Heresy and false teaching have been subjects of keen interest in the history of the church. In an effort to make sense of God\u2019s attributes, distorted views of the Divine Self often follow. It is thus natural for traditional and conservative Christians to desire to uphold orthodoxy. But this zeal can also lead to legalism and close-mindedness even when a plausibly true doctrine is offered that challenges years of settled\u2014and potentially incorrect\u2014theology.\u00a0 I believe the doctrine of middle knowledge<\/em> should be seriously considered as coherent and biblical rather than to be dismissed\u2014a priori\u2014as heresy. In this document I will argue that we have positive reasons to include Molinism in the list of orthodox Christian doctrines and no good arguments to reject it as heretical.<\/span><\/p>\n For those unfamiliar with Molinism, the doctrine of middle knowledge can sound suspicious. I was raised in a Baptist tradition and when I first heard about this concept my gut reaction was to reject it on the spot. It wasn\u2019t until I understood the doctrine from Dr. William Lane Craig\u2014one of its most ardent proponents\u2014that the doctrine made sense to me. In this section I will explain Molinism and the doctrine of middle knowledge.<\/p>\n The term Molinism was coined after the sixteenth-century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina. Molinism affirms that God accomplishes his will in free creatures[1]<\/a> via the use of his omniscience. Molinism harmonizes two seemingly irreconcilable biblical truths: (1) God exercises sovereign control over all of His creation and (2) humans are free agents, accountable for their deeds. Molinism harmonizes two seemingly irreconcilable biblical truths: (1) God exercises sovereign control over all of His creation and (2) humans are free agents, accountable for their deeds.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>It is important to note that Calvinism and Arminianism uphold both truths, but Calvinism leans heavily towards a strong view of divine sovereignty that, taken to extremes, falls into divine fatalism<\/span><\/strong>,[2]<\/a> making God the author of evil<\/span><\/strong>. On the other hand, libertarianism taken to the extreme can lead to Pelagianism.[3]<\/a> The Molinist should reject both positions.<\/p>\n Molinism teaches that God is sovereign trough his attribute of omniscience.[4]<\/a> Omniscience includes three types of knowledge. God has natural knowledge<\/em>\u2014all necessary truths\u2014and free knowledge<\/em>\u2014all truths about the actual world. Logically prior to free knowledge is middle knowledge,<\/em> including counterfactual truths\u2014all knowledge of feasible worlds that would accomplish God\u2019s sovereign will. It contains knowledge about all the choices and decisions of free agents if they were created in a particular world using counterfactual knowledge. Counterfactuals (CC) are conditional statements of the type \u201cif\u2026then\u2026\u201d in the subjunctive mode. These CC-type statements are indispensable for human decision-making. Through the use of middle knowledge\u2014prior to the divine creative decree\u2014God knows what free agents would do in any given situation. Through the use of middle knowledge\u2014prior to the divine creative decree\u2014God knows what free agents would do in any given situation.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\u00a0Using this knowledge He then actualizes the universe through his divine decree in which his sovereign will is upheld without violating human freedom<\/span>. Once God actualizes the universe, then he has free knowledge<\/em> of all future facts. In diagram form, this could be seen as follows:<\/p>\n Moment <\/span>1:\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .<\/strong><\/p>\n Natural Knowledge: God knows the range of all possible<\/em> worlds.<\/strong><\/p>\n Moment<\/span> 2: .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .<\/strong><\/p>\n Middle Knowledge: God knows all the feasible<\/em> worlds he could create.<\/strong><\/p>\n ___________________________________________________________<\/strong><\/p>\n Creation of the actual World (Divine Decree)<\/strong><\/p>\n ___________________________________________________________<\/strong><\/p>\n Moment<\/span> 3:\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .\u00a0 .\u00a0 .<\/p>\n Free Knowledge: God knows all truths about the actual<\/em> world.<\/p>\n These three logical moments are not controversial and were affirmed even by medieval theologians such as Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas. Our main concern thus is with middle knowledge. Here is how Kenneth Keathley summarizes God\u2019s three logical moments:<\/p>\n \u2026from the infinite set of possible worlds that could happen (God\u2019s natural knowledge), there is an infinite subset of feasible worlds which would accomplish His will (God\u2019s middle knowledge). God freely chooses one of the feasible worlds, and He perfectly knows what will happen in this actual world (God\u2019s free knowledge). In the Molinist model, God sovereignly controls all things, yet humans possess real freedom for which they must give an account.