his autonomy.

If that's your definition of unregenerate, I doubt that there are many. The agnostics and atheists I know would be happy to submit to God if they found that there is such a person, and he loves us.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If that's your definition of unregenerate, I doubt that there are many. The agnostics and atheists I know would be happy to submit to God if they found that there is such a person, and he loves us.

It's very easy to prove that wrong. Both Adam and Eve knew that, yet they didn't submit to God.

Atheists lie and suppress the truth (like all sinners/people). They don't have an intellectual problem, but an authority problem. Romans 1 makes that very clear. Crystal clear.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

​

 

[ToBeLoved]

I believe that when we say we glorify God we mean that we give him all honor, praise, worship and thanksgiving. What I don't understand in the Calvinist perspective is that God appoints people to hell so as to bring him glory. I don't understand what they mean when they use glory in that sense.

Really good question. I'm subscribing although someone may answer as I read the thread.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I think it was either Calvin or Augustine (or the former quoting the latter) who said that it is error to seek a cause above the will of God.

In other words, he chose not to save all because he chose not to. I don't say that to be funny, but that is really what it is. He does whatever he does because he sees fit to do it. There is no higher cause than his will. There is nothing that causes God to do or be anything, or else that cause would be God.

This is assuming that Calvinism is a correct doctrine. There are a lot of people who disagree with Calvin.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Your first mistake is to think that Calvinists believe that God appoints people to Hell. That simply isn't true. While there are some who do believe in double predestination it is not the commonly held belief among Calvinists.

What we actually believe is that the whole human race, children of Adam, are naturally under the wrath of God and deserve all the punishment that sinners should receive. We are as bad as any sinner who ever lived in and of ourselves.

But God, in His wondrous mercy, grace and love, has chosen some out of fallen humanity to be the objects of His love and sent the Son to die in their place accomplishing their redemption.

The rest of fallen humanity simply get what they deserve and actually what they desire because they will not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

God's sovereignty in electing love in no way keeps out any who want in. It guaranties that there will be many in Heaven with Christ.

So you see that God is glorified in sovereign mercy saving some and the rest simply get what they deserve.

Amen brother or sister!

 

[TaylorSexton]

This is assuming that Calvinism is a correct doctrine. There are a lot of people who disagree with Calvin.

Of course there are a lot that disagree with Calvin. That neither surprises nor bothers me. Nobody has given me a reason to disagree with him, yet, though (at least not a scriptural one). Do you have any scriptural warrant to disagree?

 

[hedrick]

It's very easy to prove that wrong. Both Adam and Eve knew that, yet they didn't submit to God.

Atheists lie and suppress the truth (like all sinners). They don't have an intellectual problem, but an authority problem. Romans 1 makes that very clear. Crystal clear.

When Paul wrote, just about everyone believed in the gods. The question was what kind of gods. I’m sure Paul was right that many people rejected the one God because they preferred to live as pagans. The OT, too, sees idolatry as a major danger, with worship of God fighting the fertility gods of Canaan.

But today the biggest problems, at least in the US, is agnosticism. Do you have any atheist or agnostic friends? I do. By and large these are not people who rejected Christ because they want to live as pagans. They are people who can’t believe that good is actually in control and that there’s really a God there. I don’t think these are the folks that Paul was talking about.

At any rate, many of my non-Christians friends would be happy to find out that there actually is a God. To claim that they don't really have an intellectual problem is letting your ideology get in the way of understanding.

Of course the original proposition that even after a million years in hell they still wouldn’t accept God’s mercy isn’t a Scriptural issue in the first place. It’s a speculative question.

 

[hedrick]

This is assuming that Calvinism is a correct doctrine. There are a lot of people who disagree with Calvin.

Sure, but this is a group specifically for discussion about Calvinism.

 

[hedrick]

Your first mistake is to think that Calvinists believe that God appoints people to Hell. That simply isn't true. While there are some who do believe in double predestination it is not the commonly held belief among Calvinists.

We get into definition here. Traditional Calvinist doctrine is pretty much by definition double predestination. Calvin certainly taught it. It’s in the Westminster Confession. I think the regular participants in Semper Reformata, at least the traditionalist ones, would all insist on it.

What you go on to say is that God chooses to have mercy on some, but that the others are lost through their own fault.

Calvin, and traditional Reformed theology, certainly taught this as well. But this implies double predestination, because it means that the decision on who to save was God’s. Thus God decided that he wouldn’t save some.

It’s important to understand that double predestination does *not* mean that God is actively degenerating the rejects in the same way that he actively regenerates the elect. That would make God the author of sin, which all Calvinists reject. Traditional Calvinism doesn’t teach that, and it’s not what double predestination means. Double predestination does not mean that God works with the elect and the non-elect in the same way, just as actively turning the non-elect to sin as he turns the elect to himself. Double predestination refers only to the fact that God is fully in control of the choice of who is saved, and thus by implication, who is not. The position you’ve presented is in fact double predestination.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

When Paul wrote, just about everyone believed in the gods. The question was what kind of gods. I’m sure Paul was right that many people rejected the one God because they preferred to live as pagans. The OT, too, sees idolatry as a major danger, with worship of God fighting the fertility gods of Canaan.

But today the biggest problems, at least in the US, is agnosticism. Do you have any atheist or agnostic friends? I do. By and large these are not people who rejected Christ because they want to live as pagans. They are people who can’t believe that good is actually in control and that there’s really a God there. I don’t think these are the folks that Paul was talking about.

