A review and critique of Alvin Plantinga's views on the God’s Nature and Essence, and possibility of knowing it

This paper has been written with the aim of answering the following two questions: "Is it possible to know the God’s Essence in view of Alvin Plantinga? What are its strengths and weaknesses in this regard?" The findings of this paper are: In the Plantinga’s vocabulary network, essence and nature are used in the same sense; in view of Plantinga, God has absolute sovereignty over the universe. Plantinga has the following effects on this sovereignty: The simplicity of the Essence, the objectivity of the Essence and the Essence’s necessaries (which, of course, is accompanied by doubts from Plantinga's point of view) and the infinity of the Essence; After this, Plantinga proves the necessity of Essence or Nature for God and considers God’s Essence as the same as God’s Being. The lack of clarity in expressing the relationship between Essence and the necessity of Essence, as well as the lack of clarity in positions on his statements, is criticized. Finally, Plantinga rejects the belief that it is impossible to know Essence and accepts that man has the possibility of knowing God’s Essence; of course, there are other criticisms of his arguments, such as reducing theology to conceptual issues and presupposing the authenticity of the scriptures. This article collect data and analyze and critique them with descriptive-analytical method and uses library tools too.