Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach

by Kenneth D. Keathley

In Salvation and Sovereignty, Kenneth Keathley asks, “What shall a Christian do who is convinced of certain central tenets of Calvinism but not its corollaries?” He then writes, “I see salvation as a sovereign work of grace but suspect that the usual Calvinist understanding of sovereignty (that God is the cause of all things) is not sustained by the biblical witness as a whole.”Aiming to resolve this matter, the author argues that just three of Calvinism’s five TULIP points can be defended scripturally and instead builds on the ROSES acronym first presented by Timothy George (Radical depravity, Overcoming grace, Sovereign election, Eternal life, Singular redemption). In relation, Keathley looks at salvation and sovereignty through the lens of Molinism, a doctrine named after Luis Molina (1535-1600) that is based on a strong notion of God’s control and an equally firm affirmation of human freedom.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Religion, Nonfiction, Christian, Christianity

256 pages, Paperback

First published December 11, 2009

Reviews

[Jake Rainwater · Rating 2 out of 5]

In "Salvation and Sovereignty," Kenneth Keathley of Southeastern Seminary provides a soteriology from a Molinist framework. Based on the thought of 15th century Jesuit priest Luis de Molina, Molinism is an attempt to reconcile God's sovereignty and man's responsibility through the use of "middle knowledge." Between God's "natural knowledge" of everything that could be and God's free knowledge of everything that is, there is God's middle knowledge of everything that would be. This middle knowledge is key for Keathly's soteriology. After introducing and laying the framework in the first two chapters, Keathly borrows Timothy George's ROSES framework (an alternate to TULIP) to unpack his Molinist soteriology.

Keathly is a clear writer, and has the ability to bring lofty concepts such as the workings of the Molinism and soteriology down to an accessible level. Further, Keathly provides some needed pushback against the traditional soteriological frameworks in a consistent manner. Whether or not one agrees with his framework, one must admit that given the Molinist framework, this is a fair and consistent application to soteriology.

However, there are noticeable weaknesses in Keathly's work. For a work that claims to be a third approach to Calvinism and Arminianism, it is heavy on the Calvinism critique. Keathly often gives the Arminian approach in just a few paragraphs while dedicating pages and pages to interacting with and critiquing the Calvinist approach. Often, these critiques are less than substantive. Keathly often characterizes his views as biblical and dismisses the other views as non-biblical.

Further, the authors that he interacts with are often narrow. He spends an entire chapter interacting with R. C. Sproul Sr. and Jr. in his chapter on radical depravity. Surely there are more substantive academics that Keathly could interact with? At multiple points in the book, I found myself wonder if this volume would be more accurately titled "Salvation and Sovereignty: Against David Englesma."

Additionally, Keathly notes that Calvinist tend to characterize Molinist as Arminians, and Arminians call Molinists Calvinist. Keathly does nothing to help this. I often found myself coming to the conclusion that his views are modified formulations of each framework. It is internally consistent, yet I am unconvinced that it stands up against external critique.

My biggest issue with the book is the lack of exegetical work done. If Molinism is the framework that does most justice to Scripture, then I would expect Keathly to demonstrate this. Instead, the reader is left with occasional proof-texting. There is no serious exegetical work done at all in the volume. Just because this is a pop-level book it does not warrant a lack of exegesis - books like "What is the Mission of the Church" by DeYoung and Gilbert have demonstrated that popular level books can have rigorous exegesis.

Keathly offers an alternative to the Arminian and Calvinist soteriological frameworks, but unless one approaches the book already skeptical of these two options, it is hard to imagine someone becoming convinced of the Molinist approach based on this volume.

[Evan Minton · Rating 5 out of 5]

For as long as I've been a Christian, I was what one would call a classical Arminian. I believed that God loved all people, that Jesus died on the cross for all people, that God sent prevenient grace to all people which was resistible, and that human beings have libertarian free will. However, at the same time, there were parts of scripture that troubled me. While I did and still do affirm every doctrine I just listed, there were portions of scripture that seemed to strongly support Calvinistic doctrines such as unconditional election, perserverance of the saints, and that God has meticulous sovereign control over all things. I found Arminian attempts to interpret these passages to be strained and it seemed like they were trying to shoehorn these passages into their theology. At the same time, I couldn't affirm that Jesus only died for the elect or that only wanted certain people saved because The Bible overwhelmingly contradicted such a notion in a multitude of places (to say nothing of it impinging on Perfect Being Theology).

