scholarly journals Bocheński on divine providence and human freedom

2013 ◽  
Vol 65 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 53-63
Author(s):  
Dariusz Łukasiewicz
1979 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Basinger

Christian theists have not normally wished to deny either of the following tenets:T1 God creates human agents such that they are free with respect to certain actions and, therefore, morally responsible for them.T2 God is an omniscient, wholly good being who is omnipotent in the sense that he has (sovereign, providential) control over all existent states of affairs.


Author(s):  
Aldro Frigerio ◽  
Ciro De Florio

In this paper, we aim to examine the relationships between four solutions to the dilemma of divine foreknowledge and human freedom—theological determinism, Molinism, simple foreknowledge and open theism—and divine providence and theodicy. Some of these solutions—theological determinism and Molinism, in particular—highlight God’s government of the world.  Some others—simple foreknowledge and open theism—highlight human autonomy and freedom. In general, the more libertarian human freedom is highlighted, the less God’s government of the history of the world seems possible. However, the task of theodicy becomes easier because humans are fully responsible for the evil they do. Conversely, the more God’s government is highlighted, the more human freedom seems to be restricted. Moreover, God seems to be directly or indirectly responsible for evil in the world. Because of the trade–off between control and freedom, each solution finds itself at ease with some problems, while on other fronts, it must adopt a defensive position. As we will see, no solution can solve all problems; thus, the pros and cons of each solution should be weighed carefully.


Author(s):  
Andreas J. Beck

This essay discusses the interrelated loci of God, creation, and providence in post-Reformation Reformed theology, focusing primarily on the Leiden Synopsis and the works of Gisbertus Voetius, Melchior Leydecker, Petrus van Mastricht, and Francis Turretin. The doctrine of God is about the triune God and his eternal, immanent acts or works, whether direct to God himself or ad extra, whereas the doctrines of creation and providence concern external acts or works of the triune God which are directed ad extra. The essay shows, among other things, that the Reformed scholastics distinguished within the doctrine of God between a necessary ad intra dimension and a free ad extra dimension, thereby ascribing the pivotal role to the divine will, in order to ensure that this doctrine allows for a free and contingent relation of the infinite Creator to his finite creatures and for human freedom under divine providence.


Author(s):  
Alfred J. Freddoso

Molinism, named after Luis de Molina, is a theological system for reconciling human freedom with God’s grace and providence. Presupposing a strongly libertarian account of freedom, Molinists assert against their rivals that the grace whereby God cooperates with supernaturally salvific acts is not intrinsically efficacious. To preserve divine providence and foreknowledge, they then posit ‘middle knowledge’, through which God knows, prior to his own free decrees, how any possible rational agent would freely act in any possible situation. Beyond this, they differ among themselves regarding the ground for middle knowledge and the doctrines of efficacious grace and predestination.


2021 ◽  
pp. 127-170
Author(s):  
David Lloyd Dusenbury

Like other early Christian writers, Nemesius condemns any theory which denies that humans are by nature free. Though he believes that the human body is an instrument, he passionately rejects the idea that ‘humankind is a mere instrument’. He cannot tolerate any reduction of humans to the status of a tool, whether by ‘pagans’ (in theories of fate), or by Christians (in theories of providence). In this chapter, we reconstruct Nemesius’ theories of human freedom and divine providence. The bishop believes that human laws—and, hence, crime and punishment—are inconceivable in the absence of human choice. Since all cities have laws, he reasons, humans must have a natural power of choice. From this cosmopolitan line of reasoning (which has roots in Greek antiquity), Nemesius derives a subtle theory of divine world-governance in the final pages of his (unfinished) treatise.


1976 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher B. Kaiser

A good deal has already been written on the possible relevance of Niels Bohr's principle of ‘complementarity’ to various theological issues. Bohr, himself, suggested that the concept might be useful in discussions concerning the relation of intra-mundane causality and divine providence, or that of human freedom and divine sovereignty. These suggestions have been taken up and developed by C. A. Coulson and D. M. Mackay, but they have also seriously been criticized, notably by I. G. Barbour. The principal difficulty encountered in regarding God and the world as ‘complementary’, in Bohr's sense of the term, is that Creator and creature are generally thought to be two distinct ‘entities’, in Christian ‘theism’, rather than two ‘modes’ of a single entity as ‘wave’ and ‘particle’ are two ‘complementary’ modes of an atomic object in physics.


Moreana ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 50 (Number 193- (3-4) ◽  
pp. 54-73
Author(s):  
Nicolas Tenaillon

As a renowned jurist first and then as a top politician, Thomas More has never given up researching about a judicial system where all the fields of justice would be harmonized around a comprehensive logic. From criminal law to divine providence, Utopia, despite its eccentricities, proposes a coherent model of Christian-inspired collective living, based on a concern for social justice, something that was terribly neglected during the early 16th century English monarchy. Not only did History prove many of More’s intuitions right, but above all, it gave legitimacy to the utopian genre in its task of imagining the future progress of human justice and of contributing to its coming.


2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 201-222
Author(s):  
Richard G. Walsh

Various modern fictions, building upon the skeptical premises of biblical scholars, have claimed that the gospels covered up the real story about Jesus. Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code is one recent, popular example. While conspiracy theories may seem peculiar to modern media, the gospels have their own versions of hidden secrets. For Mark, e.g., Roman discourse about crucifixion obscures two secret plots in Jesus’ passion, which the gospel reveals: the religious leaders’ conspiracy to dispatch Jesus and the hidden divine program to sacrifice Jesus. Mark unveils these secret plots by minimizing the passion’s material details (the details of suffering would glorify Rome), substituting the Jewish leaders for the Romans as the important human actors, interpreting the whole as predicted by scripture and by Jesus, and bathing the whole in an irony that claims that the true reality is other than it seems. The resulting divine providence/conspiracy narrative dooms Jesus—and everyone else—before the story effectively begins. None of this would matter if secret plots and infinite books did not remain to make pawns or “phantoms of us all” (Borges). Thus, in Borges’ “The Gospel According to Mark,” an illiterate rancher family after hearing the gospel for the first time, read to them by a young medical student, crucifies the young man. Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum is less biblical but equally enthralled by conspiracies that consume their obsessive believers. Borges and Eco differ from Mark, from some scholarship, and from recent popular fiction, in their insistence that such conspiracy tales are not “true” or “divine,” but rather humans’ own self-destructive fictions. Therein lies a different kind of hope than Mark’s, a very human, if very fragile, hope.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document