How do molinists justify a world where not everyone freely chooses salvation? Assuming not all humans on earth will become Christians. Many have lived and died that have not. The Bible is clear that many will fall away and perish.

If Molinism is true,

Then either:


  A. There is no possible world or state of being that allows all individuals on earth to freely choose belief in God


Or:


  B. There is some possible world or state of being that would allow all individuals on earth to freely choose belief in God


If A is true, this implies some limit to God’s power, or if not, it seems prima facie false. It's fair to think that there is some possible world where all individuals on earth to freely choose belief in God.

If B is true, then God freely chose not to create a world where all individuals freely choose God, even though he could have. Which seems very unlikely if God is omnibenevolent.

Is there an official molinist response to this?
I am not especially Molinist, by either formal declaration or preference. But, as a 3rd party observer, my quick review of wikipedia indicates to me that both options A and B require underlying assumptions that Molin may not have accepted.

Both seem to assume that everyone choosing belief in God before they die is a good thing. 

And they both seem to assume that every individual, if given the choice, would choose to believe in God while they are alive. 

A bit in the apparent converse, they also both seem to assume that there is ultimately an option, after death. 

"Every knee shall bow," etc., but we are not told that everyone will choose to do the same thing with their ultimate confession of God. In fact, we are told that some will acknowledge God and choose to go their way into some lesser happiness, where the glory of God is seen in reflection, or at a distance, not directly.

At least that's how I understand this version of the question of evil.