It appears to me that the most misunderstood of the solas is “sola deo Gloria.” I’m especially interested in the Catholic take that God “shares” his glory with the saints.
Do reformation Christians really believe that “glory” belongs to God alone? Or do we, like our Catholic friends, believe that God shares his glory with those who are “glorified?” What is the relationship between the “sola” glory of God and a “glorious” anything else? (Like the universe, for example?)
Question: What does it mean to say “Glory to God alone?” And how do we practice it?
The Internet Monk Archives 
I know the reasoning MAJ Tony. And we understand intercession. We still have no mandate to ask those in heaven for intercession. We can’t just make this up how we like. In heaven we have an intercessor at the right hand of God, the one who died for us, the one who says: forgive them, they don’t know what they’re doing.
Meanwhile, I will gladly ask my fellow Christians here for intercession and also take their requests. On Sunday we pray for each other in the service. It makes more sense, too, because this way we have the caring fellowship and love on earth that we need along with God’s help. (Bear one another’s burdens). This praying for each other, a fellow Christian in my circle of friends and acquaintance, prompts us to love and do something.
LikeLike
Bridgitte,
I think the key thing with intercession of saints, especially Mary, is that the Saints are not dead (physically, their bodies, yes, but spiritually they are very much alive) As we know saints in heaven are certainly more righteous than the best of sinners on earth, and we also know that James 5:16b says The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. This is the basis for the intercession of saints, who ALWAYS pray for us in Jesus’ Holy Name.
Mary and all the Saints point us to Jesus. They also help bring Jesus to us, by their example, and by their prayers. If the angelic hosts unceasingly proclaim Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord, the God of Hosts likewise does the Communion of Saints, only with more authority, because men (neut) who are made in the image and likeness of God, are higher even than the host of Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Dominations, Thrones, Cherubim and Seraphim.
If the angels can hear us, who is to say the Saints do not?
LikeLike
We also have Luke 17:10. Jesus says: “So you also when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'” (Even while God says in other places: “Well done good and faithful servant.”)
In fact, I was at an awards banquet last Saturday. A “Christo et ecclesia award” was given to our former president of Lutheran Church Canada. He had four consecutive terms, he is involved with our missions in Nicaragua, etc. etc. What does he say: “I’ve only done what I was called to do. And when I look back not as well as I would have liked. I am so glad that I preach the forgiveness of sins.” (Pretty close to the Luke 17:10). Another award was for a little old lady, who had spent her life visiting and praying, etc. She said: “What comes to my mind as a response to this is: See how they love one another.”
I think you can say “thank you” honestly to a compliment, encouragement, reward, in a humble way. It’s always in the way everything is done, is it not? I’ve heard rather triumphalistic “thank you’s” by someone I consider rather narcissistic. But you can also say “thank you” with looking someone in the eyes and realizing that they are being kind and brotherly (“see how they love one another”). Just to be noticed is a kindness, as by sinful nature we are blind to everything but ourselves.
This glory in John 17:22, is like this, we are to be one in the Lord through the Spirit. And when we look at Christianity, we are always sad that we don’t agree on everything. Yet, the discourse is also stimulating and keeps us growing. But as the Una Sancta we still have this brotherly love and love of the Lord that is the reflection of His first loving us. But only through his Spirit and giving of himself are we brothers and sisters and have some glory of unity.
As to the veneration of Mary. I’ve not been exposed to much of it and can’t comment on it too much. As a Lutheran attending Catholic convent school, I sat during the Hail Mary’s that were only said during the month of May, but said the Lord’s Prayer with the others all the rest of the year. In the Hail Mary it’s the “Pray for us now and in the hour of our death” that is like a prayer to Mary and we don’t believe that praying to any dead person has a scriptural mandate. (In Bavaria, we had many Crucifixes, but I don’t recall many statues of Mary. Usually, when I see statues of Mary around here, I’m a little embarrassed for her. They tend to be so gaudy on top of it.)
I’ve watched Mary closely at times in the Bible, especially lately as I just also lost my only son. I like her very much. I love her faith. But I have faith, too, and without having seen. She is my sister and I have unity with her in waiting for the Son of God, her Savior and mine. That was the whole reason of “Theotokos” and of “Mother of God”: it was to say that Jesus Christ is God. That’s the point.
LikeLike
Oh…and thanks for the link.
LikeLike
Brigitte
I missed you post about the awards dinner etc. it went up at the same time as mine after it did.
I think we have to be careful exactly what we say about faith and works. It is surely true that without the Holy Spirit we cannot, as Augsburg says, work the righteousness of God; and (which is to say the same thing) nothing we do can bring God down from heaven. That said, God has come down from heaven, and we really do have the Holy Spirit. Thus the Solid Declaration of Concord “the question at present is not…also not what sort of a free will he will have in spiritual things after he has been regenerated and is controlled by God’s Spirit, or when he rises from the dead. But the principal question is only and alone, what the intellect and will of the unregenerate man is able to do in his conversion and regeneration from his own powers remaining after the Fall.”
In short, Soli Christi Gloria does not assert that God does not give true glory to us after our baptism, nor indeed that after regeneration our wills do not cooperate with grace (I seem to remember reading that the regenerate will cooperates with grace somewhere in the Book of Concord, but I can’t find it.)
Also, we have to be careful that we don’t say that just because someone receives the promise through faith, that they are not to be commended. Romans 4:13 says that Jesus [note that “seed” is singular] was justified by faith, and not works: “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Moreover, we should read Romans 4:3-5, Christologically. As John makes clear, Christ did not seek to save Himself, but trusted God. Though his body was good as dead, He did not seek to save Himself, but trusted Himself, believing that God could even raise the dead.
And as Philippians (and many other passages say) it is precisely for this that we praise and glorify Christ. He did not seek to glorify Himself, and therefore He has received all glory.
LikeLike
Brigitte,
I think you think we Catholics disagree with you on this and I don’t think we do. I agree with what you say. All glory is God’s. As my love for my wife is actually a reflection of my love for God, any praise that I would give Mary would be God’s as well.
We are in agreement.
You do realize that your Isiah 42:8 line is in direct conflict with the John 17:22.
I’m not disagreeing with you it’s just what you’re saying isn’t as fleshed out as you believe it is which I think is the point of this post.
LikeLike
Matthew, I think you and Fr. Stephen have a point about the difference between glory and Glory. In all this, my concern has been that it is all too possible to be overly protective about God in a way that inappropriately diminishes both man and the creation.
I say inappropriately because it was God Himself who declared all of the creation to be good. I have no problem in admitting that humans are fallen and damaged. But, more and more I appreciate the Orthodox emphasis on the idea that the image of God has not been lost, only the likeness of God.
On this blog there has been more than one comment made on other posts on the damage some people have felt because they have felt diminished by their religious experience. That is, it is one thing to truthfully say that we can never earn our salvation, but it is another thing to fail to praise people for progress made or fail to recognize the positive changes in people’s lives.
I have no problem in saying that God is the origin of all good things. Scripture says that. Holy Tradition says that. I have a problem with those (as was cited by one of the posters above) who are incapable of simply saying a humble thanks for praise received because if they dare to say such a thing, they might be misinterpreted as diminishing God’s Glory.
