Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom – A Molinistic Perspective (Doctrines Dividing the Church)

            With respect to the salvation of mankind, there exist two major schools of thought within Christianity. They are Calvinism and Arminianism.

            Very minimally, Calvinism subscribes to divine sovereignty to teach that God chooses some people to go to heaven and others to hell. ‘Arminianism,’ which is predicated on human freedom, teaches that man has freewill to either accept God or reject HIM. This action of man will lead him to his eventual eternal destination, namely heaven or hell.

            Predestination is certainly one of the most controversial doctrines of the Christian faith. But the Bible reveals this doctrine. Hence a Christian has no other option but to understand it to the best of his/her ability.

            ‘Predestination’ refers to God’s choice of individuals for eternal life or eternal death. ‘Election’ is God’s selection of some for eternal life, the positive side of predestination.

            A definite tension (as to who is correct) exists between groups subscribing to Calvinism and Arminianism. Gotquestions.org explains the basic nuances of Calvinism and Arminianism so to understand this tension:¹

Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in the matter of salvation. Calvinism is named for John Calvin, a French theologian who lived from 1509-1564. Arminianism is named for Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560-1609.

Both systems can be summarized with five points. Calvinism holds to the total depravity of man while Arminianism holds to partial depravity. Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is corrupted by sin; therefore, human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord. Partial depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that human beings are unable to place faith in God of their own accord. Note: classical Arminianism rejects “partial depravity” and holds a view very close to Calvinistic “total depravity” (although the extent and meaning of that depravity are debated in Arminian circles). In general, Arminians believe there is an “intermediate” state between total depravity and salvation. In this state, made possible by prevenient grace, the sinner is being drawn to Christ and has the God-given ability to choose salvation.

Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional, while Arminianism believes in conditional election. Unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual. Conditional election states that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation, thereby on the condition that the individual chooses God.

Calvinism sees the atonement as limited, while Arminianism sees it as unlimited. This is the most controversial of the five points. Limited atonement is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect. Unlimited atonement is the belief that Jesus died for all, but that His death is not effectual until a person receives Him by faith.

Calvinism includes the belief that God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism says that an individual can resist the grace of God. Irresistible grace argues that when God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation. Resistible grace states that God calls all to salvation, but that many people resist and reject this call.

Calvinism holds to perseverance of the saints while Arminianism holds to conditional salvation. Perseverance of the saints refers to the concept that a person who is elected by God will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. Conditional salvation is the view that a believer in Christ can, of his/her own free will, turn away from Christ and thereby lose salvation. Note - many Arminians deny "conditional salvation" and instead hold to "eternal security."

So, in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, who is correct? It is interesting to note that in the diversity of the body of Christ, there are all sorts of mixtures of Calvinism and Arminianism. There are five-point Calvinists and five-point Arminians, and at the same time three-point Calvinists and two-point Arminians. Many believers arrive at some sort of mixture of the two views. Ultimately, it is our view that both systems fail in that they attempt to explain the unexplainable. Human beings are incapable of fully grasping a concept such as this. Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and knows all. Yes, human beings are called to make a genuine decision to place faith in Christ unto salvation. These two facts seem contradictory to us, but in the mind of God they make perfect sense.

            According to other theologians, this tension need not exist. These theologians subscribe to the teachings of Molinism.

            Dr. William Lane Craig offers an introductory explanation as to how Molinism can help us understand God with respect to man’s salvation:²

The biblical worldview involves a strong conception of divine sovereignty over the world and human affairs even as it presupposes human freedom and responsibility (cp. the accounts of Saul’s death in 1 Sm 31:1–6 and 1 Ch 10:8–12). An adequate doctrine of divine providence requires reconciling these two streams of biblical teaching without compromising either. Yet this has proven extraordinarily difficult. On the one hand, the Augustinian-Calvinist perspective interprets divine providence in terms of predetermination, God choosing in advance what will happen. It is hard to see how this interpretation can preserve human freedom or avoid making God the author of sin, since (for example) it would then be He who moved Judas to betray Christ. On the other hand, advocates of revisionist views (e.g., open theism) freely admit that as a consequence of their denial of God’s knowledge of future contingent events a strong doctrine of providence becomes impossible. Ironically, in order to account for biblical prophecies of future events, revisionists are often reduced to appealing to the same deterministic explanations that Augustinian-Calvinists offer.