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n But, is the idea of middle knowledge supported by scripture or is it a mere theological and philosophical construct? As we will see in the next section, CC of creatures\u2014the foundation for the doctrine of middle knowledge\u2014are amply supported by scriptural witness.<\/p>\n Before presenting a biblical justification for the doctrine of middle knowledge, it is important to clarify our terms. In this section we will (1)<\/strong> assume that God has simple foreknowledge (since this point is largely uncontroversial) and (2)<\/strong> provide support for the thesis that God is possessor of counterfactual knowledge. Now, if counterfactual knowledge comes logically prior to the divine decree, then that<\/em> would be middle knowledge as understood by the Molinist.<\/strong> If counterfactual knowledge comes logically prior to the divine decree, then that<\/em> would be middle knowledge as understood by the Molinist.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/span><\/strong>Therefore, while we can support biblically that God has counterfactual knowledge, the conclusion that God possesses middle knowledge is a matter of \u201ctheological reflection.\u201d<\/span> [6]<\/a><\/p>\n As previously stated, counterfactuals are conditional and contingent statements of the type \u201cif\u2026then<\/em>\u2026\u201d in subjunctive mode that express a condition contrary to fact (for example, \u201cif archduke Franz Ferdinand had not been murdered in Sarajevo, then World War I would not have \u00a0started in 1914\u201d), but also expresses a true statement of the actual world. We also use these statements in daily life. For example: \u201cif I had not been born in Mexico I would not know Spanish\u201d; or \u201cif I had not studied for my math exam I would not have passed the test.\u201d The Bible is permeated with this type of counterfactual language. Let\u2019s begin with some sayings from Jesus that support counterfactual knowledge.<\/p>\n In John 15:22 he states that if<\/em> he had \u201cnot come and spoken to them, they [the world] would<\/em> not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.\u201d Similarly, in v.24 he affirms that if<\/em> he had \u201cnot done among them the works that no one else did, they would<\/em> not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.\u201d<\/p>\n In the context of Jesus\u2019 betrayal by Judas, Jesus says that \u201cIt would<\/em> have been better for that man if<\/em> he had not been born\u201d (Matt 26:24) and in Matt 11:21-23 he warns the cities where he performed the mightiest miracles as such:<\/p>\n \u201cWoe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A very clear example can be seen in Matt 17:27. Here Jesus tells Peter to \u201cgo to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.” If we understand that Peter had the freedom to either obey or disobey Jesus, then it follows that there is a possible scenario in which Peter does not cast a hook to get the fish.<\/p>\n Jesus also affirmed a chance for a different outcome to occur:<\/p>\n \u201cO Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We also have examples of the apostles. When Ananias and his wife sinned by extracting a price from their offering in Acts 5:4, Peter implies that they could have done otherwise: \u201cWas it not under your control?\u201d (NASB).<\/p>\n Paul states in 1 Corinthians 10:13 that humans have always the ability to not sin when tempted.<\/span> This means that when a person sins, there is a possible world where the same person in the same circumstances could have not sinned. God genuinely provides an exit hatch and the human is free to take it or reject it. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 2:8 Paul writes that \u201cNone of the rulers of this world understood it [God\u2019s hidden wisdom], because if<\/em> they had, they would<\/em> not have crucified the Lord of glory.\u201d Other clear counterfactual examples include Matt 12:7; 23:30; 24:43; Mk 13:20; 13:57-58; 6:47-49[7]<\/a>; Jn 4:10; 15:19; 16:36; 18:36; 21:6 and Heb 4:8.<\/p>\n The Old Testament is also ripe with God\u2019s counterfactual knowledge. In Ex 32:9-14 God intends to destroy the Israelites, but Moses pleads with God and so \u201cthe LORD relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people.\u201d The fact that God knew Moses\u2019 response does not make this hyperbolic language for God does not lie.