James White responded to my article Molinism and Creaturely Essences: A Response to James White (Part 1) over Twitter. Here is the link where you can read White’s response to my essay: https://twitter.com/freethinkmin/status/960528913524019201. Just in case White’s Twitter comment is compromised, I shall reproduce White’s statement below. He states: “Classic example of missing the point due to … Continue reading James White, Molinism, & Trivial Conclusions
Summary: In The Dividing Line episode Behold the Secular Woman & WLC on Molinism (Once Again) James White argues that Molinism lacks the explanatory resources to sufficiently answer what determines the truth value of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (hereafter, CCFs). In this essay I highlight an ambiguity in White’s use of the word ‘determine’. I then address his objection, … Continue reading Responding to James White’s Anti-Molinist Critiques: The Truthmaker-Style Grounding Objection
Summary: In The Dividing Line episode Behold the Secular Woman & WLC on Molinism (Once Again) James White argues that if Molinists are anti-realists about abstract objects, then they cannot consistently affirm that middle knowledge demarcates the range of feasible worlds available for God to create. This is because, according to White, counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (hereafter, CCFs) must … Continue reading Responding to James White’s Anti-Molinist Critiques: Abstract Objects
A Response to the Grounding Objection: Adams, Zambrano, and Cowen—the Contemporary Debate on Molinism
Abstract: The grounding objection (GO) looms large as the principal objection against Molinism. Among the two main types of GOs lie the truthmaker-style GO that seeks to repudiate the Molinist claim of the truths of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (CCF) by virtue of the lack of metaphysical groundings of those CCFs. As will be demonstrated … Continue reading A Response to the Grounding Objection: Adams, Zambrano, and Cowen—the Contemporary Debate on Molinism
Summary: In The Dividing Line episode Behold the Secular Woman & WLC on Molinism (Once Again) James White argues that Molinism is false because it prohibits God from creating creaturely essences. Here, I offer several interpretations of White’s argument and demonstrate that regardless of which interpretation White prefers his argument can be shown to have an unargued premise. Video … Continue reading Responding to James White’s Anti-Molinist Critiques: Creaturely Essences
Summary: In the March 11, 2014 episode of The Dividing Line, James White offers an analysis of the discussion between Dr. William Lane Craig and Professor Paul Helm on the topic “Molinism vs. Calvinism,” which originally aired January 4, 2014. I conclude that White doesn’t actually offer an analysis so much as uses an incredulous … Continue reading Response to James White on the Unbelievable William Lane Craig and Paul Helm Discussion
Summary: Although the apologist James White has argued against Molinism by accusing it of denigrating the sovereignty of God, failing to countenance the card-dealer objection, and being unbiblical, this essay will demonstrate that White’s arguments seem to be poorly elaborated and are invalid. Moreover, White fails to provide any meaningful alternative that makes sense of … Continue reading Molinism and Creaturely Essences: A Response to James White (Part 2)
Consider the following popular objection to Molinism: “Molinism stipulates that the truth-value of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are logically prior to the divine creative decree. Since their truth value is logically prior to the divine creative decree, then it follows that their truth value is not caused1 by God (i.e. it is not the result … Continue reading Do Counterfactuals of Creaturely Freedom Undermine God’s Omnipotence?
Last year, Tim Stratton proposed an outline for “Mere Molinism.” The concept is essentially that Molinism rests upon two fundamental pillars to which all Molinists agree while other components of Molinism are ancillary and can be disagreed upon by Molinists. The two pillars are: 1- God eternally possesses middle knowledge. 2- Humans possess libertarian free … Continue reading A Third Pillar for Mere Molinism?
Summary: In Matt Slick’s “Why Write About Molinism?” he raises two major complaints. The first is that Molinism is eisegetical. I understand Slick’s second complaint to be that the Molinist hermeneutic undermines sola scriptura. Here I argue that Molinists who are consistently committed to the idea that Molinism is underdetermined by Scripture cannot possibly be … Continue reading Does Molinism Undermine Sola Scriptura?: A Response to CARM.org’s “Why Write About Molinism?”