This debate came up in Adult Sunday School today:
Far from being 'speculative nonsense,' getting this doctrine right (or wrong) can have significant impact on our heart-stance before the Lord in the face of deep suffering and loss.
Discussion
"Fishers of men" and the general theme of witnessing so that others might see the way is a theme that this essay seems to avoid with the example scenario of buying a chilidog. Certainly a libertarian-free willed chilidog customer proclaiming the greatness of the product is an interesting factor.
I vote yes on molinism. :) I think it’s far more congruent with scripture where strict determinism has to do gymnastics with many more free will oriented passages.
The problem with Molinism is that it is incompatible with the infinity, eternity, and impassibility of God--it makes God (specifically, his knowledge) _dependant_ on his own creation. Even more specifically, it teaches that 'God decreed because he foreknew,' whereas Scripture teaches that he 'foreknew because he decreed.'
My response to Molinism is to 'mind your circles.' Here's a very brief discussion of what that means, if you're interested:
https://www.jayopsis.com/2009/01/van-til-circles-and-story-of-life.html
I should have added, for this audience in particular, that the term 'libertarian free will' used in this article is a theological term of art and has almost no relation with the political philosophy of the same name (i.e., the 'classical liberalism' of yesteryear). To conflate them in the context of this article would be a category mistake.