# Do we have any Lutherans in the House, please?!



## Guest002

The final two lines from Bach's BWV 135 are as follows:

_Der woll uns alln bescheren.
Die ewge Seligkeit._

Mostly, this is unexceptional stuff:

_He [would/wants to] bestow upon us
eternal <something>_

The "something" is the problem. "Seligkeit" can be translated as 'Blessedness, Bliss, Salvation'. One particular authority on the cantatas (Alfred Dürr) has a book with rather clunky translations into English and on this occasion he has:

*He would bestow upon us all
eternal salvation.*

And my problem is with the concept of God 'bestowing eternal salvation on us'. To my untrained mind, eternal salvation was something that came about by the death of Christ on the cross. Therefore, whether he 'wants to' bestow it on us or not is irrelevant: it's already happened.

And on the other hand, another part of my mind is saying that, well, whilst the sacrifice has already been made, you actually have to respond to it for the salvation to take effect. Given Bach was a Lutheran, I assume that we are deep into 'justification by faith alone' territory, at any rate. But if that is the case, if it's my faith that makes salvation happen, it's not something God can just bestow on people, no matter what his personal preferences might be on the matter, surely?

Unless that is, Bach's librettist already knows that God *can't* actually just bestow it on us, but wishes he could anyway... though that would seem a curiously down-beat ending to the cantata ("God wants to do wonderful things for you... but his hands are tied!") and presumably this would bring up a whole new problem regarding the omnipotence of God?! (Whatdya mean his hands are tied? He's omnipotent, isn't he?!)

Which brings me to the alternative translations of 'Seligkeit'. Since it could be translated as 'blessedness' or 'bliss', and since 'bliss' has a meaning of 'eternal joy in heaven' in at least one of my dictionaries, it would be possible to translate the lines as 'he wants to give you (or bestow upon you) eternal joy in heaven', which seems to me to dodge the thorny issue of salvation, and makes my theological nerves less twitchy.

Oh, except for the not-so-minor-point that to get to Heaven, presumably you need to have been saved after all?!

Anyway, my question for the day to any knowledgeable Lutherans out there is: which would cause you less theological grief: "He wants to bestow the eternal happiness of heaven on us all" or "He wants to bestow eternal salvation on us all"? Or is there a third formulation you'd prefer? Or is there not much in it either way, and it's all just poetical fancy with no significant point of theological interest?

I'm not expecting Bach to have made Lutheran theological boo-boos, so I assume there's a coherent answer somewhere!

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Haha, this is getting into real thorny theological territory! This is the kind of stuff that causes flame wars and church schisms in some quarters. I grew up Lutheran (like to consider myself nondenominational now) but I am interested in theology and hopefully could provide some conjectural answers to your dilemma. As far as I know the Lutheran church of Bach's day (as it still is for the most part) is staunchly Calvinist - the idea that God has predestined you for eternal salvation or damnation and that you can do nothing to change that. That word "would" or "wants to" piques my interest. To me it is clear that God _wants_ us all to have eternal salvation, and maybe Bach believed this too. The argument then would be that, even though God _desires_ everyone to be saved, He will not save those who fail to believe in Him because of free will. So the line could be interpreted as, "Fulfill the wonderful plans that God desires for you - just believe in Him."

But then that would be an affront to traditional Calvinism, which says that you have a minimal role to play in your salvation. I have no idea which side Bach was personally on (isn't it tough to distinguish his personal views from the doctrines he felt he "had" to include in the cantatas just to be on the safe side?) I am not a Calvinist at all and would not be able to provide a satisfactory answer whether this line fits within their model. All I can say is that, to the best of my knowledge, the idea that God "wants" to save us all is at, at the very least, a phrase that would be cause for discrepancy among many Calvinists/traditional Lutherans. If the line was, "He will bestow the happiness of heaven/eternal salvation on His children," that to me would fit more in tune with classic Lutheranism since it infers a specific group of people who God decides to have mercy on. But that's not what the text says. In that case we just have to put the Calvinist question aside and decide which of the two options you offered works better. In the Arminian view (which I adhere to) Christ has provided _atonement_ for everyone on the cross - the work has been done for salvation - but salvation does not actually occur until we place our faith in Him. So then the second option sounds appealing to me as pure theology. But then I think the first one flows easier off the tongue and certainly makes sense as well, in that God wants as many people as possible to believe in Him and join Him in heaven. Perhaps a more comforting thought for the congregation as they leave the service?

So, long story short, I would personally choose Option A, but this is indeed a theological quandary that leaves us no easy solutions as to what either Bach or the church might have believed!

Sorry for the long-windedness, but I'm an unabashed nerd for Bach and theology alike. Hope that helps


----------



## Taggart

Given that it's a doxology at the end of a psalm (No 6), it feels more like the English common doxology:

*Praise God, from whom all blessings flow*;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.

Bach's version starts more like the Gloria Patri

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, and now, and always, and into the ages of ages. Amen.

and then tags on the line you've quoted.


----------



## Guest002

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Haha, this is getting into real thorny theological territory! This is the kind of stuff that causes flame wars and church schisms in some quarters. I grew up Lutheran (like to consider myself nondenominational now) but I am interested in theology and hopefully could provide some conjectural answers to your dilemma. As far as I know the Lutheran church of Bach's day (as it still is for the most part) is staunchly Calvinist - the idea that God has predestined you for eternal salvation or damnation and that you can do nothing to change that. That word "would" or "wants to" piques my interest. To me it is clear that God _wants_ us all to have eternal salvation, and maybe Bach believed this too. The argument then would be that, even though God _desires_ everyone to be saved, He will not save those who fail to believe in Him because of free will. So the line could be interpreted as, "Fulfill the wonderful plans that God desires for you - just believe in Him."
> 
> But then that would be an affront to traditional Calvinism, which says that you have a minimal role to play in your salvation. I have no idea which side Bach was personally on (isn't it tough to distinguish his personal views from the doctrines he felt he "had" to include in the cantatas just to be on the safe side?) I am not a Calvinist at all and would not be able to provide a satisfactory answer whether this line fits within their model. All I can say is that, to the best of my knowledge, the idea that God "wants" to save us all is at, at the very least, a phrase that would be cause for discrepancy among many Calvinists/traditional Lutherans. If the line was, "He will bestow the happiness of heaven/eternal salvation on His children," that to me would fit more in tune with classic Lutheranism since it infers a specific group of people who God decides to have mercy on. But that's not what the text says. In that case we just have to put the Calvinist question aside and decide which of the two options you offered works better. In the Arminian view (which I adhere to) Christ has provided _atonement_ for everyone on the cross - the work has been done for salvation - but salvation does not actually occur until we place our faith in Him. So then the second option sounds appealing to me as pure theology. But then I think the first one flows easier off the tongue and certainly makes sense as well, in that God wants as many people as possible to believe in Him and join Him in heaven. Perhaps a more comforting thought for the congregation as they leave the service?
> 
> So, long story short, I would personally choose Option A, but this is indeed a theological quandary that leaves us no easy solutions as to what either Bach or the church might have believed!
> 
> Sorry for the long-windedness, but I'm an unabashed nerd for Bach and theology alike. Hope that helps


It would, but I got lost as to what option A and B were! Possibly! (It was a lot to take in!! )

So, just to be clear:

A) He would bestow upon us all eternal salvation
B) He would bestow upon us all the eternal joys of heaven

And you'd vote for option A?

Sorry if I'm being a little slow (my eyes tend to glaze over at mentions of Calvanism, I fear. It's entirely my fault!)


