Summer vacation in Greece? It’s hotter than an oven over there right now. I’m sure Kolo will confirm that for us later :)
I am not sure where he is, but he usually goes into "hiding" in the summer and is home on weekends unless he is in Greece visiting his ancestor's village.
Aquinas and Duns Scotus both underscore man’s cooperation with God’s grace
I would imagine both of them would have been zealots for Christ.
“For many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt 22:14). God calls many into existence and extends his grace to all of them, but few are chosen (predestined) because they fail to correspond to that grace
One of the favorite verses the Reformed Protestants like to quote (unfortunately always out of context)! The problem with it being quoted out of context is that the parable has nothing to do with "predestination."
God calls many into existence and extends his grace to all of them, but few are chosen (predestined) because they fail to correspond to that grace.
True, save for the predestined part. Orthodoxy understands "predestination" as God's foreknowledge (or better yet just his allknowledge), not his choices. The decisions must be ours; otherwise there is no free will. If God makes our choices than they are not ours, but His.
God, on the other hand, does already know the outcome because He is outside time and sees the whole thing from beginning to end
According to the Christian theology that is correct.
Duns Scotus held that after sin entered the world Christ could have restored us in a variety of ways, but chose to redeem us on the Cross
But that has the transcendental God reacting to something that happened in time (Adam's fall) as if he didn't know it was coming! In his all knowlege, God would have made that decision before sin entered the world and in fact would have been the screen director that mandated the fall.
Either God predestined Adam's fall and is directly the power behind the emergence of sin, or God permits our decisions and doesn't know what our decisions will be, but rather reacts to our decisions as we make them, as the Bible seems to suggest. In which case he is neither omniscient nor transcendental.
In willing the Incarnate Word, God also willed man to be his adopted children in Christ. That is St. John (1:12) and St. Paul (Eph. 1:3ff, Gal. 4:4ff).
But, if that's the case, then it is not our will, but his, and it is not our decision or cooperation but his will and our servitude. Orthodoxy teaches that love does not compel. So, either we have to ignore these verses because they proclaim Somehting other than man's freedom, or we have to interpret them in terms that are compatible with God's omniscience as well as with our free (i.e. independent) will. Good luck! You can't have it both ways.
His primary and, in fact, only purpose was to bring back "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat 15:24) into his fold.
By the way, the focus of Scripture on man’s need for redemption from sin and separation from God is natural since the whole Bible is written after sin. That doesn’t mean, therefore, that the exclusive or primary motive of the Word becoming flesh is placating divine justice or defeating death.
Where is Incarnation mentioned or hinted in the Old Testament? The idea and a need for a savior (messiah) becomes part of Judaism during the Babylonian captivity (6th century BC), some 800 years after the Biblical dates of Exodus. One thing the all Jews soundly reject is the idea that there can be any hypostatic union of two natures. As my Reformed friends like to remind me, God says:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways," [Isa 55:8]
The case of Incarnation without the fall is simply not supported by anything other than specifically in order for Christ to die (in his human nature) and restore our freedom to be saved. He came down specifically to pull out the fallen humanity from the bottomless pit of sin. Incarnation was an act of extreme mercy for his fallen humanity.
But that has the transcendental God reacting to something that happened in time (Adam's fall) as if he didn't know it was coming! In his all knowlege, God would have made that decision before sin entered the world and in fact would have been the screen director that mandated the fall.
I think we’re agreed that God is omniscient, that he knew what was coming. So when I said “after”, I didn’t say that God is in time or reacting to things in time. God is always outside of time, and he freely chooses to create the universe—and he creates it for Christ, with a view to Christ (cf. Colossians 1:16 and I Corinthians 3:23); he foresees the fall (“after” first willing to create) and, in his mercy, wills our redemption in Christ. So it’s not a question of “when”, since God is outside of time, but a question of priority in God’s plan. If God does not first (priority, not time) will to create man, then obviously there would be no redeemer or redemption.
All that aside (I hope :), my main point about Scotus and the way we were actually redeemed has to do with the fact that God could have redeemed us in a variety of ways, but chose to redeem us through the passion and death and resurrection. Christ is not compelled to die on the cross for our redemption, but in conformity with God's free choice to redeem us by way of the cross Christ freely embraces it. Scotus' point about the variety of ways, not necessarily easy to grasp, but valid nonetheless, is that all of Christ’s actions in his human nature have an infinite merit because of the personal union with the divine person of the Word. He could have simply prayed for man’s reconciliation and restoration in his human nature and his prayer would have been efficacious and satisfied God's justice. But God chooses to manifest his love for us sinners by the cross (cf. Romans 5:8-9; John 3:16, etc.). I just discovered that Aquinas taught the same: "For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways." (Summa III, art.2)
You also wrote: Either God predestined Adam's fall and is directly the power behind the emergence of sin, or God permits our decisions and doesn't know what our decisions will be, but rather reacts to our decisions as we make them, as the Bible seems to suggest. In which case he is neither omniscient nor transcendental.
As you know, God cannot will evil since he is Goodness itself. So although he can permit evil, he never chooses evil, he never wills evil—so clearly he does not predestine Adam’s fall and therefore is not the power behind the emergence of sin. But it doesn’t follow that if God permits our decisions he doesn’t know what they will be. So I think we are on the same page. Predestination, or foreknowledge, on the part of God means that he is utterly omniscient and transcendent, that he does not predetermine our acts (he foreknows them and free chooses to bring to glory those who will freely correspond to his call). As you so succinctly put it,
“The invitation is free; the meal isn't.”
LOL! :) I never thought of it in quite those terms, but well put. And God foreknows our response and thus, before the foundation of the world predestines to glory in Christ those “few” who will cooperate (no predetermination here—he foreknows the cooperation of the elect and therefore predestines—not predetermines—them to glory). For Duns Scotus, and I’m of the same opinion and I think I hear you saying the same, God is utterly free in his decrees and man is utterly free in his response. This is why the “reformers” mocked Duns Scotus by calling people who followed his Catholic doctrine “dunces”, especially his doctrine on freedom, both man’s and God’s.
Finally, you wrote of the Incarnation that: His primary and, in fact, only purpose was to bring back "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat 15:24) into his fold.
If you said “in my opinion His primary…”, I would simply respond that I’m of another opinion. I think Fr. Florovsky’s excellent presentation, very sober and reserved, makes it clear that the opinion that God’s masterpiece in all creation, the Incarnation, was willed absolutely and not simply as a remedy for man’s sin is a valid opinion to be respected, even if one chooses the opposite opinion (and this is precisely what Aquinas did (Summa III, art. 3): "I answer that, There are different opinions about this question. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion." He recognized my opinion as “probable”, but felt and chose the opinion that you are defending as “more probable”—at least grant me the “probable, but I beg to differ” of Aquinas ;)
Sorry to be so long-winded. May HIS be the glory! Amen.