For a context of where I’m coming from concerning Molinism please see my previous posts:
- Middle Knowledge in a Nutshell
- Why I’m Not an Arminian
- Why I’m Not a Calvinist
- God Controls Everything–Good and Bad
- Overpower–Is God Ultimately Responsible for Everything?
- The Pelagian Equivocation
- The Singular Redemption View of the Atonement
- Does God Ever Literally Change His Mind?–Yes
- Is a Molinist Concept of Providence Discomforting?
- Word of the Week Wednesday: Supralapsarianism
- Holds a high view of God’s sovereignty while holding to an equal and uncompromising view of human free will.
- Provides a better model for understanding how it is simultaneously true that God’s decree of election while His rejection of the unbeliever is conditional.
- Affirms the genuine desire on the part of God for all to be saved in His universal salvific will (which is problematic for the Calvinist) claiming that God loved the whole world (John 3:16) yet, Christ has a particular love for the Church (Eph. 5:25).
- God control’s all things, but does not cause all things.
- God accomplishes His will by utilizing His omniscient knowledge. A view of logical moments in God’s knowledge.
- Explains how it is possible for there to be a decree of election without a corresponding decree of reprobation (there is no decree of reprobation). God did not ordain the reprobate to hell in the same way He ordained the elect to salvation. It holds a better answer to the question as why the reprobate exists? –Because of God’s sovereign will. –But why is he reprobated? –Because of his own unbelief. When God brought the world into actualization, He rendered certain, but did not cause the destruction of certain ones who would reject God’s grace. “It is up to God whether we find ourselves in a world in which we are predestined, but it is up to us as to whether we are predestined in the world in which we find ourselves.” –William Lane Craig
- God is the author of salvation who actively elects certain ones (maintains sovereignty).
- God determines the world in which we live. Whether or not you exist at all, have the opportunity to hear the gospel, or placed in a setting where you are graciously able to believe the gospel are all sovereign decisions made by God (Acts 17:26-27). This solves the problem of evangelism. There can be no excuse before God’s judgment by saying, “I would have believed if I had heard the gospel and had the people You sent got there earlier” (a historical/geological problem of existence). God’s response may [possibly] be, “No matter what situation you were in, no matter what you knew, and even if you had heard My gospel, you would have never believed in Me anyways.” This presents a clear defense for the justice and love of God. This solves the problem of the elect going to hell. No one that goes to hell is elect, and no one that goes to heaven is not elect.
- Fits well with the Bible’s simultaneous affirmation of both foreknowledge and predetermination (Acts 2:23), which is more Scripturally consistent than Calvinism and Arminianism (i.e. Rom. 8:29—predestination & I Pt. 1:2—foreknowledge). What is foreknown [in regards to election] is simply the believer’s faith. Keep in mind this is logically posterior to election. Foreknowledge is not the means of election (see my post on why I’m not an Arminian).
- The grounding objection to middle knowledge. This states that there is not an adequate explanation for how it is that God infallibly knows what choices free creatures are going to make. On what grounds should one believe in middle knowledge? 
 William Lane Craig, “‘No Other Name’: A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ,” Faith and Philosophy 6:2 (April, 1989) 172–88.
 The Molinist response is that God innately knows all things by virtue of His omniscience and that it is simply the nature of God to have infallible knowledge of all things. The Molinist advocate affirms, but may not be able to explain to everyone’s satisfaction, that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of what creatures with libertarian freedom will do. If an appeal to mystery is made at this point, it is done at a better and more reasonable point. It is better to not be able to explain how God’s transcendent attribute of omniscience operates, rather than the Calvinist difficulty in making God appear to be the author of sin. The Molinist difficulties are with God’s infinite attributes rather than His holy, righteous nature and the revealed character and purposes of God.