Archive for ‘Molinism’

August 7th, 2014

An Intro. to Molinism is now on Sale!

by Max Andrews

Screen Shot 2014-08-07 at 11.45.38 PMAn Introduction to Molinism is now on sale for a lower price of $2.99! If you haven’t yet, please share the word about the book and introduce people to this theological system/framework for understanding perfect being theology and providence. Due to the amount of content in the ebook this is the lowest Amazon will allow me to sell it for. However, this is a limited time so please spread the word!

An Introduction to Molinism (UK)

An Introduction to Molinism (US)

This ebook is designed to introduce Molinism and middle knowledge to those who are interested in it. This isn’t a tome intended to have answers to everything. Don’t forget about my Molinism Directory!

June 7th, 2014

Purchase “An Introduction to Molinism” Available Now!

by Max Andrews

Screen Shot 2014-06-06 at 10.31.48 PM

My new ebook is now available for a purchase of $4.99 (or currently £3.07)!

An Introduction to Molinism (UK)

An Introduction to Molinism (US)

Here’s the promotional benefit for you if you buy. It’s three easy steps:

  1. Buy the book
  2. Promote the book on social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.). Even if you didn’t like the book this step is still required. (Just screenshot your posts and tweets and send them to me.)
  3. Write a review on Amazon and be honest. If it’s rubbish then say so (I hope not, but if so, be kind!). If it’s good then say it’s good.

If you do all these steps and send me the screenshots of your social media promotions (email them to mlandrews@sententias.org) and then you’ll be entered into a drawing for three winners, each will receive a $10 Amazon Gift Card. So, you have the potential to get your money back and more! This time, instead of just one winner there will be three (“May the odds be ever in your favor!”).

This ebook is designed to introduce Molinism and middle knowledge to those who are interested in it. This isn’t a tome intended to have answers to everything. Here are the contents:

Preface: What You’re Getting Yourself Into…

Ch. 1: Beware: Philosophy!
Ch. 2: Middle Knowledge in a Nutshell
Ch. 3: Depravity and Libertarian Freedom
Ch. 4: Foreknowledge
Ch. 5: Hasker’s Theological Fatalism
Ch. 6: Providence by Knowledge
Ch. 7: The Dual Personal Experience
Ch. 8: Counterfactuals
Ch. 9: “They Would Have Believed…”
Ch. 10: Shards and the Potter
Ch. 11: Molinism in the Modern Discussion

June 3rd, 2014

New Book: An Introduction to Molinism

by Max Andrews


Screen Shot 2014-06-06 at 10.31.48 PMUPDATE: The book has been delayed for a few reasons but it should be out by Saturday or Sunday.

This Friday, 6 June 2014 I’ll be publishing my new book An Introduction to Molinism: Scripture, Reason, and All that God has Ordered. This ebook is designed to introduce Molinism and middle knowledge to those who are interested in it. This isn’t a tome intended to have answers to everything.

I attempt to render the coherence of middle knowledge. Molinism is the application of the doctrine of middle knowledge so soteriology, providence, etc. are peripheral in my discussion. This introduction primarily concerns middle knowledge and looks at perfect being theology, human depravity, human freedom, and divine freedom. All of this takes place in the discipline of philosophical theology, formulating concepts of God (miracles, prayer, etc.) based in revelation. Middle knowledge is derived from theological and rational reflection. In the book I argue for the legitimacy of philosophy and science and their proper place in hermeneutics and exegesis.

May 19th, 2014

The Spread of Molinism

by Max Andrews
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[1] 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?”.

March 14th, 2014

Upcoming Paper on Divine Sovereignty and Omnipotence

by Max Andrews

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.

March 3rd, 2014

The Problem of Bad “Biblical” Rhetoric

by Max Andrews

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).

