Molinism ~ (Noun ) The theological doctrine, formulated by Luis Molina, that the consent of the human will is necessary for divine grace to be effective.


Question: "What is Molinism and is it Biblical?"

Answer: Molinism is classically attributed to the 16th century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. This system of thought seeks to explain and reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free-will of man. At the heart of Molinism is a desire to maintain that God is completely sovereign and that man is free in a libertarian sense. The Molinist is trying to avoid what he calls “theological fatalism” or the view that God decrees who will be saved apart from their free choice. Today’s most ardent defender of Molinism is William Lane Craig.

The most famous distinctive in Molinism is it’s affirmation that God has middle knowledge (scienta media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological “moments”, rather they are to be understood as logical “moments”. In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time, rather one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge. Let’s start with a quick explanation of each kind of knowledge.



1. Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths. In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths.

2. Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what free creature would do in any given circumstance. This knowledge is knowledge of what philosophers call counterfactuals.

3. Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create. God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is.


Defenders of Molinism try to show that all of God’s knowledge is self-contained, but it is ordered so as to allow for the possibility of man’s free will. To begin, God has knowledge of all necessary and possible truths. Examples of this kind of knowledge are as follows: “2 +2 = 4”, “the whole is always greater than it’s parts”, “one should always seek the good” and “There are X number of possible outcomes given this series of causes”. God then has another step in His knowledge, called middle knowledge, in which He knows what free creatures would do in any given circumstance.

According to the defenders of Molinism, God knows perfectly what you would be have been like if you would have lived in Africa, or had a car accident that paralyzed you at age 9. He knows how the world would have been changed had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. More importantly, He knows who would choose to be saved and who would not. Accordingly, it is from this knowledge that God chooses to create. God has middle knowledge of all feasible worlds and He chooses to create the world in which the most people would be saved.




Is Molinism Biblical?

Molinists point to various texts to establish that God has “middle knowledge”. For example, they point to Matthew 11:21-24 where Jesus denounces Chorazin and Bethsaida. Jesus tells those cities that “If the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” Molinists claim that this verse, and others like it, proves that God has knowledge of what would happen given a different set of circumstances. As such, they insist that the doctrine of middle knowledge is true.

However, Molinism is not, strictly speaking, a view that can be rebutted or defended wholly on Biblical grounds. The middle knowledge view is a philosophical theology that attempts to uphold both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. This attempt is done by making subtle philosophical distinctions that make sovereignty and free will compatible. Therefore it should be evaluated on multiple levels. It should be evaluated Biblically and philosophically.

Biblically speaking, Molinists are more in line with the Armenian view. God chooses who will be saved because He knows who would choose Him. However, Molinists are more philosophically sophisticated than the typical Armenian. 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. Rather God’s middle knowledge is based on His existing natural knowledge. In this way he hopes to uphold God’s perfect omniscience. So today’s evangelical Molinists are basically philosophically sophisticated Armenians.

I tend to think 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 (Psalm 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 to nations, to the end that He has willed (Isaiah 46:10-11). God’s purposes do not depend upon man (Acts 17:24-26). Nor does God discover 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). The Biblical descriptions of God’s sovereignty appear to be more robust than the account given by the Molinist.

With that in mind, 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 in keeping with the standard Calvinist / Armenian disagreements. Philosophically speaking, Calvinists charge Molinists with an untenable view of God. For Calvinists usually hold to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity which maintains that God is atemporal and immutable. However, contemporary defenders of Molinism deny this classical doctrine. (source)


Theopedia Article Molinism **Theopedia is like Wikipedia. But in this case, I thought it a good source to compile the argument in one succinct overview of both sides. i.e. Molinists and anti-molinists.

Way too weird for me to comment. This is too much like Thomas Aquinas, or whatever. Perhaps it should have been on the "spirituality" board. I think you have to be a Christian to follow this one, but thanks.

I thought this was a spirituality forum. The skeptic part, I thought applied, for those that would be critical. All sides able to chime in, sort of speak.

