Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T09:12:44.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Christ's freedom: Anselm vs Molina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2016

KATHERIN A. ROGERS
KATHERIN A. ROGERS*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA
*
e-mail: krogers@udel.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Both Molinism and Anselmianism attempt to preserve libertarian freedom for created agents as well as robust divine sovereignty. The two issues intersect in addressing the puzzle of Christ's freedom: If God is necessarily good, how can God Incarnate be free? Anselm answers: while human agents need options for our choices to be up to us, Christ inevitably chooses rightly with perfect freedom. I defend Anselm's answer against a general criticism and then argue that Anselm's position is preferable to the Molinist solution which has recently been championed by Thomas P. Flint.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 497 - 512
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Coakley, Sarah (2002) ‘What does Chalcedon solve and what does it not?’, in Davis, Stephen T., Daniel Kendall, SJ, & Gerald O'Collins, SJ (eds) The Incarnation (Oxford, Oxford University Press), 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daley, Brian E. (2002) ‘Nature and the “Mode of Union”: late patristic models for the personal unity of Christ’, in Davis, Stephen T., Daniel Kendall, SJ, & Gerald O'Collins, SJ (eds) The Incarnation (Oxford, Oxford University Press), 164–196.Google Scholar
Flint, Thomas P. (1998) Divine Providence: The Molinist Account (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Flint, Thomas P. (2001a) ‘A death he freely accepted: Molinist reflections on the incarnation’, Faith and Philosophy, 18, 3–20.Google Scholar
Flint, Thomas P. (2001b) ‘The possibilities of Incarnation: some radical Molinist suggestions’, Religious Studies, 37, 307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flint, Thomas P. (2004) ‘Risky business: open theism and the Incarnation’, Philosophia Christi, 6, 213–233.Google Scholar
Flint, Thomas P. (2011) ‘Molinism and Incarnation’, in Ken, Perszyk (ed.) Molinism (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasker, William (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Hunt, David (1993) ‘Divine providence and simple foreknowledge’, Faith and Philosophy, 10, 394–414.Google Scholar
Kane, Robert (1996) The Significance of Free Will (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
McCann, Hugh (1995) ‘Divine sovereignty and the freedom of the will’, Faith and Philosophy, 12, 582–589.Google Scholar
Molina, Luis de (1988) On Divine Foreknowledge (Part IV of the Concordia), Freddoso, Alfred J. (tr.) (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Rogers, Katherin A. (2005) ‘Anselm on eudaemonism and the hierarchical structure of moral choice’, Religious Studies, 41, 249–268.Google Scholar
Rogers, Katherin A. (2008) Anselm on Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Rogers, Katherin A. (2012) ‘Anselm on the ontological status of choice’, International Philosophical Quarterly, 52, 183–197.Google Scholar
Rogers, Katherin A. (2013) ‘The Incarnation as action composite’, Faith and Philosophy, 30, 251–270.Google Scholar
Rogers, Katherin A. (2015) Freedom and Self-Creation: Anselmian Libertarianism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar