A Review and Refutation of Middle Knowledge

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White. And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line. Looking forward to seeing those view in Southern, California as we meet tomorrow evening. Information is on the blog and then Sunday morning Sunday evening at the meeting of all the Reformed Baptist Church is there in the Southern, California era area looking forward to meeting all of you tomorrow evening going to be talking about playing around with Providence playing her down with Predestination going to be talking about middle knowledge Mullin ism and how it really doesn't answer any questions at all, but just simply removes God's sovereignty from the picture and.

Looking forward to seeing you there. I just Someone in channel just said that the Senate just passed the hate crimes law which Makes me wonder how long we'll be able to be doing many things that we do today there is no question that free speech and freedom of thought and expression is under attack in the West and especially here in the United States these days and The left is on the march.

So While we have opportunity we need to continue to speak the truth. We don't know how long we're gonna have that freedom, obviously. I just also saw this morning that the State Lutheran Church in Sweden has blessed a gay marriages and Of course with a conscience clause that if you don't want to perform what?

The apostasy abounds and speaking of apostasy I was reading a brief article by Francis J Beckwith this morning on his website. The Council of Trent did not deny forensic justification now how many times over the years starting all the way back with Jerry Matta ticks and everyone we've debated Robertson Jennis and Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin and all these folks.

How many times have we heard people talking about? Justification as a legal fiction what we believe about justification by faith alone by the imputation the righteousness of Christ. It's a legal fiction.

It's not really real and I'm so glad that now dr. Beckwith has arrived back in Rome from once he started to straighten everybody out to help them all. Well, wait a minute. He's not really like the Pope and he's not really like a cardinal or anything like that.

So he's sort of like just a private guy. So I guess he's engaging in private interpretation of magisterial documents. How how can that be. I mean how can there be such disagreement amongst these folks because I mean they have the Pope and they have Rome and there shouldn't be a disagreement at all because we've been told by Patrick Madrid and everybody else that.

You know, so let's go true is the blueprint for anarchy. So why why would there be disagreement on these issues? But anyway He says it seems to me that in Catholic thought prior the Reformation there had always been a forensic aspect of justification.

Well, you know, you sort of can't avoid that given that the categories in the Bible are forensic but notice this. Insofar as there is a legal component to one becoming an adopted son of the father at baptism now that is as far removed from the forensic legal understanding of the New Testament and for example Romans 8 and The assertion who will bring a charge against God's elect.

That's not about baptism. That's not even about adoption. That is about bringing a charge against God's elect. God is the one who justifies. Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus the one who died even rather was risen dead and What does he do?

He intercedes at the right hand of the father in their behalf. That's. That's the forensic nature of justification right there. It's a it's a legal proclamation the part of the father so just change the context there and say oh, well, you know, it's it's it's been there and then you have even the Council Trent claims as much if anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and remains in them or also that the grace by which we're justified is only the goodwill of God.

Let him be anathema. If you read it carefully Trent does not deny the justification involves imputation of righteousness. What it is claiming is that it is wrong to think of justification as the imputation of the justice of Christ alone.

Just as it is wrong to think of Jesus Christ as not fully Both God and man. That doesn't make one with a sense to me I understand the idea that well, you know If you really see our justification as only the imputation of Christ's righteousness and you do not confound sanctification with it.

Then the result will be well a denial of Roman Catholic teaching on this particular subject. But it really bugs me it bugs me to a great degree when you hear Roman Catholics Basically playing with the language like this and there really is playing with language going on here.

In essence what's being said is well Protestants believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully man and so justification is both in imputation of Christ's of Christ as well as The infusion of grace that makes you objectively pleasing to God.

There's a little bit of a problem. It can't be both in that category and the Bible never says that it is. You have explicit biblical revelation that Jesus is the God man the word became flesh. But where do you have this explicit confounding of sanctification and justification in these categories?

So that the righteousness of Christ and our own meritorious actions are the ground of our justification. Therefore having been justified we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ not therefore hoping to be justified when we die.

