Patristic, Medieval and Renaissance Conference
October 8, 2008
I’ll be in Philly this weekend presenting a paper on Scotus at the PMR conference at the Villanova Conference Center. Though the program lists me as presenting on Friday, our session has been moved to Saturday morning at 10:45am. If you plan to attend the conference, please drop by and say hello.
11 Responses so far
3:16 pm
Dear Cynthia,
I love your blog and was wondering whether as a Duns reader you may be able to hlp me. I’m currently working on the reception by the reformed and post-reformation theologians of the medieval “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” formula first coined by Peter Lombard. Hence, I’ve been immersed in the medieval divines to see how they construed it. To my surprise Duns argues that Christ did not earn infinite merit (nor is it needed) in his cross-work for redemption. I’ve been been trawling through Duns’ writing to see therefore what he makes of the sufficient / efficient formula but as yet can’t find any discussion of it. You wouldn’t happen to know whether and where he discusses the formula by any chance?
Blessings,
Marty.
4:45 pm
Hi Marty,
I’ve not engaged Scotus’ theological writings as much as I have his philosophical writings. Hence, I can’t be of much help to you. Perhaps one of my other readers (are you out there Peter?) can help.
My apologies,
Cynthia
7:12 pm
And, if there is time beforehand, come hear my paper during the 8.30-10.30am session on Saturday. We’ll be dishing out some metaphysics of the Trinity. Cynthia, you’ll be glad to know that I end with some thoughts about Scotus and Augustine, after much talk about Aquinas and Henry of Ghent.
5:07 pm
Hi Marty,
Would you please share the reference to the work by Scotus where he argues that Christ did not earn infinite merit through his Passion?
Thanks,
Peter
6:55 pm
I’ll ask my friend who is writing his PhD. thesis precisely on this topic: Duns Scotus on the Passion of Christ. I would expect to find discussion in Ord. 3 .. but I don’t know off-hand which distinction; you could find it in the table of contents in the Vatican edition.
4:32 pm
Hi, Cynthia–
I was unable to attend the PMR conference this past weekend, but got my hands on the program. I saw that you had given a paper on Scotus that looked extremely interesting. Is there any chance you’d be willing to send me a copy? It happens to be on a topic I’ve been thinking a lot about lately (though not specifically in relation to Scotus), and I’m sure it would be very helpful.
Cheers,
David
10:30 am
Thanks for checking on that Scotus reference, Scott. My Latin is extremely poor–indeed, almost non-existent–so I have to rely on the available English translations of Scotus’s works. Currently I’m thinking about Scotus’s account of the Incarnation, but I’m also interested in learning more about his understanding of the merits of Christ’s passion.
I hope your own work is going well.
Cheers,
Peter
6:43 pm
Hey Peter,
I spoke with my friend who is writing on Scotus’s acct. of the passion of Christ. Basically, the issue has to do with the efficacy of Christ’s passion. Does it apply to the predestined or to all persons’? Well, Scotus thinks that since the Church’s doctrine is that only the predestined are elect, this means that only the elect receive the merit of Christ’s passion. So, this entails that the merit of Christ’s passion is finite because it applies only to the elect. This basically says that the claim that Christ’s passion is infinitely sufficient, by only finitely applied is superfluous. If it were in fact infinitely sufficient, then all would be elect and saved. But not all are elect and saved; therefore the merit of Christ’s passion is finite, i.e. applied to any elect person and not to any non-elect person.
How’s that?
Scott
10:10 am
Hi Scott,
Thanks very much for this feedback. It’s quite helpful.
I wonder whether Scotus’s position that Christ’s Passion is only finitely sufficient has the unwelcome consequence that it is not within God’s absolute power to predestine all persons to be elect. For it seems that, according to Scotus, all could be elect only if either (1) there is an infinitely sufficient Passion which could be applied to all but actually is only applied to some; or (2) there is a finitely sufficient Passion that could somehow be applied to all but actually isn’t. Scotus rejects (1), and I don’t yet see how (2)would work. Thus he seems committed to saying that it is not possible that all persons be elect.
Best regards,
Peter
1:53 pm
Hi Scott,
I’m wondering what you think of Scotus’ argument that you presented, viz., If (1) Christ’s atonement were infinite then (2) all would be elect and saved. It seems to me that (2) does not at all follow from (1). Why could not there be two sets, namely, the elect (S1) and the non-elect (S2) such that (S1) contains an infinite number of people and (S2) contains only a finite number of people? If that were the case then Christ’s atonement would need to be infinite in order to be applied to everyone in (S1) and yet there would still be those that are not saved.
2:45 pm
Hi Anonymous,
In light of Scott’s reconstruction, wouldn’t Scotus say that if Christ’s atonement were infinite then all the members of (S1) and all the members of (S2) would have to be saved–i.e., everyone, not just some, would be elect? I’m not entirely sure why he’d say that, but it seems to follow the logic of his argument.
I guess an intuitive reason might be that something is infinite only if it is absolutely unlimited in any sense. So an atonement limited to the members of (S1), even if there are infinitely many such members, is still not infinite per se. For that, it must be strictly unlimited, and hence applied to everyone in (S2) as well.
By the way, I’m not saying we should necessarily agree with Scotus’s intuitions here! :)
Peter
Leave a comment