Salvation and Sovereignty: a Molinist Approach: An Extended Book-look (Part II) 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.

The engagement below is Part II in a series of three parts. To get a flow of the volume, you may want to scan Part I before moving on to Part II below  >>>

Recapping Part I, though not formally organized into two parts, Dr. Keathley takes the first three chapters to actually explain what Molinism is. Hence, Dr. Keathley’s initial three chapters (what I’m dubbing ‘Part I’) foundationally builds a case for Molinism.   Named after the sixteenth-century Jesuit monk, Luis de Molina, Molinism “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).

Beginning in chapter three and for the remainder of the book (what I’m dubbing Part II), Keathley teases out what Molinism looks like as it interprets the biblical gospel. Taking on the acronym R.O.S.E.S. (each of the remaining chapters is a letter), Keathley shows not only what Molinism looks like, he nicely contrasts how Molinism is fundamentally distinguished from historic Calvinism.

Below I reproduced (and rearranged due to space) Keathley’s helpful chart which easily distinguishes Molinism from Calvinism’s ubiquitous T.U.L.I.P. (2)¹ While Keathley firmly rejects two points of Calvinism outright (limited atonement and irresistible grace) suggesting neither can be found in Scripture “unless one first puts them there,” he also confesses the other three Calvinist petals (total depravity, unconditional election, and perseverance of the saints) “need to undergo some retooling” (2).

With that in mind, let’s examine Keathley’s comparison of Calvinism and Molinism:  

               TULIP (Calvinism) vs. ROSES (Molinism)

Calvinism	Molinism	Explanation2
Total Depravity	Radical Depravity	Radical depravity is preferred because it gives no impression sinful humans are as bad as they can possibly be. The fall made us incapable of saving ourselves but we’re still made in God’s image
Unconditional Election	Sovereign Election	Unconditional election is identified closely with reprobation, implying God created a specific class of people just to damn them to hell; Sovereign election affirms God desire for all people to be saved but accentuates His sovereign choosing of us not we Him
Limited Atonement	Singular Redemption	An unfortunate term (and teaching) since it: a) suggests Christ’s death was designed only to save the elect b) implies the death of Christ lacks in some significant way. Keathley rejects this outright; instead Christ’s death was eternally designed to be sufficient for all, efficacious for those who believe only
Irresistible Grace	Overcoming Grace	God does not save a person against his/her will as “irresistible” implies. “Overcoming” highlights God’s persistent beckoning which overcomes our wicked obstinacy
Perseverance of the saints	Eternal Life	Perseverance implies the notion that a believer’s assurance is intrinsically bound up with the ability to persevere. It is not. Rather our assurance as believers is based on the Father declaring us righteous in Jesus Christ upon our faith-act in Him. In other words, assurance is grounded in justification not sanctification. Hence, the focus is on eternal life which we receive as a free gift the moment we turn from sin and trust Christ. This is one way, for example, some classic Arminians escaped the charge of inconsistency in affirming both libertarian free will and eternal security

Much, more could be said about Dr. Keathley’s outstanding contribution to Baptist theology in particular and mainstream evangelicalism generally. However, a book-look has to stop somewhere.

Summary

Strengths

Allow me to offer some strengths of SSM. First, Dr. Keathley’s book is accessible to most educated “laymen” and “laywomen.” I qualify the recommendation to “educated” not to suggest the volume is beyond comprehension to most people; rather it may be tough going at times for those who are neither biblically informed (in some sense) nor theologically oriented (in some sense). Dr. Keathley has mastered the fine (but too often neglected) art of making crucial distinctions. In other words, at times his logic is tight which means if you do not periodically stop and ponder through what he is saying, you will completely miss his point. Even so, for such a sophisticated system as Molinism can be, you will not find an easier introduction than SSM.

