tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post8581865065816879085..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: Predestination II: On the Possibility of PredestinationLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-12380272922915184642008-04-09T00:35:00.000-04:002008-04-09T00:35:00.000-04:00Calvin ruined laughter, I think. Serious fellow, h...Calvin ruined laughter, I think. Serious fellow, he. Anyone who says God predestined infants to Hell on account of some imagined "total depravity" lives by certain selective biblical texts which don't live in him. <A HREF="http://tcrnews.blogspot.com/search/label/predestination" REL="nofollow">...continue</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-58672186631205240292008-01-26T09:04:00.000-05:002008-01-26T09:04:00.000-05:00>> don't think there is a copyright problem if you...>> don't think there is a copyright problem if you're doing a translation, just as long as you cite the text you're using. <BR/><BR/>Not with the translation, but my site is parallel Latin-English only. The critical edition is clearly copyright. <BR/><BR/>Ideally, I will use my Latin 'edition', noting discrepances with the Bonaventura.<BR/><BR/>Certainly there is a large chunk of Volume I on King's site, which I have a personal copy of, but I am dubious of the legality of this (though again, given the difficulty of obtaining the paper one, can't see why anyone minds). <BR/><BR/>Perhaps I'm wrong.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-46212999700495399332008-01-26T03:53:00.000-05:002008-01-26T03:53:00.000-05:00Yes indeed I am the Ockham from Maverick Philosoph...Yes indeed I am the Ockham from Maverick Philosopher! Honoured that you are honoured!<BR/><BR/>The knowledge of terminology showed in the Questions is difficult to explain if Scotus attended, as it were, a medieval powerpoint presentation by a visiting scholar. <BR/><BR/>I didn't know about the posited stay in Paris, or Gonsalvus. As I say, I am not Scotus scholar and came at this from a different direction. Would be grateful for any references!<BR/><BR/>I came across this because I was researching the 'omnis homo est animal' question (is it true when no men exist?). There is a reasonably well-known list of primary sources on this, most of the writers being modists. Scotus never was on the list. I only found it by accident when compiling a list of commentaries and questions on the Perihermaneias. <BR/><BR/>If Scotus wasn't the author of this work, then it is merely another item on a list of sources for the 'omnis homo' question. If he is the author, it raises interesting problems about how his answer to the question affects his later work. (He is on the side of those who say 'omnis homo est animal' is true when no man exists. Buridan and Ockham, by contrast, are on the other side - though this simplifies the issue somewhat).<BR/><BR/>Lee, I have a comment on your William of Alnwick post - it was in December, not sure if you are alerted to comments on out of date posts.<BR/><BR/>Best - WilliamEdward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-37171279136785986562008-01-25T23:22:00.000-05:002008-01-25T23:22:00.000-05:00michael, you're understanding is wrong. the whole ...michael, you're understanding is wrong. the whole reason for positing a parisian stay for Scotus in the 1290's is his intimate knowledge of Parisian logical discussions (that and Gonsalvus says he knows him from long experience). I suspect the ability of scholars to travel around etc. cuts against the early Parisian thesis.<BR/><BR/>Noone is the head of the Scotus project; the Commissio Scotistica is based in Rome under Hechich.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-52135380714181444382008-01-25T17:45:00.000-05:002008-01-25T17:45:00.000-05:00Ocham,are you the w Ockham whose comments I read s...Ocham,<BR/><BR/>are you the w Ockham whose comments I read so often on Maverick Philosopher? If so, it's really an honor to see you here!<BR/><BR/>My understanding is that Scotus' logical works are deeply engaged with contemporary English logicians, even more than Continental ones, and that the parallels are rarely recognized mostly because the English logical tradition of the time is still little known. <BR/><BR/>I'm also given to understand that at the time contemporary positions frequently traveled quicker by word of mouth than by manuscript, due to scholars' phenomenal memory and their tendency to move about fairly frequently; so that it's very possible that Scotus knew what was being discussed in Paris within a short amount of time, much sooner than the written works would have been disseminated. I forget whether I've read about this somewhere or if it's straight from the horse's mouth (my dissertation is being directed by Dr Noone, who's now the head of the Scotus Commission, and he loves to talk about this phenomenon).<BR/><BR/>My sympathies about getting a copy of the Opera Philosophica. Faber and I bought ours back when we worked for a specialty bookstore that got us huge discounts.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-11431774950284995802008-01-25T12:10:00.000-05:002008-01-25T12:10:00.000-05:00woa,You might also look at Pini's book on the cate...woa,<BR/>You might also look at Pini's book on the categories for discussion or bibliography.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I don't think there is a copyright problem if you're doing a translation, just as long as you cite the text you're using. If you're pressed for one, Peter King had scanned it in on his website at one point. even there, I think you can copyright the apparatus, but the text is public domain.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-25213517812587897732008-01-25T12:03:00.000-05:002008-01-25T12:03:00.000-05:00Michael -Thanks for those comments. The sources I ...Michael -<BR/><BR/>Thanks for those comments. The sources I was using were Reynaldus de Novimagio (1479 edition), Ibernicus 1500 and Boccadifuoco 1586. All correspond fairly closely. <BR/><BR/>You are quite right I need to reference the critical edition (Andrews 2004) but would you believe none of the London University libraries has a copy of this. I will need to resort to interlibrary loan or preferably buy a copy but that might be painful in all senses.<BR/><BR/>Andrews' view as you say is that the logical works are early, probably around the mid 1290's.<BR/><BR/>The difficulty with this is how well they engage with the philosophical work going on in Paris in that period. This seems difficult to explain if Scotus was living in the branchy-between-towers place at the time. Unless of course there was a thriving community of modistae in Oxford then. Or Scotus had access to the manuscripts that were being written at the same period in Paris - my knowledge of how works were copied in transmitted in that pre-internet age is not good!<BR/><BR/>Also it is difficult to see how Scotus' style could change so radically in the 5-6 years between the logical works, and the Ordinatio. (I was using the famous discussion of individuation in book II, distinction III as a comparison).<BR/><BR/>But you are right to recommened V2 of the critical edition (V1 also has a useful essay, and that is available via UCL library).<BR/><BR/>Best, William of Ocham.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-43954047542632800052008-01-25T11:32:00.000-05:002008-01-25T11:32:00.000-05:00By the way, Faber, good post. Awesome passage.By the way, Faber, good post. Awesome passage.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-64501096065416979172008-01-25T11:17:00.000-05:002008-01-25T11:17:00.000-05:00Ocham,the recent critical edition is really the on...Ocham,<BR/><BR/>the recent critical edition is really the one to use. According to the editors, discrepancies between the Scotist logical works and the more mature positions are do to the fact the the logical commentaries are among the earliest, if not the earliest, of Scotus' works and his positions were not all worked out when he wrote them.<BR/><BR/>I don't know the texts you're using and so can't comment. But unless (or even if) you're looking at manuscripts yourself I'd say you need to get hold of v.2 of the Opera philosophica.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-52896096998199787792008-01-25T07:21:00.000-05:002008-01-25T07:21:00.000-05:00Greetings. Do excuse me for an off-topic comment ...Greetings. Do excuse me for an off-topic comment (this has nothing to do with predestination) but I just noticed the blog & have a question. Background: I have just finished a translation of QQ 2, 5-8 and 12 of Scotus' questions on the Perihermeneias, and will shortly be publishing it on the net together with an 'edition' compiled from 3 pre-wadding sources (didn't use the recent Andrews 2004 for copyright reasons). This as far as I know is the first English translation of these questions, and my introduction will be one of the very few discussions of this work.<BR/><BR/>I didn't get very far into this when I realised the question of attribution loomed large. I came to this work originally from looking at the work of the13th and 14th century 'modist' logicians, and found the Scotus commentary by accident, realised much of the content of the work overlapped considerably with Modist work of the same period. Then (not being Scotist student) I found that many of the logical works attributed to Scotus are now known not to be by him, and were in fact by other modist logicians. I have skimmed over work on the attribution problem and even from this it appears there are a number of questions. E.g. style of the Perihermenias questions seems very different to 'mature Scotus', content and philosophical position does not seem to fit very well &c &c. On the other hand there seem strong reasons to attribute this work to Scotus.