Dan Chapa

Francisco Marín-Sola advances an innovative alternative in the free will/determinism debate in the book, Do Not Resist the Spirit's Call: Francisco Marín-Sola on Sufficient Grace.  He claims his view is Thomism, and I certainly don’t deny that it could be a type of Thomism, though other Thomists like Lagrange are far more determinist than Marín-Sola.  In the spectrum, I would place it here: Since many theological systems have a flower acronym (TULIP, ROSES, DAISY, POINSETTIA…) I figured I would give Marín-Sola’s system the LOTUS. Lotus Laps of Man Foreknown but not Caused by God.   God foreknows the fall, but He does not cause it.  Man is the first cause of all sins. -  While all but Open Theists would agree the fall was foreknown, likely Calvinists and Thomists would object to the idea that man is the first cause of sin or anything else for that matter. Only by Grace.  God provides sufficient grace for all, which is a physical pre-motion always direc

Nathanael P. Taylor is posting a series on Molinism ( link ) Here’s his description of Molinism. In Molinism, it’s been true through all eternity past that if I were in a circumstance C, then I would have faith in Christ. Logically, this means that it was true prior to God choosing to create this actual world. However, this just happens to be true—it is a contingent truth. In other words, something different could have been true from all eternity past. The counterfactual that if I were in a circumstance then I would have faith in Christ could have either been truth or false. Suppose this counterfactual statement turned out true—you might ask, “What makes this counterfactual true or false?” And the answer is that nothing makes it true. The counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are just true from all eternity past and, oddly, nothing makes them true. God can’t make them true because that would mean God has control over the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, resembling Calvinism.

Turretinfan recently posted on Dr. Anderson’s argument that on Molinism God’s decrees are fallible, because we can choose otherwise than God decrees. ( link to Turretinfan’s post ; link to Dr. Anderson’s post ).  But Dr. Craig pointed out that if the person would have chosen otherwise, God’s decrees would have been different.  Dr. Anderson then called this solution a “special pleading” and argued Molinists should not be allowed to exclude God’s decree.  His supporting reasons were 1) God’s decree implies we will not do otherwise (he called this a relative logical necessity) and 2) God’s decree has causal consequences.  Turretinfan accepts Dr. Anderson’s arguments and adds that sometimes prophesies are self-fulfilling (i.e. a prophesied victory motivates troops to fight).     This is a complex business but fortunately the answer is simple.  Here’s a chart explaining Molinism: Dr. Anderson asks us to explain middle knowledg

James White recently discussed middle knowledge on the Dividing Line.  Here's an audio response:  Link