both calvinism (which i disagree with) and middle knowledge (which i agree with) affirm that God sovereignly predestines all choices.
the key difference is that according to calvinism, God sovereignly predestines how all choices are made; according to middle knowledge, God sovereignly predestines how all choices are actualised.
to illustrate, let us say that there are two people (A and B) who are either saved or not saved. this gives rise to four possible worlds - A is saved, B is saved; A is saved, B is not saved; A is not saved, B is saved; A is not saved, B is not saved.
let us further say that as it turns out, A is saved and B is not saved.
according to (non-moderate) calvinism, A is saved and B is not saved because God chooses A but God does not choose B.
according to (non-classical) arminianism, A is saved and B is not saved because A chooses God and B does not choose God.
according to middle knowledge, A is saved and B is not saved because it is God's sovereign choice to create the world in which A is saved and B is not saved. at the same time, A is saved by A's own free will to be saved and B is not saved by B's own free will not to be saved. this is if it turns out that A is saved and B is not saved.
if it turns out that A is saved and B is saved, then it simply shows that it is God's sovereign choice to create the world in which A is saved and B is saved. at the same time, A is saved by A's own free will to be saved and B is saved by B's own free will to be saved.
if it turns out that A is not saved and B is saved, then it simply shows that it is God's sovereign choice to create the world in which A is not saved and B is saved. at the same time, A is not saved by A's own free will not to be saved and B is saved by B's own free will to be saved.
if it turns out that A is not saved and B is not saved, then it simply shows that it is God's sovereign choice to create the world in which A is not saved and B is not saved. at the same time, A is not saved by A's own free will not to be saved and B is not saved by B's own free will not to be saved.
note: the free will to be saved is not the ability to be saved. the free will to be saved is the ability to choose to be saved.
Since some of us Calvinist theologians also appropriate the concept of divine middle knowledge, you would be better to make the contrast between Molinism and Calvinism. Cf. my article in Westminster Theological Journal (Fall 2007), “Why Calvinists Should Believe in Divine Middle Knowledge Although They Reject Molinism.”
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Terrance Tiessen
hi terrance,
ReplyDeletethanks for your comment. you would be much more well-versed with all the arguments than i am!
i am definitely open to exploring this issue further. would it be too much to ask for a copy of your article? my email address is nufc_fan86@yahoo.com.sg