Salvation and Sovereignty: a Molinist Approach: An Extended Book-look (part I) by Peter Lumpkins

      Dr. Kenneth Keathley is Professor of Theology and Senior Vice President for Academic Administration/Dean of the Faculty at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. His book, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (SSM, B&H, 2010, $24.99) contributes a unique approach among Southern Baptists toward solving the classic dilemma between God’s Sovereignty and human free will. In fact, unless I am mistaken, Dr. Keathley is the first writing Southern Baptist theologian who embraces the historical theological position known as Molinism  >>>

SSM begins with a foreword written by Dr. Paige Patterson who hails Professor Keathley as having “a philosopher’s reasoning, a theologian’s grasp of Scripture, and a preacher’s clarity” (X). After reading SSM, it remains difficult to dispute Dr. Patterson’s initial estimation. More about that later.

Though not formally organized into two parts, Keathley takes the first three chapters to actually explain what Molinism is. After all, for most Southern Baptists, Keathley immediately has the definitional hurdle to leap. Indeed on first impulse, many—if not most—might consider Molinism something that comes with old age not as a sophisticated theological construct!  And, were it not for what Patterson described as Keathley’s exceptional reasoning, grasping, and clarifying skills, an entire readership might be at once lost. Hence, Dr. Keathley’s initial three chapters (what I’m dubbing ‘part I’) foundationally builds a case for Molinism  and answers the question whether God desires all people to be saved, necessary prolegomena if Keathley is to succeed in making his original contribution to Baptist theology a significant contribution.

   So, what exactly is Molinism?  Named after the sixteenth-century Jesuit monk, Luis de Molina, Molinism, in Keathley’s words, “argues that God perfectly accomplishes His will in free creatures through the use of His omniscience” (5), holding both a comprehensive view of divine sovereignty one finds in historic Calvinism as well as a robust view of human free will often associated with classic Arminianism. In short, unlike Calvinists who look to God’s omnipotence to solve the classic dilemma between a Sovereign God and free human agents, Molinism finds the solution in God’s omniscience. Hence, Molinism is the “middle way” (7) which distinctively affirms God’s meticulous, sovereign control over His creation while at the same time acknowledging human choices which are genuinely free choices (i.e. in the libertarian sense of freedom).

In essence, Keathley not only rejects rugged determinism which denies free will altogether, he also rejects the most popular version of free will found among convictional Calvinists, a version most commonly called compatibilism.¹ Rather Professor Keathley opts for a robust libertarian understanding of the human will.²

And just how does Molinism accomplish its purpose in solving the dilemma we mentioned?  The answer lies in the way Molinism views God’s omniscience. Keathley sees the infinite knowledge God possesses as actually “three moments” (17) which includes God’s “natural” knowledge—everything that could happen—and God’s “free” knowledge—everything that will happen. Sandwiched between everything that could happen (all possibilities) and everything that will happen (all certainties) is God’s “middle” knowledge—everything that would happen (if God chooses to freely create this particular world). For Keathley, “God’s middle knowledge contains all of the choices and decisions that free creatures would do if they were created in a particular world” (18).³

The remainder of chapter one builds a Scriptural case for understanding God’s omniscience through the Molinist lens, offering a defense of what could be called the traditional Calvinist understanding of Divine Sovereignty (20-27), followed by a strong affirmation of human free will indicative especially within traditionally Arminian theologians (28-37). He finally shows how, according to Molinism, both ideas fit as naturally as hand in glove (38-41).

In the closing chapter (chapter two) of what I’m referencing as “part I” Professor Keathley tackles the thorny question, “Does God Desire the Salvation of All?” (42-62). While many Calvinists avoid the admission, this question relentlessly pops its agitating head up every successive theological generation by freshly inquiring minds who cannot buy Calvinism’s stock supply answers. No amount of “We’ve answered this question before” suffices, not because the answers have not been considered—considered at least by those more theologically nuanced critics—rather because the answers Calvinists traditionally offer do not satisfy the honest critic. 

Even so, while Dr. Keathley examines various answers to this question, one particular conclusion he posits suffices to show what Dr. Keathley does not accept:

If God loves only the elect, desires salvation only for His chosen, and has provided atonement only for objects of His love, then a third corollary is inevitable: there is no genuine universal offer of the gospel” (50).

Much of this chapter is devoted to denying the biblical viability of “decretal theology,” a form of Calvinism which, from my perspective, too often shows up in young Southern Baptists.

