Although I have had a lot to say on the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, I never really knew the specific position I held, if indeed there was an official name for it. I refer to both Calvinism and Arminianism as "milk theology", being overly simplistic summaries of highly complex theology. I cannot consider them heretical, because both extremes can be gleaned from Scripture. Nevertheless, they are extremes, being almost as easily refuted by Scripture. Furthermore, they both place an overemphasis, and corresponding underemphasis, on the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man.
Most tragically, individual Calvinists and Arminians can become quite divisive, even to the extent of playing the "us or them" kind of game. Committing the black and white fallacy, they often claim you are either a Calvinist or an Arminian, when in reality, there are other views out there. In my past, I have always held some kind of "middle ground". Calvinism's Limited Atonement view has always been repugnant to me, and is indeed the most commonly rejected point by 4 point Calvinists. By contrast, Perseverance of the Saints seems to me to be nigh irrefutable, and as a man who has skirted the border of apostasy multiple times, only for God to wrap His loving arms around me, I have personal experience to back it up.
The fact is, Scripture presents, in unavoidable ways, that God is sovereign over all things, and yet man is simultaneously responsible for the part we play. Scripture says no one can resist His will, yet presents a number of occasions in which people did. It says He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, yet details many times when He actively seeks out their destruction. It says He wants all men to be saved, yet He appears to have ordained the vast majority of human beings to reject that salvation. And we seem no more able to explain this dilemma than how one God can simultaneously exist in 3 separate, co-equal persons.
The answer I always gave was something along the lines of God is just a fantastic Chess player. He knows every possible move ahead of time, and plans for them ahead of time. Long before white moves the first piece, God has the entire game planned out, and in the end, though His opponent is always free to make his own moves, God will influence him to make the moves He wants. God always wins, it's just a matter of whether we win with Him, or lose against Him.
Eventually, I discovered a third option. There's Calvinism, there's Arminianism, and there's Molinism. Molinism has several overlaps with Calvinism and Arminianism, but it also differs in some very important, very helpful ways. It accounts for the failures of the other two views, and creates a far more balanced, reasonable view of Scripture. Eventually, I came across a video by Tim Stratton of Free Thinking Ministries, in which he helpfully breaks Molinism down into 5 simple points, much like Calvinism's TULIP. The acronym: TRUMP.
The T in TRUMP is a lot like the T in TULIP: Total Depravity. Total Depravity is the belief that every aspect of the human existence has been tainted by sin. The whole creation groans; we are evil to our very core. Nevertheless, the image of God remains. The analogy Tim gives in his video is a pure glass of water with a drop of ink in it. The water remains water, but the ink has stained it all; it is no longer pure water, and it must be purified before it can be again.
The R in TRUMP is contrasted with the L and I in TULIP: Resistible grace. That is, although grace is freely offered to all mankind, and indeed, we are all commanded to accept it, the majority of us do have the ability to reject that beautiful gift, remaining impure, and of course suffering God's everlasting wrath for it. This makes sense of the large number of times Scripture tells us people did resist the will of God, of course to their own destruction, and even the potter analogy, wherein if the clay becomes marred in his hand, the potter is able to reshape it.
The U in TRUMP is much like the U in TULIP, but significantly more effective. With Molinism, it stands for Unlimited and Unconditional love (which, I suppose, should make the acronym TRUUMP, but that's 6 points, and the two Us work together well enough to merit tying them together). With Calvinism, the U stands for Unconditional Election. However, it turns out Calvinists technically cannot claim election is completely unconditional. In their view, either God plays favorites, or God elects based on some condition that is fulfilled by the elect, but not the rest of humanity. By contrast, Unlimited and Unconditional love is fully consistent with both itself, and with Scripture.
The M in TRUMP is perhaps the most important, as it is the defining difference between Molinism and the other views: Middle Knowledge. All competent theologians will acknowledge that God is omniscient (Open Theists are therefore excluded), but Molinism breaks that down into 4 distinct types of knowledge: Natural Knowledge, Free Knowledge, Creative Command, and Middle Knowledge. In the simplest terms, Middle Knowledge is God's knowledge of what a free creature would do in a given set of circumstances. This is not, as some Calvinists object, God "learning" by looking into a future He cannot prevent; it is knowledge He always possessed. Indeed, to deny He has it is to deny God is sovereign. Middle Knowledge links all the other points of Molinism together, as it allows God to create, and completely govern free creatures.
The P in TRUMP and TULIP are practically identical, and as I have always believed the P in TULIP, I am thrilled it also exists in Molinism. The Perseverance of the Saints, or the Perseverance of Free Saints (as Stratton would put it), states that the same God who saves us by the grateful acceptance of His gift of salvation is also able to keep us within that grace. A true believer will never fall away from the faith.
The above, to the best of my abilities, summarises Molinism in a similar 5 point structure to Calvinism, as well as giving brief details about why I think each point in Molinism is superior to Calvinism or Arminianism. As for why I "became" a Molinist, the simple answer is because the above also describes, in better words, what I already believed. In fact, many of the links in the above article were written before I accepted, or really understood Molinism, yet you will notice I say a lot of the same things, with more Scripture which I omitted here for summary's sake. Thus, I am compelled by reason and Scripture to accept Molinism as the most Biblical modern philosophy pertaining to the sovereignty of God and responsibility of man.