Latest / Reformed Thinking / Answering Objections: Why God Seeks His Own Glory | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

Answering Objections: Why God Seeks His Own Glory | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to reform thinking. I am.
0:03
I'm just so thrilled you are here with us today.
0:05
You sitting there listening. You're stepping into an
0:08
intellectual space as a Co learner with us.
0:11
Yeah, we are so glad you're joining us for this.
0:13
Today we are taking a deep dive into the absolute deep end of
0:17
the theological pool. I mean, usually when we try to
0:20
evaluate why someone did something, we look for a clean,
0:24
visible motive. Right, like an X-ray of human
0:26
behavior. Yeah, precisely.
0:28
You see a person hand money to a charity and the motive looks
0:31
obvious. We just point and say, well,
0:33
there it is. Generosity.
0:34
We like things to be visible, you know, to be categorized into
0:37
neat little boxes. We really do.
0:38
We like clean answers. But then you step into the world
0:41
of theology and specifically the motivations of the divine, and
0:44
suddenly that X-ray machine just it stops working.
0:47
We are looking at a landscape of motives that is honestly
0:50
incredibly murky to our human minds.
0:53
It is the absolute definition of diagnostic Muddy Waters.
0:56
I mean, when you try to assign human psychological motivations
0:59
to an infinite being, the categories just breakdown
1:02
entirely. Which brings us to our mission.
1:05
For this deep dive, we are going to examine excerpts from
1:08
Jonathan Edwards's philosophical and theological treatise, A
1:12
Dissertation concerning the End for Which God Created the World.
1:16
That is quite the title. It is, and specifically, we are
1:19
going to look closely at how Edwards systematically
1:21
dismantles 4 major logical objections to the premise that
1:25
God's supreme goal in creation was his own glory.
1:29
And that is a huge concept to tackle.
1:30
It really is. Now, as hosts who hold to
1:33
Protestant Reformed theology and who adhere to the Westminster
1:36
Confession, we usually start with a very familiar baseline.
1:39
The very first question of the Shorty Catechism asks what the
1:42
chief end of man is. Right.
1:44
And the answer is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.
1:48
That is standard for us. Yeah, that is our baseline.
1:51
But today we are going to flip the script entirely.
1:54
What happens when we assert that God's chief end is also to
1:58
glorify God? It is a question that makes a
2:00
lot of people uncomfortable, honestly.
2:02
It does, and I want to be clear here.
2:04
We are going to impartially report Edwards's defense of this
2:07
concept based strictly on the text provided.
2:09
We're just looking at the pure logic he uses to defend this
2:12
idea. So let us unpack this first
2:14
major hurdle, which we will call the paradox of of a perfect
2:18
being creating anything. That is a massive hurdle to
2:22
start with. The core objection to Edwards
2:24
addresses is this. If God is entirely self
2:27
existent, independent, and perfectly happy from all
2:30
eternity, why create a world at all?
2:33
Right, because creating implies a lack or maybe a desire for
2:37
something in the future, which seems to contradict absolute
2:40
self-sufficiency. Spot on.
2:42
That is the core of the objection.
2:44
Let me let me frame this with an analogy so we can really see the
2:47
friction here. Think about human activity.
2:50
If a person is completely satisfied, full, warm and lacks
2:53
absolutely nothing, they sit perfectly still.
2:55
Yeah, they don't move. Right activity in our human
2:57
experience, usually stems from wanting to fix a deficit or
3:00
improve a situation. You get up from the couch
3:02
because you are thirsty or bored or lonely.
3:05
You take action because your current state is lacking
3:07
something. That makes total sense from a
3:09
human perspective. So the objector asks a very fair
3:12
question. Does the act of creation imply
3:15
God was lonely or incomplete? Was he sitting in eternity past
3:19
feeling a deficit and thinking, well, I need to make humans so I
3:23
can have some company? That is a highly intuitive
3:25
objection. I mean, it makes sense based on
3:27
our experience of reality, but Edwards handles it by exposing A
3:32
flaw and how we define divine happiness.
3:34
OK, how does he do that? He says many people have wrong
3:37
notions of God's happiness resulting from his
3:39
self-sufficiency. Edwards uses a magnificent
3:42
visual here, comparing God to the sun and the creature to a
3:46
jewel. Let us pause there and really
3:48
visualize that we have the sun radiating light and we have a
3:51
jewel. What is the interaction between
3:53
those two things according to Edward?
3:55
Well, when the sun shines its light onto a jewel, the sun
3:58
receives absolutely no brightness back from that stone.
4:00
The jewel has no internal light source, you know.
4:03
It only reflects what the sun freely gives to it.
4:05
OK, I am pracking with that. So Edwards uses this to explain
4:09
that God's joy in creation isn't some new novel happiness that he
4:13
extracts from the creature. He is not mining us for joy he
4:16
previously lacked. Oh wow, mining us for joy, That
4:21
is a great way to put it. Yeah, instead his delight in
4:24
creation is a delight in the overflow and the communication
4:27
of his own existing goodness. It is an expression of what he
4:30
already possesses perfectly. I want to make sure I am
4:33
grasping the physics of this analogy.
4:35
If the jewel is in a dark room, it is just a dull rock.
4:39
It contributes nothing to the room.
4:41
Right, it is completely dark. But when you bring it out into
4:43
the sunlight, it sparkles. But the sparkle is just the
4:46
sun's light bouncing back. So Edwards is saying that when
4:49
God looks at creation and feels joy, he is not receiving a new
4:53
substance from us. He is enjoying the reflection of
4:55
his own light. Precisely when God delights in a
4:58
creature's holiness or happiness, he is truly
5:00
delighting in his own beauty being reflected back.
5:04
It is the joy of a fountain overflowing, not the desperation
5:07
of an empty cup seeking to be filled.
5:09
That is a. Huge distinction.
5:10
It is. I mean, the sun does not shine
5:13
because it needs the jewel. The sun shines because it is the
5:16
nature of the sun to radiate light.
5:18
God creates because it is the nature of his infinite goodness
5:22
to overflow, not because he has an empty space in his psychology
5:26
that needs filling. OK, the distinction between
5:28
extracting joy and overflowing joy clears up a lot of the
5:31
confusion. But I know that for you
5:34
listening right now, you might still feel a nagging sense that
5:37
assigning any motive to God makes him dependent on us.
5:41
And that is a very natural concern to have.
5:43
And this is where Edwards sets a fascinating logical trap for the
5:46
person making the objection. The objector says that if God
5:50
creates for his own glory, it means he lacked something and
5:52
needed to achieve a future goal. And that ruins his absolute
5:55
perfection, right? But Edwards turns this argument
5:58
entirely upside down. He really does.
6:00
He points out that if you argue God created the world for the
6:03
creatures happiness instead his own glory, you run head first
6:07
into the exact same problem. Wait, how so?
6:10
Well, you are still claiming that God had a future goal,
6:13
meaning the happiness of the creature that he wanted to
6:14
achieve. Oh, I see.
6:16
Let me stop and put this in modern terms.
6:18
A lot of people today argue that God's primary motive for
6:21
creation is altruism. They say God created us simply
6:25
because he loves us and wanted us to experience a good life.
6:29
Yeah, you hear that argument all the time.
6:31
They think this solves the problem of God sounding needy or
6:34
self-centered. But Edwards is saying that this
6:37
altruistic argument still requires God to look into the
6:40
future, see a state of affairs that does not yet exist, our
6:44
happiness and desire it. Yes, that is the trap.
6:47
Therefore, any motive you assigned a creation, no matter
6:50
how altruistic you think it sounds, faces this exact same
6:54
objection regarding God seeking something future.
6:57
That is wild. Edwards demonstrates that if God
6:59
has a will at all regarding creation, he must desire an
7:02
outcome, and the objector's logic would make any desired
7:05
outcome a sign of weakness. So the objector is basically
7:08
arguing against God having any will at all.
7:11
Exactly. Or rather, that is precisely the
7:13
logical end of their argument. If desiring a future outcome
7:17
means you are incomplete, that an altruistic God who desires
7:22
the future happiness of humans is just as incomplete as a God
7:25
who desires his own glory. It is a philosophical checkmate.
