Molinism and Calvinism - making an idol out of understanding?

I have just finished reading Salvation and Sovereignty by Kenneth Keathley. It is a book on Molinism with critiques of Calvinism and Arminianism, though focusing more on Calvinism. 

Here are a few thoughts.

I found its critique of Calvinism very fair and helpful. What I like about Molinism is that it gives proper weight to both the sovereignty of God and to human responsibility (I prefer this term to free will, or human autonomy). What I don't like about Molinism is its attempt to explain how the two work together. ie all the stuff about middle knowledge, possible worlds, counterfactuals etc. There are two things I don't like about this. First, I think holes can be picked in the explanation, and people like James White have done so. But what I really don't like is that the focus can then be on the explanation of the facts rather than the facts themselves. Fortunately Keathley spends relatively little time on the Molinist explanation, and more on the Biblical truths.

This set me thinking.  Do we make an idol out of wanting to understand? Let me explain.

It seems to me that the Bible is very clear on two things (it is of course clear on lots of things):

1. God is absolutely sovereign and we are utterly dependent upon Him for our salvation

2. The attitudes we have, the decisions we make and the actions we take matter. They are real and effect our own life, the lives of others, and they matter to God. In particular, on the matter of salvation, the Bible is perfectly clear that we need to repent and believe.

Now when James White, or someone else, attacks Molinism the target of their attack is the middle knowledge stuff, not the two basic Biblical tenets out lined above. Where does Calvinsim go wrong? Or first of all what are the strengths of Calvinism? They lie in its respect for the Bible and seeking to do justice to what it says, and its affirmation of the sovereignty of God, the effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice, and the personal application of it. Where does it go wrong? It seeks to establish an intellectual framework for explaining how God's sovereignty works in the world. Hyper-Calvinists end up in some very odd (and sometimes repugnant, not to say unbiblical) places.

"Molinism" is right to assert the two truths of God's sovereignty and human responsibility, but I believe it is a mistake to make an intellectual framework a key part of it. Why do I believe God is sovereign? Because the Bible says He is. Why do I believe what I do with my life matters? Because the Bible says so. I do not believe these things because of some intellectual framework. Molinism having the framework means the focus goes on the framework when what counts is proclaiming and living the truth of God's word.

In the case of Calvinism the intellectual framework can easily lead to denial of truths that the Bible states clearly. I have not read much Arminian theology, so I will not say anything about that.

Now all this is not to say we should not seek to understand how things work, nor am I saying that there is no benefit in seeking to understand, but we must not make an idol out of it. The basis for all understanding is the word of God, not any intellectual framework.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart

    and lean not on your own understanding;

⁶ 

in all your ways submit to him,

    and he will make your paths straight. (Prov 3:5,6)