A Four-Case Defense of the Authorial Model of Divine Providence

Journal of Analytic Theology 12:47-60 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Some advocates of the doctrine of meticulous (“risk-free”) divine providence, in response to the charge that such a strong view of divine providence makes God the “author of evil,” have appealed to an authorial model according to which the relationship of God to his creation is analogous to that of a human author and his or her literary creation. This response appears vulnerable to the objection that there is a critical _disanalogy_ between the two kinds of authorship: in the case of divine authorship, unlike that of human authorship, the story is _intentionally actualized_, and thus the divine author is morally culpable for the evils written into that story. Call this the “actuality objection.” In this paper, I develop a four-case defense of the authorial model that aims to neutralize the actuality objection. I also respond to five objections to the authorial model and my defense of it.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,486

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-10-29

Downloads
10 (#1,520,317)

6 months
10 (#312,841)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

James N. Anderson
Reformed Theological Seminary

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references