7:29
Edwards forces the objector to realize their critique applies
7:33
equally to their own alternative theories.
7:36
It is brilliant. He traps the objector in their
7:38
own premise, but then Edwards goes a step further.
7:41
Of course he does. He argues that making the
7:43
creature the supreme goal would actually make God dependent on
7:46
the creature, which is far worse for the concept of divine
7:49
independence. You mentioned something in our
7:51
notes about an efficient cause and a final goal.
7:54
Hold on, let us define our terms for a second.
7:56
When Edwards says efficient cause, is he just talking about
7:59
the physical act of making something like a Carpenter
8:01
swinging a hammer? Basically, yes.
8:03
In philosophical terms, the efficient cause is the agent
8:06
that brings something into being.
8:07
It's the active force. The final goal or final cause is
8:11
the reason or purpose for which the thing was made.
8:14
OK, so the maker and the reason for making.
8:17
Right. And Edwards points out a basic
8:19
rule of logic. An efficient cause depends on
8:22
its final goal for its success. Give me a concrete example of
8:25
that dependency. Sure.
8:27
If you build a house to find shelter, you're the efficient
8:30
cause and the shelter is the final goal.
8:33
Your success as a builder deends entirely on that shelter
8:36
existing and functioning properly.
8:38
O If the roof leaks, you have failed.
8:41
Exactly that. Your fulfillment relies on the
8:43
outcome. If God's highest final goal is
8:46
the creature, then God's success, his fulfillment,
8:49
becomes dependent on the creature.
8:51
He would be relying on something outside of himself to achieve
8:54
his primary objective. That paints a very fragile
8:57
picture of the divine If our happiness is His ultimate goal
9:01
or sorry, if our happiness is his highest goal and we are
9:03
miserable, then God is frustrated.
9:05
His success is held hostage by our choices in our emotional
9:08
state. Yes, that is the unavoidable
9:10
conclusion. By making Himself the end, God
9:12
remains entirely self-contained and independent.
9:16
He goes out of himself in creation, but His desires and
9:19
pursuits originate from and terminate in Himself.
9:22
So he is never waiting on us to validate his efforts.
9:25
Right. He relies on no one but himself
9:28
in the beginning or the end of any of his operations.
9:31
He is the Alpha and the Omega of the action.
9:33
OK, I am tracking with the logic here.
9:35
God creating for his own glory preserves his absolute
9:39
independence, and it avoids making him rely on fragile
9:42
creatures for his own fulfillment.
9:44
Which is a much more robust view of God.
9:47
It is, but that leads us directly to an incredibly
9:50
uncomfortable question. This brings us to the second
9:53
major objection Edwards tackles the charge of cosmic
9:57
selfishness. Yes, the selfishness objection.
10:00
Right. Even if we accept the logic that
10:02
God must be his own end to remain independent, doesn't
10:06
making everything about himself make God sound incredibly
10:09
selfish? It is the most common emotional
10:11
reaction to this theology for sure.
10:12
I mean in human terms, selfishness, making your own
10:15
private interests the governing aim of everything you do is
10:18
viewed as base, mean and contemptible.
10:21
Right. If we think about everyday life,
10:23
we all know the person at a dinner party who turns every
10:25
single conversation back to themselves.
10:27
Oh, we all know that person. If you talk about your vacation,
10:29
they talk about a better vacation they took.
10:31
If you mention a problem at work, they immediately interrupt
10:34
to talk about how much harder their job is.
10:36
We find that behavior repulsive. We view it as a massive
10:40
character flaw. We do.
10:42
It is exhausting to be around. So if you are listening to this
10:45
right now, you might be thinking this sounds like cosmic
10:48
narcissism. I know that is where my mind
10:50
immediately went. Why does Edwards argue that this
10:53
exact same trait, which we despise in humans, is noble and
10:58
fitting in the divine? To answer that, Edwards forces
11:01
us to step back from our emotional distaste and
11:04
mathematically and philosophically define what
11:06
selfishness actually is. His first answer deals with the
11:10
concept of proportion. Let us break down the math on
11:13
that. How does proportion change the
11:15
definition of selfishness? Well, think about your dinner
11:17
party guest. In a created being, preferring
11:20
oneself above everyone else is vicious because a single person
11:24
is statistically insignificant compared to the whole of
11:27
society. OK, that makes sense.
