Question on merit

[Vinny213]

In the twentieth century, theologian Michael Schmaus writes,

“In this connection, it must be remembered that man cannot make any valid claim on God. Since the ‘reward’ give by God always infinitely exceeds what is due man, the word ‘merit’ can only be used analogously. Because of God’s transcendence and the resultant inequality between God and man, merit in the strict sense of the word cannot occur in the relationship between God and man.”[8]

“We would not dare to hope that God would reward the actions of the justified man if he had not promised it; our hope is based on his word. At the same time, the reward is a grace . . . . What is meant [by merit and reward] is not an extrinsic, material repayment for the pain and trouble endured in the accomplishment of good works; it is rather the intrinsic fruit of the action itself.”[9]

“All of this does not, of course, mean that like all good things, the promise of a reward from God cannot be misunderstood and misused. There is a danger that the ill-instructed Christian may hope to gather merit as a basis for bargaining with God, to use his good works as a kind of pledge which God must at once redeem. Needless to say, notions of this sort are very far from the meaning of the scriptural texts and the Church’s teaching” . . . . [That God rewards our merits] “rests on his free decision: he has promised that he will do so, and he keeps his word. Except for this divine promise, no one could flatter himself that his good works would have such an effect.”[10]

 

[fhansen]

I am trying to understand what the difference between condign merit and strict merit is. Also does the idea of condign merit make our works intrinsically worth eternal life and equal and proportionate to it? I know that Aquinas and many of the scholastics denied this, and said that heaven is a reward that is based on God’s promise and not any strict obligation and that the reward of heaven is worth more than even our best works.

Aquinas says the following:
“[W]here there is no simple right [to a thing], but only relative, there is no character of merit simply, but only relative . . . [as when] the child merits something from his father and the slave from his lord. Now it is clear that between God and man there is the greatest inequality, for they are infinitely apart, and all man’s good is from God. Hence there can be no justice of absolute equality between man and God, but only of a certain proportion, inasmuch as both operate after their own manner. Hence man’s merit with God only exists on the presupposition of the divine ordination.

And yet, we can also demerit, by not “investing” our talents. The lazy servant was booted from the kingdom for that. So it’s not as if the meriting is superfluous or without need of our willful attention/vigilance/obligation.

 

[Vinny213]

The Fathers of Trent seem to admit this when they say that eternal life is to be set before those who do good works as a favour mercifully promised to the children of God through Christ and as a reward to be faithfully rendered to their merits according to the Divine engagement. Here they acknowledge the mercy of him who makes the promise and his faithfulness in making it good but that there is any worthiness of merits for receiving what they term the wages mercedem they do not venture to affirm even as respects the very works of the children themselves.

 

[Vinny213]

FHansen do you agree with Aquinas quote? And if not what do part of it do you disagree with?

Here is a quote from Bonaventure:
9 Bonaventure lib 2 dist 27 art 2 quvrst observes If it should be objected that there cannot exist a merit of condignity because there is no proportion in the fork to meet the reward we have to say that although there is not a proportion in all respects equal yet there is some corresponding proportion just as the fruit is correctly said to be correspondent to the seed.

 

[guanophore]

But are our goods intrinsically worth eternal life? Is their an equality between our works and eternal life? Nobody has answered that.

It has been answered, Vinny, extensively, in this thread, and others where you have posed such questions. I am not sure why you have so much trouble wrapping your mind around this. Then again, it is a mystery beyond human comprehension.

A person who is “in Christ” (in Catholic parlance, in a state of grace) has this relationship with God:

Gal 2:19-21
19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

At that point, the works are no longer “our works” but His works, in us. They have intrinsic value, especially for the sanctification of souls (ours and others) but there is NOTHING we can do to “earn” eternal life. I know this has been told to you many times. No, there is not 'equality" between our good works and eternal life. Nothing can “equal” the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross.

Eph 2:7-10
. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God — 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.

