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

Popular posts from this blog

Eckhart Tolle - Christian Response

Unbelievable! ...The extent man not founded upon Christ will go and follow in their quest and pursuit of self and attempts to explain away reality and sin. Here's Oprah's spiritual sage... Response: 1. He resurrects errors of the past which deny reality by seeking to replace it with forms. 2. By reducing the past to forms (or photo albums) he not only denies the reality of the past but the extent of it's connectedness and relationship to the present. This error he also translates in regard to the future. 3. He establishes a false premise that one can separate the reality of the present ("now") from reality itself, which he vests in onesself (though he inconsistently goes on to suggest that life is found in abandoning oneself) 4. He has no grounds or basis for assuming reality is found in self (and apart from everything else, or only what one want's to allow) 5. By denying the truth of God, he falsely asserts that the future is no longer problematic...

Why “Sky Daddy” Fails: Debunking a Lazy Insult Against God

Why “Sky Daddy” Fails: Debunking a Lazy Insult Against God Tags: #christianity #apologetics #faith #logic #theology There’s a term some atheists like to throw around—“sky daddy.” You’ve probably seen it in comment sections or memes, tossed like a grenade meant to shut down the conversation. It's not meant to spark discussion; it’s meant to ridicule. But here’s the thing: It’s not an argument. It’s a caricature. And like most caricatures, it reveals more about the one mocking than the one being mocked. 1. It’s Based on a Straw Man No serious Christian believes God is some bearded man living in the clouds. That’s a cartoon version. The actual Christian claim is far richer, deeper, and more philosophically grounded. Scripture describes God as: Eternal (Psalm 90:2) Spirit, not material (John 4:24) The sustainer of all things (Colossians...

Global Blasphemy Laws

One of the interesting things about discussions surrounding blasphemy laws (whether by the UN or others)is they cannot be conducted without coming back to the central question: What is Truth? Seems this was the question in Jesus' day, it's the question which comes us today, and it's a question which cannot be avoided. ... suppose God intended it to be this way?

Search This Blog