Duns Scotus and the Incarnation

[C. Matthew McMahon]

What are your thoughts on this. It was intriguing to me.

"As a corollary of the primacy of the will of God, as well as of the divine omnipotence, Scotus claimed that the uincarnation was not simply the result of human sin, our need for redemption, and God's foreknowledge of these facts. Rather, Christ's was predestined to be incarnate as the primary object of divine love. Thus, the incarantion is not simply the focal point in the history of humanity as it has unfolded, but also the focal point of the entire purpose of God, even apart from human sin."

What do you think of this?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I think it's a little off balance. The Incarnation was a means to accomplish God's decree of election and redemption. It was not the end of God's decrees. But maybe I'm just not understanding his point.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I was thinking about it in this way -

Everything we have in god's love is through Christ. I do not mean through Christ we have love and can get love - we all know that to be true. What I mean is that on account of Christ we are loved because God loves Christ and so loves us "in the Beloved." Would it be too much to say that God's ultimate manifestation of love is not only by His Word, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased," but also in the resurrection, "(Romans 6:4) We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

Would it be correct to say that God loves Christ so much, that there could be no greater love? I think that would be a good statement. With that said, would it be too far fetched to think that the expression of God's love to Christ is part of the overall glory of God expressed in His plan for humanity through His Son?

I do not agree with Scotus that Christ could have come apart from sin. That, In my humble opinion, is just nonsensical since, "(Revelation 13:8) And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

But I find some merit in the idea of God's love and its relationship to Christ in the incarnation.

Other thoughts?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I think we need to be careful though. God's love is also a sovereign love. He first loved us and then sent Christ to die for us. The lamb was slain from the foundation of the world for the elect. So, I'm not sure you could bind God's love strictly through the mediation of Christ, but rather two overlapping parallels perhaps? The Father loves Christ and he loves us. Because he loved us He sent His most beloved for us. Just some thoughts...

 

[fredtgreco]

Scotus thinking, which is flawed at most points, makes the mistake of making God's creation not good. If the incarnation is necessary for man to know God's love, even apart from human sin, then what about Adam? Did he not know God's love? Was he waiting for something better?

Scotus is highly unreliable in many ways.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Scotus thinking, which is flawed at most points, makes the mistake of making God's creation not good. If the incarnation is necessary for man to know God's love, even apart from human sin, then what about Adam? Did he not know God's love? Was he waiting for something better?

Scotus is highly unreliable in many ways.

He is. Correct. Good point about Adam.

How did Adam experience God's love in the Garden?

Do we have some Scriptures that state this or are we speculating? Can we say the Creator/creature distinction would include manifested love?

Would provision for Adam equate with love?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I think he would have experienced the love of God in some sense. He is called the "Son of God" in Luke. That seems to me to indicate a deeper relationship than just the Creator/creature distinction.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by webmaster

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Scotus thinking, which is flawed at most points, makes the mistake of making God's creation not good. If the incarnation is necessary for man to know God's love, even apart from human sin, then what about Adam? Did he not know God's love? Was he waiting for something better?

Scotus is highly unreliable in many ways.

He is. Correct. Good point about Adam.

How did Adam experience God's love in the Garden?

Do we have some Scriptures that state this or are we speculating? Can we say the Creator/creature distinction would include manifested love?

Would provision for Adam equate with love?

Adam communed with God. He was created to commune with and worship God. I also believe (based upon the grammar and vocabulary of Gen. 2:15, where Adam was placed in the garden with Eve "to work and to keep it" (Hr"(m.v'l.W Hd"Þb.['l.) that reference is being made to Adam and Eve's corporate worship and communion with God - better translated "to serve and obey" (cf. Exodus 20:5-6; Deut. 10:12-13)

We also see this in Adam's role as vice-regent of creation, and in the fact that the law of God was written on his heart. The bottom line is that Adam was made in the image of God, to commune with God (as opposed to dogs and cats). Adam experienced God's love as his son, and his creation.

There is a movement afoot to subtly bring Scotus heteroddoxy back into the Church - by stating that Adam needed a mediator even in the garden, and that therefore the covenant in the garden was NOT a covenant of works, but one of grace. You all know how I think all theology falls apart after that.