Praise God for the work of Luis De Molina. Through Molinism, I have found a soteriological stance and a stance on divine sovereignty and human freedom that incorporates the insights of the Calvinists while avoiding the exegetical and philosophical problems Calvinism has, while also incorporates the biblical truths Arminians defend.

In this book, Kenneth Keathley provides a statement that acts as an abtract for the entire book. He writes "In his book "Salvation and Sovereignty", Kenneth Kealthey explains in a summarized form why he is a Molinist. Keathley speaks for me when he writes:

"So why do I embrace Molinism? Because, like the Calvinist, I am convinced The Bible teaches that (1) God is sovereign and His control is meticulous; (2) man is incapable of contributing to his salvation or of even desiring to be saved; (3) God through Christ is Author, accomplisher, and completer of salvation (i.e., salvation is a work of grace from beginning to end); and (4) individual election is unconditional; and (5) the believer is secure in Christ. However, like the Arminian, I am also convinced The Bible teaches that (6) God is not the Author, Origin, or Cause of sin (and to say that He is, is not just hyper-Calvinism but blasphemy); (7) God genuinely desires the salvation of all humanity; (8) Christ genuinely died for all people; (9) God's grace is resistible (this means that regeneration does not precede conversion); and (10) humans genuinely choose, are causal agents, and are responsible for the sin of rejecting Christ (this means that the alternative of accepting salvation was genuinely available to the unbeliever). As we will see, there is only one position that coherently holds to all ten affirmations, and that is Molinism."

In science, one should go with the hypothesis that has the greatest explanatory scope of the data. I think the same should go for theology; which some have dubbed the “mother of all sciences”. Classical Arminianism and Classical Calvinism can explain certain portions of biblical teaching, but they cannot explain the ENTIRETY of biblical teaching. Molinism far exceeds Classical Arminianism and Classical Calvinism in explanatory scope in explaining the soteriological data. This is one of the primary reasons that I consider myself a Molinist.

In this book, Kenneth Keathley provides biblical defense for the 10 affirmations that lead him to Molinism as the best explanation. I won't ever write a book defending my own soteriological position because I believe Keathley has already done that. I can't think of a single line of this book I disagree with. If you are like me and you find yourself unsatisfied with your current soteriological position (perhaps you're an Arminian of the Roger Olson variety or a Calvinist of the John Piper variety), then I highly admonish you to buy and read this book. Keathley provides the perfect middle ground between hard Arminianism and hard Calvinism. Keathley provides a Molinistic view of soteriology that explains the entirety of biblical teaching.

[Gabby Coates · Rating 4 out of 5]

My professor, Dr. Keathley, required us to read his book on the theological position of Molinism. I had never heard much of this position, so I found many of his points and arguments educational and interesting. I think he did a good job explaining arguments and critiques to each position, including Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism. Though he clearly advocates for Molinism in this book, he provides explanations and descriptions that have definitely spurred on my own personal thought processes toward these theological perspectives. Though I still have questions for each and this book does not provide answers for everything, I am thankful for the information I learned from it and the time he took to thoroughly explain a position that is not as popularly discussed, while still maintaining a love and high regard for the authority of Scripture.

[Keith Skrdlant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Arguments aside, this book is so well articulated. The way it presents the different perspectives and reasons between them offers so much information, and does it in a fairly accessible way (which is saying something given the highbrow nature of these frameworks). I love Keathley's writing, and I really like ROSES. 🤪

[Morgan Fridley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I came into this book thinking I would disagree with most of its content, only to find that the molinist argument seems to be the most consistent with Scripture regarding salvation and God’s sovereignty. I greatly enjoyed reading it and highly recommend it. I still may not agree 100% with all written in it, but it is a great resource.

[Luke Nix · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book! Look for my full chapter-by-chapter review on Faithful Thinkers in the coming weeks.

[David Wright · Rating 5 out of 5]

Offers a mediating position between Calvinism and Arminianism that I found extremely helpful. Dr. Keathley provides a solid argument for Molinism with a graceful humility.

[Pastoralmusings · Rating 5 out of 5]

Salvation And Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach
by
Kenneth Keathley

Kenneth Keathley is professor of Theology and dean of Graduate Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina.

