Abstract

The global Peter Lombard research reinaugurated in 1990s has resulted in a number of recent publications, but the Master of the Sentences’ theology proper is partially underreseached. In particular, a more detailed exposition of the distinctions 35-41 of his Book of Sentences is needed in order to clarify his doctrine of God’s knowledge and its relation to the human free will. The article builds on the earlier established evidence that, for Peter Lombard in distinctions 35-38, God’s knowledge, in general, is not causative, although some causative power has to be ascribed to God’s knowledge of the good. The last part of distinction 38 and the content of distinction 39 further analyze the capacities and functionalities of the divine omniscience and explain how it interacts with acts of human will. The key question here deals with the problem of alternative states of affairs: whether something may be otherwise than God foreknew. As it is shown, Master Peter agrees that it is possible for created things and events to be otherwise than they are, but insists that God’s knowledge must be in any case exhaustive and infallible. He uses a number of logical tools to defend the thesis about God’s perfect knowledge and the possibility of things happening otherwise, but lacks strict definition of the notion of “possibility” used here. The study concludes that in few cases Lombard’s posse could mean a potency or a simple logical possibility, or the diachronic contingency, but the overall theological statement is clear: potentially, God’s knowledge can be different or include alternative state of affairs but it cannot change.

Highlights

  • Peter Lombard’s literary and intellectual legacy has been studied rather diligently since the appearance of Marcia Colish’s magisterial two-volume monograph and Philipp Rosemann’s more accessive, yet rigorous studies [Colish 1994; Rosemann 2004; 2007]

  • As I have shown elsewhere [Tkachenko 2017: 27-28, passim] Lombard tends to see God’sknowledge as either his pure awareness of everything knowable or the awareness and actual willing of some future events. He denies that the divine knowledge per se causes anything: neither God’s knowledge causes these events to happen, nor are the happening events causes for God knowing them

  • God’s knowledge can be said to cause a thing to happen in a narrow sense only, when it is complemented by his voluntary action

Read more

Summary

Distinction 38

The distinctio 38 contains a triple discussion of (1) the allegedly causal character of the foreknowledge, (2) the mechanism and causes of the scientia divina, and (3) its supposed infallibility. God’s knowledge must be infallible and perfect by definition (thesis 1), but even from the logical standpoint, the hypothesis trying to prove its fallibility is wrong He agrees that it “is certainly possible for something not to happen” (Potest equidem non fieri aliquid) (thesis 2). The magister sententiarum refuses to give a simple answer and points out that such a complex phrase can have a number of meanings It can mean either “it can happen otherwise than God foreknew” (aliter potest fieri quam Deus praescivit), or “it is possible for what God foreknew not to be” (potest non esse quod Deus praescivit), or “it is impossible for what God foreknew not to be” (impossibile est non esse quod Deus praescivit), or “it is impossible for all things that happen not to be foreknown” (impossibile est non esse praescita omnia quae fiunt).

In Latin
Distinction 39: analyzing the power of God’s knowledge16
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call