As the answer below points out, salvation is "rationalized" in the
reformed churches and for Luther, and the thought of a omnipotent God led
to this "rationalization".
But the central question is how you get salvation, and what role merit
has in salvation:
As both Calvin and Luther uses the tradition after Augustin and reject
Pelagius, they are the place to start.=20
<underline>Augustin</underline> meant that sinners couldn't get
salvation. And as everybody is born a sinner, something had to happen to
man before he could get salvation. What happend, according to Augustin,
is that to get salvation you first had to get <italic>Habits of
Grace</italic>. <italic>Habits of Grace</italic> is given from the Holy
spirit, and changes man, so that instead of wanting to do sinful things,=20
mans will is <underline>changed</underline>: one wants the good and does
merits, after being given Habits of Grace. (Augustin saw the pervertion
of the will as the original sin: the will as turned away from God and
toward the sinful).
Wanting the good, and doing the good means that man is good, and can get
salvation.
But as Augustin believed in predestination, God decided who was given
Habits of Grace and with that salvation, and who did not.
<underline>Pelagius </underline>had another way of seeing this. He did
not agree with Augustin that the original sin was the pervertion of the
will. Man chose freely what he wanted to do, he/she did not need Habits
of Grace to do merits, but could choose to do merits by his/her own will.
When man chose to do merits, and did not sin, ha was given salvation.=20
After Augustin and Pelagius, the discussion about salvation and the role
of merits went on. There seems to be less focus on Habits of Grace after
a while, but still focus on merits. Doing the good, means being good. And
to get salvation, one has be goos, ie. do more good than sins.=20
In the late 12th and in the 13th century, the doctrine about Habits of
Grace and merits is questioned, as a result of seeing God as=20
omnipotent.
=20
The first argument goes as follows: If Habits of Grace is
<underline>necessary </underline>to get salvation, that means that God is
not entirely omnipotent to do whatever he want to to. He is limited,
because he cannot save anyone and give them salvation, without first
giving them Habits of Grace. (God cannot save a sinner, but has to do
that person justful/"good" before he can get salvation).
God is omnipotent and not limited, so the doctrine about Habits of Grace
must be wrong.=20
And it is something similar with merits: If God have to save everybody
doing merits, he is not omnipotent, but is limited. And God is not
limited. But from here you get two different traditions or schools:
1) William of Ockham says that God is omnipotent, but views the
relationship between man and God as a contract: When man does merits
he/she is given salvation, because God has made this contract with man.
It doesn't <underline>need </underline>to be like this, but Gud wants it
to be like this. So here merits is vital for salvation. (The merits
doctrine: you earn your salvation by acting good) Ockham is following the
tradition after Pelagius.=20
2) The other school leads to Calvin and Luther. God is omnipotent and
saves the one he wishes to. Following Augustin they belive in
predestination (some is predestined to get salvation) but this is not a
result of merits. Why some is saved and other is not, is a question that
only God knows, and man is not "capabel" to understand.
So being against the merit's doctrine, is a result of beliving in
predestination. The problem is perhaps how you solve this in a society
where the religion has given the reason for acting good.=20
<underline>Luther </underline>becomes vage about predestination after a
while, when he is more into politics and building up his church. (Saying
merits is not effecting salvation, is not very smart socially. The
connection between salvation and actions is an effective way to regulate
peoples actions. If what you do doesn't matter for salvation, one is near
the situation where everything is ok to do). So he says very litle about
predestination after a while, but focus on the calling: you are ment to
do the things God set you to, meaning: if you are born a peasent your
calling is to continue being that. To be a Christian is to follow Gods
wishes (See Weber, <italic>The protestant spririt and the capitalistic
ehtic</italic>).=20
And regarding merits, he is clear: Also the non-believer can do merits
and fake to be a good believer, so merits is not a standard by wich to
separate between them. Being consious about possibel fake, he doesn't
take merits to mean much. Merits doesn't give salvation (you are
predestined) and is doesn't show who is a good believer or not (ie. who
is inside or ourside the christian community).
