Talk:Molinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

It might be noteworthy to add the "Grounding Objection" to the list of criticisms of the Molinist Position. Full details with Molinist response are avaliable in Divine Providence: The Molinist Account by Thomas Flint. See also William Lane Craig's article: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grounding.html

--- thetiger@theologyweb.com

I added the “Grounding Objection” and got rid of the “halting objection”. The halting theory makes no sense in regards to a God who has exhaustive infinite knowledge and is also timeless according to most theories. The “Grounding Objection” is directly geared towards Molinism. I also added William Lane Craig’s response to the “Grounding Objection”.

--- rtmullins@gmail.com

[edit] I have made this easier to read.

This was readable if you already know what is being discussed. I reduced the amount of parentheses, and made the synax more staightforward. The content was not changed let me know what you think. Revert it if you think that the change was not helpful. Usually, I discuss before changing, but it does not look life there is a lot of discussion here. Thanks Christian Askeland 16:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I expanded the criticism section to more fully reflect arguments against Molinism. I'm not sure that either the response to criticism or the reponse to response belong there, but rather than take the former out, I added the latter.