When we make it through purgatory, we'll have peace with God. That's no that's Not a Pauline concept there in in any way shape or form so a little bit of private interpretation, but I'm sure I am sure that all those who have been so quick to contact me over the years and I correct me and and promote the Roman Catholic understanding and to to assert that That's Justification by faith alone and the imputation the Christ of Christ is legal fiction.

I'm sure they've already contacted dr Beckwith to to clear up the misconceptions and the sense what Rome teaches on this is so crystal clear That there can be no confusion. Because we've been told that over and over again.

There can be no confusion. Well, that's I'm sure it'll all be cleared up very very soon. Yeah, okay, so I was looking for some information on the blog yesterday, I went back to the archives from June of this year and saw in one of Articles that we were talking about Norman Geisler's Five-point Calvinist and that was back in June and as I look at my screen in front of me, I have Adobe edition up and The little little markers are at 30 minutes and 37 seconds.

So since this year We've gotten exactly half an hour taking care of and we're gonna try to get some more of that, but I did want to give you a little bit of a preview of What we're gonna be doing tomorrow evening.

I know that not everybody can be there Of course. And I don't want to go over everything that I'm gonna be doing tomorrow evening because then those of you who are in Southern California won't come but I know there's a lot of folks who are gonna be coming who don't listen regularly to the program and I've always wanted one of the reasons I like to get to travel.

Everyone's wild though. I'm doing a whole lot more of it than I'm really comfortable with and maybe we I won't be doing quite as much of that in the future once we've got the Studio finished and I can start maybe contacting some churches via the internet and doing video in Exchanges with them and things like that.

I'm looking forward to that we're we've got the ceiling in and I think the carpets coming in pretty soon and We're starting to starting to starting to come together. And hopefully we'll be able to start recording things and doing that kind of stuff in the not-too-distant future.

But one of the reasons I like doing things like what I'm doing this weekend Is that it gives me the excuse that I need to put everything else aside long enough To finally do something I've always wanted to do.

I've got so many projects that I I would love to do so many things I want to write and there's just so many demands on my time going so many different directions so many things to be studying that it's it's hard to get around everything and So finally given that I'm going to be discussing this issue of middle knowledge I Have had the opportunity of really getting the chance to put everything else aside and what I've done over the past a little while is I've I've listened as Carefully as I can and as fairly as I can to the leading proponent of mulanism and middle knowledge amongst Protestants today since this has sort of fallen out of favor amongst the Roman Catholics from whence it originally came.

Arising from the Jesuits in their arguments with the Dominicans and in their attempts to find a way around reformed teaching at the time of the Reformation. And that is to listen to William Lane Craig and his presentation.

So I re-listened to his lecture on the problem of evil from Cambridge. I've listened that more than once I listened to His presentation as defenders class at his church over the course of three weeks on the same subject Which was the exact same information just not said quite as quickly with more illustrations and questions and answers from the audience.

I have listened to his presentation of middle knowledge as well in the same class and Of course, I have his his present his initial presentation on this subject which was in the grace of God the will of man a case for Arminianism edited by Clark Pinnock and This was a Zondervan Publication from many moons ago.

What was the date on this? 1989 is the date on this one and he did an extensive chapter on the subject of middle knowledge as a rapprochement between Arminians and Calvinists and his book the only wise God the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom.

There is a specific chapter on the subject of middle knowledge chapter number 12 beginning page 127 and as I have listened to this then we and on this program I have played for you as Dr. Craig went through the doctrine of salvation his comments about God actuating particular worlds in which particular things were a possibility and if we've listened to debates that he's done where he's in question and answer has has talked about the fact that what we might have in this world is this this Optimum balance between the number of lost and the number of saved and and all these things and it's it's been good to Put all of this together into one Presentation as I'm doing now.

So I want to read a little bit from William and Craig to try to explain this concept to you. So you can see what it's really saying because a lot of people are are Attracted to it. Because they hear rather surface level presentation of it.