<underline>Calvin </underline>does not focus on merits. Some people is
predestined to salvation, others are not. And there is no way of knowing
if you are predestined. Nothing you do will change that (Even though
Calvin in his writings are not insecure wether he is going to be saved).=20
Calvin views the Bible as a law, given from God to man. And doing the
rigt was doing what the Bible told you to. And everyone would understand
what this was, what they should and should not do, when they read the
Bible. So for Calvin doing sinful/bad things was to act deliberately
against Gods wishes. When Calvin became influential in Geneva, there
where severe punishment for those who did not obey the law, ie. Gods law
as interpretated from the Bible.
His followers saw merits as a sign that you were among the ones that were
given salvation. Doing the good is of huge importance, because it show
that you get salvation or not, but it does not give you salvation. =20
Doing good is also seen as a way of telling who is the true christian,
the one who get salvation, and who is not. So it gains in social
importance.
For further reading, I would recommend Alister McGrath:
<italic>Reformation Thought</italic> and <italic>The Intellectual Origin
of the Reformation.
</italic>
It is interesting, but far away from Foucault.
=20
=20
At 07:34 29.03.99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Luther said that if you held the bible upside down
>the book of James would fall out. he was indicating that
>talk about "good works" as redeeming was faulty; therefore
>James was faulty; therefore James was fallible; therefore scripture
>was fallible.
>
>the reason he was so puzzled about James is that he and Calvin and most=20
>all of the early reformers held to the logically consistent=20
>omnipotent/omniscient poewrs of god so that nothing humans can do=20
>matters. it is all shit in the nostrils of a just and holy god.
>
>other reformers (radical) and later reformers (methodism) held=20
>doctrines less bound by aristotilian logic. the basic issue is=20
>discussed largely in the history of the church as the arminian vs,=20
>calvinist views.
>
>there is paradise/heaven for prots. they just take a "rational"=20
>discussion to figure out who gits in; whereas the RCs take a=20
>ritualistic/sovereignly authoritative (indulgences, briberies, etc.).
>
>
>
>On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 23:48:48 -0300 Anaspinoza=20
><<anaspinoza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> It,s clear for me that hell does exist for protestants, but advancing=20
>with my modest investigation (that has not directly to do with this=20
>subject), I found out that for Luter and for Clavin it=B4s impossible for=
=20
>a human action to obtain God=B4s reward (eternal beatitude). For Luter=20
>even a good action reflects men corruption (the original guilt)=20
>(Denzinger Baunwart, Enchiridion, Symolorum 771-771). When they say=20
>that Luter was against merit=B4s doctrine, are they refering to this?=20
>This attitude against merit can be read exclusively as a battle against=20
>the payment for indulgences, or does it have another meaning?=20
>Protestants believe in hell but not in paradise? Can that be possible?=20
>Aren=B4t both part of the same figure? >=20
>> (Trento=B4s Council supports mertit=B4s doctrine: a good person WINS=20
>eternal life) But protestantism rejects the extortion of paradise? As=20
>far as I read, protestants aduce that the bible doesn=B4t even have the=20
>word merit, but catholics answer that although the word doesn=B4t exist,=20
>you can find the same sense in many parts. >=20
>> Kant=B4s rejection of merit=B4s doctrine (that is, that for him an action=
=20
>has to have a finality in itself, it has to be a consecuence of a law=20
>of the reason, and not a way to reach a prize or a punishment) has the=20
>same sense of Luter=B4s rejection of merit=B4s doctrine, at least in was=20
>has to do with de prize-paradise part? Rejecting merit both reject the=20
>way it promotes egoism and reduces virtue to calculus? > =20
>> I promisse that my next letter wont=B4t have as a title: Does=20
>purgatoire exist for protestants? Actually I think that it doesn=B4t. > =20
>> I will be very grateful if somebody can answer my escatological =20
>urgence (I promisse it will be the last) > =20
>> Ana Spinoza
>
>----------------------
>
>hwsholar@xxxxxxxx
>
>
>
reformed churches and for Luther, and the thought of a omnipotent God led
to this "rationalization".
