There are many Calvinistic Responses to Molinism both on the internet and in book form. The following are just a sample.
James Anderson's blogposts dealing with Molinism
(This is a link to Anderson's blogposts with the Tag/Label "Molinism")
How Biblical is Molinism? (Part 1) by James Anderson
How Biblical is Molinism? (Part 2) by James Anderson
How Biblical is Molinism? (Part 3) by James Anderson
How Biblical is Molinism? (Part 4) by James Anderson
How Biblical is Molinism? (Part 5) by James Anderson
How Biblical is Molinism? (Part 6) by James Anderson
Yes, Molina, There Could Have Been a Santa Claus by James Anderson
A Brief Philosophical & Dialectical Inquiry on Mere Molinism: A Compatibilist Reply | VOLUME 1 by Colton Carlson
Freely Downloadable HERE or HERE
VOLUME 2 Freely Downloadable HERE or HERE
VOLUME 3 Freely Downloadable HERE
Colton Carlson VIDEO where he is interviewed regarding his 300 PAGE response to Stratton's book Mere Molinism: HERE
Colton Carlson VIDEO SERIES where he reviews Stratton's book Mere Molinism. Here's the link to PART ONE of the Series: HERE
Middle Knowledge: A Reformed Critique by Travis James Campbell [or HERE]
Greg Welty's Blogposts dealing with Molinism
(This is a link to Welty's blogposts with the Tag/Label "Molinism")
A critical review and fairly comprehensive refutation of“Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism”by Timothy A. Stratton by Guillaume Bignon [or HERE]
Does Molinism Avoid Making God the Author of Sin? | Welty on Molinism by James A. Gibson
[archived HERE]
Tyler Vela's Criticisms of Molinism
http://freedthinkerpodcast.blogspot.com/2018/07/molinism-collection.html
Turretin on Molinism by "Turretinfan"
https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6033E4C50E7BEDE8
Triablogue blogposts with the Label/Tag of "Molinism"
(There are more Triablogue blogposts which deal with Molinism but unfortunately they don't have the "Molinism" label)
See also my blogpost: Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology by Paul Manata
On Facebook yesterday Colton Carlson wrote:
ReplyDeleteIn honor of Stratton's recently published 2nd edition of *Mere Molinism*, I present my three-Volume work against the doctrine of "Mere Molinism" while defending a Calvinist-compatibilist-determinist view. Now, I find some of the stuff in there worthy of being deleted (years after the fact), or edited as my views have changed a bit. However, I still find, in large part, many of the arguments and defenses worthy of studying and thinking about for the non-Calvinist or theological incompatibilist. Below are the (rough) abstracts of each volume, as well as the following link to download the FREE PDF.
In Volume 1, I define Molinism and its philosophical implications while considering contemporary competing views (e.g., Calvinism). Molinism is the conjunction that humans have libertarian free will and that God has middle knowledge. Tim Stratton has recently published a book on the topic of human freedom and Molinism, and has described his view as "mere Molinism." In this reply, I discuss a wide range of philosophical issues that plague his view of Molinism. I begin and end Volume 1 with detailing (at a considerable length) the problems with how Stratton defines his terms, as well as how he approaches philosophical preliminaries involving the philosophy of freedom debate in contemporary literature.
https://www.academia.edu/79179996/A_Brief_Philosophical_and_Dialectical_Inquiry_on_Mere_Molinism_A_Compatibilist_Reply_Volume_1
Volume 2, in contrast, is aimed at specifically addressing the philosophical errors in the doctrine of Mere Molinism. I begin by examining the exchange between Bignon and Stratton throughout the years. I then turn to considering Stratton's defense of the Consequence Argument and his rejoinders against John Martin Fischer's semicompatibilist model, also known as guidance control. I argue that Stratton fails to defend his Freethinking Argument (FTA) in the light of these rebuttals for a variety of reasons. Next, I consider whether Stratton's Deliberation Argument works in defense of the FTA, in addition to other support claims often lobbied against compatibilist-determinists. I argue that each support claim fails to properly secure an independent defense for the FTA, and thus each fail to support the doctrine of Mere Molinism. [I had a recent issue with Volume 2 not showing up properly on my Academia page. The issue, however, should be resolved now!]
https://www.academia.edu/167156318/A_Brief_Philosophical_and_Dialectical_Inquiry_on_Mere_Molinism_A_Compatibilist_Reply_Volume_2
CONT.
Volume 3 is the final installment in response to Tim Stratton’s recently published book Mere Molinism. This volume is dedicated solely to Stratton’s 1 Corinthians 10:13 Argument for Libertarian Freedom. Though the argument is not directly tied to Stratton, he is a primary (and contemporary) defender of it, and so I seek to reveal the most pertinent problems surrounding it. I argue that this argument fails for one reason or another while defending theological compatibilism throughout. Of special interest is the discussion on temptation and how it is prone constitutive moral luck. I argue that libertarians, in light of issues pertaining to constitutive moral luck, should retire the dogmatic conclusion that 1 Corinthians 10:13 entails libertarian free will. Afterwards, I discuss whether the verse is compatible with the dispositional analysis of free will. I end the volume, and indeed end the entirety of my “brief” reply, with some final remarks on how Stratton ought to move forward in his scholarship given the weight of these collective criticisms from each volume.
Deletehttps://www.academia.edu/123268439/A_Brief_Philosophical_and_Dialectical_Inquiry_on_Mere_Molinism_A_Compatibilist_Reply_Volume_3
To be clear, not every section is wholly dedicated to Stratton's "Mere Molinism", or Stratton's overall theological or philosophical methodology as a whole. A large part of each volume has to do with defending compatibilism or determinism (or explicating such views in relation to Calvinism) against varying objections from non-Calvinists (e.g., Molinists). I spend quite a bit of time detailing background debates, issues regarding free will (e.g., Frankfurt cases, causal vs moral responsibility, PAP, moral luck, deliberation, etc.) precisely because I think Stratton fails (at a rather incredible degree) to properly detail these issues. He fails not because he hasn't address several of the replies in these volumes (either directly from me, or perhaps someone else; e.g., Bignon, Manata, Welty, etc.). But rather Stratton fails because *when the interlocutor demonstrates his objective failure in how one ought to define a view, definition, or the free will dialectic, he still does not seem to get it.* This is especially clear when Stratton seems to think compatibilist-indeterminism is somehow irrelevant concerning the 1 Corinthians 10:13 debate.
Now, I haven't read the 2nd edition. Perhaps Stratton fixes many of the mistakes I painstakingly identify and detail in the volumes. But I highly doubt it, as these "fixes" aren't equivalent to "merely addressing" arguments or objections; they are elementary errors that he doesn't seem to understand (again, such as the claim that compatibilism doesn't entail determinism!).
Enjoy! :)