Christ's Glory

[KenH]

"Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." John 17:24

God, in giving the saints heaven as their happy home, gave them with it an eternal weight of glory. He has designed that all whom he has chosen unto salvation should reach the heavenly shore; that none should suffer shipwreck by the way; that sin should not be their ruin; that Satan should not succeed in any of his devices against their eternal safety; but that every member of the mystical body of Christ should be for ever with their glorious Head in the realms of bliss, to behold and to be partakers of the glory which shall be revealed when he comes and all his saints with him.

It is the prospect of this eternal glory which animates the Christian in all his battles against sin, and encourages him never to quit the field until victory crowns the strife. It nerves his heart in all the troubles and trials of this mortal state, still to press forward to win this immortal prize, that he may safely reach that land where tears are wiped from off all faces, and where the glory of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit will be seen and enjoyed through the glorified humanity of Jesus without a cloud to dim its rays, or intercept its eternal luster.

- excerpt from J.C. Philpot's Daily Portions, November 1

 

[JonC]

The order is mixed up (biblically). Philpot jas made an error common to Calvinists. He has ignored the verses before verse 24 and used verse 24 for his own purposes.

Verse 24 says absolutely nothing of God choosing us to salvation (Philpot used the verse in isolation to pretend it does). The choosing is based on our unity with Christ - we are chosen (elect) because He is the Chosen (Elect One). We are to be perfected in perfect unity with Him, He and us will be one just as He and the Father are One (verses 22-23).

Had Philpot actually read John 17 he would have realized that Christ first said that He gives them (us) His glory (verse 22), that He and them (us) would be one as He and the Father are One (verse 22), He in them (us) and the Father in the Son (verse 23), that they (we) may be perfected in perfect unity (verse 23).

This is why (biblically) election to salvation is fiction. We are only elect (chosen) when we are united in the Elect (the chosen) One. Once we are in Him and Him in us (unity) then we are chosen from the foundation of the world because He is chosen from the foundation of the World.


Calvinism tries so hard to minimize Christ. I do not understand why. I also do not understand why Calvinists are so intent on picking out verses and ignoring the surrounding passages.

I guess this is the down side of chapter/ verse divisions. Too many "Christians" use God's Word as a reference book, picking and choosing verses they think supports their philosophy.

 

[KenH]

The order is mixed up (biblically). Philpot jas made an error common to Calvinists. He has ignored the verses before verse 24 and used verse 24 for his own purposes.

Verse 24 says absolutely nothing of God choosing us to salvation (Philpot used the verse in isolation to pretend it does). The choosing is based on our unity with Christ - we are chosen (elect) because He is the Chosen (Elect One). We are to be perfected in perfect unity with Him, He and us will be one just as He and the Father are One (verses 22-23).

Had Philpot actually read John 17 he would have realized that Christ first said that He gives them (us) His glory (verse 22), that He and them (us) would be one as He and the Father are One (verse 22), He in them (us) and the Father in the Son (verse 23), that they (we) may be perfected in perfect unity (verse 23).

This is why (biblically) election to salvation is fiction. We are only elect (chosen) when we are united in the Elect (the chosen) One. Once we are in Him and Him in us (unity) then we are chosen from the foundation of the world because He is chosen from the foundation of the World.


Calvinism tries so hard to minimize Christ. I do not understand why. I also do not understand why Calvinists are so intent on picking out verses and ignoring the surrounding passages.

I guess this is the down side of chapter/ verse divisions. Too many "Christians" use God's Word as a reference book, picking and choosing verses they think supports their philosophy.

The OP is about the glory of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and the hope and encouragement and security that is given to God's people by them.

Yet, you want to drag this thread down into a debate over Calvinism vs. Free-Willism.

Shame on you, Jon. In my opinion you are exhibiting CDS - Calvinism Derangement Syndrome.

 

[JonC]

The OP is about the glory of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and the hope and encouragement and security that is given to God's people by them.

Yet, you want to drag this thread down into a debate over Calvinism vs. Free-Willism.

Shame on you, Jon. In my opinion you are exhibiting CDS - Calvinism Derangement Syndrome.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

The OP is not about the glory of God. It is about the glorification of man.