----------



## Guest002

Taggart said:


> Given that it's a doxology at the end of a psalm (No 6), it feels more like the English common doxology:
> 
> *Praise God, from whom all blessings flow*;
> Praise Him, all creatures here below;
> Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
> Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.
> 
> Bach's version starts more like the Gloria Patri
> 
> Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
> As it was in the beginning, and now, and always, and into the ages of ages. Amen.
> 
> and then tags on the line you've quoted.


Yup, I realise. But the line I quoted has two (at least) possible translations. My problem is simply knowing whether one is more theologically 'correct' than the other, to your average Lutheran...


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> It would, but I got lost as to what option A and B were! Possibly! (It was a lot to take in!! )
> 
> So, just to be clear:
> 
> A) He would bestow upon us all eternal salvation
> B) He would bestow upon us all the eternal joys of heaven
> 
> And you'd vote for option A?
> 
> Sorry if I'm being a little slow (my eyes tend to glaze over at mentions of Calvanism, I fear. It's entirely my fault!)


Sorry, I would vote for "eternal joys of heaven." Probably shouldn't have given you the whole breakdown, but this stuff fascinates me.


----------



## Simplicissimus

To me, unambiguously, _Seligkeit_ is 'blessedness'. Salvation is _Erlösung_ in a general sense and _Seelenrettung_ in a specifically theological sense. I'm Roman Catholic, not Lutheran, but I'm a native speaker of German and live off-and-on in Germany.

Let's consider _selig_ 'blessed' in a stanza of the Magnificat in German and compare it to the Latin and usual English versions:

Denn auf die Niedrigkeit seiner Magd hat er geschaut
Siehe, von nun an preisen mich *selig* alle Gesclechter!

Quia respexit humilitatem ancillae suae
Ecce enim ex hoc beatam me dicent omnes generationes.

For he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaid,
Now behold henceforth all generations will call me *blessed*.

Hope that's useful or at least interesting!


----------



## Guest002

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Sorry, I would vote for "eternal joys of heaven." Probably shouldn't have given you the whole breakdown, but this stuff fascinates me.


Ah, I re-read my original, and realised that in the final statement of my question, I'd reversed the order of the options from their original presentation order! So, doh to me!

Thank you. Your explanation is quite important to me, so I definitely thank you for it. But I am going to have to re-read it several times. I did realise that "explain the Lutheran theology of justification by faith alone in 2 easy paragraphs" was a bit of an ask!!


----------



## Guest002

Simplicissimus said:


> To me, unambiguously, _Seligkeit_ is 'blessedness'. Salvation is _Erlösung_ in a general sense and _Seelenrettung_ in a specifically theological sense. I'm Roman Catholic, not Lutheran, but I'm a native speaker of German and live off-and-on in Germany.
> 
> Let's consider _selig_ 'blessed' in a stanza of the Magnificat in German and compare it to the Latin and usual English versions:
> 
> Denn auf die Niedrigkeit seiner Magd hat er geschaut
> Siehe, von nun an preisen mich *selig* alle Gesclechter!
> 
> Quia respexit humilitatem ancillae suae
> Ecce enim ex hoc beatem me dicent omnes generationes.
> 
> For he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaid,
> Now behold henceforth all generations will call me *blessed*.
> 
> Hope that's useful or at least interesting!


I'm afraid it is ambiguous. My 1853 German/English dictionary for Seligkeit reads, "blessedness, salvation, beatitude, felicity, great happiness". So about 100 years after Bach died, the word _could_ mean 'salvation'.

Now, blessedness and bliss are, at least in once sense, cognates. Blessed="consecrated, sacred, holy, sanctified, blissful"; and Bliss="supremely happy, utter joy or contentment, (Theol.) the joy of heaven". And it's because Blessed sort of equals Bliss, and Bliss can theologically mean 'the joy of heaven', that I've suggested that "the eternal joy of heaven' might be an acceptable translation of Seligkeit.