But the central question is how you get salvation, and what role merit
has in salvation:
As both Calvin and Luther uses the tradition after Augustin and reject
Pelagius, they are the place to start.=20
<underline>Augustin</underline> meant that sinners couldn't get
salvation. And as everybody is born a sinner, something had to happen to
man before he could get salvation. What happend, according to Augustin,
is that to get salvation you first had to get <italic>Habits of
Grace</italic>. <italic>Habits of Grace</italic> is given from the Holy
spirit, and changes man, so that instead of wanting to do sinful things,=20
mans will is <underline>changed</underline>: one wants the good and does
merits, after being given Habits of Grace. (Augustin saw the pervertion
of the will as the original sin: the will as turned away from God and
toward the sinful).
Wanting the good, and doing the good means that man is good, and can get
salvation.
But as Augustin believed in predestination, God decided who was given
Habits of Grace and with that salvation, and who did not.
<underline>Pelagius </underline>had another way of seeing this. He did
not agree with Augustin that the original sin was the pervertion of the
will. Man chose freely what he wanted to do, he/she did not need Habits
of Grace to do merits, but could choose to do merits by his/her own will.
When man chose to do merits, and did not sin, ha was given salvation.=20
After Augustin and Pelagius, the discussion about salvation and the role
of merits went on. There seems to be less focus on Habits of Grace after
a while, but still focus on merits. Doing the good, means being good. And
to get salvation, one has be goos, ie. do more good than sins.=20
In the late 12th and in the 13th century, the doctrine about Habits of
Grace and merits is questioned, as a result of seeing God as=20
omnipotent.
=20
The first argument goes as follows: If Habits of Grace is
<underline>necessary </underline>to get salvation, that means that God is
not entirely omnipotent to do whatever he want to to. He is limited,
because he cannot save anyone and give them salvation, without first
giving them Habits of Grace. (God cannot save a sinner, but has to do
that person justful/"good" before he can get salvation).
God is omnipotent and not limited, so the doctrine about Habits of Grace
must be wrong.=20
And it is something similar with merits: If God have to save everybody
doing merits, he is not omnipotent, but is limited. And God is not
limited. But from here you get two different traditions or schools:
1) William of Ockham says that God is omnipotent, but views the
relationship between man and God as a contract: When man does merits
he/she is given salvation, because God has made this contract with man.
It doesn't <underline>need </underline>to be like this, but Gud wants it
to be like this. So here merits is vital for salvation. (The merits
doctrine: you earn your salvation by acting good) Ockham is following the
tradition after Pelagius.=20
2) The other school leads to Calvin and Luther. God is omnipotent and
saves the one he wishes to. Following Augustin they belive in
predestination (some is predestined to get salvation) but this is not a
result of merits. Why some is saved and other is not, is a question that
only God knows, and man is not "capabel" to understand.
So being against the merit's doctrine, is a result of beliving in
predestination. The problem is perhaps how you solve this in a society
where the religion has given the reason for acting good.=20
<underline>Luther </underline>becomes vage about predestination after a
while, when he is more into politics and building up his church. (Saying
merits is not effecting salvation, is not very smart socially. The
connection between salvation and actions is an effective way to regulate
peoples actions. If what you do doesn't matter for salvation, one is near
the situation where everything is ok to do). So he says very litle about
predestination after a while, but focus on the calling: you are ment to
do the things God set you to, meaning: if you are born a peasent your
calling is to continue being that. To be a Christian is to follow Gods
wishes (See Weber, <italic>The protestant spririt and the capitalistic
ehtic</italic>).=20
And regarding merits, he is clear: Also the non-believer can do merits
and fake to be a good believer, so merits is not a standard by wich to
separate between them. Being consious about possibel fake, he doesn't
take merits to mean much. Merits doesn't give salvation (you are
predestined) and is doesn't show who is a good believer or not (ie. who
is inside or ourside the christian community).
<underline>Calvin </underline>does not focus on merits. Some people is
predestined to salvation, others are not. And there is no way of knowing
if you are predestined. Nothing you do will change that (Even though
Calvin in his writings are not insecure wether he is going to be saved).=20
Calvin views the Bible as a law, given from God to man. And doing the
rigt was doing what the Bible told you to. And everyone would understand
what this was, what they should and should not do, when they read the
Bible. So for Calvin doing sinful/bad things was to act deliberately
against Gods wishes. When Calvin became influential in Geneva, there
where severe punishment for those who did not obey the law, ie. Gods law
as interpretated from the Bible.
His followers saw merits as a sign that you were among the ones that were
given salvation. Doing the good is of huge importance, because it show
that you get salvation or not, but it does not give you salvation. =20
Doing good is also seen as a way of telling who is the true christian,
the one who get salvation, and who is not. So it gains in social
importance.
For further reading, I would recommend Alister McGrath:
<italic>Reformation Thought</italic> and <italic>The Intellectual Origin
of the Reformation.
</italic>
It is interesting, but far away from Foucault.
=20
=20
At 07:34 29.03.99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Luther said that if you held the bible upside down
>the book of James would fall out. he was indicating that
>talk about "good works" as redeeming was faulty; therefore
>James was faulty; therefore James was fallible; therefore scripture
>was fallible.
>
>the reason he was so puzzled about James is that he and Calvin and most=20
>all of the early reformers held to the logically consistent=20
>omnipotent/omniscient poewrs of god so that nothing humans can do=20
>matters. it is all shit in the nostrils of a just and holy god.
>
>other reformers (radical) and later reformers (methodism) held=20
>doctrines less bound by aristotilian logic. the basic issue is=20
>discussed largely in the history of the church as the arminian vs,=20
>calvinist views.
>
>there is paradise/heaven for prots. they just take a "rational"=20
>discussion to figure out who gits in; whereas the RCs take a=20
>ritualistic/sovereignly authoritative (indulgences, briberies, etc.).
>
>
>
>On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 23:48:48 -0300 Anaspinoza=20
><<anaspinoza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> It,s clear for me that hell does exist for protestants, but advancing=20
>with my modest investigation (that has not directly to do with this=20
>subject), I found out that for Luter and for Clavin it=B4s impossible for=
=20
>a human action to obtain God=B4s reward (eternal beatitude). For Luter=20
>even a good action reflects men corruption (the original guilt)=20
>(Denzinger Baunwart, Enchiridion, Symolorum 771-771). When they say=20
>that Luter was against merit=B4s doctrine, are they refering to this?=20
>This attitude against merit can be read exclusively as a battle against=20
>the payment for indulgences, or does it have another meaning?=20
>Protestants believe in hell but not in paradise? Can that be possible?=20
>Aren=B4t both part of the same figure? >=20
>> (Trento=B4s Council supports mertit=B4s doctrine: a good person WINS=20
>eternal life) But protestantism rejects the extortion of paradise? As=20
>far as I read, protestants aduce that the bible doesn=B4t even have the=20
>word merit, but catholics answer that although the word doesn=B4t exist,=20
>you can find the same sense in many parts. >=20
>> Kant=B4s rejection of merit=B4s doctrine (that is, that for him an action=
=20
>has to have a finality in itself, it has to be a consecuence of a law=20
>of the reason, and not a way to reach a prize or a punishment) has the=20
>same sense of Luter=B4s rejection of merit=B4s doctrine, at least in was=20
>has to do with de prize-paradise part? Rejecting merit both reject the=20
>way it promotes egoism and reduces virtue to calculus? > =20
>> I promisse that my next letter wont=B4t have as a title: Does=20
>purgatoire exist for protestants? Actually I think that it doesn=B4t. > =20
>> I will be very grateful if somebody can answer my escatological =20
>urgence (I promisse it will be the last) > =20
>> Ana Spinoza
>
>----------------------
>
>hwsholar@xxxxxxxx
>
>
>