TY - JOUR
T1 - Divine Foreknowledge and Providence
AU - Frigerio, Aldo
AU - De Florio, Ciro
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Divine foreknowledge, Human freedom, Divine providence, Theodicy, Future contingents
KW - Divine foreknowledge, Human freedom, Divine providence, Theodicy, Future contingents
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/211764
UR - https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/55003
U2 - 10.14428/thl.v4i3.55003
DO - 10.14428/thl.v4i3.55003
M3 - Article
SN - 2593-0265
VL - 5
SP - 126
EP - 146
JO - TheoLogica
JF - TheoLogica
ER -