Reconciling Molinism and Divine Inspiration of Scripture

By Dean Meadows

If Molinism is true and God is sovereign and we have libertarian freedom, a serious question is raised when considering the inspiration of the Bible. In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul writes, "all Scripture is breathed out by God." The claim is not that God breathed extra life into the text people already had written; rather, it is that Scripture comes from God the way speech comes from the mouth. Traditionally, this is called verbal plenary inspiration (VPI, hereafter).

Defining Terms

"Verbal" means that the inspiration extends to all the words themselves. "Plenary" means it covers all Scripture, not only the parts concerning doctrine. By "inspired by God" or "inspiration," I mean the work of the Holy Spirit in the human authors of Scripture, by which God directs their free writing so that the words they produce are the words God intended to speak.

The Objection to Libertarian Freedom and VPI

But if Paul was free, he could have written a different word. If he could have written a different word, how can God guarantee that every word is the one He intended? On the surface, it looks like we must subscribe to some form of dictation, where the words were dictated by God through these people directly. But if that is the case, then it seems libertarian free authorship is sacrificed. Yet if there is libertarian free authorship, then how do we know that we haven't lost God's words?

Framing the Objection

1. Libertarian freedom means that, in the same circumstances, a person could have chosen otherwise.

2. If Paul wrote Romans freely in that sense, he could have picked different words at any point.

3. If he could have picked different words, God can't ensure that Romans says exactly what God intends unless He overrides Paul's choice.

4. If God overrides Paul's choice, Romans is dictation, not authorship.

5. So, either the words are not fully God's, or the writer is not really free.

This argument was given to me in a recent sit-down conversation with a local preacher here in Blacksburg, Va. He believed that only some form of theological determinism or compatibilism allows for VPI to be coherent. His argument is a significant one because just saying "God guided them" isn't enough to answer the question; the question is how guidance can guarantee a result without removing freedom. Mere foreknowledge doesn't help either. Knowing ahead of time what Paul will write is not the same as making sure he writes what God wants. For that, God has to know what Paul would write in circumstances God could bring about. And here is where Molinism provides a coherent answer to the above objection.

The Molinist Response

Molinism holds that, logically prior to creating anything, God knows every true counterfactual of freedom: what any possible person would freely do in any possible circumstance (middle knowledge). Now, for the sake of answering the objection, let us apply this to, say, the book of Romans. God knows that if a man named Saul were born in Tarsus, studied under Gamaliel, experienced the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus while persecuting His followers, interacted with a Christian church in Rome in AD 57, and the Holy Spirit worked in him in these ways, he would freely write the very words we have. God does not force the words; rather, He creates a world in which these circumstances take place and these words are written. Additionally, it undercuts premise 3 of the objection raised. God doesn't need to override Paul's will to secure the words. He only needs to know what Paul would freely choose to write and to actualize that world. Every word is Paul's free choice and exactly what God intended because God chose the world in which Paul chooses it.

Objections to the Molinist Response

The most common objection to the Molinist account of VPI is, "Isn't this just providence?" Well, God governs everything providentially. He raised up King Cyrus and used him to allow Israel to rebuild the temple. Yet no one thinks that Cyrus's edict is inspired Scripture in and of itself. So what makes Scripture different? First, in what I'll call general providence, God intends that an event happens. With Scripture, God intends the words as His own act of speaking. For example, the president may arrange for thousands of letters to be written by his government, but only the ones he signs are his words. Inspiration is God signing the text as its author. Second, inspiration includes the Spirit's action in conjunction with the author: prompting, illuminating, recalling (cf. Jn. 14:26). That action is one of the circumstances in which the author freely writes. Hence, Molinism's role in inspiration is not to explain every minute detail of inspiration but to give a cogent explanation of how God can guarantee that the words He means to speak are exactly the words free authors write.

Another objection that could be raised against Molinism concerns the importance of the human authors. For if the Molinist model of inspiration is true, does that make human authorship unimportant? I think it is the opposite. On a dictation model, Paul's personality is merely the noise the Spirit must move beyond. On a determinist model, Paul's personhood is put in a vise grip and forced to write. On the Molinist model, Paul's personality is exactly what God chose. His rabbinic training, his temper, his tears are not mistakes God puts up with but rather exactly what God uses to reach different groups of people across the Roman Empire.

Conclusion

Anyone who affirms libertarian free will and VPI owes an account of how both can be true. Determinism provides us the words but at the expense of the authors' freedom and personality. Open theism provides us the freedom but can't guarantee the words. Simple foreknowledge may see the words coming but can't do anything with such knowledge. Middle knowledge, and more specifically Molinism, delivers both. It is great to know that the words of Scripture were both free and foreknown by God so that we might experience salvation through the God-breathed Word.