11:28
It is a mathematical and moral error.
11:30
In valuing, you are treating a tiny fraction as if it were the
11:33
whole number. So the human ego is basically a
11:36
math error. I am 1 of 8 billion people on
11:39
the planet. For me to act like my comfort is
11:42
more valuable than the comfort of the other 7 billion combined
11:45
is objectively false. It is a delusion.
11:48
That is exactly the point. However, because God is
11:52
infinite, He is by definition the most valuable being in
11:55
existence. All other beings combined are as
11:58
nothing compared to Him. The scales completely.
12:01
Different, completely different. Because God possesses an all
12:04
comprehending understanding, He sees reality perfectly.
12:08
For God to value anything above himself would be to believe a
12:10
lie against the true proportion of reality.
12:13
He values himself infinitely more than His creatures because
12:17
He is infinitely more valuable. I am trying to wrap my head
12:19
around a being whose self obsession is actually just
12:22
perfect honesty. We hate human selfishness
12:24
because it is a delusion of grandeur.
12:26
Right. A human being is pretending to
12:28
be the center of the universe when they are clearly not.
12:30
But God actually is the center, so his self regard is based on
12:34
reality. It is not arrogance, it is pure,
12:37
unadulterated truth. If God were to value the
12:41
universe above Himself, He would be committing idolatry.
12:44
Wow, idolatry. Yes, because he would be
12:49
assigning supreme value to something that does not possess
12:51
supreme value. I hear what you were saying
12:54
about the math and the logic is sound, but I am still struggling
12:58
to get past the emotional friction here.
13:00
It is a lot to process. Even if he rightfully values
13:03
himself because he's infinite, human experience tells us that
13:06
when someone is self interested, someone else usually loses.
13:10
If I take the biggest piece of pie because I value my appetite
13:13
above yours, you get a smaller piece.
13:15
Our interests clash. How does Edwards resolve this
13:18
perceived conflict of interest between God and the creature?
13:21
Edwards uses an anatomical analogy to show why a conflict
13:24
of interest is impossible here. In human society, a private
13:28
citizen's interest might clash with the public welfare.
13:31
If I hoard resources, the town starves.
13:33
Right, limited resources create conflict.
13:35
But God is not a private citizen in the universe.
13:37
He is the Author, the fountain, and the head of the entire
13:40
system. Let us flesh out that anatomy
13:42
analogy. What are the parts of the body
13:44
representing here? Edwards argues it is absolutely
13:47
absurd to think the welfare of the head or the heart could ever
13:51
oppose the welfare of the body. If the heart demands all the
13:54
oxygenated blood first before sending it to the fingertips,
13:58
the fingertips might feel slighted.
14:00
They might feel like they are getting the short end of the
14:02
stick. But if the heart doesn't take
14:03
what it needs to function, the entire body dies.
14:06
So it is like an autoimmune disease if the parts attack the
14:10
head. If I am the hand and God is the
14:12
head, the head deciding to preserve its own functioning
14:16
isn't being cool to the hand because the hand relies entirely
14:19
on the head survival to animate it.
14:21
Yes, God is omniscient. He could never falsely apprehend
14:25
his own interest as being inconsistent with the good of
14:28
the whole system he designed. Because his well-being is the
14:31
foundation of the system's well-being.
14:33
Spot on. His self-interest is the
14:35
preservation of the entire system, and this leads directly
14:38
into his third answer regarding selfishness, which is that God
14:41
seeking himself is the actual mechanism that causes him to
14:44
seek the good of the creature. Wait, his self regard causes him
14:48
to seek our good? That feels paradoxical.
