Justified
Puritan Board Sophomore
I am having a difficult time distinguishing the above terms. I thought I understood I knew what they meant, but after reading several earlier posts on the board, greenbaggins, Muller, and Heppe, I am thoroughly confused.
These are the varying interpretations I have heard:
Strict Merit: Merit earned that is commensurate with action/obedience performed (such merit humans cannot possess).
Condign Merit: (1) Same as strict merit; or (2) Merit given according to a promise, i.e., God gives this merit because he has promised to reward such actions.
Congruent Merit: Wholly gratuitous: neither owed because of some action of intrinsic worth nor because of a promise of reward. "To those who do what is within them, God does not deny grace."
Pactum Merit: Same as Condign Merit (2).
I am not sure why the sources seem so confused on this topic. Based on what I read, I am inclined to think that pactum merit is really no different than condign merit; Calvin insinuates this in his Commentaries on Galatians: "All that I am now affirming is granted by the scholastic theologians: for they maintain that works are meritorious of salvation, not by their intrinsic worth, but by the acceptance of God, (to use their own phrase,) and on the ground of a covenant" (emphasis added, pg. 97). Thomas only distinguished between three types of merit: strict, condign, and congruent. He defined condign as definition (2) above, which is why I think that pactum merit is the same as condign.
If any of you are more well-read in the area, please correct me. I have read all of the threads on the PB relating to it, so no need to post them.
These are the varying interpretations I have heard:
Strict Merit: Merit earned that is commensurate with action/obedience performed (such merit humans cannot possess).
Condign Merit: (1) Same as strict merit; or (2) Merit given according to a promise, i.e., God gives this merit because he has promised to reward such actions.
Congruent Merit: Wholly gratuitous: neither owed because of some action of intrinsic worth nor because of a promise of reward. "To those who do what is within them, God does not deny grace."
Pactum Merit: Same as Condign Merit (2).
I am not sure why the sources seem so confused on this topic. Based on what I read, I am inclined to think that pactum merit is really no different than condign merit; Calvin insinuates this in his Commentaries on Galatians: "All that I am now affirming is granted by the scholastic theologians: for they maintain that works are meritorious of salvation, not by their intrinsic worth, but by the acceptance of God, (to use their own phrase,) and on the ground of a covenant" (emphasis added, pg. 97). Thomas only distinguished between three types of merit: strict, condign, and congruent. He defined condign as definition (2) above, which is why I think that pactum merit is the same as condign.
If any of you are more well-read in the area, please correct me. I have read all of the threads on the PB relating to it, so no need to post them.