Why not to be a ‘Thomist’: A Critique of the Bañezian Reconciliation of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom

International Journal of Systematic Theology 22 (2):191-218 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Thomas Osborne has asserted that ‘No one has developed an argument against premotion that works if the distinctions made by the Thomists are granted.' This article attempts to form just such an argument. Specifically, it argues that the Thomistic system – even with the distinctions it relies on having been granted – cannot account for human freedom, at least not in a sense sufficiently strong to sustain human guilt for sin. Further, it argues that the Thomists, by their own clear though tacit admission, acknowledge this insufficiency.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,261

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Time and Foreknowledge: A Critique of Zagzebski.L. Nathan Oaklander - 1995 - Religious Studies 31 (1):101 - 103.
Divine Foreknowledge and Necessity.In-kyu Song - 1996 - Dissertation, Syracuse University

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-06-25

Downloads
23 (#685,787)

6 months
1 (#1,478,781)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references