And yes, we can find nuggets of truth in all theologies (even pagan theologies). We could argue that we should completely ignore Philpot's disregard for God's Word in the verse he uses because he goes on to to speak how man will be glorified.

We could also post Kenneth Copeland sermons and ignore the heresy to speak of how men will be glorified.

But I believe as Christians we are to be more careful about doctrine. We cannot ignore Philpot's heresies simply because he speaks of man's future glory. That would be wrong.

There is no acceptable amount of cancer we want in our body. There is no acceptable amount of false teaching we should allow in our doctrine.

Here the problem is not Calvinism but the misuse of God's Word by extracting one verse and creating a new meaning.


This is why I do not like Calvinism - not because of its philosophy but because of its disregard for Scripture.

 

[KenH]

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

The OP is not about the glory of God. It is about the glorification of man.

And yes, we can find nuggets of truth in all theologies (even pagan theologies). We could argue that we should completely ignore Philpot's disregard for God's Word in the verse he uses because he goes on to to speak how man will be glorified.

We could also post Kenneth Copeland sermons and ignore the heresy to speak of how men will be glorified.

But I believe as Christians we are to be more careful about doctrine. We cannot ignore Philpot's heresies simply because he speaks of man's future glory. That would be wrong.

There is no acceptable amount of cancer we want in our body. There is no acceptable amount of false teaching we should allow in our doctrine.

Here the problem is not Calvinism but the misuse of God's Word by extracting one verse and creating a new meaning.


This is why I do not like Calvinism - not because of its philosophy but because of its disregard for Scripture.

 

[JonC]

View attachment 14709

Well...read the OP.

Since it ignores verses 22-23 and just uses verse 24 to make it say what it does not mean, yeah. I once again point this out.

You cannot post that men are elected to salvation then while like a school girl when somebody mentions that it is Calvinism and taking verse 24 out of context.

YOU are the one who brought Calvinism into the discussion, not me.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

The OP is not about the glory of God. It is about the glorification of man.

Very true, but not referring to @KenH. It is your post that is about glorifying man; the O.P. is about the glorification of Christ as verse 24 makes clear - 'that they may behold My glory.'
The giving by the Father of His elect to Christ is a recurring theme in John's Gospel (e.g. 6:37, 39, 10:28; 18:9). In Chapter 17, it occurs in vs. 2, 6 & 11. It may be argued that the last two are referring to the apostles, but v.2 very clearly refers to 'all flesh.'
So in v.24, The Lord Jesus returns in His summing up to that theme and prays that the Father will indeed take His elect, whom He had given to Him to save, to heaven where they can behold His glory and cry out, 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb.'.
As they say, it's not rocket science.

 

[JonC]

Very true, but not referring to @KenH. It is your post that is about glorifying man; the O.P. is about the glorification of Christ as verse 24 makes clear - 'that they may behold My glory.'
The giving by the Father of His elect to Christ is a recurring theme in John's Gospel (e.g. 6:37, 39, 10:28; 18:9). In Chapter 17, it occurs in vs. 2, 6 & 11. It may be argued that the last two are referring to the apostles, but v.2 very clearly refers to 'all flesh.'
So in v.24, The Lord Jesus returns in His summing up to that theme and prays that the Father will indeed take His elect, whom He had given to Him to save, to heaven where they can behold His glory and cry out, 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb.'.
As they say, it's not rocket science.

I have two points.

First, Philpot is not writing about the glory of God but about our glorification. This is not a bad topic at all. It is a topic that we need, as Christians, to explore. It is very important.

BUT it is not the topic @KenH claims it to be. To be fair, his reply was just a knee jerk response to "win" rather than addressing my post (something we have all done at some point). We loose sight of discusding the topic and view those offering criticism as an opponent while in truth we are all on the same dide.

Second, I did not introduce Calvinism into the thread. @KenH included Calvinism in the OP.
If I posted about us being glorified but also introduced anti-Calvinistic opinion you would be justified in challenging that part of my post. If I posted that you were obsessed with non-Calvinists and the point of my post was God's glory then I would be wrong. And you would be right to call me out on that.