Second, while Dr. Keathley did not write SSM to be a critique of traditional 5 Point Calvinism but a positive exposition of biblical Molinism, nonetheless Keathley delivers some serious body-blows to Calvinism’s traditional 5 points. Indeed this may be why some have either avoided it altogether or unfairly took a hatchet to his volume as one Southern Baptist Theological Seminary student embarrassingly did in a prestigious theological journal (I hope to use his book review as a good example of how not to do a book review).  If you’d like to read some very good rebuttals to Calvinism, as incidental as Keathley’s rebuttals are to Calvinism per se, check out SSM. Understand: while Dr. Keathley is merciless (though not unfair) at times in his rejection of Calvinism, it is not so much because he comes across as being opposed to Calvinism as it does because he is demonstrably committed to Scripture.

Third, Dr. Keathley makes a solid effort in demonstrating there exists theological alternatives grounded in Scripture to the often assumed but false theological disjunction that either one is a Calvinist or one is an Arminian--i.e., there are no other alternatives we’re confidently but nonetheless wrongly assured. Professor Keathley blows that fallacious either/or proposition apart for good. There are alternatives, and those who insist otherwise must adequately answer Dr. Keathley’s Molinism, a Molinism which he adequately demonstrates is compatible with a rugged biblicism being a Southern Baptist demands. 

Weaknesses

Even so, after reading Keathley’s exposition and affirmations on Molinism, weighing them against one’s own little enlightened glint, one must personally ask himself or herself, is the volume fully convincing?  For myself, it must be no, at least no not yet. While I do not hold hope the questions I raise blow anybody’s theological house down, the following does express why I remain unconvinced (for now).

First, like Calvinism and Arminianism, Molinism is a system, and being a system itself remains a weakness so far as I am concerned. From my standpoint, it is difficult to impossible to accept that a system is required to interpret God's revelation. The nature of biblical revelation itself works against a rigid framework through which the biblical text must pass in order to understand it correctly. With dozens of authors writing over at least a 1,500 year span, what possible system developed 1,500 years later could suffice?  What of those interpreters who read the biblical text prior to the system's development?  Is biblicism itself not enough?

Moreover, since Molinism is a system, it must bear the philosophical criticisms to which all systems are prone. While systematic Calvinism cannot escape rootedness in philisophical determinism, neither can Molinism escape its philosophical critics who deny Molinism's logic is successful in overcoming the dilemma it boasts about solving; namely, the tension between a sovereign God and His free human agents. 

Second, in the end, Molinism may be a grandiose exercise which lacks any real purpose.  Dr. Keathley explained Molinism as a viable route to reconcile two crucible biblical truths—God’s sovereignty and human freedom (5). Furthermore, Keathley explains sovereignty in terms of which the strongest Calvinist could accept (20-26). In other words, Keathley embraces meticulous sovereignty. On the other hand, because Keathley is convinced a robust view of human freedom is also Scripturally affirmed (soft libertarianism), the dilemma is real.

Even so, I found Dr. Keathley’s exposition of meticulous sovereignty just as inadequate as I find strong Calvinism's exposition of meticulous sovereignty. While there were many assertions in the section cited above, there was little exegesis. In fact, from the verses cited, it appears most if not all were simply assumed to naturally mean meticulous sovereignty.

While it’s possible the Bible teaches God’s meticulous sovereignty, it’s not certain it does. But, if God’s sovereignty is not necessarily expressed as meticulous sovereignty in Scripture, then the question must be raised, what does Molinism actually accomplish?² If no tension actually exists between God’s sovereignty and human freedom, what do we do with Molinism? What other contribution does it make?

Again, one could ask what purpose Molinism serves except as an apologetic tool.  After all, many many believers remain unconcerned when two propositions cannot be free from some pesky little wrinkles, living as it were with the “happy inconsistency” or attributing it to the realm of mystery. In that sense, is not the dilemma Molinism answers exclusively an intellectual exercise, applicable only to the few who think the paradox is worth pursuing, and hence an optional exercise? I don’t know. I am just asking.

Third, and perhaps more significant to me, is the supposition that God chose from an infinite number of possible worlds from which to create: “Molinism posits that an infinite number of feasible worlds were available [for God] to create…” (13). Even raising this question is frightening because some of today’s most sophisticated thinkers posit this proposition. Nonetheless, one must ask, is there a scintilla of biblical hint toward this creational trajectory? If there were, I missed it in both my own biblical reading and in Keathley’s volume. I do realize there is no more speculation on positing an infinite number of worlds from which to choose in creation than Calvinism’s preoccupation with God’s “decrees” before the world was. However, I doubt Dr. Keathley would find comfort there.

