Question: Dear Tim, I just finished reading your “Dangerous Grounds” article and I could use a little clarification. Can you please further explain why it is that if God does not possess knowledge of creaturely freedom logically prior to his creative decree, then the only two options we are left with are open theism or “exhaustive … Continue reading A Box of Chocolates?
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?
I recently had the privilege of meeting the French Calvinist philosopher Guillame Bignon. Although I disagree with Bignon, in my opinion, he offers the best defense of Calvinism today. With that said, however, I wrote an essay critiquing a small portion of Bignon’s recent book. In response to my arguments, Hays quickly wrote a response … Continue reading Hays’d & Confused
Summary: In James White’s webcast of “The Dividing Line” entitled “William Lane Craig, the Lowered Bar, Molinism, and Erasmus” White argues that middle knowledge undermines God’s sovereignty. This essay argues that White’s criticisms either yield trivial conclusions, yield self-undermining premises, imply a viewpoint that is wholly unintelligible, inter alia. In light of these shortcomings, I … Continue reading Molinism and Creaturely Essences: A Response to James White
Question: Dear Tim, William Lane Craig suggests that God “has to play with the cards he’s dealt.” Tim, do you agree with that sentiment? If so, doesn’t that imply that there’s a “dealer” dealing God the cards which He must work with? -Sean Tim’s Response It amazes me how a single off-hand remark can be made … Continue reading Playing the Cards God’s Been Dealt
I recently had the pleasure of meeting the former atheist and French Calvinistic philosopher named, Guillaume Bignon (Click here to read his amazing story). I attended the EPS/ETS conference in Rhode Island and was invited to lunch with a few philosophers, theologians, and apologists. I happened to sit right next to Bignon as I was sipping … Continue reading Excusing Sinners, Blaming God, Compatibilism, & the Consequence Argument
One of the most common protests against Molinism today is a purely philosophical argument known as the “Grounding Objection.” This complaint is based on a controversial version of the correspondence theory of truth known as the theory of truth-makers. Accordingly, in order for a statement to be true, then there needs to be something else in … Continue reading Dangerous Grounds: The Grounding Objection vs Divine Determinism
Abstract: Mere Molinism, as properly understood, bears wide-reaching benefits to many apologetics arguments. This essay examines a well-known atheological argument dubbed as the Problem of Evil (both moral and natural versions) and applies Molinism to the various branches of apologetical arguments. The arguments within the scope of Molinism’s reach include the Freethinking Argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Moral Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument, … Continue reading The Apologetic Significance of Molinism
Recently a committed Calvinist sought to interact with me regarding the model I have offered showing how Molinism can be completely monergistic (See A Molinistic Model of Monergism). That is to say, the model of Molinism I have offered shows how God is the author of salvation from beginning to end and man plays no … Continue reading Objections to Molinistic Monergism