But that alternative definition of 'salvation' doesn't go away, I'm afraid, though it gives me problems as I've described.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I don't read German, but I read Latin and the corresponding word for _seligkeit_ is _beatem_, which is definitely _blessed_. Think the _beatitudes_ from the Sermon on the Mount - "blessed are the..." Not sure if this would fit in with German grammar and the kind of translation you might be going for, but perhaps "He wishes to provide us with eternal blessings," or something along those lines would work? Is there a "heavenly" connotation in the language or can it be taken to mean earthly blessings, and that He will bless us richly if we only place our faith in Him? Or maybe "eternal" rules out any such interpretation.


----------



## Simplicissimus

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'm afraid it is ambiguous. My 1853 German/English dictionary for Seligkeit reads, "blessedness, salvation, beatitude, felicity, great happiness". So about 100 years after Bach died, the word _could_ mean 'salvation'.
> 
> Now, blessedness and bliss are, at least in once sense, cognates. Blessed="consecrated, sacred, holy, sanctified, blissful"; and Bliss="supremely happy, utter joy or contentment, (Theol.) the joy of heaven". And it's because Blessed sort of equals Bliss, and Bliss can theologically mean 'the joy of heaven', that I've suggested that "the eternal joy of heaven' might be an acceptable translation of Seligkeit.
> 
> But that alternative definition of 'salvation' doesn't go away, I'm afraid, though it gives me problems as I've described.


Yes, historically and across many contexts, _Seligkeit_ seems to have the possible English translations you mentioned, apparently. I would say that in present-day German in its most general sense it unambiguously means 'blessedness'. As a speaker of German and English I immediately apprehend that Seligkeit=blessedness. There are, on the other hand, lots of other German words that cause me to hesitate when translating them into English because they are ambiguous and more context-dependent. That said, I see that you have a situation here that's complicated by theological, historical, and literary considerations, which makes the translation anything but straightforward.


----------



## Guest002

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I don't read German, but I read Latin and the corresponding word for _seligkeit_ is _beatem_, which is definitely _blessed_. Think the _beatitudes_ from the Sermon on the Mount - "blessed are the..." Not sure if this would fit in with German grammar and the kind of translation you might be going for, but perhaps "He wishes to provide us with eternal blessings," or something along those lines would work? Is there a "heavenly" connotation in the language or can it be taken to mean earthly blessings, and that He will bless us richly if we only place our faith in Him? Or maybe "eternal" rules out any such interpretation.


Well, the whole movement is something along the lines of:

Honour be to the throne of heaven
with great renown and praise
for the father and the son;
and also, in like manner,
honour be to the Holy Spirit
for all eternity.
He would grant us (or bestow upon us) all
the [something or other...yet to be determined!].

The final two lines seem to come out of nowhere, really.

But no, blessings won't really do. If it was just 'blessings', rather than 'blessedness/bliss', I think the word would be 'Segen', which he was quite happy to use in many cantatas, such as 1, 12, 16, 23, 28 and so on. And always 'Segen' unambiguously means 'blessings' in those contexts. Unfortunately, blessing and blessed might share a root in English, but they mean quite different things. (Blessing = A special favour, mercy or benefit, versus Blessed = consecrated, sacred, holy, sanctified etc). There might also be a causal link between them (i.e., if you are blessed by God, you are put into a sanctified (blessed) state'). But they are two quite separate things, really.

There's no heaven necessarily implied by the German, except that bliss=joy of heaven, in a theological context. So if Seligkeit means 'bliss', then heaven is there in the background!

Only Dürr has 'salvation'; most other translations I've read have "blessedness". I'd be happy to run with 'blessedness', except that I don't think most people would instantly know precisely what it means. Which is why I pursued the blessedness=bliss=eternal joy of heaven angle, since EJOH is pretty much self-explanatory.

Anyway, trying to cut through the thickets: I disliked Dürr's choice of word, and wondered if there was any theological objection to it (since it _is_ a valid translation option).


