The Protest! Station Comic #7 – Poker Player Jesus

Click image to enlarge

Are you familiar with Molinism? If not, check out William Lane Craig. He is the biggest voice out there for this philosophical and highly unbiblical view. It started when a Jesuit named Luis de Molina (Molina = Molinism) had decided to create an anti-reformational doctrine that harmonized God’s sovereignty and “free will” (an unbiblical concept).  

Let me give you a quick summary. As Craig states, God  is faced with “counter factuals.” What this means is that God has a “middle knowledge” that allows him to see every single possible universe that could exist – alternate realities of this same exact universe and planet and people. According to Molinism, the reason that history has played out the way it has is because, among allllllllll these possible histories He could have chosen, He chose this one. Why? Let me answer it this way: This worldview holds that men have free will to choose or reject God, and God can’t violate that free will. And this is the foundation. And it’s unbiblical. This worldview also holds that God’s purpose is saving the most people He can considering their free will. And that is why God chose this history of humanity, this universe, this planet, etc. Because this is the best possible universe in that the highest number of people will be saved given “free will.” In William Lane Craig’s view, there could never be a reality in which people don’t go to hell. The results were not something He could ever control. He was just faced with the facts.  This is it. God had to make this choice. That’s just the hand He was dealt. And that is why I have named this Jesus, Poker Player Jesus – on the one hand, Scripture says He created all things but on the other hand, Molinism says He had to play with the hand He has been dealt.

This is what happens when philosophy overshadows sound theology.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “The Protest! Station Comic #7 – Poker Player Jesus”

  1. This explanation of Molinism makes a lot of sense. I had been trying for a while now to grasp just exactly what it is and now, I think I’m beginning to.

    Like

    1. It makes a lot of sense? Not given the revelation of God we have in Scripture. This isn’t the God of the Bible. This is some other weakling of a god who is forced to react to the actions of men. The Roman Catholic Church eventually rejected this. Can’t defend this view with the Bible. It’s no wonder that William Lane Craig said that if you want to be a good apologist, to put down the Bible and pick up more philosophy books. This is the result.

      Like

Comments are closed.