What is Molinism? With Tim Stratton (Part 2)—The Alisa Childers Podcast #13

In the second episode of a two-part series, former Calvinist Tim Stratton helps us understand Molinism, which seeks to resolve the apparent tension between the theological ideas of predestination and human free-will.  In this week's podcast, we learn more about Tim's journey out of Calvinism, the three different views of God's knowledge, and a bit more about the history behind Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism. 

This isn't really a challenge to you Alisa, but Tim didn't really defend a biblical case for Molinism. He pointed to a situation in which God tells David waht will happen if he acts in a given instance versus what would happen if he acted differently. Biblically, this would really fall under God's sovereign decree as seen in Is. 37:26. The Calvinist position is not that God does not act in history but that nothing happens that is not secured by His decree. In the case of David, God's intervention into his decision serves that exact purpose.

Which leads to the next point, David's free will and Tim's example of libertarian free will. Calvinism teaches compatibilism. Meaning that we, as fallen creatures, have creaturely will. We have the freedom to act in accordance with our creaturelyimpulses. This doesn't mean that David couldn't decide to go North or South. It means that David could not, without the intervention of God, choose to worship and serve Him.

This is why Tim's example in 1 Cor. 10:13 isn't well thought out, because Paul is writing to believers in 1 Corinthians, not unbelievers. Calvinism teaches clearly that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit enables the believer to act in a manner that is glorifying to God and righteous. Therefore, it is true that the believer is provided a means to escape temptation which they can act upon. This passage does nothing to promote a biblical case for libertarian free will.

Most of the defense of molinism requires a philisophical approach to God that must then be worked backward into Scripture. Even William Lane Craig has admitted on his Defenders podcast that he finds no real evidence of middle knowledge in Scripture, it only follows logically from the nature of God as he defines it. I fell away from confidence in molinism when I realized that I was attempting to define God apart from the way He has revealed Himself in Scripture and then sought to force my definition back into His word. While I don't disparage those who hold to Molinism (as I believe you and many in our circle of friends do) I struggle with allowing a philisophical position take preeminence to special revelation.

P.S. It's great to see how your work is growing!

You're welcome. I think I saw that you're presenting at the women in apologetics conference, so I'll be prayingfor you.

Thank you!

This is the first time I'd heard of Molinism, and it was informative, but it left me frustrated. I heard the word Calvinism used many times, but didn't at all recognize what I believe it to mean. I don't really even like the word because I'm sure Calvin himself wouldn't even recognize what many people believe Calvinism to be, both its adherents and detractors.

The term "straw man" was used, and I couldn't help thinking that that old man was being beaten up through the whole interview. The Calvinist old man. It was asserted and assumed that Calvinism equals determinism. It doesn't. But its critics always assume it does, then beat it up for being deterministic. I challenge anyone to read Calvin's Institutes and show me the determinism. It can't be found because it's not there. The problem with the caricature of Calvinism is that it assumes that God's "control" is analogous to human control. The latter is coercion and destroys human agency and responsibility, the former is a mystery that does neither. As the great 19th century Princeton theologian Charles Hodge said, we know just from the evidence of our senses, let alone Scripture, that we are free and accountable beings. We also know from Scripture that God is sovereign and in control of all things. Whether God causes this or that, or what that even means, I have no idea. I don't feel the need, nor does Scripture command us, to logic everything out as Tim obviously feels compelled to do. That's why I think his Calvinism when he was a "Calvinist" had little to do with Calvin. It was a logically airtight system that had little of the divine, as he seems determined to do with Molinism. I think this says more about Tim than it does about Calvinism.

One more thing about this. If God causing something destroys a person's freedom and accountability, then prayer is a means by which God destroys the nature of the humanity he created. For what is prayer other than a plea for God to cause something to happen.

I do not like the phrase "libertarian free will" because those who use it tend to absolutize it. I note the in Scripture not one writer in all 66 books feels the need to have to explain God's absolute sovereignty over all things and human free will and accountability, let alone the mechanism why which it all works. To even try seems to me hubris, as if our puny brains could fathom the mystery of God's ways. As Paul wisely says in Romans 11 after trying to explain as much as he can, "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!"

One of the reasons our family is Reformed in our theological convictions (which I prefer to Calvinist) is the nature of our salvation. God says to Adam that if he eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he will surely die. As soon as Adam and Eve ate, they did not physically die. So the death God spoke of was a spiritual death, an alienation between God and man so that the next time God showed up, Adam and Even hid from him. They ran away, as do all sinners in their natural state. This is what all people naturally do apart from the supernatural work of God in their soul.

Paul affirms this, telling us the wages of sin is death. Not spiritual sickness, but death. So the analogy of a sinner being in an ambulance or in front of a doctor, being given medicine as if it were the gospel proclamation is unbiblical. Paul further tells us that we in our natural sinful state are at war with God (enmity), hostile, the implication being we would kill him if we could. Such spiritually dead people need a supernatural spiritual resurrection by the power of the Holy Spirit, not medicine. Medicine cannot help a dead person. Bad analogy.