Keathley is a man who found himself struggling with traditional Calvinist reasoning regarding TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints), yet was also convinced of many good points that are made by Calvinists. What would he do? After all, he agreed with three points out of five,but did not agree with limited atonement or irresistible grace. Not only that, but he couldn't totally embrace T,U, or P as they are presented by Calvinists.
The choice was to be inconsistent in many ways, or to find a way to be both consistent and Biblical. Keathley chose the latter, and has built upon the ROSES acronym. Radical depravity, Overcoming grace, Sovereign election, Eternal life, Singular redemption.
Keathley then sought to place all of this in a molinist perspective. Molinism (Named after Luis Molina) posits that God is indeed in control, and yet affords man free will. “Molinism teaches that God exercises His sovereignty primarily through His omniscience, and that He infallibly knows what free creatures would do in any given situation.” (pg 5) This allows for God to indeed be sovereign, but it also allows for man to be truly free in that his choices truly are his own, and count as something other than a necessary response to Divine stimuli. Because God knows all things He knows all possibilities as well as which possibilities are feasible. In other words, God not only knows what could happen, He knows what will happen in any given circumstance, and He chooses to create the world in which all circumstances and choices bring the most glory to His name. In the world that God chose He both knows all things and man is free to make his own choices. Thus God is sovereign and man is free.
Keathley uses the Molinist perspective to set forth the following: God is both good and great, so He wants to save all and does save all who believe; human freedom is derived and genuinely ours, so it is not absolute, unlimited, or autonomous; God's grace is both monergistic and resistible, so salvation is totally of grace, but grace can be scorn and refused; God's election is both unconditional and according to foreknowledge, because “God's sovereign choice is informed by foreknowledge but not determined by it.” (pg 11);the saved are both preserved and will persevere; and Christ's atonement is both unlimited in its provision and limited in its application, so we can indeed say that Christ died for each individual, but only believers enjoy the benefits of Jesus' sacrifice.
While it may take a while for it all to soak in (Indeed, I plan to go back and read portions of the book again to gain a better understanding of the issue.), this perspective is a very reasonable one. It is the one toward which I had already found myself moving, but was unable to ariculate.
This book is not deep philosophy, or difficult doctrine. It is a well written book that will be a great blessing to anyone struggling with the inconsistencies of Calvinism or Arminianism.
I highly recommend it.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Keathley writes my second full book on Molinism with a bit differently than William Craig.  This summer I've had to wrestle with reformed theology like never before.  I believe Molinism holds the answer, but Keathley didn't  let me completley off the hook.

His main contribution to the debate is a riff on the popular TULIP acronym first composed by Timothy George, which turns the slogan into "ROSES".  It goes like this:

"Radical depravity: The old term, total depravity, gives the impression that fallen humanity always is as bad as it possibly can be. The new term, radical depravity, more correctly emphasizes that every aspect of our being is affected by the fall and renders us incapable of saving ourselves or even of wanting to be saved.

Overcoming grace: The old term, irresistible grace, seems to imply that God saves a person against his will. The new term, overcoming grace, highlights that it is God’s persistent beckoning that overcomes our wicked obstinacy.

Sovereign election: Often the term unconditional election is presented in such a way as to give the impression that those who die without receiving Christ did so because God never desired their salvation in the first place. The replacement label, sovereign election, affirms that God desires the salvation of all, yet accentuates that our salvation is not based on us choosing God but on God choosing us.

Eternal life: The old term, perseverance of the saints, leads to the notion that a believer’s assurance is based on his ability to persevere rather than on the fact he is declared righteous in Christ. The purpose of the new term, eternal life, is to stress that believers enjoy a transformed life that is preserved and we are given a faith which will remain.

Singular redemption: A particularly unfortunate concept, limited atonement, teaches that Christ died only for the elect and gives the impression that there is something lacking in the atonement. As we will see, many Calvinists prefer terms such as definite atonement or particular redemption. We will use the label singular redemption to emphasize that Christ died sufficiently for every person, although efficiently only for those who believe."

In fairness, there are very, very few Calvinists who would accept the TULIP acronym without heavy modification.  Nevertheless, I agree with Keathley that ROSES better represents what the Bible says.  

[Josh Pannell · Rating 2 out of 5]

A good discussion of many of the problems in both Calvinism and Arminianism. However, I find it difficult to understand a position which tries to find itself on both sides. Is election really both unconditional and by foreknowledge of faith? Is the atonement really both limited and universal? I find that people who try to bridge the gap this way often are ether Calvinists or Arminians by another name, the same seems to be true here.

