The answer is ‘No’.

We’ve established that love and glory are the same thing, though different in relation to the subject. But in relation to each other, how do they operate?

I think Jonathan Edwards (for all that his brilliance is beyond my own poor dull glow) made a mistake in his essay on the Trinity. His understanding of the order of the Trinity is this:

God the Father sees Himself in the Son (His Glory) and the Spirit (His Love) flows out of Him to the Son.

Hence, the Father loves the Son because the Son inspires love. But that is not the biblical picture.

Love is subjective. That means the person who loves will love an object (consider an object valuable to them) regardless whether the object of their love actually has any value or not. In other words, love does not depend on the object of that love.

Therefore the Father loves the Son simply because the Father loves.

We see this in what we are told in the Bible: “God is love” (1 John 4:8), but also in the way God relates to the world.

In Romans 5:8 it says: But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

How God operates on earth is the same as how He works in heaven; how He works in time is the same as how He works in eternity; the economic Trinity is the same as the immanent Trinity. Therefore, when we see that God loves the unlovely on earth and in time, we know that His love cannot be based on an objects’ worth. And if His love is the same everywhere, the Father’s love for the Son cannot be based on the Son’s worth.

Love is not inspired by glory.

The answer to the above question is, of course, both.

Love: subjective, heart valuing (i.e. considering something to be of value to you).

Glory: observable, objective value.

The link between the two is “value”. This can be seen when we consider the Trinity.

Jonathan Edwards outlined an understanding of the Trinity that I have found very useful:

God the Father = God

God the Son = the self-perception of God

God the Spirit = the love of God

How the Son can be the self-perception of God, I leave it to you to read Edward’s essay to find out. Needless to say, Edwards sees this as the way to understanding the Son as the Image of God, the Word, and the Wisdom of God. One biblical description he leaves out, even though he quotes a verse to support it: the Son is the Glory of God (Heb 1:3; John 1:14; 1 Cor 2:8, 2 Cor 4:6).

How the Spirit can be the love of God is similarly explained by Edwards - though has been taken issue with. Edwards shows, at least, that the Bible is consistent in referring to the Father and the Son as objects of devotion and in referring to the Spirit in terms more commonly understood to be qualities of the heart - love, fellowship, joy, peace etc. I think that there is enough evidence to consider the Spirit to be the “quality of the heart” between Father and Son and for this to be foremost and in total the love of God (study for example Eph 3:14-19).

So, accepting that the Son is God’s glory and the Spirit is God’s love, it is fair to say:

1. The Son is God’s objective, observable value and

2. The Spirit is God’s subjective, heart valuing.

Within the Trinity the value attributed by the subject (the Father by the Spirit) is identical to the value displayed by the subject (the Father in the Son). Therefore, at least within the Trinity, and I believe in all instances, love and glory are the same thing - value - but different in relation to a person/the subject - value attributed and value displayed.

The Simplified Version (well, that is what is intended).

Glory is objective value. Love is subjective value.

The Son is God’s glory. The Spirit is God’s love.

The Son is the Father’s objective value. The Spirit is the Father’s subjective value.

Therefore…

In the same way the Son and the Spirit are the same God but different in relation to the Father…

…glory and love are the same thing (value) but different in relation to their subject.

A great parody by Weird Al Yankovic.

Scroll halfway down this page and click on one of the “here”’s.

My wife is pregnant and she’s going ga-ga.

Despite the fact that the baby is months and months away, she has bought a book called The Lazy Lion, and is practicing reading it aloud in a strange voice.

Yes!  It’s exciting she’s pregnant!

Yes!  We’re both looking forward to the arrival of our baby!

But, please…a little sanity!

I’ve really been tempted to think that the people who brought about the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC are actually more interested in ”the Good Old Days” rather than “the Good News”.  But I cast my mind back to an article I read where Paige Patterson’s reasons for wanting reformation in the SBC were based solidly on the desire to prevent people from ending up in hell, and I have to relent.  I doubt my desires are as pure as his on my best days.

Yet, it saddens me greatly to see the very people who brought back conservative theology to the SBC passing a resolution identifying alcohol as sinful.  It seems that the conservative theology of yesteryear is not always being separated from the conservative culture that surrounded it.

In that light, it is interesting that the voices that are speaking out against this resolution are (mainly) voices of younger people who are not returning to a conservatism they once knew, but are forging their own conservative views in the midst of today’s culture.  It is a sobering lesson about how much culture affects our theology without us even realising it.

I wonder what our culture is blinding us to?

I was thinking just this morning that I don’t know how to classify myself.  Then, lo and behold, I came across a quick and easy way to put myself in a convenient box.

Of course, the questions are hugely simplistic.  Take this for example:

56. Liberalism was a disaster for theology because it leads to atheism

Well, yes, I think Liberalism was a disaster for theology, but I don’t think it necessarily leads to atheism.  How do I answer that?  Well, I tried.  Now I’m about to push the “submit” button and see what I am.  Hold on a minute while I click on it….

Continue Reading »