I have no problem with Sola Dei Gloria as a theological concept. I have a problem with any application of SDG that aggressively diminishes people created in the image of God because to praise them too much is to somehow do wrong to God. More than that, an overly aggresive application of SDG effectually drifts into hyper-Calvinism. What do I mean? An overly aggressive application of SDG, by refusing to give any credit whatsoever to human free will, seems to drift into a hyper-TULIP thought pattern. It fails to recognize that in many situations God’s glory shines precisely because a human being made a correct decision. It is “both/and” not “either/or.”
LikeLike
Those passages would say to me that the glory coming from God is still His glory and that we would be acknowledging him, just as at the awards dinner, or the Magnificat, neither of which deals directly with justification and redemption.
If this has to do with theosis, this is too complicated for me just now. I did find an article on Luther and Theosis here: http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1054
LikeLike
And also II Corinthians 3:18
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto,
Do you read Fr. Stephen’s blog? I think what he calls the “two story universe” comes into play here. We’re fine giving honor and glory to people so long as we remain on this story, and the glory isn’t Glory; but when we go into the second story and approach “God things” we can’t give honor or glory to people, only to God.
Brigitte
But there’s also passages like John 17:22, and we really cannot take the Isaiah passage to mean that God does not share his glory period, but that it isn’t divided up with idols, first because Christ says he gives God’s glory to us, but also because otherwise we would have to say that God doesn’t share his glory with Christ.
LikeLike
“My soul praises the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me–holy is his name.”
What does Mary, theotokos, do? She turns the praise to God, where it belongs. (This is why she is great.) We can call her blessed. In fact, I am blessed, too, and certainly you, too. I should give you a list of my blessings, which really would be honoring God.
Praising “faith” is also not praising a person, per se. Faith is trust in God and a gift of God. Faith is good, faith is commanded, faith is what God wants and sees. It can be acknowledged. But this faith is in God, who is good. Faith is just begging and waiting, it is not an accomplishment.
My husband and I sometimes go to awards banquets and recognition dinners, because he is on the board for our local luth. college, and they are wonderful, helpful, events. These events showed me how people have led their lives and accomplished things and persevered through struggles. They are encouraging.
This is all good, although you can see people rightly struggle with this recognition. When they get up to reply they will turn it all back to God. They were blind but he led. They barely knew what they were doing but God provided the people, the help, the direction, the word, the encouragement, the miracles they needed. He bore them through it all.
I often recall something Luther mentions from some ancient Christian (forget who it was, you might know who). This ancient Christian had the habit of
making a cross with his fingers under his robes, whenever he was praised or criticized to remember that his sins were covered and that the praise belongs to Christ. I think that’s a great attitude and image.
LikeLike
Here is another question. Does giving only God the glory make us unable to praise people, or to give any honor to them? In reading the comments again, it seems that glory is being overly tied up with the ideas of praise and honor.
If so, I would like to point out that there are several New Testament Scriptures that speak to that.
Jesus praises the woman from Tyre and Sidon for her faith.
Jesus is amazed and commends the centurion for his faith, then heals his servant.
Jesus praises St. Peter for listening correctly to the Holy Spirit and calling him the Son of God.
Archangel Gabriel says that generations of people will call the Virgin Mary blessed and will honor her.
St. Elizabeth gasps and honors Our Lady when she says who is she to have the mother of her Lord visit her.
But, it appears to me that some of the posts on glory seem to almost be saying that we cannot praise or honor anyone other than God, yet the New Testament seems to show otherwise!
Can a misapplied doctrine of SDG lead to either false humility or the inability to give sufficient praise and honor to others?
LikeLike
Some quotes from Isaiah: “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.” (Isaiah 42:8). “But now, this is what the Lord says–he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you O Israel: ‘Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are mine… For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior;'” (Isaiah 43:1-3). “Before me no god was formed; nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. I have revealed and saved and proclaimed…” (Isaiah 43:11-12) “This is what the LORD says–Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it… I have swept away your offenses like a cloud, your sins like the morning mist. Return to me, for I have redeemed you… for the LORD has redeemed Jacob, he displays his glory in Israel.” (Isaiah 44).
All glory properly belongs to God, who redeems and saves. And the right theology is the one that gives God all glory.
LikeLike
iMonk if all that SDG means is that the glory that we have is ultimately derived from God, then I can see why it is hard to explain the difference between Roman, Protestant, and Orthodox views on this subject, as there would really be none.
Moreover, I have heard more than one Pentecostal/Charismatic sermon that dwells on the idea of our having glory like Moses and of growing from glory to glory. As Peterson pointed out, an obvious corollary of Luther’s statement is to say that God’s glory is to make others glorious. It is not anti-Protestant to say that redeemed human beings can express glory derived from God’s redeeming activity.
And, if all that SDG means is that all glory for our salvation belongs to God, then there appears to be no conflict.
However, given how the discussion has gone into a discussion of the Theotokos, I suspect that SDG means more than my above two statements.
But, given your original question and comments, I would suggest that SDG, in and of itself, would be shared among all Christians, if it means only what I said above. In the same way, solo Christo, depending on how it is defined could be a shared sola among Christians.
It is all in the definition, is it not?
LikeLike
Click to access bmcle8.pdf
For anyone interested I see you can read a chapter from the book, Mary and the Christian Life: Scriptural Reflections on the First Disciple, by Amy Welborn.
I haven’t read the book myself, just this chapter. I keep hearing good things about Amy Welborn and check in on her blog which is on beliefnet from time to time.
LikeLike
Off-topic, but I really like the way that Bible references posted in comments turn into links 🙂
LikeLike
St. John Damascene is talking about the veneration of icons (very current to him because Islam was starting to take off and they were opposed to the use of images in worship) but it also, I think, applies to the veneration of the saints:
“United to these underlying ideas, John Damascene also places the veneration of the relics of the saints, on the base of the conviction that holy Christians, having been made participants in the resurrection of Christ, cannot be considered simply as “the dead.” Enumerating, for example, those whose relics or images are worthy of veneration, John specifies in his third discourse in defense of images: “Before all (we venerate) those among whom God has rested, the only holy one who dwells among the saints (cf. Isaiah 57:15), such as the holy Mother of God and all the saints. These are those who, inasmuch as possible, have made themselves similar to God with their will and by the indwelling and help of God, [and] are really called gods (cf. Psalm 82:6), not by nature, but rather by contingence, as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by contingence and through participation in the fire. It is said, in fact: “You will be holy because I am holy” (Leviticus 19:2)” (III, 33, col. 1352 A).”
LikeLike
Michael, I am sorry if I seemed to be saying Protestants deny that glory comes down. I was trying to say I think the emphases are different between Catholics and the Reformation SDG.
Maybe the Pope’s talk on St. John Damascene from today’s General Audience (courtesy of the ever-wonderful Amy Welborn) will help illustrate:
http://www.zenit.org/article-25806?l=english
“We see that, because of the Incarnation, matter appears as divinized, is seen as the dwelling place of God. This is a new vision of the world and material realities. God has become flesh and flesh has become truly the dwelling place of God, whose glory shines forth in the human face of Christ. Therefore the invitations of the doctor of the East are even today extremely current, considering the great dignity that matter has received in the Incarnation, able to come to be, in faith, efficient sign and sacrament of man’s encounter with God.
…After a series of references of this type, Damascene could serenely deduce, therefore:”God, who is good and superior to all goodness, did not content himself with the contemplation of himself, but rather wanted there to be beings benefited by him who could come to be participants in his goodness: For this he created out of nothing all things, visible and invisible, including man, a visible and invisible reality. And he created him thinking of him and making him a being capable of thinking (ennoema ergon) enriched by the word (logo[i] sympleroumenon) and oriented toward the spirit (pneumati teleioumenon)” (II, 2, PG 94, col. 865A).”
LikeLike
Some quotes from St.Alphonsus, who I think non-Catholics should read for a good understanding of Catholic thought. His writing keeps a good balance of popular piety and sophisticated theology.
And also:
Hardly statements of an idolator and yet, as was mentioned before, he is one of the most Marian saints in history.
LikeLike
Memphis Aggie wrote: “We do, however, in fact believe that God does delegate graces and blessings to Mary and that she is empowered to bestow them on us.”
Some saints have written things like this, but I don’t think it’s doctine. Some people believe it, but it’s an allowed belief not a required belief. My impression has been it’s cautiously okay to think of Mary as Mediatrix of Graces, but be careful where you take it.
LikeLike
Patrick,
I’ll be the first to admit that there are some Catholics out there who take the veneration of Mary to the extreme point of potentially being worship and that’s wrong.
The Catholic teaching isn’t so. We are called to ask Mary to pray for us. We’re asking her to intercede to Jesus for us.
Elizabeth acknowledges that she’s blessed (Luke 1:42) and Mary herself acknowledges that all ages will call her blessed (Luke 1:48).
The Catholics by praying the Hail Mary are upholding Scripture. Luke 1:48 has no meaning without veneration.
Regardless, to stay on topic, the Hail Mary doesn’t take away from God’s glory. It enhances it all the more. It’s admiring God’s work.
LikeLike
Michael,
I know I posted just a second ago, but here’s my understanding of Protestant reasoning for something much like the Catholic doctrine. (I’m Protestant.)
God’s Word is effective. What He says happens. When he said “Let there be light” there was light. He spake the word, and there came all manner of flies and lice in all their quarters. He said “Let my people go.” And His people go.
And if He says “Glorify the Theotokos” the Theotokos is glorified. Which means that the Protestant difference with the Catholic is not whether a creature can receive the honor the Theotokos does, but whether God has prophesied to the Wind “Glorify the Theotokos so much that the prayer ‘Most Holy Theotokos save us’ is not idolatrous.”
What cannot be, is that the Theotokos is so glorified without the Word of command. So, granted for the sake of argument that God has prophesied to the Wind “fill the Theotokos with all the fullness of your glory”, idolatry would not be in the degree of honor due to the Theotokos–for she is worthy of all honor–but to do so in a way that fails to acknowledge that she is all glorious because of the Word of God which sent the Spirit upon her–or worse asserts the contrary.
And if God has so elevated her, it would not be a failure to ascribe all glory to God to so glorify her, because the glorification would implicitly acknowledge that such great glory for her is the work of God, and hence would be praise of God by praising his work.
(This distinction between kinds of worship is perhaps behind some of the Orthodox objections to the portrayal of the Theotokos without her Son.)
The question then is to what degree God has glorified the Theotokos. (For it seems to me that the fact that God glorifies creatures is indisputable. “Glorious things of thee are spoken Zion city of our God…” Similarly, I do honestly think that the “God’s glory is to glorify” is a proper corollary to Luther’s “God’s righteousness is to make righteous.” Or at least that a denial of the first is a denial of the second, for righteousness is glorious. But whatever glory is in a creature, it must not be treated as Glory independent of God, but as glory from God.)
LikeLike
Memphis,
Dude,despite your best effort to explain the veneration of Mary, your very explanation confirms in my mind the correctness of the Protestant view of the Catholic doctrine concerning Mary. We view the distinction between “veneration” and worship as a false distinction. As I put it to a Cathloic friend badgering me to “come home to Rome”, “could you sell that distinction to remote tribes in the Amazon or Africa being evangelized in Catholic missions?” The obvious answer is no.
LikeLike
Jumping in cold:
Wouldn’t a corollary of Luther’s famous “God’s righteousness is to make others righteous” be “God’s glory is to make others glorious”?
This wouldn’t mean we shouldn’t ascribe glory to God alone, for two reasons. First, just as Christ ascribed glory to the Father, rather than claiming it for Himself, so too we should ascribe glory to Christ rather than claiming it for ourselves. But second, we should always claim that our glory, though glory indeed, comes because God created, and then came into creation. So a statement like “Mary is so great that she turns God’s wrath into mercy” would (if meant without the qualification that her mercy comes from God) be failing to ascribe glory to God, since it seems to put Mary in opposition to God. But a statement like “God so fully consecrated the Theotokos by sending His Spirit on her, that she now is a greater Moses, and turns aside God’s wrath against his people” would, however false it may be, would not be a failure to ascribe all glory to God.
LikeLike
Imonk
I’ve rethought this question and I think IOU a better answer and that I made two errors. First it is incumbent on Catholics to explain this problem and second it is a more serious than the language at first glance might indicate and in fact this division is probably much wider than it was during the Reformation.
First an observation that if you hear a criticism over and over from multiple sources it probably has some basis in fact even if you know it to be exaggerated or a half truth. So when Protestants criticize Catholics saying you worship Mary it’s our job to examine the critique and explain it. Let’s be honest, we don’t worship her but our veneration does indeed look a lot like worship. If you came to my house and saw my statue of Mary and the garden dedicated to her and compared it to say the worship of Gonesh by Hindus (I had a friend from Madras who was devoted to him) it really wouldn’t look very different. Protestants who say “if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then …” are really being reasonable. We owe an explanation
that we understand Mary is human and her glory is gift of God and that her actions are always subordinate and in harmony with God etc. So, only because of an interior invisible but crucial understanding of the lesser created state of Mary, is veneration clearly distinguished from worship.
We do, however, in fact believe that God does delegate graces and blessings to Mary and that she is empowered to bestow them on us. We believe of course that her will is so united with her Son’s and in full obedience to God the Father that the blessing coming from her hand is also a gift of God that He permits and approves. We believe that Jesus has honored Mary in this way as revealed by various Saints – not through the Bible. I’ll not pretend that I think these honors are described by the Bible, there are some Marian honor passages but nothing so clear cut on this point (obvious point of division there). Although I don’t think it’s written out dogmatically, and must not be confessed to be Catholic in so many words, this belief still has real visible influences on the Church. For example the dogma of the Immaculate Conception arises from the visions of some of these same Saints.
I wear a Miraculous Medal of Saint Catherine Labouré with an icon of Mary bearing rings on both hands from which are depicted beams of colored light which are understood to be blessings she bestows through the power granted to her from God. Interestingly not all of the rings have active beams and this is because Mary is said to have graces no one asks for. In fact Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, author of the Story of a Soul and Doctor of the Church (no higher Saintly title exists) famously prayed for the these unclaimed graces herself. Also of note this same medal has the inscription certain to cause any real Protestant problems: O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee. Yep this is a big division
and all of this additional Miraculous Medal discussion is post-Reformation.