[8]<\/a> God\u2019s warning would have been as true as any of God\u2019s promises and prophecies with real and actionable intent. Along the same vein, in Amos 7:1-6 God shows the prophet\u2014in rather graphic images\u2014his intention to judge Israel. In Isaiah 38:1-5, the prophet foretells Hezekiah\u2019s immediate death\u2014which the Lord waives after Hezekiah\u2019s pleads.<\/p>\n According to Psalm 139:1-6, God knows every human thought \u201cfrom afar,\u201d possibly indicating temporal distance.[9]<\/a> Again, the Old Testament has numerous examples of God\u2019s counterfactual knowledge: 1 Sam 23:1-14; 38:1-5; 13:13-14; Jonah 3; Gen 19:2-3[10]<\/a>; 18:16-33; 22:12[11]<\/a>; 2 Kgs 13:19; Ezek 21:21-23[12]<\/a>; 14:14-16; 33:5; Jer 23:22; 37:9-10.<\/p>\n With this biblical evidence in place, it can be safely affirmed that God possesses counterfactual knowledge of free creatures as part of his natural knowledge, and if this knowledge is possessed by God logically prior to the divine decree, then we have a solid base to affirm the doctrine of middle knowledge<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n Some objectors to Molinism have dismissed it as heresy \u201cmustered up by the semi-Pelagians,\u201d[13]<\/a> and that Craig is in danger \u201cof embracing a theological method that moves not from the text to philosophical speculation but from philosophical speculation to the text.\u201d[14]<\/a> But this would be strongly denied by the biblical Molinist. Scripture affirms that salvation is completely the work of God. Scripture affirms that salvation is completely the work of God.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/span>The Molinist agrees with the total depravity of man\u2014as affirmed by reformed theologians\u2014and his inability to come to Christ lest the Spirit draws him (Jn 12:32; 6:44) but the unbeliever is also free to reject and resist[15]<\/a> this freely given grace and remain damned. It is God\u2019s merit if the unbeliever repents and it is the unbeliever\u2019s fault if he rejects God\u2019s saving love trough the Holy Spirit. It is God\u2019s merit if the unbeliever repents and it is the unbeliever\u2019s fault if he rejects God\u2019s saving love.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div><\/span>What is clear is that without God\u2019s grace nobody<\/em> would be saved.<\/p>\n Kirk MacGregor argues that Craig\u2019s interpretation of Matt 11:21-23 \u201cseems to be a clear case of allowing philosophical presuppositions to trump grammatico-historical exegesis.\u201d[16]<\/a> But here I have to agree with Keathley against this accusation given that \u201cpresuppositions are integrated with grammatico-historical exegesis all the time.\u201d[17]<\/a> The only question here is: are Craig\u2019s presuppositions incorrect? Given that Craig affirms that (1)<\/span><\/strong> God desires all men to repent (Ezek 33:11; 1 Tim 2:3-4; 2 Pt 3:9), (2)<\/strong><\/span> God judges based on revelation (Rom 1-2), (3)<\/span><\/strong> God determines the time and place so man seeks God (Acts 17:26-28), and (4)<\/span><\/strong> humans are damned because of their sin. These presuppositions are consistent with a systematic study of scripture<\/span> and this constitutes a proper frame of reference to interpret Matt 11:21-23 in such a manner that, if it were feasible for God to actualize a universe\/world in which the people of Tyre, Sodom, and Sidon would have repented then He would have actualized such a world given (1)<\/span><\/strong> and (3)<\/strong><\/span>. Jesus then judges these cities more harshly according to their revelation (2)<\/span><\/strong> and damns them because of their sin (4)<\/span><\/strong>. Thus all four of Craig\u2019s presuppositions are scriptural. MacGregor\u2019s appeal to eisogeted philosophy is invalid.[18]<\/a><\/p>\n Paul Kjoss (a Calvinist) argues that\u00a01 Corinthians 2:8 suggests that \u201cthe rulers of this age\u2026crucified the Lord of glory\u201d neither because they were oblivious to the \u201cmind-boggling\u201d wonders of Molinism, nor because they did not have the intellectual ability to understand the propositional content of what the apostle Paul refers to as \u201cthe folly of what we preach\u201d (1 Cor. 1:21). Rather, they crucified the Lord of glory because, as Richard Gaffin has incisively argued, they were \u201cdevoid of the Spirit\u201d and thus without the moral ability to understand\u2026the things of the Spirit. In short, those who cannot stomach the God of the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition would be well advised to remember that God is no \u201crespecter of persons\u201d (Col. 3:25), not even of really smart philosophers.[19]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n But this reasoning from Kjoss presupposes a philosophical system, namely universal divine determinism<\/em>, which turns God into the direct agent that makes people sin to then punish them for it. This view is \u201cneither faithful to the testimony of Scripture nor honoring of God.