Professor Tom was almost there when he was explaining the concept love of good for self or love of justice for other as two fundamentals. And God being the source of love is connected to love for justice. well Dun S was trying to connect both human love and God’s Love intellectually.
Thank you for having Tom Ward on. Ordered by Love is a fantastic book. I wish you would have discussed more about the Absolute Primacy of Christ, though! The conversation was just getting good! Anyway -- ave Maria!
Fascinating discussion! I was always intrigued by Scotus' view on creation: Creation is the manifestation of God's love. And the Lover seeks the love of the beloved. And creation can only return perfect love to the Creator in Christ. In other words, God made the world for man, because God made man for God. And man could only become God, because God became Man. And, we could add that the Incarnation was decreed to be realized through Mary. Here we see a higher perspective on the absolute predestination of Mary. As St. Maximilian put it, God created the world for her (and for Him.) I'm sure there must be a way to find a synthesis between the Scotist and Thomist positions. They are two ways of looking at God and creation. They could be compared to that famous painting of the "School of Athens": Plato pointing upwards and Aristotle to the ground. One looks up to God to understand creation and the other looks to creation to understand God. We should await the birth of the philosopher who'll harmonize the two. And the theologian who will do the same for theology. I also just started reading Prof. Ward's "Ordered by love" and I'm impressed by the clarity with which he explains Scotus. Thanks for sharing your vision, Prof. Ward.
Thanks Guys. Love it. John Dun actually try to slow down the overly reliance of intellect on how to explain theology not to stop it. He was suggesting to go back to scripture and John did used the word “Will”. And Ockham jumped on this wagon and came up with emphasis of his own on “assuming premises” of the intellect could lead us to a wrong path and then Luther came up of his “faith alone” which was in line with the Dun’s concept “human will relying on God could overcome scholastic Intellect . I guess the condemnation of 1277 of 219 writings definitely jumped started the reformation concept.
that way of explaining creation, by putting Christ as a man at the center as the reason for creation, presupposes a neo-Nestorian Christology - we are said that God loves Christ's human nature!!! - but a human nature is not a person, unless you think that Christ is a man, a human person, united to the Son of God... - and that is precisely what we find in Scotus - not only that theology of creation is not traditional but leads to a Christology that is deeply wrong and heretical
Good conversation and great book btw
Professor Tom was almost there when he was explaining the concept love of good for self or love of justice for other as two fundamentals. And God being the source of love is connected to love for justice. well Dun S was trying to connect both human love and God’s Love intellectually.
Will listen more than once!
Thank you for having Tom Ward on. Ordered by Love is a fantastic book. I wish you would have discussed more about the Absolute Primacy of Christ, though! The conversation was just getting good! Anyway -- ave Maria!
Interesting conversation
Fascinating discussion! I was always intrigued by Scotus' view on creation: Creation is the manifestation of God's love. And the Lover seeks the love of the beloved. And creation can only return perfect love to the Creator in Christ. In other words, God made the world for man, because God made man for God. And man could only become God, because God became Man.
And, we could add that the Incarnation was decreed to be realized through Mary. Here we see a higher perspective on the absolute predestination of Mary. As St. Maximilian put it, God created the world for her (and for Him.)
I'm sure there must be a way to find a synthesis between the Scotist and Thomist positions. They are two ways of looking at God and creation. They could be compared to that famous painting of the "School of Athens": Plato pointing upwards and Aristotle to the ground. One looks up to God to understand creation and the other looks to creation to understand God. We should await the birth of the philosopher who'll harmonize the two. And the theologian who will do the same for theology.
I also just started reading Prof. Ward's "Ordered by love" and I'm impressed by the clarity with which he explains Scotus. Thanks for sharing your vision, Prof. Ward.
Thanks Guys. Love it. John Dun actually try to slow down the overly reliance of intellect on how to explain theology not to stop it. He was suggesting to go back to scripture and John did used the word “Will”. And Ockham jumped on this wagon and came up with emphasis of his own on “assuming premises” of the intellect could lead us to a wrong path and then Luther came up of his “faith alone” which was in line with the Dun’s concept “human will relying on God could overcome scholastic Intellect . I guess the condemnation of 1277 of 219 writings definitely jumped started the reformation concept.
that way of explaining creation, by putting Christ as a man at the center as the reason for creation, presupposes a neo-Nestorian Christology - we are said that God loves Christ's human nature!!! - but a human nature is not a person, unless you think that Christ is a man, a human person, united to the Son of God... - and that is precisely what we find in Scotus - not only that theology of creation is not traditional but leads to a Christology that is deeply wrong and heretical