At any rate, many of my non-Christians friends would be happy to find out that there actually is a God. To claim that they don't really have an intellectual problem is letting your ideology get in the way of understanding.

Of course the original proposition that even after a million years in hell they still wouldn’t accept God’s mercy isn’t a Scriptural issue in the first place. It’s a speculative question.

You are placing the blame for sinner's rebellion on God Himself. Which is not only incorrect, it's borderline blasphemy. You are calling both the justice and mercy of God into question by your words.

No one will say, when judged, "It's your fault for not giving me enough information", to God. There is no Scriptural support for that position whatsoever. In fact, just the opposite is true. Ever mouth will be silenced, because they will have no excuse, which could only mean Romans 1 is correct. Whatever light people have e.g., physical creation, we sinners (about from the grace of God) suppress. We make up stories about monkeys being our grandparents. We ignore science and logic and believe that life came from nothing. That something (material) came from nothing. Only someone bent on complete denial of and rebellion against God could or would hold to such a nonsensical idea.

Paul's indictment of mankind is that he/we knew God, yet we WOULD not bow the knee to Him. We would not acknowledge Him as God or give Him thanks, which is essentially the same thing as acknowledging Him as God. This IS the story of the Bible. This is the main theme. It could only be missed by intention avoidance.

 

[hedrick]

You are placing the blame for sinner's rebellion on God Himself. Which is not only incorrect, it's borderline blasphemy. You are calling both the justice and mercy of God into question by your words.

No one will say, when judged, "It's your fault for not giving me enough information", to God.

That argument only works if God judges superficially. I think he judges hearts, not just who says "Lord, Lord."

 

[RDKirk]

When Paul wrote, just about everyone believed in the gods. The question was what kind of gods. I’m sure Paul was right that many people rejected the one God because they preferred to live as pagans. The OT, too, sees idolatry as a major danger, with worship of God fighting the fertility gods of Canaan.

But today the biggest problems, at least in the US, is agnosticism. Do you have any atheist or agnostic friends? I do. By and large these are not people who rejected Christ because they want to live as pagans. They are people who can’t believe that good is actually in control and that there’s really a God there. I don’t think these are the folks that Paul was talking about.

At any rate, many of my non-Christians friends would be happy to find out that there actually is a God. To claim that they don't really have an intellectual problem is letting your ideology get in the way of understanding.

Of course the original proposition that even after a million years in hell they still wouldn’t accept God’s mercy isn’t a Scriptural issue in the first place. It’s a speculative question.

Paul argued in Romans that everyone is serving some "god," even if he doesn't recognize his god as an intellectual personality.

The point of Romans 1 is that nobody has an excuse for not at least being Job.

 

[hedrick]

Paul argued in Romans that everyone is serving some "god," even if he doesn't recognize his god as an intellectual personality.

The point of Romans 1 is that nobody has an excuse for not at least being Job.

Paul's argument starts by saying that because of wickedness, people suppressed what they knew about God, worshipping idols.

But this is a setup for his argument in 2, where he turns the tables. 1 is a standard Jewish polemic against Gentiles. But in 2 he argues that in fact Jews have no advantage, because just like the pagans criticized in 1, they've done the same things. Furthermore, he goes on to say that some Gentiles in fact have the law written in their hearts.

I don't think you can take 1 out of context of his overall argument and say that everyone who doesn't know God has rejected him due to their wickedness, when 2 cites the fact that some Gentiles have the Law written in their hearts.

 

[RDKirk]

Paul's argument starts by saying that because of wickedness, people suppressed what they knew about God, worshipping idols.

But this is a setup for his argument in 2, where he turns the tables. 1 is a standard Jewish polemic against Gentiles. But in 2 he argues that in fact Jews have no advantage, because just like the pagans criticized in 1, they've done the same things. Furthermore, he goes on to say that some Gentiles in fact have the law written in their hearts.

I don't think you can take 1 out of context of his overall argument and say that everyone who doesn't know God has rejected him due to their wickedness, when 2 cites the fact that some Gentiles have the Law written in their hearts.

So what Paul has said is just what I said. That's for making that argument even clearer. Because some Gentiles do recognize God's existence without the direct revelation of the Jews (see Psalm 19, which Paul implicitly refers to), there is no excuse for claiming ignorance of at least His existence.

 

[hedrick]

So what Paul has said is just what I said. That's for making that argument even clearer. Because some Gentiles do recognize God's existence without the direct revelation of the Jews (see Psalm 19, which Paul implicitly refers to), there is no excuse for claiming ignorance of at least His existence.

I don't think Paul intended to say that. The whole point of his argument is that everyone equally needs Gods grace. He's not trying to separate out a set of Gentiles who are OK. He's just trying to discredit the Judaizers faith that Jews are in better shape than Gentiles by noting that not all Gentiles are like those described in Rom 1. You can't use Rom 1 and 2 to establish Christian privilege when the whole point if the section is to say that everyone is alike before God.

If you're going to establish exclusivism you have to do it somewhere else. The best option is to say that in 1 and 2, Paul establishes that everyone equally needs Christ, and that only through faith in him are we accepted. That will then turn to the basic question of what justifying faith is, and to the question of the extent if the atonement. This is probably not the best thread to do that.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

That argument only works if God judges superficially. I think he judges hearts, not just who says "Lord, Lord."

First, the biblical witness says that God judges mans acts/actions. Second, the heart of man is wicked. You are repeating the common fallacy that deep deep down inside, people are good, but God says that mans sinful actions come from man's sinful heart. Deep down inside, man is wicked.