Resources on Middle Knowledge

Hopefully this blog is helpful on middle knowledge (middle knowledge tag) But here’s a bunch more resources.

Molina, Luis de, Alfred Freddoso

Molinism, Alfred Freddoso

A Molinist View of Election Or How to Be a Consistent Infralapsarian, by Ken Keatherly

Ducking Friendly Fire: Davison on the Grounding Objection, William Lane Craig

Middle Knowledge, Truth–Makers, and the "Grounding Objection", William Lane Craig

'Men Moved By The Holy Spirit Spoke From God' (2 Peter 1.21): A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Biblical Inspiration, William Lane Craig

"Lest Anyone Should Fall": A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Perseverance and Apostolic Warnings, William Lane Craig

Molinism and Romans 9, William Lane Craig

Grace, Actual and Habitual: A Dogmatic Treatise (especially chapter 3) , Joseph Pohle, Arthur Preuss

Natural Theology (especially book 2, chapter 4), by Bernard Boedder

A collection of tracts concerning predestination and providence, by John Plaifere, Christopher Potter, Laurence Womock, Thomas Goad, Louis Chéron

Sententias posts on Molinism, by Max Andrews

Public Disputation 4 on the Nature of God (especially 30 to 49), by James Arminius

Varieties of Accidental Necessity, by Thomas Flint

New Advent Entry on Molinism

Middle Knowledge entry on Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, By John D. Laing

"They Shall Never Perish": Possible Worlds and the Problem of Eternal Security, by Shandon Guthrie

The Hubner/Feinberg-Guthrie/Fishel Debate:Calvinism vs. Arminianism pt. 2 - On the Doctrine of Unconditional Election

The Hubner/Feinberg-Guthrie/Fishel Debate:Calvinism vs. Arminianism pt. 1 - On the Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints

Offline Resources

On Divine Foreknowledge (Part IV of the Concordia) by Luis de Molina

Divine Omniscience and Human Freedom by William Lane Craig

The Only Wise God by William Lane Craig

Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views edited by James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy

Four Views on Divine Providence edited by Stanley N. Gundry and Dennis W. Jowers

Divine Providence: The Molinist Account by Thomas P. Flint

Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach by Kenneth Keathley

Molinism: The Contemporary Debate by Ken Perszyk

'Was Arminius a Molinist?, Eef Dekker Is Molinism as Bad as Calvinism?, Jerry Walls

Comments

Godismyjudge said…
Sure, hope they are helpful.

God be with you,
Dan
January 25, 2013 at 11:43 AM
Anonymous said…
But the full text of Molina's work is online! I know a Spanish translation: http://www.filosofia.org/cla/mol/index.htm
January 25, 2013 at 4:54 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Great Resource!!! Thanks!

God be with you,
Dan
January 28, 2013 at 3:44 PM
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