Molinism vs TULIP Part 1: Total Depravity

 Among the five points of Calvinism—often summarized by the acrostic TULIP—“Total Depravity” stands as a foundational premise. In strict Reformed theology, this doctrine teaches that humanity’s fall into sin was so profound that no person can even desire salvation unless unilaterally regenerated by God. It goes beyond simply recognizing pervasive human corruption; it proposes an absolute inability to respond to God.

Molinism, on the other hand, rejects that interpretation. While conceding the deep and universal effects of sin, Molinists maintain that God grants prevenient grace to all, making genuine response possible. The seeds for this perspective were laid throughout church history—long before Calvin—in both Eastern and Western theological traditions. This essay, expanding on the insights of Luis de Molina, will show that Molinism preserves Scripture’s teaching on human sinfulness yet avoids the contradictions and forced readings entailed by the Calvinist idea of Total Depravity.

Why Total Depravity Is Problematic

1. Misapplication of Biblical Language
Calvinists commonly cite passages like:

Ephesians 2:1: “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins.”

Romans 3:10–11: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.”

According to TULIP, these verses prove that people are altogether incapable of seeking God unless God first regenerates them without their cooperation. But in biblical usage, “dead” (as in the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15:24, where the father says the son “was dead, and is alive again”) often means alienated from God rather than literally powerless to respond.

Moreover, Romans 3:10–11 must be read in context with broader passages—like Romans 1:18–20, where Paul affirms that people do perceive God’s existence through creation but suppress the truth by unrighteousness. Total Depravity leans too heavily on an absolute view of spiritual death, ignoring the scriptural nuance that humans, though fallen, still possess enough awareness and ability to respond if divinely enabled.

2. Contradicting the Universal Offer of Salvation
Scripture repeatedly asserts God’s desire to save all:

1 Timothy 2:4: “(God) desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

2 Peter 3:9: “(He is) not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

Ezekiel 18:23: “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?”

TULIP theology often redefines “all” to avoid the conclusion that God truly wills every sinner’s salvation. Molinism, by contrast, accepts that “all” means precisely all. God’s universal desire to save is not rendered moot by a supposed inability that God refuses to remedy in most people.

3. Undermining Scriptural Calls to Repentance
The Bible is saturated with divine invitations and commands to repent:

Matthew 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem… How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”

Acts 2:38: “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ…’”

If unregenerate people literally cannot respond unless God irresistibly regenerates them, these calls become hollow. Why lament that Jerusalem was “not willing” if they never had the capacity to will otherwise? Molinism resolves this tension by affirming that God, through prevenient grace, makes repentance truly possible for all, even though not all choose it.

4. Moral Responsibility Becomes Unintelligible
Calvinist Total Depravity presents a scenario in which unregenerate persons remain inevitably disobedient. Yet Scripture consistently holds sinners responsible for resisting God:

Acts 7:51: “You stiff-necked people… You always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.”

For real blame to exist, there must be a real possibility to do otherwise. Molinism clarifies how people can resist or respond to divine grace, thus preserving both God’s sovereignty and human accountability.

The Molinist Perspective on Human Sinfulness

1. Affirming Deep Corruption Without Absolutizing Inability
Molinism fully agrees that sin darkens the mind, corrupts the heart, and enslaves the will. However, it does not conclude that people are utterly incapable of responding once God extends grace. Rather, humans cannot initiate salvation, but they can cooperate with God’s enabling power.

Luis de Molina explained it in his seminal work, Concordia (often referred to in English as On Divine Foreknowledge), elaborating on the concept of middle knowledge. In middle knowledge, God knows what any free creature would freely decide in any given circumstance—yet allows them to do so voluntarily. Sin is real, pervasive, and crippling, but God’s grace is sufficient to liberate and empower, making real choice possible.

2. Prevenient Grace as the Divine Remedy
The antidote to radical sinfulness is prevenient grace, a concept present in Western theology (most explicitly in Arminian and Wesleyan traditions) and mirrored in the Eastern Orthodox notion of synergy. This grace “goes before,” working in hearts to open minds to truth, thereby enabling a “yes” or “no” to the gospel.

John 12:32: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.”

Molinists see these verses as affirmations that no one is excluded from God’s gracious draw. While Calvinists must reinterpret “all people” to maintain their system, Molinists accept it plainly: everyone is offered the grace necessary to respond, though not all do.

3. Free Will as Liberty of Contradiction
In TULIP thinking, “free will” is typically defined by compatibilism (you act “freely” if you’re doing what you desire, though those desires are predetermined by God). By contrast, Molinists hold to libertarian free will, or what might be called “liberty of contradiction.” This means that at the moment of choice, a person can genuinely choose between two or more alternatives.

This libertarian conception is integral to moral responsibility, which saturates the Bible:

Deuteronomy 30:19: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.”

When God tells Israel to “choose life,” there is an assumption that they truly can. Molinism upholds this view, while Total Depravity, in a Calvinist sense, would interpret such verses as rhetorical rather than actual.

Scriptural Evidence Undermining Total Depravity and Supporting Molinism

1. Counterfactuals That Show Real Possibility
One of the greatest scriptural supports for Molinism lies in texts where God foreknows not only what will happen but what would have happened under different circumstances:

1 Samuel 23:10–13: David asks God if Saul will come to Keilah and whether the men of Keilah will surrender him. God replies they would indeed surrender him, so David flees—and thus that particular outcome never occurs.

