A Discussion of Human Freedom on the Anniversary of America’s Independence Day

There has been a long back-and-forth “debate” about God’s sovereignty and human freedom: Are they compatible? Can they be understood and reconciled? If not, why not? If so, how so?

There are three distinct theological traditions that hold the greatest sway in our day: Calvinism, Molinism, and Arminianism.

Election in Calvinism and Molinism are two distinct theological views regarding God’s role in salvation and the concept of divine election. They differ primarily in their understanding of God’s sovereignty, human free will, and the way God chooses those who will be saved (election and predestination). Here’s a comparison of these doctrines in Calvinism, Molinism, and Arminianism:

1. God’s Sovereignty:

• Calvinism: In Calvinism, God’s sovereignty is emphasized to the highest degree. It holds to the doctrine of unconditional election, meaning that God’s choice of the elect is entirely independent of any human merit or choice. God sovereignly predestines certain individuals to be saved and others to be damned, and His decision is final and unchangeable.
• Molinism: Molinism also acknowledges God’s sovereignty, but it incorporates the concept of middle knowledge. According to Molinism, God possesses knowledge of all possible outcomes of human choices (middle knowledge) and, based on this knowledge, He chooses a world in which people have genuine free will. God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of how individuals would respond to His grace in different circumstances.
• Arminianism: Arminianism also affirms God’s sovereignty, but it emphasizes a cooperative relationship between God and humanity in salvation. It teaches that God, in His foreknowledge, sees who will freely respond to His offer of salvation and elects those individuals based on His knowledge of their faith response.

2. Human Free Will:

• Calvinism: Calvinism holds to the doctrine of total depravity, which means that all human beings are born sinful and incapable of choosing God on their own. In this view, God’s grace is irresistible, and only those whom God has unconditionally elected will be drawn to Him and respond in faith.
• Molinism: Molinism affirms libertarian free will, which means that individuals have genuine freedom to make choices without being determined by external factors. God’s election in Molinism takes into account how people would freely respond to His grace if placed in different circumstances.
• Arminianism: Arminianism upholds libertarian free will, emphasizing that individuals have the ability to accept or reject God’s grace. It teaches that God’s prevenient grace enables all people to respond to the offer of salvation and that election is based on God’s foreknowledge of human response.

3. Extent of Atonement:

• Calvinism: Calvinism espouses limited atonement (particular redemption or definite atonement), which means that Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was intended only for the salvation of the elect, not for all humanity.
• Molinism: Molinism does not necessarily take a specific stance on the extent of atonement. It allows for different views on this matter, including both limited and unlimited atonement.
• Arminianism: Arminianism holds to unlimited atonement, teaching that Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient for the salvation of all humanity and that its benefits are available to anyone who believes.

4. Perseverance of the Saints:

• Calvinism: Calvinism teaches the doctrine of “perseverance of the saints” or “eternal security,” asserting that those whom God has elected and saved will persevere in faith and cannot lose their salvation.
• Molinism: Molinism does not prescribe a particular view on the perseverance of the saints, as it is compatible with various understandings of the doctrine.
• Arminianism: Arminianism teaches conditional perseverance, asserting that believers have the freedom to choose to continue in faith or to reject God’s grace and fall away.

In summary, while Calvinism, Molinism, and Arminianism affirm God’s sovereignty and the concept of divine election, they differ significantly in their understanding of human free will, the nature of God’s election, and the scope of Christ’s atonement. These differences have been the subject of theological debates within Christianity for centuries.

The most difficult aspect of thinking about and discussing these matters is extending the grace and freedom to each other to ask the same questions of the same passages that we ask and come up with different answers – without being harsh, critical, or judgmental. Someone with a different view from us is NOT automatically a heretic.

When Scripture is dogmatic, we need to be also. When it is not, we dare not be.

SDG