Molinism: The Bridge Between Calvinism & Arminianism

Humble_Disciple · Aug 1, 2021

According to William Lane Craig, when he visited Calvin College, all of the theologians said they were actually Molinists, not Calvinists:

When I gave the Stob lectures at Calvin College and Seminary, I was shocked when the theologians at the seminary told me that they were all Molinists! I increasingly encounter people who are moving in the Molinist direction (both from the Calvinistic end and the open theist end of the spectrum!)
Molinism vs. Calvinism | Reasonable Faith

It seems to that Molinism is the next logical step after Calvinism, that once you've accepted the Bible's passages on God's sovereignty, Molinism offers a way to reconcile them with other Biblical passages on human responsibility.

Imagine that Laura is a doctor. Laura chose to become a doctor because her mother developed Lou Gehrig’s disease, and she had to learn how to care for her mother. That sparked Laura’s passion for medicine.

But what if Laura’s mother had never developed the disease? Would Laura still have become a doctor?

And is that something God could know? That is, does God know what people would have (not just could have) chosen if put in different circumstances?

Theologians call that kind of knowledge “middle knowledge.”

In between knowledge of everything that could happen and everything that willhappen is everything that would have happened.

Does the Bible reveal whether or not God has middle knowledge?

Consider this episode from the life of David.

The Philistines were attacking the city of Keilah. David asked the Lord if he shouldfight them. God said yes (1 Sam 23:2), so David attacked the Philistines, thereby saving the city. However, David heard that King Saul was planning to come toKeilah to kill him. How would the citizens of Keilah react? Would they defend him, or deliver David into Saul’s hands? David prayed to God for an answer (and notice that David assumes God knows the future):

“O Lord God of Israel, Your servant has certainly heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah to destroy the city for my sake. Will the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as Your servant has heard? O Lord God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant.”
And the Lord said, “He will come down.”
Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul?”
And the Lord said, “They will deliver you.”
So David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah and went wherever they could go. Then it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah; so he halted the expedition (1 Sam 23:10-13).

Do you see what happened here?

God revealed what would have happened if David had stayed in Keilah, i.e., Saul would have come, and the men of Keilah would have delivered David into Saul’s hands. Given that information, David left Keilah. Consequently, Saul “halted the expedition” and David was not delivered into Saul’s hands.

That’s one example of God’s middle knowledge.

Here’s another—

Jesus had ministered in the cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida with limited results, soHe warned them:

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable forTyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you” (Matt 11:21-24).

Jesus knew what Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would have done had they seen His miracles, i.e., they would have repented.

That’s another example of middle knowledge.

Interestingly, God’s judgment of those cities will take into account what they would have done. Since they would have repented had they been given the same miraculous evidence, “it shall be more tolerable” for Sodom than for Capernaum.

What do we call a God who knows everything that would have happened in the world?

Omniscient.
God Is Omniscient: God’s Middle Knowledge – Grace Evangelical Society

According to Molinism, God created our world, based on His middle knowledge, as the world where the most people possible would be saved, since God knew ahead of time who would reject the Gospel in every possible world.

As a Molinist, one can agree with Arminians that God's enabling grace to believe the Gospel is provided to all people equally (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11, etc.), and with Calvinists that, once you are saved, your salvation is eternally secure (John 5:24, John 10:27-29, etc.)

Ecclesiastes 7:18
It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.

1 Corinthians 8:2-3
Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.

HTacianas · Aug 1, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
According to William Lane Craig, when he visited Calvin College, all of the theologians said they were actually Molinists, not Calvinists:

It seems to that Molinism is the next logical step after Calvinism, that once you've accepted the Bible's passages on God's sovereignty, Molinism offers a way to reconcile them with other Biblical passages on human responsibility.

According to Molinism, God created our world, based on His middle knowledge, as the world where the most people possible would be saved, since God knew ahead of time who would reject the Gospel in every possible world.

As a Molinist, one can agree with Arminians that God's enabling grace to believe the Gospel is provided to all people equally (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11, etc.), and with Calvinists that, once you are saved, your salvation is eternally secure (John 5:24, John 10:27-29, etc.)

Ecclesiastes 7:18
It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.

1 Corinthians 8:2-3
Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.

Or this, from the Confession of Dositheus:

We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth {1 Timothy 2:4}. But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing [or, prevenient] grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and co-operate with it, in what it requires as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace. This grace co-operates with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation.

But to say, as the most wicked heretics do and as is contained in the Chapter [of Cyril's' Confession] to which this answers — that God, in predestinating, or condemning, did not consider in any way the works of those predestinated, or condemned, we know to be profane and impious. For thus Scripture would be opposed to itself, since it promises the believer salvation through works, yet supposes God to be its sole author, by His sole illuminating grace, which He bestows without preceding works, to show to man the truth of divine things, and to teach him how he may co-operate with it, if he will, and do what is good and acceptable, and so obtain salvation. He takes not away the power to will — to will to obey, or not obey him.

The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox)

rhomphaeam · Aug 1, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
It seems to that Molinism is the next logical step after Calvinism, that once you've accepted the Bible's passages on God's sovereignty, Molinism offers a way to reconcile them with other Biblical passages on human responsibility.

No one can choose to repent because repentance is a response to conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit and not simply a function of an independent knowledge of good and evil from which one may be regretful one moment of one sinful acton and entirely indifferent the next to another sinful action.

Humble_Disciple · Aug 1, 2021

rhomphaeam said:
No one can choose to repent because repentance is a response to conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit and not simply a function of an independent knowledge of good and evil from which one may be regretful one moment of one sinful acton and entirely indifferent the next to another sinful action.

That's where prevenient grace comes in:

Humble_Disciple said:
The main disagreement that Arminians and Molinists have with Calvinism is whether or not God's grace is irresistible. While Calvinists insist that God's enabling grace is given only to the elect, without the possibility of rejecting it, Molinists and Arminians believe that God's enabling grace to believe the Gospel is given to all people equally, with the possibility of rejecting it. (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11)

Jeremiah 18: Romans 9 De-Calvinized

rhomphaeam · Aug 1, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
That's where prevenient grace comes in:

Jeremiah 18: Romans 9 De-Calvinized

The following I wrote many years ago - and I have posted it one time on another forum. Can I ask you why you are even concerned that Calvinists are treated more fairly?

In Christo solo, Justificatio sola fide, Sola gratia, Sola scriptura - Soli Deo gloria.

Jesus has shown us by His own example that a person cannot take up his cross unless he first chooses to deny himself. The soul will not lightly suffer, yet a loving son delights in obedience (John 14:15). Therefore Jesus says, "Father if thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done" (Luke 22:42). The cross means obedience (Philippians 2:8), in a willingness to suffer in the flesh (1 Peter 4:1). It means, "Not my will, but Thine be done." The cross is the place where Christ laid down His life for the sin of the world. Therefore it is a place of death and an end to life."If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, follow Me".

We cannot live for ourselves and live for God. We cannot serve two masters. We will love the one and hate the other, or cling to the one and despise the other (Luke 16:13). We cannot store treasure in heaven and on earth. "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal." (John 12:25). The Greek says, ο φιλων την ψυχην (soul) αυτου απολλυει αυτην και ο μισων την ψυχην αυτου εν τω κοσμω τουτω εις ζωην αιωνιον (life eternal) φυλαξει αυτην. It is only when the Lord returns that eternal life becomes visible. Therefore it is at this time that the obedient soul enters into the joy of the Lord. This is the first resurrection and the time when all the Lord's servants are judged. The first outworking of that judgement is the issue of the kingdom itself.

The gift of eternal life is freely given to those who put their faith in Jesus and receive Him as their Saviour. Eternal life can never be merited. If we are able to believe by faith that eternal life is a gift given by God without repentance on His part, then the question we must ask ourselves is not shall we perish, but are we worthy of the Lord of Glory? No man who ever lived can be considered worthy of the Lord in respect to being worthy of the Lord's death. Nevertheless worth is an important issue.

For example, there is the worth of the saints, (Romans 16:2) as well as a saint being counted worthy to suffer shame for Christ's name (Acts 5:41). Paul entreats the Ephesians to walk in a manner worthy of their calling (Ephesians 4:1), and to the Thessalonians, Paul says, "to this end we pray that God may count you worthy of your calling." Paul identifies the persecution of the Thessalonian saints as a "plain indication of God's righteous judgement so that they might be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God", (2 Thess 1:4,11). And in Revelation 3:4 the Lord Jesus says of the overcomer in the church at Sardis that they will walk with Him in white because they are worthy.

We see in these few verses a clear call for God's people to deny themselves so that they may be counted worthy of the Lord at His coming (Matthew 10:37-38). We also see that to be counted worthy of the Kingdom or to walk with Christ in white in the Kingdom, refers to a believer's walk here and now and not simply to the fact of believing in the Lord Himself. Suffering for the sake of the Kingdom to the Thessalonian saints was obedience. For the Ephesian saints, to walk in a manner worthy of their calling was a command to love one another.

One may well ask how loving one another can be reckoned as worthy. The answer is truly heartbreaking. There is no more a harmful man than the one who says 'brother' and then sets about to devour you. There is no more a hypocrite than the one who says, 'be blessed' and then curses you. Such is the work of many who take the name of the Lord. By the hands of the brethren are the brethren more injured than by the hands of evil unbelieving men. In that circumstance to love your brother is indeed a worthy attitude because it requires a willingness to suffer for the sake of the Lord. Which pastor does not know its meaning?

Humble_Disciple · Aug 1, 2021

rhomphaeam said:
Can I ask you why you are even concerned that Calvinists are treated more fairly?

Calvinists are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Unlike Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, Calvinists don't deny essential Christian doctrines.

rhomphaeam · Aug 1, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
Calvinists are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Unlike Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, Calvinists don't deny essential Christian doctrines.

I don't doubt that you intend what you say - but you have spent sometime seeking to undo the precepts of Calvinism and then tell us [I am a Calvinist] that we ought to love Calvinists more. Then in the twinkling of an eye you present Finney.

So how do you imagine that a Calvinist could have written what you are now responding to in this post you have made?

Humble_Disciple · Aug 1, 2021

rhomphaeam said:
Then in the twinkling of an eye you present Finney.

Who is the real Charles Finney?

BobRyan · Aug 1, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
According to William Lane Craig, when he visited Calvin College, all of the theologians said they were actually Molinists, not Calvinists:

It seems to that Molinism is the next logical step after Calvinism, that once you've accepted the Bible's passages on God's sovereignty, Molinism offers a way to reconcile them with other Biblical passages on human responsibility.

According to Molinism, God created our world, based on His middle knowledge, as the world where the most people possible would be saved, since God knew ahead of time who would reject the Gospel in every possible world.

As a Molinist, one can agree with Arminians that God's enabling grace to believe the Gospel is provided to all people equally (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11, etc.), and with Calvinists that, once you are saved, your salvation is eternally secure (John 5:24, John 10:27-29, etc.)

Ecclesiastes 7:18
It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.

1 Corinthians 8:2-3
Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.

1. I don't understand how knowing "everything that could happen and also what would happen" excludes middle knowledge.

2. I don't understand how middle knowledge removes the "forgiveness revoked" issue of Matt 18 and Romans 11 and Matt 13 and Ezek 18.

you said:

As a Molinist, one can agree with Arminians that God's enabling grace to believe the Gospel is provided to all people equally (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11, etc.), and with Calvinists that, once you are saved, your salvation is eternally secure (John 5:24, John 10:27-29, etc.)

In Gen 6 God "repents that he has made mankind" - and decides all mankind except for 2 people and their future children - must be destroyed. Both Molinism and "knowing everything" would have taken that into account right?

Humble_Disciple · Aug 1, 2021

BobRyan said:
1. I don't understand how knowing "everything that could happen and also what would happen" excludes middle knowledge.

2. I don't understand how middle knowledge removes the "forgiveness revoked" issue of Matt 18 and Romans 11 and Matt 13 and Ezek 18.

you said:

As a Molinist, one can agree with Arminians that God's enabling grace to believe the Gospel is provided to all people equally (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11, etc.), and with Calvinists that, once you are saved, your salvation is eternally secure (John 5:24, John 10:27-29, etc.)

In Gen 6 God "repents that he has made mankind" - and decides all mankind except for 2 people and their future children - must be destroyed. Both Molinism and "knowing everything" would have taken that into account right?

I'm sorry. I'm not quite following what you are asking.

BobRyan · Aug 1, 2021

rhomphaeam said:
No one can choose to repent because repentance is a response to conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit

True and since the Holy Spirit "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16 (not just the "few" of Matt 7) - all are then supernaturally enabled by that work to repent - (I will DRAW ALL mankind unto Me John 12:32)

BobRyan · Aug 1, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
I'm sorry. I'm not quite following what you are asking.

I don't know what Molinism adds to "knowing everything that will happen and everything that could happen)

Knowing everything cannot exclude knowing what would happen if path-B were chosen.

rhomphaeam · Aug 1, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
Who is the real Charles Finney?

I don't hate anyone and I couldn't give a care about trying to hunt Charles Finney. I asked you a serious question as you have spent some time overturning Calvinism as you understand it - yet I posted a very simple precept based on:

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matthew 16:24-27

The key word that is implicit in the @#5 comment I made is the precept of choosing as outlined in the above Mathew passage.

isn't that at the heart of the matter? So I asked "how do you imagine that a Calvinist could have written" it - seeing that choice is the meaning?

Humble_Disciple · Aug 1, 2021

rhomphaeam said:
"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matthew 16:24-27

The key word that is implicit in the @#5 comment I made is the precept of choosing as outlined in the above Mathew passage.

isn't that at the heart of the matter? So I asked "how do you imagine that a Calvinist could have written" it - seeing that choice is the meaning?

I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time understanding what you are asking. If you want to know what I think about Calvinism:

John Calvin: Not a Calvinist

Jeremiah 18: Romans 9 De-Calvinized

rhomphaeam · Aug 1, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time understanding what you are asking. If you want to know what I think about Calvinism:

John Calvin: Not a Calvinist
Jeremiah 18: Romans 9 De-Calvinized

I already looked at the two links you posted - and seeing as they are your efforts I posted to yourself. If they had been external articles or else posts written by another person I would have simply written a non personal response or else written to the other person.

You said in one of those posts you linked to:

Please keep in mind that I disproved Calvinism on my own, based on my reading of scripture alone, rather than of what anti-Calvinists have to say.

I prayed for God to reveal to me whether Calvinism is true or untrue, and then I read the Bible until I had an answer.

If scripture is self-interpreting, as the Reformers insisted upon, then Romans 9 must be read in light of Jeremiah 18.

Now all I have done is post a precept that on the face of it upholds your revelation based on the Scripture. Yet I hold to unconditional election.

Your core issue is unconditional election or conditional election. And right at its heart is the precept of choosing - Gods' choosing in His foreknowledge - of who would choose Him. Choosing - but based on conditional election grounded in the foreknowledge of God.

fhansen · Aug 1, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
As a Molinist, one can agree with Arminians that God's enabling grace to believe the Gospel is provided to all people equally (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11, etc.),

What??? Is this some kind of breakthrough here? The will of man, by God's sovereign will, is somehow involved, however small that role may be? Molinism is completely consistent with the teachings of the ancient church, both east and west, even though the Catholic church has never settled on it or any other theory as necessarily being the specific means by which God works all this out.

Humble_Disciple said:
and with Calvinists that, once you are saved, your salvation is eternally secure (John 5:24, John 10:27-29, etc.)

That's a little more of a jump. God knows who the elect are-or who ends up being such. We, OTOH, don't have access to the Book of Life as if we could have perfect, 100%, absolute certainty. We don't know the future, including our future choices, as He does.

zippy2006 · Aug 1, 2021

Humble_Disciple said:
The main disagreement that Arminians and Molinists have with Calvinism is whether or not God's grace is irresistible. While Calvinists insist that God's enabling grace is given only to the elect, without the possibility of rejecting it, Molinists and Arminians believe that God's enabling grace to believe the Gospel is given to all people equally, with the possibility of rejecting it. (John 12:32, John 15:26, John 16:8-11)

That seems right if we are looking at things from the free will perspective, but if we look at things from the angle of Calvinism the difficulty with Molinism is the way it qualifies God's sovereignty. For example, the Molinist apparently believes that God would not be able to save everyone if he wanted to. Of course this is related to irresistible grace, but it also relates to the portrait of God. Is God a sovereign with full control over creation, including human salvation? Or is he a chess master with enormous ability of calculation, based on middle knowledge, which will bring the optimal number of people to salvation? These are two very different conceptions of God.

I find Molinism to be a very odd system: a prized abstraction of philosophers without much relation to the Bible or the life of faith.

Humble_Disciple · Aug 1, 2021

I accomplished everything I intended to accomplish in removing the blinders of anti-Calvinists, and now I'm doing the same for the other side, to the glory of God alone. Are we not all brothers and sisters in Christ?

Humble_Disciple · Aug 1, 2021

zippy2006 said:
That seems right if we are looking at things from the free will perspective, but if we look at things from the angle of Calvinism the difficulty with Molinism is the way it qualifies God's sovereignty. For example, the Molinist apparently believes that God would not be able to save everyone if he wanted to. Of course this is related to irresistible grace, but it also relates to the portrait of God. Is God a sovereign with full control over creation, including human salvation? Or is he a chess master with enormous ability of calculation, based on middle knowledge, which will bring the optimal number of people to salvation? These are two very different conceptions of God.

I find Molinism to be a very odd system: a prized abstraction of philosophers without much relation to the Bible or the life of faith.

If you look at the OP, there are real examples from scripture of God's middle knowledge.

Molinists and Arminians agree with Calvinists that God's enabling grace is necessary to repent and believe the Gospel. The only question is to whether prevenient grace is given to all people equally or just a select few, and whether or not it can be ultimately rejected by self- hardened sinners.

Humble_Disciple · Aug 1, 2021

fhansen said:
What??? Is this some kind of breakthrough here? The will of man, by God's sovereign will, is somehow involved, however small that role may be? Molinism is completely consistent with the teachings of the ancient church, both east and west, even though the Catholic church has never settled on it or any other theory as necessarily being the specific means by which God works all this out.

That's a little more of a jump. God knows who the elect are-or who ends up being such. We, OTOH, don't have access to the Book of Life as if we could have perfect, 100%, absolute certainty. We don't know the future, including our future choices, as He does.

Molinism might have only become well-known relatively recently, but the doctrine of prevenient grace, that God's enabling grace to believe the Gospel is provided to all people equally, is an ancient Christian doctrine based in scripture.

As far as the doctrine of eternal security, once you are born again through repentance and faith, how can you ever be unborn again? Just as you can't reverse your natural birth, how can you reverse your spiritual birth?

Molinism: The Bridge Between Calvinism & Arminianism

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Robert Chisholm

Well-Known Member

Robert Chisholm

Well-Known Member

Robert Chisholm

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Robert Chisholm

Well-Known Member

Robert Chisholm

Oldbie

Dragonsworn

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads