Wiki page on Molinism

I upated the wikipedia page on Molinism.  This is my first time working on wikipedia so I will be interested to see if it stay's updated as the prior version seem to have been written by a Calvinist then updated by an Open Theist.  Anyways, I hope you enjoy it! 

Comments

bossmanham said…
I just briefly edited the Kalam cosmological argument, as it was obvious it had been made by some atheists, but it only lasted a few weeks until the page was completely overhauled and my edit completely dropped. Wikipedia isn't reliable in the least.
November 18, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks for the heads up. BTW, great work your doing on Arizona Atheist.

God be with you,
Dan
November 18, 2010 at 4:45 PM
bossmanham said…
Thanks. I read through the your article there on Wikipedia and I think it's far improved from before. I like how specific you were on the grounding objection. That solution needs to get out there.
November 18, 2010 at 11:56 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Right, it's important for other to see that the grounding objection has been answered.

But even if we had nothing useful to say against the grounding objection, I still think Molinism would be stronger than Compabible Determinism. It's kinda like the difference between a mystery and a contradiction. I would rather say I don't know what grounds middle knowledge then dive into the contradictions of compatiblism.

That the grounding objection has been answered is just icing.

God be with you,
Dan
November 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Toyin O. said…
Thanks for sharing.
November 24, 2010 at 7:26 PM
Godismyjudge said…
My pleasure Toyin!

God be with you,
Dan
November 24, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Michelle said…
Just found your blog and wanted to say "hi".

Years ago, I was first introduced to Calvinism, when a group of them (online) decided to try to win me over to their doctrine. At that time, I found NO counter-Calvinist arguments online. I even looked for Arminian arguments at that time and there was not a single page to be found from that perspective.

Recently, I've been learning about Calvinism again which lead me to look up Arminianism again. I've loved learning about this doctrine however, the whole eternal security issue has prevented me from fully embracing this doctrine. My recent discussions (okay...debate) with some Arminians about this topic was so disturbing to me, I almost felt it teetered on heresy. They firmly believed that one could lose their salvation and the only way to "keep" it is to not sin. This is clearly (in my eyes) a works-based salvation. Their argument was basically, "No, you don't work to get saved just to stay saved."

I said all of that, (like you wanted to hear it...sorry!) to say this. I found you blog by searching for Arminianism and eternal security. Do you have any blogs on this topic? I found one and you said you'd post more on the topic but I couldn't find the follow up's.

Blessings,
Michelle
December 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Michelle said…
P.S. My husband would LOVE your blog....Arminian AND a Dallas Cowboys! That's was a funny combination!
December 8, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi P31 Mom,

I was in the same boat (lacking non-Calvinist resources) when I first started digging into these issues. The lack of quality Arminian content is one of the main reasons for the arminians.org website and I do think it's by far the best Arminian resource ever (besides scripture).

Thanks for your kind words. Here are a few of my posts on eternal security:


http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/05/can-arminians-hold-to-eternal-security.html

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/05/can-vs-do-true-believers-apostatize.html

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/05/john-316-and-eternal-security.html

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/05/dont-let-me-get-me.html

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/05/sheepkeeper.html

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/06/predestination-and-eternal-security.html

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2010/02/friday-files-kennard-petrine-redemption.html


God be with you,
Dan

P.S. Your husband has good taste.
December 8, 2010 at 1:26 PM
odelia said…
Greetings, friend,

Hope you had a wonderful and Merry Christmas!Wishing you a great new year. Sorry your cowboys didnt have the best of football seasons -but there is always next year.

Blessings,
odelia
December 26, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Thanks Odelia! Hope you had a wonderful Christmas as well. Haven't had much time for blogging lately as I have been working on a number of home improvement projects. Hopefully I will back to it soon.

God be with you in the new year.
Dan
December 27, 2010 at 8:33 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more