Frankly however I think the sola itself is merely an assertion in reaction to practice, a straight out rejection and that neither view can be proved to the other sides satisfaction. It’s an article of Catholic faith, although not explicitly part of the creed, about the workings of Heaven that God allows servants to bestow graces in His name. It’s the basis of intercessory prayer.
LikeLike
I banning myself from this discussion —
Splitting hairs gives me a headache …. 🙂
LikeLike
Well, I’m pretty pitiful myself, but that’s neither here nor there. Process is huge in this thing. I am becoming – not I already am.
It’s seriously, analogously, like I had a son, Conor, who somehow screwed up and got his DNA degraded in some way – lost his normal human brain function, reasoning and decision-making abilities – just became a sub-human thing-boy. This would tear me up. I would be sad and would do all I could to heal Conor – to bring him back to his original form. OK, I found the way – I have the vaccine, the healing for his DNA – but there’s a bit of a boy still there. I can sort of give him the vaccine, but there is a cooperation with it’s effects that he has to say yes to for it to work completely.
I could just say that I love Con the way he is, in all his screwed up, ugly, weirdo, twisted sub-human self – and I would love him. But what do I want for my son? I want him to be the son I originally fathered, my fully human son again, with all his original human abilities restored.
This is how I see salvation – what it is in it’s essence – God giving us the vaccine and then following up by continuing to give us what is required to fully and completely restore us to our original Human form.
A couple of things from your response: One thing – when you said, “‘becoming like God’ in myself” is something I would never say in relation to what I’m talking about. Another thing you said about when you do anything right – “it’s a miracle” you said. Exactly, I say. That’s exactly it – it IS a miracle – one which has both instantaneous as well as long-acting components.
Anyway, just hashin’ it out. Peace.
LikeLike
Imonk’s last post (10:49 PM) nails it. All this talk of glory here and glory there, and whose glory, and is it reflected glory etc. etc., misses the point. SDG in the Reformation refers to God’s work in salvation and is an affirmation of divine monergism in the salvation God has wrought for His creation.(Sorry, Father Ernesto)
LikeLike
Fr. E,
A subtle distinction, but yes. In salvation particularly- because that’s what the solas are about- the ultimate and all sufficient glory is God’s alone, and it’s perception anywhere else, including in glorified persons, creation, etc is derived FROM God.
I believe the scripture teaches there is creaturely glory, but in salvation, it is SDG.
LikeLike
To use a math analogy, are some of the Reformers saying that glory is a zero-sum situation? That is if anyone else other than God has any glory does that diminish God’s glory? Is there a fixed amount of glory so that shared glory means diminished glory to the One who shares?
I rather like the Reformers, since the Orthodox have many of the same critiques of some of the Roman Catholic doctrines as the Protestants. So, my question is not a slam on the Reformers. But, does sola dei gloria mean that no one else may have any glory but God? I know that people have talked about reflected glory. But, it still seems to me that some of the basic argumentation is that if anyone but God has some glory then God’s glory is diminished.
LikeLike
Well you’ll love this Alan. I think in actual cases, your team does come out with more humility, and my team brags about their piety until I want to puke.
But I still can’t put it together, because the idea of “becoming like God” in myself simply fits nothing about my life. Occasionally I get a couple of things right, but it’s a miracle, and generally motivated by fear, guilt or pride in their somewhere. My righteousness is poisoned at the well and I can’t look at it without despair.
Luther had to be talking about somebody 🙂 I’m pretty sure it was me.
LikeLike
Is actually becoming like God, by and through the Grace of God, seen as something we can eventually brag about?? I mean, the concept of a human being having been created “like God” in reality – having lost it – then regained it because of God’s mercy and Grace – is that somehow seen as humans would covet like Simon Magus coveted the power flowing through the Apostles? I honestly don’t get the aversion to actual transformation into the Image of Christ. If someone, in this scenario, would actually become renewed inside and out, they would then BE like Christ – their desires would be humble and grateful and full of Love. They wouldn’t be patting themselves on the back, saying, “look at ME, at what I have done, at how great I am” – never. So yeah, I don’t get it.
LikeLike
My understanding of it is this: glory = virtue = grace = mercy = love = faith, etc. It is all from God — it all is God. None of it is ever separate from God or His Christ.
But we are one in Him as He is in us as we all are together one in the Father. Because part of the revelation of the Son of God in the Catholic experiential tradition is that some of the faithful that have passed on have some kind of active participation in the Communion of the Saints can in no way be used to intimate that God’s glory is being shared beyond what Scripture teaches within Catholic dogma. One just need look at the writings of these Holy Ones to see that none of them would have it otherwise.
They would not be considered “Saints” if they would have it so.
LikeLike
I’ll take Luther on that one guys 🙂 (Though I think that was an illustration about justification by Christ’s righteousness, not a reductionist statement that human beings are garbage.)
LikeLike
Sorry for the quotation–but at least it isn’t from canon law.
Christ is alive in Christians. Our faith teaches us that man, in the state of grace, is divinized-filled with God. We are men and women, not angels. We are flesh and blood, people with sentiments and passions, with sorrows and joys. And this divinization affects everything human; it is a sort of foretaste of the final resurrection. “Christ has risen from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made to live†(1 Cor 15:20-22).
Christ’s life is our life, just as he promised his Apostles at the last supper: “If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with himâ€( Jn 14:23). That is why a Christian should live as Christ lived, making the affections of Christ his own, so that he can exclaim with St Paul: “It is now no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me†(Gal 2:20; Non vivo ego, vivit vero in me Christus).”
(Blessed Josemaria Escriva, Christ is Passing By nn. 102-103)
LikeLike
Dennis–that’s my understanding too. Through baptism/grace we become the adopted children of God–we are transformed. I think this connects with the different positions of Catholics and Protestants on our nature after baptism: Luther said that are like dung covered by snow (we still are dung though; the Catholic position states that we truly become a child of God and that baptism and on-going grace bring about greater and greater glorification. It is God’s work not our own though.
LikeLike
Imonk:
Good topic, and one that I think should not be such that it should cause friction. I think that notion of “Sola Deo Gloria” can be reconciled between the Catholic and Reformed position. A good article by a former Reformed Christian, who is now Catholic, is by Tim Troutman. He does it in a non polemical way and is very respectful of his Reformed upbringing.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/?p=463
As others have alluded to, God shares his glory with us at Baptism, which allows us to “participation of the Divine Nature†or what the Eastern Tradition refers to as “Theosisâ€, which is a beautiful Doctrine that states that Human beings can have communion with God, and thus become like God to such a degree that humans can “partake in the Divine Nature†(c.f. 2 Peter 2:4). We become united with God by his Grace, through his son Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Again, in Catholic Doctrine, the process of “Theosis†starts at Baptism where the CCC states the Baptized person has become a New Creature, (see CCC para. 1265)
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.htm#art1
So the Catholic Church sees that through the Incarnation and Cross/Resurrection/Ascension, God has given us access to his Mercy and Love and by his Grace, which God gives us through the Sacraments, the inner person becomes renewed and transformed by Grace and through that Grace we become United to God and thus what God is by nature, we become like him through Grace. In other words, Christ trough his Grace allows us to “partake in the Divine Nature†(c.f. 2 Peter 2:4). So through the incarnation of Christ, God is now really accessible to us and wants us to be in “communion with himâ€.