They never really it's not something that people think very deeply about and since it's rarely expressed in any kind of biblical categories at all. Then since it's a primarily a philosophical concept a lot of folks just throw up their hands and say I'm just not gonna worry about it.

But if you'll put your thinking cap on with me I'd like to like to work through some of this material make some comments on it as we as we go along. So There is. First of all, a lot of people are confused as to why it is called Middle knowledge.

It's not really an overly descriptive term, of course but in in essence Here is Craig's own description of this. In the first moment is God's knowledge of all necessary truths. For example laws of logic.

God does not make such statements true by willing them to be true. Indeed this first logical moment precedes any decision or decree of the divine will. Rather statements which are true in this moment are true by virtue of the nature of God himself and so do not depend on his Will he knows them to be true by his very nature?

And so this first moment of divine knowledge is called natural knowledge. God's natural knowledge includes knowledge of all possibilities. He knows all the possible individuals. He could create all the possible Circumstances he could place them in all their possible actions and reactions and all the possible worlds or orders Which he could create.

God could not lack this knowledge and still be God. The content of God's natural knowledge is essential to him now. I think I think Dr. Craig might agree that the open theists have compromised the nature of God at that very point.

With their denial to God of knowledge of the future though. That might be knowledge of the future only in the created order. So well, we'll see anyways the third moment. Notice we skipped one. We'll get that in a second.

The third moment of God's knowledge is his knowledge of the actual world which he has created. This includes his foreknowledge of everything that will happen. So in other words Historically these these have been decided been called God's natural knowledge and his free knowledge.

His natural knowledge is what he knows of himself and all possibilities. It's free knowledge is based upon his decree to create and so once he's created he knows everything about the creation itself now those the two categories of knowledge that reformed theologians would would believe exhausts everything because.

Anything that to know anything about free creatures or anything else depends upon that decree of God to create. That there there therefore anything in regards to the creation is dependent upon that decree the decree determines everything in creation itself and.

Since the actions of free creatures is dependent upon that decree to bring them into existence to give them their nature. Etc. Etc. Then they would argue that so these are the two these two categories are exhaustive of What we would say God actually knows and this is where?

Middle knowledge comes in is that is they sandwich a kind of knowledge in between these two. In Dr. Craig's words in between God's natural knowledge and his free knowledge is the second moment of omniscience.

Stands God's middle knowledge in this moment. God's knows what every possible creature would do. Not just could do in any possible set of circumstances. Now, let me repeat that because that's very important middle knowledge involves God's knowing what every possible creature not every creature that he's decreed.

This is before the decree. But what every possible creature would do in any possible set of circumstances. For example, he knows whether Peter if he were placed in certain circumstances would deny Christ three times.

By his natural knowledge God knew in the first moment all the possible things that Peter could do have placed in such circumstances. But could and would are two different things. You see the could would be well Peter could deny Christ or Peter could remain faithful to Christ.

Those are the coulds. But would is somehow to know exactly what Peter would do. That's what middle knowledge is in. This second moment of knowledge God knows which of the possible worlds known to him in the first moment are within his power to create.

Catch that. Some of those possible worlds are not within God's power to create. Why. For if it is true that Peter would sin if places certain circumstances. It follows that even though a world with identical circumstances in which Peter does not sin is possible.

Nevertheless, it is not within God's power to create that world. For if he were to create such circumstances and place Peter in them then Peter would sin. This does not mean that God could not prevent Peter's sinning for he could but then the circumstances would no longer be identical because God would be interfering and Molinus can't have God interfering about anything.

Hence, there are any number of possible worlds known to God in the first moment of knowledge. Which 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 choices which creatures would make in them. Are you hearing what I'm saying? I know this sounds strange. But you've got to hear this because I think this is absolutely I Encounter so many people who hear a surface level.

Well, God knows what anybody do given certain circumstances. And so he just he just works a certain circumstances so he gets what he wants and they go home. That sounds fine, and they don't think it through deeply enough to realize what's really being said here.