\u201d[20]<\/a> Furthermore, the KJV translation used by Kjoss in Col 3:25 as God being \u201cno respecter of persons\u201d can better be translated as \u201cFor the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality\u201d (ESV). Ironically the text clearly states that God shows no favoritism, which makes it hard to explain why, in some reformed views, God destined some for salvation and others for destruction if he is impartial! Therefore, the \u201cpotter and the clay\u201d passage in Romans 9 used as an objection to Molinism should not be worrisome, for it depicts God\u2019s freedom to choose whomever he wants for his purposes and elects\u2014via middle knowledge\u2014those who would freely respond to his salvific grace. The reprobate still exist to demonstrate God\u2019s justice and dealings with human evil and sin. This manner to understand the text presupposes that God is just, and sovereign, but he also wants his creatures to have significant freedom. These are presuppositions derived from scripture that amount to a philosophical position so to speak.<\/p>\n The question is not if Craig is introducing philosophical presuppositions into his exegesis\u2014frankly we all do\u2014the question rather is, are Craig\u2019s philosophical presuppositions valid and consistent with a faithful exegesis of Scripture? And here the answer seems to be a resounding \u201cyes.\u201d<\/p>\n Not only does Molinism provide a coherent and harmonious view of divine sovereignty, omniscience and human freedom, but in doing so it explains many difficult passages related to the problem of evil. This issue has been troubling theologians, philosophers, and laypersons for centuries. It can be summarized as follows: if God is omnipotent, he has the power to eliminate evil, if he is good he wills to eliminate evil, but evil exists and thus he is either impotent, maleficent, or simply does not exist. Furthermore, if God is the last link in every chain of events, and divine determinism is true, then he is the cause of sin. In fact\u2014according to Acts 2:23\u2014Jesus was crucified and killed according to God\u2019s \u201cdefinite plan and foreknowledge.\u201d Acts 4:27-28 asserts that \u201cHerod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentles and the peoples of Israel gathered together against\u201d Jesus to execute the plan \u201cpredestined\u201d by God. Does this make God the cause of people\u2019s sin? Here we see two passages that unequivocally affirm God\u2019s overarching and absolute sovereignty over the affairs of men that resulted in God\u2019s preordained plan. Craig explains how Molinism can help make sense of this situation whilst maintaining humans responsible for their evil deeds:<\/p>\n If we take the term foreknowledge as encompassing middle knowledge, then we can make perfect sense of God\u2019s providential control over a world of free agents. For via his middle knowledge, God knew exactly which persons, if members of the Sanhedrin, would freely vote for Jesus\u2019 condemnation; which persons, if in Jerusalem, would freely demand Christ\u2019s death, favoring the release of Barabbas; what Herod, if king, would freely do in reaction to Jesus and to Pilate\u2019s plea to Judge him on his own; and what Pilate himself, if holding the prefecture of Palestine in A.D. 27, would freely do under pressure from the Jewish leaders and the crows\u2026 God decreed to create just those people who would freely do what God willed to happen.[21]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The same logic can be applied, for example, to difficult passages stating that \u201cGod hardened Pharaoh\u2019s heart\u201d<\/span> but at the same time \u201cPharaoh hardened his heart\u201d<\/span>[22]<\/a> and to the fact that Judas is responsible for his betrayal of Jesus even though it was part of God\u2019s plan since the beginning. On the other hand, \u201cThe Augustinian-Calvinist perspective interprets the above passages to mean that foreknowledge is based upon foreordination: God knows what will happen because he makes it happen\u2026but this interpretation inevitable makes God the author of sin.\u201d[23]<\/a> Open theism, Calvinism, and simple foreknowledge (devoid of middle knowledge) can\u2019t account for God\u2019s providence and\u2014at the same time\u2014affirm God\u2019s absolute sovereignty and human freedom. Open theism, Calvinism, and simple foreknowledge (devoid of middle knowledge) can\u2019t account for God\u2019s providence and\u2014at the same time\u2014affirm God\u2019s absolute sovereignty and human freedom.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/span>\u00a0This is truly remarkable and unavailable in any other theological system!<\/p>\n Even though this document is concerned chiefly with biblical argumentation in favor of middle knowledge, it is worth spending some time discussing one last obstacle that the reader may encounter whilst considering Molinism: the grounding objection<\/em>. Some philosophers have asked how it is that God simply knows<\/em> what free creatures would do in a world that hasn\u2019t been actualized. In other words, what is the \u201cgrounding\u201d of God\u2019s counterfactual knowledge of free creatures? And here, as Craig points out, the objector has the burden of proof to show that God can\u2019t possibly possess such knowledge: \u201cBut why should I know how God has such foreknowledge? Who are human beings that they should know how God foreknows the future? \u2026Therefore, we cannot be required to demonstrate the actual way God foreknows; we are free to suggest a possible way.\u201d[24]<\/a> The grounding objection is based on a \u201cparticular construal\u201d of truth-making theory\u2014known as such by contemporary philosophers\u2014but the objection is \u201cvirtually never articulated or defended in any depth by its advocates.\u201d[25]<\/a> Unless and until it can be successfully shown that God can\u2019t possibly possess such middle knowledge logically prior to the divine decree, Molinism remains a viable theological option for the orthodox Christian<\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/span>Unless and until it can be successfully shown that God can\u2019t possibly possess such middle knowledge logically prior to the divine decree, Molinism remains a viable theological option for the orthodox Christian.<\/p>\n A few weeks ago I witnessed an apologetics panel discussion with the participation of several eminent theologians. Close to the middle of the conversation the host\/moderator\u2014an eminent Christian lawyer\u2014asked:<\/p>\n \u201cIf you have ever doubted your faith, what was the most troublesome issue to you?\u201d[26]<\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n Two of the panelists mentioned the problem of evil and one mentioned the issue of \u201cGod\u2019s sovereignty, free will and predestination.\u201d It is interesting that the doctrine of middle knowledge can shed so much light on both issues. Even if Molinism is false, at the very least, it constitutes a plausible<\/em> way to reconcile some of the most complex issues in the history of theological and philosophical thought. That<\/em> alone has tremendous apologetic value. Given that there are no good objections against the doctrine of middle knowledge and that it is consistent with an orthodox reading of Scripture, the reasonable and conservative Christian ought to consider Molinism as a viable theological system. I personally have to agree with Dr. Craig that Molinism is probably \u201cthe single most fruitful theological concept\u201d I have ever encountered.<\/span><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> And here I mean \u201cfree\u201d in the libertarian sense.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Fatalism is thus a denial of human freedom. It entails that, if we shall act in a certain way, then we are not free to act in a different way. Whatever we shall do we must do. Now fatalism should not be confused with determinism, the view that all our choices and actions are determined by prior causes. William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom<\/em> (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999), 14.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Pelagianism argues that man has it within his power to obey and choose God. The Semi-Pelagian affirms that man can\u2019t be saved apart from God\u2019s grace but still argues that man has a natural ability to turn to God. The Molinist can (and should) reject both of these views and still affirm libertarian freedom and divine sovereignty.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Omniscience here is understood in the traditional sense as the property of God to know all true statements and to know no falsehoods. This is a specific rejection of omniscience as defined by the open theist as the knowledge of the settled<\/em> future (settled directly by God) and that the rest remains an open possibility that God simple remains ignorant about.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Account<\/em> (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2010), Kindle Locations 385-388.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> James Beilby and Paul Eddy, eds., Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views<\/em> (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001), Kindle Location 1532.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Mark\u2019s account of Jesus walking on the water has the surprising statement that before the disciples saw Him, Jesus \u201cwanted to pass by them\u201d (Mark 6:47\u201349). A similar comment is made about Jesus\u2019 walk with the Emmaus disciples. Luke says that when the disciples arrived at their destination Jesus \u201cgave the impression that He was going farther. But they urged Him: \u2018Stay with us, \u2026 So He went in to stay with them\u201d (Luke 24:28\u201329). Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty<\/em>, Kindle Location 555-557.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? Numbers 23:19.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Craig, The Only Wise God<\/em>, 31.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> In this case, the angels had the intention to spend the night at the square but become persuaded to come into Lot\u2019s house indicating a counterfactual scenario.<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> \u201cSimilarly, the anthropomorphic language used by God at Abraham\u2019s offering of Isaac points to the reality of Abraham\u2019s test. \u2018For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your only son from Me\u2019 (Gen 22:12). The outcome was both contingent and certain. Contingently, Abraham could have failed. But according to God\u2019s flawless foreknowledge, certainly Abraham would not.\u201d Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty<\/em>, Location 601-602.<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> Here, God foreknows Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s divinations to determine his battle plans. Craig, The Only Wise God<\/em>, 30-31.<\/p>\n [13]<\/a> Matthew McMahon, \u201cThe Heresy of Middle Knowledge,\u201d http:\/\/www.apuritansmind.com\/historical-theology\/heresy-in-the-church\/the-heresy-of-middle-knowledge-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon<\/a> (accessed April 24th<\/sup> 2015).<\/p>\n [14]<\/a> Beilby, Divine Foreknowledge<\/em>, Kindle Location 2112-2114.<\/p>\n [15]<\/a> It is in this issue that the Molinist disagrees with the Calvinist. For the Calvinist the calling of the Holy Spirit is irresistible (effectual calling) and always results in salvation. But with this doctrine the Calvinist has cornered himself for it is a mystery, if God wants all men to be saved, why does He not save all?<\/p>\n [16]<\/a> Kirk R. MacGregor, A Molinist-Anabaptist Systematic Theology<\/em> (Lanham, MD:\u00a0 University Press of America, 2007), 69.<\/p>\n [17]<\/a> Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty<\/em>, Kindle Location 884-991.<\/p>\n [18]<\/a> This paragraph summarized from Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty<\/em>, Kindle Location 908-991<\/p>\n [19]<\/a> Stanley N. Gundry and Dennis W. Jowers, eds., Four Views on Divine Providence<\/em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Kindle Location 2168-2171.<\/p>\n [20]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n [21]<\/a> Beilby, Divine Foreknowledge<\/em>, Kindle Location 1664.<\/p>\n [22]<\/a> See Exodus 7:13-14; 7:22; 8:15; 8:19; 8:32; 9:7; 9:12; 9:34-35; 10:1; 10:20; 10:27; 11:10; 14:8.<\/p>\n [23]<\/a> Ibid., 1675.<\/p>\n [24]<\/a> Craig, The Only Wise God<\/em>, 118-21.<\/p>\n [25]<\/a> Beilby, Divine Foreknowledge<\/em>, Kindle Location 1747.<\/p>\n [26]<\/a> Mark Lanier, \u201cSeminar – Christianity on Trial – Panel Discussion,\u201d https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=VDSGslqlDfU<\/a> (accessed April 28th<\/sup> 2015).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL: IS MOLINISM BIBLICAL? Introduction Heresy and false teaching have been subjects of keen interest in the history of the church. In an effort to make sense of God\u2019s attributes, distorted views of the Divine Self often follow. It is thus natural for traditional and conservative Christians to desire to uphold orthodoxy. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1146,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[275,548,523,550,525,272,524,551],"tags":[526,527,533,534,532,529,520,528,530,531,184],"class_list":["post-1153","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-apologetics-en","category-calvinism-en","category-calvinism","category-determinism-en","category-determinism","category-evil","category-molinism","category-molinism-en","tag-calvinism","tag-compatibilism","tag-determinism","tag-fatalism","tag-foreknowledge","tag-is-molinism-biblical","tag-luis-de-molina","tag-middle-knowledge","tag-molinism","tag-predestination-and-free-will","tag-william-lane-craig"],"views":3590,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1153","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1153"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1153\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1146"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/veritasfidei.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The Doctrine of Middle Knowledge<\/h1>\n
\n
Middle Knowledge: Biblical Support<\/h1>\n
Is Molinism Philosophically-charged Eisegesis?<\/h1>\n
Molinism and the Problem of Evil<\/h1>\n
\n
The Grounding Objection<\/h1>\n
Final Word<\/h1>\n