I posted this to further the points of conversation that enter in, when one discusses god with theists. That deity is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and yet allows it's creation to exercise free will, as well as itself. But yet it's contrary to what a all knowing god would be able to attribute as free will, to it's creation (us) because it knows all regardless of the space/time, that our consciousness understands as past, present and future. Therefore, while we do elect to freely act of our own free will, a omniscient super consciousness would have a foreknowledge of all manner of our thoughts and behaviors. So while believers believe they choose heaven or hell, as some have said in these forums, a god not only judges them worthy of those places, based on their acts in life, so the story goes, but it knows those acts before they would to occur.

This article addresses that aspect of the god consciousness and free will. Breaking it down into three "Knowledges" or levels of consciousness. And then outlines from there. I do look forward to input on this aspect of god consciousness and free will. ~looks around all hopeful like~

that deity is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and yet allows it's creation to exercise free will, as well as itself. But yet it's contrary to what a all knowing god would be able to attribute as free will

It makes perfect sense to me. But then again, I don't believe in free will.

Why is it so hard to explain that God is everything and man is free to use anything?

I think in the Bible it is pretty clear that man and God have free-will

Free-will of man.


When man uses his free-will God will use His.

Here's my stance on the subject of free will The Coexistence of Free-Will and Fate

What a fascinating theory! Thanks for posting this. I will look more into it before I comment. But the first thing that comes to mind is the resolution of the age old dilemma of what would happen had Hitler repented on his death bed. God would have known that this would not happen and thus Hitler was not destined to be saved.

I beg to differ.

I see nothing about free will in there, just that man's ways are not God's ways.

Hmm. I see that God states "perhaps they will change", and while it is circumstancial, I do not believe this is indicative that God gave them a choice. So let's look at the other side of things. The lack of free will (predestination). 1 Peter 2:8 is the single most obvious verse, where it states of non-Christians - "They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for."

But if you want the best exposition of such a topic, Romans 9 is a great passage. Paul answers many questions that a Christian can't logically ignore simply because they believe in freewill.

Freewill is a fairly recent concept, historically speaking. Since then, Christians have latched onto freewill as a reason for our existence here on earth, and it often makes sense. Being on this earth is God giving us our "choice" to follow God. But before this time, the idea of freewill was never an issue.

I don't normally like to quote extensive Bible passages, but I'm afraid I have to in order to answer this question. For those skeptics who don't want to read chunks of Bible, feel free to skip to the end (where it says "End Bible Quoting"). Or read it and consider it ammunition against other Chrsitians, lol.

Looking at Romans 9 then, picking up from verse 10:

10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Paul starts in vers 10 by appealing to the Old Testament story of Esau and Jacob. Esau lost his birthright to Jacob, even though he was the rightful heir. Paul states clearly in verse 11 - before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works..... I can't see it getting any clearer than that. God's purpose of election in choosing one over the other, not because of anything they had done, indeed before they were born this was chosen. This should end the debate, but the rest of this chapter provides great insight also......

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Paul again draws on Old Testament references, quoting the story of Pharaoh and Moses in Exodus 33 in stating "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy". He repeats this in various wording in this section multiple times. And in verse 17, again talking of Pharaoh - I (God) raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power..... Does this sound like Pharaoh had a choice in the matter? Not to me, especially when Exodus notes that Pharaoh was about to let the Israelites go, except for God's intervention in hardening Pharaoh's heart. And next is where the passage gets really interesting on the debate....

19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Paul specifically addresses the argument that many today use "if God made me like this, how can God still blame me for my actions". And the simple answer Paul gives - who are you to talk back to God. God, the King, the creator. You can't understand GOd. he's too big for you, you're just a human. It's not an answer a lot of people like. It's not exactly an ideal answer, and I sure wish he provided a better one, but it's the answer Paul gives. Paul then uses an analogy that any in the day could understand - the potter can make grand pots or common use pots. A decorative vase, or a chamber pot for example. The pot has no say in the matter - it's all up to the creator of the pot. Moving on......

22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

And I'll end my discussion here after these verses (the rest of the chapter is interesting, but this is the climax of the passage, as I can see). Paul theorizes why people are actually created for destruction. What if God created these "objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction" to show those he created the riches of his glory, whom he "also prepared in advance for glory". He prepared certain people for destruction, in order to show glory to those who also were prepared such.

*END BIBLE QUOTING*

I at one stage believed in freewill also, but after studying the Bible, found that it is just not compatible with scripture. But does that give me the right to sin because I'll just be doing what God prepared for me to do? By no means. In addition to this chapter saying I'll still be held accountable, read Romans 6 (hell, read the whole book of Romans. It'll give you a good outline for the entire CHristian Faith).