14:51
Walk me through that mechanism. His delight in his own internal
14:54
glory is precisely what causes him to emanate that glory
14:58
outwardly. Edward says that a person who
15:00
truly loves the bright light of the sun will want that light
15:03
diffused and shared, not locked in a box.
15:06
So because God loves his own goodness so much, he refuses to
15:10
keep it contained. He wants it spread across a
15:12
canvas. God self regard is a disposition
15:15
to communicate himself, meaning his so-called selfishness is the
15:20
literal fountain of all cosmic generosity.
15:22
That is a fascinating way to look at.
15:24
It if he did not love his own glory, he would have no
15:27
motivation to share it with a created order.
15:29
OK, I can accept that God's self regard is based on mathematical
15:32
reality and that it actually fuels his generosity rather than
15:36
competing with it. But if he is so self-sufficient
15:39
and infinitely generous, why does he care if we notice?
15:41
And that is the next logical jump.
15:43
Right, this brings us to the third objection.
15:45
Isn't seeking applause from lesser beings beneath him?
15:47
The objector asks why a supreme being would stoop to desire the
15:52
praise of inferior creatures. Right.
15:54
A genuinely great human, say a brilliant philosopher or a
15:58
powerful Prince, doesn't perform great deeds just to be clapped
16:01
for by what Edwards calls a gazing multitude.
16:04
We usually look down on people who need constant applause.
16:06
We do we. We respect leaders who do the
16:09
right thing regardless of the polls.
16:11
We actually lose respect for leaders who constantly seek
16:13
validation from the crowd. So why would God create the vast
16:17
universe just to be applauded by, to use another Edwards
16:21
phrase, worms of the dust? It's a striking phrase, isn't
16:24
it? Worms of the dust.
16:25
It is quite an image. Let me use another analogy.
16:28
A master architect doesn't spend decades building a magnificent
16:31
cathedral, calculating the load bearing walls, designing the
16:35
stained glass, just hoping a colony of ants in the courtyard
16:38
will appreciate the masonry. The ants wouldn't even know what
16:41
they're looking at. Right, the architect builds it
16:43
for the sake of the art and the function.
16:44
The ants opinion is completely irrelevant.
16:47
Why does God want our specific applause?
16:50
Edwards approaches this by establishing the value of right
16:53
exercise within the hierarchy of existence.
16:55
Hierarchy of existence. What does that mean mean in this
16:58
context? Edwards states that the highest
17:01
kind of created existence is understanding and will.
17:04
You know above inanimate rocks, above plants, above animals
17:08
driven by instinct. You have creatures with a mind
17:10
to understand and a heart to choose.
17:13
So God creates us with faculties that the rest of the physical
17:16
universe doesn't have. Yes, and if those faculties are
17:20
intrinsically valuable, their highest and best use must be an
17:23
actual exercise. A mind is valuable, but a mind
17:27
that correctly understands truth is operating at its EAK.
17:31
OK, I follow that. And a will is valuable, but a
17:33
will that correctly chooses the good is operating at its EAK,
17:37
Edwards argues the most excellent use of understanding
17:39
is knowing God, and the most excellent use of the will is
17:43
loving God. Because God is the ultimate
17:45
truth and the highest good. Correct.
17:48
Therefore, if God is going to create anything of value, it is
17:52
entirely fitting for Him to desire the existence of this
17:55
highly valuable dynamic creatures knowing and loving
17:58
Him. It is not about an ego boost, it
18:02
is about bringing into existence the most beautiful, appropriate
18:06
reality possible. So he creates the mind and the
18:09
heart, and the best possible thing those instruments can do
18:12
is point back at the greatest possible object.
18:16
Furthermore, Edwards uses the logic of loving a friend to make
18:19
this relatable. Think about someone you deeply
18:21
respect. OK, I have someone in mind.
18:23
If you highly esteem a friend for their moral character, you
18:27
naturally approve when others also respect that friend, and
18:30
you strongly dislike it when they are shown contempt.
18:33
Absolutely. If someone insults my spouse or
18:35
my best friend, I feel a visceral anger because I know
18:37
their true value. I want their value to be
18:39
recognized by others. Because God's holiness consists
18:42
primarily in loving Himself, since He is the objective
18:45
standard of all goodness, He must logically and necessarily
18:48
approve of love directed toward Himself by others.
