A few weeks ago, William Lane Craig unloaded on Calvinism. His performance was underwhelming inasmuch as he fell back on canned objections to Calvinism.
However, I wish to make a different point. Craig is arguably the premier Christian apologist of his generation. Yet it’s clear, to judge by the slash-n-burn rhetoric he resorted to in reference to Calvinism, that if he thought the only logical alternatives were Calvinism, Molinism, and atheism, and if he also thought Molinism was wrong, he’d rather be an atheist than a Christian.
What makes this even more remarkable, coming from a major Christian apologist, is that, by his own admission, Molinism is not a revealed truth. It doesn’t even claim to be divinely revealed.
He compares and contrasts Calvinism with Molinism, and that’s a valid exercise up to a point. But it’s also misleading, for there is a fundamental asymmetry between the two positions.
Calvinism claims to be divinely revealed–Molinism does not. And in the nature of the case, we have a higher epistemic duty to believe the word of God than we have to believe an intellectual speculation.
Of course, you might object that’s possible to mistakenly believe that something or another is revealed truth. And that is, indeed, the case. However, that preserves the underlying asymmetry. For it’s also possible to mistakenly believe that an intellectual speculation is true.
So in both cases it’s possible to be wrong, but our epistemic duties are hardly comparable in each case. Because I have a higher obligation to revealed truth, than I have to intellectual speculation, I also have a higher or obligation to what I take to be revealed truth, than I have to what I take to be a true speculation.
A Christian’s allegiance ought to be first and foremost to the word of God. To make what is admittedly an intellectual conjecture like Molinism the deal-breaker betrays a terribly misplaced sense of spiritual priorities. Especially when Craig is a seasoned believer and veteran apologist for the faith.