Explanation and Refutation of Middle Knowledge

Starting back in the 1980s, it's called the dividing line. There are many dividing lines when it comes to truth and error, though our post-modern society does not like dividing lines, and anyone who draws dividing lines is considered to be narrow-minded or unloving.

One dividing line is between those who believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God and believe those Scriptures and seek to derive their beliefs from those Scriptures, and those who do not. Those who would add the Scriptures, or you're trapped from the Scriptures.

That is a meaningful dividing line that can be very useful in identifying where people are coming from. But there is another dividing line, and that is between those who begin with God as the focus of his own acts, his own glory, and man as merely his creature, and those who begin with the central aspect of their theology and philosophy being the autonomous will of man.

That man has the ability in and of himself to chart his own destiny, to, in essence, sing with Frank Sinatra, I did it my way. That may be somewhat of a humorous description, but there is a strong element of that in man's religions.

While many would say that, oh certainly, God's help, God's grace is absolutely necessary, fundamentally, whether God is successful in the matter of salvation is up to the creature man. That is the majority view of mankind.

That certainly is the majority view of man's religions. I would suggest to you that, for example, that concept of autonomy is absolutely necessary in the Roman Catholic system. The Roman Catholic system of salvation is based upon the sacraments, and to engage those sacraments requires human activity.

The human will to go to the Mass, the representation of the one sacrifice of Christ, to go to confession, to engage in the penitential activities, requires the use of man's will. And so, another dividing line is between synergists and monergists.

The synergist believes that salvation is a cooperative effort between God and man, that God gives his part, but without the addition of man's part, there truly will be no salvation. The monergist believes that salvation is of the Lord, not really the possibility of salvation, but that salvation itself is of the Lord, that is why he is to be glorified, and man is not to be glorified, that it is a monergistic one power that brings about the salvation of the human soul.

These are dividing lines. Now, many dividing lines were drawn at the time of the Reformation, and hopefully, hopefully many of you are aware of the great things that took place at the time of the Reformation, but then, if you know history, you also know that there was a counter-Reformation, and the people who led up the counter-Reformation, beginning in the middle of the 16th century, were the Jesuits.

And you've probably heard lots of things about Jesuits, but the Jesuits tended to be philosophically minded, highly trained, and one of those Jesuits was a man by the name of Louis de Molina, and Molina is the one, along with others, who developed the concept of middle knowledge.

The reason he was doing this was the head of the Jesuits, Ignatius Loyola, had commanded them to find ways of combating the Reformation itself and Reform preaching. And so these people would study what the Reformers were saying, see what the strengths were, and find ways to try to counteract the proclamation, for example, of the utter sovereignty of God.

If you've read Luther's Bondage of the Will, for example, you know this was one of the earliest debates between Luther and Erasmus on the subject of the nature of man's will and the limitations of his freedom.

Now, this initially came with the conflict internally within Rome between the Jesuits and the Dominicans, and so the theory that he developed had relevance both within Roman Catholicism as well as that outside.

But I think we need to be honest. The concept of middle knowledge, which I'm about to explain to you, is philosophically derived. It is not based upon exegesis. No one simply reading the Word of God in the first 1 ,550 years of this era ever came up with this full-blown idea.

Now, some people played around with certain ideas, and some might say, well, it's sort of like that, that's sort of like that. But this is not something that you're going to be forced to believe by the exegesis of Scripture.

And even Dr. Craig, in his works, recognizes that the few texts that those in support of middle knowledge have put forward to defend their perspective are not overly clear. He recognizes that there are valid interpretations of those texts that would not lead to the concept of middle knowledge.

And as we will see, that's not why he suggests that we should believe in it, that is, that it's biblically based, but that it is fruitful in its philosophical and theological ramifications. That's why it should be believed.

Now, orthodox theologians have spoken of two kinds of knowledge in God. And the reason I'm going to go into this is, some people might have a question, why is it called middle knowledge? Well, I'm going to explain that right now.

The first kind of knowledge is God's natural knowledge, His knowledge of Himself, all possible actions He could take in the future. It is natural to God, it is not based upon any decision God makes to do anything.

It is the knowledge that God has naturally of Himself and any possible actions that He might take. And then there is free knowledge, which follows His decree to create. And hence, that's what most people think about when they think of omniscience.

They think of God knowing everything about His creation, everything that's going on in the entirety of the universe. He knows everything going on on every planet and in every solar system. But you see, all that comes after His decree to create, and hence is dependent upon that decree.

I mean, it's His decree that gives form and shape to the universe. And therefore, that knowledge flows from His decree to create. And so these are the two kinds of knowledge that Orthodox theologians have spoken of in regards to God.

Middle Knowledge as a Philosophical Theory

Now, Molina posited a middle knowledge between these two kinds of knowledge, one that pertains to elements of both. This is not something that should be considered in a temporal sense. This is not, well, first God does this, and then He has this, and then He has...

It's more of a logical sequence. If you're familiar with the arguments about infra and superlapsarianism, same thing is true there. It's not so much a temporal, time-bound sequence, but a logical sequence.

And this is very difficult for most of us to think about because we're time-bound creatures. And our minds function only in time-bound ways, past, present, and future. And even when it comes to logical concepts, we tend to place them in a time frame.

And we're trying to very specifically avoid doing that when we talk about the knowledge of God. The reason it's called a middle knowledge is that it is a knowledge that is in between these two. It's a knowledge that God has prior to the decree.

Make sure you get that part. It has to do with knowing what free creatures will do in given conditions. Now, at this point, I want to start utilizing Dr. Craig's own material so that, again, I cannot be accused of misrepresentation.

MK, which is what we'll be referring to as middle knowledge, middle knowledge asserts that God knows, quote, what every possible creature would do, not just could do, in any possible set of circumstances.

So, theoretically, the difference between those two would be God would know in his free knowledge what any possible creature, if he decided to create a world, he would know what those creatures could do.

But that's not what middle knowledge is. Let's say we go out this evening. I actually know him. But Bo's sitting down here, and he's a Biola grad. And Bo's a friend of mine. But anyway, let's say Bo and I went out to eat.

And what we're saying is that from all eternity, God would know what Bo could eat this evening. He would know what would be the possible realms. That's not what middle knowledge is. Middle knowledge is knowing Bo so well that given any context, any situation, God would know exactly what Bo would eat.

Not just what he could, which is a lot, but what he would eat. So that's what middle knowledge is. Now, you notice what the focus of this middle knowledge is. It's free creatures. Free creatures. There's an entire world of free creatures would do in any given situation.

Now, here is a further description, and the text is fine. In this second moment of knowledge, middle knowledge, God knows which of the possible worlds known to him in the first moment, that is in his natural knowledge, are within his power to create.

Hence, there are any number of possible worlds known to God in the first moment of knowledge, which it should be he cannot create because free creatures would not cooperate. His middle knowledge serves, so to speak, to delimit the range of possible worlds to those he could create given the free choice which creatures would make in them.

Okay, some of you are shaking your heads. I know that this is difficult to understand, but let's try to work through it so we can understand it before we can critique it. Maybe some of you are shaking your heads because you already understand.

God knows which of the possible worlds, so you have God. He can conceive of creation and all the possible worlds he could create. I mean, he could have made us all green. Universe in all sorts of different ways, different sizes and shapes.

He could have put our heads on our left shoulders and given us four arms, and there's all sorts of things. But of all those possible worlds, middle knowledge is saying there are certain of them that God could not create, and God could not create them because his middle knowledge will tell him what free creatures would do in any given situation.

And that middle knowledge then, if God wants to reach goal X, he has to find a possible world in which the free creatures in that world cooperate so that he can reach goal X. And so what you've got God doing is examining this limit, almost limitless variety of possibilities.

And like a massive supercomputer, he crunches the numbers. And think about the complexity of this. Now I'm not overdoing this, because if you've listened to Dr. Craig, he talks about it just okay. Because think about, just think for a moment, about how many free choices of free creatures go into almost anything.

I mean, think about the free choices of free creatures that went into the crucifixion of Jesus. How many billions of choices led to the specific people who were born, people choosing to marry this woman and not that woman.

Or people choosing to engage in this activity which results in the death of this person, so that line can't keep going. And so you've got all these billions and billions of possibilities. It's a massive Jenga puzzle.

And there are all these different things that God has to know all this stuff to find the possible world that results in what he wants it to result in. And we're not sure what that is yet. But the result in what he wants to result in.

But here's, and this is, follow through with this with me, and if I'm wrong here, please point it out to me. But it seems to me that when you use terms like delimit, his middle knowledge serves, so to speak, to delimit the range of possible worlds to those he could create given the free choice which creatures would make in them.

What is the overriding consideration in the final form of creation? Is it God's pleasure and will? Or is it the free? It seems to me that God's will is limited to finding a world that free creatures allow him to create to accomplish his purpose.

That's what it sounds like it's saying. Let's see if that's really the case. Let's continue on. Indeed, God's decision to create a world is based on his middle knowledge and consists in his electing to become actual one of the possible worlds known to him in the second moment in his middle knowledge.

So middle knowledge becomes the determining factor. This world exists solely because of all the possible worlds it was the one that God chose to actuate. But the form of this world is the result of what?

The choices of free creatures. It was God's pleasure to actuate a world determined by decisions of free creatures. That's a severe limitation of the extent. Given middle knowledge, the apparent contradiction between God's sovereignty and human freedom which seems to break God's sovereignty is resolved, Dr. Craig believes, in his infinite intelligence.

God is able to plan a world in which his designs are achieved by creatures acting freely, praise be to God. Now, please, think about what's being said. Think about what's being said. I honestly believe that people want to try to resolve these two things.

I just honestly believe that outside of the grace of God, that resolution will always be a limitation of God's sovereignty. Even with lip service to it. But notice what is said. In his infinite intelligence, God is able to plan a world.

Now, what does it mean to plan a world? Because you see, this world is just simply one theoretical construct of billions that are out there. He didn't determine its shape. He doesn't determine the outcome.

Only determination is by free creatures. He had to look at all these different possibilities and this one evidently came the closest to what he wanted. Think about what that means. And when you say, praise be to God, for exactly what?

Seriously, what is God being praised for? Because he, in his infinite intelligence, found the best possible world? He couldn't have done better than this. That's what I'm saying. He couldn't have done better than this.

And we're going to get to exactly what that means as we look at this. So, what does this have to do with predestination? Because let's think about this for just a moment.

Predestination and the Autonomous Will of Man

Predestination.

The Molus is totally known to God. They're not open theists and I appreciate the fact they stand against open theism.

God knew.

But think about it for a moment. About open theism. They really believe that. If you want to see how well that system holds up, I debated Dr. John Sanders at Reformed Theological Seminary back in 2001 on that very subject.

At least they stand against that. I'm glad the Molus don't buy into open theism. But at what cost and by what means is the question. When it comes to the issue of predestination, very clearly Dr. Craig is not Reformed.

Indeed, as I first present this, Arminianism, edited by Clark Pinnock, predestination, the idea that God in eternity past chooses, that's what foreknowing means in eternity past, chooses to enter into a loving relationship with an individual, an undeserving individual.

Not because he looks down the corridors of time and says, Ah, this person is going to believe in me. And so I will enter into a relationship with that person.

No.

All the Father gives me will come to me. It's the giving of the Father that determines the coming of anyone to Christ. That's Jesus' teaching. And so, that intimately personal and eternal and amazing biblical truth, that knowing me better than I know myself, the holy God still chose to redeem.

Personally, before eternity begins, tremendous and treasured. Because he chooses to actually. Then you have a form of predestination. Here's what it says. Accordingly, the very act of selecting a world to be created is a sort of predestination.

Given that God's mental knowledge is correct, God, in creating certain persons who will freely accept his grace, thereby ensures that they will be saved. As for the unsaved, the only reason they are not predestined is that they freely reject God's grace.

But you see, predestination just becomes an artifact of choosing to actuate one particular world. The personal aspect of it. It just so happens that God actuated one world in which certain people will respond to the gospel and other people won't.

That foreknowing becomes a philosophical thing. That to me is one of the greatest. God gives sufficient grace to all people everywhere to be saved. And he desires that they accept his grace and be saved.

In fact, many of the unsaved may actually receive greater divine assistance in drawing than do the saved. So to me, that they are lost is their own responsibility. Now it is right here that I want to suggest to you that I'm not sure that...

I truly believe there are some assertions here that... I believe that Dr. Craig believes that he is answering some of the big questions. God gives sufficient grace to everyone to be saved.

What does that mean?

See, this demonstrates that it gets to the... God is certainly gracious. There's certainly common grace all over the place. That's why man... That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about saving.

Dr. Craig certainly has as a theological foundation... And this is where theology matters. This is where theology should determine philosophy and never the other way around. This is where the issue...

Dr. Craig's theology results in... Is even in his own... Talking about soteriology. You have the reform view. You have the view of Trent. Which he decided to come down on. A modified version of the Council of Trent.

So there is a... There is a fundamental opposition to the Reformation at that point. What you're talking about... Gives sufficient grace. Sufficient grace.

Saves.

Sufficient grace. I've said so many times... But I have to keep repeating it. Scholars and theologians.

Big names.

They start talking about Roman Catholicism.

They go...

Wow, I was just reading the Council of Trent. And the Council of Trent anathematizes anybody... Who says you can be saved... Apart from God's grace. Isn't that wonderful to hear Rome say that? As if the Reformation...

Never existed.

What was the Reformation? God saves by His grace alone. Or that grace is just a helper. And now it's up to man. Sad part of the fact.

Soteriological.

And so...

When he says...

God gives sufficient grace to all people ever to be saved. He desires that they accept His grace and be saved.

What does that mean?

He did not actuate a world in which they would be saved. He has a way around that.

But...

Once you've left... We are told that middle knowledge... Can thus provide an illuminating account... Not only of God's foreknowledge... But also of His providence and predestination. Does God then possess middle knowledge?

Listen to this.

He's already said... God's entire choice to create is based upon middle knowledge. Does God then possess middle knowledge? It would be difficult to prove in any direct way that He does. For the biblical passages are not unequivocal.

Nevertheless... The doctrine is so fruitful... Providence and predestination... That it can be presumed... Unless there are insoluble objections. Folks, that's one of my biggest problems. Is when Christian theology is determined by philosophy.

So why should we believe in middle knowledge? Because it's a doctrine fruitful... Providence and predestination. It can be presumed. Now, at this point, he then went into answering objections.

Folks, let me tell you something.

I didn't know this in the first few debates that I did. I never took a class on doing debates. It took four or five debates before I came... Because anybody can make... When someone comes and asks you...

For the consistency of your position... That's when the wheels fall off. And so, Dr. Craig responds to objections to his position. And that's when the real statements... That illustrate what middle knowledge really does...

Come to... He responds to someone who would object to middle knowledge... And say, well look... There are too many lost people. God would never make this world... With all this evil and all these lost people...

If he truly had middle knowledge. There would be more saved. And so he's wrestling with that idea. And that's what brings out... The real limitations that middle knowledge places upon God. He says, there are some possible persons...

Who would not freely receive Christ under any circumstances. And then in elucidating that statement, he says... Only if God coerced them... Would they believe in Christ. Hence, God cannot be blamed for creating a world...

In which such people are lost. So what he's saying is... In God's middle knowledge... There were certain people... That no matter what... They would never freely accept Christ. Is that not the teaching of Romans 8?

When Paul says... They cannot submit to the law of God? They lack the ability to do so? Is that not what Jesus says? No man is able to come to me? Here's where theology matters.

Yeah, you're exactly right.

There are some possible persons. Every single fallen son and daughter of Adam.

That's everybody.

He says, there are some possible persons... Who would not freely receive Christ under any circumstances. Do you hear what he's saying? That means there are some possible persons... God could never save.

God does not have the capacity. He does not have the power.

Why?

Because the ultimate authority in the system... Is the free will.

John 47.

If you want to check it out. Next statement. There is no possible world... In which all persons would freely receive Christ. If there are certain people who never... That means there is no possible world.

God could never have been a universalist. Do you know what this means? His middle knowledge forces him to this. That a world in which some persons freely reject Christ... But the number of those who freely receive him is maximized...

Is preferable to a world... In which a few people receive Christ and then are lost. That it's better to have people saved and lots of people in hell... Than to have fewer people saved and nobody in hell.

That's God's position.

He says, we have seen... That it is possible that God wants to maximize... The number of the saved. He wants heaven to be as full as possible... Yet, as a loving God, he wants to minimize the number of the lost.

He wants hell to be as empty as possible. His goal then is to achieve an optimal balance. To create no more loss than is necessary... To actuate a certain number of the saved. I don't know about you, but this is sounding really impersonal.

This is a numbers game.

God's a huge supercomputer. And he's crunching the numbers. And this is the best way to work it all out.

But it's never based upon... It's based upon what his middle knowledge... Of what free creatures will do. But he says it is possible...

That the balance in the actual world, this world we're in... Is such an optimal balance. It is possible... That in order to create the number of persons in our world who will be saved... God had to create the number of persons who will be lost.

It is possible...

That the terrible price of filling heaven... Is the filling of hell as well. And that in any other possible world... The balance between saved and lost... Would have been worse or the same. So it's possible... That we live in the best possible world.

One says it's possible.

But do you hear what's being said here?

The suggestion is...

This is the best possible world.

It couldn't have gotten any better. If he changed anything... There would have been... This is just simply the best...

It seems to me...

As a Christian theologian that... So he says... Between saved and unsaved... And those... Listen to that. Catch this. And those who are unsaved... Would never have received Christ under any circumstances.

What he's saying is... Those who go to hell... They never were savable in the first place. Somehow managed to actuate a world where every single person goes to hell. There is no possible world there.

And it could have been saved anyways.

So hey.

Why has God to be... Interesting. We have seen... That the doctrine... While having some biblical support... Ought to be accepted mainly because of its great theological... Let me summarize the objections.

First of all, I believe...

It assumes...

Have you never... Probably one of the most predictable people...

Got to this...

Mel Gibson... How he just... He missed it and he... Give that humorous... Apologist saying God knew that whatever...

I would always do that.

Or at least in this world...

I would always do that.

How do you know that?

Doesn't that destroy...

Doesn't that make...

Doesn't that make...

Man...

Are you telling us that we're just a bunch of robots?

And I go... Wait a minute.

I think you're the one on that game.

Not me.

Because you think...

That God can have knowledge... That your freedom is so mechanistic... That God can put you in circumstance X... And you're always just gonna do the same thing.

Is that not robotic?

That the whole assertion... That God would know... What any free creature would do... In any possible circumstance...

Is a meaningful statement.

There are a lot of Arminians who agree with me. They recognize... Molinism is the end of their concept... Of the autonomous will of man. So on the one side... Oh, we've got to defend the autonomous will of man.

But on the other side... You end up creating... That God can know exactly what he's gonna do... In any given circumstance. And he will never vary. If he does in God's middle knowledge... I have a problem with that.

Like I said, I'm most predictable. I made a panic there for a second. I'll get to this story eventually. Freak, it's alright. So starting... Including on Saturdays. That's six days a week. And so...

Some days...

Some days I'll walk in... As predictable as I am... I don't believe that God can have middle knowledge... Of exactly what I would order.

Because I did change.

So I question this first assertion. I don't believe that middle knowledge is found. Because I think it really destroys... What they're trying to preserve... And that is some concept of the autonomous...

What a free creature is.

It amazes me.

How can you know... Intimately a creature... That doesn't actually exist? I understand the theoretical concept. But my assertion is... That if it exists... It exists because God decreed that it exists.

That is Christian theology. And it seems to me that middle knowledge... Presents to us...

Things.

These counterfactuals... As the modern language frequently uses it. These counterfactuals... That have a real existence... That can limit God's choices... As to what He does in His universe. To what universe He can even create.

And yet...

They don't flow from His good pleasure. They don't flow from His decree. There's something here that is impacting God. And determining what God can and cannot do... That God does not determine in and of Himself.

That to me... Violates the fundamental assertions... Of what Christians believe about God. He is the creator of all things. If it exists, He made it. It is what it is because He made it that way. It seems there's some things in this theory...

That the controlling factor... Creates middle knowledge... Limits God's choices.

We saw Him saying that.

And I say to you... Because if you're going to say... That this illuminates Christian theology... Then I say to you... What is theologous thoughts? Don't bind to fundamental knowledge...

Oh well you know...

David and Kyla knew what the people of Kyla would do. As if that somehow... God's exhaustive knowledge of all of their thoughts... All of their history... Is actually a sufficient basis... For all these possible worlds.

And God working through all these possible worlds... And things like that. As if that's what the writer... Intended us to learn from that. I'm sorry. That's really difficult. And then of course...

Well you know...

Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented... If they had had the light... The creation of Bethsaida did. As if that's middle knowledge... And in some other world... Sodom and Gomorrah repented. Obviously the point of what is being said...

By Jesus... Is that Sodom and Gomorrah... Which were watch words... Most evil, pagan, non-Jewish cities... If they had had the amount of light... That these Jewish cities had had... They would have repented.

The point is not... To say something about Sodom and Gomorrah... But to say something about the hardness of the heart... Of the people of Jesus' day. Clearly that is his intention. But to create entire philosophical systems...

Based upon something like that... Is to use the Bible as a proof text machine... Not as a divine revelation... That is consistent with itself. So no one... Simply exegeting the text of scripture... And allowing scripture to be a harmonious revelation...

Would have ever come up with the idea... That God examines all these possible worlds... Based upon the actions of free creatures... And comes up with the one that is the closest... That he can get to...

To glorifying himself. It wouldn't have happened. It is not a positive teaching of scripture in any way. And it ignores the biblical teaching... Of man's depravity, as we saw. Oh, there are some people who would never be saved.

Yeah, that's every... This system posits an unbiblical anthropology of man...

That says that there are people...

Outside of the great...

Merciful...

Loving act of regeneration... Where God takes out a heart of stone... And gives you a heart of flesh... Raises you to spiritual life... Where, apart from that, there would be people... Who still could be saved.

That is not what the Bible teaches... About man in the state of sin.

It violates...

The Bible's teaching... I mean, it's the Bible's teaching... And the source of God's decree... And its end. And what do I mean by that? Well, it's from Ephesians chapter... Where Paul, writing this letter...

And I think very clearly... It was his intention that this letter... Be a circular letter, in reality... Beginning at Ephesus. It's probably the letter referred to in Colossians 4 .16... It was becoming...

From Laodicea. Et cetera, et cetera. But... It's like Romans... In the sense that it is meant to touch on these high themes... And communicate these things to the early churches. And in those words, Paul said...

Blessed be the God and Father, our Lord Jesus Christ... Who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing... In the heavenly places in Christ. Just as He chose us in Him... Before the foundation of the world...

Before Him in love. He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself... According to the kind intention of His will... The praise, the glory of His grace... Which He freely bestowed on us...

In the Beloved. Now, I've managed to get up here... Consider with me... These inspired words.

First...

Blessing is to God... The source of all salvation is upon Him.

Amen.

His love, His mercy... The source of all things. Blessed be the God and Father, our Lord Jesus Christ... Who blessed us... So many people...

To save.

Paul teaches us as depraved... And bound to sin... And incapable of doing what is right before God... But those passages dismiss... And the intimate, personal nature... Of what God has done in Christ Jesus...

Sacrifice...

For the sake of philosophical... He didn't just bless a nameless... He's blessed us with every... And over and over again... In Christ, in Him, in the Beloved One... Is repeated in Ephesians chapter 1...