Molinism

Molinism is a theological framework developed by Luis de Molina in the late 16th century to reconcile divine sovereignty and human free will. It centers on the concept of middle knowledge, positing that God knows not only all that will happen (foreknowledge) and could happen (natural knowledge), but also what free creatures would do in any possible circumstance. This "middle knowledge" allows God to orchestrate events in the world, maintaining His sovereign will while preserving human freedom.

History:

Molinism emerged during the Counter-Reformation, especially as a reaction to Calvinist predestination. It was adopted by some within the Roman Catholic Church to offer a theological solution to the perceived tension between God’s sovereignty and human libertarian free will. It faced opposition from Thomist theologians, who viewed it as undermining God’s sovereignty. In modern times, Molinism has been defended by apologists such as William Lane Craig and has gained a following among those seeking to reconcile human freedom with divine foreordination, particularly in discussions of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and the problem of evil.

Theology of Molinism:

1. Middle Knowledge:

   • Molinism's key claim is that God has middle knowledge—the knowledge of all potential outcomes based on every possible set of circumstances. This allows God to know what free creatures would choose under any given situation, even though they retain libertarian free will.

2. Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom:

   • Molinism posits that God uses middle knowledge to actualize a world in which His purposes are fulfilled, but He does so in a way that respects genuine human freedom. Thus, God is able to sovereignly guide history while allowing individuals to make free decisions.

3. Predestination and Election:

   • Molinism asserts that God’s election is based on His knowledge of how individuals would freely respond to His grace. Rather than election being unconditional, as in Reformed theology, God’s choice is conditioned upon His foreknowledge of human decisions, allowing Him to elect those whom He knows will respond positively to the gospel.

Critique from Historic Christian Orthodoxy:

1. Absence of Biblical Support (The Most Important Critique):

   • The primary critique of Molinism is that it is not grounded in Scripture. The doctrine of middle knowledge is a speculative philosophical construct that cannot be found in the Bible. Nowhere does Scripture indicate that God’s decisions depend on His knowledge of potential human choices. The Bible teaches God’s exhaustive foreknowledge (Isaiah 46:9-10, Romans 8:29-30) and His sovereign decree over all things, without requiring a system of middle knowledge. In fact, Reformed theologians argue that Molinism imposes speculative philosophy onto the biblical text, violating the principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone as the authority).

2. Undermining Divine Sovereignty:

   • Molinism undermines God’s sovereignty by making His decree contingent upon human decisions. In Christian orthodoxy, God’s sovereignty is unconditional, and He ordains all things according to His will (Ephesians 1:11). In Molinism, God’s ordination of events is constrained by what free creatures would do in hypothetical circumstances, which detracts from His absolute control over creation and reduces His sovereignty to a reactive position rather than an active, determinative one.

3. Dilution of God’s Omniscience:

   • Molinism’s middle knowledge creates a distinction within God’s omniscience that is foreign to historic orthodoxy. By positing that God knows what creatures would do (counterfactuals) in any possible world and then uses this knowledge to guide creation, Molinism introduces a layered understanding of knowledge that seems unnecessary and complex. Reformed theology teaches that God’s knowledge is simple and exhaustive, covering all possible and actual realities in one divine decree. This critique highlights that Molinism's view unnecessarily complicates God’s omniscience and sovereignty.

4. Distortion of Grace:

   • In the Molinist framework, God’s grace is not irresistible; instead, it is contingent upon how a person freely responds to the circumstances in which God places them. This differs from the Reformed view of grace, which teaches that God’s grace is not only necessary but also effectual and sufficient to bring about salvation in those whom God has chosen (Romans 9:16, Ephesians 2:8-9). Molinism risks introducing a form of synergism, wherein human cooperation with grace is necessary for salvation, undermining the monergistic view that salvation is entirely a work of God’s grace from start to finish.

5. Incompatibility with Unconditional Election:

   • Molinism presents election as conditional upon God’s foreknowledge of human choices, in contrast to the unconditional election taught in Reformed theology. Scriptures such as Romans 9:11-18 and Ephesians 1:4-5 affirm that God’s election is based solely on His will, not on any foreseen response from individuals. Molinism, by making God’s election dependent on middle knowledge, contradicts this biblical teaching and compromises the doctrine of predestination.

6. Philosophical Overreach:

   • Molinism operates primarily in the realm of speculative philosophical theology rather than being drawn directly from the biblical text. This critique argues that Molinism shifts the theological conversation away from the clarity of Scripture and into a more speculative realm where abstract philosophical concepts, such as possible worlds and counterfactuals, take precedence over clear biblical teachings about God's sovereignty and human responsibility. This speculative nature makes Molinism a less reliable theological framework than the clear and consistent teachings of the Bible.

Conclusion:

Molinism, while attempting to reconcile divine sovereignty with human free will, distorts important attributes of God, such as His sovereignty, omniscience, and grace. By introducing the concept of middle knowledge, it shifts the balance from God’s sovereign decree to human freedom, leading to a conditional view of election and grace that departs from historic Christian orthodoxy. Moreover, Molinism lacks clear biblical support, relying heavily on philosophical speculation rather than Scripture. Historic Christian orthodoxy, especially in the Reformed tradition, rejects Molinism in favor of the biblical doctrine of God’s sovereign grace and unconditional election.