Molinist Gunslingers Redux: A Friendly Response to Greg Welty

Open access

Abstract

Philosopher Greg Welty contributed a chapter entitled ‘Molinist Gunslingers: God and the Authorship of Sin’, to a book devoted to answering the charge that Calvinism makes God the author of sin (Calvinism and the Problem of Evil). Welty argues that Molinism has the same problems as Calvinism concerning God’s relationship to sin, regardless of what view of human freedom Molinism may affirm. The Molinist believes that God generally uses his knowledge of the possible choices of libertarianly free creatures in order to accomplish his will. (This knowledge is typically categorized as residing within God’s middle knowledge.) But affirming libertarian freedom for humans, he argues, does not help in dealing with the question of God’s relationship to evil. Therefore, Molinism is no better than Calvinism, at least concerning this issue. In response to Welty, (1) I agree with him that Molinism does not have a moral advantage over what he calls ‘mysterian, apophatic’ Calvinism, but Molinists don’t claim that it does, and (2) I argue that, contra Welty, Molinism indeed does have a moral advantage over the Calvinist versions that do employ causal determinism. Welty does not take ‘intentions’ into consideration in his argument, and this is a serious flaw. In the libertarian model of Molinism, intent originates in the doer of evil. However, in the compatibilist model of causal determinism, ultimately God implants intent. Thus, adherents of causal determinism have difficulty not laying responsibility at the feet of God.

Craig WL (1988) The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingents from Aristotle to Suarez. Leiden: Brill.

Craig WL (2010) Molinism vs. Calvinism. Available from: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism.

Craig WL (2017) Is Molinism as Depressing as Calvinism? Available from: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/Is-Molinism-as-Depressing-as-Calvinism.

Edwards J (1957a) Freedom of the Will. In Ramsey P (ed) Works of Jonathan Edwards, volume 1. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Edwards J (1957b) Original Sin. In Holbrook CA (ed) Works of Jonathan Edwards, volume 3. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Feinberg J (2001) No One Else Like Him. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Gerstner J (1992) The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, volume 2. Orlando, FA: Ligonier.

Helm P (1994) The Providence of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Keathley K (2010) Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach. Nashville, TN: B & H Academic.

McGregor Wright RK (1996) No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Moreland JP (2002) Miracles, Agency, and Theistic Science: A Reply to Steven B. Cowan. Philosophia Christi 4(1): 139-160.

Olson R (2006) Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Picirilli R (2002) Grace, Faith, and Free Will. Nashville, TN: Randall House.

Piper J (1998) God’s Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Saucy R (1993) Theology of Human Nature. In Moreland JP and Ciocchi DM (eds) Christian Perspectives on Being Human: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Integration. Grand Rapids, IL: Baker, pp. 17-52.

Sproul Jr RC (1999) Almighty over All: Understanding the Sovereignty of God. Grand Rapids, IL: Baker.

Sproul Sr RC (1986) Chosen by God. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.

Walls J (1990) Is Molinism as Bad as Calvinism? Faith and Philosophy 7(1): 85-98.

Ware B (2004) God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Welty G (2016) Molinist Gunslingers: God and the Authorship of Sin. In Alexander D and Johnson DM (eds) Calvinism and the Problem of Evil. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, pp. 56-77.

Wright R (1994) The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology. New York, NY: Vintage.

Perichoresis

The Theological Journal of Emanuel University

Journal Information


CiteScore 2017: 0.05

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.138
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.159



Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 339 339 21
PDF Downloads 204 204 16