Skip to main content

Theoreddism and William Lane Craig’s Molinism compared.

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

Popular posts from this blog

Inerrancy, Textual Criticism, and the Spirit’s Stewardship of Scripture: An Apologetic for the Reliability of God’s Word

  How Christians can confidently defend the Bible’s truth and transmission One of the most common objections skeptics raise is this: “How can you trust a book that’s been copied and recopied for thousands of years? Surely errors, omissions, and changes have crept in over time!” Christians who misunderstand how the Bible was preserved can themselves stumble — either doubting Scripture when confronted with textual variants, or clinging uncritically to one translation as though it alone were inspired. This article serves as an apologetic: to explain why Christians can trust the Bible, how inerrancy and textual criticism work together, and how the Holy Spirit has actively guarded God’s Word throughout history. Inerrancy: God’s Perfect Word Christians affirm that the Scriptures, in their original autographs , were fully inspired by God and perfectly true. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching…” (2 Timothy 3:16). This doctrine applies specifically to what the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Adam's Curse, Not Adam's Guilt: Recovering the Mystery of Grace

Adam's Curse, Not Adam's Guilt: Recovering the Mystery of Grace A Reformed Perspective on Original Sin, Divine Justice, and the Wonder of Election Introduction "Why me?" This question has echoed through the hearts of believers across the centuries—not as theological confusion, but as worshipful wonder. Why would a holy God show mercy to a rebel like me? Yet for many Christians, traditional formulations of original sin have obscured this beautiful mystery by creating a different puzzle altogether: How can God be just in condemning people for Adam's sin? I want to suggest that this latter question flows from a theological misstep that, while well-intentioned, has unnecessarily complicated our understanding of divine justice and muted the wonder of divine grace. The distinction is simple but profound: we inherit Adam's curse, not Adam's guilt. This framework preserves everything essential about Reformed theology while recovering the p...
Post a Comment
Read more

America: an Islamic Nation?

In President Obama's nobel acceptance speech, he made reference again to Islam as "a GREAT religion" (Caps, my emphasis, though it reflects the tone in which the statement was made). While I recognize both the political and practical benefits of using such a term (i.e., seeking to drive a wedge to separate the greater Muslim community from those presently and publicly endorsing jihad.... so as to avoid WWIII), at the same time I wonder if any News organization would consider counting and reporting the number of times the President of the United States has made reference to Islam as a Great Religion and the number of times he has publicly referred to Christianity as a Great Religion? I guarantee the difference would be ASTOUNDING! Question: Where's the CONSISTENCY when it comes to what many refer to today as "separation of church and state"? Seems while there may be "separation of Christianity and state", there is no "separation of Islam and...
21 comments
Read more

Search This Blog