Friday, June 1, 2007

Hmm...

Following a link from Liccione's blog, I came across another revert to Catholicism. He made some comments in the post about Scotus, Ockham, Biel, being guilty of pelagianism, which were seconded in the comments. Someone else tried to give references distancing these scholastics from pelagianism, but others wouldn't buy it, etc. The funny thing is, that most of it was about Biel. Scotus's name was mentioned, as one of the "they" who are guilty of things that both protestants and catholics don't like, but no definite statement or position was explicty attributed to the subtle doctor. As far as I know, Scotus's teachings on justification have received almost no scholarly attention (there may be something from 1920's era scholarship that I have yet to run across). The only article I can think of is on Trent and Scouts (in the John K Ryan volume) that claims that certain Tridentine decrees were framed in such a way to make room for Scotistic positions. I suppose what with the neo-thomists progaganda combined with contemporary RO nonsense, Scotus basically counts as a nominalist. Perhaps its time for scholars to devote more time to his theology as well.

3 comments:

Michael said...

What link was this? I'd like to check it out. Charges that Scotus is a nominalist are just crazy.

Lee Faber said...

Just follow the link from one of Liccione's latest posts. its a phil. professor in Texas.

Shane said...

I think that the reason Scotus might have been named is that Luther calls him out in the Disputation on Scholastic Theology (1517).

What reason, if any, Luther would have to make such a claim I don't know. Maybe he was just trying to rile a Scotist there at Wittenburg?