Am I becoming a Molinist?

The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism has been with the church since the early 17^th century. Part of the reason is because the whole problem revolves around trying to fit our feeble finite minds around the attributes of God. On the other hand, God did give us minds to use in our learning about who God is.

Ever since I heard about the 5 points of Calvinism through TULIP, I struggled with see how that fits with the full Biblical account. There are parts of that formulation that are hard for me to accept with the commands to us on how to live and choose Christ. On the other hand, the other side of the debate is equally as unsatisfactory to me in how it deals with the election references.

One of the things that I dislike about this debate is the “us-them” mentality. Case in point: In my Church History class, we were talking about Arminius and the Synod of Dort. One of my classmates asked a question about Arminius. She started out saying “I grew up with believing what I believe is Arminianism. I am now a Calvinist so nobody freak out!” I turned to someone sitting next to me and said “Like there is anything wrong with not believing in Calvinism?”  There are orthodox views that stress man’s free will like the Arminianists do and there are orthodox views that stress God’s providence like the Calvinists do.

For many years, I thought they were the only games in town. You either were one or the other. In Philosophy class, we learned about some views between the two sides. Luis Molina proposed one of these around the time of Arminius: Middle Knowledge. While I am in no means an expert, this view intrigues me and resonates with me in how it deals with the struggles that I have be wrestling for a long time.

Here is a summary (taken from Salvation and Sovereignty by Kenneth Keathley from Southeastern Seminary):

1. God has what is called natural knowledge. This is the knowledge of all necessary truths in all possible worlds. For example: the number 3 will exist, a triangle has 3 sides …
2. God also has what is called free knowledge. This is the knowledge of everything in this world. For example, I will have blue eyes and like to play golf.
3. Molina proposed that God has middle knowledge. That is the knowledge of what people (actually, it is more generic by using the term “free creatures”) will decide to do in each and every circumstance.

This breaks up God’s omniscience into 3 logical parts (not set in time). God’s will to make our world is set between the middle knowledge and the free knowledge parts. Thus, God knows all of the worlds that He can create (Natural). In all of those worlds, He knows what free people will do in each situation (Middle). Then He chooses which world to create to accomplish His plan, our current world. In this world, he knows all that will happen (Free). With this concept, God preordains those that will be saved and those that will not without any merit on our part. This is done, though, without removing the freedom that we as humans seem to enjoy to make right and wrong choices.

The more that I am reading about this, the more I am agreeing with it. There are many questions and difficulties with this view but this seems more plausible than the other alternatives. I liked the quote that William Lane Craig said at the end of the chapter on Molinism in his book Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: “Indeed, the account which middle knowledge affords of God’s Providence is so compelling and intellectually satisfying, as well as biblically unobjectionable, that I am inclined to regard this doctrine as true.” I do not think I am there yet as I have not studied this enough. So far, I am starting to see why people are inclined to this view and I will continue to look into this view.

Conviction from Pilgrim's Progress

This week is Fall Break at school. During this break, I have been trying to catch up with my schoolwork (namely my Greek). In addition, I decided to read The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan. It is not the easiest reads because of the old English style in which it was written.

That being said, there is a reason why this book has been so widely read. The book reads a sa history of a pilgrim named Christian as he tries to walk in the way (according to the commands of God). Bunyan wrote with great insight into the human journey through this world and thus there are parts in this book that deal with whatever situation the reader is in.

For me, I had just had a bad day where some of my old sins got a hold of me (again). As Providence would have it, I read about the encounter with Talkative, a character in the book that likes to talk about things instead of doing. One like in that section convicted me hard this week. Talkative asks "What difference is there between crying out against, and abhorring of Sin?" The character Faithful replys "Oh! a great deal: A man may cry out against Sin, of policy, but he cannot abhor it but by virtue of a godly antipathy against it". Not only do you need to talk the talk, but you need to walk the walk as well. Unfortunately, I failed at this this week and need to confess my error.

One other note, in this section, they tied the dietary laws of Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 to this part of human nature and God's command against it. Both of these passages give the distinction between clean and unclean land animals: "Whatever parts the hoof and it cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat." Lev. 11:3. The chapter goes on to say that they need both to do the right thing with their mouth AND have the right type of feet; having just one is not enough. The application is that Christians need to use our mouths correctly and have the right feet. We need to be able to talk to people about what is right but we also must be able to put it into practice. I had never thought of it that way before.

Now, if only someone could tell me why we cannot boil a young goat in its mother's milk (Deut 14:21b).