The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0338 Tuesday, 13 February 2001
[1] From: Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 12 Feb 2001 08:11:43 -0800
Subj: Re: SHK 12.0323 Re: Wittenberg and Paris
[2] From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 12 Feb 2001 08:30:09 -0800
Subj: Re: SHK 12.0323 Re: Wittenberg and Paris
[3] From: Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 12 Feb 2001 19:17:53 +0000 (GMT)
Subj: Re: SHK 12.0323 Re: Wittenberg and Paris
[4] From: Graham Bradshaw <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:04:51 +0900
Subj: Re: SHK 12.0323 Re: Wittenberg and Paris
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Melissa D. Aaron <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 12 Feb 2001 08:11:43 -0800
Subject: 12.0323 Re: Wittenberg and Paris
Comment: Re: SHK 12.0323 Re: Wittenberg and Paris
Much of this argument strikes me as largely based on emotional
commitment (on both sides) and hence impossible to resolve, but I would
like to point out a small error in fact:
>And wasn't it an Augustinian church upon which Luther's theses were
>hammered? Augustine that representative of man who acted out most of
>the so-called sins in his own life only to confess for absolution later
>and tax the rest of us with the impurity of his elderly disgust for the
>earthly pleasures. Luther smelt the dirty sin of hypocrisy.
Augustine is one of the Church doctors who emphasized atonement--the
complete and total forgiveness of sins. In fact, if I remember, his
model was legal: You have a debt, I pay the debt for you, the debt is
now discharged and you then are (or are not) appreciative. It's
sometimes been pointed out that Luther was a good Augustinian monk
himself and saw in the doctrine of indulgences a limiting of the concept
of grace which was 1) counter to Augustinian/Anselmian theology and 2)
psychologically unsettling--a system in which small sins and small
consequences begin to obsess the believer; a condition technically known
as scrupulosity. As annoyed as Luther was, I don't remember any
evidence at all that he rejected Augustine.
Please feel free to correct any errors I have made--
MD Aaron
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 12 Feb 2001 08:30:09 -0800
Subject: 12.0323 Re: Wittenberg and Paris
Comment: Re: SHK 12.0323 Re: Wittenberg and Paris
Marcus Dahl writes:
>And wasn't it an Augustinian church upon which Luther's theses were
>hammered? Augustine that representative of man who acted out most of
>the so-called sins in his own life only to confess for absolution later
>and tax the rest of us with the impurity of his elderly disgust for the
>earthly pleasures. Luther smelt the dirty sin of hypocrisy.
Maybe he did, but it's speculation, since I don't recall that he ever
rejected Augustine.
Cheers,
Se