Theoreddism and Molinism both attempt to reconcile God's sovereignty with human free will, but they approach this challenge in fundamentally different ways.
In my view, Theoreddism offers a more cohesive and biblically grounded framework. It posits that God's sovereignty operates through procedural actualization, where reality unfolds dynamically according to God's ultimate purposes. This aligns closely with the Reformed understanding of God's meticulous providence while still allowing for genuine human agency.
Craig's Molinism, on the other hand, introduces the concept of middle knowledge - God's knowledge of what any free creature would do in any possible circumstance. While this attempts to preserve libertarian free will, I find it problematic on several grounds:
1. Biblical support: Molinism lacks explicit biblical support. Theoreddism, rooted in Reformed theology, draws more directly from Scripture's teachings on God's sovereignty and human responsibility.
2. Philosophical coherence: Molinism's reliance on counterfactuals of creaturely freedom raises logical issues. How can these truths exist independently of God's will? Theoreddism avoids this by grounding all truth in God's nature and decree.
3. Divine sovereignty: Molinism potentially limits God's control by making His decisions contingent on creatures' hypothetical choices. Theoreddism maintains a stronger view of divine sovereignty while still accounting for human freedom within God's decree.
4. Human responsibility: While Molinism aims to preserve libertarian free will, I believe Theoreddism's compatibilist approach better explains human responsibility in light of our fallen nature.
5. Progressive revelation: Theoreddism's emphasis on progressive revelation through nature and human advancement allows for a more dynamic integration of scientific insights with biblical truth. Molinism doesn't address this aspect as comprehensively.
That said, I respect Craig's attempt to grapple with these difficult theological questions. Molinism does offer some intriguing perspectives, particularly in its attempt to logically structure God's knowledge. However, I find that Theoreddism, with its roots in Reformed theology and its emphasis on procedural actualization, provides a more satisfying and biblically faithful resolution to the sovereignty-freedom tension.
Ultimately, while both systems seek to honor God's sovereignty and human responsibility, I believe Theoreddism offers a more comprehensive, biblically grounded, and logically coherent framework for understanding God's relationship with creation and human freedom.
Comments
Post a Comment