----------



## Guest002

Simplicissimus said:


> Yes, historically and across many contexts, _Seligkeit_ seems to have the possible English translations you mentioned, apparently. I would say that in present-day German in its most general sense it unambiguously means 'blessedness'. As a speaker of German and English I immediately apprehend that Seligkeit=blessedness. There are, on the other hand, lots of other German words that cause me to hesitate when translating them into English because they are ambiguous and more context-dependent. That said, I see that you have a situation here that's complicated by theological, historical, and literary considerations, which makes the translation anything but straightforward.


Yup 

I appreciate the 'blessedness' angle from you as a German speaker and what your expectations are on seeing the word. It's where my heart was really, but not where Dürr's translator was at, which is where all the fun started!

As I've posted elsewhere now, I dislike 'blessedness' as a word, however, simply because I'm not sure I could spell out its precise meaning without a dictionary to hand! If I was leaning toward blessedness, I'd use its cognate 'bliss', except _that_ has complex meaning too, so I'd spell that out into its theologically-appropriate equivalent, which is 'eternal joy of heaven'. The reluctance to use one word when four will do is just down to me and my preferences, I fear!!


----------



## DavidA

Simplicissimus said:


> Yes, historically and across many contexts, _Seligkeit_ seems to have the possible English translations you mentioned, apparently. *I would say that in present-day German in its most general sense it unambiguously means 'blessedness'. As a speaker of German and English I immediately apprehend that Seligkeit=blessedness.* There are, on the other hand, lots of other German words that cause me to hesitate when translating them into English because they are ambiguous and more context-dependent. That said, I see that you have a situation here that's complicated by theological, historical, and literary considerations, which makes the translation anything but straightforward.


Well when we ask for a German speaker we must take your word for it. The translation 'blessedness' makes perfect sense theologically: "God grant us all to share in eternal blessedness."
The 'all' in this case should not cause us problems as it is an appeal on behalf of the congregation (ie of the believers present in the congregation) not on behalf of the world. After all, when we sing, "When we all get to heaven...." we are not assuming universalism but are including all the people singing it at that time. This is where context of words and not literalism is important.


----------



## JAS

I don't know if this actually helps much, but digging into my high school days (at a Lutheran School, where we had a religion class every day), I note that the concept of God's forgiveness is offered as a matter of grace (and not earned). It merely has to be accepted to complete the transaction. This was a big part of Luther's beef with the Catholic Church.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, the whole movement is something along the lines of:
> 
> Honour be to the throne of heaven
> with great renown and praise
> for the father and the son;
> and also, in like manner,
> honour be to the Holy Spirit
> for all eternity.
> He would grant us (or bestow upon us) all
> the [something or other...yet to be determined!].
> 
> The final two lines seem to come out of nowhere, really.
> 
> But no, blessings won't really do. If it was just 'blessings', rather than 'blessedness/bliss', I think the word would be 'Segen', which he was quite happy to use in many cantatas, such as 1, 12, 16, 23, 28 and so on. And always 'Segen' unambiguously means 'blessings' in those contexts. Unfortunately, blessing and blessed might share a root in English, but they mean quite different things. (Blessing = A special favour, mercy or benefit, versus Blessed = consecrated, sacred, holy, sanctified etc). There might also be a causal link between them (i.e., if you are blessed by God, you are put into a sanctified (blessed) state'). But they are two quite separate things, really.
> 
> There's no heaven necessarily implied by the German, except that bliss=joy of heaven, in a theological context. So if Seligkeit means 'bliss', then heaven is there in the background!
> 
> Only Dürr has 'salvation'; most other translations I've read have "blessedness". I'd be happy to run with 'blessedness', except that I don't think most people would instantly know precisely what it means. Which is why I pursued the blessedness=bliss=eternal joy of heaven angle, since EJOH is pretty much self-explanatory.
> 
> Anyway, trying to cut through the thickets: I disliked Dürr's choice of word, and wondered if there was any theological objection to it (since it _is_ a valid translation option).


