The Theological Journal of Emanuel University

Perichoresis

PerichoresisONL

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> Divine determinism, though affirmed by many Calvinists, implicates God in the decisions people make that ultimately damn them to the terrible destiny of hell. In this paper, the authors argue that this scenario is a problem for divine determinism. The article contends that determinism is inconsistent with God’s love and the Scriptures that explicitly state that God does not ‘desire’ anyone to go to hell. Even human love for others strongly suggests that God, who is ‘love’, will not determine anyone to hell. On the other extreme, those who argue for universalism, though appealing to Scripture, often do so with questionable exegesis.</abstract>

Abstract

Keywords

<article-title>Divine Determinism and the Problem of Hell</article-title>

Divine Determinism and the Problem of Hell

{"article-title":"Divine Determinism and the Problem of Hell"}

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> Molinism is founded on two ‘pillars’, namely, the view that human beings possess libertarian free will and the view that God has middle knowledge. Both these pillars stand in contrast to naturalistic determinism and divine determinism. In this article, however, the authors offer philosophical and theological grounds in favor of libertarian free will and middle knowledge.</abstract>

<article-title>Mere Molinism: A Defense of Two Essential Pillars</article-title>

Mere Molinism: A Defense of Two Essential Pillars

{"article-title":"Mere Molinism: A Defense of Two Essential Pillars"}

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> 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.</abstract>

<article-title>Molinist Gunslingers Redux: A Friendly Response to Greg Welty</article-title>

Molinist Gunslingers Redux: A Friendly Response to Greg Welty

{"article-title":"Molinist Gunslingers Redux: A Friendly Response to Greg Welty"}

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> Molinists generally see Calvinism as possessing certain liabilities from which Molinism is immune. For example, Molinists have traditionally rejected Calvinism, in part, because it allegedly makes God the author of sin. According to Molina, we ‘should not infer that He is in any way a cause of sin’. However, Greg Welty has recently argued by way of his Gunslingers Argument that, when it comes to God’s relationship to evil, Molinism is susceptible to the same liabilities as Calvinism. If his argument is successful, he has undercut, at least partially, justification for believing in Molinism. While I concede that Welty’s argument is successful in that it does undercut some justification for believing in Molinism, this concession does not entail that, as it relates to the problem of evil, the Calvinist and the Molinist are in the same epistemic position. In this article, I argue that, when it comes to God’s relationship to evil, the Molinist is in a superior epistemic situation to the Calvinist. I do this in two steps. First, I argue for what I call the Robust Felix Culpa Theodicy. Second, I argue that the Robust Felix Culpa Theodicy is incompatible with Calvinism.</abstract>

<article-title>Super Mario Strikes Back: Another Molinist Reply to Welty’s Gunslingers Argument</article-title>

Super Mario Strikes Back: Another Molinist Reply to Welty’s Gunslingers Argument

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> John Martin Fischer’s charge that Molinism does not offer a unique answer to the dilemma of divine foreknowledge and human freedom can be seen as a criticism of middle knowledge for begging the question of FF (foreknowledge and freedom)-compatibilism. In this paper, I seek to answer this criticism in two ways. First, I demonstrate that most of the chief arguments against middle knowledge are guilty of begging the question of FF-incompatibilism and conclude that the simple charge of begging the question cannot be as problematic as some suggest. Determinists and open theists incorporate FF-incompatibilist notions into their respective versions of the grounding objection, their conceptions of risk and libertarian freedom, and their requirements for divine foreknowledge. Thus, while I admit that Molinism does rely upon Ockhamist and Augustinian principles in its approach to the dilemma and is guilty of presupposing FF-compatibilism, I deny that this undermines its strength as a model of providence. Second, I argue that, although all models are guilty of question-begging moves, they are not all on par with one another. Molinism offers a more orthodox and robust approach to providence than open theism and process theology, and it handles empirical data (e.g., from science) better than all of its competitors.</abstract>

<article-title>Molinism, Question-Begging, and Foreknowledge of Indeterminates</article-title>

Molinism, Question-Begging, and Foreknowledge of Indeterminates

{"article-title":"Molinism, Question-Begging, and Foreknowledge of Indeterminates"}

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> Several philosophers and theologians (including Stump, Cross, Timpe, Keathley, and Evans) have attempted to formulate monergistic, soft libertarian accounts of salvation. These accounts hold that the sinner has the ability to either resist or to do nothing at all with God’s universally given saving grace, in which latter case God will save her. However, I wonder with Cyr and Flummer whether these accounts go far enough because the nonresistant sinner voluntarily remains quiescent and is therefore arguably praiseworthy. I aim to remedy this alleged weakness by formulating a possible account on which it never crosses the nonresistant sinner’s mind to resist, making her quiescence an involuntary omission. For all sinners whose minds it crosses to resist, they, on the proposed account, freely choose to resist. Combining Molinism with the scriptural notion of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, I proceed to explain why it may cross the mind of some sinners and not others to resist.</abstract>

<article-title>Monergistic Molinism</article-title>

{"article-title":"Monergistic Molinism"}

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html><head> <meta http-equiv=content-type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta content="mshtml 6.00.6000.17104" name=generator></head> <body> Perichoresis is covered by the following services: <UL><LI>ATLA Religion Database</LI><LI>Base d’information bibliographique en patristique / Bibliographic Information Base in Patristics (BIBP)</LI><LI>CEJSH (The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities)</LI><LI>CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)</LI><LI>CNPIEC - cnpLINKer</LI><LI>DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)</LI><LI>EBSCO (relevant databases)</LI><LI>EBSCO Discovery Service</LI><LI>ERIH PLUS (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences)</LI><LI>Google Scholar</LI><LI>Index Theologicus</LI><LI>J-Gate</LI><LI>JournalGuide</LI><LI>Microsoft Academic</LI><LI>Naviga (Softweco)</LI><LI>PhilPapers</LI><LI>Primo Central (ExLibris)</LI><LI>SCImago (SJR)</LI><LI>SCOPUS</LI><LI>Summon (ProQuest)</LI><LI>Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb</LI><LI>Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index</LI><LI>WorldCat (OCLC)</LI></UL></body></html>

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html><head> <meta http-equiv=content-type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta content="mshtml 6.00.6000.17104" name=generator></head> <body> Perichoresis ist in den folgenden Services indiziert: <UL><LI>ATLA Religion Database</LI><LI>Base d’information bibliographique en patristique / Bibliographic Information Base in Patristics (BIBP)</LI><LI>CEJSH (The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities)</LI><LI>CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)</LI><LI>CNPIEC - cnpLINKer</LI><LI>DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)</LI><LI>EBSCO (relevant databases)</LI><LI>EBSCO Discovery Service</LI><LI>ERIH PLUS (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences)</LI><LI>Google Scholar</LI><LI>Index Theologicus</LI><LI>J-Gate</LI><LI>JournalGuide</LI><LI>Microsoft Academic</LI><LI>Naviga (Softweco)</LI><LI>PhilPapers</LI><LI>Primo Central (ExLibris)</LI><LI>SCImago (SJR)</LI><LI>SCOPUS</LI><LI>Summon (ProQuest)</LI><LI>Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb</LI><LI>Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index</LI><LI>WorldCat (OCLC)</LI></UL></body></html>

<DIV align=left> Perichoresis is the theological journal of Emanuel University, the only government-accredited Baptist university in Europe. As an institution of higher learning, Emanuel University promotes a traditionally conservative and trinitarian theology, protestant and evangelical, which is reflected in the articles of the contributors who are part of its academic staff. Articles written by people who share different religious views are also welcome provided that they are scientifically argued and focused on academic issues. Perichoresis is published in conjunction with the "Ethics and Society" Research Centre, also part of Emanuel University, which allows for the dialogue between a specifically Protestant-Evangelical morality and the philosophy of contemporary society to take the shape of well-argued contributions for the journal. Perichoresis does not collect article processing charges (APCs) or submission charges. The journal has an editorial review policy for invited papers, as well as double blind peer review for non-invited articles. Why subscribe and read Perichoresis, the Theological Journal of Emanuel University, is the only Romanian Baptist academic review in the field of theology (and cognate subjects, such as philosophy, religious philosophy, ethics, and church history) published exclusively in English throughout Romania. As a scientific journal, Perichoresis has a double purpose: on the one hand, to introduce valuable academic contributions from the English-speaking world to the Romanian academy and, on the other hand, to promote Romanian theological research on the global academic market. Why submit Perichoresis focuses on academic papers in all fields of theology (biblical-exegetical, dogmatic-historical, and pastoral-practical) and is fully recognized by the Romanian National Council for Scientific Research as a B Category academic journal. Archiving Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in <A href="https://www.portico.org/">Portico</A> - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections. Plagiarism Policy The editorial board is participating in a growing community of <A href="https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/">Similarity Check System's</A> users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. </DIV>

