What Is Molinism and Its Beliefs?

Molinism is a doctrine that seeks to reconcile God’s sovereignty with human free will, and a 16^th century Spanish Jesuit theologian, Luis de Molina, developed it. Named after Molina, this theology addressed debates within the Christian community about God’s authority and how it interacts with human freewill regarding salvation and predestination. 

Molina introduced the idea of middle knowledge (or scientia media), a knowledge only God possesses. According to Molinism, God has three kinds of knowledge. The first is natural, including all truth and everything that could logically happen. The second is free knowledge, everything God knows about the world and events in the past, present, and future based on his work. Middle knowledge therefore bridges the two, and it refers to God’s knowledge of what any free creature would choose to do, therefore not countering his sovereignty, since he acts accordingly. 

Middle knowledge gives God the opportunity to see all outcomes of any scenario while allowing human free will. For example, God knows not only what I would freely choose in a situation but also what I might choose under different circumstances. With this, God can create a world where his will and purposes are fulfilled while still allowing me to make a free choice. He essentially orchestrates the situation and environment to facilitate the decision he wants me to make. Molinists believe this asserts both God’s sovereignty and human freewill without compromising either.

Luis de Molina developed this doctrine during great theological conflict in the Catholic church. The Dominicans emphasized God’s predestination, while the Jesuits taught human freewill and cooperation within the Lord’s grace. Not wanting the church to be divided, Molina attempted to address the division with a truth encompassing both that would hopefully solve the tension between God’s control over creation (Ephesians 1:11) and the free choice of humans (Deuteronomy 30:19).

While Molina was a Catholic, the tension between these two biblical ideas arose from leaders in the Protestant Reformation. For context, reformers like John Calvin emphasized predestination and the irresistible grace of God, which seemed to negate human choice. Catholics traditionally taught that human freewill played an important part in cooperation with God’s grace in salvation.

Many pastors and leaders expressed concern regarding the tension. If God predetermines everything without regard for human freewill, it could lead to despair or hopelessness among Christians. Molina’s doctrine allowed for human ability to respond to God’s grace, which meant individual decisions have significance. This theology attempted to create hope and accountability, encouraging believers to live in God’s will.

While Molinism was controversial at its time, it influenced more discussions in broader Christianity, both among Catholics and Protestants.

Photo Credit: ©iStock/Getty Images Plus/Kenishirotie

The Bible teaches God’s sovereignty over everything, including the natural world, history, and human events. He rules over all things to ensure his will is accomplished.

Psalm 115:3 says, “Out God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases.” The psalmist declares the reality that God is the only true free agent. He has the power to do anything he wants. No one else does. Daniel 4:35, during the exile and with the Jews under subjugation, says, “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and He does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’” Daniel expresses God’s sovereignty even over kings like Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. If he has rule over heaven, God has rule over earth, too.

While nature may seem random, like storms or earthquakes, the Bible extends God’s sovereignty over every detail of nature. God’s long-awaited response to Job in chapters 38-41 includes examples of how he controls the whole universe, great or small. For example, God sets the boundaries for the sea. “Thus far you shall come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed.”

God governs human history, kings and nations. “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever He will.” (Proverbs 21:1) The Lord directs the decisions of rulers to align them with his redemptive plan, even when they are evil. Likewise, Isaiah 46:9-10 tells us, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish My purpose.’” God’s sovereignty allows our absolute trust in his plans and promises.

Human choices also fall under God’s rule. Joseph looks back at his brothers’ abusive actions to sell him into slavery and sees God’s hand for good. “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.” God can use evil human intention for his own glory and the good for his people. This supports New Testament statements like Ephesians 1:11: “In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will.” And since God is the only good, his will produces good.

Photo Credit: ©iStock/Getty Images Plus/Olivier Le Moal

Do those verses mean humans have no free will? The Bible also contains passages affirming freewill, our ability to make decisions, especially when confronted with faith and obedience. God doesn’t desire puppets but people who willingly participate in eternal relationship with him. 

From the beginning, God allowed a choice in the perfect Garden of Eden before the Fall. “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:16-17). This command gave the first humans choice within a framework (eat any tree you want) but also forbade what would kill them (one tree). 

While preaching to the Israelites, Moses gives a choice: “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19). Moses presents a clear choice. If there’s no free choice, even a limited one, would this be a lie or deception? Moses’ prophetic sermon clearly implies the people had some choice to respond and have life or death. God offered life but didn’t force it upon them. 

Once in the Promised Land, Joshua stresses the importance of choice in Joshua 24:15: “Choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua places the responsibility of worship in the hands of the people. 

Jesus appeals to choice when he weeps over Jerusalem, pointing to their responsibility for rejecting God’s call. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” Later, Revelation 22:17 implies a choice for the people of God, urging them to partake in life. “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes to take the free gift of the water of life.” 

Freewill happens with moral choices. “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge in the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love” (Galatians 5:13). The apostle Paul details the overlap between being given grace and the believer’s ability to participate or not.

Photo credit: ©Getty Images/Memedozaslan

If the Bible expresses these two ideas (God’s complete control and some limited form of choice for humanity), how can they both be true? Does Molinism help us? The discussion continues today through different denominations and academic arguments. 

Those supporting Molinism argue that the principle of middle knowledge allows God to enact his will in a world where people have choices. As Ephesians 1:11 states, “In Him we were also chosen … according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will.” Molinist proponents view human choice as not casual but intentionally made. By highlighting the difference between God’s foreknowledge and causation, Molinism believes we can be held morally accountable for our actions, which the Bible clearly teaches. This also addresses the “problem of evil,” or “how can there be a good God in control, but there’s so much evil?” Molinism explains that God permits evil acts because he can still redeem them in the future for good and align them with his plan. God can still achieve his will without causing evil and still allowing people to have a choice.

Other scholars argue against Molinism. To begin with, they don’t feel the middle knowledge idea is explicitly stated. Molinists infer middle knowledge from a combination of different passages. Scholars are uncomfortable with such biblical speculation rather than clear revelation, making it less reliable. Some theologians argue that Molinism doesn’t sufficiently affirm God’s nature. Does this middle knowledge divide God’s knowledge into different categories? This would be contrary to the Lord’s oneness and unity across all his aspects. Reformed theologians specifically assert how the biblical passages for predestination don’t allow for any human choice. They believe God actively wills every outcome. Finally, detractors don’t feel Molinism properly addresses the problem of evil—if God orders every situation or the best outcome, why would evil persist? Such a world wouldn’t exist, in their view. 

To some degree, we must wonder if we need to answer the question. Does the Bible see this as a contradiction? The New Testament never divides people over the issue of predestination and freewill. Ultimately, we must remember that God’s ways are not our ways and won’t always be easily understood. People have been arguing over an apparent contradiction in the Trinity for almost two thousand years. How can God be three and one? Yet the Bible does express this reality. 

We have an example of this in nature. Light is both a particle and a wave, but this seems scientifically impossible. For years people argued one or the other. Finally, scientists admit to light being both, even though they don’t understand how. 

This doesn’t mean we don’t meditate on and attempt to understand the ways of God. Molinism does an honorable job attempting to unify Christians of different theological camps, even though it falls short of satisfying the tension in the problem of the coexistence of sovereignty and freewill. 

Peace. 

Photo credit: ©Getty Images/Klaus Vedfelt