The Beautiful Doctrine or Why Molinism?
- Tony Vance
- May 17, 2017
- 7 min read
(We will be doing a series of articles on Molinism, today is part 1)
It‘s a question I’ve been asked often; “Why Molinism?” I guess that question could be asked in a variety of ways. First, why did I embrace Molinism? I hope this article answers that. Secondly, and maybe most importantly, why is IT (the doctrine) important? Again, I hope in this article to begin to show the ideas of Molinism are robust and rich in their abilities to answer hard Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical questions. It is no small thing that many of the world’s greatest thinkers-William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantiga, and Luis de Molina (just to name a few)-are Molinists. Molina is where the name ‘Molinism’ came from, and in a future article I will look at his theology and life, as he helped to form the beginnings of Molinism.
Let’s return to the question that we are addressing; why Molinism? From the earliest days of the church, theologians, pastors, and ordinary Christians, alike, have pondered the relationship of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility (which includes the idea of man having some form of free will). Calvinism answered the sovereign issue, declaring God as sovereign, meticulously arranging all things and casually determining the means, modes, and outcome. Arminianism, a clear response to Calvinism’s ‘sovereign’ stance, answered the idea of man’s responsibility (declaring him to have free will) and that God only dealt with man, wooing and drawing him, but it was man’s ‘choice’ to respond. God foreknew anyone’s choice, as He gave them freedom to choose. Forgive me for these very brief, and limited, explanations of the two camps, but we will address much of what each, Arminians and Calvinist, believe and why Molinism is a better model.
Dr. Kenneth Keathley addressed each of the strong points of both Arminianism and Calvinism and how Molinism embraces them:
“The five “Calvinistic” tenets of Molinism 1. God controls all things. 2. Man does not contribute to his salvation. 3. God is Author and Completer of salvation. 4. Individual election is unconditional. 5. The believer is eternally secure in Christ. The five “Arminian” tenets of Molinism 1. God is not the author of sin. 2. God desires the salvation of all. 3. Christ died for all people. 4. God’s grace is resistible. 5. At crucial times, humans have the ability to choose.”1
The synthesis of these 10 ‘tenets’ seem, at first, to be quite contrary, but Keathley thinks not:
“So why do I embrace Molinism? Because, like the Calvinist, I am convinced the Bible teaches that (1) God is sovereign and His control is meticulous; (2) man is incapable of contributing to his salvation or of even desiring to be saved; (3) God through Christ is Author, Accomplisher, and Completer of salvation (i.e., salvation is a work of grace from beginning to end); (4) individual election is unconditional; and (5) the believer is secure in Christ. However, like the Arminian, I am also convinced the Bible teaches that (6) God is not the Author, Origin, or Cause of sin (and to say that He is, is not just hyper-Calvinism but blasphemy); (7) God genuinely desires the salvation of all humanity; (8) Christ genuinely died for all people; (9) God’s grace is resistible (this means that regeneration does not precede conversion); and (10) humans genuinely choose, are causal agents, and are responsible for the sin of rejecting Christ (this means that the alternative of accepting salvation was genuinely available to the unbeliever).”2
This combining of two camps, Calvinism (or divine determinism advocates) and Arminianism (or libertarian free will advocates), is accomplished in Molinism. “Molinism argues that God perfectly accomplishes His will in free creatures through the use of His omniscience. It reconciles two crucial biblical truths: (1) God exercises sovereign control over all His creation, and (2) human beings make free choices and decisions for which they must give account.”3 It is the neglect (or misunderstanding) of God’s omniscience that Molinism answers, making the system able to synthesize the sovereignty of God and free will of man. As a side note, Molinism affirms a form of free will called libertarian free will (LFW). In a future article, we will address the idea of LFW as well as that of Middle Knowledge (MK)-which is rooted in His omniscience.
I came to embrace Molinism only a few short years ago (maybe about 2). It was not a ‘conversion’ ‘to’ as much as a realization ‘that’ it answered a lot of questions I had. I was raised in a denomination that embraced a strong Arminian tradition dating back to a General Baptist founding. The denomination I am in (Freewill Baptist) is from the same General Baptist foundations. General Baptist derived their name from the idea of General Atonement, that Christ died for all, as opposed to the Calvinist type Baptist (called Particular Baptist) that believed He died for only a particular group, the Elect. Molinism gave me satisfaction of questions I had often asked. Just as Dr. William Lane Craig noted, it was, “the single most fruitful theological concept I have ever encountered.”4 And again, it was not a conversion ‘to’ but a realization ‘that’, I was a Molinist.
Arminianism seemed to leave me unsatisfied. It’s advocating God foreknowing and acting upon this ‘knowledge’ seemed to strike me as limiting God’s sovereignty. While at the same time, Calvinism’s idea of God pre-ordaining, or casual-determinism, of all things seemed wrong, as well. I firmly believed (that is before I ‘knew’ I was a Molinist) that God knows all things and is in complete control, yet we are responsible for our choices, freely made. I actually moved, even if in just in my own head, back and forth between some version of Arminianism and some version of Calvinism, never satisfied that the synthesis was possible-till I encountered Molinism. Molinism could answer the questions my theology had often had, that other systems didn’t seem to have good answers for. The way Molinism reconciled LFW and God’s sovereignty was revolutionary, in my thinking.
Of course, any theological stance must have a biblical rational for its advocacy. I began looking in scripture to see if MK and LFW, the basis for Molinism (what Tim Stratton calls ‘Mere Molinism’- see here), were anywhere to be found. Molinism is also strongly influenced by counterfactuals. Dr. MacGregor explains, “Counterfactuals take the following form: if something were the case (when in fact it may or may not be the case), then something else would be the case.”5 It is the idea of something that might or might not have happened, and if that were the case then something else would happen or something would not. MacGregor notes, “according to middle knowledge, God knows which of these propositions are true and which are false before deciding to make this world or any world.”6
We see counterfactual statements in scripture, such as the story in 1 Samuel 23:9-13. David inquired of God about what to do, 1 Samuel 23:12 (CSBBible) “Then David asked, "Will the citizens of Keilah hand me and my men over to Saul??" "They will," the LORD responded.” They didn’t! That is to say, David heeded God’s warning that ‘if’ he stayed at Keilah ‘then’ the citizens there would have turned him over to Saul. They didn’t and it was because, 1 Samuel 23:13 (CSBBible) “So David and his men, numbering about six hundred, left Keilah at once and moved from place to place. When it was reported to Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he called off the expedition.” It is important to note the ‘if…then’ form this story takes. Calvinism makes no sense of this, as it seems God ‘lied’ that the men would turn over David (because they didn’t). While on the other hand, Arminians have a ‘lying’ God too, as He couldn’t ‘foreknow’ something that didn’t happen. Only Molinism (at least the doctrine of MK) can account for the idea of ‘if’ David stayed ‘then’ Saul would have had him.
Maybe the most powerful example of counterfactual knowledge used by God is Jesus’ statement concerning some cities.
Matthew 11:20-24 (NLT) “Then Jesus began to denounce the towns where he had done so many of his miracles, because they hadn’t repented of their sins and turned to God. 21 “What sorrow awaits you, Korazin and Bethsaida! For if the miracles I did in you had been done in wicked Tyre and Sidon, their people would have repented of their sins long ago, clothing themselves in burlap and throwing ashes on their heads to show their remorse. 22 I tell you, Tyre and Sidon will be better off on judgment day than you. 23 “And you people of Capernaum, will you be honored in heaven? No, you will go down to the place of the dead. For if the miracles I did for you had been done in wicked Sodom, it would still be here today. 24 I tell you, even Sodom will be better off on judgment day than you.””
Jesus clearly states “if the miracles” had been done in Tyre and Sidon then they “would have repented.” Here we see the ‘if…then’ formula again, from our Lord’s very lips. Dr. MacGregor stated, “Here Jesus articulated his knowledge that if he had performed his miracles in different spatio-temporal locations than in those where he actually performed them, then certain groups of individuals who had not in fact repented and were damned would have repented and been saved.”7 I think it is disingenuous to claim, as some do, that Jesus was using mere grammatical hyperbole. That seems inconsistent with Christ, as his hyperbole was usually very apparent (“seven times seventy” -for example). Molinism seems the best explanation of this statement, and many other ‘if…then’ statements in scripture.
The following quote seems to explain Molinism in its essence, “If you believe you have free will and that God does not force you to do all that you do, and if you believe God knows everything that could happen, will actually happen, and would have happened in any other circumstances, then you are a Molinist." (Randy Everist in a FaceBook group discussion). The idea of counterfactuals and the ‘if…then’ language of scripture seems to point to Molinism as the best explanation. I explained the ideas of Molinism to a good friend one day, explaining why I had become a Molinist. His reaction was unexpected as he stared straight ahead and exclaimed, “that’s beautiful, maybe the most beautiful thing I’ve ever heard.” To which I have come to conclude the same, it is the ‘beautiful’ doctrine...come bask in its radiance!
1. Keathley, Kenneth. Salvation and Sovereignty (p. 7). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
2. ibid
3. Keathley, Kenneth. Salvation and Sovereignty (p. 5). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
4. Craig, W. L. “The Middle Knowledge View,” in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, ed. J. K Beilby and P. R. Eddy. (pg 125) Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001.
5. MacGregor, Kirk R.. Luis de Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge (p. 79). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
6. ibid
7. MacGregor, Kirk R.. Luis de Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge (p. 83). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.