On Not Confusing Necessity with Compulsion: A Reply to Paul Helm

Religious Studies 31 (1):105-109 (1995)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper responds to Helm 's rebuttal of Brümmer's account of Bernard and Calvin in "Religious Studies" 30, 4. It contends that Helm confuses indeterminism with nondeterminism and that a clear distinction between freedom from necessity and freedom from compulsion must be drawn. Contra Helm, there is still a contradiction between Calvin's defence of freedom from compulsion and his account of the perseverance of God's grace.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,795

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A Reply to Paul Helm.Richard Gale - 1993 - Religious Studies 29 (2):257 - 263.
A Reply to Mr Helm.W. D. Hudson - 1969 - Religious Studies 5 (2):145 - 146.
Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time.Paul Helm - 1988 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Helm, Paul. Faith and Understanding. [REVIEW]Dale Goldsmith - 2000 - Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 12 (1-2):182-184.
John Calvin's Ideas.Paul Helm - 2004 - Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
31 (#736,320)

6 months
12 (#312,930)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references