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 at 602 973 460 to or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 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

Mulan ism and how it really doesn't answer any questions at all, but just simply removes

God's sovereignty from the picture and Look 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 gay marriages and Of course with a conscience clause that if you don't want to perform one

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 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 of 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 right righteousness 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 Justification by faith alone and the imputation the

Christ the Christ is legal fiction. I'm sure they've already contacted me I've 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 the

Articles that we were talking about Norman Geisler's Why I'm not a 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 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 Molanism 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

Protestant 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 divine for knowledge 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 that 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 Lane 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 and 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 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 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 could

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 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 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 Freewill and I don't mean just freewill

Calvinists talk about freewill that's doing what you desire to do, but autonomous will the ability to act or not act and to hence change

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 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 of 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 screen there he's he's not telling you the truth

No, I had a quarter pounder cheese ketchup mustard only fries and a coke. 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 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 gonna 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 yet now

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

Account which is fully compatible with human freedom Well since human freedom is the is the pseudonym bonum 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 and 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 gotta I gotta 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 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 saving God has middle knowledge God is omnipotent God is all -loving some persons feel 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 I mean, 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 where 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 of 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 and let's say the 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 cannot save everyone Not because it doesn't want to So in other words the

Molinist God cannot 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 saying 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 God'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 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 it

Is possible that had God created a world with fewer persons in hell. There would be fewer persons in heaven

It is possible that in order to achieve this much blessedness. God was forced to put up with this much loss

Even if God could have achieved a better ratio between saved and lost it is possible that in order to better the ratio between them

God would have had to reduce the number of the saved so drastically as to leave heaven deficient in population say by Creating a world of only four people three of whom would go to heaven and one to hell

It is possible in order to achieve a multitude of Saints. God had to accept an even greater multitude of sinners

I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about possible Because you can't do any of this with Bible and Revelation But the whole thing is a massive numbers game that is being presented here being a numbers guy this

Sounds like a balance sheet. Yeah, it is in order for us to have

Expense down here. We have to have this debit up here. Yep, and and It's all and it's all based on and it's all based on what free creatures do not

What pleases God? That's what needs to be seen here. It might be protested that Necessarily a loving

God would not create so many persons who will actually be lost but who would under different circumstances have been saved a

Loving God could not in order to achieve one person's salvation allow other people to be created and lost who would themselves

Under other circumstances have been saved. However, we have seen that it is possible That some persons would never receive

Christ under any circumstances Suppose then that God so ordered the world that all those persons who are actually lost are such persons

All those so it's possible that maybe all those who end up in hell are People who never would have been one any other way it's possible and Of course the point is that as we point out earlier everybody outside of that radical transformation

That is called regeneration Would never receive Christ. It's all of humanity.

That's Where it all falls apart two more things to read two more things

Next statement he makes the actual world contains an optimal balance between saved and unsaved and Those who are unsaved would never have received

Christ under any circumstances. That's his assertion This is not this is this world is the best

God could do with what he was given by middle knowledge Think about that Think about that.

This is the best God could do given middle knowledge Given the cards he was played

Is the best he could come up with and man he worked hard to come up with it, too And there are people who think oh, that sounds pretty good

Wow Doesn't sound good to me So the last statement we have seen that the doctrine of divine middle knowledge while having some biblical support

Ought to be accepted mainly because of its great theological advantages the only wise

God William Lane Craig whip and stock publishers up in Eugene, Oregon so my one thought one question about is

Where do we plug in? Jesus saying all that the

Father gives me will come to me how

Where in there is the father capable of giving anything the that's just it because in this system

Predestination is merely an artifact of actuating one potential world that has the optimal balance

I don't see any foundation for the loving Relationship that's what foreknown means those who me for knew he he chose to enter in the loving relationship with these individuals from eternity past that's

That's that's not even there Because you see those Predestination is no longer found in the goodwill of God it is found in Middle knowledge which is based upon what free creatures will do and God has no control over that It's no longer really a divine action.

It's just an an artifact of God actualizing this particular world I Think I'm really starting to see the idea of possibilities really start to I'm seeing how it's permeating everything that Craig Well that's all you have in philosophy, it's all this well

It's probabilities and possibilities the most probable possible. That's exactly right. Oh, that's exactly right

You know when you don't have a chance is in Vegas when you don't have a biblical

Foundation to stand on when you are first and foremost a philosopher rather than a theologian dealing with divine revelation that's the best you've got and My concern is when you import that into that and rip the very heart and substance

Out of the biblical revelation in the process of defending your philosophical system This is not an option biblically and Yet did we not in channel just have someone

I think night for last Fell by Blake or something they Blake something Blake one two three or something like that was over in in Apologetics for quite some time me and razor's kiss.

We're going at it on mullin ism and People who want to avoid focusing the decision of God focusing

The answer to all the questions in the good will of God they say oh, this is good

This is where I want to go I Want to accept this type of a perspective?

and yet It's Ephesians 1 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself on what basis according to the kind intention of his will and Folks if you are willing to Take that tremendous text if I mean

I recognize it takes the work of the Spirit of God in someone's heart to be able to Trust God on that matter, but if you are willing for the sake of whatever to take that verse to say according the kind intention of his will and then

Read into that that all his will did was examine all of these

Possible worlds and the form of every one of those possible worlds was determined Not by the kind intention of his will

But by the intention of the free creatures wills And he he searched through all of them and man.

He's got to be a very very intelligent being Just think it.

I mean Craig talks about this just think of the incredible intelligence Illustrated by God and being able to look through all of these possibilities.

I mean I mean think of the chess player Most of you know that I used to play chess when I was when

I was in junior high school especially I was playing against men who were 40 50 60 years old at USCF rated events and and When you really get into chess you discover that really what it involves is is looking down all these different variations

You know ten moves down any which direction and of course they all branch off What if he does this way if it is that and and your your mind really has to become disciplined to go down all these different Different areas to see what's going to lead to the better position

Given what your your opponent might do well God has a

USCF rating of 50 ,000 a Master's like 2100 okay, so God just he he's able to look at this massive

Universal chessboard with billions of pieces on it and see every possible outcome just like big blue The the computer that plays chess so well, you know

That's what God is But the problem is Just as the rules of chess determine the finite number of outcomes given any certain move so the free

Actions of men based upon middle knowledge knowing what they will do in any circumstance, which of course we said the beginning

How does anyone we deny that that's a that is a biblical proposition? Because men do strange things

Given certain circumstances sometimes men will do X and sometimes men will do Y and The only meaningful concept of autonomy is that they could do either one

But you see this idea of middle knowledge God knows what men are gonna do it is the rules of the chessboard it determines how the chess pieces move and God can only do

What the chessboard allows them to do? God can't make Queens move in the in the shape of an of a knight's move.

God can't make the knight Move diagonally all the way across the chessboard. He's constrained by these things and he's just done the best he can do with what

Well, where did this middle knowledge come from? Where did these creatures come from? There's he can't save everybody

But he's come up with the best possible world. It couldn't have been better my simplistic layman's mind thinks about this and considers that if someone looks at the probability at the existence of God as a probability matter and that for the most part pretty much as We look at all the equation

It's most probable that there is a God and then out of all of the world's religions

We look at the probabilities of that and pretty much for the most part Christianity is probably the most likely to be the religion the best option of those options.

Yeah of that God Is that person trusting in Christ well,

I I'm not going to throw dr.

Craig into the fires of perdition I think what we see here.

I Think what what is is taking place in a context like this is And what happens when an overriding?

external concept and in this case an external

Tradition in this case a philosophical tradition is Made to override the ultimate authority of Scripture and Can Christians go down that road?

I mean William Lane Craig obviously is gonna say I'm trusting in Christ I I firmly believe you know, the Spirit has revealed to me a

Jesus the Son of God. He rose from the dead he's gonna say all of those things, but that external philosophical system

Clearly is Having far more of an effect Than the biblical text itself and that is a sobering warning for any of us

That you can think this is this is a good illustration and I've talked about this many times.

You've heard me talk about many times but an apologist Who is told to defend something must first ask defend what our theology which comes from Scripture Should determine our method of apologetics here is a great illustration of where the method of apologetics

Determines what Scripture can and cannot teach it's backwards. This is what happens when philosophy

Becomes it takes the role that the consistent exegesis of text of Scripture is supposed to have in our hearing as The sheep of Christ hearing the voice of Christ and I know

You know these philosophers come back well, yeah, but you gotta have a philosophy of language where you can look at Scripture and blah blah blah blah as If when

Adam first heard God talking his first response should have been excuse me God But what philosophy of language are you using by which

I am supposed to understand that I am not to eat of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil and no,

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that Here is

As was just said in here's his good statement in in in channel right there

Philosophy taking Scripture captive. That's what it is. That's what it is

This this is middle knowledge is not derived from the study of Scripture And I think

Craig admits that at least I appreciate that we have had people. I remember banning a guy a long time ago

Who just kept hammering on like two texts and all the Bible this clearly shows God has middle knowledge

He is willing to admit That the evidence for that is is is not that strong that it is

Possible that these texts admit of another reading the problem is of course when you're talking to William Lane Craig He's always says almost any text.

