A molinist question about salvation

Theology
1

First of all, this is not something that I believe - just sort of a “what if?”

I posted something that included Jesus’ terrifying rebuke to the cities in which He performed many of His miracles, and I’ve been thinking about it ever since.

Matthew 11:21 - “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 - But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 - And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 - But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

Molinism is all about the “would haves”. It holds that God knows us, and because He knows us, He knows what we WOULD do (not will do) in any given set of contextual circumstances.

These words of Jesus are quite provocative, in the sense that one could extrapolate to any city, village, family, or person in history. I mean, what would Genghis Khan have done if he had witnessed Jesus raise someone from the dead? Would he have knelt and called Him Lord? Will it be more tolerable for Genghis Khan on judgement day because God knows what he WOULD have done?

2

OK Bro @Pater15, you have piqued my interest. I’m trying to reply to your thoughts, but when I sit to write, my brain keeps failing to cooperate. Maybe It’s better if I just listen.

I will admit, I have never thought of “Molinism” as a doctrine of “would haves”. I admit I haven’t thought about “Molinism” very much at all. Maybe that’s because the Molinistic concept does not ring valid in my mind, that personal judgement is somehow predicated on what a person “would have done” rather than on what The Messiah Jesus DID do. I guess I can’t fit the two ideas into the same jar.

I will note that this lament of Jesus sounds vaguely like His lament over Jerusalem.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!” (Matthew 23:37-39)

For what it’s worth.

Thanks for the thoughts.
KP

3

Molinism is sort of between Arminius and Calvin, with regard to free will and divine knowledge.

The Calvinist believes God determines everything. Arminius believed in Libertarian free will. The issue is divine knowledge versus both. Calvin says God knows and determines, Arminius says we freely choose.

Molinism holds that God does not determine our behaviors, but He does know what we freely would choose in any given situation, and that God can arrange situations that we find ourselves in to freely make the choices that He knows we would make.

Genghis Khan was a believer - in the Shaman deity “Tegri”. He sought out divine guidance and direction. He also killed literally millions of people. I’m not saying that either Tegri was God, or that Genghis would have believed in the God of the Bible if given the chance. We don’t, and can’t know the answer to that.

But what we do know for certain is that if Jesus had visited Sodom, and performed His miracles there, they would have repented, and not been destroyed. We know that because He specifically says that.

The theological question, then, is whether God takes that into account. He knows that if some were given the opportunity to believe, they would have. They didn’t have the opportunity, like Genghis Khan, whom I’m just using as an example.

Like I said, I’m not saying I believe that. Just wondering - offering it to the Bible scholars.

4

@Pater15

This is an interesting idea.

Does He specifically say that? My text reads:

“And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." (Matthew 11:23-24)

To my reading, this lament is heavy with hyperbole, not intended to be taken literally, but a linguistic device to express the weight and seriousness of the situation. i.e. I don’t think the whole city of Capernaum was literally exalted to heaven, likewise I don’t read Jesus suggesting the whole city of Sodom would have literally repented, therefore escaping divine judgement, and so literally “remain until this day”.

I’m not hearing the Molinist ideas taught in this passage, the concepts that you are suggesting are here. I’m not perceiving that Jesus is indicating, or relying on any idea in this passage that “God does not determine our (or Capernaum’s or Sodom’s) behaviors, but He does know what we freely would choose in any given situation, and that God can arrange situations that we find ourselves in to freely make the choices that He knows we would make.”

To my reading, this passage sounds like it resides closer toward, to what you are calling the Calvinist end of the “freewill arc”. I perceive that Jesus is lamenting, sorrowful that The long-awaited Kingdom of God was walking the streets of Capernaum in sandals, demonstrating awesome Kingdom power and authority to His chosen Jewish clans, and their intentional blindness to that overwhelming evidence kept them from responding. Sodom did not have the Messiah doing Messiah stuff in their streets and marketplaces. Israel’s willful rejection to what was right in front of their eyes, as seen in Capernaum, will sadly come back to haunt them as overwhelming guilt on the day of judgement. The Sodomites will suffer guilt, sure, plenty, but not the same guilt of having seen The Kingdom of God sprawled in their faces and rejecting it.

