#molinism

Heya! Thank you for the question, I'm happy to explain Romans 9. The confusion you're experiencing over this passage is very common, so please don't feel as if this is something super obvious that you just don't get. The Church has been debating this passage and related passages for centuries.

In Romans 9, the Apostle Paul begins by lamenting the state of the ethnic Jews of his day who rejected Messiah. He goes on to teach that true Jews aren't merely the physical descendants of Abraham, but those who have faith like Abraham did. Later, Paul makes it clear that Gentiles have been given the opportunity to be included as "children of Abraham" on the basis of faith.

Paul writes,

"In the words of the Scripture, “I chose to bless Jacob but not Esau.” And God said this before the children were even born, before they had done anything either good or bad. This proves that God was doing what He had decided from the beginning; it was not because of what the children did but because of what God wanted and chose.14 Was God being unfair? Of course not. 15 For God had said to Moses, “If I want to be kind to someone, I will. And I will take pity on anyone I want to.” 16 And so God’s blessings are not given just because someone decides to have them or works hard to get them. They are given because God takes pity on those He wants to. 17 Pharaoh, king of Egypt, was an example of this fact. For God told him He had given him the kingdom of Egypt for the very purpose of displaying the awesome power of God against him, so that all the world would hear about God’s glorious name. 18 So you see, God is kind to some just because He wants to be, and He makes some refuse to listen. 19 Well then, why does God blame them for not listening? Haven’t they done what he made them do? 20 No, don’t say that. Who are you to criticize God? Should the thing made say to the one who made it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 When a man makes a jar out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar beautiful, to be used for holding flowers, and another to throw garbage into? 22 Does not God have a perfect right to show His fury and power against those who are fit only for destruction, those He has been patient with for all this time? 23-24 And He has a right to take others such as ourselves, who have been made for pouring the riches of His glory into, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, and to be kind to us so that everyone can see how very great His glory is."

Depending on who you're asking, you're going to get different answers. There are two broad schools of thought, those who seek to uphold free will, and those who seek to uphold God's sovereignty. Within each are a multiplicity of views.

The first group will generally take a corporate approach to the text. The passage doesn't teach that God individually selects some for salvation while bypassing others; instead, the passage means to teach that God has selected to save an entire group of people, which are those who freely chose to respond to Him in faith. This group is typically broadly labeled "Arminian," after the 16th century theologian Jacob Arminius.

The second group will generally state the opposite: this passage does, in fact, teach that it is God who chooses who will be saved and who won't be, completely apart from anything the individual does or doesn't do. Free will doesn't play a part. This group is broadly labeled "Reformed," or "Calvinist" after John Calvin, who was a contemporary of Arminius.

So which is it? Are people exercising free will to choose God, or is God unilaterally deciding Himself?

I am a Molinist, after the theologian Louis De Molina, who was also a contemporary of Arminius. My perspective on Romans 9 is a little bit different.

For the most part, I interpret Romans 9 the same way the Calvinists do. I think the passage is meant to teach that God gets to decide individually who is saved and who isn't. But unlike the Calvinists, I also believe in genuine free will and I hold that it plays a part in all this.

So, as a Molinist, I believe the answer to the above question is both.

Let me explain.

Following Molina, I believe there are three broad categories of Biblical texts that teach these truths: 1) God is Sovereign; 2) Humankind has genuine free will; and 3) God genuinely desires all people to be saved. The Bible teaches these three truths, but doesn't explain how all three interlock. Arminians generally uphold the second two truths by explaining away all the passages of Scripture that teach the first truth, and Calvinists generally uphold the first truth while explaining away all the passages that teach the second two.

Molina held that all three categories of Biblical texts must be upheld together without any explaining away. So, Molina came up with what is called the "doctrine of middle knowledge." At the time, all theologians explained God's knowledge by means of "logical moments"; the first moment of God's knowledge being God's knowledge of all necessary truths (like logic and mathematics), and the second moment being God's knowledge of all that He freely chose to create (all things that are true because God declares them to be true, like the actions of people). The first moment was called "natural knowledge," and the second moment was called "free knowledge." In between these two moments of God's knowledge is God's creative decree.

Molina posited a third moment to God's knowledge, and called it "middle" knowledge because it fits in between the other two moments. Molina suggested that this moment includes God's knowledge of all actions/choices of all His free creatures in all sets of possible circumstances; God knows exactly what each free creature would do in any set of circumstances. Molina suggested that this moment should be placed prior to God's creative decree, and that it informs His decisions when creating.

This means that, if Molina is correct, God is able to exercise exhaustive, meticulous Sovereignty over all of creation, while at the same time allowing all people to be genuinely free in a libertarian sense.

Dr. Kirk Macgregor, about Molina's doctrine, writes,

"Molina perceived that middle knowledge was the key to reconciling the three categories of biblical texts. Confronted with his middle knowledge of what every possible individual would freely do in every conceivable set of circumstances, God commits himself, out of his love, to consider for creation only those worlds in which he offers sufficient grace for salvation (i.e., prevenient grace) to each individual. By virtue of the universality of prevenient grace, God provides libertarian freedom to all individuals (thereby satisfying the second biblical category) and expresses his desire for all persons he creates to be saved (thereby satisfying the third biblical category). Among the range of these all-gracious worlds—a range that is infinite—God perceives from his middle knowledge that there is at least one world where each possible individual exists and would freely receive salvation. And God likewise middle-knows that there is at least one world where each possible individual exists and would freely spurn salvation, so being lost. And God likewise middle-knows that there is at least one world where each possible individual does not exist at all. It is here that the genius of Molina’s doctrine of predestination is exposed.

"Basing his thought on Romans 9, Molina proposed that God’s unconditional predestination is accomplished when, in making his providential choice of which world to create, God does not take into consideration any particular individual’s salvation, damnation, or nonexistence. Rather, God simply chooses the world he desires as a sheer act of his sovereignty. Any individual who would freely embrace God’s grace in the world God selects is thus predestined to salvation and so elected by God, even though God could have just as easily selected a world in which that same individual would freely choose to reject God’s grace or a different world in which that same individual would not exist. Any individual who would freely reject God’s grace in the world God selects is reprobated by God, even though God could have just as easily chosen a world in which that same individual would freely choose to embrace God’s grace or a different world in which that same individual would not exist. This choice of world, leading to various individuals’ election, reprobation, or nonexistence, is unconditioned by anything about the individuals but depends solely on the sovereign will of God (thereby satisfying the first biblical category). Hence Molina claimed we may finally understand why Paul insisted that, in predestination, there is no injustice with God (Romans 9:14, 19-20). God cannot be gainsaid for electing some people and reprobating others, since all worlds from which he is selecting are equally good by virtue of each person therein receiving prevenient grace."

I hope this makes sense to you. The answer is that humans really are free, and so really are responsible for their own choices; people choose to be atheists, people choose to believe in Jesus, and no person goes to Hell who couldn't have made different choices. And at the same time, God is completely Sovereign over all things, including the flow of history from eternity past to eternity future.

I realize this is dense material, so if you have any follow up questions, please feel free to ask. I'm always happy to answer!

We trust in God's concern for every person He has created and redeemed through His Son. Let us, therefore, renew our prayer to Him: Fulfill the good work You have begun in us, Lord.

This might seem overly harsh but I really don't know how a Calvinist can affirm both the tenants of Calvinism and also the statement that God is Love. Because under Calvinism God has created the vast majority of people for the sole purpose of being destroyed, not because of anything good or bad they've done, but to show God's power and to bring Him glory through their destruction. Under Calvinism, God has looked upon the face of billions of human beings He has created and has decided that they were not worth dying on the cross for, not worth spending eternity with, not worth even attempting to provide a way for them to be reconciled to Him. And somehow this is showing His love for every individual.

So the more I’ve been learning the more I think I might be an Amyraldist. That the cross was a free gift for all people but that it only was applied to some people. It’s like if your parents give all your siblings food but only some eat it. I think the hardest part of Calvinism is understanding limited atonement. I’ll present my points of concern if anyone wants to answer @calvinistwoman, @my--darling--dear2, @coffeeman777.

1. Denying the Lord who bought them.

2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

In this passage is says Christ’s blood bought them. The problem is that his blood is not applying to them because they “deny the Lord who bought them” and they’re subjected to destruction. I don’t think the “elect” are denying the Lord who bought them. The blood of atonement must be for all but not applied to all. The destruction is about hell and punishment for those who deny the Lord who did indeed die for them. 

2. Savior of all especially of those who believe.

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

In this passage is says the savior of all people but especially of those who believe. That means the saving work is only applied to those who believe but he did die for all. 

3. Propitiation for sins of the whole world.

1 John 2:2-3 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.

In this passage it doesn’t sound like the blood was just for the “elect” but for the whole world. It be available to everyone but only applied to some. The ones who keep the commands are the ones who prove to be the ones to who the blood is applied. The same word for world is used for the lost to who the blood is available but not in effect.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

4. Knowledge given to accept God

John 5:19-20 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 

The difference between the lost world and the saved is not that God didn’t die for the saved but that the saved have understanding. The blood is for all people but not everyone has this understanding to let it apply to them. The atonement isn’t limited it’s the application of it that is limited.

5. Surprised at the unbelief.

Mark 6:6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.

Why would Christ be surprised at their unbelief if he knew he only died for the elect? He would have known “I did not elect these people or die for them” unless he died for everyone with the application only extending to some. 

6. All have died and some live for Christ.

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

In this passage it talks about all dying with Christ and all dying. Then it says that they *might* live for Christ and the Lord who bought them. Christ still died and paid for them and owns them. He is still their Lord and bought them with the blood. The difference is they only *might* live for him. The salvation is not applied to them but it’s available to them.

7. Evangelism. 

During evangelism if Christ only died for the elect it be lying to say “Christ died for you” unless he died for them. It be better to say “Christ may have died for you”. The way I see it right now is that Christ died for all but it’s only applied to some who do not deny the Lord who bought them and have understanding.

_______________________________________________________________

Evil results from the abuse of freedom. You could say God enabled evil by allowing creaturely freedom, but He isn't responsible for evil. The onus for evil lies squarely on the evil doer, angels and humans who abuse their freedom and rebel against God's commands.

Predestination refers to God's sovereign choice regarding those who are saved. Before God made anything at all, He determined who would be elected to salvation. To say that we are predestined is to say that God knew each one of us before He issued His decree to create, and decided then that we would be His.

As a Molinist, I understand this doctrine a little differently that either a Calvinist or Arminian. On the Molinist view, God's predestination accommodates our free will; God doesn't force those of us who are saved to be saved, and God doesn't force the lost to be lost. Via His middle knowledge ("middle knowledge" is what we call God's perfect knowledge of all that would have been in different sets of circumstances), God sovereignly orders all sets of circumstances to arrive at His desired ends, without violating creaturely freedom.

I actually was a Calvinist for a time. When I got saved, I went through a lot of various perspectives trying to sort out what was true. I love the way that Calvinism emphasizes the power, greatness, and Sovereignty of God. I think Calvinism is correct on several points, namely the T, U, and P doctrines in the TULIP acronym. But what eventually caused me to break from Calvinism was the problem of evil and the Calvinist perspective on free will. I was really dissatisfied with Calvinist answers on those issues. That, combined with my disagreement with the I and L doctrines from TULIP led me to walk away.