Molinism offers an attractive solution. Luis Molina (1535–1600) defined providence as God’s ordering of things to their ends, either directly or indirectly through secondary causes. In explaining how God can order things through secondary causes that are themselves free agents, Molina appealed to his doctrine of divine middle knowledge.

Molina analyzed God’s knowledge in terms of three logical stages. Although whatever God knows, He knows eternally, so that there is no temporal succession in God’s knowledge, nonetheless there does exist a sort of logical order in God’s knowledge in the sense that His knowledge of certain truths is conditionally or explanatorily prior to His knowledge of certain other truths.

In the first stage God knows all possibilities, not only all the creatures He could possibly create, but also all the orders of creatures that are possible. By means of this so-called natural knowledge, God has knowledge of every contingent state of affairs that could possibly be actual and of what any free creature could freely choose to do in any such state of affairs.

In the second stage, God possesses knowledge of all true counterfactual propositions (statements of the form “If x were the case, then y would be the case”), including counterfactuals about what creatures would freely do in various circumstances. Whereas by His natural knowledge God knew what any free creature could do in any set of circumstances, now in this second stage God knows what any free creature would freely do in any set of circumstances. This so-called middle knowledge is like natural knowledge in that such knowledge does not depend on any decision of the divine will; God does not determine which counterfactuals are true or false. By knowing how free creatures would freely act in any set of circumstances He might place them in, God thereby knows that if He were to actualize certain states of affairs, then certain other contingent states of affairs would be actual as a result. For example, He knew that if Pontius Pilate were the Roman procurator of Judea in A.D. 30, he would freely condemn Jesus to the cross.

Intervening between the second and third stages of divine knowledge stands God’s free decree to actualize a world known by Him to be realizable on the basis of His middle knowledge. By His natural knowledge, God knows the entire range of logically possible worlds; by His middle knowledge He knows, in effect, the proper subset of those worlds that it is feasible for Him to actualize. By a free decision, God decrees to actualize one of those worlds known to Him through His middle knowledge. In so doing He also decrees how He would freely act in any set of circumstances.

Given God’s free decision to actualize a world, in the third and final stage God possesses so-called free knowledge of all remaining propositions that are in fact true in the actual world, including future-tense propositions about how creatures will freely behave.

Molina’s scheme effects a dramatic reconciliation of divine sovereignty and human freedom. In Molina’s view God directly causes certain circumstances to come into being and brings about others indirectly through either causally determined secondary causes or free secondary causes. He allows free creatures to act as He knew they freely would when placed in specific circumstances, and He concurs with their decisions in actualizing the effects they desire. Some of these effects God desired unconditionally and so wills positively that they occur. Others He does not unconditionally desire but He nevertheless permits due to His overriding desire to allow creaturely freedom, knowing that even these sinful acts will fit into the overall scheme of things, so that God’s ultimate ends in human history will be accomplished. God thus providentially arranges for everything that happens by either willing or permitting it, and He causes everything that does happen, yet in such a way as to preserve freedom and contingency.

            To conclude, divisions among Christian churches over doctrinal matters are rather unfortunate. If we are one in Christ, then much could be achieved in Christendom with the pooling of all resources.

            It is with this objective that these systems of thought are presented here. The hope here is that if Christians subscribing to Calvinism hear and study the Molinistic school of thought, then it is quite possible that they may appreciate the Molinistic perspective. This could then bridge the divide between Calvinists and Arminians.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html

²http://pastorseansblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-can-bible-affirm-both-divine.html

Websites last accessed on 25^th February 2019. 

Growth of Islam and Freedom of Man

                  My plea to Islam in my previous blog, “Is Islam the World’s FastestGrowing Religion?” was two-fold: (A) to offer Muslims the legitimate option to reject Islam (without any dangerous consequences - expressed or tacit), and (B) to remove all barriers - incarnational or digital - for a Muslim to explore any worldview. This naturally suggests removal of all legal barriers in countries subscribing to Islam to the proponents of conflicting worldviews.

            First, some clarity with respect to my previous blog:

            (1) Growth of any religion is not a matter of salvific or doctrinal significance for a believer unless he desires to indulge in religious trivia.

