Free Will

Recently, David Pallmann shared an Arminian critique of Molinism and argued that Simple Foreknowledge is the superior view. While his post is confident in its conclusions, it relies on several philosophical assumptions and category mistakes that require careful examination. I believe David’s critique rests on a number of misunderstandings—both philosophical and theological. In what follows, I will quote Pallman in segments and respond directly to each major claim (the entiret

On Christmas Eve, as I was walking into the gym, I paused for a brief moment and posted something on social media that had been on my mind: "God > anything else that could possibly be conceived." Many people immediately recognized this as a hat tip to Anselm’s famous definition of God: "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Others—almost certainly many who have never heard of Anselm—still understood it intuitively and seemed to appreciate it. I went to bed that n

In the past few years while I was researching and thinking about a possible challenge to Perfect Being Theology, I stumbled across the argument I’m sharing here. [1]  So far the other philosophers and theology minded people I’ve shared it with have all received it positively. I do think it’s interesting or perhaps ironic that I only came to these conclusions after Eden was diagnosed. So there is a broad consensus in philosophy of religion that our world is not the best of all

Part 1: We Can Know How, not Why: But we really want to know Why. "He who has a why to live, can bear almost any how." -Fredrick Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols. [1] "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!"-God, Job 38:4-5 If you don’t know my family you wouldn’t know this, but our three-year-old daughter Eden has inoperable and incurable brain cancer. Absent an extreme medical breakthro

Introduction This post brings together the complete written exchange between Colton Carlson (a self-described "thorough-going compatibilist") and myself (a self-described "libertarian freedom fighter") on the meaning of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:13: “You are able.” At stake in this debate is no small matter. Does Paul’s assurance point to categorical ability (C-Ability)—a genuine, here-and-now power to either sin or take the way of escape at the moment of temptation—o

Recently, I had the opportunity to assist my colleague Dr. Tim Stratton in an online debate with Colton Carlson concerning 1 Corinthians 10:13 and its relation to libertarian freedom. In this article, I want to expand on that exchange—not merely to come to a friend’s defense, but to make a specific, academic point grounded in the Greek text itself. I will argue (in line with leading Greek scholars today) that 1 Corinthians 10:13–14 most naturally supports C-Ability (Catego

Introduction This dialogue brings together Colton Carlson and Dr. Tim Stratton in an extended written exchange about the meaning of Paul’s assurance in 1 Corinthians 10:13. At issue is whether the apostle’s statement—“you are able”—supports a libertarian understanding of human freedom (C-Ability) or whether it can be explained within a compatibilist framework (W-Ability). Across the discussion, Carlson presses Stratton to demonstrate why libertarian freedom is the stronger re

Introduction The debate over 1 Corinthians 10:13 , freedom, and responsibility continues. In this exchange, I (Dr. Tim Stratton) respond to Colton Carlson’s ongoing attempts to redefine “ability” in ways that obscure Paul’s plain assurance. Colton insists that his dispositional compatibilism can capture Paul’s promise, but as you’ll see, the very foundations of his view collapse under scrutiny. In what follows, I engage Colton point by point—addressing his appeals to authori

Introduction This written debate between Dr. Tim Stratton and Mr.Colton Carlson centers on the meaning of Paul’s promise in 1 Corinthians 10:13 : that God always provides a “way of escape” when believers face temptation. At stake is whether this passage affirms categorical ability (C-Ability) —the genuine, libertarian power to do otherwise in the actual world—or whether it can be sufficiently explained by weaker notions of ability (W-Ability) consistent with compatibilism

In a recent exchange, in the YouTube comments under a video featuring Leighton Flowers , Colton Carlson offered a detailed attempt to defend a compatibilist-friendly reading of 1 Corinthians 10:13. He leaned on Vihvelin’s notion of “W-Ability” (dispositional ability plus opportunity) to argue that Paul’s words need not entail categorical ability (C-Ability) or libertarian freedom (LFW). Below, I’ll first share Mr. Carlson's case in his own words, and then respond point by poi

Introduction: A High-Stakes Exchange on Freedom and Scripture Few biblical texts strike as deeply at the heart of human responsibility as Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:13 : “No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.” For centuries, theologians and philosophers have debated what this verse

Recently, my colleague and friend Dr. Tim Stratton issued a challenge on X which led to many responses. Dr. Stratton posited a form of what he calls a “Deity of Deception” (DoD) argument in an attempt to refute Deterministic Calvinism and show that Exhaustive Divine Determinism (or EDD, as he calls it) leads to epistemic meltdown if consistently applied in matters of faith and reason. This argument isn’t just a clever thought experiment; it goes straight to the heart of wheth

Calvinists often cite Isaiah 10 as evidence that God deterministically caused the Assyrian invasion of Israel. They claim that because God sent Assyria as a tool of judgment, and later punished them, this supports the idea that God ordains all events—including human sin—while remaining just in holding people accountable for actions they could not have avoided. Isaiah 10:5-6 Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! I send him against a g

I recently posted this tweet (X) for my Calvinist friends to consider: Here’s the argument I want my Calvinist friends to consider: If God determines all things, then He determines every thought, belief, and action. All people—including Christians—hold false theological beliefs. Therefore, God determines all people to affirm false theological beliefs. A being who intentionally determines people to believe falsehoods about ultimate reality is—by definition—functioning as a dec

It amazes me how often—even in Christian circles—I hear people downplay, or even deny, that God must be worthy of worship. Some seem so committed to defending their particular view of Calvinism, Open Theism, or some other “ism” that they end up granting the claims of certain atheists: “Sure, maybe there’s a creator of the universe, but that doesn’t mean He’s a maximally great being or worthy of worship.” That’s a huge mistake—and completely unnecessary, especially when Molini

Over the past several weeks I’ve written a number of articles explaining why I believe Open Theism struggles to make sense of the biblical data. That was one of the main reasons I ultimately rejected Open Theism after leaving Calvinism back in 2010. At the time, I gave Open Theism a serious look. I studied Greg Boyd’s work and appreciated many of his insights. I liked his pastoral tone and his passion to defend God’s goodness. In fact, for quite a while I kept Open Theism “o

One of the clearest tests of divine authority in scripture is God’s ability to declare the future with precision and certainty. Isaiah 41:21–23 is not vague: “Declare to us the things to come. Tell us what the future holds, so we may know you are gods.” This is not a demand for moral wisdom or historical insight. It is a demand for foreknowledge. And not just general foreknowledge—it is a test of predictive specificity: “Tell us what is going to happen so that we may know you

Every now and then, a golden nugget glints from an unexpected corner of Scripture—one that speaks directly to today’s theological debates. I was recently informed of one such gem that is buried in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Psalm 139:16 (numbered as Psalm 138:16 in the LXX): “Thine eyes saw my unwrought substance, and all men shall be written in thy book; they shall be formed by day, though there should for a time be no one among them. ” —Psalm 138:16, LXX (Bren

Why Knowing Isn’t Necessitating, and Freedom Still Stands It seems obvious to me that if God creates a world in which nothing—neither the laws of nature nor any supernatural force— causally determines my mental or physical actions, then I possess genuine, libertarian freedom. Not only am I the source of my actions, but I can truly do otherwise—even if (in fact) I won’t. Let’s make it concrete. Imagine I choose to wear a red shirt today. Suppose it’s a fact that I won’t wear

Open Theists often argue that the future is not fully knowable because it consists of undetermined possibilities. They say God is omniscient—but only of what can be known. Since free choices haven’t happened yet, and aren’t “fixed,” they claim those choices have no truth-values until they occur. But this view runs headfirst into the very opening of Jeremiah. “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to