Here is my ranking of the most serious problems with Molinism. (For an explanation of Molinism, see Section 1 of this post.) This is not an exhaustive list, and I do not mean to suggest that items lower on the list are not of serious importance. The top 5 are ones that can be pressed independently of Scripture or Christianity. That’s why I give them priority.
- Internal inconsistency. The very idea of middle knowledge (MK) is akin to that of a square circle. If a situation is truly indeterministic, then there can be no single outcome that definitively would result. The best there could be are would probably conditionals with a high probability index, but then we’re verging on the next problem.
- Implicit determinism. Wherever it comes from, MK information comes from the wrong source. If creature S has LFW then in the final analysis it is up to S whether he does A or not-A in circumstance C. Hence, the information that S does A in C is information S creates at the moment of choice by virtue of making the choice. The information cannot exist independently of S’s actual choice. But according to Molinism, the information existed in God’s MK independently of whether S ever existed. As such, the information not only constrains what God can do with creation, but also restricts S’s freedom to do otherwise. (This is thus also a problem of internal inconsistency because Molinism explicitly denies determinism and affirms creaturely libertarian freedom.)
- Grounding objection. MK information doesn’t come from anywhere and is grounded in nothing and yet somehow it’s supposedly still “true” and infallibly knowable. It doesn’t come from God’s nature (else it would be natural knowledge). It doesn’t come from God’s will (else it would be free knowledge). It doesn’t come from creation (because it’s explanatorily prior to God’s creative decision). It doesn’t come from any metaphysically necessary source (because its content is metaphysically contingent). So, realistically, God should treat this information as unverifiable speculation. Without a secure source it cannot yield knowledge.
- Implicit denial of divine aseity and sovereignty. MK information is metaphysically contingent information that is extrinsic to God. He “discovers” it and must submit to it. God has no say at all about the content or existence of this information. The Molinist God is therefore not sovereign over all of reality and is eternally constrained by something outside Himself (contra aseity).
- Problem of evil. Molinism entails that God specifically ordains every evil thing that ever happens. God presumably does not want these evils for their own sake, but He does apparently want them for the sake of some nebulous “greater good” that He allegedly couldn’t have obtained without those evils or something comparably bad. This is massively implausible on its face because (a) there is a lot of seemingly gratuitous evil in the world, (b) the Molinist God (unlike the Open Theist God) does not merely permit any of these evils but specifically ordains them, and (c) even with the MK constraint, it is almost certain that God could have achieved whatever “greater goods” He’s aiming at without nearly as much (or nearly as bad) seemingly gratuitous evil.
- Biblical implausibility. Because it affirms meticulous providence wherein God ordains “whatsoever comes to pass,” Molinism cannot make good sense of any Bible passage that describes God as angry or sad about creaturely events (God ordained it, so what’s He mad about?) or any passage that presents God as responsive to creation. On Molinism God cannot get any information from creation. It’s a strictly one-way relationship moving from God to creation and never the other way around.
- Implicitly heretical Christology. If Christ is fully divine and fully human, then He is, by virtue of that fact, not only the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but also the mediator between God and creation generally. No creature can have a closer relation to God than Christ’s human nature does to His divine nature. Moreover, providential limits on how God interacts with creation must be mirrored in the incarnation because Christ’s human nature is part of that creation. So if, as noted in #6, God’s relation to creation on Molinism is strictly one-way, then the relation between Christ’s divinity and Christ’s humanity must also be strictly one-way. This is why YouTuber Warren McGrew rightly criticizes Molinism for its implicit endorsement of the Christological heresy known as Monophysitism (aka Eutychianism). The Molinist system cannot allow Christ’s human nature any leeway to express itself beyond what His divine nature specifically decrees. This is not a Christ who can “empathize with our weaknesses” or be “tempted in every way, just as we are” (Hebrews 4:15).