What is Molinism, and who is it named after?

Molinism is a theological position named after the 16th-century Spanish Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina. It primarily seeks to reconcile the concepts of divine providence and human free will by proposing that God possesses 'middle knowledge'.

What is the central thesis of Molinism regarding God's knowledge?

The central thesis of Molinism is that God possesses 'middle knowledge' (scientia media), which is the knowledge of counterfactuals, particularly those concerning the free actions of human beings. This knowledge allows God to know what free creatures would do in any given circumstance.

How does Molinism attempt to resolve the tension between divine providence and free will?

Molinism proposes that God's middle knowledge allows Him to know what free creatures would do in any given circumstance. By actualizing a world where He knows creatures will freely choose certain actions, God can ensure His providential plan is fulfilled without overriding human freedom.

What are the three logical moments of God's knowledge as understood by Molinists?

Molinists describe God's knowledge in three logical moments: 1) Natural Knowledge, which pertains to necessary truths and logical possibilities; 2) Middle Knowledge, which concerns counterfactuals of creaturely freedom; and 3) Free Knowledge, which encompasses the contingent truths God actualizes through His will.

What constitutes God's 'natural knowledge' in Molinism?

God's natural knowledge includes all necessary truths and logical possibilities that are independent of God's will. Examples include mathematical truths or logical principles like the law of non-contradiction.

What is 'middle knowledge' according to Molinism?

Middle knowledge, or scientia media, is God's knowledge of what free creatures would freely choose to do in any possible circumstance. These are truths about what *would* happen under specific conditions, not necessarily what *will* happen or what God decrees.

How does Molinism define 'free knowledge'?

Free knowledge refers to the contingent truths that are dependent on God's will and that God actively brings about. This includes the actual state of the world and future events that God has decreed.

What biblical passage is often cited by Molinists as evidence for middle knowledge?

Molinists often cite Matthew 11:23, where Jesus speaks about what would have happened in Sodom if the mighty works done in Capernaum had been done there. This is interpreted as God knowing what the Sodomites would have done in a different, hypothetical situation.

How do Molinists interpret Jesus' statement in Matthew 11:23 regarding Sodom?

Molinists interpret this statement as God knowing that if the Sodomites had been presented with Jesus' miracles and ministry, they would have responded differently, potentially leading to their repentance and the city's continued existence. This demonstrates God's knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

How does Molinism distinguish middle knowledge from simple foreknowledge?

Molinism distinguishes middle knowledge as God's knowledge of what free creatures *would* do in various circumstances, which is logically prior to God's decree to create the world. Foreknowledge, in contrast, is simply knowing what *will* happen.

What is the logical ordering of God's knowledge according to Molinism?

The logical order is: 1) Natural Knowledge (necessary truths), followed by 2) Middle Knowledge (counterfactuals of creaturely freedom), then the act of Creation, and finally 3) Free Knowledge (actual contingent truths).

Why is the placement of middle knowledge *before* God's creative decree considered crucial in Molinism?

Placing middle knowledge before the decree of creation is crucial because it allows God to know how free creatures would act in various circumstances *before* He actualizes a specific world. If middle knowledge were placed after the decree, God might be seen as causing those actions, thereby undermining libertarian freedom.

According to William Lane Craig, what would happen if God's decree were logically prior to His middle knowledge?

Craig argues that if God's decree preceded His middle knowledge, it would make God the author of sin and obliterate human freedom, as God would be decreeing which counterfactuals about creaturely free acts are true.

How does Molinism address the concept of salvation in relation to God's sovereignty and human freedom?

Molinism suggests God can elect individuals for salvation by actualizing a world where He knows they would freely choose to believe in Christ in response to His grace. This allows for both God's sovereign plan and genuine human free choice in salvation.

How does Molinism's view on election differ from Calvinism's?

Molinism posits that God's sovereign election is based on His middle knowledge of who would freely respond to Him in faith. This contrasts with Calvinism's concept of unconditional election, where God elects individuals independently of any foreseen free will response.

What is the key difference between Molinism and Arminianism regarding God's knowledge of human choices?

Both Molinism and Arminianism agree that God definitively knows how individuals would react to the Gospel. However, Molinism specifically grounds this knowledge in God's 'middle knowledge' of counterfactuals, a concept not typically employed by Arminian theology.

What does the acronym ROSES represent in the context of Molinism, as devised by Timothy George?

ROSES stands for Radical Depravity, Overcoming Grace, Sovereign Election, Eternal Life, and Singular Redemption, summarizing key tenets of Molinism.

How does Molinism's 'Sovereign Election' differ from Calvinism's 'Unconditional Election'?

Molinism's Sovereign Election is conditional upon God's middle knowledge of who will freely respond to Him, whereas Calvinism's Unconditional Election means God elects individuals irrespective of any foreseen response.

What was the historical debate between Molinists and Dominicans concerning?

The debate, which began in 1581, concerned differing understandings of God's foreknowledge and the nature of predestination, particularly the role of grace and human free will in salvation. Jesuits advocated Molinism, while Dominicans adhered to Thomism.

What are some of the 'other implications' of Molinism discussed in the text?

Thomas Flint explored implications of Molinism for concepts such as papal infallibility, prophecy, and prayer. William Lane Craig has used it to reconcile scriptural passages on apostasy with the security of believers, as well as for divine providence, predestination, and biblical inspiration.

What biblical texts did Luis de Molina himself cite to support his doctrine?

Luis de Molina cited 1 Samuel 23:8-14, Proverbs 4:11, and Matthew 11:23 as biblical support for his doctrine of middle knowledge.

What is the primary criticism leveled against Molinism, known as the 'grounding objection'?

The grounding objection questions the metaphysical basis for the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, arguing that there are no 'truth makers' to ground such statements if the creature is truly free.

According to Hugh J. McCann, why is it difficult for God to possess middle knowledge?

McCann argues that God cannot have justification for middle knowledge propositions because they are contingent and not a priori knowable. He also contends that God cannot learn them by observation without already knowing His creative decisions, which would defeat the purpose of middle knowledge.

What is the Molinist response to the grounding objection regarding the truth of counterfactuals?

Molinists like William Lane Craig argue that counterfactuals are true if events *would* occur under specified conditions, not necessarily if they *actually* occur. They also place the burden of proof on critics to demonstrate that such counterfactuals lack truth-makers or to provide an alternative theory of truth.

How does Molinism attempt to reconcile scriptural warnings of apostasy with the doctrine of the security of believers?

Molinism uses the concept of middle knowledge to explain this. God knows that if a believer were placed in certain circumstances, they might freely fall away. However, God's providential plan, informed by middle knowledge, ensures that believers are placed in circumstances where they will persevere in faith.

What is the core difference in how Molinism and critics view the relationship between knowing a free choice and the choice itself?

Critics argue that knowing how someone will freely choose requires observing the choice being actualized, implying that if God knows it beforehand, the choice isn't truly free. Molinists counter that a choice can be free yet knowable beforehand, and that limiting God's knowledge in this way is problematic.

What is the significance of 'counterfactuals of creaturely freedom' in Molinism?

These are statements about what a free creature would do under specific hypothetical circumstances. Molinism posits that God possesses knowledge of these counterfactuals, which forms the basis of His middle knowledge.

Who are some prominent contemporary proponents of Molinism mentioned in the article?

Prominent contemporary Molinists include William Lane Craig, Alfred Freddoso, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Bergmann, Thomas Flint, Kenneth Keathley, Dave Armstrong, John D. Laing, Timothy A. Stratton, Kirk R. MacGregor, and J.P. Moreland.

What is the Molinist view on 'overcoming grace' as summarized in the ROSES acrostic?

Molinism's 'Overcoming Grace' suggests that God's grace overcomes man's radical depravity, but unlike irresistible grace, man can still respond to it, implying a degree of libertarian freedom in accepting or rejecting grace.

How does Molinism's 'Singular Redemption' differ from the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement?

Molinism's 'Singular Redemption' views Christ's atonement as sufficient for all people but applicable only to the elect, which is a modified version of Limited Atonement. This differs from the Calvinist view where the atonement is specifically intended for and effective only for the elect.

What does Molinism's 'Eternal Life' tenet imply about believers?