Also, there are times Keathley borders open theism in his explanation of Abraham's testing and God taking the kingdom out of Saul's hands.

Keathley's view of "overcoming grace" seems to be the same as prevenient grace: a grace which frees the will so that man can make a choice.

Lastly, Keathley uses the typical argument of "mystery is not a good answer" to which Paul seems to say "you have no right to ask that" in Romans 9:19-29

“You will say to me, therefore, “Why then does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?” But who are you, a mere man, to talk back to God?"
(Romans 9:19 HCSB)

Keathley discusses nothing new here is this book. This book presents a good discussion of a semi-historic arminian view. I have given it two stars not because I did not enjoy it, but because it does not do what it claims. Good book.

[Taylor Hohulin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really great read for anyone trying to make sense of how God's sovereignty and man's freedom can coexist. The book tends to lean towards an approach of presenting some of the issues that staunch Calvinists face and then presenting a solution provided by a Molinist way of thinking. What I appreciated was that Keathley treated me like an idiot. He closely followed the "tell you what I'm gonna tell you, tell you, then tell you what I told you" formula in every chapter, and the repetition was really helpful for me. He also fleshed out terms like causal determinism, limited atonement, and other tricky theological concepts so I didn't have to bounce back and forth between the book and Wikipedia to process the arguments.

I definitely feel like I lean more in a Molinist direction after reading, though I'm now even more convinced that most of the debate in this realm comes down to people who essentially believe the same thing, but disagree on how best to put God in human terms. What I like about the Molinist approach is it creates a lot of philosophically satisfying ways to live in the tension between God being sovereign and man being free.

[Joe Cassada · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kenneth Keathley's book is a fine explanation of the Molinist perspective of how God’s sovereignty interacts with man’s freewill. Molinism (also called moderate Calvinism or 3 point Calvinism) answers many questions raised in the sovereignty versus free will controversy and answers many of the alleged conundrums that afflict 5 point Calvinism. One draw back to the book is that it seems to be written to an audience already familiar with advanced Calvinist and Arminian arguments and terminology. Although Keathley does a great job explaining many complicated terms, the book seems to be written with the assumption that many of the readers are well aware of the Calvinist/Arminian debate. To fully appreciate this book, I suggest a person first read a couple of good books on sovereignty from a Calvinist perspective.

Although Keathley deals with an intrinsically complicated issue, and although he uses a smattering of philosophy, this book is not written in a technically complex style.

[Jason Craig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably the best book I've read on the Salvation debate (Calvinism vs. Arminianism). Unlike other books that focus on winning the argument at the expense of the other view points, Kenneth actually tries to explain the opposing view point (which is difficult given the number of variations even within Calvinism) and then layout the case for the Molinist view point. He focuses primarily on the Calvinist position but does give a cursory overview of the Arminian position. I was disappointed in how little time he spent on Romans 9, and I didn't come out convinced that Molinist had there theology 'perfect', and he is honest enough to admit that all the positions have trouble with some passages including Molinist. If your looking for a short read its the best book of the subject I've read so far.

[Ben Nasmith · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love how Keathley lays out a biblical case for the reality of contingency and a rebuttal of determinism. It is refreshing to read about "possible worlds" from a biblical perspective since it is all too common for Christians to reject these distinctions as merely complicated philosophy. This book reads very well and although I don't agree with Keathley's conclusions concerning "perseverance of the saints," I appreciate the care with which he lays out his case. This book outlines a Molinism that leans closer towards the Calvinist than the Arminian position.

[Dustin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book. Still lots to chew on (primarily concerning Sovereign Election), but I found myself agreeing with Dr. Keathly concerning Radical Depravity, Eternal Life (though I like the term Perseverance of the Saints better), and Singular Redemption. He also convinced me with the ambulatory model of Overcoming Grace, though I also need to chew on that for a while. Definately worth the time reading.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great overview not only of the molinist position, but many of the ones it is trying to interact with or correct. I felt that some of the strongest arguments in the reformed position weren't adequately dealt with, most notably the nuances found in (and leading to) the irresistible grace position. Besides that and a few similar areas where I had some push back or desired a bit more the book was great. Highly recommended.

[Jeffrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent treatment on the topic of Middle Knowledge and Salvation.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agreed with most of the points in this book, but I would be interested to hear a more fleshed out argument for the Molinist idea of Sovereign Election. As it is argued in this book, it seems to have a lot of the same problems that the Calvinist view has, despite Keathley saying that it doesn't.

According to Molinism (at least as stated here) God knows what a free creature will choose given every set of circumstances. Our free choices are contingent, they could have been otherwise. But God, using His middle knowledge, knows which set of personal circumstances will lead to us making a certain decision. So, in effect, He knows what circumstances He needs to give to each individual in order for them to choose Him. So He gives the elect a set of circumstances that He knows will lead to them having faith in Him and He gives to the reprobate a set of circumstances that lead to them not believing in Him and being damned.

This seeks to let God off the hook for the problem of the reprobate. But I don't think it really does. Keathley argues that even though God knows what they will choose, it is still a free, contingent choice. So it is the individual's responsibility and not God's. But then, if God's desire is truly for everyone to receive Him, as is stated in the Bible and erroneously called a "mystery" in Calvinism, and God's middle knowledge means that He knows which circumstances will lead to salvation for each individual, why not give each individual the circumstances needed for salvation? Why does God only give it to a select few? It's the same issue with Calvinism, just instead of "irresistible grace" it's "proper circumstances." At the end of the day, if God is responsible for choosing certain people to have favorable circumstances, it seems like He's still responsible for the damnation of others.

It's like if you were a Middle School principal and you set up a basketball game with your students. If your students lost, they would be expelled. The only problem: you chose for their opponents to be the Golden State Warriors. Sure, they still lost the game. They could have won, but they did not. Their expulsion is directly because of their losing the basketball game. You did not play against them, you did not have an active hand in causing them to lose. But it wasn't exactly a fair fight. You stacked the deck against them and guaranteed that they'd lose and get expelled. You can take it further and say there are two groups of students and only one group can remain in the school, the other gets expelled. The one group plays the Golden State Warriors. The other group plays against toddlers.

Anyone who hears this example would say it was the principal's fault that his students were expelled, not the students' for losing a game they could never win. Sure, it's very gracious that the principal allowed that one group to play against toddlers, but what about the other group that had to play the Warriors? Was not the principal equally responsible for setting up both games?

Keathley tries to dodge this by giving the example of a general who understands that a certain attack or battle will yield high casualties. Of course, they don't want their soldiers to die. They would much prefer that everyone lives. But this attack is the best course of action they can see, so they do it anyway. That's a bad defense, in my opinion. It breaks down when you elevate the general to God's omniscience and say that the general knows a way that everyone could live, but still chooses the attack anyway. Keathley chalks this up to a "mystery" after criticizing Calvinists for doing almost the same thing.

Keathley also doesn't present a good argument for why God is not the author of evil in a Molinist perspective. He, rightly, is very against that idea. But, if God knows all outcomes of all decisions and sets of circumstances, why initiate a set of circumstances that led to the Fall or the initial inclination of sin? There isn't an answer to that in this book.

Ultimately, the Molinist idea could be very accurate. As I said, I agreed with a lot of it. It was a great reconciliation of some Biblical ideas. And I'm not saying Molinist don't have answers to the above criticisms. All I'm saying is that I did not find adequate answers in this book. I would have loved for Keathley to spend much more time talking about that and I'd be interested in searching out more Molinist perspectives to see what they have to say. A lot of Philosophers and Theologians that I greatly respect call themselves Molinists, so I'd be very interested to learn more about it and see if there are appropriate responses to these questions.

[Devin Morris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great intro for Molinism. Dr. Keathley does a great job showing respect to the Calvinist approach to both the sovereignty/soteriology position while also pointing out its obvious flaws. After some introductory chapters that deal mostly with divine foreknowledge and human freedom while touching on soteriology, Dr. Keathley spells out the Molinist view on salvation through the acronym ROSES as defined by Dr. Timothy George.

