May 19th, 2014
I’ve been off of Facebook for a while [for several reasons] and apparently there is now a Molinist group. I don’t know how many people are in it but it’s nice for like-minded individuals to share and exchange ideas with one another (likewise, of course, interacting with opposing views).
I recently spent an afternoon with Tyler McNabb in Glasgow. Later that day Tyler sent me an email of encouragement. Part of it was below. Apparently, someone asked, “Just out of curiosity, how many here were introduced to Molinism by WLC?” Below are a few responses.
Dwight Stanislaw WLC and Max Andrews. Max led me to Keathley’s book, which was the first treatment on Molinism I’ve read. Now I’m reading Freddoso’s intro to Molina’s own work and it’s destroying every last brain cell I have left.
Chad Miller Dwight literally took the exact route I did. I was intrigued by WLC but still Calvinist. I got to know Max via social media and communicated a lot with him. I asked him THE book on Molinism that gave the best argument and he recommend S&S by Ken Keathley, and now I’m here in this group and shall remain as long as Facebook is around…
Jonathan Thompson WLC, Plantinga, and Max Andrews. I first came in contact with this view upon hearing WLC’s lecture “Is One True Religion Possible?”.
read more »
April 26th, 2014
My recent ebook is now on sale for it’s lowest price at $2.99. Because of the size and volume of content it won’t let me sell it for any cheaper. I’ve begun a recent interest in mental health: depression, anxiety, bipolar, anger, etc. and this is a combination of my work in existentialism for those who are or know someone struggling. I just want the material out there regardless of price.
If you believe you have a special circumstance, please email me: mlandrews[at]sententias[d0t]com. I’m more than willing to correspond and hear your story.
This book is for those who are hurting, suffering, and in pain. This can be physical, emotional, or spiritual. This book is also for those who are going through the pain with another person—the friend, the parent, the spouse, the sibling… My grandfather has survived several heart attacks, different cancers, and so many health problems. My grandmother said that she, as his wife, suffers with him. He doesn’t go through it alone.
This isn’t one of those books that’ll read, “You can do it!” or “You’re stronger than this!” In fact, I’m going to argue that you (all of us) are weak and you can’t do this thing called life, which entails much suffering for many of us, by yourself. You alone have meaning, purpose, and value. Do we, really? If we do have this intrinsic meaning, purpose, and value, then whence it came? Can a world without God still provide meaning, value, and purpose?
read more »
March 14th, 2014
Several months ago I was approached by an editor for a journal (Testamentum Imperium) requesting that I submit a paper. The theme of the issue is “Divine Sovereignty in Reformed Theology.” They are backlogged with some people having withdrawn before submission. I suspect I’ll be the token Molinist. Naturally, I’ll be offering a defense of a Molinist model of divine sovereignty. Below is the abstract for my paper titled, “The Sovereignty of God and Omnipotence”.
Abstract: The means by which God conducts his sovereign rein over creation has varied amongst theologians and philosophers of religion for centuries. I will argue that omnipotence is a modal function and is a bilateral means in conjunction with omniscience by which God sovereignly controls creation. Without having these two attributes (as well as goodness, love, etc.) functioning together then there are deleterious theological consequences for the actualization of states of affairs.
read more »
March 3rd, 2014
If we are pursuing truth then there are many means to discovering what the truth is [about God, reality, etc.]. It’s incredibly naïve to dismiss something because it is not in a preferred category. If we are pursing truth then it would be a category error to dismiss a challenging viewpoint simply because of categorically dismissiveness. Throwing words around like unbiblical, sub-biblical, and non-biblcal are rhetorical devices used in a debate when both parties (or more) believe that they are defending a biblical position. You may believe that something is one of the aforementioned categories but to continuously bring it up is quite the rhetorical effort, and I admit, probably effective to the listeners and debaters, but it doesn’t help and it’s simply annoying. The same thing goes for the claim of “meaningful exegesis” (some people may recognize that line). The two parties in the debate sincerely believe they are doing meaningful exegesis but it simply rhetoric and places the person categorically below the other one by trumpeting their position as being [the only] biblical position. It’s like political public opinion. If you repeat something long enough, be it true or not true, they’re going to start believing it (analogically speaking, the audience or listeners).
read more »
February 11th, 2014
Question: When I say, “Jonah,” what do you think of?
Historical Background: Eighth century B.C.—Jonah was a prophet from Israel (Northern Kingdom) called to preach repentance to Nineveh (Assyrian). Instead, he attempted to flee to Tarshish (Spain?). Jonah had many reasons not to like Nineveh.
- During Assyrian captivity they would torture. Their methods would be cutting the skin on the side of the body and peeling it off a live person.
- They would place bodies on spears for display.
read more »
December 14th, 2013
The Old Testament is a vastly misunderstood text of Scripture. Many atheists love to point to OT passages and denounce them for some reason or another. Likewise, many [liberal] Christians do the same or simply dismiss many OT passages. In my experience, most misunderstandings about the OT pertains to thee 613 commands in the OT Scriptures. For some reason, and I think due to a lack of understanding and bad exegesis, much of the OT law is dismissed. I’ve never actually come across an atheist who makes an objection to some OT passage whilst offering any exegetical argument or evidence. My intentions are to educate the ignorant pertaining to OT hermeneutics so Christians and non-believers alike may learn how to properly handle the text in an intellectually responsible fashion.
Here are a few [obscure] texts:
You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk. Ex. 34.26b
You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material. Lev. 19.19b
You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself. Deut. 22.12
We consistently violate OT laws.
You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD. Lev. 19.32
And the pig, because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. Deut. 14.8
read more »
November 21st, 2013
There are four literal interpretations of YOM (as even Dr. DeWitt concedes, cf. p. 73 in the textbook). The four definitions are 1) a portion of the daylight hours (2) the entire daylight segment of a twenty-four-hour day, (3) a twenty-four-hour day, and (4) a long but finite time period. Unlike the modern Hebrew and English, biblical Hebrew had no other word for a finite era or epoch. The figure of speech of “a day is like a thousand years” in 2 Pt. is a a simile, which is noncontroversial; I don’t advocate that 2 Peter permits that interpretation in Genesis. The four definitions of YOM are literal definitions; it’s unnecessary to say it’s non-literal (refer to my previously cited lexicons).
read more »
November 20th, 2013
Several years ago I was taking a [required] course that teaches creationism. I have a few comments about the course I’ll keep to myself [as in it shouldn't be in the university] but I think most readers know where I stand on university and academia issues and standards. I was asked the question, “Is it surprising that scientific evidence supports a young earth perspective?”
My response is simply that this is a loaded question. I don’t think I can say there’s no evidence for a young earth; however, I find the record of nature to support the proposition that the universe is old (billions of years) by overwhelming evidence. There is hardly any evidence for a young earth, if indeed there is any at all.
read more »