[Milton-L] De Doctrina Christiana

Horace Jeffery Hodges jefferyhodges at yahoo.com
Mon Jan 12 21:59:36 EST 2009

I'm not sure if Professor Skulsky was referring to my post, but just to be clear, I was partly asking if Steve Fallon (or others) think that Milton was drawing on Middle Knowledge theology since Arminius seems to have done so. I realize, of course, that there are various ways to deal with the divine knowledge of future contingents, but I am curious to know which way Milton chose.
Jeffery Hodges

--- On Mon, 1/12/09, Harold Skulsky <hskulsky at email.smith.edu> wrote:

From: Harold Skulsky <hskulsky at email.smith.edu>
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] De Doctrina Christiana
To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 8:32 PM

Steve Fallon is well able to speak for himself. But as I read his cogent reply
to Kim Maxwell, he nowhere concedes that PL is inconsistent on matters
theological. On the contrary, he shows that (pace Mr. Maxwell) the Father's
remarks on Justification are internally consistent, as well as perfectly
consonant with the corresponding discussion in PL. As for the supposed
contradiction in God's foreknowledge of Adam's fall, divine knowledge of
future contingents is a hoary truism of Christian theology (going back at least
to Boethius), and most theologians (including of course Milton), as well as most
of his lay contemporaries, take it on board with no discomfort; the burden of
proof is on those who think these benighted folk are the victims of a logical
gaffe from which only Molinism can rescue them.

Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
Manage your list membership and access list archives at

Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20090112/e21e1deb/attachment.html

More information about the Milton-L mailing list