Just two points that stuck out to me that took away from Dr. Keathleys book. The first was his commitment to Reformed theology to the point of making bad arguments for his Molinist approach to salvation. In his concluding thoughts regarding Overcoming Grace he “supports” his point by stating that without a mechanism like overcoming grace than it wouldn’t align with Reformation theology (my wording). Secondly, in his opening chapter, he alludes to his book giving a balanced approach between Calvinism and Arminianism. He says this is needed because both miss the boat on sovereignty and as it logically follows - salvation. However, the vast majority of his book primarily takes issue with Calvinism. That’s fine, I understand Arminianism lines up much closer with its views of libertarian freedom. Just would have liked him to deliver on those earlier promises. The same could be said with the extreme views on either side of this debate (hyper-Calvinism and Open Theism). He address hyper-Calvinists by name while only mentioning open theism twice in passing (according to my count).

I spent more time here pointing out the “negatives” only because I enjoyed the book that much. Im very appreciative of Dr. Keathleys work here.

[Mark Rosekelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good approachable introduction to the molinist view. He does not contribute much that has not already been argued for by William Lane Craig in "the only wise God" except for maybe two ideas. 1st Molinist soft libertarianism does not necessitate that humans have all the possible options before them. Without the pressing grace of God the only options available are bad options away from God yet this still meets the requirement for libertarian free will. 2nd not all choice have to be free. He argues there are "will forming choice" that block future choices from being available. In short, it seems that a system similar to molinism makes more sense of the whole biblical text. The two traditional approaches must be forced to perform some level of mental gymnastics to assimilate counternarative texts. Of course, many disagree with me. This text probably will not convinced them. Instead they should turn to Plantinga or Craig.

[Calvin Fletcher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating read! Kenneth Keathley assumes nothing of the reader and slowly works them through each of the tenants of the R-O-S-E-S model. Upon completing the book I was left with was a far more palatable understanding of God's sovereignty yet God's absolute sovereignty and foreknowledge were never at risk. However, I fear many readers would finish this book and instantly proclaim themselves Molinists. This would be a vital error. We must ever seek to be like the Bereans and search "the Scriptures daily whether these things were so". (Acts 17:11) Keathley also provides an impressive bibliography which gives the reader a valuable tool for doing further research. Very pleased with this book and would very much encourage anyone struggling with some of the central tenants of Calvinism to give this a read.

[Nathan G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an accessible introduction to Molinism and middle knowledge. As far as I know, it's the first book of this kind, so it's an important contribution. Keathley persuasively shows the logical gaps in traditional and contemporary theories of sovereignty and choice, and makes a solid case for how Molinism offers a more satisfying solution - though he perhaps could have been even more effective by keeping the discussion more focused on a few key themes. The chapter on "Overcoming Grace" is particularly insightful. As a whole, however, I found the book poorly organized and ungracefully written. The definitive introductory text on Molinism has yet to be penned.

[Phillip Mast · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amidst the debates between many Calvinist and Arminians, Kenneth Keathley is a breath of fresh air who brings together the concerns many have with Calvinism and as well considers the Arminian position in such a biblical way that you can't help but renew thought on the issues presented. Keathley does a good job of not denigrating anyone but aims to accurately present the arguments held by Calvinism and demonstrate how much of TULIP is just not reflective of scripture in how it is being presented. Keathley also touches on an updated form of TULIP and answers various other issues such as the will of God and free will overall for humanity.

[Richard Young · Rating 4 out of 5]

Keathley provides a thoroughly biblical, theological, and ministerial defense of molinsm in Salvation and Sovereignty. He primarily promotes molinsm in contrast to Calvinism and only marginally addresses the differences to Arminian views. I wanted to give it 5 stars but the lack of Arminian engagement bumps it down to 4. He provided a convincing alternative to Calvinism but I can't say the same for Arminianism.

[Drake · Rating 5 out of 5]

Keathley is brilliant. One of the most theological deep and encouraging books I’ve read in a long time. It brought clarity to subjects I was unsure on and reinforced my beliefs while challenging me to think critically. The author provides robust explanations of competing viewpoints and elegantly refutes them. This book has been a blessing and will be something I read over and over again.

[Dong Liang · Rating 4 out of 5]

third option?

I like the survey and the discussion, Molina is unknown to me, but the theology makes sense . It’s good to know there are more than two options in the doctrine of salvation.
This book is helpful for Sunday school teachers, or parents trying to explain assurance to kids.

[Timothy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great introduction to Molinism. Kenneth asks good questions throughout the entire book.

[Joshua · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very informative. Highly recommended.

[Stephen Townley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview of a Biblical Molinist Soteriology. You should definitely read it.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great introduction to Molinism and critique of Calvinism.