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?
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.
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?”
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
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?
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.
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.”
It’d be fun to hear from Fr. Ernesto on this one
!
…in particular his reflections on the uncreated light, divine energies, theothis, deification etc. all the REALLY cool stuff.
Mt. Tabor anyone?
Does the Catholic view of Mary and the Saints contradict soli deo gloria?
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.
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.
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.
….for Thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory Forever…..AND SO BE IT.
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.
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.
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!
We are given glory and rightly ascribe it back to God.
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 ….
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.
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.
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.”
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?
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.
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…
I always interpreted this as a premptive rejection of pride. However, these though provoking posts have made me realize that there is much more.
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.”
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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