Matthew 11:21–23: Jesus says:

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.”

Such passages vividly show God’s knowledge of alternate scenarios, indicating that events are not simply fated by a single decree. Molinism accounts for these counterfactuals naturally, whereas hard determinism struggles to explain how an unfolding scenario could be otherwise.

2. Real “What-Ifs” and Human Agency
God’s regret or sorrow over certain outcomes suggests that those outcomes were not necessitated but contingent:

Genesis 6:6: “And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.”

If everything were inflexibly decreed by God, it would be hard to see why He would genuinely regret an outcome He meticulously caused. Molinism views God’s regret as a direct reflection of genuine free agency in humans, combined with His willingness to allow them to choose sin.

3. Warnings That Imply Avoidability
Biblical warnings assume some genuine possibility to heed or ignore them:

Hebrews 3:7–8: “Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, ‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion…’”

If TULIP’s total inability were true, such admonitions lack coherent meaning—unregenerate hearts cannot do otherwise. Molinism, however, sees grace as actively enabling each person to heed the warning.

Historical Voices That Undermine TULIP’s Total Depravity

1. Early Fathers (2nd–3rd Centuries)

Justin Martyr, First Apology 43:
“Since if it were not so, and everything happened in accordance with fate, nothing would be left to us…”
Justin equates absolute fate with the destruction of moral agency, rejecting anything like TULIP’s complete human passivity.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.37.1:
“If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things… [why] give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others?”
This rhetorical question would be pointless if humans lacked all ability to respond.

2. Eastern Tradition
Eastern Orthodoxy has always upheld synergy—the cooperation of divine grace and human will. John Chrysostom (4th–5th Century) wrote in Homilies on the Gospel of John 46.1, that “God never draws anyone to Himself by force or compulsion,” articulating a robust sense of free response. Gregory of Nyssa likewise championed in The Great Catechism 5, genuine moral freedom as inherent to the image of God in humanity.

3. Post-Nicene and Medieval Thought
While Augustine (5th Century) often emphasized grace strongly, his earlier works—like On Free Choice of the Will—remain less deterministic than TULIP. Thomas Aquinas (13th Century) explained in his Summa Theologica how God’s gracious movement and human freedom coexist, rejecting the idea that humans are mere automata in spiritual matters.

4. Luis de Molina and the Rise of Middle Knowledge
In the 16th century, Luis de Molina wrote his extensive defense of divine foreknowledge in the Concordia, articulating how God’s sovereign plan includes middle knowledge. Molina was explicit that while humans are fallen, they retain the ability—through grace—to respond to God. The rise of Jesuit and later Arminian/Wesleyan traditions further questioned the Augustinian/Calvinist extremes.

Philosophical and Theological Strengths of Molinism

1. Preserving Genuine Libertarian Freedom
Unlike compatibilism, which redefines “freedom” to be consistent with total determinism, Molinism preserves the intuitive notion that if God commands people to repent and holds them culpable, they must be truly able, by grace, to do so.

2. Avoiding Divine Causation of Sin
If God meticulously predetermines every thought and action, then He effectively authors sin. Molinism spares God from such a charge by affirming He knows and permits, rather than unilaterally causes, evil choices, even as He works them into His broader redemptive plan (Romans 8:28).

3. Resolving the Tension Between Universal Love and Particular Judgment
Calvinists face the conundrum of explaining how God can love all people yet grants many no capacity to repent. Molinism straightforwardly answers: God grants prevenient grace universally; if someone is not saved, it is because they have freely rejected what was offered to them.

Why Molinism Inherently Rejects TULIP’s Total Depravity

1. Scriptural Harmony: The entire biblical story—from God’s grieving over humanity’s sins to Christ’s universal invitation—testifies to a divine-human drama. Molinism, by embracing genuine freedom and universal enabling grace, fits these narratives seamlessly.
2. Historical Continuity: While deterministic readings emerged forcefully in Augustine’s later works and later in Calvinism, the broader Christian tradition—Eastern Fathers, medieval scholastics, and Arminian/Wesleyan lines—upheld human cooperation with grace. This broader witness destabilizes the idea that TULIP’s total depravity is the only “historic” doctrine.
3. Philosophical Consistency: By maintaining that God’s foreknowledge (including counterfactual knowledge) does not equate to divine causation of all events, Molinism defends a logically consistent view of sovereignty and free will—directly conflicting with TULIP’s portrayal of spiritual incapacitation apart from irresistible grace.

Conclusion

In the TULIP system, Total Depravity presents a bleak anthropology: the sinner lies dead, unable to so much as desire God unless compelled by an external, irresistible decree. This notion clashes with the robust testimony of Scripture, which shows a God lamenting human refusal, offering grace universally, and enabling real choices.

Molinism agrees that sin cripples humanity’s spiritual faculties, but it does not concede an absolute inability. Rather, prevenient grace universally addresses this crippling condition, allowing for genuine repentance or rejection. Church history—from the early Fathers through medieval scholastics and culminating in the work of Luis de Molina—presents an alternative to the deterministic extremes.

Ultimately, Molinism portrays a God who is more than powerful enough to bring about His sovereign will without micromanaging every human choice. He lovingly offers salvation to all, knowing precisely who will accept or spurn Him. Such a perspective both respects Scripture’s universal invitations and preserves human responsibility, thoroughly refuting the TULIP doctrine of Total Depravity.