I am fully aware that it has been well over a year since my last post to this blog. The excuses I have are both trivial and substantial. Part of me is content just to have a web presence that gives others a resource for further investigation on Molinism and God's foreknowledge, and another part of me feels as if this is inadequate. I imagine that all of my followers on Twitter grow tired of vague and overbearing snippets, in 140 characters or less, of random thoughts on foreknowledge. Once one gains the vernacular needed to discuss the matter on an academic level, an unintended alienation soon follows.
So I am left with some options that need careful consideration before I make my next move. I could just give the honest thoughts of a man on a journey to grapple with the perplexing subject matter already put forth on this page. The thought of this leaves me with a fear that my words would be misunderstood and taken to mean something other than their intention. Then again, I could be more vigilant to update and compile the thoughts of great thinkers on foreknowledge. This would be a safer choice but it also seems sterile and not of interest to anyone. This option would also be of no benefit to me because I already have all the information already in printed form.
Throughout the history of this blog, I have frequently become restless or dissatisfied with its content and done a complete reboot. I feel compelled to do this once again. My only hesitation is the amount of work that went into the post, "The Best of Molinism." I still believe it is a good resource (needs updating). At one time in my life, Molinism was a fresh and exciting new theory. I could not get enough information to feed my appetite. Now I feel like the child who ate too much candy on Halloween. It also seems to me that Molinism does face some significant challenges to become a well accepted theory of God's foreknowledge. Then again, maybe it will survive much like Calvinism and Arminianism have. Their adherents have no problems with the inherent problems facing their theories. Still I am left with a lack of confidence and enthusiasm in the consistency and plausibility of a theory that became an identifying part of the identity of Neal Pumphrey.