St. Paul in Ephesians alludes to “Theosis†where he states “who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens, as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, ‘to be holy and without blemish before him’†(c.f. Eph: 1:3-5). He writes “and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the Fullness of God†(c.f. Eph 3:19), and coming to “mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ†(c.f. Eph 4:13).
St. Paul in Chapter 6 of Romans takes up this theme here as well. In verses 1 to 4, he mentions Baptism then he states “For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection†(c.f. Rom 6:5). Later St. Paul writes about being “conformed to the image of his Son†(c.f. Rom 8:29), which Catholics and Orthodox believe happens at Baptism (going back to Romans 6) and restores what was loss before the fall when Man and Woman was created in the Image of God (c.f. Gen 1:26-27).
So I think this is where Catholic Theology, and Eastern Orthodox Theology, are linking incarnational theology with justification and salvation, etc. While we distorted our Image (Divine Image, as we were originally created in God’s Image) as a result of Adam and Eve’s Sin (The Fall), through Christ, God is going to not only restore our True Image, but through his Grace, bring us into communion with the Holy Trinity, which is Love itself, and thus partake in the Divine Nature.
St Paul further writes “that you should put away the old self of your former way of life, corrupted through deceitful desires, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new self, created in God’s way in righteousness and holiness of truth†(c.f. Eph 4:22-23). St Paul writes “to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God…Do not conform yourself to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect†(c.f. Rom 12-1-2). St Paul prays that “the God of peace himself make our perfectly holy an may you entirely, spirit, soul and body, be preserved blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ†(c.f. 1 Thes. 5:23) and why we are called which was “for obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ†(c.f. 2 Thes 2:14). In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul also talks about glory with respect to man as he writes “the Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him (c.f. Rom 8:16-17).
St. John states whoever remains in God’s Love remains in God and God in Him. In this love brought to perfection among us we have confidence on the day of judgment because as he is, so are we in this world†(c.f. 1 John 4:16-17). Finally, two other verses point to God’s glory being shared with us; 1 John 3:2: “We know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is†and St. Paul’s letter to the Philippians where he states: Christ will “transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body.†(c.f. Phil 3:21).
Sorry about the long post, and hope my post helps in the discussion
LikeLike
I think I am getting a better understanding of what you’re talking about.
I guess my answer would be YES, we share in God’s glory.
The ONLY way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. In Catholicism, salvation is obtained through unity with Jesus Christ. At Baptism, we are initiated into the Body of Christ–baptized into His death. We conform ourselves to Him through obedience. We remain in Him through the Eucharist and if through our own sinfulness, we leave the Body of Christ, we seek His forgiveness and reenter the Body of Christ through Reconciliation.
As Saints–like Mary, they are fully conformed to Christ’s body therefore, the glory that could be given to them is God’s glory as they are one with God. In other words, it’s NOT a reflection but rather they are one with the vine.
So, as we are one with Christ, we are glorified by God through Salvation but ONLY because we are one with Christ and that Glory is fully God’s.
I believe–and other Catholics can correct me if I’m in error–that what I have written is proper Catholic teaching.
LikeLike
Martha: I think all of us Protestants agree that all of creation and all of human life reflects the glory of God. I believe all of creation is a sacramental experience of God’s glory. I don’t know any Protestant that denies God’s glory “comes down.”
But it’s God’s glory, and when shared with creation or human beings, it’s God’s glory.
The idea that “the heavens are filled with/are telling the glory of God” and SDG is without conflict.
The question is, as someone said, primarily about God’s glory in salvation and how that is shared while remaining His alone.
peace
ms
LikeLike
Michael, I think that’s the big difference there. The Reformation emphasis seems to be on the glory going from us up to God, meaning “Mary and the saints – no!” while the Catholic rejoinder to that would be to emphasise the glory coming down to us from God; that all the whole of creation is a mirror of the glory of God, and therefore that those most attuned to His will and surrendered to Him more perfectly reflect that glory and are made glorious thereby.
LikeLike
Yet Calvin neglected to see in Scripture the art inherent in the writing. Poor Jean…
I grew up Catholic, but I’ve spent almost the whole of my adult life as a Presbyterian, wandering from PCA to OPC and back again. I guess you could say I speak it all fluently, and what I have failed to grasp from either camp is exactly the question you are asking:
The Catholics seem to say that God shares His glory. Maybe He has shared it in the work of creating us…in creating us in His image and likeness. Maybe He shares it in His redeeming us. Maybe both.
The Prots seem to say that we reflect God’s glory. That through redemption, we “mirror”, if you will, a bit of that which belongs to God. And that we fail when we forget to give it back; when we forget to acknowledge the source of anything we do that might be considered “good” (since there is no good in us).
I think it’s both. We have within us, (upon our justification, perhaps? when our calling and election was made sure? when we were baptised, our sins forgiven, and the covenant promises made to us and our parents were made real and we were brought into The Church? or confirmed and filled with the Holy Ghost??? 😉 ) the indwelling Spirit which is the glory of God. And we reflect God’s glory as we become holy, perfect, more Christ-like throughout the whole of our sanctification.
The whole of my life…every breath I take, every move I make, is all for God’s glory; given to me and reflected through me.
I think everything God touches, creation as well as us, shares in and speaks of His glory. That it is tainted because of the Fall is a non-issue. It is there, it has been redeemed. We’re just waiting for the time of our redemption to be made complete…in Glory.
LikeLike
Good example of why giving grace and giving glory are two very different things in my understanding. Hail Mary full of grace doesn’t violate much in my theology (until you add in the immaculate conception.)
peace
ms
LikeLike
iMonk:
I would agree with you and Bouyer that this sola, or more precisely, the philosophical differences that underlie it, is the chief source of separation between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox.
I think where Protestants are offended is when, not so much the glory, but the roles and work that are proper to God are shared with the saints and angels.
Protestants, I think, can accept that creation reflects God’s glory, like a mirror or the moon. This is essentially a passive role. The moon, for example, does not really cooperate with the sun nor is it essentially changed in any way by the impact of the light on its surface.
To the Protestant mind, honoring a saint is like complimenting a paintbrush on its artistic ability. The tool is completely passive and any consideration would be a distraction from the artist. Passivity versus cooperation under the operation of grace is the key issue here and here there is legitimate disagreement.
To use a simple example, if God gives someone the grace of obedience, is the person then praiseworthy for being obedient? Catholics and Orthodox would say yes, since the person was not merely passive but truly cooperated in that grace. A Protestant would say no, because God gave the grace freely, so only God should be praised.
As to the simpler question, “Does God delegate his work?”, the answer has to be yes. I bring to witness the countless angels and prophets, who God could’ve easily have done without but didn’t. Like they say in management school, a good boss can delegate, a bad one does everything himself.
LikeLike
Another way of looking at it is that Catholics in all probability didn’t flesh out the theology around devotions until well after the reformation. Lots of things are done reactively rather than proactively. Although certainly the iconoclastic arguments predate the reformation. I expect that this is like a debate where the participants show up at different times and places and likely ignore each others best arguments, assuming they even hear them at all. Alternatively it might be a one sided discussion without any direct response from Catholics. Maybe each sola has to be addressed like justification was in a joint statement with participating Protestants that explained the areas of agreement and disagreement in commonly defined terms. Then you would expect each viewpoint to get it’s best showing. There’s no way any lay Catholic can give the definitively right answer unless they quote a Papal Bull or the Catechism.
