In scholastic philosophy, the discussion of how morality becomes embedded in human nature and God’s role is in this process goes back to Ancient Greek philosophy. This article deals with the relationship of morality with human nature and God, based on two important theologians who present two different periods of Scholastic philosophy. In early scholastic philosophy, Thomas Aquinas advocated a theological natural law theory that emphasized the potential for an inherent morality in human nature. In contrast, John Duns Scotus did not deny the potential for morality in human nature, but nevertheless advocated a soft divine command theory in which he claimed that morality was grounded in divine commands. Aquinas and Scotus had a serious disagreement on two issues. The first of these is the debate whether the consciousness of being moral in human beings is based on intellect (ratio) or will (voluntas) as a part of human nature. While Aquinas claimed that reason was decisive in this matter, Scotus thought that it was not reason but will that was decisive. The second point of disagreement is the issue of which precepts of the Decalogue can be known by natural law. While Aquinas claimed that all the precepts of the Decalogue could be the subject of natural law, Scotus believed that only the precepts in the first table of the Decalogue could be known of natural law, while the other precepts could only be determined by divine commands. This article has tried to examine the differentiation process in morality, human nature and divine commands in the scholastic era through two important theologians.[You may find an extended abstract of this article after the bibliography.]