Ah, gotcha. Then I think something like, "He wishes us to bestow on us the eternal joys of heaven" would be the most effective translation.


----------



## Simplicissimus

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Ah, gotcha. Then I think something like, "He wishes us to bestow on us the eternal joys of heaven" would be the most effective translation.


Yes, this sounds good to me, too. Not anything with "salvation," as I think that's incorrect theologically and would be an unidiomatic translation. I would find "blessedness" OK as well. I can think off the top of my head of two common (Catholic) prayers that contain the word "blessedness" in English and "Seligkeit" in German (St. Thomas Aquinas after Communion and Prayer for Souls in Purgatory) and they don't sound at all odd to me.


----------



## Guest002

Well, my thanks to (almost) all contributors for a productive group-thought!

I've finally settled on: "He would grant to us all / the great joys of Heaven"... there was no essential need for the 'eternal' bits after all.

Many thanks.


----------



## Phil loves classical

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> It would, but I got lost as to what option A and B were! Possibly! (It was a lot to take in!! )
> 
> So, just to be clear:
> 
> A) He would bestow upon us all eternal salvation
> B) He would bestow upon us all the eternal joys of heaven
> 
> And you'd vote for option A?
> 
> Sorry if I'm being a little slow (my eyes tend to glaze over at mentions of Calvanism, I fear. It's entirely my fault!)


Both A and B are the same. The door to salvation had been opened by Christ on the Cross for everyone, but only a believer would be recognized. The justification by faith alone means you don't have to 'work' your way to Heaven (although good deeds would naturally come from a believer), but you still have to have the faith. So not everyone is automatically saved by Christ's sacrifice, according to most Christian sects.

God would want to give us both A and B, but he left us free will to choose to accept Christ.


----------



## Guest002

Phil loves classical said:


> Both A and B are the same. The door to salvation had been opened by Christ on the Cross for everyone, but only a believer would be recognized. The justification by faith alone means you don't have to 'work' your way to Heaven (although good deeds would naturally come from a believer), but you still have to have the faith. So not everyone is automatically saved by Christ's sacrifice, according to most Christian sects.
> 
> God would want to give us both A and B, but he left us free will to choose to accept Christ.


Your last sentence seems to contradict your first. If A=B, then God would not want to give us "both", since they are equivalent to each other and thus the same thing. Alternatively, if A!=B, then God could well want to give us both, because they are two different things.

In any case, _linguistically_ they are clearly two entirely separate things, where salvation=deliverance from the penalty of sin and bliss=supreme joy or happiness. Naturally, there may well be a causative relationship between the two things, such that deliverance from sin might well give rise to supreme joy... but the one is antecedent to the other, and therefore, they are not identical concepts.

The matter is at any rate resolved for the purposes which prompted me to write the question, so further elaboration is not helpful to _that_ (but don't let me stop you getting into the theology of thing further if you wish, of course).

I am comfortable that Dürr's use of 'salvation' was an outlier that is neither theologically nor textually justified.


----------



## Phil loves classical

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Your last sentence seems to contradict your first. If A=B, then God would not want to give us "both", since they are equivalent to each other and thus the same thing. Alternatively, if A!=B, then God could well want to give us both, because they are two different things.
> 
> In any case, _linguistically_ they are clearly two entirely separate things, where salvation=deliverance from the penalty of sin and bliss=supreme joy or happiness. Naturally, there may well be a causative relationship between the two things, such that deliverance from sin might well give rise to supreme joy... but the one is antecedent to the other, and therefore, they are not identical concepts.
> 
> The matter is at any rate resolved for the purposes which prompted me to write the question, so further elaboration is not helpful to _that_ (but don't let me stop you getting into the theology of thing further if you wish, of course).
> 
> I am comfortable that Dürr's use of 'salvation' was an outlier that is neither theologically nor textually justified.


Ya, A and B are not the same technically, but supposedly it's all or nothing, which is what I meant. Either you get both or neither. Those who receive salvation will receive the eternal joys of heaven. So theologically speaking, the use of the word salvation is justified.


----------



## Guest002

Phil loves classical said:


> Ya, A and B are not the same technically, but supposedly it's all or nothing, which is what I meant. Either you get both or neither. Those who receive salvation will receive the eternal joys of heaven. So theologically speaking, the use of the word salvation is justified.


Textually, it is not (justified, I mean).

The problem is "bestow" in the previous line. Theologically, as you yourself has said, salvation can't be bestowed. It has to be accepted by faith. The 'bestow' in the text rules out the use of 'salvation' as the final word of the second line. I think that's what we arrived at, anyway!


----------



## Logos

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> The problem is "bestow" in the previous line. Theologically, as you yourself has said, salvation can't be bestowed. It has to be accepted by faith.


I don't quite see the difficulty. God is described in English translations of the additions to Luther's small catechism as bestowing salvation upon believers. Other translations use "provide". Perhaps the most central tenet of the Protestant tradition, in contrast with Roman Catholicism, is that salvation is bestowed or conferred regardless of human merit rather than achieved or earned. The opposition you have set up between accepting by faith and bestowal seems unintelligible to me. If there were nothing to be bestowed there would be nothing to accept, and among the more deterministic forms of Protestantism, faith itself is regarded as something bestowed from above. After all, Luther rejected the conventional notion of free will, and Calvin only admitted it (perhaps inconsistently) in a highly attenuated sense which was conditioned by his concept of man's enslavement to sin and the utter depravity of the will. Jonathan Edwards, a Calvinist, describes God as "bestowing salvation" many times in his theological works. In fact, Edwards explicitly states that God can freely bestow salvation (his exact phrase) upon any of his creatures except those who have sinned against the Holy Ghost. Taking Calvin's premises to their logical conclusions, one arrives at the philosophy of Hobbes, wherein God is the cause of all actions (including sinful ones) but, as absolute sovereign, is incapable of committing sin himself since only beings subject to another's commands are capable of sin.


----------



## DavidA

Logos said:


> I don't quite see the difficulty. God is described in English translations of the additions to Luther's small catechism as bestowing salvation upon believers. Other translations use "provide". Perhaps the most central tenet of the Protestant tradition, in contrast with Roman Catholicism, is that salvation is bestowed or conferred regardless of human merit rather than achieved or earned. The opposition you have set up between accepting by faith and bestowal seems unintelligible to me. If there were nothing to be bestowed there would be nothing to accept, and among the more deterministic forms of Protestantism, faith itself is regarded as something bestowed from above. After all, Luther rejected the conventional notion of free will, and Calvin only admitted it (perhaps inconsistently) in a highly attenuated sense which was conditioned by his concept of man's enslavement to sin and the utter depravity of the will. Jonathan Edwards, a Calvinist, describes God as "bestowing salvation" many times in his theological works. In fact, Edwards explicitly states that God can freely bestow salvation (his exact phrase) upon any of his creatures except those who have sinned against the Holy Ghost. Taking Calvin's premises to their logical conclusions, one arrives at the philosophy of Hobbes, wherein God is the cause of all actions (including sinful ones) but, as absolute sovereign, is incapable of committing sin himself since only beings subject to another's commands are capable of sin.


One of the problems comes when we omit the word used by Paul which is 'mystery'. There is a mystery in these things - ie where God's sovereignty ends and man's free will begins. Paul and other New testament writers allow these things to ride along side by side. He says "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness." It always seems to me that some of the early reformers like Luther, in reaction to what had gone before, placed such an emphasis on divine sovereignty in their theology that they airbrushed out some of the mystery. I never have a problem in believing in both knowing there are some things that cannot ultimately be reconciled, at least in my own mind.


----------

