A Response to Thomas Aquinas and William E. Carroll on Creatio ex Nihilo by Ignacio Silva
A defense of William E Carroll has been offered, contending that his metaphysicalist understanding of divine creation - namely the continual conferral of ‘esse’ - is theologically justified. Here, I explain my position that Carroll confuses an ontological dependency of all creaturely things on God a...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Routledge
2021
|
| In: |
Theology and science
Year: 2021, Volume: 19, Issue: 2, Pages: 100-105 |
| IxTheo Classification: | CF Christianity and Science KAE Church history 900-1300; high Middle Ages NBD Doctrine of Creation |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | A defense of William E Carroll has been offered, contending that his metaphysicalist understanding of divine creation - namely the continual conferral of ‘esse’ - is theologically justified. Here, I explain my position that Carroll confuses an ontological dependency of all creaturely things on God as source of all being with a causal dependency that accounts for how they are structured and behave. By contrast, Thomas Aquinas viewed creation as both an event and a process whereby God acts to produce the physical substance and intricate forms of the material world. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1474-6719 |
| Reference: | Kritik von "Thomas Aquinas and William E. Carroll on Creatio ex Nihilo: A Response to Joseph Hannon’s “Theological Objections to a Metaphysicalist Interpretation of Creation” (2021)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Theology and science
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2021.1910909 |