 

[JonC]

Very true, but not referring to @KenH. It is your post that is about glorifying man; the O.P. is about the glorification of Christ as verse 24 makes clear - 'that they may behold My glory.'

No, you are not being honest with your post (you are playing the "us vs them" game again, forgetting we are on the same side and should be examining God's Word).

Even the snippet you use of verse 24 is about man beholding Christ's glory rather than being about the glory of the Father.

Stop playing "us vs them". It makes you a very poor steward of Scripture.

Here is the passage:


But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves. I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.

For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.


We have to be more careful, more respectful, with God's Word than Mr. Philpot. It is not about "winning" an argument, about slighting an "opponent". It is about being faithful to the passage we are examining.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have two points.

First, Philpot is not writing about the glory of God but about our glorification. This is not a bad topic at all. It is a topic that we need, as Christians, to explore. It is very important.

BUT it is not the topic @KenH claims it to be.

@KenH did not claim it to be any topic. He did not so much as mention Calvinism. He quoted Philpot without comment. He (rightly) responded to your first reply accusing you of introducing Calvinism. You wrote:

Verse 24 says absolutely nothing of God choosing us to salvation (Philpot used the verse in isolation to pretend it does). The choosing is based on our unity with Christ - we are chosen (elect) because He is the Chosen (Elect One). We are to be perfected in perfect unity with Him, He and us will be one just as He and the Father are One (verses 22-23).

Verse 24 is speaking of those given to Christ by the Father. To see what that means you need to look at verse 2. He requests that those people should be where He is going (heaven) so that they may see His glory. That does not deny what He said in verses 20-23, but nor do those verses deny verse 24.

To be fair, his reply was just a knee jerk response to "win" rather than addressing my post (something we have all done at some point). We loose sight of discusding the topic and view those offering criticism as an opponent while in truth we are all on the same dide.

His reply was an answer to your 'knee-jerk response' to his post. Had Philpot actually read John 17

Second, I did not introduce Calvinism into the thread. @KenH included Calvinism in the OP.

No! That is false, and you should be ashamed of yourself. @KenH quoted Philpot, who is a Calvinist. Is it your view, Mister Moderator, that no one should be allowed to quote Calvinists? It was indeed you who set up Calvinism as a sort of Aunt Sally in post #2 rather that properly and respectfully addressing the quotation of a man much better than yourself. I am not an unreserved fan of Philpot, but he was right on the money in the extract that @KenH posted.

If I posted about us being glorified but also introduced anti-Calvinistic opinion you would be justified in challenging that part of my post. If I posted that you were obsessed with non-Calvinists and the point of my post was God's glory then I would be wrong. And you would be right to call me out on that.

The problem is that you did exatly that. You wrote: "Had Philpot actually read John 17...." "Calvinism tries so hard to minimize Christ....." These comments are just anti-Clavinist claptrap, and you are wrong, and I am rightly calling you out on it.

 

[KenH]

a sort of Aunt Sally

I had not heard that term before. Thank you for expanding my vocabulary.

 

[JonC]

@KenH did not claim it to be any topic. He did not so much as mention Calvinism. He quoted Philpot without comment. He (rightly) responded to your first reply accusing you of introducing Calvinism. You wrote:

Verse 24 is speaking of those given to Christ by the Father. To see what that means you need to look at verse 2. He requests that those people should be where He is going (heaven) so that they may see His glory. That does not deny what He said in verses 20-23, but nor do those verses deny verse 24.

His reply was an answer to your 'knee-jerk response' to his post. Had Philpot actually read John 17

No! That is false, and you should be ashamed of yourself. @KenH quoted Philpot, who is a Calvinist. Is it your view, Mister Moderator, that no one should be allowed to quote Calvinists? It was indeed you who set up Calvinism as a sort of Aunt Sally in post #2 rather that properly and respectfully addressing the quotation of a man much better than yourself. I am not an unreserved fan of Philpot, but he was right on the money in the extract that @KenH posted.

The problem is that you did exatly that. You wrote: "Had Philpot actually read John 17...." "Calvinism tries so hard to minimize Christ....." These comments are just anti-Clavinist claptrap, and you are wrong, and I am rightly calling you out on it.