I know this is ridiculously long for a blog post comment, but I felt the need to bring some balance to the conversation. I appreciate your work, and one day hope to be on your podcast too! (I'm publishing a book called "Keeping Your Kids Christian".) Thanks.

I just started listening to your podcasts. This is the first that I've heard of Molinism. I found myself wishing Tim would define his terms better. I did not recognize the Calvinism that he was describing. Calvinism affirms truly volitional choices. At the same time it recognizes the impairment of the will caused by Adam's fall. Tim recounts how influential William Lane Craig was in the development of his ideas. So I went over to reasonablefaith.org (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-and-the-soteriological-problem-of-evil-once-more) to read some of what he had to say. I found this particular statement troubling: "…you haven’t yet grasped the theory of middle knowledge, for God doesn’t create such a choice for Himself. The counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which confront Him are outside His control. He has to play with the hand He has been dealt."
If something is outside of God's control, He can't truly be said to be sovereign. Who is this dealer that God is subject to? At the end of the day, Molinism and God's sovereignty are incompatible.
I appreciate the podcast and look forward to listening to more.

Hi, Greg. I've been saving your comment in my e-mail meaning to respond. I'd never heard of Molinism before, which is why I listened to the podcast. The Calvinism I heard discussed was a caricature that claimed Calvinism is determinism, and then rejected determinism as if it were Calvinism. There were a lot of straw men mowed down during that conversation! I believe what we heard tells us more about Tim Stratton than it tells us about Calvinism. I think very intelligent people, like Tim obviously is, as is Mr. Brain himself, Dr. Craig, get into trouble is when they try to explain and figure out what finite human beings simply can't explain or figure out. Such is God's sovereignty and human free will.

I don't deny that some Calvinists fall into the trap of explaining Calvinism in deterministic terms, just like Stratton did when he called himself one. I even heard our pastor say some weeks back that God determines if we raise or lower our arm. I turned to my wife and gave her a bit of a face. I believe I determine whether I raise my arm or not, otherwise my freedom is an illusion, but that freedom does not exist outside of God's providential rule over all things. David in I Chron. 29 says that God is "the ruler of all things." God's sovereignty is that rule and our freedom exists within it, never apart from it. What Calvinists do say, and with biblical warrant, is that sinful human beings are not free to choose God. People who are dead in sin and at war with God, which would be everyone, are incapable of seeking God because they are spiritually dead, not "mostly dead," and hate God in their natural selves because he is their judge, jury, and executioner. Only when we are spiritually raised from the dead can we believe and trust in Jesus for our salvation.

I think that "middle knowledge" is true as far as it goes, that God being infinite could know every possible contingency of every choice of every human being who has ever existed. And human beings are in some real sense free to make those choices. But those choices fit under the rubric of God's sovereign, providential control of all things, as I said above. Control is not a good word to use, although I use it, because we tend to analogize God's controlling of things to humans controlling of things. And the only way humans can control something, or someone, is through coercion, power in a physical, psychological, or emotional sense. I'm comfortable not knowing how any of this works because, well, I'm not God!

Tim Stratton did a great job. Calvinism is indeed a commitment to theological determinism. Compatibilism still collapses into determinism because they must concede God predetermined what desires and motives will act “strongest” upon our wills to secure his prior decree/determinism. As such people are not free to choose contrary to God’s prior decree of what they will choose. Stratton is correct that Calvinism equals determinism. Calvinists, as wonderful as they are, will always trot out tired and worn out charges of “mischaracterizing” and “strawman” whenever someone rightly follows Calvinism to its logical end. Good interview.

Hello Alisa.
I am very happy that providence lead me to your site. Thanks for the hard work you put in preparing for interviews.

Regarding soteriology, I have studied the major positions and am keen to pick out supporting scripture or those that serve to defeat or seem to defeat each. As a major part of my study, I listen to debates… lots of debates. James White, Michael Brown, Craig, NT Wright, etc. I also study the ante niceness fathers who were mentored directly by the apostles.

But what I find most compelling is the result of an inductive evaluation of what the Bible says. When I hear Calvinists say that they simply read what the Bible says and follow it, I wince. Seems the more contorting done to scripture (John 3:16 for example) and the more shoulder shrugs and the words "we don't know, it's a mystery," are used the more one's antennas should vibrate.

In summary, I have not landed on a soteriological position I feel totally comfortable with but feel strongly that Calvinism is not correct. Why? I will lay out only one of many reason: the Narrow Gate (Matthew 7:13). Why would God mention it if He is 100% responsible for it being narrow? It would serve no purpose other than allow the "saved" to feel pride or others to give up and possibly feel helplessly horrible.

Lastly, for those who believe miracles ceased with the demise of the apostles, you are wrong, I suffered horribly for around five months from a medical condition from which I wanted to die. I was not suicidal but wanted death badly. I was a student of the Bible having studied it for 12 years but only knew about God. I did not know Him through Christ.

Going to bed one night, very i'll, I simply told God that "I just cannot do this anymore: Help." I awoke not only healed but full of more love than anyone could imagine. So, please stop with the nonsense that God doesn't heal.

Again, thanks for your effort in glorifying our Father and educating the masses.