For roughly the last 400 years,
Protestants seeking a systematic understanding of the doctrine of salvation
have basically had their pick of two options—Calvinism and Arminianism. This
dilemma has often been unsatisfactory to all but the most dyed-in-the-wool
adherents of each system because no matter which system you chose, you would
eventually run across passages of Scripture that your system didn’t explain
very well. Despite that fact, we’ve felt like we’ve basically just had to pick
one or the other and live with its flaws because there didn’t seem to be any
other options.
Could it be that we’ve been caught
on the horns of a false dilemma? Is there actually another option to
consider—one that can capture the stronger points of Calvinism and Arminianism
in a biblically accurate, logically coherent way? I have come to believe that
there is, and it is a system known as Molinism.
Molinism takes its name from the
15th-century Jesuit priest, Luis de Molina. Yes, that’s right—the way through
this Protestant impasse may be to rediscover the thinking of a Jesuit priest!
The Protestant version of Molinism—to no one’s surprise!—does not embrace every
detail of Molina’s theology. It is built upon his unique contribution to the
concept of God’s omniscience—namely, the doctrine of middle knowledge. This
doctrine asserts that before God ever chose to create this world, He already
possessed an accurate and certain knowledge of every decision that every free
creature would make in any given circumstance. Molina further asserted that God
possessed this knowledge NOT through any process of learning, but simply on the
basis of His complete knowledge of His own imagination. Since we are products
of God’s imagination, He could know us completely without having to “wait and
see” what we would choose, so to speak.
As you can see, the doctrine of
middle knowledge is built upon a prior commitment to the idea that humans
possess libertarian human freedom—or in other words, the power of contrary
choice. These phrases simply mean that for any choice you make, you could have
made a different choice than you actually made. For example, when you made the
choice to wear the shirt that you’re wearing today, you could have actually
chosen the other shirt that you were also considering. Libertarian human
freedom stands at odds with theological determinism (or compatibilism), which
asserts that God has ordered all things in such a way that for any choice you
make, you could not have made a different choice than you actually made.
Theological determinism is the position of logically-consistent Calvinists. I
say “logically-consistent” because your average Calvinist in the pulpit or the
pew is very inconsistent in his philosophical beliefs. He appreciates Calvinist
perspectives on ideas like eternal security and election (as do I), but he
would shy away from the full implications of Calvinism’s denial of libertarian
human freedom. Yet he does this without realizing he is straining the bonds of
logic.
But let’s get back to Molinism! While
Molinism embraces libertarian human freedom, it does not sacrifice a strong
view of God’s sovereignty. It affirms that God is in control over all
things—even the free choices of humans! This union explains why I’ve come to
think Molinism has such promise—it logically and biblically unites libertarian
human freedom with a strong view of God’s sovereignty. According to philosopher
William Hasker, “If you are committed to a strong view of providence, according
to which, down to the smallest detail, things are as they are because God
knowingly decided to create such a world, and yet you also wish to maintain a
libertarian conception of free will—if this is what you want, then Molinism is
the only game in town.” This is precisely what many Christians want after
carefully reading the Bible. It seems obvious that God is in control of all
things AND that humans make real choices which they could have decided
differently. Molinism helps us understand logically the conclusions that so
many people have reached biblically.
Since you might now begin to Google “Molinism,”
let me just say that I don’t agree with everything that is promoted under this
banner. If you are interested in studying Molinism further, I would recommend
Kenneth Keathley’s book Salvation and Sovereignty as a great starting
point. If you have mostly understood what I’ve written in this blog post, then
you will be able to track with Keathley’s book. Plus, his book is a book,
so he goes into more detail to explain ideas than I have in just this one blog
post. I may write some additional posts on this topic, but if this post has
already piqued your curiosity, you would do well to read Keathley’s book.
