神圣的简单性,上帝的自由,以及模态崩溃的假定问题

IF 0.1 0 RELIGION
D. Pedersen, Christopher Lilley
{"title":"神圣的简单性,上帝的自由,以及模态崩溃的假定问题","authors":"D. Pedersen, Christopher Lilley","doi":"10.1163/15697312-bja10028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Proponents of the modal collapse argument claim that divine simplicity, traditionally conceived, contradicts other Christian commitments about divine freedom and grace by ultimately rendering all God’s acts, including creation and redemption, absolutely necessary. If true, the argument goes, theologians must abandon either God’s simplicity or God’s freedom. The aim of this dilemma is to force the abandonment of simplicity. However, we argue that the modal collapse argument is insufficient to generate this dilemma apart from additional premises—and that these tacit premises are the true locus of dispute.","PeriodicalId":53817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Reformed Theology","volume":"168 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Divine Simplicity, God’s Freedom, and the Supposed Problem of Modal Collapse\",\"authors\":\"D. Pedersen, Christopher Lilley\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15697312-bja10028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Proponents of the modal collapse argument claim that divine simplicity, traditionally conceived, contradicts other Christian commitments about divine freedom and grace by ultimately rendering all God’s acts, including creation and redemption, absolutely necessary. If true, the argument goes, theologians must abandon either God’s simplicity or God’s freedom. The aim of this dilemma is to force the abandonment of simplicity. However, we argue that the modal collapse argument is insufficient to generate this dilemma apart from additional premises—and that these tacit premises are the true locus of dispute.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53817,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Reformed Theology\",\"volume\":\"168 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Reformed Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15697312-bja10028\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Reformed Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15697312-bja10028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

模态崩溃论证的支持者声称,传统上认为的神的简单性,与其他基督教关于神的自由和恩典的承诺相矛盾,因为它最终使所有上帝的行为,包括创造和救赎,都是绝对必要的。如果这是真的,那么神学家必须放弃上帝的简单性或者上帝的自由。这种困境的目的是迫使放弃简单性。然而,我们认为,除了额外的前提,模态崩溃论证不足以产生这种困境,而这些隐性前提才是真正的争议所在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Divine Simplicity, God’s Freedom, and the Supposed Problem of Modal Collapse
Proponents of the modal collapse argument claim that divine simplicity, traditionally conceived, contradicts other Christian commitments about divine freedom and grace by ultimately rendering all God’s acts, including creation and redemption, absolutely necessary. If true, the argument goes, theologians must abandon either God’s simplicity or God’s freedom. The aim of this dilemma is to force the abandonment of simplicity. However, we argue that the modal collapse argument is insufficient to generate this dilemma apart from additional premises—and that these tacit premises are the true locus of dispute.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
50.00%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信