Peter van Inwagen offers an informal statement of the Consequence Argument against freedom and determinism: “If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events of the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born; and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore the consequences of these things are not up to us” (van Inwangen, An Essay on Free Will, p.16).
I offer an informal statement of a consequence argument against molinism and freedom: "If molinism is true, then our actual acts are the consequences of the possible world God actualized in the remote past. But it is not up to us what possible world God actualizes. Who knows, if it were really "up to me" perhaps I'd choose to actualize the world where I freely do A over B. But God actualized B over A because B is the world that best brings about his will. Therefore, that I actually did B over A wasn't really "up to me." Therefore the consequences of these things are not up to us."