Calvinism is the view that God decides whether you go to Heaven or Hell and nothing that you do affects where you end up. If God wants to save you, then he will, and you can’t resist it. If God wants to damn you, then he will, and you can’t resist that. God saves some people and not others, but not based on anything that the people themselves do. God does not want everyone to be saved.

Molinism is the view that God draws people to him, and they can resist his drawing, just like in any ordinary love relationship where the beloved is not drawn against his or her will. On Molinism, God also places people in the best time and place for them to respond to him, depending on what evidence they need. He can do this because he knows how people respond in any set of circumstances. If people go to Hell, then the people are responsible, on Molinism. But God wants everyone to be saved, but not against their will. God actualizes a world in which he is sovereign over everything that happens, and gets the outcome that he wants, but without violating free will.

So here’s a verse that I think is troubling to both sides, Luke 10:13:

¹³ “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

This verse is a problem for Molinists, because if the people in these cities would have repented if they got better miracles, then why didn’t they get the better miracles they needed? If God loves them, then why didn’t he give them better miracles?

And this verse is a problem for Calvinists, because it shows that people do have free will to respond to evidence that God allows them to see. Why would evidence matter on Calvinism, since God can just flip the person’s switch (or not). If God wanted those people to repent, he could just do it without having to care about evidence, since he is the one who decides whether they believe in him or not, totally apart from their free will.