Notice what it says. God knows which of the possible worlds known to him in the first moment in his natural knowledge Are within his power to create. For if it is true that Peter would sin if placed in certain circumstances.

It follows that even though a world with identical circumstances in which Peter does not sin as possible. Nevertheless, it is not within God's power to create that world for if he were to create such circumstances and place Peter in them Then Peter would sin.

What is determining what God can and cannot do? This the term that he doesn't use it here, but the Term that's used in philosophy is a counterfactual these counterfactuals exist out there and God examines all these possible worlds and with this middle knowledge he knows what Peter will do in any given circumstance and.

And if he wants to accomplish a certain end. Then he can only actualize a world in which the circumstances such that Peter will do what he wants him to do. So the form of what takes place does not come from the Creator.

It comes from the Creator examine all. Examining all these billions and billions and billions and trillions and quadrillions of possible worlds all with free creatures because he will never interfere and Coming up with the one that gets the closest what he wants to do.

Notice I said the closest what he wants to do because if we're gonna hear dr. Craig's gonna say there are certain things God cannot do. Because his middle knowledge constrains him and so The big objection and I'll just go ahead and state it now because I wasn't gonna spend all that much time on this.

But it is important and obviously it's on my heart and mind right now. So that's why I talk about certain things. The big question is this if you're trying to save free will and I don't mean just free.

Will Calvinist talk about free will that's doing what you desire to do but autonomous will the ability to act or not act and to hence change The the timeline itself if you're trying to save that this doesn't do it.

Because first of all, how does God know What Peter is going to do in any set of circumstances, oh. Well, God just knows these things, but but wait a minute. Think about yourself. Think about yourself.

Are there not times you even surprise yourself? Are there not times you do things and say things that Even surprise you. I Mean I'm a pretty predictable guy. And I've used this illustration before now.

I'll probably use it tomorrow night. So some of you might hear it again, but I was a very predictable guy in high school. Once I got my driver's license and I was starting to drive to school. I Discovered you could leave school at lunch and I never really liked what they had in the cafeteria and there was a McDonald's not too far away and From the middle of my sophomore year until I graduated five days a week and once I started working on Saturdays six days a week, I Had the very same thing for lunch every day every day in Fact I was so regular that the McDonald's would make a quarter pounder cheese specifically for me.

Because they knew I'd be coming in and the audience needs to know the fact that still all these years later. You're still having the same. That's not true do not believe the man behind the the the screen there he's he's not telling you the truth.

No, I had a quarter pounder cheese ketchup mustard only fries and a coat. Yep. That's it. All right, everyone needs to understand rich has a degree from hamburger you so he just remembers those things so anyway.

Now I am that means I'm very predictable. That's what I had on every single day. But you know what? Sometimes I got it supersized very rarely. But and back then it was like two dollars and 73 cents, which everybody's going.

Ooh, that was a while ago. Yeah, I was. But you know what? Once in a blue moon, I would do something even I didn't expect It would happen. It wouldn't be planned. That's the nature of the human beast and I'm sorry, but you can you can you can say God has this knowledge.

But if you're actually trying to to come up with the idea that Man has this autonomous will the Molinus will say well, yeah, man could do something else, but that would change God's middle knowledge. And so he wouldn't actuate that world well who's in charge here well, the free creature is and that's before God even decrees to create a particular world the free creature is Determining what God can and cannot do even though the free creature doesn't exist yet.

And why do I make the decisions I make because the way God made me. Those decisions flow from my nature as a creative being and so you have this wild idea. That creatures that are not yet decreed to even be made Can be known in such a way that actually, you know, you always hear what's what's the constant argument?

That you hear. Against Calvinism. Well, you turn people into robots. I Can't think of any system that turns people more into robots than Molinus. Because think what's being said God knows exactly what you would do in any given circumstance any set of stimuli.

God knows exactly how you're going to respond and you'll never respond differently. All he's got to do is change the external situation to change you but the reality is. You will always do the same thing in any given set of circumstances.

Is that true of anyone's experience? It's not mine. Not mine. So on the one hand they'll say Peter could have stood firm. But on the other hand, they'll say but God Actuated a world in which he knew Peter was not going to stand firm.

And So Peter can't stand firm, but he can't stand firm. It doesn't answer anything. All it does is it shifts the ultimate decision-making? From the sovereign will of God that pleases him To the sovereign will of man that pleases him.

That's all it does. While pretending to protect the sovereignty of God by saying well He worked through all these actual worlds and he chose the one that he wanted. But you see he was the the options that were given to him didn't come forth from his creative decree they came forth from these actions of free creatures don't actually exist and yet people actually think this works and A lot of people Because you don't want God in charge are willing to grab hold of this stuff and go.

Ah, ah, here it is. All right, we continue on. Notice the language. His middle knowledge serves so to speak to delimit the range of possible worlds to those he could create. Given the free choices which creatures would make in them God's middle knowledge is like his natural knowledge and that it is logically prior to his decision to create a world.

Indeed God's decision to create a world is based on his middle knowledge and consists in his selecting to become actual One of the possible worlds known to him in the second moment. So that's how that's how the world came into existence as he chose that now.

He says some other stuff, but we're spending more time here and I thought it would but I think this is important stuff. Here's how it encounters predestination. Finally middle knowledge provides an intriguing account of predestination.

I bet it does an account which is fully compatible with human freedom. Well, since human freedom is the is the pseudomonim the highest goal and good here. Predestined listen now listen to this and let's see if you can figure out what one of my major problems This is before I even get to it.

And by the way for those of you with the book, I'm on page 136 predestination is just a subcategory of divine providence pertaining to salvation in The moment of divine middle knowledge God knew how every possible person in any conceivable circumstance Would freely respond to his grace in the drawing of his spirit.

Now the circumstances in which we actually find ourselves include God's gracious initiatives to draw us to himself. God's will is for all to be saved. Therefore he provides sufficient grace for salvation for each and every person he creates in His middle knowledge.

However, he knows who as circumstances vary would freely accept and who would freely reject his initiatives. He knows for example under which circumstances Peter would freely accept and under which circumstances he would freely reject God's grace accordingly the very act of selecting a world to be created is a sort of predestination.

The Persons in that world who God knew would respond most certainly will respond and be saved nonetheless They are still free to reject God's grace. Of course if they were to reject his grace God's middle knowledge would have been different and notice I stopped for just a moment.

What determines the form of middle knowledge? Is it God or? Free creatures. It's free creatures not God. It's not God's decree and Yet I simply say to you if our decisions are reflective of our nature as creative beings.

This makes not one wit of sense. None I continue given That God's middle 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. 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. That they are lost as their own responsibility. Now now think with me for just a moment. God Freely chooses to actuate a world in which X number of people go to hell.

But he's only permitting them to do what they freely choose to do and so the big issue that comes up. Then and I and remind me to go back to page 137 because there's a statement that is made there. But I want to get to.

Well, I'll go ahead and read it real quick, and then we'll continue this Middle knowledge, let me just read this and then we'll go on with the question of well couldn't could God save everyone. Is there no personal choice here?

It sounds like he's saying predestination is just sort of the The natural result of creating a world and it's not personal and that's exactly right. That's the point. Predestination becomes an impersonal artifact of choosing one particular world.

The personal nature of predestination. I've known you I've loved you from eternity past gone zip nada. But this I got it I got to read this verse. Middle 137 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. It would be difficult to prove in any direct way that he does. The biblical passages are not unequivocal. He only provides two biblical passages and he himself admits that both are likely to other interpretation.

But now listen. No, the Bible doesn't really teach us. But here's the quote nevertheless The doctrine is so fruitful in illuminating divine Prescience providence and predestination That it can be presumed Unless there are insoluble objections to it.

There you go folks, let me read that for you one more time just in case like rich you started laughing halfway through nevertheless The doctrine is so fruitful in illuminating divine prescience providence and predestination That it can be presumed unless there are insoluble objections to it.

Keep that in mind now. Here comes the big question. He goes and he talks about some objections and when you handle objections just like in Romans 9 when Paul handles objections to his doctrine. That's when the rubber meets the road.

That's when you really start seeing what somebody's saying. So he handles an objector Who basically says well, no, no, wait a minute. What the objector is saying. God has middle knowledge. God is omnipotent.

God is all-loving. Some persons feel to reject Christ and are lost. Therefore there must be a problem here. Because God isn't saving everybody. So here are some of the statements that Craig says we have to assert to make this whole thing work.

I'm now on page 147. There are some possible persons Who would not freely receive Christ under any circumstance. Let me let me read that again for you. There are some possible persons Who would not freely receive Christ under any circumstances?

So as God looks at possible people and with his middle knowledge, he has possible people knowledge and there are some in His middle knowledge that would never receive Christ. That's what he's saying, all right in Explicating that.

Well, I mean in other words some people no matter how much the Spirit of God worked on their hearts. No matter how favorable their upbringing no matter how many times or ways they heard the gospel. Would still refuse to bow the knee and give their lives to Christ.

Not only is this possibly true, but I believe that it probably is in fact true. But when God cannot create a world in which such persons freely receive. But then but then God cannot create a world in which such persons freely receive Christ and are saved.

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. Folks may I suggest something to you. The Bible the Bible. The Bible's presentation is that that's every single one of us outside of the miracle of regeneration.

That's where theology matters. William Lane Craig does not have a biblical anthropology. He has a deficient anthropology and does not realize he's describing here the entire mass of humanity. No one can come to me unless there's a father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up in the last day.

Take out your heart of stone give you a heart of flesh when you don't want God's coercive power. You don't want regeneration. You don't want spiritual life and resurrection. Theology matters. Next statement.

There is no possible world in which all persons would freely receive Christ. Now I'd heard him say this and now I see it in print. William Lane Craig's position is God couldn't save everybody. He want to but there you see this this Universe of counterfactuals reminds me a little bit the Mormon concept of intelligences this universe of counterfactuals out.

There would not provide him with any possible world. Where everyone be saved. The Molinist God can not save everyone. Not because he doesn't want to. So in other words the Molinist God can not fulfill What pleases his will?

Because he's limited By middle knowledge and the form of this middle knowledge is determined not by his creative decree no. But by the free actions of creatures. Next statement page 148. God holds 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 none are lost.

Let me try that again. God holds 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 none are lost.

You follow what this thing let me let me Let me Explain this from in his own his own words. We have seen that it is possible that God wants to maximize the number of the saves that sound familiar to anybody.

Norm Geisler. That's created a world which the maximum number of people are gonna be 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. Does anybody else get the feeling this is like like God standing in front of a massive Jenga puzzle and And he's just he's working the puzzle to make it you know get get his best results.

But it's all determined by something other than God's will. That's the amazing thing about this his goal. Then is to achieve an optimal balance to create no more lost than is Necessary to actualize a certain number of the saved.

We read that again his goal then is to act achieve an optimal balance. To create no more lost than is necessary to actualize a certain number of the saved, but it is possible That the balance in the actual world is Such an optimal balance.

So in other words his idea is that Maybe the world we're in remember he works in the worlds of probability. Once you've been cut free from the basis of Scripture. That's all you can do is probability.

So it's possible that in I'm sorry, but it is possible that the balance in the actual world the one we're in right now is Such an optimal balance. God chose to create a world with an optimal balance between the saved and the unsaved.

It is possible 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. And why did God have to do all these things? I hope it really bugs you to hear about God having to do these things.

It's because all this stuff is beyond his decree. It's not a part of his decree. He is constrained by these things and I say to you if God is constrained by things that are beyond his creation He's not really God any longer.

But that's what you get when philosophy becomes the highest source of your authority. So it is possible in order to create the number of persons in a world who will be saved. God had to create the number of persons who will be lost.