In part II of this extended book-look, we’ll briefly consider Dr. Keathley’s "ROSES" acronym (a term he credits to theologian, Timothy George (2), nonetheless a term upon which Keathley builds an alternative to the traditional Calvinistic acronym "TULIP") which is an application of Molinism to the biblical doctrine of salvation. In these chapters constituting the remainder of his book (chapters 3-7), Keathley answers the reader’s natural question: "Supposing Molinism to accurately depict God’s omniscience, what would it look like as Molinism overlays on the biblical doctrine of salvation, salvation including election, predestination, justification, sanctification, and glorification?

Following the teaser on “ROSES,”  I offer some definite strengths of Dr. Keathley’s contribution to Southern Baptist theology as well as some weaknesses I perceive not as an academic, rather as a simple but engaging Southern Baptist country preacher.

Finally—perhaps in a stand-alone-piece—I want to address at least one review written by a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary PhD student which, for lack of a better term, comes across more as a “hack” than a serious piece of engaging criticism. It’s embarrassing really and should never have been published in a prestigious theological journal.

With that, I am…

Peter

Part II of my book-look on Salvation and Sovereignty

¹a compatibilist understanding of free will holds no ultimate dilemma between divine causation and human free agency by defining free will in such a way as to make it "compatible" with the theological assertion, "God causes all things." Most compatibilists frequently connect in some way human choices to human desire following Jonathan Edwards' influence in his treatise on the human will. There are serious difficulties with the compatibilist understanding of "free" will as pointed out by many critics

²albeit Dr. Keathley acknowledges a distinction between "soft" and "hard" versions of libertarianism (69-73), he nonetheless makes it clear human beings are the source and origin of their choices (73) including the ability to have done otherwise  

³I humbly concede I by no means am giving Dr. Keathley’s thesis the footage it deserves by this brief review, and certainly no reader should confuse what might be my unintended embellishments about Molinism with Dr. Keathley’s fine exposition of Molinism

Comments

[Christiane]

Hi Peter,

It might be good for understanding to look at 'Thomism' as well as 'Molinism' as the two approaches play off of each other.

Also, I did find some 'background' on the 'middle knowledge' expressed in this post:

"The idea of the scientia media ('middle knowledge') Molina had borrowed from his celebrated professor, Pedro da Fonseca, S.J.
("Commentar. in Metaphys. Aristotelis", Cologne, 1615, III),
who called it scientia mixta. The justification for this name Molina found in the consideration that, in addition to the Divine knowledge of the purely possible (scientia simplicis intelligentiœ)
and the knowledge of the actually existing (scientia visionis), there must be a third kind of "intermediate knowledge",
which embraces all objects that are found neither in the region of pure possibility nor strictly in that of actuality, but partake equally of both extremes and in some sort belong to both kinds of knowledge. In this class are numbered especially those free actions, which, though never destined to be realized in historical fact, would come into existence if certain conditions were fulfilled."

New Advent Catholic Encylopedia

I can't imagine Southern Baptists embracing Molinism, Peter. But, if they see it as a 'defense' against Calvinism, without considering how it plays off of 'Thomism', then they are in very deep waters indeed. I would suggest a consideration of Molinism AND Thomism, and how THEY CONNECT together at the center of a very old debate in the Church.

[peter lumpkins]

Chriatiane,

Thanks for your interaction. A couple of things if I may. First, I don't quite know to what your referring when you suggest, "'Thomism' as well as 'Molinism'... play off of each other" and again later, "how THEY [i.e. Molinism and Thomism] CONNECT together..." Exactly what do you mean by these very different schools of thought "playing off" one another and/or "connecting together" with each other?

Second, I assure you, Dr. Keathley does not embrace Molinism "as a 'defense' against Calvinism"; rather he embraces Molinism because he's convinced, when the evidence is spread out before him, he sees Molinism as the obvious result.

In his own words, he writes:

Scripture never states explicitly that God utilizes middle knowledge to accomplish His will. But when all the disparate components of the biblical witness are brought together it becomes clear that Molinism is a reasonable proposal...When one does just that--takes into account all the biblical witness on the subject of divine sovereignty and human choice--Molinism, or something close to it, is where one arrives" (p.41)

While there appears more and more challenges to historic Calvinism being made public, such does not mean non-Calvinists are grasping for any defense they can assemble to offer a counter-point. And, certainly Keathley is not among them.

With that, I am...
Peter