The “God so loved himself” idea is a product of humanity’s need to justify God. I’ve written on this before, but if you look at a lot of theologies, they really are not at all comfortable with the idea that God became man, took on the sins of the world, and blotted them out by dying for them. Whether it’s some Catholic apologist insisting that it’s unbecoming of God to just forgive you and accept you as righteous with a word without having to work anything off, or some Calvinist blogger insisting that it’s unbecoming of God to simply love the world, it’s all the same thing. We get it. God needs to be justified even more than we do, and it’s the task of the theologian to explain those troubling words and deeds of God in a way that satisfies some standard of righteousness.

I wonder if people who think John should have written “God so loved himself” think that John 13:34, “As I have loved you, so you must love one another,” means, “Love one another only insofar as it contributes to your own individual glory

BTW and FYI — if you haven’t read the post — “QR” is admittedly a spin-off of “TR”.

Speaking of initials matching acronyms, the first time that Lance wrote: To bw and anyone interested, I forgot about Ben and was trying to figure out how Lance knew my last name. Maybe you could rename the post “Brendt the Narcissist?”

I hear ya. I love it when scamps say that he’s not really reformed. What they really mean is that he’s not a QR like they are.

Calvinism is abject fatalism and renders the whole human experience meaningless.

Another gold nugget from Rick on Calvinism.

I admit, regarding this topic of God and glory and narcissism, that I am at a point in my walk with God to not fret all the nuances and focus on my life bringing glory to God in all that I am and do. I’m not concerned right now about if God is glory, if he’s a glory hog…all interesting discussion, but it’s one of those things I need to not focus on or else lose my focus.

But the Calvinism line — ’twas good.

I do think this particular argument from Piper is just too extreme. I probably wouldn’t have even bothered to have posted this if it had been the same gist but not to the uber-degree Piper has expanded it to (He told me that it goes to 11).

Nor am I on many things which I believe. Yeah, nowhere in Scripture will you find the word “hypostatic”. But the incarnation is impossible for the human mind to fathom anyway. So much so, that I don’t buy into the if/then of your final sentence.

“Watchdoggies” are a subset of QRs, in my book.