No tags yet.
Molinism
The Molinist view would make three basic claims.
The two sets of texts are actually in two different logical categories, and therefore are not contradictory.
God has actualized a possible world where all true born-again believers will freely persevere to the end, though it is possible for them to choose otherwise.
God uses the warning passages, as just one of many means to keep true born-again believers from falling away.
So, let’s expand a bit on each one of these points and then sum up by answering the two questions I posed at the beginning of this blog series.
First, we must recognize that the two sets of texts are not contradictory because they occupy two separate logical categories. One set is modal (what can happen, referring to possibilities), while the other set is what philosophers call de facto (what will happen, referring to actualities). Just because something is possible, does not mean that it will be actualized. Just because something can happen, doesn’t mean that it will happen. Here’s an illustration. It is possible that I wreck my car tomorrow, but that does not mean that I will wreck my car tomorrow. Similarly, it is possible for me to choose to stop writing right now, since it is past my bedtime, but that does not mean that I will stop writing. I am having too much fun. We would indeed have a contradiction if we affirmed that one stream of texts says that a believer can lose their salvation, and the other stream of texts says that a believer cannot lose their salvation. But that is not what the Molinist affirms. Rather, the Molinist says that one stream of texts teaches that a believer can lose their salvation, and the other stream of texts teaches that a believer will not lose their salvation. This is why Eric Minton calls this Molinist model of perseverance the “Can/Won’t” model.
Therefore, we must keep the two questions distinct in our mind.
Can a true believer fall away?
Will a true believer fall away?
We can take these questions to the biblical text and see if they are answered differently. I contend that they are. The warning passages cited by the advocate of conditional security make it clear that a true believer can in principle forfeit his salvation. However, the promise passages cited by the advocate of unconditional security make it clear that a true believer will in fact never forfeit his salvation. The warning passages either explicitly use the language “if” or imply it, noting only possibilities. The promise passages either explicitly use the language “will” or imply it, noting actualities. See the table below for some examples.
Having distinguished these logical categories, one can better understand the second claim of the Molinist- namely that God has actualized a possible world where all true believers can freely reject Christ but will not. Those terms may be new to some. I am assuming in this article that one has a good grasp of Molinism. But I will give a very brief overview here.
God’s omniscience consists of three types of knowledge. He has natural knowledge- he knows everything that could happen. That is to say he knows everything that is logically possible. God also has foreknowledge- he knows everything that will happen in the future. But God also possesses a third type of knowledge that logically proceeds his natural knowledge and precedes his foreknowledge. Because it lies between these two types, it has been named middle knowledge. It is with this type of knowledge that God knows everything that would happen in any given set of circumstances. In a more philosophically rigorous sense, through middle knowledge God knows the truth value of all counterfactual propositions. So, for example, God knows whether the following counterfactual proposition is true or false- “if Jordan Hampton was the Roman prefect at the time of Christ, he would have condemned Jesus to crucifixion.” In God’s natural knowledge this is a logically possible scenario. However, there are other logically possible scenarios as well. I’m thinking of the possibility that I would not have condemned Jesus to crucifixion. So, God knows what could happen. Since I never was the Roman prefect though, God could not have known the truth or falsity of that counterfactual proposition through his foreknowledge. His foreknowledge only includes knowledge of the things that actually will happen. But it never did happen that I was the Roman prefect. So, God knows the truth of this counterfactual proposition through his middle knowledge, what I would have freely chosen to do under those circumstances.
So with that very brief introduction to Molinism, now you can begin to imagine how this would apply to the topic of eternal security. Through God’s middle knowledge, he knows the exact set of circumstances in which I would freely accept his offer of salvation, but later freely reject him and fall away. God also knows the exact circumstances in which I would freely accept his offer of salvation and persevere to the end. My contention is that God has actualized a world in which all true believers are put in circumstances under which they will freely persevere to the end though they still possess the freedom to do otherwise. This is only possible through God’s middle knowledge though. God is able to guarantee my perseverance, while leaving me the possibility of forfeiting my salvation. God can do this because he knows precisely what I would do with my freedom under any set of circumstances, and he knows what circumstances to place me in such that I will not use my freedom to forfeit my faith in Christ.
Having defended the second contention of the Molinist view of eternal security, I will move to the third and final claim- God uses the warning passages as just one of many means to keep true born-again believers from falling away. The reason I include this final claim in my Molinistic argument for eternal security is that someone may object to my argument at this point and say that the warning passages are meaningless or purposeless if a true believer will not fall away. Why would God need to warn them if he already knows that they will not fall? The Molinist response is that if God did not give the warnings, then some true believers would fall away. Notice how I said that. That is a counterfactual about which God knows the truth value via his middle knowledge. If that is difficult to grasp, let me briefly describe it another way. Here goes...
Prior to God creating the world, he had a range of possible worlds he could create, each unique in the people who who make it up, and the affairs they would engage in. So God chose to create a world in which the maximal number of people are saved and the fewest are lost based on the their own free choices. For every single person in that world, God chose a meticulous set of conditions for their entire life. Conditions like the time they would be born, the place they would grow up in, the family they would be born into, the school they would attend, the job they would work, the group of friends they would surround themselves with, etc. Now prior to creating this world God knew (via his middle knowledge) the exact conditions to put an individual in that would result in that person freely choosing to follow Jesus. God also knew (via his middle knowledge) the exact conditions to put that same individual in so that they would freely choose to follow Jesus their entire life, never falling away. The Molinist would say that among the many conditions that God would have to put that individual, one of those conditions is exposure to warnings of the fate he or she would suffer if they denied Christ. On this understanding, the warning passages of scripture are a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for Christians to freely persevere. So, the Molinist contends that God knew he needed to give these warnings in scripture or else at least some people would not freely persevere. And since God desires that all true believers would persevere he uses the warnings as a means to that end.
An analogy would be like a mother telling her child not to touch the hot iron or the child will be severely burned. Had the warning not been given, the child would have touched the hot iron. But the warning gives the child the motivation necessary to freely choose not to touch the hot iron. The mother used the warning as a means to protect the child. Similarly, God uses the warnings of punishment for apostasy to protect us from it. Now, I do not want to suggest that the warning passages are the only means that God can use to help someone persevere. I am contending that every single minute event in their life is ultimately aimed at them persevering to the end. Worshipping God in song, regularly meeting with and being encouraged by believers at church, prayer, fasting, studying God’s word are all examples of the means he uses to help us persevere. For me, God has used apologetics to help me persevere through significant challenges to my faith. And on this Molinist view, God also uses the promise passages to help encourage us that we will persevere.
So in summary, I contend that the traditional positions of the POS, OSAS, and CS make sense of only part but not all of the biblical data with regard to eternal security. Each side has what I consider an unnatural or forced interpretation that does not fit well at certain points. However, I hope to have persuaded you that Molinism can make good sense of both streams of texts. The key is that we see each set of passages in separate logical categories, which the text itself seems to do. Then we can affirm that a true believer can fall away, but a true believer never will. God has actualized a possible world in which they will have all the means necessary to freely persevere. He uses warnings as well as promises, and many other features of our lives to do so. The only question now that could lead one to fear that they will not persevere is if they are not sure that they are truly born-again. If you know that you are in fact a child of God then you can rest knowing that you will persevere. As Dr. Kenneth Keathley said “perseverance should be viewed more as a promise than a requirement.”