Coming from Judaism the icon question loomed large but this sola is too foreign.
I don’t see the issue: if God gifts us with glory by giving us a share in His generosity it’s still His, just as we are His in our entirety. Just like all of our talents, it all comes from the same place (Him) and will ultimately return there.
LikeLike
Reading after posting the above, it appears Michael you are defining glory as credit; …I think the essence of this is back to my question at the start: sharing Glory. Does God share his glory in the work of saving sinners?
If glory = credit for what is good, then “sola deo gloria” fits, especially when addressing who gets credit for the salvation of a particular person.
If glory = weight or importance, then God has given man glory. Again, the importance is not ours inherently, but something given to us.
Like many words that cause questions and controversy, is glory a word used for different meanings in different places?
And if Calvin used a definition of glory that eliminates the arts, then I would say he was off base. Darn, another hero bites the dust! 🙂
LikeLike
As someone said above, the comments have given me a lot to think about. I think I need to go back and review how the reformers did define “sola deo gloria”.
It seems like a big part of this topic IS the definition. My working definition is a vague mixture of ideas:
– part “Give the credit for everything good that we do to God”
– part “Do everything to enhance God’s reputation and not ours”
– part “Remember everything comes from God and not ourselves”
– …
The comments above show different meanings for glory: credit, weight or importance, ‘divine essence’, etc. I think a basic definition of glory would be helpful as many seem to be talking past each other.
I know this assumes defining glory as honor or credit, but I think that ultimately we need to resolve how to avoid pride and give God his due honor without denigrating or bypassing what the Word says in many places about the ‘glory’ God has given to man.
LikeLike
I think in practice we definitely differ in very concrete ways in art and devotion for example. The underlying theology may not be so far apart. I don’t see why it necessarily falls to Catholics when I think the distinction originates from Protestants (doesn’t it?). I’m not at all confident I could do justice to the sola or the reasoning behind it.
LikeLike
We do say “glory” when we technically venerate just like we say “pray to” for intercessory saints when we mean simply to ask. Like I said before I think the emphasis is on different terms and not so much with different concepts. Catholics say worship is reserved for God, the solas say glory is Gods alone. I wonder f you get under the hood and look at what is meant by each term if the differences are that significant.
LikeLike
I see soli deo gloria, as articulated in the Reformation, as extremely significant. Bouyer said this was where Calvin really went astray, and for me that is a good place to look. Calvin did away with art, etc to concentrate almost entire on scripture and the Gospel for precisely this reason. IF Prots and RCs believe the same thing about SDG, then someone- and I think it needs to be the RC side- needs to explain how it relates to the glory given to anything else. We’ve done well in this thread doing that, but I think the essence of this is back to my question at the start: sharing Glory. Does God share his glory in the work of saving sinners?
A crucial question that lies at the heart of the reformation.
I think Catholics must either articulate it differently than we do, or reconstruct it so that God does, indeed, share the glory in salvation with Mary and the saints- all of whom were saved in that plan.
peace
ms
LikeLike
Imonk I have zero authority to say what Catholics should believe. I only know what I believe and to me it’s a non-issue. Now if what we call veneration to Mary (which I enjoy practicing myself) crosses over the line for Protestants I can understand that. We just had a May day celebration and my son brought flowers to decorate the statute of Mary in a ritual known as he “Crowning of Mary”. So you could reasonably say that isn’t that giving glory to Mary? I see how you might think so but while I’m praising Mary I’m thanking God for her as well – I remember the context that all that is good is from God by definition. If I praise your work am I not praising you as well, if indirectly? We Marian devotees consider her to be the pinnacle of creation and implicit in the devotion of her is the lauding of the creator who gave her to us as a gift of a second mother.
LikeLike
Love, honor…..easier words to deal with for Protestants.
But is Mary Glorious? In a way others are not glorious? And if so, does that negate soli deo gloria?
I’ll ask again: Do Protestants and Catholics agree on soli deo gloria, and if so, where is the problem?
ms
LikeLike
I think it’s just a misunderstanding of Marian devotion.
If I were to appreciate and admire the Mona Lisa, does that take away anything from Leonardo? Or does our appreciation for the Mona Lisa magnify our appreciation for DaVinci.
Our appreciation and honor for God’s work magnifies our appreciation for God. We cannot understand DaVinci without understanding/appreciating his masterpieces.
If I love my wife, does that take away from loving God? How can I love God with all my heart and yet love my wife? Your thought process would lead me to believe that it’s wrong to love her because it takes away from Him.
The simple answer is that your love for God is reflected in your love for your wife–the Catholic answer. (Husbands love your wife like Christ loved the Church…) In the same manner that our honoring Mary is a reflection of our honoring God.
If we honor Mary, we honor her because of God. Our honor for her doesn’t detract but rather glorifies Him all the more the same way our appreciation for the Mona Lisa lifts DaVinci on a pedestal.
LikeLike
I’d prefer you to tell me: do Protestants and Catholics actually agree on this sola?
It’s hard for me to hear the Catholic rhetoric about Mary and feel we’re talking soli deo gloria. If we believe the same thing, why do so many Protestants, like me, feel that Marian devotion wanders well outside of the this sola?
ms
LikeLike
Imonk – So where is the conflict exactly? Is this simply a misunderstanding given the distinction of glory reflected from God from His intrinsic glory (as you point out). Seems a comparably small difference relative to that of the other solas.
LikeLike
My understanding is that we reflect the glory of God. It is God’s glory shared with us–not our own glory. It is like the moon reflecting the glory/light of the sun.
During the Mass the priest prays, as he mixes water with wine, “May we come to share the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.”
I think Corinthians expresses a smiliar idea: “But we all, with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit.”
LikeLike
I always interpreted this as a premptive rejection of pride. However, these though provoking posts have made me realize that there is much more.
LikeLike
Memphis Aggie:
Absolutely. God’s own glory is the first principle of everything He does and the glory He gives to His creatures always reflects back on Him. He created the universe to glorify Himself and that remains the final end of all He has done and all that will be. However, as Fr.Ernesto said, there are other ends that are not conflicting with this primary end: the beauty and glory of certain creatures.
In its best form, SDG only means this giving back to God what is his and this is a very good thing. In practice, though, I often find that it is used to mean that God never gives. I often hear that since “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, there are no saints or holiness in creation at all.
I would also agree with Piper who asserts that God’s glory is our greatest good. We lose nothing by giving God everything. I believe this, although one could hardly tell from how I live my life…
LikeLike
Isn’t there a passage in Revelation where the crowned saints throw their crowns at Christ’s feet? So whatever the honor or glory of those crowns (of martyrdom or purity we Catholics might say) is clearly secondary to the Glory of the Lamb. It’s just like the fruit each of us are to bear for Christ is only made possible by being grafted to Him. We do bring forth real fruit but only and secondary agents who are insufficient on our own.
LikeLike
I happen to have stacked by the bed “The Glories of Mary” by St. Alphonsus Liguori. Even this most Marian of saints, who never fails to praise her virtues beyond those of any other creature in glowing terms, clearly states that Mary is “infinitely” lower than God. I think the idea is that glories are bestowed on creatures as gifts and tokens of love by God and to fulfill His word that the humble will be exalted and to reveal His generosity and power. I further expect that these glories are to encourage the rest of us to follow the examples of the saints and to seek their intercession is like asking for help from the straight A student.
In my understanding of Catholicism worship is reserved to God alone. Could the sola definition of glory be effectively synonymous with worship?
LikeLike
Or, as the Jesuit motto has it, “Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam” – “For the greater glory of God”, meaning that all we do – from our prayers to even sweeping the floor – can and should be ‘for the greater glory of God’.
Interesting topic, Michael; of course God cannot be deprived of His glory, or lose it, or if He shares it with us then somehow His ‘total amount’ is lessened. I imagine SDG in the Reformation was intended to address what was perceived as diverting the proper glory due to God to Mary and the saints instead.
I think a Catholic way of phrasing the question would be “Is it possible for humans to give glory to God?”, that is, can we by any means give God something He is lacking? Can we increase the amount of glory that God possesses? No, of course not. What does it mean to say we give God the glory? There’s two things we mean here by glory: the divine glory of God, and the glory we humans render to God.
For us, when we say “Glory to God”, we mean the praise, honour, and gratitude we give and the acknowledgement of His graciousness, His omnipotence, His work of creation and salvation. That, I think (and I’m open to correction here) is the type of “glory” meant in ‘Soli Dei Gloria’: none other but God alone is to be praised, thanked, worshipped, honoured, and acknowledged.
The glory proper to God Himself, which He shares with us, is a different thing. To quote the old Catholic Encyclopaedia:
“The summer flower, though only to itself it live and die, is a silent witness before Him of His power, goodness, truth, and unity; and the harmonious order which binds all the innumerable parts of creation into one cosmic whole is another reflection of His oneness and His wisdom. Yet, as each part of creation is finite, so too is the totality; and therefore its capacity to reflect the Divine Prototype must result in an infinitely inadequate representation of the Great Exemplar. Nevertheless, the unimaginable variety of existing things conveys a vague hint of that Infinite which must ever defy any complete expression external to Itself. Now this objective revelation of the Creator in terms of the existences of things is the glory of God. This doctrine is authoritatively formulated by the Council of the Vatican: “If any one shall say that the world was not created for the glory of God, let him be anathema” (Sess. III, C. I, can. 5).”
Sometimes the only prayer I can pray is the Doxology:
“Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.”
LikeLike
Ahhh…Bach. His music always pointed me to God regardless of the work, the performer; instumental or chorale.
To God alone be the Glory. As magnificent as Bach’s music is, he was but a humble instrument in the Hand of God, used to point to Him, teach of Him, worship Him, enjoy him. Even as Bach played musical games (like putting his name within the musical motifs), his goal was always, only, to point to his Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
I believe that Soli Deo Gloria reminds us that we are but poor reflections of the glory of God. Any good we do is not of our own doing, but the grace of God given us that we return to Him; used to preach, teach, worship…whatever it is God would have us to do in that moment. All we do is to God’s glory. We are the crown of His creation; created in His image, yet fallen, yet redeemed; we are reflective glory and point always to the Giver, the Source of this glory. It is not ours. We neither command it, nor control it.
Humble yourself in the sight of the Lord and He will raise you up…
I find my proof text of this is Genesis 1:1-Revelation 22:21.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m misunderstanding SDG but as a Catholic, the way I understand it is that all that I do should be for the greater glory of God.
I breathe to glorify God. I work to glorify God. I love my wife to glorify God. All is for the greater glory of God.
Anything that does not glorify God will lead me to sin.
Veneration of the saints glorifies God. It’s to admire His work through them. These great men and women (especially Mary) glorified God in a way that they should be remembered (not worshipped or glorified.)
“Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, forever and ever.” (Final Doxology of the Catholic Mass).
LikeLike
I would be more interested in the catholic take on
Sola Deo Laus or Sola Deo Cultus, perhaps not one of the “Big 5”, but definitely part of our “protestant” tradition. It is hard to ask because answers sometimes use concepts like “hyperDulia” which just does not fit in my head.
“But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:”
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”
Looks like it is possible to get some glory, but compared to God it would be a night light to Light house.
LikeLike
I think that is a radical notion that God shares His glory. I think it is all in our perspective on glory. We think of glory as ascending, growing stronger, richer, more influential, more prestigious. In God’s economy, glory is in descending, emptying, giving, dying. So, yes, I think God shares His glory through the incarnation, suffering, death, and descending of His Son. I wonder then if the Eucharist takes on a part in this: Christ giving his very self (literally, spiritually, and/or symbolically) to us. Then, following that example, we give that glory to those around us through acts of charity, rather than keeping it for ourselves to build our own glorious spiritual dynasties. I think this can be seen in Mother Teresa or the suffering of the martyrs. it may be less noticeable in giving change to a homeless person or in surrendering a parking spot. Again, it’s all in how one views glory.
LikeLike
Steve, Curtis, Matt, and Jan point out that the Scriptures themselves talk about humans having glory. We are being changed from glory to glory. Glory has come to Jesus through the apostles. He has created us for a little while lower than the angels, but has crowned us with glory.
So, I would think that any interpretation of Scripture which would deny any glory to humans would be somewhat inappropriate. However, I think that what most of us may very well agree with are two words “both / and” rather than two other words “either / or.”
I would not phrase sola dei gloria as meaning that if I have glory God cannot have glory. Neither would I tend to say that because our glory originally comes from God that this means that our glory is only, and nothing else but, reflected glory. Yet, that is what some would tend to say.
As Jan quotes John 17, there is an interesting wording there, “and glory has come to me through them.” It concords with St. Paul saying that we are growing from “glory to glory.” Part of the proof of God’s correct judgment is precisely our glory. It does not detract from God’s glory to say that our glory is growing. Rather, it adds to God’s glory. It is both / and. Part of God’s defeat of Satan is that He was able to show that He can change us to be like Him without destroying our free will. In one sense, every time our glory increases, God’s glory is confirmed, and Satan’s misunderstanding is further highlighted.
In the Transfiguration, Our Lord Jesus Christ showed how the glory of God can be present in a human being (yes, He is God also). In 2 Corinthians, St. Paul argues that the same glory with which Moses shone weakly is the same glory with which we shine strongly. As the Orthodox say, we are called to shine with the glory of Mt. Tabor, and as we do, Satan cowers and must retreat. We also can shine with glory despite our imperfections.
To say that “to God alone be the glory” is not to deny that we have glory. Rather it is to recognize that our glory is only possible because “God so loved the world.” It is to say that our glory proves that God’s judgment was correct. It is to say that God was successful in changing us so that we can say therefore all things are new. Our glory is the victory cry of God’s resurrection. “To God be the glory, great things He has done . . . praise the Lord, praise the Lord, let the earth hear His voice!”
LikeLike
I can’t really say that I know, precisely, what a particular Protestant might mean by Sola Deo Gloria. It sounds like maybe what has been said is that all of the glory of God is only ever “in Him and with Him” and never with or in anyone or anything else. And I see the point about reflected glory, and that it’s not the same as saying that God has actually given some of the “stuff” of His Glory to us, to a created person.
