Molinism and Its Connection to Arminianism: An Examination By Jack Kettler
Introduction
Molinism and Arminianism represent two distinct theological systems within Christian soteriology that address the complex interplay between divine sovereignty and human free will. This article seeks to analyze Molinism’s foundational tenets, its historical development, and its relationship to Arminianism, focusing on their shared and divergent views on predestination, grace, and free will.
Molinism: An Overview
Molinism, named after its proponent Luis de Molina (1535-1600), emerged from the Jesuit tradition in the late 16th century. Molina’s central contribution is the concept of scientia media or middle knowledge, which posits that God possesses knowledge of all possible worlds and the free actions of creatures within those worlds. This knowledge is distinct from God’s natural knowledge (necessary truths) and free knowledge (actual events).
· Scientia Media: Molina suggests that God knows what any free creature would do in any given set of circumstances, which allows God to orchestrate history while preserving genuine human freedom, as He predestines based on foreknowledge of human choices under all possible conditions.
· Divine Providence: Molinism reconciles divine providence with human free will by suggesting that God uses His middle knowledge to ensure His divine plan without necessitating human actions.
Arminianism: An Overview
Arminianism, derived from the teachings of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), emerged as a reaction to the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. Arminian theology emphasizes:
· Free Will: Humans possess libertarian free will, meaning they have the ability to choose or reject salvation.
· Conditional Election: Election is based on God’s foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ rather than an arbitrary decree.
· Resistible Grace: Divine grace, while prevenient and sufficient, can be resisted by human will, contrasting with the irresistibility of grace in Calvinism.
Connections and Divergences
1. Theological Anthropology:
Both Molinism and Arminianism affirm a more synergistic view of salvation than Calvinism, where human cooperation with divine grace plays a crucial role.
2. Predestination:
Molinism uses middle knowledge to explain predestination. God knows how individuals will respond to grace in any given scenario and elects based on this knowledge.
Arminianism similarly bases predestination on foreknowledge but does not delve into the mechanics of how this knowledge is utilized as explicitly as Molinism does with scientia media.
3. Grace and Human Freedom:
Both systems assert the reality of human free will, but:
Molinism provides a more detailed mechanism through scientific media, suggesting God can ensure outcomes while maintaining human freedom.
Arminianism focuses on the resistibility of grace, emphasizing human responsibility in the salvation process.
4. Theological Implications:
Molinism offers a solution to the problem of evil by allowing for God’s omniscience and omnipotence while maintaining human moral responsibility.
While also addressing this problem, Arminianism places greater emphasis on human culpability in sin and the necessity of grace for salvation.
Conclusion
Molinism and Arminianism share a commitment to reconciling divine sovereignty with human free will, yet they articulate this reconciliation differently. Molinism introduces a nuanced theory of divine knowledge, while Arminianism focuses on the conditional nature of election and the resistibility of grace. Both theological frameworks have influenced Christian thought significantly, offering alternative perspectives to the deterministic views associated with Calvinism. Future theological discourse may continue to explore these systems’ implications for understanding divine-human interaction, the nature of freedom, and the mystery of predestination.
Reformed Theological Refutation of Molinism and Arminianism
Refutation of Molinism
1. Theological Coherence and Divine Sovereignty:
· Middle Knowledge Problem: The concept of scientia media posits that God knows what any free creature would do in any given circumstance. However, this introduces a potential limitation on God’s sovereignty by suggesting that human free actions are not fully decreed by God but are instead conditioned by circumstances. Reformed theology would argue that this undermines God’s decree over all things, including human decisions (Proverbs 16:33; Ephesians 1:11).
· Determinism vs. Freedom: Molinism seeks to balance divine determinism with human freedom but might inadvertently create a scenario where human freedom is only illusory because God’s foreknowledge of what would happen in any circumstance effectively predetermines outcomes.
2. Scriptural Basis:
· Molinism lacks explicit biblical support for the concept of middle knowledge. Reformed theologians would argue that Scripture emphasizes God’s will and decree over human actions (Romans 9:16, 18), not a speculative third type of divine knowledge.
3. Philosophical Consistency:
· The notion of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom in Molinism leads to logical conundrums about how God can know what would happen without determining it, which Reformed theology sees as contradicting the biblical teaching of God’s exhaustive sovereignty.
Refutation of Arminianism
1. Biblical Doctrine of Election:
· Unconditional Election: Arminianism’s doctrine of conditional election based on foreseen faith contradicts the Reformed understanding of election as unconditional and solely by God’s grace (Ephesians 1:4-5; Romans 9:11-13). The Reformed view holds that election is not based on human merit or foreseen faith but on God’s sovereign choice.
· Irresistible Grace: Arminianism posits that grace can be resisted, which Reformed theology counters by teaching that where God intends to save, His grace will effectually call and regenerate (John 6:37, 44). This is seen as necessary for the consistency of God’s salvific plan.
2. Synergism vs. Monergism:
· Arminianism implies a synergistic approach to salvation where human will cooperates with divine grace, which Reformed theology refutes as it promotes a monergistic view where salvation is entirely the work of God (John 1:13; Titus 3:5). The Arminian view is criticized for attributing part of salvation to human effort, potentially diminishing the glory due to God alone in salvation.
3. Perseverance of the Saints:
· The Arminian doctrine of the possibility of falling away from grace after having been saved contradicts the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, which states that those whom God has called and justified, He will also glorify (Romans 8:30). This is seen as an essential safeguard of the doctrine of total depravity and the necessity of divine preservation.
4. Scriptural Interpretation:
· Many passages used by Arminians to support human freedom (e.g., Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15) are reinterpreted by Reformed theologians to emphasize the responsibility of human beings within the framework of God’s sovereign will rather than independent choice outside of divine ordination.
Conclusion
From a Reformed perspective, both Molinism and Arminianism are seen to compromise the scriptural teaching of divine sovereignty by attributing too much autonomy to human will or introducing speculative knowledge frameworks without clear biblical support. Reformed theology insists on a consistent view where God’s decrees are the ultimate cause of all events, including human salvation, thereby maintaining the glory of God as the primary purpose of all things.
The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.