            (2) Islamic growth was used as a mere premise to propose a two-fold plea to Islam. Examining the veracity of the Islamic growth statistic was not an intent. Moreover, a subjective belief never denigrates an objective fact i.e. if I do not believe in the Islamic growth; the fact of the growth remains unassailed, as long as the statistic is truthful.

            (3) Condemning Islam was not even an implied intent.

            (4) The two-fold plea is predicated on “freedom.” Anyone should have the freedom to choose or reject Islam and all worldviews should be offered the freedom of vocalized presence in all Islamic countries. 

            (5) The intent is not to judge Muslims but it’s a complementary endeavor to desire for human freedom.

            Certain friendly comments objected my essay. For the sake of space restrictions, parts of their exact responses that reflect the entire theme of their response are shown below. My response to the objections received is as follows:

            Objection #1: “…For the mere fact being just as my India has its divisions n restriction in each district whereby a non Mahrashtran is forced to learn Marathi since they have no choice to reside in Mumbai to fit d Norms, and despise it totally. IT doesn't mean the citizen being Christian, hindu, muslim is being forced by their holy books to be hypocrites. my point here is that u have very conviniently pointed out the hypocrisy u saw n experienced but dint go deep in to ask d question Does Islam force you to do what you are doing?...”

            Response #1: Yes, the holy books should not encourage hypocrisy. In highly conservative Islamic societies, women are forced to go out in traditional Arabic attires only with their eyes exposed. Once again, my point is to offer freedom of attire (and religion), in this context. Of course, decency is mandatory – although it’s an individual’s moral responsibility.

            If people love their traditional attire, then they would prefer that attire when they venture out of their country. If they dislike their traditional attire, they would discard it at the earliest. This is a vital aspect of human freedom.

            I admire the Islamic societies where freedom for attire is offered, where those who do not adhere to the traditional attire are not condemned. 

            Islamic societies are ruled by the Sharia law, and the Sharia law receives its counsel from the Quran and Sunna. So it is reasonable to think that the force is indeed from a specific interpretation of Islamic texts.

            Objection #2: “…And one more thing, Islam has no restrictions, it has guidelines to meet salvation. if you follow it, GOOD FOR YOU N IF YOU NOT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE CLEARLY STATED. it for us to decide. its because of these clear guidelines n logic explanations I chose to convert and many more like me are. So dont doubt the statistics on petty observations, if you have it in you to state the falsehood in the holy Quran , GIVE IT A SHOT. For your satisfaction….”

            Response #2: Theological debate on salvation or other doctrines in Quran or Bible is not the intent. There are conversions in all worldviews, so that levels out in the long run. An undeniable fact is the existence of religious restriction in certain Islamic societies.

            So my question is, “Isn’t it religious restriction when Islam prohibits proclamation of another worldview in their country?” Bahrain and UAE are good case in point for the legal presence of other religions. The legal presence of other religions in Islamic societies is admirable.

            But there are documented instances of religious restriction or persecution of people in these countries - jailed or otherwise persecuted for having proclaimed their faith in the open.¹ Restriction of other worldviews implies a lack of freedom.

            What’s wrong if a person offers his religious text, free of cost to those willing to take it? Lack of freedom is when a Muslim cannot explore another worldview or a member of another worldview cannot proclaim their faith in the open in an Islamic society.

            If there is no religious freedom, then there is a restriction. This is an undeniable fact.

            If religious persecution occurs in more progressive Islamic societies, one can only imagine the amount of religious persecution in conservative Islamic societies. Nine out of top ten countries where Christians are persecuted most are Islamic countries.²

            Objection #3: “…My suggestion for anyone who wishes to know what Islam is that you read and understand the Holy Quran rather than judge how the so called Islamic countries conduct their government and their laws or whatever...becuz at the end of the day, NOT a SINGLE person can ever claim to be the ultimate flagbearer of Islam or Christianity or Judaism or any other religion-not even the highest mullah,or reverend or rabbi….”

            Response #3: Couple of quotes from the Quran referring to man’s freewill was quoted by another reader, they are: “Indeed, We guided him to the way, be he grateful or be he ungrateful” (Quran 76: 3) and “Rather, man, against himself, will be a witness, Even if he presents his excuses” (Quran 75: 14-15).