The 'Eternal Life' aspect of the ROSES summary indicates that Molinism holds to the perseverance of the saints, meaning that those who are regenerate and justified will not ultimately fall away from their state of salvation.

What is the 'grounding objection' in relation to Molinism?

The grounding objection is a criticism that questions the metaphysical basis for the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, arguing that there are no underlying realities or 'truth makers' that make these conditional statements true if the creature is genuinely free.

What is the Molinist argument regarding God's knowledge of counterfactuals and the possibility of sin?

Molinists argue that if God's decree of creation were logically prior to His middle knowledge, He would be the author of sin. Therefore, middle knowledge must be logically prior to the decree to preserve human freedom and avoid making God responsible for evil choices.

What is the role of 'possible worlds' in Molinism?

Molinists believe that God, using His middle knowledge, surveys all possible worlds and the free choices creatures would make within them, enabling Him to select and actualize the world that best fulfills His purposes.

What does the Molinist view imply about God's planning for the future?

Without middle knowledge, Molinists argue, God would know the future but lack a logical prior planning mechanism for it. Middle knowledge provides this planning capability by informing God's creative decrees.

What is the 'Congregatio de Auxiliis'?

The Congregatio de Auxiliis was a committee established by Pope Clement VIII in 1597 to settle the theological controversy between the Jesuits (advocating Molinism) and the Dominicans regarding divine grace, predestination, and free will.

What is the Molinist perspective on 'probable counterfactuals'?

Some critics suggest that instead of absolute counterfactuals, God knows probable counterfactuals (e.g., 'X would *probably* do A'). However, the text notes that probable counterfactuals also face the grounding objection.

How does Molinism relate to the concept of 'theodicy'?

By allowing for genuine creaturely freedom and knowing the counterfactual outcomes of various choices, Molinism provides a framework for theodicy, explaining how God can permit evil actions without being their direct cause, as part of a larger providential plan.

What is the Molinist view on the certainty of future free actions?

Molinists believe that future free actions are certain in the sense that God knows with certainty what a free creature *would* do in any given circumstance, even if that circumstance is not actualized. This knowledge is considered true and certain, forming the basis of middle knowledge.

What is the significance of the 'grounding objection' for the truth of counterfactuals?

The grounding objection challenges whether counterfactual statements about free choices can be true if there's no underlying reality or 'truth-maker' that guarantees their truth, especially if the choice is genuinely free and not predetermined.

How does Molinism reconcile God's omniscience with the existence of genuine libertarian freedom?

Molinism reconciles these by proposing that God's omniscience includes middle knowledge, which allows Him to know what free creatures would do in any situation. This knowledge is not causal, thus preserving libertarian freedom while maintaining God's complete awareness.

What is the Molinist interpretation of biblical passages that seem to indicate God's direct causation of events, including evil?

Molinists interpret such passages in light of their understanding of God's providential plan, which incorporates creaturely free choices known through middle knowledge. God may decree circumstances that lead to certain outcomes, but He does not directly cause the free choices themselves.

What is the Molinist view on the relationship between God's knowledge and His decrees?

Molinism places God's middle knowledge logically prior to His decree of creation. This means God consults His knowledge of what creatures would freely do before deciding which world to actualize, thereby grounding His decrees in His knowledge of creaturely freedom.

What is the core argument against Molinism that focuses on the 'truth-makers' for counterfactuals?

The core argument is that for a statement to be true, there must be some reality that makes it true. Critics question what 'truth-maker' could exist for a counterfactual statement about a free creature's choice, especially if that choice never actually occurs or is not predetermined.

How does Molinism explain God's knowledge of the future without compromising human freedom?

Molinism explains this through God's middle knowledge, which encompasses knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. God knows what free creatures would do in any given circumstance, and based on this knowledge, He actualizes a world that aligns with His providential plan, thereby incorporating free choices into His foreknowledge.

What is the Molinist perspective on 'Radical Depravity' as part of the ROSES summary?

The 'Radical Depravity' tenet of Molinism affirms that human nature is thoroughly corrupted due to the fall, rendering individuals incapable of saving themselves without divine intervention.

What does the Molinist tenet of 'Eternal Life' imply about believers?

