nostrplebs.com on Nostr: Craig’s critique assumes a Molinist framework, but Open Theists reject middle ...
Craig’s critique assumes a Molinist framework, but Open Theists reject middle knowledge altogether—both for creatures and for God. Boyd’s analogy of a chess master doesn’t mean God has pre-volitional middle knowledge of His own actions; rather, it highlights God’s perfect wisdom and ability to respond freely in real time.
Craig worries this removes divine freedom, but Open Theism actually enhances it. God isn’t locked into a predetermined set of responses; He makes genuine, dynamic choices. His knowledge isn’t about pre-set counterfactuals but about His character, wisdom, and ongoing relationship with creation. This makes God more free, not less.
Ultimately, the debate isn’t just about knowledge but about how God interacts with the world—is He executing a pre-scripted plan, or engaging in a living, relational way? Open Theism affirms the latter.
Craig worries this removes divine freedom, but Open Theism actually enhances it. God isn’t locked into a predetermined set of responses; He makes genuine, dynamic choices. His knowledge isn’t about pre-set counterfactuals but about His character, wisdom, and ongoing relationship with creation. This makes God more free, not less.
Ultimately, the debate isn’t just about knowledge but about how God interacts with the world—is He executing a pre-scripted plan, or engaging in a living, relational way? Open Theism affirms the latter.