            If the Quran asserts man’s freewill, then Islam ought to practice it by offering religious freedom for man to exercise his freewill. Religious restriction in any form or size denies human freewill, and contradicts the Quranic assertion of human freewill.  

            Objection #4: “…Islam is the most righteous religion I hav ever seen .I'm in america. The most Christians here have broken all rules of morality. But did I blame your religion ??...”

            Response #4: Blaming Islam was and is not the intent. The only intent is a friendly and a civil discussion.

            Christianity may have the largest following in the USA, but America does not endorse any one particular religion as an official state-endorsed religion. America loves and embraces moral relativism. So any moral aberration in America is to be credited to moral relativism and the depravity of mankind.

            Objection #5: “…Islam from day 1 of its existence encouraged people to question nd seek knowledge...infact from my own personl experienc...d more i questiond d teachings of my religion...d more i learnt...nd dts wt made me respect and love islam more….”

            Response #5: While this may be true to an extent, what would happen to anyone who would step into an Islamic country and explicitly question the Islamic faith in both polite and impolite terms? Would the much acclaimed bulldog of atheism - Richard Dawkins, have the courage to question Islam in his own inimitable and impolite style as he questions the Christian faith? ³

            Would Islam tolerate higher and lower criticism of the Quran as how Christianity tolerates the criticism of the Bible? Is legitimate freedom offered whereby the Quran can be questioned for its credibility?

            When a fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie for “Satanic Verses,” did any other Islamic country offer him asylum? Even if they had offered him asylum would he have had the courage to take it up? Why was Islam unable to tolerate Rushdie’s thoughts? All these questions are predicated on basic human freedom that every human is entitled to and its infringement by Islam.

            Objection #6: “…The freedom that Islam grants is based on commitment and responsibility without which there can be no true freedom. Freedom without restraints leads only to nihilism, the consequence of which is the complete breakdown of the moral and social order. The irresponsible concept of freedom expounded by existentialism, democracy and modern theories of freedom of expression lead only to corruption and immorality since they are not tied to any concept higher moral values or self control. For Islam, freedom lies in commitment and responsibility. They form an integral part of each other and can in no way be separated. There is no freedom of choice without responsibility; no responsibility without freedom…”

            Response #6: True freedom should be free of all restraints. Permit me to respond through the Christian worldview.

            The God of the Bible allows man to freely choose or reject HIM. The God of the Bible does not restrict a Christian from sinning.

            The Christian voluntarily offers his life to God and subsequently continues to overcome his frailty with God’s help. Thereby he gains his true freedom, which remains subject to God’s sovereignty.

            So we agree that freedom does come with commitment and responsibility. But this is merely one aspect of freedom.

            Every human being should possess true freedom – without any restraints whatsoever and at any point in time. True love is the supreme means by which God demonstrates HIS love for mankind. True love entails acceptance or rejection of that very love. Thus man should be allowed to accept or reject God at any time of his life.

            Yes, man could be irresponsible with his freedom. His freedom may lead to, as you accurately said, nihilism and all other evil-isms. But this is inevitable for it is the logical outworking of true love that grants true freedom, which consequently could lead to rejection of God.

            Conclusion: Most Islamic countries subscribe to the Sharia or the Islamic law. The Quran and the Sunna contribute primarily to the Sharia law.⁴

            Therefore, when Islamic nations force religious restrictions to restrict human freewill, which even the Quran asserts, then a reasonable conclusion is that the Islamic societies are either contradicting or affirming the Quran through an interpretation that logically contributes to the restriction of human freedom.

            The fact remains that religious freedom is largely nonexistent in Islamic countries. And as long as religious freedom is restricted, mankind is subjected to religious slavery - undesirable in any context.

            Whatever the case may be, man’s inherent freedom (heart’s disposition) cannot be eliminated. It may be confined for a period of time, but it can never be purged. The society may incarcerate man’s tangible freedom, but any society can never deny the freedom of his heart.  

Endnotes:

¹ http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/courts/abu-dhabi-woman-accused-of-proselytising

² http://www.worldwatchlist.us/?utm_source=opendoorsusa.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wwl&utm_content=homepage-banner

³ “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

⁴ http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034#p1 and http://sharia-law.info/