We are saved by grace, through faith. Our works do not save us. That being said, the good works are part and parcel of our salvation. Saving grace produces good works in us, which serve to sanctify us. They are “to be our way of life”. so, though they are not the basis of our eternal life, they are not separated from it either.

Good works are intrinsically connected to our eternal life, because when eternal life is in us, they are produced as a result of the life that indwells. But they are no longer “our” works, but the work of God produced in and through us. They begin in grace, are effected in grace, and result in grace, not human will.

Phil 2:12-13

Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

He wills, He works. We work “out” what He has made to dwell in us.

 

[fhansen]

FHansen do you agree with Aquinas quote? And if not what do part of it do you disagree with? .

I agree, but I’ll qualify it. Man’s merit with God exists simply because God ordains it to be so. Dogs bark because God ordains it to be so. Man’s righteousness, along with all other aspects of his nature, comes from God. But, abusing his free will, Adam saw fit to deny Gods righteousness in favor of his own. As we obey Gods will in response to His grace, we act according to His righteousness, as man always should anyway. So the natural consequence, so to speak, of this obedience, is merit, reaping what one sows, even though the seed is given us to sow. God simply wants us to do the right thing, without forcing, but rather by drawing us into alignment with His will. In this way justice is restored, even increased, in His universe.

 

[Vinny213]

What do people here say about the following quote from Jimmy Akin? Is he correct or is he mistaken on what the church means by merit? So far nobody has given me a straight forward answer on whether our good works are equal or intrinsically worth eternal life. Here are the words of Akin:

"One thing it is important to realize about condign merit is that, even though God has promised to reward the at, that does not mean that the act has an intrinsic value equal to the reward it is receiving. If I perform an act of charity and God gives me a heavenly reward in the next life by giving me an additional level of supernatural beatitude, the value of the act I perform in no way equals the value of the beatitude. There may be a proportionality that can be drawn between the amount of charity God’s grace has led me to exercise in this life and the amount of beatitude I get in the next life, but there is no equality between the two values.

The reasons that there is no equality and thus the intrinsic value of God’s rewards always immeasurably exceeds the intrinsic value of our merits is that, as Anselm pointed out in his Cur Deus Homo, the value of an act is proportional to the value of the person making it. Thus I, as a finite being, could never make the infinite atonement Christ did on the Cross (even if I was sinless and always had been). It took a Person of infinite value — the Son of God — to make an infinite satisfaction. Similarly, I, a finite creature, can never merit anything of infinite value, but the beatitude which God bestows upon us in the afterlife is of infinite value because it will be enjoyed for all eternity."

 

[fhansen]

What do people here say about the following quote from Jimmy Akin? Is he correct or is he mistaken on what the church means by merit? So far nobody has given me a straight forward answer on whether our good works are equal or intrinsically worth eternal life. Here are the words of Akin:

"One thing it is important to realize about condign merit is that, even though God has promised to reward the at, that does not mean that the act has an intrinsic value equal to the reward it is receiving. If I perform an act of charity and God gives me a heavenly reward in the next life by giving me an additional level of supernatural beatitude, the value of the act I perform in no way equals the value of the beatitude. There may be a proportionality that can be drawn between the amount of charity God’s grace has led me to exercise in this life and the amount of beatitude I get in the next life, but there is no equality between the two values.

The reasons that there is no equality and thus the intrinsic value of God’s rewards always immeasurably exceeds the intrinsic value of our merits is that, as Anselm pointed out in his Cur Deus Homo, the value of an act is proportional to the value of the person making it. Thus I, as a finite being, could never make the infinite atonement Christ did on the Cross (even if I was sinless and always had been). It took a Person of infinite value — the Son of God — to make an infinite satisfaction. Similarly, I, a finite creature, can never merit anything of infinite value, but the beatitude which God bestows upon us in the afterlife is of infinite value because it will be enjoyed for all eternity."

well, that makes more sense to me than Bellarmine. Just my opinion.

 

[Vinny213]

It seems that according to some RC theologians and scholars, there are two different types of condgin merit. Can anyone verify if this is true?