From our perspective, we do not know God's ultimate plan. What we do is very much our own choice (at least it feels like it). Therefore, what you do, you have no excuse for. We do not have "free will", but as Australian theologian Al Stewart describes it, we instead have "real will". I have the option here to type or not to type, to go out or to stay at home. It very much feels like my choice, but when the choice is made, it was what was destined to happen anyway. Real Will, and God will hold us accountable for that.

Of course, micklemas, I am not adverse to you giving me your own opininon of Romans 9. In itself, it shows me without a doubt the absence of free will. But if you think it's saying something else, I'm all ears. Your thoughts on the passage would be most interesting to hear. Or if you just want to ask for clarification on any particular point in my post, then feel free also to ask away.

Regards, PA

This goes back to my theory that we wont know the truth(No matter how hard we try) until the end. This also explains my theory that at the end we will not know how we will be judged. It also goes back to my theory that everything happens for a reason and those reasons will not be explained until the end when we have been promised these answers. Maybe Hitler(used as an example) was ment to do what he did in his life. This goes back to my theory that it is impossible for us to judge one another. We can only judge by what we consider right and wrong. We cant judge like we are God because we cant even try to fathom his mind because it is so greater than ours. Much like a ant trying to rationalize and think like a human. We can only go by what has been given to us through Christ and scripture. Which is ment only to be used by us in our own personal lives not to be used to judge our fellow man.

An interesting thought. Hitlers feelings about christianity are said to vary, according to the "Record" of his life and political aspirations. While in his diary, "Mien Kampf" ("my life") he claimed his campaign was a means of doing gods work, in private he is said to have loathed the christian faith and god. Almost coming across as an atheist. But if the god issue is to be looked at in the context of Molinism, one might also ask why would god let Hitler exterminate so many cultures of persons. And,again from the article piece, knowing full well what was to transpire.

I fear that men greater than us have debated this subject to no end. Luckily the knowledge of this is not part of our salvation so we can afford to mis-understand it. I will respond to the text you gave and hope you can see my pov.

I read your post and see your pov, yet reading the section as a whole I am not sure it is correct to apply it to everyone.

Chapters 9,10, and 11 are the second part of Romans. Speaking about the God's righteousness in His dealing with Israel and the rest of us. As such I think that alot of what is stated is not so much to teach us of God's will in our lives. The section as a whole appears to be explaining how God has lead his chosen people to gentiles who may not have understood (or even heard of the Tanakh). It then goes on to explain how Paul, being a Jew before conversion to Christianity, sees how other Jews may be saved though grace and not through works and explains why God hardened some men and showed mercy to others so His 'plan' for His chosen people could be fulfilled. He also warns us not to put down Jew's since they are still God's 'chosen people'(Rom 11:17-27).


Paul states 'anyone & everyone' can be saved through faith, not just those that God has predestined to be saved through faith.

All men whether Jew or gentile have a free will choice to accept God into there heart, God won't force it on anyone that does not want it, likewise He won't withhold it from anyone. When God gave us the great commision He said 'Go to all nations and tell them the good news', He didn't say 'Go to Mrs Smith at 41 Wisteria Lane and tell her the good news because I have predestined her to believe. Oh and by the way, if Mr Smith is their don't tell him because he's not be chosen'

On this I agree. It really is a non-essential belief, and whether free will exists or not is ultimately unimportant. I did read your post and I do see your point of view. It's a difficult subject - I mean, I used Pharaoh as an example in my last post, but it's not quite as simple as that. For every time the Bible says "God hardened Pharaoh's heart", it usually has a phrase somewhere around that also saying "So Pharaoh hardened his heart". So was it Pharaoh or God who hardened it. Likewise, the act of becoming Christian is a dual matter. It is clear that no one turns to Christ without God choosing them, but it's also uses terms like "turn to Christ", and requires us to make a decision. It may very well be possible that beyond our linear lives, the concepts of free will and predestination are indeed entirely compatible. In the absence of my mind being able to wrap itself around that dual-possibility, I can only do my best, and I have come to the conclusion that the illusion of free will adequately answers the question of predestination, while allowing for our own choice, and not absolving us of anything we may or may not do.