The 'Eternal Life' aspect of the ROSES summary indicates that Molinism holds to the perseverance of the saints, meaning that those who are regenerate and justified will not ultimately fall away from their state of salvation.

What criticism is raised against Molinism regarding its view of God's knowledge as potentially 'passive'?

Thomists criticized Molinism's concept of middle knowledge, suggesting it implies a passivity in God's knowledge that is contrary to His nature as Pure Act (actus purus), a concept central to Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy.

What is the Molinist response to the criticism that their view borders on Semi-Pelagianism?

Molinists maintain that their view upholds God's sovereignty by grounding His actions in His middle knowledge of creaturely responses, thus avoiding the Pelagian emphasis on human ability independent of grace, while still affirming genuine human freedom.

Molinism Wiki: Molinism: Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

God's Types of Knowledge

Natural Knowledge

This encompasses all necessary truths, independent of God's will. It includes the full range of logical possibilities, such as statements of logic (e.g., "A cannot be both A and not-A") and the fundamental laws of existence.

Middle Knowledge

This is the core of Molinism. It is God's knowledge of what free creatures would do in any possible circumstance. These are contingent truths that are not caused by God's will but are known by Him. For example, God knows that if a specific person were placed in a particular situation, they would freely choose a certain action.

Free Knowledge

This comprises the contingent truths that are dependent on God's will and actions. It includes what God actively chooses to bring about, such as the creation of the world and the specific events that occur within it. This knowledge encompasses the future as God has decreed it.

Knowledge of Counterfactuals

The Nature of Counterfactuals

A counterfactual statement is of the form: "If it were the case that P, then it would be the case that Q." Molinism posits that God possesses knowledge of these conditional truths, particularly concerning the free actions of creatures, even if those conditions are never actualized.

A classic example illustrates this: "If John Laing were given the opportunity to write an article on middle knowledge for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he would freely choose to do so." Molinists argue God knows this truth, even if John Laing never actually writes that article.

Logical Order of Divine Knowledge

Molinists propose a specific logical sequence for God's knowledge:

God's Natural Knowledge (necessary truths).
God's Middle Knowledge (counterfactuals of creaturely freedom).
God's Decree of Creation (actualizing a world based on His middle knowledge).
God's Free Knowledge (the actual state of affairs).

This order is crucial to maintain both divine sovereignty and libertarian human freedom.

Theological Implications

Providence and Salvation

Molinism offers a framework for understanding divine providence and salvation. God, using His middle knowledge, can actualize a world where He knows individuals will freely respond to His grace and choose salvation. This preserves God's foreknowledge and sovereign plan without negating human free will.

Molinism vs. Calvinism & Arminianism

Molinism seeks a middle ground. Unlike Calvinism's unconditional election, Molinism posits election based on God's foreknowledge of who would freely choose Him (enabled by His grace). It differs from Arminianism by grounding this foreknowledge in God's middle knowledge of counterfactuals.

Timothy George summarized Molinism with the acronym ROSES:

Radical Depravity: Man's nature is fallen.
Overcoming Grace: God's grace overcomes depravity, but can be responded to.
Sovereign Election: God elects based on His middle knowledge of who would respond.
Eternal Life: Believers will persevere.
Singular Redemption: Christ's atonement is sufficient for all but applied only to the elect.

Historical Debate

Jesuits vs. Dominicans

Molinism emerged from a significant theological controversy in the late 16th and early 17th centuries within the Catholic Church. The Jesuits, advocating Molinism, clashed with the Dominicans, who upheld a Thomistic view of predestination and divine knowledge.

The dispute led to the establishment of the Congregatio de Auxiliis (Congregation of Grace) by Pope Clement VIII in 1597. After years of debate, Pope Paul V concluded the controversy in 1607 by forbidding either side from accusing the other of heresy, allowing both theological positions to coexist within Catholic doctrine.

Criticism

The Grounding Objection

A primary criticism, often considered the strongest, is the "grounding objection." Critics argue there is no sufficient metaphysical basis (truth-maker) for the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. As Hugh J. McCann noted, it's unclear how God could have justification for believing these propositions without observation, which might compromise divine omniscience or freedom.

