Against Middle Knowledge

Back in the 16th century (it is believed) a Jesuit theologian named Luis de Molina suggested an idea on how to correlate God's Sovereignty with Man's Free Will. His idea is called Molinism or "Middle Knowledge". Here's how it works. Molina argued that there are three kinds of knowledge. The first is necessary truths, things that are simply true. Things like the definition of a square or the fact that 2 + 2 will always equal 4 would fall under this category because they are true outside of some sort of will of God. God knows all necessary truths. The other category of knowledge is what he termed free truths. These are the things that didn't have to be except that God willed them to be. The sun rises and plants grow and Jesus died; these are free truths. God knows all free truths. Molina argued for a third category, something in between necessary and free truths. Thus the term "middle knowledge". These would be contingent truths. They may not actually occur. They are contingent on human choices. Middle Knowledge would hold that God knows all the "what ifs" and determined what would be based on these "what ifs". The idea, then, in terms of your salvation or, more specifically, your election, would be that God looked down the corridors of time and examined all the possibilities in your life. What would you do in circumstance A and B and C and so on? Oh, look! In circumstance W you choose to receive Christ. Therefore, God chose you from the beginning and saw to it that circumstance W occurred. Then He looked down the corridors of time at, say, Hitler's life. He looked at all the possible circumstances in his life and determined that under no possible circumstances would Hitler choose Christ. So Hitler wasn't chosen.

The view is a popular one, especially among Arminians but even among the Reformed side. The best known proponent today is William Lane Craig, a professor at Biola University. He is a well-known apologist, debating folks like atheist Christopher Hitchens on the existence of God or John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar on the reality of the Resurrection. He is also credited with reviving the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. He's a smart guy, a true believer. That's a "big gun". Another is Alvin Platinga of the University of Notre Dame. He is also well known for his defense of orthodoxy. He is another "big gun". Now, I hate to go up against such well known, well respected guys, but I have to say that I can't buy into this notion of Middle Knowledge.

There are multiple problems in my mind. There is what is known as the grounding objection. This argument sees a problem with what are called "counterfactuals", that whole list of contingencies that God sees. If they never happen, on what basis can they be considered true? If they never occur, how are they real? In fact, if they're based on the freedom of the creature, how can they be true without limiting the freedom of the creature? Yeah, yeah, whatever. The thing that disturbs me the most is that it undermines God's Sovereignty. The Bible claims that God is the only Sovereign. In Middle Knowledge we have a contingent God. All of Middle Knowledge is based on what the creature will or won't choose and what God can do with it. God, then, is limited to what His creatures will or won't do. Let's say, for instance, that God would like to save Ted. Going further, let's say that there could be one circumstance that would cause Ted to choose Christ (all big assumptions, but just follow along). However, that one circumstance required that Bob would make a free will choice ... that Bob won't make. Poor Ted. God had it all figured out how to save him, but Bob wouldn't make the right choice, so Ted is doomed.

Of course, I have other big problems with Middle Knowledge. There is the fundamental assumption that God cannot under any circumstances interfere in Man's Free Will. Where this notion comes from is completely beyond me. There is the further fundamental belief that if God does certain things, some humans will choose Him. The Bible depicts humans as dead in sin (just for starters). Under what possible set of circumstances would God be able to get this dead person to properly respond to Him? If "The Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned", what possible scenario could God scare up to make him accept the things of the Spirit of God?

I appreciate the work of such giants as Craig and Platinga. I'm afraid, on this point, I'm going to have to disagree. In the attempt to achieve Man's Free Will -- something that God cannot/will not violate -- this view ends up violating too much of Scripture for me. It makes God's will contingent on His creation. It makes Man only mostly dead. Or, to put it another way, it belittles God and magnifies Man. Now ... whose idea would that be?