Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Paul D. Adams's avatar

I believe it was Paul Helm who said something like, If one can show a no-risk view to God's meticulous sovereignty while maintaining molinism," then he'd buy into it. However, Helm would argue that this is not possible. I know Bill Craig has offered a rejoinder to Helm, but do not recall when or where.

Expand full comment
Shaun Hurrie's avatar

Great explanation of Molinism! Very clear and succinct with some good examples of the pros and cons of this position.. That said, I just don't think this theory of trying to reconcile God's absolute sovereignty with fallen human's moral responsibility does justice to the whole scope of Scripture. I believe Biblical, covenantal Calvinism reckons more accurately with the nature of God, the free grace of salvation revealed in the Bible, and the finiteness of human freedom (by which I mean non-coerced choice in accordance with our radically depraved nature). Apart from this, it doesn't help that a Roman Catholic developed the theory (considering how the Gospel was utterly obscured by the Medieval church) and that today William Lane Craig, with his essentially heretical views on the historical Adam and Gen. 1-11, is an advocate of this view.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts