OPEN MOLINISM – “The future is open, but God knows what it will be anyway!”

I’ve ruminated on this concept before, trying to propose names for it like ‘Untethered‘.

But after a while, I’ve decided that Open Molinism actually works well as a description of a view of God’s attributes and how He interacts with creation that is somewhere in between Open Theism and Molinism.

OPEN – Like Open Theism, “The future is open” because God does not decide what events will unfold (for the most part, more on that later). God as sovereign creator could decide it all Himself, of course, but as is clear from the entire story of the Bible (e.g. giving dominion over the earth & animal naming rights to Adam), He wants His imagers to make those decisions ourselves! Therefore God allows, permits, delegates, sublets how future events will turn out (for the most part) to humans & supernatural beings such as angels.

MOLINISM – Like standard Molinism, God has Middle Knowledge and therefore knows what the outcome of every possible scenario would be – including what decisions His imagers will make to decide the future, despite those choices being fully & truly free! Punt to mystery for how, but that’s the way it is under this model. Using the ontological attribute of omniscience, God directly intervenes at certain points in history in ways that He perfectly & unfailingly knows will result in specific future outcomes (e.g. calling Abraham, appearing in a burning bush to Moses, taking on human flesh as Jesus Christ & challenging the Jewish leaders & speaking in parables which leads to the Crucifixion).

Open Molinism differs from standard Molinism where God sets up most of the future the way He wants it from the moment of creation, as in this proposed model it is necessary (rather than just preference) for God to directly intervene in Creation to achieve the specific outcomes necessary for His ultimate plan.
And clearly it differs from most Open Theism models which state that God doesn’t/can’t/chooses not to know the future, and knowing the future + truly free choices by agents is a contradiction according to logic & definition.

And yes, it does seem odd to still call it ‘Middle’ Knowledge if it isn’t being used in between God’s Natural and Free Knowledge to set up the actualized world the exact way He wants it. But I’m keeping the name of the concept for ease of understanding.

On the ‘apologetics’ aspect, Open Molinism avoids the common objections aimed at either end of the determinism spectrum – many Christians balk at either or both: the Open Theism view of God’s (non) knowledge of the future, and Calvinism’s view of God determining all outcomes including (non) ‘free’ human choices. With outliers and exceptions in both camps, of course.

And two last points…

First, I did consider whether this model actually falls under Mere Molinism (its two pillars being: God eternally possesses middle knowledge + humans possess libertarian free will), and I think it actually does! Despite leaning more into the ‘how’ of the future and especially God’s direct intervention being necessary.

And second, after going on a whole roundabout explanation, I realize that I might have just described what the common, layperson, no-philosophical-training churchgoer believes anyway! “God lets us choose the future, but somehow knows what we will freely choose without negating the freeness of it” – wouldn’t you agree that most non-theology-geeks would affirm this? Case in point, from 4:43 of this video, Dr Flowers says “The mystery I think we should adopt is, how does God know the future free choices of creatures? That’s a mystery beyond our comprehension.”

Perhaps like Provisionism, this proposal of Open Molinism just describes what has been plain & basic Christian belief all along before more philosophical delvings tried to parse things out in finer detail.
Anyway, that’s been a long rant. Thoughts and sharpening welcome!

GOD HANDING OVER JUDAH TO ENEMIES, BUT THE ENEMIES ARE GOING FURTHER THAN WHAT GOD WANTS

Many Calvinists including James White defend their deterministic view that God decrees evil but also holds humans responsible for that same evil, by citing the example of God sending the Assyrians as a punishment for Israel’s sin, yet God also then punishes the Assyrians for attacking His people.

But take a similar case for comparison:

The men of Israel took captive 200,000 of their relatives, women, sons, and daughters. They also took much spoil from them and brought the spoil to Samaria. But a prophet of the LORD was there, whose name was Oded, and he went out to meet the army that came to Samaria and said to them, “Behold, because the LORD, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah, he gave them into your hand, but you have killed them in a rage that has reached up to heaven. And now you intend to subjugate the people of Judah and Jerusalem, male and female, as your slaves. Have you not sins of your own against the LORD your God? Now hear me, and send back the captives from your relatives whom you have taken, for the fierce wrath of the LORD is upon you.” – 2 Chronicles 28:8-11

In this case, He sends a prophet to warn them not to overdo it in their own freely chosen intentions. So yes, God can use the evil intentions of people to achieve His own purposes WITHOUT CAUSING those intentions – their intentions can even go further than what He would wish!

This is also how we address other commonly cited examples like Genesis 50:20 and Acts 4:28 – related meme.

