Divine causality and human free choice : : Domingo Báñez, physical premotion, and the controversy de Auxiliis revisited / / Robert Joseph Matava.

• Superior document: Brill's Studies in Intellectual History, Volume 252
• VerfasserIn: Matava, Robert Joseph,
• Place / Publishing House: Leiden, Netherlands ;, Boston, Massachusetts : : Brill,, 2016.; ©2016
• Year of Publication: 2016
• Language: English
• Series: Brill's studies in intellectual history ; Volume 252.
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (377 p.)
• Notes: Description based upon print version of record.
• Other title: Preliminary Material /; Prologue /; 1 An Historical Introduction to the Controversy de Auxiliis /; 2 Domingo Báñez on Divine Causality and Human Free Choice /; 3 Domingo Báñez’s Critique of Molina /; 4 Luis de Molina’s Critique of Báñez /; 5 Physical Premotion or Aristotelian Premotion? The Proposal of Bernard Lonergan /; 6 Creation, Causal Priority and Human Freedom: Revisiting Thomas Aquinas /; 7 God Creates Human Free Choices: An Explanation and Defense /; Epilogue /; Select Bibliography /; Index /
• Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references and index.
• ISBN: 9004310312
• ISSN: 0920-8607
• Hierarchical level: Monograph
• Statement of Responsibility: Robert Joseph Matava.

In Divine Causality and Human Free Choice , R.J. Matava explains the idea of physical premotion defended by Domingo Báñez, whose position in the Controversy de Auxiliis has been typically ignored in contemporary discussions of providence and freewill. Through a close engagement with untranslated primary texts, Matava shows Báñez’s relevance to recent debates about middle knowledge. Finding the mutual critiques of Báñez and Molina convincing, Matava argues that common presuppositions led both parties into an insoluble dilemma. However, Matava also challenges the informal consensus that Lonergan definitively resolved the controversy. Developing a position independently advanced by several recent scholars, Matava explains how the doctrine of creation entails a position that is more satisfactory both philosophically and as a reading of Aquinas.