[Edited on 10/22/2004 by fredtgreco]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I think that would be the deciding factor - "son".

 

[Craig]

webmaster
Would it be correct to say that God loves Christ so much, that there could be no greater love? I think that would be a good statement. With that said, would it be too far fetched to think that the expression of God's love to Christ is part of the overall glory of God expressed in His plan for humanity through His Son?

I'm still trying to think this out...but it seems to be more than likely true. I am having trouble understanding the Scotus quote, though. I have a lot of thoughts, but I may be misreading him altogether.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by webmaster
I was thinking about it in this way -

Everything we have in god's love is through Christ. I do not mean through Christ we have love and can get love - we all know that to be true. What I mean is that on account of Christ we are loved because God loves Christ and so loves us "in the Beloved." Would it be too much to say that God's ultimate manifestation of love is not only by His Word, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased," but also in the resurrection, "(Romans 6:4) We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

Would it be correct to say that God loves Christ so much, that there could be no greater love? I think that would be a good statement. With that said, would it be too far fetched to think that the expression of God's love to Christ is part of the overall glory of God expressed in His plan for humanity through His Son?

I do not agree with Scotus that Christ could have come apart from sin. That, In my humble opinion, is just nonsensical since, "(Revelation 13:8) And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

But I find some merit in the idea of God's love and its relationship to Christ in the incarnation.

Other thoughts?

Matt,

After thinking about this, I think the main problem that leaps to mind is that the analysis is insufficiently Trinitarian. The Holy Spirit is actually the primary Person in the Godhead who expresses the love of God to us, being not only the Spirit of the Father, but the Spirit of the Son as well. (See how critical and practical something as seemingly abtruse as the filioque is? )

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Matt,
I think the intertrinitarian relations include love, perfect love (these are partially Edwardian thoughts). But I think that mixing up the incarnation into the matter, apart from sin, clouds the issue rather than clarifying it. The view expressed in the first quote seems to say that there was lacking a perfect expression of that love apart from incarnation. RCC theology continues to make the FACT of incarnation absoutely central, so much so, that the RCC itself is conceived as the embodiment of the earthly ideal of the incarnation in continuance. This is no mere theory of mine, but I can produce quotes from their own pronouncements that corroborate this.

Fred is right. Scotus' theology is much more philosophy than exegesis. If I recall correctly, he taught that God could just forgive sin if he so willed, even without a Redeemer. Or he could condemn man anyway, Christ's sacrifice notwithstanding. He was too free to be bound like that. Needless to say, these theories have nothing to do with revelation, and everything to do with speculation.
:twocents:

[Edited on 10-22-2004 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
If I recall correctly, he taught that God could just forgive sin if he so willed, even without a Redeemer. Or he could condemn man anyway, Christ's sacrifice notwithstanding.

Yes he did. But even Calvin believed the former (although not the latter) - which is proof of the axiom quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

(getting out my Latin dictionary...)

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
(getting out my Latin dictionary...)

Latin is good for you.

...and the quote is not that hard if you think about it

 

[Contra_Mundum]

'At sometime or other' 'the good one' 'he nods' 'Homer'

Occasionally (even) good Homer dozes. The wisest err sometimes.

At first I thought Mr Simpson was involved.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
'At sometime or other' 'the good one' 'he nods' 'Homer'

Occasionally (even) good Homer dozes. The wisest err sometimes.

At first I thought Mr Simpson was involved.

No, no. That would be:

Semper donatus* Homerus edit.

*4th declension accusative plural, from donatus, -us

[Edited on 10/22/2004 by fredtgreco]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Fred,
Now that I've stopped laughing long enough to type...
Let me go to my internet-cupboard for some medicine for you...

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

(I'm not smart enough to come up with this stuff myself)

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Fred,
Now that I've stopped laughing long enough to type...
Let me go to my internet-cupboard for some medicine for you...

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

(I'm not smart enough to come up with this stuff myself)

Wait...

Quid rides? De te fabula narratur.

 

[Me Died Blue]

You two may be speaking Latin to each other, but it's Greek to me!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Chris,
All you really need to know is "D'oh!-nuts"