Molinists like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga respond by arguing that counterfactuals of freedom do not require actual existence to be true, and that the burden of proof lies with critics to demonstrate that such counterfactuals are inherently false or lack truth-makers. They contend that asserting the impossibility of knowing free choices apart from actualization limits divine omniscience.

Biblical Support

Scriptural Arguments

Molinists cite various biblical passages as evidence for God's middle knowledge. Key examples include:

Matthew 11:23: Jesus' statement about what would have happened in Sodom if mighty works had been done there, implying knowledge of counterfactuals.
1 Samuel 23:8-14: David's knowledge that Saul would come to Keilah and that the men of Keilah would betray him.
Prophecies of evil acts: Passages where God foreknows and foretells sinful actions (e.g., Israelites forsaking God, Peter's denial) are interpreted by Molinists as involving knowledge of creaturely freedom.

William Lane Craig has extensively analyzed Christ's statements and Old Testament prophecies as indicative of middle knowledge.

Related Concepts & Thinkers

Key Philosophers & Schools

Molinism is situated within a rich tradition of theological and philosophical thought.

Core Concepts

Molinism engages with fundamental philosophical and theological concepts:

Divine Providence: God's governance of creation.
Libertarian Free Will: The capacity of agents to make choices undetermined by prior causes.
Predestination: God's foreordaining of events, particularly salvation.
Natural Law: Moral principles accessible through reason.
Theodicy: The attempt to reconcile God's goodness with the existence of evil.

Notes

Missing ISBNs

This article, as sourced, notes a lack of ISBNs for some listed books. This is a common issue with aggregated content and highlights the importance of verifying sources.

References

Scholarly Works

Perszyk, Kenneth J. Molinism: The Contemporary Debate. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Keathley, Kenneth. Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach. B&H Publishing Group, 2010.
Stratton, Tim, and Jacobus Erasmus. "Mere Molinism: A Defense of Two Essential Pillars." Perichoresis, vol. 16, no. 2, 2018, pp. 17–29.
Stratton, Timothy. Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism. Wipf and Stock, 2020.
Laing, John D. "Middle Knowledge." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP).
Seber, George A. F. Can We Believe It?: Evidence for Christianity. Wipf and Stock, 2016.
Craig, William Lane. Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. E.J. Brill, 1991.
Craig, William Lane. The Only Wise God. Wipf and Stock, 1999.
Craig, William Lane. "Middle Knowledge, Truth-Makers, and the 'Grounding Objection'." Faith and Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 3, 2001, pp. 337–52.
Flint, Thomas. Divine Providence: The Molinist Account. Cornell University Press, 1998.
McCann, Hugh J., and Daniel M. Johnson. "Divine Providence." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2017.
Boyd, Gregory A. "Neo-Molinism and the Infinite Intelligence of God." Philosophia Christi, vol. 5, no. 1, 2003, pp. 187–204.
Adams, Robert Merrihew. "Middle Knowledge and the Problem of Evil." American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 2, 1977, pp. 109–17.
Wierenga, Edward. "Providence, Middle Knowledge, and the Grounding Objection." Philosophia Christi, vol. 3, no. 2, 2001, pp. 447–457.
Plantinga, Alvin. "On Ockham's Way Out." Faith and Philosophy, vol. 3, no. 3, 1986, pp. 235–69.
Walls, Jerry L. "Is Molinism as Bad as Calvinism?" Faith and Philosophy, vol. 7, no. 1, 1990, pp. 85–98.
Perszyk, Ken. "Recent Work on Molinism." Philosophy Compass, vol. 8, no. 8, 2013, pp. 755–770.
Hasker, William. "Anti-Molinism is Undefeated!" Faith and Philosophy, vol. 17, no. 1, 2000, pp. 126–131.
Maitzen, Stephen. "Does Molinism explain the demographics of theism?" Religious Studies, vol. 44, no. 4, 2008, pp. 473–477.
Kvanvig, Jonathan L. "On Behalf of Maverick Molinism." Faith and Philosophy, vol. 19, no. 3, 2002, pp. 348–357.
MacGregor, Kirk. Luis de Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge. Zondervan, 2015.
Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Eerdmans, 1974.
Tiessen, Terrance. Providence & Prayer: How Does God Work in the World? InterVarsity.
Craig, William Lane. "A Molinist Perspective on Biblical Inspiration." Question of the Week, Reasonable Faith, 9 May 2011.
Craig, William Lane. "Molinism vs. Calvinism." Question of the Week, Reasonable Faith, 19 Apr. 2010.
Craig, William Lane. "Molinism and Divine Election." Question of the Week, Reasonable Faith, 20 Oct. 2008.
Craig, William Lane. "Middle Knowledge and Christian Particularism." Christian Particularism, Reasonable Faith.

External Links

Further Exploration

Molinism from the Catholic Encyclopedia (opens in new tab)
Molinism by Alfred J. Freddoso (opens in new tab)
'No Other Name': A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation through Christ by William Lane Craig
Middle Knowledge from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (opens in new tab)
Middle Knowledge, Truth-Makers, and the "Grounding Objection" by William Lane Craig

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio

Click here to open the "Molinism" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about molinism while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.

Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

indianapolis international airport

krzysztof meyer

sovereign state

commonwealth ministerial action group

4.2-kiloyear event

the basketball league

References

Takashi Onuki Jesus In History And Today 2008 1905679092 p. 127 "Peter, who after saying âYou are the Messiah,â began to rebuke Jesus. Jesus' rebuke, âGet behind me, Satan!â is connected with the vision ..."

Feddoso. "Molinism," in Edward Craig, ed., Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (London: Routledge, 1998).

William Lane Craig. "The Middle Knowledge View." Divine Foreknowledge, Four Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001. 124.

Alvin Plantinga, "Reply to Robert Adams", in Alvin Plantinga, ed. James E. Tomberlin and Peter Van Inwagen, Profiles 5 (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1985), p. 378.

A full list of references for this article are available at the Molinism Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer

Important Notice

This page was generated by an Artificial Intelligence and is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content is based on a snapshot of publicly available data from Wikipedia and may not be entirely accurate, complete, or up-to-date.

This is not theological or philosophical advice. The information provided on this website is not a substitute for professional consultation, study, or guidance on matters of faith, theology, or philosophy. Always consult with qualified scholars or theologians for in-depth understanding and application.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for any actions taken based on the information provided herein.

Molinism: Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom

💡 Dive in with Flashcard Learning! 💡

God's Types of Knowledge 💡

🧠 Natural Knowledge

🤔 Middle Knowledge

📜 Free Knowledge

Knowledge of Counterfactuals ❓

➡️ The Nature of Counterfactuals

⏳ Logical Order of Divine Knowledge

Theological Implications 🕊️

🌐 Providence and Salvation

⚖️ Molinism vs. Calvinism & Arminianism

Historical Debate 🗣️

⚔️ Jesuits vs. Dominicans

Criticism ❗

❓ The Grounding Objection

Biblical Support 📖

📜 Scriptural Arguments

Related Concepts & Thinkers 🎓

🏛️ Key Philosophers & Schools

Key Philosophers:

Related Schools:

⚖️ Core Concepts

Notes 📝

⚠️ Missing ISBNs

References 📚

📖 Scholarly Works

External Links 🌐

🔗 Further Exploration

Teacher's Corner 🧑‍🏫

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False? 🤔

❓ Test Your Knowledge! ❓

Gamer's Corner 🎮

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

📜 Discover other topics to study!

References

📜 References

Feedback & Support 👍

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer ⚠️

📜 Important Notice

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

God's Types of Knowledge

Natural Knowledge

Middle Knowledge

Free Knowledge

Knowledge of Counterfactuals

The Nature of Counterfactuals

Logical Order of Divine Knowledge

Theological Implications

Providence and Salvation

Molinism vs. Calvinism & Arminianism

Historical Debate

Jesuits vs. Dominicans

Criticism

The Grounding Objection

Biblical Support

Scriptural Arguments

Related Concepts & Thinkers

Key Philosophers & Schools

Core Concepts

Notes

Missing ISBNs

References

Scholarly Works

External Links

Further Exploration

Teacher's Corner

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Discover other topics to study!

References

Feedback & Support

Disclaimer

Important Notice