This essay argues against David Fergusson’s assessments of Aquinas’ view on divine providence, highlighting key aspects of good and evil.
This essay constitutes a response to two criticisms of Thomas Aquinas’ account of divine providence which David Fergusson puts forward in his book The Providence of God: A Polyphonic Account . I first argue that on Thomas’ account, God does not determine good and evil with a ‘single divine intention’ (Ferguson 2018: 73). Instead, God’s will and activity are related to good and evil quite asymmetrically. I then argue, against Fergusson, that Thomas’ account of divine providence assigns a great role to the special and recognizable work of the Holy Spirit. I conclude by noting that Thomas’ account of providence addresses many of Fergusson’s own concerns in his constructive project.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nathaniel Hodson (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: