Reformed thoughts on Molinism
I’m curious about the reformed perspective (positive or negative) to Molinism as it relates to soteriology.
I should start by saying that Molinism isn’t actually a soteriology, which is why I think it can belong in the reformed discussion, although it has soteriological implications. It is a philosophical theory about God’s knowledge stemming from verses like Romans 8:28-30, 1 Samuel 23:11-12, and Matthew 11:21-23 among others. It is wide enough to encompass a number of sub-views, some more reformed than others.
I learned under a dichotomy between Calvinist/Arminian views, and I always felt that reformed soteriological views were more rooted in scripture. I did, however, find a calvinistic framework poorly equipped to answer certain theodicy questions as well as a lot of specific scriptures that had been previously challenging.
I’ve found Molinism to be a better framework for addressing some of my issues with both Calvinist and Arminian views. That being said, I understand some reasons that it isn’t always very popular in reformed circles and I wanted to get more clarity.
I have a tremendous respect for the legacy and intellectual integrity of the reformed perspective, so I’m writing all of this in humility and affection for you all as brothers in Christ.
Brief description of Molinism:
For those who aren’t familiar, Molinism (at a very simple level) suggests that God evaluates all possible worlds that he could create based on his logically prior decisions (one being to make humans with free will). After evaluating those possible worlds (and how free agents would respond in all of those scenarios and including His own possible interactions within those possible worlds), he actualizes one (our world) for His glory and according to His purposes.
Maximally Saved Universe (MSU) molinists would argue from 2 Peter 3:9 that God’s plan would have actualized the world with the most number of saved people possible according to His will. Thus if you are a Christian there was another unactualized world where you weren’t but not vice versa. (This sub-view isn’t true of all molinists, and while I think it's possible, I am not convinced)
Addressing common criticisms:
This puts people in control of God: this is a wise pushback, especially to MSU molinists. The reason I think it struggles is that the world that is actually created is due to God’s desire first and foremost. Since in an unrealized counterfactual world you or I aren’t Christians, God creating a world where we actually really do freely choose Him still puts Himself as the primary cause.
What about effectual grace?: I don’t personally see a conflict between effectual grace as described in the Westminster confession and Molinism’s framework. I do, however, think there is a difference between modern expressions of "irresistible grace” found in the TULIP acronym and the idea of “effectual grace”.
Grace and peace to you all in Christ our savior.