middle knowledge
"Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon [large, pagan cities just up the coast], they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum [another favoured town in Galilee], will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom [proverbial for wickedness; see Gen. 18-19], it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."" - Matthew 11:20-24 (NIV)
For the comparisons in these verses to be realistic, Jesus presupposes that God not only knows all that has happened and all that is happening, but also what would have happened under different circumstances. Philosophers call this "middle knowledge", and many of them doubt that even God could have it. This text presupposes that he does: he knows what Sodom would have done under different circumstances, he knows what Tyre and Sidon would have done under different circumstances, and he takes this knowledge into account in the judgment of the last day.
Interestingly, this does not mean that Sodom, say, goes free. Even though Sodom would have repented if the miracles performed in Capernaum had been performed in Sodom, Sodom does not on that account stand acquitted. That would presuppose that God owes Sodom, and every other city, exactly the same privileges that Capernaum enjoyed. The truth is that God does not owe salvation to anyone; he does not owe "chances" and "opportunities" to anyone. But if he comes to us with free, unmerited favour, then either we appropriate it, or our situation is far worse than it was before he came to us. Sodom is still condemned; but on the day of judgment, it will be more bearable for Sodom than for cities which, though less renowned for blatant evil, enjoyed far more exposure to God's gracious self-disclosure.
This is simultaneously terrifying and enormously reassuring. It is terrifying if we stand with most of those to whom much is given (as is the case with most who will read this book). It urges us, by God's grace, to take up the opportunities and privileges that God gives us. But it is reassuring as well, for it ensures that God's justice on the last day will be perfect, and will be seen to be perfect. Every conceivable factor will be taken into account by omniscience.
- D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?, 128-130
compatibilism
The Bible as a whole, and sometimes in specific texts, presupposes or teaches that both of the following propositions are true:
1. God is absolutely sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions in such a way that human responsibility is curtailed, minimised, or mitigated.
2. Human beings are morally responsible creatures - they significantly choose, rebel, obey, believe, defy, make decisions, and so forth, and they are rightly held accountable for such actions; but this characteristic never functions so as to make God absolutely contingent.
In what follows, I shall argue that the Bible upholds the truth of both of these propositions simultaneously. The view that both of these propositions are true I shall call compatibilism. We could call this view anything we like, but for various historical reasons this seems like a good term to use. All I mean by it is that, so far as the Bible is concerned, the two propositions are taught and are mutually compatible...
If compatibilism is true and if God is good - all of which the Bible affirms - then it must be the case that God stands behind good and evil in somewhat different ways; that is, he stands behind good and evil asymmetrically. To put it bluntly, God stands behind evil in such a way that not even evil takes place outside the bounds of his sovereignty, yet the evil is not morally chargeable to him: it is always chargeable to secondary agents, to secondary causes. On the other hand, God stands behind good in such a way that it not only takes place within the bounds of his sovereignty, but it is always chargeable to him, and only derivatively to secondary agents.
In other words, if I sin, I cannot possibly do so outside the bounds of God's sovereignty (or the many texts already cited have no meaning), but I alone am responsible for that sin - or perhaps I and those who tempted me, led me astray, and the like. God is not to be blamed. But if I do good, it is God working in me both to will and to act according to his good pleasure. God's grace has been manifest in my case, and he is to be praised.
If this sounds just a bit too convenient for God, my initial response (though there is more to be said) is that according to the Bible this is the only God there is. There is no other.
- D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?, 179, 189
link: middle knowledge and compatibilism (6 apr 09)
No comments:
Post a Comment