calvinism and middle knowledge

*to professor terrance tiessen*

in one of my previous posts, calvinism vs middle knowledge, i held that:

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.

after reading tiessen's article on "Why Calvinists Should Believe in Divine Middle Knowledge Although They Reject Molinism", i would like to revise my position. i now hold that:

extreme calvinism, classical "non-middle knowledge" calvinism (which i both disagree with) and moderate "middle knowledge" calvinism (which i agree with) affirm that God sovereignly predestines all choices.

the key difference is that according to extreme calvinism, God sovereignly predestines how all choices are mechanistically made; according to classical "non-middle knowledge" calvinism, God sovereignly predestines how all choices are compatibilistically made; according to moderate "middle knowledge" calvinism, God sovereignly predestines how all choices are compatibilistically actualised.

four five views on divine sovereignty and human responsibility

1. extreme calvinism - God is sovereign, man is mechanistically free (philosophically sound - hard determinism, theologically unsound)

2. moderate "middle knowledge" calvinism - God is sovereign, man is compatibilistically free (philosophically sound - soft determinism, theologically sound)

2. classical "non-middle knowledge" calvinism - God is sovereign, man is compatibilistically free (philosophically sound - soft determinism, theologically unsound)

3. moderate "middle knowledge" calvinism - God is sovereign, man is compatibilistically free (philosophically sound - soft determinism, theologically sound)

4. molinism - God is sovereign, man is libertarianly free (philosophically unsound, theologically unsound)

5. open theism - God is not sovereign, man is libertarianly free (philosophically sound - libertarianism, theologically unsound)

(on a side note, what is philosophically sound may or may not be theologically sound, but what is theologically sound must be philosophically sound. at the same time, what is theologically unsound may or may not be philosophically unsound, but what philosophically unsound must be theologically unsound.

to put it in philosophical terms, philosophical soundness is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of theological soundness.)

moderate "middle knowledge" calvinism

Perhaps we should think of God's regulating the factors of a situation, then, as 'occasioning' a particular choice to be made, rather than as 'causing' a particular choice to be made. Because God knows the natures of each person perfectly, he knows how those natures will respond to particular sets of factors presented to them. Thus, without causing a person to do evil, he nonetheless controls the evil they do. He controls whether evil is done, what evil is done, and in any and every case he could prevent the evil from being done. But in no case does he cause the evil to be done. In this way, God maintains meticulous control over evil while his moral creatures alone are the agents who do evil, and they alone bear moral responsibility for the evil they freely do.

- Bruce Ware, God's Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith in Terrance Tiessen, Why Calvinists Should Believe in Divine Middle Knowledge Although They Reject Molinism

Thus, in my middle knowledge Calvinist model, before God decides what He will do by way of creating a world and ordering its history, God knows how particular creatures would act if they found themselves in particular sets of circumstances. This knowledge enables God to choose a world whose history is exactly the history that He wisely purposes but to bring about that history through a combination of the morally responsible actions of rational creatures and God's own actions. God does this in such a way that all glory for everything good must be attributed to God but all culpability for evil done by creatures justly lies in the will of those creatures. God is able to choose a great number of people to salvation, but then to bring about their salvation in such a way that all who are saved by grace contribute nothing to their salvation which would give them ground for boasting, and no one is condemned who does not freely choose to reject God's grace.

- Terrance Tiessen, Why Calvinists Should Believe in Divine Middle Knowledge Although They Reject Molinism

*****

in one sense, God's decree is based on His knowledge. in another sense, God's knowledge is based on His decree. however, both cannot be true in the same respect and at the same time.

God's decree is based on His knowledge. however, it is not that God's decree is based on His knowledge of what we WILL do. rather, it is that God's decree is based on His knowledge of what we COULD WOULD do.

God's knowledge is based on His decree. however, it is not that God's knowledge of what we COULD WOULD do is based on His decree. rather, it is that God's knowledge of what we WILL do is based on His decree.

therefore, God's decree is based on His knowledge of what we COULD WOULD do, and God's knowledge of what we WILL do is based on His decree. God has middle knowledge in between His knowledge of what we COULD WOULD do and His knowledge of what we WILL do (ie. God has middle knowledge in His decree).

in other words, God's sovereign choice to create THIS particular world is based on His knowledge of ALL possible worlds, and God's knowledge of THIS particular world is based on His sovereign choice to create THIS particular world. God has middle knowledge in between His knowledge of ALL possible worlds and His knowledge of THIS particular world (ie. God has middle knowledge in His sovereign choice to create THIS particular world).

if God's sovereign choice to create this particular world is not based on His knowledge of all possible worlds, then there could be other possible worlds (outside of God's knowledge) which reflect His glory more than this particular world. however, there are no other possible worlds (outside of God's knowledge) which reflect His glory more than this particular world. therefore, God's sovereign choice to create this particular world is based on His knowledge of all possible worlds.

if God's knowledge of this particular world is not based on His sovereign choice to create this particular world, then there could be events in this particular world which are not part of God's decretive will. however, there are no events in this particular world which are not part of God's decretive will. therefore, God's knowledge of this particular world is based on His sovereign choice to create this particular world.

one very important pastoral implication of this is that there is no place for regret in moderate "middle knowledge" calvinism. there are no other possible worlds which could have been brought about, only one particular world which has been (freely) brought about. there are no "what ifs", only "what is".

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." - Romans 8:28 (NIV)

*edited on 14 oct 08, with input from professor terrance tiessen*

links: more on calvinism and middle knowledge (7 jun 09), even more on calvinism and middle knowledge (28 jun 09)