In addition, one would need to inquire whether it is even a reasonable proposition to posit an infinite number of worlds God could have actually created. For example, for a possible world to fit the potential world God would create, the world necessarily would bear the quality of perfection, perfection meaning lacking in nothing which God required. But, how can there be more than one perfect world? Could God consider creating less than a perfect world? Not from my perspective. But if God could not consider creating less than a perfect world, how can there be more than one perfect world much less an infinite number of perfect worlds from which God could freely create? Did not God have in mind what He wanted to create in the same sense a sculptor would have in mind what he or she desired to carve as the "perfect" image from a stone?  But upon what basis was the actual choice made for what, in fact, God freely, actually chose to create from the infinite number of possibilities since all possible worlds necessarily had the identical quality--perfection?

Hence, it seems to me is, if nothing lacked in any of the possible infinite worlds from which God could choose, would God not be forced to arbitrarily choose from an infinite number of perfect worlds?  Leaving aside the potential implication God is "forced" into creating a potentially meaningless world, isn’t charging God with arbitrariness something Molinism along with Calvinism must at all costs avoid?

Finally, suppose with Molinism an infinite number of worlds exists from which God could choose to create. Suppose further infinity could be reduced, for explanatory purposes, to four categories:

A = worlds where X freely receives Christ and Y & Z freely reject Him

B = worlds where the opposite would exist: Z & Y freely accept Christ and X freely rejects Him

C = worlds where X, Y & Z all freely reject Christ

D = worlds where X, Y, and Z all freely accept Christ

Now, from the above, it readily looks like A is the “actual world” God chose to create. C surely looks like it would be a world the God of Scripture could never create. However, since all creatable worlds are perfect worlds, I’m not sure why one would object (but see below)…

However, if Molinism is correct in its assumptions, A does not appear the world God would choose to create. It seems Molinism requires D as the only answer since Molinism argues God desires all people to be saved. If there were an infinite number of perfect worlds from which to choose, an infinite number which guarantees God’s requirement for perfection is met, how is it God would choose to make a world wherein His desires were not fully realized, desires that none should perish?

It’s because of these initial questions I raise that I say I’m unconvinced…at least for now.

My questions, aside, anyone who wants to develop and sharpen his or her understanding of biblical theology needs to explore Dr. Keathley’s volume. It’s well worth the money you spend, I assure. 

With that, I am…

Peter

¹those who are addicted to charts and find them helpful (I do) will appreciate many that Dr. Keathley offers. To name only a few:  Five Calvinistic tenets/5 Arminian tenets of Molinism (7); Molinism in a nutshell (17); Determinism vs. Libertarianism (64); Tenets of Soft Libertarianism (73); 4 states of human existence (79); three Calvinist views of Irresistible Grace (110); three views of apostasy (174)

²my understanding of Keathley's proposal

³the place nor time is here to argue for a view of God’s sovereignty which may look somewhat different from the meticulous sovereignty Keathley (and Calvinists for that matter) affirms

Comments

[Darby Livingston]

"If there were an infinite number of perfect worlds from which to choose, an infinite number which guarantees God’s requirement for perfection is met, how is it God would choose to make a world wherein His desires were not fully realized, desires that none should perish?"

This is a good question Peter. It really gets to the heart of this whole issue. God created the world that is now the way he knew it would be when he created it. So how can God say he desires none should perish, and really mean it, if he created a world where he knew billions would perish? I suspect the answer lies somewhere in a necessary distinction between two wills in God or at least differing degrees of God's desires (he has a desire for all to be saved, but not as strong as his desire that his Son be glorified by saving some and judging others).

[David R. Brumbelow]

I agree Salvation and Sovereignty by Keathley is well worth the money. It and Whosoever Will by Allen & Lemke make a great combination.
David R. Brumbelow

[Christiane]

Hi PETER,

Here is a site that will be of interest to you, I think:

http://thecenterfortheologicalstudies.blogspot.com/2010/07/classical-arminianism-and-molinism.html

[peter lumpkins]

Darby,

Thanks. On p 52ff, Dr. Keathley deals extensively with the "two-wills" proposal engaging especially Piper in The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will edited by Southern Baptists, T. Schriner & B. Ware. And, he offers several good reasons to reject it, though obviously the conversation continues between them. It's worth a lookie-lookie...