18:51
Because he agrees with the truth of his own value.
18:54
Yes, to be indifferent to our praise would mean he is
18:57
indifferent to his own supreme value.
18:59
If he didn't care whether we praised him or cursed him, it
19:01
would imply he doesn't actually value his own goodness.
19:06
That reframes the motive entirely.
19:08
If he loves what is good, and he is the highest good, he must
19:12
logically love it when we love the highest good.
19:15
But what about the specific analogy of the Prince and the
19:18
rabble, or the architect and the ants?
19:21
It still feels strange that the architect cares about the ants.
19:24
How does Edwards dismantle the idea that our praise is just the
19:27
meaningless noise of a mob? He addresses the mob analogy
19:30
directly by pointing out why great men disregard the applause
19:33
of the crowd in the 1st place. A wise Prince ignores the mob
19:37
because the crowd is typically ignorant, giddy and unjust.
19:40
They don't know what they're cheering for.
19:42
Right. Their applause is based on
19:43
whims, mistakes and folly. One day they cheer for you, the
19:47
next day they riot against you. Naturally, a great man dismisses
19:51
that kind of unstable validation.
19:52
But we see that all the time in public life.
19:54
The mob is fickle. But God does not seek blind,
19:57
foolish or ignorant applause. He regards the wise and just
20:01
esteem of His creatures. So it is about the quality of
20:04
the praise. When a creature correctly
20:07
perceives God's glory and praises him for it, that esteem
20:11
is objectively amiable and fitting.
20:13
It's not the noise of a rabble, it is the harmonious sound of
20:17
truth being recognized. God values it because it is
20:20
right, not because he needs his self esteem propped up by
20:23
inferiors. If I take that logic and apply
20:26
it to the cathedral analogy, the architect doesn't want the ants
20:29
to applaud because the ants cannot comprehend the cathedral.
20:32
To them it is just a large rock blocking the sun.
20:34
Exactly. But if the architect could grant
20:36
the ants the capacity to truly understand structural
20:39
engineering, to understand weight distribution and the
20:41
beauty of symmetry, their appreciation would actually mean
20:44
something. It would be a true reflection of
20:46
the architects of genius residing in the mind of the
20:49
creature. That is a perfect extension of
20:51
the thought. The applause has value because
20:54
the creature has been given the capacity to grasp the truth.
20:57
But this leads us to the 4th and final dilemma Edwards
21:00
anticipates. And for you listening, this is
21:02
where the rubber meets the road regarding how we experience our
21:05
relationship with God. If God is acting for His own
21:09
glory and orchestrating our praise for His own appropriate
21:12
self love, where does that leave human gratitude?
21:15
The objection here is that if God does all this for himself,
21:18
it seemingly ruins the freeness of his goodness.
21:22
Right. If he does it for his sake, not
21:24
ours, why should we feel any obligation of gratitude?
21:27
Let me raise a relatable point. Imagine a wealthy person buys
21:31
you a lavish life changing gift. Let us say they pay off your
21:35
entire mortgage. That would be incredible.
21:37
At first you are overwhelmed with gratitude.
21:39
You are weeping, you are writing thank you notes.
21:42
But then you find out they only paid off your house so they
21:44
could submit a photo of the transaction to a committee to
21:47
win an award for most generous citizen.
21:49
Oh wow, that changes things. The moment you realize their
21:52
motive was entirely self-centered, your gratitude
21:55
evaporates. You feel used.
21:57
The motive dictates the gratitude.
21:59
So if God's motive is his own glory, are we just instruments
22:04
for his self actualization? And does that kill our reason to
22:08
be thankful? This is perhaps Edward's most
22:10
stunning resolution in the entire treatise.
22:13
He argues that this objection relies entirely on the illusion
22:16
of disjunction. I'm going to stop you right
22:18
there. The illusion of disjunction.
22:19
Break that down for me. What are we falsely separating?
22:22
We falsely assume that God's glory and the creatures good are
22:26
two opposed choices. We view it like a fork in the
22:28
road where God must choose one path or the other.
22:31
Either He seeks His glory or He seeks our good.
22:34
Like it's a 0 sum game, Yes. The objector thinks these are
22:38
mutually exclusive categories. Edwards argues they are the
22:41
exact same thing. How can they be the same thing?
22:43
He says that God, in seeking His glory, seeks the good of his
22:46
creatures. The creatures Excellency and
22:49
happiness is nothing but the emanation and expression of
22:51
God's glory. God is our good.
22:54
To help us visualize this, Edwards offers the imagery of
22:57
two lines. Let us trace these two lines.
22:59
Imagine 2 lines that look separate at the beginning of
23:02
their trajectory. One line represents God seeking
23:06
his own glory. The other line represents God
23:09
seeking the creatures happiness. If you only look at the starting
23:12
point, they look like two different paths.
23:15
Because at the start they are conceptually different ideas in
23:19
our heads. Right.
23:20
But as they extend outward into eternity, they converge.
23:23
They meet at the exact same center.
23:25
So as the timeline stretches out, the distinction disappears.
23:28
Yes, as the creature comes closer to infinite fullness
23:31
throughout eternity, it's happiness becomes absolutely
23:34
indistinguishable from God's glory.
23:37
The more happy the creature is in God, the more glorified God
23:40
is in the creature. So they feed into each other.
23:42
They're not competing interests. They are the same event,
23:45
described from two different vantage points.
23:48
I see the logic of the two lines converging, but I'm still
23:50
getting hung up on this. It still feels abstract.
23:53
Does Edwards ground this in anything concrete or scriptural?
23:57
He does. He brings in the Apostle Paul's
23:59
discourse in Ephesians chapter 5 regarding husbands and wives to
24:04
prove this point. OK, the marriage analogy.
24:06
How does that map onto this philosophical argument?
24:09
Paul says that a husband loving his wife is loving himself due
24:13
to the strict union between them.
24:15
They are 1 flesh. When a husband nourishes and
24:19
cherishes his wife, he is not making a choice between his own
24:23
welfare and hers. Because they share a life.
24:25
Right. Her flourishing is his
24:27
flourishing. If a husband only loves his wife
24:30
because it benefits his public reputation, we would call that
24:32
toxic. But Paul is saying the union is
24:35
so tight that benefiting her is literally benefiting his own
24:38
body. Correct, because God has united
24:41
the creatures highest joy to His own glory.
24:43
Seeking of His glory, seeking our joy, is a strict union.
24:46
The two lines merging into one completely obliterates the idea
24:50
that we are being used. We are not a stepping stone to
24:52
His glory like the poor homeowner being used for APR
24:55
stunt. Our joy is the actual
24:57
manifestation of His glory. It is the substance of it.
25:00
It is a beautiful way to understand our purpose.
25:02
It really is. But what about the freeness of
25:04
the gift? How does Edwards show that God
25:06
acting for himself actually makes his benevolence more free
25:09
rather than less? To answer that, Edwards
25:11
introduces the concept of self moved beneficence.
25:14
Self moved beneficence meaning doing good without being pushed
25:19
into it. Precisely, think about human
25:21
generosity. When humans do good, even the
25:24
most generous among us, we are excited by an outside object.
25:28
You see a person in need, and their visible poverty constrains
25:31
you to help. Our emotions get triggered by
25:34
what we see. You see a beautiful cause and
25:36
it's worthiness motivates you to donate.
25:39
We are reacting to things outside ourselves.
25:42
Our giving is drawn out of us by the object.
25:44
So human giving is always a reaction.
25:46
I give because I see a starving child, and the sight of the
25:49
starving child pulls the compassion out of my chest.
25:52
Yes, but God is absolutely self moved.
25:55
He does not look out into the void, find a worthy creature and
25:58
react to it. Before creation, there was no
26:00
creature to react to. He makes the objects of his
26:02
benevolence from nothing. So there was nothing outside of
26:05
him pulling the generosity out of him.
