Tag Archives: Paul Helseth

Responses to Boyd’s open theist model of providence

 The questions that expose the incoherence of the neo-Molinist account of divine providence . . . establish that the God of open theism is an ambivalent and arbitrary warrior who cannot be trusted to rule in every situation in a way that minimizes evil and maximizes good for his creatures. (Helseth, 222) Molinism [handles the problem of evil better than open theism] for God permits horrible evils only in view of morally sufficient reasons, whereas … Continue reading

Posted in Books, Providence | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Responses to Highfield’s model of providence

I wonder if his reluctance to address the “how” of God’s providential relationship to the world that he has made fosters a measure of confusion that, in the end, is largely unnecessary.” (P. K. Helseth, 167) It is hard not to detect here a certain distrust of logical analysis and philosophical reflection, which is both unfortunate and naïve: unfortunate because it would deprive us of the insights such reflection might bring and naïve because such … Continue reading

Posted in Books, Providence | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Responses to Craig’s Molinist model of God’s providence

Craig offers . . . a tendentious analysis that leaves the most difficult and important questions unaddressed (Paul Helseth, 101). The theory of middle knowledge was supposed to rid the world of fate and chance while preserving human freedom. To accomplish this task, however, it limits God’s freedom and subjects him to a kind of fate worse than the one from which it supposedly liberates human beings (Ron Highfield, 120). Ironically, while open theists are … Continue reading

Posted in Books, Providence | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Restorationist and Open Theist responses to a determinist model of providence

I have described and interacted with W. L. Craig’s Molinist response to Paul Helseth’s omnicausal (determinist) model, and now we’ll consider the other two responses presented in Four Views on Divine Providence. Ron Highfield’s response Ron Highfield, representing what Dennis Jowers calls a “Restorationist” position, notes that his view and Helseth’s view are closer to one another than to either of the other two positions. But Highfield attributes his “fundamental agreement with Helseth’s view,” not … Continue reading

Posted in Books, Providence | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

A Molinist response to a determinist model of providence

The other three contributors to Four Views on Divine Providence each respond to Paul Helseth’s omnicausal (determinist) model, and the first one up is William Lane Craig. Since I have learned much from Molinism, in constructing my own Calvinistic understanding of providence, I will deal separately with this first response to Helseth. William Lane Craig’s response Response to Helseth’s problems with the Molinist account of providence Craig observes that “divine omnicausality” is an inadequate description … Continue reading

Posted in Books, Providence | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Helseth’s determinist model of providence

 An introduction to the book as a whole This is my first post dealing with  Four Views on Divine Providence edited by Dennis W. Jowers. I am fond of multiple view books because of the conversations that they facilitate between people who have different perspectives on subjects of interest. Few theological subjects interest me more than divine providence, for two reasons. First, it forces us to deal with the great theological watershed issue between the … Continue reading

Posted in Books, Providence, Theology Proper | Tagged , , | Leave a comment