David,

I agree. Keathley makes alot of sense. For several years now, however, I've just been very weary of "systems" which are supposed to conquer paradoxes or "tensions" created by varying biblical truths. And while I could not advocate known contradiction which obviously reduces to nonsense, I gave up being 'bent out of shape' so to speak if all my theological corners don't square off perfectly.

Anyways, your idea to couple SSM with WW is a grand idea. It shows credible, scholarly interaction takes place from the Non-Calvinist side of the aisle, something explicitly ridiculed by bloggers a few years back.

Grace to you brothers,
With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Christiane

Interesting link. Thank you!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Wes Widner]

"Third, and perhaps more significant to me, is the supposition that God chose from an infinite number of possible worlds from which to create"

Molinism does not posit that there is an infinite number of possible worlds. Mostly because it holds God as a necessary being in all possible worlds and because of that there are many things that are simply illogical or incoherent. For example, there is no possible world wherein a square circle exists simply because it is a violation of logic which, being grounded in the nature of God, is impossible.

Also, you ask "Is biblicism itself not enough?"

Well quite frankly, no. What does "biblicism" mean exactly? That we no longer have to employ our minds to understand what the Bible says? If that is the case then I would be very interested in meeting the person who has managed to shut off their mental facalties in order to process (mentally?) the message contained within scripture.

God has designed us in such a way that we must process all information we accumulate and posses through our minds. And our minds are well adapted to systems of through in order to assist as we reason through various subjects. In fact, dividing all the information in the universe into subjects is, itself, a system designed to help us divide up the whole of knowledge into more manageable pieces.

No, systems of thought are not infallible. But it would be a gross miscalculation to discount something merely because it is part of a system. If anything we should be more wary of ideas that do not fit into any larger system as such ideas are prone to be incompatible with other ideas we hold.

How would we know that we hold conflicting ideas without an overriding system (or meta-narrative) acting as a higher vantage point?

Yes, Scripture is our ultimate vantage point, but that does not mean intermediate systems of thought are invalid or unnecessary.

[peter lumpkins]

Wes,

Thanks for logging on. You begin: "Molinism does not posit that there is an infinite number of possible worlds...For example, there is no possible world wherein a square circle exists..."

First, I was not referencing an infinite number of worlds which includes impossible worlds; instead I specifically referenced possible worlds above and later on "creatable" worlds, the only available options to the Holy Creator..

Second, Keathley writes, "“Molinism posits that an infinite number of feasible worlds were available [for God] to create…” (13, which I quoted above). Dr. Keathley also writes, "So to sum up: from the infinite set of possible worlds that could happen...there is an infinite subset of feasible worlds which would accomplish His will...God freely chooses one of the feasible worlds, and He perfectly knows what will happen in the actual world..." (18, italics original).

Hence, your assertion about what Molinism does not posit is confusing to me.

Second, after rejecting Biblicism, you ask if Biblicism means we no longer have to employ our minds to understand what the Bible says?

A) No, and for you to even spend time in your comment “debunking” such seems to me a bit premature unless you have some reason to believe I hold that Biblicism reduces to a mindless engagement with Scripture

B) Nor does Biblicism deny the way God designed our minds to operate, function, or even possess constructs of thought.

C) As for knowing “conflicting ideas” while we may all have to drink from the dipper of non-contradiction, such a swallow does not constitute a fully developed system as in Molinism, Calvinism, or any number of other isms, my brother.

D) From my standpoint, knowingly overlaying a philosophical grid onto the text of Scripture to mediate its meaning through technical categories and foreign terms imposed upon it could be the perfect descriptive antonym to what I would call, Biblicism.

Now, enough about my own philosophical musings, Wes. I can go no deeper, scrapping the bottom clean, I assure.  However, if you have more insight on Dr. Keathley’s Molinism, you are welcome to enlighten us.

With that, I am…

Peter