Flint’s ‘Molinism and the Incarnation’ is Still Too Radical — A Rejoinder to Flint

Journal of Analytic Theology 5:515-532 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I greatly appreciate Thomas Flint’s reply to my paper, “Flint’s ‘Molinism and the Incarnation’ is too Radical.” In my original paper I argue that the Christology and eschatology of Flint’s paper “Molinism and the Incarnation” is too radical to be considered orthodox. I consider it an honor that a senior scholar, such as Flint, would concern himself with my work in the first place. In this response to Flint’s reply I will explain why I still find Flint’s Christology and eschatology to be too radical. Below I shall attempt to address various issues raised by Flint in his reply.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,642

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Flint's 'Molinism and the Incarnation' is Too Radical.R. T. Mullins - 2015 - Journal of Analytic Theology 3:109-123.
Orthodoxy and Incarnation: A Reply to Mullins.Thomas P. Flint - 2016 - Journal of Analytic Theology 4:180-192.
Many are culled but few are chosen.Erik J. Wielenberg - 2000 - Religious Studies 36 (1):81-93.
On Behalf of Maverick Molinism.Jonathan L. Kvanvig - 2002 - Faith and Philosophy 19 (3):348-357.
The prayer of the molinist.Patrick Toner - 2008 - Heythrop Journal 49 (6):940-947.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-08-22

Downloads
57 (#95,201)

6 months
12 (#1,086,452)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

R. T. Mullins
Palm Beach Atlantic College

Citations of this work

Identity, incarnation, and the imago Dei.James T. Turner - 2020 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 88 (1):115-131.

Add more citations