-
-
Recent Posts
- Relating to people who identify as LGBT+, with grace and truth
- Free Will, Foreknowledge, and Necessity: Assessing an Incompatibilist Understanding
- Luke 23:34 and the salvation of the unevangelized
- Introducing Calvinism and Middle Knowledge: A Conversation
- The harmony of translating “torah” as “covenant obligation” with accessibilist soteriology
Recent Comments
- Raphel on First and second death: similarities and differences
- Ashawn Kelly on Melchizedek, Abraham, Muslims and worship of the One True God
- Ray Gibson on Luke 23:34 and the salvation of the unevangelized
- Terrance Tiessen on Who wrote/writes the script for the drama, ”The History of the World”?
- Willie Alexander on First and second death: similarities and differences
- Ali Dzayi on An Arminian understanding of election
- Whywesomean on On semi-Pelagianism in many Baptist churches
- Glen Shellrude on Who wrote/writes the script for the drama, ”The History of the World”?
Categories
Archives
Tag Cloud
accessibilism annihilationism Arminianism atonement autobiography baptism Calvinism coherence compatibilism conversion Daniel Strange death divine freedom election evangelism grace Gregory Boyd hell human freedom hypothetical knowledge incompatibilism Islam John Laing Michael Horton middle knowledge missions Molinism monergism N. T. Wright open theism original sin Paul Helseth prayer providence Robert Picirilli Roger Olson Ron Highfield salvation salvation of the unevangelized synergism theodicy Thomism traditionalism unevangelized William Lane CraigPages
Tag Archives: compatibilism
Calvinist perspectives on Molinism
The Logos Reformed Blog, moderated by Jesse Myers, ran a series of 5 posts by Nathanael P. Taylor regarding Molinism. I was invited to write a response to that series and I did so, in two posts. I chose not to respond to each of Taylor’s posts separately, and I did not critique Taylor’s understanding of Molinism (the philosophical theology originated by Luis de Molina), since I am not an expert in it myself. Rather, … Continue reading
“Mysterian compatibilism”: a third category
I have been in the practice of distinguishing two forms of compatibilism, hard and soft. Both are forms of soft-determinism, and they both assert that God’s meticulous control is compatible with creaturely moral culpability. They differ, however, in their account of how that compatibilism works. Thomism offers a version of hard compatibilism, which I call “hard” because it asserts that creatures are libertarianly free, but that this does not diminish God’s ability to meticulously control … Continue reading
Posted in Providence, Theology Proper
Tagged Calvinism, compatibilism, Greg Welty, human freedom, John Martin Fischer, Thomism
1 Comment
Hypothetical knowledge Calvinism and libertarian freedom
Thus far, I have responded to 5 criticisms leveled against hypothetical knowledge Calvinism in John Laing’s ETS paper in 2013: that it is vulnerable to the grounding objection that Calvinists and Open Theists bring against Molinism that it has an “odd notion of necessity/possibility” that it includes an “odd ontology of personhood” that it “flirts with fatalism,” and that its theodicy is less effective than that of Molinism or Arminianism In this final post of … Continue reading
Posted in Divine Knowledge, Providence, Theology Proper
Tagged Calvinism, compatibilism, divine freedom, human freedom, hypothetical knowledge, John Laing, Molinism, Thomism
1 Comment
The contribution of hypothetical knowledge Calvinism to our understanding of evil in the world chosen by the almighty and perfectly good God
Thus far, I have responded to 4 criticisms leveled against hypothetical knowledge Calvinism in John Laing’s ETS paper in 2013: that it is vulnerable to the grounding objection that Calvinists and Open Theists bring against Molinism that it has an “odd notion of necessity/possibility” that it includes an “odd ontology of personhood,” and that it “flirts with fatalism.” In this post, I address his concern that what I call “hypothetical knowledge Calvinism” does not effectively … Continue reading
Does hypothetical knowledge Calvinism flirt with fatalism?
Thus far, I have responded to 3 criticisms leveled against hypothetical knowledge Calvinism in John Laing’s ETS paper in 2013: that it is vulnerable to the grounding objection that Calvinists and Open Theists bring against Molinism that it has an “odd notion of necessity/possibility,” and that it includes an “odd ontology of personhood.” In this post, I will consider his concern that what I call “hypothetical knowledge Calvinism” flirts with fatalism (pp. 17-23). Laing observes … Continue reading
Does hypothetical knowledge Calvinism have an odd ontology of personhood?
In an ETS paper in 2013, John Laing critiqued Bruce Ware’s model of providence which is very much like my own “hypothetical knowledge Calvinist” model. In a long post on March 10, I explained why John Laing is wrong to think that hypothetical knowledge Calvinism is vulnerable to the grounding objection that Calvinists and Open Theists bring against Molinism. Next, I responded to his second criticism, that it has an “odd notion of necessity/possibility” (pp. … Continue reading
Does hypothetical knowledge Calvinism have an odd notion of necessity or possibility?
In a long post on March 10, I explained why John Laing is wrong to think that hypothetical knowledge Calvinism is vulnerable to the same grounding objection that Calvinists and Open Theists bring against Molinism. The second criticism Laing made of hypothetical knowledge Calvinism (in his Nov/13 ETS paper) was that it has an “odd notion of necessity/possibility” (pp. 8-11). Laing agrees with me that hypothetical knowledge Calvinism’s idea of constraints upon God in his … Continue reading
Is “hypothetical knowledge Calvinism” vulnerable to the same grounding objection which makes Molinism problematic?
At the ETS meeting in Baltimore in November/13, John Laing read a paper entitled “Middle knowledge and the Assumption of Libertarian Freedom: A Response to Ware.” Though Bruce Ware and I have never collaborated, we reached similar conclusions about the usefulness of God’s knowledge of counterfactuals in his deciding what world he would create, and I appreciate the work he has done. In Providence and Prayer, I had called my model of providence “middle knowledge … Continue reading
Choose your theological mystery or conundrum
If we hear most loudly in Scripture the description of a world in which God has given moral creatures significant control of how things turn out, why would we thank and glorify God when good things occur? But if we hear most loudly in Scripture the description of a world in which God has maintained meticulous control, why would we feel responsible when evil occurs rather than holding God accountable? The synergist conundrum “I would … Continue reading
Posted in Theological method, Theology Proper
Tagged coherence, compatibilism, monergism, mystery, synergism
5 Comments
Monergism/synergism, compatibilism/incompatibilism and the nature of human freedom.
Recently I have had some correspondence with a gentleman who has read a bit of what I have written and who has had questions. Among his recent inquiries was this one: Could you please explain to me the difference between compatibilism and monergism? Similarly, what’s the difference between synergism and libertarianism? I tried looking it up, but I can’t seem to really understand the differences in these concepts. His questions are common, and quite natural, given the complexity … Continue reading
Posted in Providence, Theology Proper
Tagged compatibilism, human freedom, incompatibilism, monergism, synergism
6 Comments