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

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.

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

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

I hope your own work is going well.

Cheers,

Peter

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

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

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