September 3rd, 2013

Theological Elites and Their Dismissiveness of “Philosophy”

by Max Andrews

Screen Shot 2013-09-03 at 11.01.34 AMFar too often I find Christians dismissing something because it’s “philosophy” and not from the Bible, a creed, a confession, etc. In my experience, many people tend to accuse Molinism as philosophy. To follow this brief tangent, middle knowledge and Molinism isn’t a philosophical grid being laid over Scripture; rather, it’s a derivation of a commitment to certain principles already obtained from Scripture. (See The Molinism Directory for more on that issue.) Well, it just happens to be the case that I saw a tweet yesterday making this same claim about Molinism being philosophy. (This particular tweet simply categorizes Molinism as philosophy but it’s still dismissed in the long chain of preceding and succeeding tweets.)

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 Molinism simply because it’s philosophy (according to the person making the claim). Feel free to disagree with Molinism but do so on a consistent basis and refute it via Scriptural witness, theological reflection/considerations, logical and metaphysical consistency, etc.

May 21st, 2013

Jesus, Transworld Damnation, and Molinism

by Max Andrews

The Matthean account of Jesus pronouncing judgment on the cities of Choarzin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum may be found in Matthew 11.20-24.  This passage of Scripture contains a historical context of six particular cities that were condemned for their depravity.  The following contains a grammatico-historical examination of the text, which is an example of the doctrine of revelatory judgment applied, a verse often used to support the soteriological problem of evil, and is a problem passage for the doctrine of transworld damnation.  The purpose of Jesus’ pronouncement of judgment on these cities was to convey the depravity of man.

Before any critical examination of the text can be made a conclusion on the genre must be established.  The book of Matthew is a Gospel, which is a genre in and of itself.  Many studies performed in modern scholarship of the Gospel literature link the Gospels with Hellenistic biography.[1]  Hellenistic biographers did not feel compelled to include all periods of an individual’s life or to narrate in chronological order.  The selected events were carefully ordered to promote a particular ideology.[2]  In slight contrast to Hellenistic biographies, Robert Guelich proposes formal and particular genera for the Gospels:

Formally, a gospel is a narrative account concerning the public life and teaching of a significant person that is composed of discreet [sic] traditional units placed in the context of Scriptures… Materially, the genre consists of the message that God was at work in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection effecting His promises found in the Scriptures.[3]

May 6th, 2013

Q&A 21: John 6, Calvinism, and Free Will Revisited

by Max Andrews

Question:

Hey! My name is Josh. I’m a young college student by day (and christian apologist by night, jokes). But in my personal life, apologetics is important to me.

Aside from that, I have a question I think you could help me with. I’m a Calvinist (hold the tomatoes) because I think, Biblically, it’s the most accurate putting together of scriptural truth (basically the best systematic theology). My problem is this:

Total Inability and free will. How are we morally responsible if we cannot choose otherwise? And since no one seeks God (Romans) and no one can come to Christ unless the Father brings them (John 6), how is it that we can really talk about free will? How would this be the best possible world where most free creatures choose Christ, when they cannot choose Him unless He first removes their inability? It seems that it doesn’t matter what world God created becaue technically speaking, He could remove the inability from all people, resulting in everyone freely choosing Christ. I hope my questions make sense. I’m eager to hear your response.

April 29th, 2013

Grounding the Grounding Objection

by Max Andrews

The grounding objection asks the question: By what means or grounds does God know what he knows (particularly middle knowledge)?

Suppose I have an argument similar to the grounding argument from the grounding objection claiming that contingent truths are not self-explanatory but must simply exist, from all eternity, as an ungrounded, metaphysical surd.  How would I, as a Molinist, respond?

This objection is merely the result of misunderstanding the means by which God knows what he does.  God’s knowledge is wholly intuitive and relies on no existent entity and is completely compatible with divine aseity.  According to Luis de Molina,

God does not get his knowledge from things, but knows all things in himself and from himself; therefore, the existence of things, whether in time or eternity, contributes nothing to God’s knowing with certainty what is going to be or not to be… For prior to any existence on the part of the objects, God has within himself the means whereby he knows all things fully and perfectly; and this is why the existence of created things contributes no perfection to the cognition he has of them and does not cause any change in that cognition… [And] God does not need the existence of those things in his eternity in order to know them with certainty.[1]