Evangelical Philosophical SocietyArticle Reprint

Some Remarks on Neo-Molinism, Infinite Intelligence, and Providence

by Elijah Hess

This paper argues that the alleged providential utility of the neo-Molinist account of divine providence (via Gregory Boyd’s infinite intelligence argument) doesn’t work.

Contrary to what Boyd avers it is not the case that God, given openness assumptions, can prepare for every possibility as effectively as if he were certain such possibilities were going to occur.

Nor is it the case that he could be guaranteed, even in principle, that his ultimate purposes for creation would be fulfilled when those purposes depend on the decisions of libertarian free creatures.

Therefore, that a God who has infallible foreknowledge of what his creatures will freely do—as would be the case on a Molinist or a simple-foreknowledge account—has a clear advantage and is preferable, providentially speaking, to the God of neo-Molinism.

The full-text of this paper is available for FREE by clicking here.

©2018 Evangelical Philosophical Society. All rights Reserved.  

This article is made public for personal, non-commercial use only.  You must obtain prior written permission for any other use.  The Evangelical Philosophical Society  (EPS) is an organization of professional scholars devoted to pursuing philosophical excellence in both the church and the academy. Interested laypersons can join as full, associate, or student members.  The EPS journal, Philosophia Christi, is a scholarly publication containing discussion of a variety of topics that are of interest to the philosopher and to the philosopher of religion.

For membership information, please visit www.epsociety.org or you may contact us by phone or e-mail.