A Narrow View of the Glory of God

Engraved from the original oil painting in the...
Image via Wikipedia

Peter Kirk links to Roger Olson on why he defends Love Wins. Now I haven’t read Love Wins and it isn’t on my reading list. The reason for this post is to comment on this (Peter quoting Roger Olson):

I think that is what offends critics of Love Wins–the suggestion that God doesn’t get what he really, perfectly wants.  That seems to them to demean God, to lessen his glory. …

And yes, I could have gone directly back to Olson’s post for the same quote. I suggest you do so, because Olson covers all this in more depth.

My major problem with Calvinism could be summarized by saying that it seems to me to force God to want something that humans can understand and accept. What if what God wants is a universe filled with creatures who can choose whether or not to love him? It may turn theologians’ brains into pretzels, but why should it be limiting to God’s glory to want that instead of to want what Calvinists prefer that he want?

It seems a very narrow few of God’s glory, and frankly strikes me as something more like a desire for God’s simplicity or comprehensibility, than one for God’s glory.

I can’t understand how a God who can set off the big bang and who knows the end from the beginning can also make creatures with choice. But I suspect he can.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Similar Posts


  1. Muriel Sowden says:

    If none of us existed at all, if God had not created us, He would still be the same, unchanging, eternal God. God doesn’t need us in order for Him to be God. Only God knows why He created us, but whatever we do cannot change His nature. So sit back and enjoy and don’t stress about it!

  2. Hi Henry..Perhaps he can make us with a the ability to choose, because he also has the ability to choose.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.