It's possible that it admits of another reading and that's that's a problem so There you have it and I was not going to spend entire program in this but obviously

I'm putting my my presentation together right now I've worked on it all day just came in to do the value line I'll be going straight home trying to get it finished trying to get all those quotes in the keynote and get packed

In time to get up fairly early in the morning for a flight over to California Because I need to have that done.

I'm not gonna have time in the afternoon. I don't think to be finishing it up So I've I'm moving at high warp speed and it's always better for me.

I just am NOT smart enough To be thinking about one thing and then go off and do something else.

I just So if if sometimes you're like, well, you know, I wish you'd talk about such -and -such time

You always seem to talk about your upcoming debates and things like that. Well, sorry, just the way I am If that's where my my heart and my mind is, okay

Well, if I had the stuff in front of me then I could do that it's it's on it's on the blog somewhere

I do not memorize Locations and times and things like that people. Where are you gonna be and blah blah blah.

I don't know Maybe it's other California someplace to put on the blog search for it No, once I put on the blog, that's all there is to it.

You know, I've done it. I even put up some New York details Y 'all should be happy about that, but where and when

I don't know it was somewhere in the past few weeks I put it up and that's what searching of archives is for So, you know

I should probably put it back up again, but You know, that's that's something other folks could do

I I'm the one supposed to be doing all the study in here and then other people could be constantly going in there and Finding the specific references and reposting them and someone else could do a calendar

I I don't get to do that kind of stuff, you know So I'm sitting here. Well, we have a minute to kill here.

We have some equipment issues Well, you go ahead and talk about that Okay, there it is 1014 and And and there it is following a bit on the

Southern California Friday 23rd, I'll speak in Trinity Forum Baptist Church, La Mirada and that's 14407

Rosecrans Avenue, La Mirada 30 minutes south of downtown Los Angeles two minutes west of Biola there

So there it is. If you go down to the date for 1014 called traveling all over you will find that there

So there it is. Maybe we can repost that one Up the top or something like that, you know,

I think folks will appreciate that. There you go But there it is. And yes, the other thing to mention is the fact that on the blog article last

Yesterday, I noted the fact that we need to upgrade the computer equipment with which we do this broadcast

So if you enjoy listening to this program and don't want to just sort of disappear While we're trying to put together a machine sometime in the future

Maybe you can help us with that. We have put a article or a Item into the shopping cart where you can donate toward putting together a single machine one of the pictures that We posted shows that one of the two machines we're using right now to bring you this webcast has a 3 .5

inch floppy drive on it. They actually both do it's just the one hides it a little bit better Floppy drives as far as and I think one of them's got a

CD ROM player that actually took just 20 spin. That's great

Point being we made these machines. We built these machines a long long time ago and if a cat's

Age is determined by seven years per human year or something like that for a computer. I'd say that's about 20 okay, so these machines are the ancient of days and when you fire them up, they they sound like the ancient of days and Are we running

XP on them? I think we I think we yeah, I did upgrade them a few years ago, too They started out as 98. Yeah, in fact, we do we still have a machine in the other office we use which is nice That's the what

I use for postage and shipping and yes Today oh and it sings remember that that that power that power supply in there.

It's gonna go someday, too. So anyway Veiling wire and toothpicks, that's how we can go.

So if you want to keep listening to the dividing line don't want to go Bye -bye, you might want to help us Get that machine in there because I mean we do this on a shoestring

And it is amazing where this this program goes, but you've you've got to have some things working like right now we should have the music playing but it's not because it's supposed to be because maybe it's not potted up or something but It is fired up Right there, what was that?

I Thought that I was supposed to start automatically. It is unless I stop it Because you got on a roll and I stopped the commercials commercials for the break.

Yeah, I forgot to restart it Yeah, that was human error. Maybe a new computer. I won't have to do It'll know when you're on a roll.

I Doubt that I still think there's a need for some human activity and monitoring involved.

Well, anyways, thanks for listening to the fighting line today Look forward to seeing those of you in Southern, California tomorrow night and on Sunday and be back with you

Lord willing next Tuesday here on the dividing line. See you then The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at p .o

inbox 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks