Taran
New Member
A few days ago, I was whispered a question about the difference between Molinism and Calvinism. Since I was in the middle of Arah path 1 explorable and unable to really reply in chat, I shall do so here. Hopefully this format will be easier being able to see all the text instead of bits and pieces through the in-game chat system.
Biblically speaking, Molinists are more in line with the Arminian doctrines. Molinists argue that God chooses who will be saved because He knows who would choose Him. However, Molinists are more philosophically sophisticated than the typical Arminian (and so, some of their explanations can get rather complex). For example, William Lane Craig avoids the criticism that God’s decisions are dependent on man’s decisions by holding that God’s middle knowledge is NOT derived from His knowledge of the world, but rather derived from God’s middle knowledge based on His existing natural knowledge. By arguing in this fashion, he hopes to uphold God’s perfect omniscience. But when you cut down the argument to its basics, today’s evangelical Molinists are simply Arminians (albeit philosophically-sophisticated Arminians).
Calvinists would argue that Molinism is not the best way to think about God’s sovereignty and human free will. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things (Proverbs 16:33; Matthew 10:29; Romans 11:36; Ephesians 1:11) – even human decisions (Proverbs 20:24; 21:1). Although God does not stir men to sin (James 1:13), He is still working everything, from individuals people to entire nations, to the end goal that He has willed (Isaiah 46:10-11). God’s purposes do not depend upon man (Acts 17:24-26). Nor does God change, discover, get surprised, or learn (1 John 3:20; Job 34:21-22; Psalm 50:11; Proverbs 15:3). All things are decreed by God’s infinitely wise counsel (Romans 11:33-36). And thus, the biblical descriptions of God’s sovereignty appear to be more robust than the account given by the Molinist.
Now comes the tricky part. Where do Calvinists and Molinists disagree? It should be noted that the Molinist would agree with everything said in the above paragraph. It is not on this level that Calvinists and Molinists disagree. Where they disagree most is in the doctrines of total depravity and limited atonement. Their theological differences are about the standard Calvinist / Arminian disagreements. Philosophically speaking, Calvinists charge Molinists with an untenable view of God (ie. God is not "sovereign-enough" under Molinists' description). Calvinists hold to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity which maintains that God is atemporal and immutable. He is not temporal and needed to "adjust" as situations unfold, but rather atemporal (having set a course of history that is unfolding according to His plan). However, contemporary defenders of Molinism deny this classical doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty and man's total depravity (and consequently, limited atonement).
Molinism fails to properly understand the depravity of man. Calvinists argue that the scriptures do not say that the unregenerate, totally-depraved human being can freely choose God. It is man who is deceitful (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness (John 3:19), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is ungodly (Rom. 5:6), dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), does not welcome spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20). Therefore, Calvinsts argue that no one 'freely chooses' nor seeks after God (Eccl. 7:20; Romans 3:10). Therefore, what is important here is understanding that an unbeliever is incapable of understanding and accepting Christ given the condition of his nature in a fallen, unregenerate, totally-depraved state. This is why the Bible says such things as 'it is God who appoints people to believe' (Acts 13:48), 'chooses who is to be holy and blameless' (Eph. 1:4), 'calls according to His purpose' (2 Tim. 1:9), 'chooses us for salvation' (2 Thess. 2:13-14), 'grants the act of believing' (Phil. 1:29), 'grants repentance' (2 Tim. 2:24-26), 'causes us to be born again' (1 Pet. 1:3), 'draws people to Himself' (John 6:44,65), 'predestines us to salvation' (Rom. 8:29-30) and 'adoption' (Eph. 1:5) 'according to His purpose' (Eph. 1:11), 'makes us born again not by our will but by His will' (John 1:12-13), and 'works faith in the believer' (John 6:28-29). That's why Calvinists argue that God acts in the person to cause them to want to come to Him. Without His help, no one seeks after Him. Molinists, however, view mankind as still capable to choosing God under the right circumstances (and thus, have God acting behind the scenes to bring about their 'right choice').
Though God does know all things actual as well as potential, Calvinists argue that He also knows exactly what choices we will make at any time, not because God is a good guesser nor manipulates situations to His desire, but because God has predestined and ordained whatsoever comes to pass (Acts 4:27-28; Eph. 1:11).
I hope that explains the two different positions more clearly.
Biblically speaking, Molinists are more in line with the Arminian doctrines. Molinists argue that God chooses who will be saved because He knows who would choose Him. However, Molinists are more philosophically sophisticated than the typical Arminian (and so, some of their explanations can get rather complex). For example, William Lane Craig avoids the criticism that God’s decisions are dependent on man’s decisions by holding that God’s middle knowledge is NOT derived from His knowledge of the world, but rather derived from God’s middle knowledge based on His existing natural knowledge. By arguing in this fashion, he hopes to uphold God’s perfect omniscience. But when you cut down the argument to its basics, today’s evangelical Molinists are simply Arminians (albeit philosophically-sophisticated Arminians).
Calvinists would argue that Molinism is not the best way to think about God’s sovereignty and human free will. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things (Proverbs 16:33; Matthew 10:29; Romans 11:36; Ephesians 1:11) – even human decisions (Proverbs 20:24; 21:1). Although God does not stir men to sin (James 1:13), He is still working everything, from individuals people to entire nations, to the end goal that He has willed (Isaiah 46:10-11). God’s purposes do not depend upon man (Acts 17:24-26). Nor does God change, discover, get surprised, or learn (1 John 3:20; Job 34:21-22; Psalm 50:11; Proverbs 15:3). All things are decreed by God’s infinitely wise counsel (Romans 11:33-36). And thus, the biblical descriptions of God’s sovereignty appear to be more robust than the account given by the Molinist.
Now comes the tricky part. Where do Calvinists and Molinists disagree? It should be noted that the Molinist would agree with everything said in the above paragraph. It is not on this level that Calvinists and Molinists disagree. Where they disagree most is in the doctrines of total depravity and limited atonement. Their theological differences are about the standard Calvinist / Arminian disagreements. Philosophically speaking, Calvinists charge Molinists with an untenable view of God (ie. God is not "sovereign-enough" under Molinists' description). Calvinists hold to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity which maintains that God is atemporal and immutable. He is not temporal and needed to "adjust" as situations unfold, but rather atemporal (having set a course of history that is unfolding according to His plan). However, contemporary defenders of Molinism deny this classical doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty and man's total depravity (and consequently, limited atonement).
Molinism fails to properly understand the depravity of man. Calvinists argue that the scriptures do not say that the unregenerate, totally-depraved human being can freely choose God. It is man who is deceitful (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness (John 3:19), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is ungodly (Rom. 5:6), dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), does not welcome spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14), and a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20). Therefore, Calvinsts argue that no one 'freely chooses' nor seeks after God (Eccl. 7:20; Romans 3:10). Therefore, what is important here is understanding that an unbeliever is incapable of understanding and accepting Christ given the condition of his nature in a fallen, unregenerate, totally-depraved state. This is why the Bible says such things as 'it is God who appoints people to believe' (Acts 13:48), 'chooses who is to be holy and blameless' (Eph. 1:4), 'calls according to His purpose' (2 Tim. 1:9), 'chooses us for salvation' (2 Thess. 2:13-14), 'grants the act of believing' (Phil. 1:29), 'grants repentance' (2 Tim. 2:24-26), 'causes us to be born again' (1 Pet. 1:3), 'draws people to Himself' (John 6:44,65), 'predestines us to salvation' (Rom. 8:29-30) and 'adoption' (Eph. 1:5) 'according to His purpose' (Eph. 1:11), 'makes us born again not by our will but by His will' (John 1:12-13), and 'works faith in the believer' (John 6:28-29). That's why Calvinists argue that God acts in the person to cause them to want to come to Him. Without His help, no one seeks after Him. Molinists, however, view mankind as still capable to choosing God under the right circumstances (and thus, have God acting behind the scenes to bring about their 'right choice').
Though God does know all things actual as well as potential, Calvinists argue that He also knows exactly what choices we will make at any time, not because God is a good guesser nor manipulates situations to His desire, but because God has predestined and ordained whatsoever comes to pass (Acts 4:27-28; Eph. 1:11).
I hope that explains the two different positions more clearly.