You did not read the OP.

"He has designed that all whom he has chosen unto salvation should reach the heavenly shore".

Why is it forbidden to debate the claim that God elects to salvation when @KenH included it in the OP?

What part of the verse being "expounded" upon states that God elects to salvation?

Why is it forbidden to point out that verse 24 does not deal with man beholding the glory of the Father?

I wish you could be a more honest person when it comes to discussing specific passages. We don't have to agree on philosophy or theories but we should be united when it comes to what is actually stated in God's Word.

You are still stuck in thinking theology is "us vs them". It is not. We (Christians) need to accurately deal with Scripture and then, if we see fit, discuss our different understandings.

 

[percho]

What is the ultimate glorification of a man?


John 7:39 states, Jesus was not yet glorified
Christ prayed Father glorify thou me. John 17:5
1 Peter 1:21 states God [?the Father?] gave him glory

 

[KenH]

Why is it forbidden to point out that verse 24 does not deal with man beholding the glory of the Father?

In verse 24 Jesus said "that they may behold my glory".

 

[JonC]

"Calvinism tries so hard to minimize Christ....."

I stand by that comment. But it is, I think obviously, when compared to more Christ-centered theologies.

 

[KenH]

I stand by that comment. But it is, I think obviously, when compared to more Christ-centered theologies.

There is no more Christ-centered theology than the gospel of salvation by God's free, sovereign grace and the finished work of Christ.

In fact, any theology not based on the gospel of salvation by God's free, sovereign grace and the finished work of Christ is a false gospel.

 

[JonC]

There is no more Christ-centered theology than the gospel of salvation by God's free, sovereign grace and the finished work of Christ.

I agree. But that is not Calvinism. Calvinism views the Father choosing (electing) individuals to salvation, the Father removing our sins from us and placing them on Christ, and the Father punishing our sins on Christ in our place. The Christ of Calvinism is a willing victim that the Father uses as a target for Hos wrath in order to save those He has chosen for salvation.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is very different. It is much Christ centered and focuses on our election in Christ, being foreknown in Christ, being conformed to the image of Christ, a unity with Christ, being one with Christ.

 

[KenH]

I agree. But that is not Calvinism. Calvinism views the Father choosing (electing) individuals to salvation, the Father removing our sins from us and placing them on Christ, and the Father punishing our sins on Christ in our place. The Christ of Calvinism is a willing victim that the Father uses as a target for Hos wrath in order to save those He has chosen for salvation.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is very different. It is much Christ centered and focuses on our election in Christ, being foreknown in Christ, being conformed to the image of Christ, a unity with Christ, being one with Christ.

Yeah, you do not believe the Bible's teaching in 2 Corinthians 5:21(and other verses) that the sins of God's elect were imputed to Christ and He paid their sin debt, and His perfect righteousness was imputed to God's elect.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[JonC]

Yeah, you do not believe the Bible's teaching in 2 Corinthians 5:21(and other verses) that the sins of God's elect were imputed to Christ and He paid their sin debt, and His perfect righteousness was imputed to God's elect.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

No need to lie, @KenH .

As far as 2 Cor 5:21 goes, I interpret the verse to mean that God made Jesus, who never sinned, to be sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ.

Do I believe that Jesus bearing our sin means God transferred our sin from us and put it on Him?

No. BUT I also do not believe that the future us bearing His hlory means God transfers Jesus' glory from Him.

I read 2 Corinthians 5:21 as agreeing with John 17:21-24.

 

[KenH]

Do I believe that Jesus bearing our sin means God transferred our sin from us and put it on Him?

The sins of God's elect were not transferred to Christ. Christ was not made a sinner. The sins of God's elect were imputed(credited, charged) to Christ and He paid their sin debt; but it was by imputation only, and not the false teaching by some that Christ actually became a sinner.

Likewise, Christ's perfect righteousness was imputed(credited, charged) to God's elect, but was it was by imputation only, and God's elect do not become righteous in themselves. The righteousness imputed to God's elect currently resides in Heaven in Christ Jesus, seated on the right hand of God the Father.