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?”
Abstract: This is a response to CARM’s article, “What is middle knowledge and is it Biblical? I will respond to the issues in the order they appear in CARM’s article: a faulty definition of middle knowledge, the belief that aseity means that God is “noncontingent”, the redefinition of aseity to mean that God cannot have … Continue reading CARM Fails Yet Again: A Response to CARM.org’s “What is middle knowledge and is it Biblical?”
Let Him Not Be Confused Forever: A Response to CARM.ORG’s “Prevenient Grace Fails as a Valid Option in Molinism”
This is an analytical inquiry of CARM’s article “Prevenient Grace Fails as a Valid Option in Molinism.” In his article, Matt Slick makes the claim that Molinists cannot appeal to prevenient grace because it is self-refuting. I argue that Slick is using idiosyncratic definitions of total depravity and prevenient grace and this results in the … Continue reading Let Him Not Be Confused Forever: A Response to CARM.ORG’s “Prevenient Grace Fails as a Valid Option in Molinism”
You’re Holding The Gun The Wrong Way!: A Response to CARM.org’s “Can God Cause a Person to Believe in Him?”
Abstract: This is a critical analysis of CARM.org’s article “Can God cause a person to believe in Him?” Matt Slick claims that on Molinism God cannot cause people to believe in Him, an assertion he takes to be obviously false and precluded by Scripture. I conclude that Slick doesn’t understand the difference between strong and … Continue reading You’re Holding The Gun The Wrong Way!: A Response to CARM.org’s “Can God Cause a Person to Believe in Him?”
An Unfortunate Evaluation of Compatibilism: A Response to CARM.org’s “What is Compatibilism and is it Biblical?”
Abstract: Philosophers and theologians alike are very interested in the view called compatibilism. Recently an article written by Matt Slick of carm.org released an article on this view, but it was unfortunately replete with mistakes. This article is a direct response to his and seeks to clarify what the view is, whether it is biblical, … Continue reading An Unfortunate Evaluation of Compatibilism: A Response to CARM.org’s “What is Compatibilism and is it Biblical?”
Abstract: This is a critical examination of CARM.org’s article “What is Libertarian Free Will and is it Biblical?,” which purports to define libertarian free will and demonstrate that it is not biblical. I conclude that Slick’s own definition is idiosyncratic and based on faulty research. It therefore fails to accurately represent the concept as currently … Continue reading A Biblical Bungle: A Response to CARM.org’s “What is Libertarian Free Will and is it Biblical?”