Has Molinism Been Shot by Bullet Bill? Reassessing Welty’s Objection

What exactly is the Bullet Bill objection, and does it land a fatal blow against Molinism—or backfire on Calvinism?

If you've spent much time in online theological circles, you've likely heard someone invoke Greg Welty’s so-called “Bullet Bill” objection to Molinism. The name might remind you of a fun Nintendo video game from your childhood, but the philosophical challenge it raises is serious.

So what is this Bullet Bill objection, and does it land a fatal blow against Molinism?

Well, that depends entirely on how and when it’s used.

The Tu Quoque Move: Legitimate Critique or Fallacy?

Let’s begin with a little logic refresher. The tu quoque (“you too”) objection is a fallacy when it attempts to deflect criticism by claiming the opponent has the same problem—instead of addressing the actual argument. It's a rhetorical dodge, not a substantive response.

But not all tu quoque moves are fallacious. In some contexts—particularly when someone is advocating for a position on the grounds that it avoids certain problems—a tu quoque can serve as a legitimate internal critique. That’s where Welty's use comes in.

When Welty raises Bullet Bill in dialogue with Molinists who are pressing objections against Calvinism—especially those centered around divine determinism and moral responsibility—his move is not inherently fallacious. He's essentially saying: “Sure, maybe Calvinism has these issues... but Molinism faces the same problems once you unpack the implications.” Fair enough. That’s worth evaluating on its own terms.

But Here’s the Problem…

Many online Calvinists don’t use Bullet Bill that way. Instead, they treat it as a universal “gotcha” response to any critique of Exhaustive Divine Determinism (EDD-Calvinism), regardless of whether Molinism is even being discussed.

Recently, I gave a presentation at the Evangelical Philosophical Society critiquing EDD-Calvinism and arguing that it undermines both the gospel and the clear teachings of Scripture. During the Q&A, a respected PhD Calvinist offered a familiar response: “But what about Molinism?” He didn’t attempt to defend EDD-Calvinism or engage the biblical case I presented—he simply redirected the attention to my own views.

That, friends, is a textbook tu quoque fallacy. I wasn’t defending Molinism—I was critiquing EDD-Calvinism, full stop. So even if my arguments somehow also pose challenges for Molinism, that doesn’t vindicate Calvinism. It’s not a defense; it’s a dodge.

I said as much in that Q&A:

“I do not think that the Bullet Bill tu quoque objection works, and I’ve explained why, but let’s suppose the argument I’ve advanced destroying EDD-Calvinism also destroys Molinism. SO BE IT! Let’s go find the truth together.”

I’m not married to Molinism. I left behind my beloved Calvinism when I saw it couldn’t be true—and I’ll do the same with Molinism if it fails. I’m not interested in defending a tribe. I’m interested in truth.

So What Is the Bullet Bill Objection?

Welty’s argument goes something like this: On Molinism, God possesses middle knowledge of how every free creature would act in any given circumstance. So when God chooses to actualize a particular world, He does so knowing precisely what each person would freely do in that world. Thus, every action indeterministically unfolds exactly as God knew it would—and every evil act occurs because God knowingly chose to actualize a world in which He knew it would happen.

According to Welty, this undermines libertarian freedom in practice. Sure, creatures might have been free in the abstract, prior to creation—but once God picks a world to actualize, there’s no possibility for their choices to go otherwise. And if that's the case, then how is this any better than determinism? Doesn’t Molinism also make God ultimately responsible for evil?

Why Bullet Bill Misses the Mark

To put it simply: On Molinism, God is a necessary condition for Bullet Bill’s free actions—but not asufficientone. That is, God creates the world in which Bullet Bill freely acts, but He does not determine those choices. They remain free in a libertarian sense.

On EDD-Calvinism, by contrast, God is both the necessary and sufficient cause of all things—every evil act, every false belief, every sinful inclination. Bullet Bill does what he does because God determines him to do it. That distinction makes all the difference.

And you don’t need a PhD to grasp that difference. In fact, if you’ve seen the Avengers movies, you’ve already felt the weight of it—and your intuitions were functioning properly.

Hydra vs. Doctor Strange

Consider Captain America: Civil War. Hydra mind-controlled Bucky and turned him into the Winter Soldier. Everyone watching instinctively knew that Tony Stark was wrong to try to kill Bucky for his past actions—because Bucky had no control. He was a puppet. The blame didn’t lie with Bucky; the proper blame belonged to Hydra.

Now contrast that with Doctor Strange in Infinity War and Endgame. Strange didn’t determine anyone’s thoughts or physical actions. He looked at 14,000,605 possible futures, selected one that involved pain, loss, and sacrifice—but, most importantly, he chose the one freedom-permitting world in which the Avengers were raised from the dead and the evil of Thanos was ultimately crushed under their feet (does that sound familiar?). Strange chose to actualize the best endgame and allowed free beings to act within that world. And audiences rightly saw him as a hero worthy of praise, not a villain worthy of blame.

Hydra represents divine determinism. Doctor Strange represents Molinism. And our intuitions recognize the important difference.

Conclusion: The Avengers Defeated Bullet Bill

At the end of the day, Welty’s Bullet Bill analogy fails because it conflates middle knowledge plus world-selection with causal determinism. But Molinism preserves human freedom in a way that EDD-Calvinism cannot. That’s why the tu quoque doesn’t stick—not when it’s properly understood.

And let me reiterate: even if the argument I made against EDD-Calvinism also undermines Molinism, that’s no defense of EDD. That’s a separate conversation—and I’m happy to have it.

But in the meantime, Bullet Bill misses the mark. The Avengers win again.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr Tim Stratton