So, as I understand it, the way a Catholic might look at this is that the fullness of our salvation is really all about God actually giving us His Glory. I’m hearing “Glory” here, as it is being discussed, as God’s Life essence – His manifested Presence – a part and share in His Own Self. We might call it partaking in or sharing the Divine Nature maybe? Yes, I would say that. Does this mean we become GOD, or Gods, or even gods – No. I don’t think it does. Does it mean we are brought into a kind of real union with Him which is far beyond simply Him being “way up there” as our Big Daddy and us being “way down here” as little puny humans? Yes, I think it certainly does mean that.
Several Scriptures were quoted above which speak fairly loudly of this union, this sharing of His “Glory” or “Nature” or “Life.” Where does any of this glory we might be given come from? Well, it IS “given” so it comes from HIM, from GOD. We can’t muster that up from within ourselves. It’s a gift. HE gives of His Own Self to us. He transforms us because we are broken and are shells of our former and original created selves. And in doing so, He is re-establishing His original created order – all Glory to Him!
Now, this is talked about in Catholic theology and most often in monastic theology, the mystical tradition of the Church, so my guess is that most pew-sitting Catholics don’t really think like this. They’re thinking very similarly to pew-sitting other Christians – on the whole – “I just want to get to heaven when I die.” Unfortunate for us all.
LikeLike
And God made two lights, the greater to rule the day, and the lesser to rule the night …
The sun is typical of God’s glory a radiant splendor the comes from the core and is an essential part of his God nature. The moon by contrast is a reflective light. We are to be, to the best of our ability and with God’s help, mirrors reflecting God’s glory into the dark corners of our world.
LikeLike
2 Peter 1:3-4
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.
A. “called us to his own gloryâ€
B. if God’s nature includes his glory, then (through baptism) we partake in it, right?
It seems to me that some people don’t understand the depth of God’s love, how deeply and intimately he wants us to share all that he is and has.
LikeLike
I don’t know much about the official Catholic nuances of this doctrine.
But there is so much evidence that it is what we are destined for — just the fact that we are becoming children of God. Why were the Jews so upset when Jesus spoke this way? Because He was claiming a share of God’s glory.
“The Firstborn of many brothers” — “We shall see Him as He is, for we shall be like Him” — “We shall know as we have been known” — all this alludes to our glorious future.
Like so many other Christian theological controversies — the Eucharist, the millennium, etc., the argument here is not about the what, but the when ….
LikeLike
We are given glory and rightly ascribe it back to God.
LikeLike
The Orthodox after Gregory Palamas distinguish between God’s essence, which we cannot know, and his (uncreated) “energies” which are perceived as fire, light, glory, etc. We may attain to theosis (divinization) by uniting with these energies through the liturgy of the eucharist, yet remain in a subordinate position viz. God.
I understand that the Mormon view is similar, in that all (Mormon men with priestly ordinances and a temple marriage?) may become gods, while remaining under the Heavenly Father, who alone receives worship.
From this I conclude that a basic question is the extent to which God may be perceived or glorified through things which are blessed but not altogether divine, such as man or nature. Or religion!
LikeLike
All glory is to God. In Jesus’ own words:
John 17:1-12
1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Jesus Prays for His Disciples
6″I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.
LikeLike
I don’t know that it is appropriate to ascribe glory to God alone. Is that what the sola is getting at? I always thought it was that the ultimate purpose of the mission of God was His own glory.
The Hebrew word for glory, kavod, essentially means weight or importance. God is glorious in the sense that He is important. If you say that God is the only one with glory, than you are saying that human beings have no importance or worth.
But humans do have glory because they are created in the image of God.
Second Corinthians 3:18 says, “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.”
Fallen human beings have some glory based on the image of God that remains in them–but it is a tarnished glory. As we are conformed to the image of God, we are “glorified.” So, human beings do have glory, but it is a derived glory or a contingent glory based on the image of God that they bear.
LikeLike
….for Thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory Forever…..AND SO BE IT.
LikeLike
In his critique of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer criticizes Calvin for concentrating all of God’s glory in God. I’m not so sure this is a mistake, however, if we want to maintain a distinction between what is glory per se, and what is glory reflected or glory signified.
LikeLike
Does the Catholic view of Mary and the Saints contradict soli deo gloria
I think a distinction can still be maintained, as Garry Wills does in his book What Jesus Meant, xv-xvii.
LikeLike
As a Catholic, the only problem I have with SDB is how is subtly introduces the notion God’s glory and his creation’s glory are in conflict. This is not so.
I’m reminded of the 8th psalm:
Who is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you visit him?
You have made him little less than the angels,
You have crowned him with honor and glory,
You have set him over the works of your hands,
You have subjected everything under his feet,
All the cattle and sheep, and moreover, the beasts of the field,
The birds of the air and the fish that traverse the paths of the sea.
LikeLike
Does the Catholic view of Mary and the Saints contradict soli deo gloria?
LikeLike
…in particular his reflections on the uncreated light, divine energies, theothis, deification etc. all the REALLY cool stuff.
Mt. Tabor anyone?
LikeLike
It’d be fun to hear from Fr. Ernesto on this one :)!
LikeLike
I think it is largely about the topic of yesterday’s post about how everything in the Christian life points back to Jesus. All the good we do, all of our best, everything is only possible because of him. On our own we just don’t cut it, no matter what “it” is. But that’s cool, ‘cuz with Jesus being around, we don’t really need the glory so much. Acceptance, approval, and simple relationship with Jesus is good enough. Sometimes, that’s hard to remember though. And that goes back to the need for humility and teachability that have been talked about recently in both the podcast and one of the recent posts.
Additionally, Jesus often said that His mission is to do what the Father instructs. And the Holy Spirit similarly “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” So even within the Trinity, the glory is ulimately passed up the chain of command, so to speak, even as all three Persons are “worshiped and glorified.”
LikeLike
Many perceive glory incorrectly! Many Christian becomes very “Jewish” in their thinking and see glory as merely might and power.
God’s glory is Jesus’ crucifixion on calvary; that is God’s glory. How contrary this is to human notions of glory…
As Paul says, “but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles…” So let us not be “Jewish” or “Greek” in our thinking of glory.
LikeLike
Soli Deo Gloria is about our motivation, its a heart position rather than a posession to keep or share.
Intersting question though…is all glory in practice God’s…is all grace and all faith his? Don’t these statements talk about the sufficiency of grace, faith and scripture and our heart response?
LikeLike
As the only perfect being, all that God does is perfect. He perfectly seeks to display his perfection. He is even jealous of his own glory.
In a human this attitude would be ugly and contemptible. In God it is perfect and holy. It is all about Him
LikeLike
Heberews 2 excerpts:
6 “…What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor…”
10 For it was fitting that He, for whom and by whom all things exist, in BRINGING MANY SONS TO GLORY, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. ”
I believe God shares His glory with those “sons” who are glorified (perfected, matured) in verse 10.
And yet, in Revelation the crowns are all cast back to Jesus.
“Who is this King of Glory?”
LikeLike
Isaiah 48:11
It means that you ascribe all glory and honor to the One who is worthy and to no other. This is true regardless of your circumstance (remember Job responding to his loss in worship)
How do we practice it? In the US… we generally practice it poorly.
LikeLike