<BR/><BR/>But now the question – are there any works which look at the attribution problem in more detail? I'm aware of Andrews work (though haven't obtained it yet), an excellent book by Antonie Vos, and a handful of papers. However, these don't really look at the texts I have been studying and translating. <BR/><BR/>Any thoughts gratefully received. I can be contacted at <BR/><BR/>d3uckner AT btinternet.com<BR/><BR/>or on my own blog.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-90266708659914960672008-01-24T22:52:00.000-05:002008-01-24T22:52:00.000-05:00Micky,How does this relate to the post on Scotus? ...Micky,<BR/>How does this relate to the post on Scotus? Other than the same general theme, are you for or against, or what?Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-59714624566185105422008-01-24T06:44:00.000-05:002008-01-24T06:44:00.000-05:001. God knows all things, including those who will ...1. God knows all things, including those who will be saved (THE ELECT). 2. God's foreknowledge does not destroy, but includes, free will. 3. God desires all men to be saved. 4. Jesus died to redeem all men. 5. God provides sufficient grace for all men to be saved. 6. Man, in the exercise of his free will, can accept or reject grace. 7. Those who accept grace are saved, or born-again. 8. Those who are born-again can fall away or fall into sin. 9. Not everyone who is saved will persevere in grace. 10. Those who do persevere are God's elect. 11. Those who do not persevere, or who never accepted grace, are the reprobate. 12. Since we can always reject God in this life, we have no absolute assurance that we will persevere. 13. We can have a moral assurance of salvation if we maintain faith and keep God's commandments (1 John 2:1-6; 3:19-23; 5:1-3,13).<BR/><BR/>IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS<BR/><BR/>1. Predestination is not predetermination :<BR/><BR/> "Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved." (St. Augustine, Persever 14:35)<BR/><BR/>Predestination is God's decree of the happiness of the elect. God's infallible foreknowledge (and thus predestination also) includes free will. God's foreknowledge cannot force upon man unavoidable coercion, for the simple reason that it is at bottom nothing else than the eternal vision of the future historical actuality. God foresees the free activity of a man precisely as that individual is willing to shape it, predestination is not predetermination of the human will.<BR/><BR/>2. Election is a consequence of God's foreknowledge :<BR/><BR/>By definition, the ELECT are those whom God infallibly foresees will be saved (Rom 8:28-30). By this definition, it is impossible for the elect to be lost, precisely because God foreknows who will not be lost. But since election depends on God's infallible foreknowledge, we simply have no way of knowing whether or not we are in that category -- God knows with certainty His elect, but we do not. The elect are predestined in the sense that God knows them, and enables them by grace, to be saved.<BR/><BR/>3. Free will can resist and reject God's grace :<BR/><BR/>"You stiff-necked people...you always resist the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51). The angels possessed grace and perfectly intact intellect, and yet many of them freely sinned and rejected God. Adam and Eve possessed grace and a perfectly intact nature, and yet they freely sinned. How much more so is it possible for the born-again Christian, who possesses grace but also a wounded nature and a darkened intellect, to sin also. Paul mentions sins which keep a man from the Kingdom of God: fornication, adultery, homosexuality, theft, greed, and so on (1 Cor 6:9-10).<BR/><BR/>When Jesus was expressly asked what one must do to gain eternal life, he answered, "keep the commandments," and went on to list the moral commandments of the Decalogue (Matt 19:16-21). Revelation describes those whose lot is the burning pool of fire and sulfur, the second death: "cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste" and so on (Rev 21:8). Aren't born-again Christians capable of these sins? And if they die in these sins, how can they possibly inherit heaven? If Adam and Eve could fall from grace, surely we can fall from grace as well. Surely we can harden our hearts and resist the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>4. We cannot confuse Election with being "Born Again" :<BR/><BR/>The set of those who are "born again" (in Catholic and historic Christian understanding those who have been regenerated "of water and Spirit" in the Sacrament of Baptism -- John 3:3,5; Acts 2:38) is not necessarily co-extensive with the set of those who will persevere and gain eternal life. Born-again Christians can and (sadly) do fall away. Otherwise free will and (mortal) sin are merely fictitious for a Christian during this life of testing and pilgrimage. Otherwise all the language in Scripture of persevering to the end in order to be saved (cf. Matt 10:22; 24:13; Phil 2:12-13) makes no sense.<BR/>MICKY - http://micky-clontarf.blogspot.com/<BR/><BR/>I, MICKY, AM A GIFT TO ALL PEOPLE.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07940745178193985942noreply@blogger.com