I will be posting portions from the links provided which refer to Molinism, so I can comment
Actually, I (Dr. Craig) have no problem with certain classic statements of the Reformed view. For example, the Westminster Confession (Sect. III) declares that
God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
Now this is precisely what the Molinist believes! The Confession affirms God’s preordination of everything that comes to pass as well as the liberty and contingency of the creaturely will, so that God is not the author of sin. It is a tragedy that in rejecting middle knowledge Reformed divines have cut themselves off from the most perspicuous explanation of the coherence of this wonderful confession.
If it's true that Craig agrees with this portion of the Westminster Confession, I am baffled. Notice that it says God ordains whatsoever comes to pass
. Craig goes on to say he believes God not only ordains everything, it is pre-ordained.
By rejecting a doctrine of divine providence based on God’s middle knowledge, Reformed theologians are simply self-confessedly left with a mystery.
This is where I stand. It's a mystery to me how God ordains whatsoever comes to pass yet does not violate the free will of the creature.
Dr Craig goes on to talk about "compatibilists" and "determinists" - I'm not sure why he lumps both of these types into Calvinism since I have never known or heard or read a Calvinist who is a determinist, although that doesn't mean there aren't any. However, I would say just because someone calls themselves a Calvinist, or a reformer, does not mean they hold true to the tenants of that belief system.
3. Universal, divine, determinism makes God the author of sin and precludes human responsibility. In contrast to the Molinist view, on the deterministic view even the movement of the human will is caused by God. God moves people to choose evil, and they cannot do otherwise. God determines their choices and makes them do wrong
This is what got my gander up earlier...(I'm better now)
I am not aware of any Calvinist's who believe, or say, or teach, or would even entertain the notion that God is the author of sin and causes people to choose evil. Absurd.
A compatibilist, on the other hand, defines free will as the individual's total freedom to choose without coercion from any outside force, but (granted, a Big but) people will always choose according to their natural inclinations, desires, experiences, etc. People will choose according to their nature. In other words, if I decide I want a piece of chocolate because I love it and think it tastes great, there is no outside force that can make me want to rather eat a carrot. It's totally illogical. However, when speaking of God, a compatibilist also believes God is sovereign over all things, even whether or not I eat that piece of chocolate. God is always the primary cause and the individual is the secondary cause. Yes, there is tension here, how both can be true is a mystery, yet both are believed to be compatible. No compatibilist would say (that I am aware) that God causes people to sin, although He certainly is sovereign over it - in so much that He certainly must allow it or it wouldn't happen.
Maybe I'm missing something, or not understanding something, but overall I think Craig, in this first page I have read http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism
gives Calvinist's a very unfair and untrue treatment.
From this link: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/middle1.html
We have seen that the doctrine of hell poses a significant challenge, not to God's justice and holiness, but to His omnibenevolence. Hell is a demonstration of God's justice, but it is difficult to understand why an omnibinevolent God does not do more to prevent persons from going there.
Why did God not do more than send His only begotten Son to live in an evil wicked world for 33 years and die an agonizing death by crucifixion? I'm flabbergasted by this "difficult understanding" from Dr. Craig.
From what I have gathered here and other places, the basic premise of Molinism is to solve the mystery I spoke of earlier. How can God be completely sovereign so that all things work according to His decree without doing damage to human freedom. Molinism supposedly solves this problem by saying God has a "middle knowledge" which means He knows what a person with free will, will do in any given set of worlds or circumstances.In other words, God inspects all possible worlds until He finds one that best suits His plan and purposes, and this is the world we live in.
Molinists use 1 Samuel 23:11-13 as a proof text because it seems to express God using middle knowledge, although I would explain it as God decreeing certain actions, not just foretelling them.
The biggest problem I see with Molinism is that, like the dreaded A (although not as explicitly) it argues that God rewards salvation on the basis of His foreknowledge of whether or not the person will choose salvation by their own power. I think Scripture is clear that salvation comes by and through God, not of our own choosing. (I could give Scripture here ad nauseum but will not for the sake of time)
Every thought is a seed. If you plant crab apples don't count on harvesting Golden Delicious. - Author Unknown