In media, this is known as The Batman Gambit – knowing what others will freely do (no mind control involved) and using that to your advantage: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BatmanGambit

CALVINISTS TAKE ANALOGIES TOO FAR

Analogies, metaphors, figures of speech, poetic language and hyperbole are meant to convey a certain point. They are not meant to be taken further than that intention.

For instance, in everyday life we hear things like a diner exclaiming “I’m so stuffed I could explode!” yet nobody takes cover behind the counter. The cashier says “Just a second, sir” and only an annoying troll chimes in moments later to tell her it’s already been more than one second. We do not expect to see literal housepets falling from the sky when “It’s raining cats and dogs” outside, I’m looking at YOU newspaper comic strips.

So it’s honestly baffling that people don’t allow the authors of the Bible the same leeway in use of language that is seen in everyday life. Especially Calvinists, who will take a figure of speech or line of poetry and turn it into a whole didactic on theology.

I mean, it’s the same objection many of them raise against the doctrine of Transubstantiation – if Jesus meant the Eucharist becomes His literal flesh & blood, why not also take Jesus literally when He said “I am the gate” and check that He is made of wood/metal and swings on hinges? They can spot the overliteralness in others, but not in themselves.

Here’s some of the ones I’ve commonly seen. Oh, and since it’s me posting this, attached just a small selection of relevant memes.

#######

“We were dead in sin, dead means dead, do you think a corpse can respond? Did Lazarus accept Jesus’s command to become alive and come out of the grave? Can the dry bones of Ezekiel regenerate themselves?”

To which the Bible responds: The ‘dead’ are expected to arise & return to the father (Luke 15:18&24), to wake up (Rev 3:1-2), to arise from the dead (Eph 5:14). The metaphor of deadness with regard to sin & salvation is not meant to indicate corpselike inability to respond, but separation – remember that we are not atheists, even after our organic bodies stop functioning our souls do not cease to exist and respond (Luke 16:19-31).

#######

“Can a goat turn into a sheep?”

Literal goats cannot turn into sheep (short of some scifi-level genetic manipulation). But unbelievers are not literal goats with wool, hooves and horns. The point of the analogy is to contrast different groups of people.

Plus, are lambs born already knowing the voice of their shepherd? Isn’t this a learnt behaviour?

#######

“Does not the potter have the right over the clay?”

Of course He does. But what does God expect us as clay vessels to do?

Jeremiah 18 is where Romans 9 takes its reference from, and the lesson there is that God will changes His planned usage according to the RESPONSE of the clay. Paul reemphasizes the fact that we determine our own outcome with the same vessels metaphor in 2 Tim 2:20-21. The metaphor of clay vessels is not intended to teach that we are inanimate objects with no agency.

Romans 9 is not about unconditional election of individuals to salvation or unconditional reprobation to damnation – Paul himself debunks that in Romans 11:11&24, let Paul interpret Paul. Romans 9 is about conditional election of individuals or groups to service roles in God’s plans, the same as everywhere else throughout the whole Bible.

HOW I LIKE TO PLUCK THE PETALS OF TULIP

These are just my personal go-to directions. They are far from being the only way to nip that acrostic in the bud, and everyone will have their own personal preferences.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY – If everyone is born blind, dead, dead in sin, with a hardened heart of stone… Then why does Jesus speak in parables so they cannot see or hear? Why does the Devil snatch away the word? Why does God harden already-hard hearts? The redundancy of it is what helped Dr. Flowers, Bobby Conway, Alana L out of Calvinism. It’s what helped keep Mike Winger from ever believing Calvinism. See attached Total Inability? meme.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION – Go direct to the prooftextiest of Calvinist prooftexts, Romans 9. Take the ‘potter and vessels’ metaphor which Paul uses and read Jeremiah 18 which he references, where the response of nations changes God’s planned use for them. See attached Jeremiah/Romans meme. Biblical Election is conditional, corporate and regards roles of servive – it is not the unconditional election of individuals to salvation or damnation of Calvinism. As a kicker, read 2 Timothy 2:20-21 where Paul uses the vessel metaphor and tells us our behaviour is what determines our use as vessels.

LIMITED ATONEMENT – Funny how this petal took long after Calvin’s time to be developed by Beza and Owen as a necessary logical entailment of the system. There’s ample good reason why Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, 1/3 of Dort, 1/4 of Westminster, and modern Four Pointer Calvinists – not even to mention the overwhelming majority of nonCalvinists e.g. Arminians, Provisionists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox – all don’t accept this doctrine which runs on Double Jeopardy and Negative Inference Fallacy. The three problems texts I like to raise which don’t rely on definitions of ‘All’ are in attached Limited Atonement manga meme.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE – If totally depraved sinners need to be brought to new life before they can/will accept the Gospel, then why does Scripture repeatedly tell us that faith precedes regeneration? As per the attached Wojak meme, the conversation there is about Total Inability but it similarly applies to Irrestible Grace since the new life it is supposed to grant comes AFTER believing by faith.

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS – Under TULIP, how do you explain apparent Christians falling into apparent apostasy? You can’t without the logical entailment which John Calvin invented, Evanescent Grace – see attached meme with his quote for what this is. Simply put, if God tricks people with temporary grace that is indistinguishable from ‘real’ Irresistible Grace, then NOBODY has any assurance of salvation – because if you’re sure you’re saved, that is exactly the condition which Calvin says the tricked Reprobates are in.

TUIP = UNIVERSALISM

If Limited Atonement is untrue, then God DOES what all to be saved.

Following which, the rest of TUIP would mean God DOES unconditionally, irresistibly save everyone. This would mean Universalism, hence the common objection by Calvinists to Unlimited Atonement: “So you’re a Universalist?”

This is why many have pointed out that cutting the L off makes the whole system crumble, the whole TULIP cannot survive if missing even one of its petals – not just the more clearly crucial ones like the T.

And the L is by far the least Scripturally supported/defensible and historically the least adopted – not being held by even Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, 1/3 of Dort, 1/4 of Westminster, modern Four Pointers (Amyraldians).

I HAVE THE GIFT OF PROPHECY (FOR FACEBOOK POSTERS), WATCH THIS

New Calvinist joins theology group.

Diligently posts arguments, prooftexts or memes which we’ve all seen a hundred times.

Gets an education because we’ve all responded to these sort of things a hundred times.

Resorts to ad hominems, sarcasm, red herrings and the ever present because they can’t defend their position.

Their posting frequency dies off as they get bored or tired of getting educated.

NOW WATCH THE PROPHECY UNFOLD YET AGAIN!

NB: Looks like imma bout be stoned fam, I failed to prophesy THIS common response to being pwned in the comments:

CALVINISTS ARE MORE PRONE TO CAGE STAGE BECAUSE IT ATTRACTS THE MORE INTELLECTUAL TYPES?

Some including Dr Flowers have said this, and it might be true. A feeling of intellectual superiority in ‘realizing what the Bible REALLY teaches’ could lead to a spirit of pride.

But then again, Molinism also seems to attract more intellectual types – perhaps due to its inherent philosophical concepts and complex explanations, and likely in no small part because its most well known proponent is William Lane Craig.

Yet how many Molinists have you encountered who belittle your understanding of logic, trash your knowledge of Scripture, call you a heretic / goat / stealing God’s glory? Maybe it’s because WLC is at the same time one of the most amicable & polite Christian influencers around, while John Calvin was quite belligerent (in word and deed) towards his opponents.

And on the flip side, I’ve also seen, quite frequently, very cagey behaviour from e.g. KJVO, pure presup apologetics, YEC (some of which has overlap with Calvinism).

Meanwhile, one other theory put forward goes: “Psalm 115:8 says that people become like the god they worship. If you worship a god who is selectively loving, takes pleasure out of displaying his wrath, et. al, then is it really surprising that the system doesn’t churn out the kindest of people?” (Link below)

A Short Facebook Exchange On Molinism, Isaiah 55:11, and Acts 7:51

MUH ‘CALVINISM DOES NOT CAUSE APOSTASY’

Then why did the following leave Christianity / won’t return, SPECIFICALLY because of their Calvinistic view of God? Which often is BOTH the only interpretation they think is true, AND is simulataneously the kind of God they can’t accept!

Derek Webb
Matt W Cook
Megan Phelps
Edwin Curley
Paul Maxwell (possibly)
Tyler Vela (seems like he but he denies it)
Mythvision (seems like it)
PRexBYTERIAN
Kristi Burke

Details of each with reference links at: https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2020/08/19/they-left-calvinism/

Sure, you could argue that there are plenty of apostates whose reasons have nothing to do with Calvinism. But the point remains, there are many who would NOT have left the faith were it not for their Calvinistic lenses.

Oh wait, of course: If Calvinism is true, these people were NEVER Unconditionally Elected to salvation in the first place! It was all just Evanescent Grace tricking them, see! Nothing any human can do to get them to Christ, stay in Christ, or return to Christ! CHEKMAET, PELAGIANS amirite???