Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Middle actions

  • Articles
  • Published:
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. See, for example, Hasker'sGod, Time, and Knowledge (Cornell, 1989), and his well-known “Foreknowledge and Necessity”,Faith and Philosophy 2 (1985): 121–157.

  2. William Hasker (1989) denies that the incompatibility of freedom and foreknowledge is at odds either with the deliverances of reason or with revelational pronouncements. See especially Ch. 3 and Ch. 10. Also see Peter Geach'sProvidence and Evil (Cambridge, 1977) for a like-minded approach to these alleged difficulties.

  3. See A. Kenney'sThe God of the Philosophers (Oxford University Press, 1979), Chapter VII.

  4. Richard Swinburne,The Coherence of Theism (Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 174.

  5. See Geach (1977).

  6. For example, see William L. Craig's “‘No Other Name’: A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ,”Faith and Philosophy 6 (1989): 172–188; also see Thomas P. Flint's “Middle Knowledge and the Doctrine of Infallibility,” in James E. Tomberlin (ed.),Philosophical Perspectives: Philosophy of Religion, vol. 5 (Atascadero, Calif.: Ridgeview Press, 1991), pp. 373–393, for a deft application of the doctrine of divine middle knowledge to contemporary concerns in philosophical theology. It is important to point out that, mimicking the manner in which Suarez responded to critics of middle knowledge, we also have open to us the option simply to claim that the ability to perform middle actions is an ultimate fact about God which requires no further analysis or explicit metaphysical grounding in terms of further non-counterfactual states of affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Thomas V. Morris and Christopher Menzel, “Absolute Creation,”American Philosophical Quarterly 23 (1989): 353–361.

    Google Scholar 

  8. For a penetrating critical examination of this issue, see Scott A. Davison's “Could Abstract Objects Depend Upon God?”Religious Studies 27 (1991): 485–497.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See Matthew 24:36.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, 46556, Notre Dame, IN, USA

    A. A. Howsepian

  2. Indiana University, 46615, South Bend, IN, USA

    A. A. Howsepian

Authors
  1. A. A. Howsepian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Howsepian, A.A. Middle actions. Int J Philos Relig 34, 13–28 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01316977

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01316977

Search

Navigation