I’ll be taking a look at the Will Duffy debate with Matt Slick on Open Theism. Will Duffy provided his opening statement on his website and I’ll be using that to criticize. I will not be responding to the whole … Continue reading Is Open Theism a Proper Representation of the God of Scripture? Matt Slick vs Will Duffy
Molinism is extremely popular amongst Christian philosophers. I don’t know why other than for their commitment to autonomy: Paul Helm: Natural and Free Knowledge Middle Knowledge Turretinfan: Molinism with TF Grounding objection Triablogue: How does God get the world he … Continue reading Molinism
I recently was listening to Dr. Flowers on his podcast talk about the issue of Omniscience and Determinism. This is just another video where Leighton finds a popular Calvinist to refute. These Calvinist are usually the same group of guys( Piper, Sproul, Mohler, MacArthur). He considers these the heavyweights of Calvinism. He usually goes after those that aren’t that philosophically trained with his more philosophical objections. These men are theologians and not really experts on philosophical theology. Why doesn’t he respond to the works of Paul Manata, Dr. Greg Welty, Dr. James Anderson, Dr. Paul Helm, or Dr. John Frame? … Continue reading Flowosopher
God’s Knowledge: In thinking about God’s knowledge theologically it was customary for many years, until and including the Reformation, to distinguish between God’s necessary knowledge and His free knowledge. The distinction is obvious and natural. God’s necessary knowledge includes several kinds of truths. It is the knowledge of matters such as the truths of mathematics (for example, 2+2=4). It is also the knowledge of truths such as the whole is greater than the part and no circle can be a square. God’s necessary knowledge also includes His knowledge of all possibilities, such as possible people, the possible lives they could … Continue reading Natural and Free Knowledge
This was a Paper written by Dr. Michael Czapkay Sudduth. I retrieved it from the Wayback machine and have reproduced it here. From: Philosophy of Religion Paper (May 14, 1994) Among the objections to the classical account of God’s eternality (according to which divine eternality is construed as timelessness or supratemporality) is that such a Being, a being who lacks all temporal location and extension, could not plausibly be viewed as an agent–could not coherently be thought of as bringing about various states of affairs, whether it be the bringing about the universe itself or any event within it. The … Continue reading Is “Timeless” Divine Action Coherent?
This was a Paper written by Dr. Michael Czapkay Sudduth. I retrieved it from the wayback machine and have reproduced it here. From: Oxford Tutorial Paper, February 16, 1994 In the present paper I want to consider whether, or to what extent, the theory of divine timelessness in the classical theist tradition resolves the apparent conflict between God’s omniscience and the future free actions of human agents. Simply put: Is divine foreknowledge compatible with human freedom, if it is assumed that God is a timeless being? After setting forth the prima facie incompatibility problem based on a libertarian view of … Continue reading Sudduth- Eternal Now
The Council 
You must be logged in to post a comment.