I do appreciate your “take” on this passage. I’m still thinking about it.
Just some thoughts for your review.
KP

5

Of course, my mistake was conflating what Jesus said about the other two cities with what He overwhelmingly implies what would have happened in Sodom. He said the city would have remained up to that day, which could not have happened unless they repented. But he doesn’t specifically say that about Sodom.

Yeah I hear you, and that bring us back to the original question. I understand the presence of scriptural hyperbole. On the other hand, I think in many cases the hyperbole is a tag that indicates a deeper truth to be had. Either new or confirming.

I pretty much do believe that if Jesus had visited Sodom and done the miraculous works there, they would have repented, escaped the present divine judgment, and the city would have continued to exist. I don’t believe every single person born in the mean time would necessarily become a believer.

Yeah I think I see that. Jesus is saying that the people of these cities (e.g. Sodom) actively went the way that they did, within their context, because of their beliefs. The things that they chose to believe, but could have chosen otherwise. They didn’t believe in a righteous God, worthy of worship, and terrifying to sin against. But they would have believed those things, if they had Jesus to preach it to them, and if He demonstrated His divinity by miraculous signs in their midst.

That would have been enough to convince their minds and convict their hearts. Change their beliefs. That seems to me to be what Jesus is saying.

And I do appreciate your perspective. I hesitate to expand this to, for example, “all the tribes in New Guinea”, or “the Eskimos in the 1800s”, or any other unreached people group. But, we might agree that God knows every heart of every person who ever lived. He would also know what any one of them would do in any given situation.

Whether that knowledge could accrue to saving grace, is the question.

6

@Pater15
I hear you. These are great thoughts.

I did review the kinds of miraculous things Jesus did in Capernaum, and the list is quite a bit longer than I could have recalled from memory; healing a Roman Centurion’s servant of paralysis, healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law of a debilitating fever, healing a paralytic, healing a certain nobleman’s son who was sick in Capernaum while Jesus was in Cana, expelling an unclean spirit in one of the Capernaum Synagogues, not to mention the many healings and exorcisms for which we have no details. Even the most recalcitrant sinner would have to agree that Capernaum received extraordinary grace being eye-witnesses to many examples of the power of God in Christ.

Sodom, on the other-hand did have the general witness of “righteous Lot” and his salty wife, Morton. Even so, The Light of God, whether dimly indistinct such as might have been in Sodom, or blindingly bright such as was obviously demonstrated in Capernaum is always bright enough to illuminate the heart of man; it is always sufficient for God to know the hearts of men; to know if those hearts are His, or stone-cold rebellious. To whom much is given, much is expected.

There seems to be some connection between people’s willingness to listen and Jesus’s willingness to demonstrate Kingdom power.

“And when Jesus had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.” Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.” (Matthew 13:53-58) … except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them.” (Mark 6:5)

Mark says Jesus “could not" while Matthew says “did not” do many mighty works there, but the result is the same. I’m not sure how Louie of Molina would feel about this.

I gotta scoot. Maybe more later.
Good discussion.

KP

7

Right great point! Could it be that God knows their hearts, and knows that whatever He might do in their midst, they would not get the point that the actual Messiah was right there, in their midst, working miracles. Thanks for the list of miracles.

I sense that it’s important to keep in mind God’s purposes for letting this whole earthly soap opera run its’ course. It’s not for Him to learn anything. It’s for us to learn something. Herein is the value of the Molinist perspective. Calvin says God determines all, so of course He knows the outcome. Arminius says free will, but concedes that God knows the final tally, by His divine foreknowledge.

However, on the Arminian viewpoint, God is more of an observer, rather than an active participant. The “counterfactual choices of creaturely freedom” are left to run their course.

We are the ones who are seeing, and experiencing, and learning. I think that what we see and experience and learn is important, not only for our present lives, but for our eternal lives. I don’t think we live on the earth as free creatures, and then suddenly become “robots in space” once we get to heaven. God can therefore arrange the circumstances of our lives so that we learn what He wants us to learn. He already knows what we would do in any given situation. But we don’t know, until we go through that situation.

In heaven, we will make decisions based on what we believe - just like we do here. Only there, seeing is believing, seeing is knowing. Beholding with our own “eyes” amounts to never any question, never any doubt.

Faith has become sight. And I believe God has an ongoing purpose for that.

1 Like