26:07
Nothing at all. His goodness proceeds purely
26:10
from the overflowing of his own fullness.
26:13
Therefore, Edwards concludes, our gratitude should be
26:16
completely boundless because his giving is entirely
26:19
unconstrained. He wasn't forced into it.
26:21
He didn't help us because we forced his hand with our innate
26:24
worthiness. He didn't help us because our
26:26
misery obligated him. He created our worthiness out of
26:29
his own infinite overflow. That is the absolute definition
26:33
of free grace. It is totally uncaused by the
26:36
recipient. Let us bring all of this
26:38
together and recap the massive intellectual terrain we have
26:41
covered today. We started by looking at how
26:43
Edwards answers the objection regarding God's independence.
26:46
We saw that creating out of an overflow of joy, like the sun
26:50
hitting a jewel rather than a deficit, preserves his
26:53
perfection. And we saw the logical trap.
26:55
Assigning any future goal to God, even altruism, still
26:59
suggests a lack. Then we looked at the accusation
27:01
of selfishness. Edwards proved mathematically
27:04
and logically that God valuing himself supremely is the only
27:07
accurate reflection of reality. A1 over Infinity ratio.
27:11
And we learned through the anatomy analogy that this very
27:14
self regard is the engine of his generosity.
27:17
It guarantees he will seek the good of the whole system.
27:20
From there we address the dignity of seeking praise.
27:24
We discovered that God desires our worship not as a fragile ego
27:27
boost from a mob, but because right understanding and right
27:31
willing are the highest, most fitting realities in the
27:33
universe. He wants the ants to understand
27:36
the cathedral. And finally, we dismantled the
27:39
idea that God, seeking his glory, ruins the freeness of his
27:42
grace. Right, the illusion of
27:44
disjunction. We realized instead that our
27:46
eternal happiness and His eternal glory are two lines
27:49
converging on the exact same point, sealed by a union as
27:53
tight as a marriage. And because he has self moved,
27:56
his grace is completely unconstrained by our worthiness.
27:59
It is a theological framework that completely reorients how we
28:02
view our existence. It takes a while to digest, but
28:04
once you see it, you cannot Unsee it.
28:06
It truly does reorient everything.
28:08
And for you listening right now, we always want to ask the
28:11
question, why does this theological framework matter for
28:15
your day-to-day life? Why spend an hour thinking about
28:18
17th century metaphysical philosophy?
28:21
It is a fair question to ask. Understanding God's highest end
28:25
in this way fundamentally removes the anxiety of thinking
28:28
the universe revolves around human performance.
28:30
It takes a massive weight off the shoulders of the creature.
28:33
Think about it, If God's highest goal was simply making us happy
28:36
on our terms, we would constantly be frustrated when
28:39
life is hard wondering why God is failing at his job.
28:43
We would judge him constantly. We would look at sickness or
28:46
financial ruin and think the system is broken because we are
28:49
not currently happy. But when you realize that his
28:52
goal is the radiant overflow of his own indestructible glory,
28:56
and that you are invited to be a jewel reflecting that light, it
29:00
shifts your focus entirely. You are no longer trying to
29:03
sustain the universe. You are participating in an
29:05
already victorious, overflowing joy.
29:08
It relieves you of the burden of being the center of the
29:10
universe. The center of the universe is
29:12
already occupied by someone who can actually handle the weight.
29:15
Which brings us to a final thought for you to carry with
29:17
you as you go about your week. We begin by talking about the
29:20
murky waters of evaluating motives, looking for that clear,
29:24
clean X-ray of why things happen.
29:26
And we found it is not always so simple.
29:29
Edwards has given us a lens to see the most basic motive of
29:32
all, the overflowing self-sufficient joy of a perfect
29:36
creator. So consider this strictly
29:38
logical implication based on what we've discussed today.
29:41
I am curious to hear this. If the truest happiness a human
29:45
being can experience is simply becoming a clearer reflection of
29:48
God's glory, like that jewel reflecting the sun without
29:51
adding any new substance to it, how does that alter the way you
29:55
evaluate your personal ambitions and the things you think you
29:57
need to be happy today?