St. Thomas, Divine Freedom, and Compatibilism: A Reply to Pedersen and Lilley
In their recent article, Daniel J. Pedersen and Christopher Lilley construct a two-pronged response to the modal collapse argument against divine simplicity. The first prong relies heavily on distinctions developed by Thomas Aquinas. This essay contests their interpretation of Aquinas by demonstrati...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2025
|
| In: |
Journal of reformed theology
Year: 2025, Volume: 19, Issue: 3, Pages: 232-255 |
| Further subjects: | B
Divine Freedom
B modal collapse B Thomas Aquinas B Simplicity |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In their recent article, Daniel J. Pedersen and Christopher Lilley construct a two-pronged response to the modal collapse argument against divine simplicity. The first prong relies heavily on distinctions developed by Thomas Aquinas. This essay contests their interpretation of Aquinas by demonstrating that they misconstrue fundamental elements of his modal semantics and doctrine of divine freedom. Subsequently, for theologians who adopt a Thomistic account of these doctrines, it cannot provide a means for avoiding the modal collapse argument. I conclude with suggestions for fruitful avenues to pursue in the ongoing debate over the doctrines of divine simplicity and freedom. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1569-7312 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of reformed theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15697312-bja10065 |
