Abstract
R. T. Mullins’s “Flint’s Molinism and the Incarnation is too Radical,” published by this journal in 2015, attempts to summarize some speculations I have offered regarding Christology and eschatology, to show that these speculations are independently implausible, and to demonstrate that they are at odds with the pronouncements of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and hence incompatible with orthodox Christianity. In this reply, I argue that Mullins’s essay fails in all three of these endeavors: its summaries are inaccurate, its arguments for implausibility are unconvincing, and its ascriptions of heresy are baseless.
Publisher
Journal of Analytic Theology
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. ‘Draw me after you’: Toward an erotic theosis;Scottish Journal of Theology;2023-02-07
2. Identity, incarnation, and the imago Dei;International Journal for Philosophy of Religion;2019-06-05
3. If anyone is in Christ – new creation!;Religious Studies;2018-10-17