Editor-in-Chief Corneliu C. Simuţ, Emanuel University, Romania Deputy/ Managing Editor Ciprian Simuţ, Emanuel University, Romania International Advisory Board Torrance Kirby, McGill University, Canada Frank A. James III, Biblical Theological Seminary, United States of America Hamilton Moore, Irish Baptist College, United Kingdom André A. Gazal, North Greenville University, United States of America Ábráhám Kovács, Debrecen Reformed Theological University, Hungary Joshua R. Farris, University of St. Mary of the Lake, United States of America Frank G. Bosman, Tilburg University, the Netherlands †James McMahon, Albert Ellis Institute, United States of America Editors Systematic Theology Paul Negruţ, Emanuel University, Romania Patristics and Classical Languages Marius D. Cruceru, Emanuel University, Romania Applied Theology Adrian Giorgiov, Emanuel University, Romania Old and New Testament Studies Aurelian Botica, Emanuel University, Romania Language Editors Eunicia Ile, Emanuel University, Romania Technical Editors Ciprian Simuţ, Emanuel University, Romania Contact <A href="mailto:perichoresis@emanuel.ro">perichoresis@emanuel.ro</A> Publisher De Gruyter Poland Bogumiła Zuga 32A Str. 01-811 Warsaw, Poland T: +48 22 701 50 15

<DIV align=left> Please submit your manuscripts to Perichoresis via email to: <A href="mailto:perichoresis@emanuel.ro">perichoresis@emanuel.ro</A> Open Access Statement The journal is an Open Access journal that allows a free unlimited access to all its contents without any restrictions upon publication to all users. <A href="https://sciendo-parsed-data-feed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/PERC/Open_Access_License.pdf">Open Access License</A> </DIV>

Cite Score

European Reference Index for the Humanities

SCImago Journal Rank

Source Normalized Impact per Paper

Volume 16 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018) Tome sixième: Celebrating 500 Years since the Reformation, 1518-2018. Contemporary Perspectives on Molinism. Theories, Responses to Objections, and Applications, Issue editor: Kirk R. MacGregor

Volume 16 (2018): Issue 3 (July 2018) Tome septieme: Celebrating 500 Years since the Reformation, 1518-2018. Teaching Leaders, Leading Teachers. Biblical and Historical Perspectives on Education and Leadership: Jeffrey M. Horner Issue editor: Jeffrey M. Horner

Volume 16 (2018): Issue 1 (April 2018) Tome cinquième: Celebrating 500 Years since the Reformation, 1518-2018. Insights into Contemporary Baptist Thought. Perspectives on European Baptist Theology and History, Issue editor: Toivo Pilli

Issues

Journal & Issues

Perichoresis

Search

Volume 16 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018)
Tome sixième: Celebrating 500 Years since the Reformation, 1518-2018. Contemporary Perspectives on Molinism. Theories, Responses to Objections, and Applications, Issue editor: Kirk R. MacGregor

Journal & Issue Details

Search

Articles

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo

Issues

Journal & Issues

Perichoresis

Search

Volume 16 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018)Tome sixième: Celebrating 500 Years since the Reformation, 1518-2018. Contemporary Perspectives on Molinism. Theories, Responses to Objections, and Applications, Issue editor: Kirk R. MacGregor

Journal & Issue Details

Search

Articles

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo

Volume 16 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018)
Tome sixième: Celebrating 500 Years since the Reformation, 1518-2018. Contemporary Perspectives on Molinism. Theories, Responses to Objections, and Applications, Issue editor: Kirk R. MacGregor