As we have come to see rather clearly, there are good philosophical and scriptural reasons to affirm two key axioms: God is totally sovereign, and man maintains genuine freedom. Further, we saw that the doctrine of divine sovereignty is intimately tied up in divine omniscience. These two axioms have perplexed theologian and philosopher alike for centuries, and will continue to do so. At least as far back as Augustine, the church has struggled to offer an account that can coherently handle both total sovereignty and genuine free will. While I can not sufficiently expound on all of the issues surrounding the merger of these doctrines, I propose that there is a theory which more than adequately addresses the issue of sovereignty and freedom: the theory of middle knowledge. Where other systems of theology tend to over emphasize one of these doctrines, to the damage of the other, the theory of middle knowledge (Molinism) allows us to coherently affirm both concepts without having to hold them in tension. Before I can go on to a full treatment of Molinism, I must say a few words regarding the evaluation of theological ideas by way of introduction.

Introduction

Theology is the practice of human reflection on divine truth. It is the attempt on the part of the church to systematize and clearly expound the whole truth of Scripture. As such, theology is largely the practice of positing theories that attempt to completely and concisely reflect what is affirmed in Holy Writ. Any system of theology, be it reformed theology, arminianism, even trinitarian orthodoxy, arises as man attempts to explain what he finds in the Bible. It is because theology is the proposal of theories regarding biblical affirmations, that we must judge any theology by the extent to which it adequately represents what the biblical authors are saying. Every doctrine, be it salvation, election, sovereignty, the trinity, etc., should be measured by its explanatory power and scope. Does the proposed doctrine sufficiently cover all of the pertinent evidence found in the scripture (explanatory scope)? Does the doctrine have the ability to explain why the various authors of scripture expressed their teachings in the way that they did (explanatory power)? Doctrines stand or fall based on their ability to explain the evidence found in the scriptures. As a correlate, the strength to which we hold a doctrine must be directly proportional to how adequately it fulfills the above conditions. All of this is relevant to Molinism because it is often asserted that since the words “middle knowledge”, or some variant thereof, are not explicitly found in scripture that they must not represent the divine nature in any meaningful way. However, what such a claim fails to recognize is that the terms “Trinity”, or “one is essence, three in person” are not found in scripture either. Yet no orthodox christian disputes these teachings precisely because they sufficiently capture the biblical evidence in such a way that it hardly matters that the apostles did not use that exact terminology. When enough evidence is present in scripture, as is absolutely the case with the trinity, we are justified in drawing the appropriate conclusions that follow. While “Molinism” the term may not be biblical, the idea of middle knowledge can certainly be inferred from the abundant biblical evidence that we have seen in the previous articles. With that said, we now move on to an exposition of the theory of middle knowledge.

Exposition

As we saw previously the doctrine of sovereignty, and its correlate of providence, is founded on our doctrine of omniscience. For this reason, we return to the knowledge of God in order to provide an account which upholds both sovereignty and freedom. Traditionally, theologians have divided the knowledge of God into two logical categories (I say logical rather than chronological because, while we may list them as though one comes before another, in reality they are co-eternal. The list expresses the logical order they should be listed in rather than the order in which they occurred in time). These are: scientia naturalis (natural knowledge) and scientia liberi (free knowledge)(See Note 1). Natural knowledge is that aspect of divine knowledge by which he knows all things possible(See Note 2). Another way to state this is in terms of possible worlds. God knows every possible scenario, every way that the world could have been. Free knowledge is God’s perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future which he freely willed to create. In other words, free knowledge is the comprehensive knowledge of the actual world that he freely willed into existence. These divisions of knowledge are arranged by their relation to the divine decree to create. Thus natural knowledge is the knowledge God possesses of every world that it was possible for Him to create. This is followed by the decree to create, and thus ordain what will be in the actual world. Finally, comes God’s free knowledge of the actual world as he created it. This whole scheme can be represented by the following diagram:

Natural Knowledge (Scientia Naturalis)

[Divine Decree]

Free Knowledge (Scientia Liberi)

Now this model leads us to an unsettling conclusion: everything is determined. God, in infinite knowledge of all he could create (natural knowledge), chose by an act of the will to create a world in which certain possibilities happen solely on the basis of his will (free knowledge). While that may seem fine in more reformed circles, we must remember that our theology must be informed by the evidence, not the other way around. We have strong reasons to believe in free will. If our theological model can not accommodate that, then something is wrong with the model. This is where a model re-centered around middle knowledge shines. Middle knowledge (scientia media) is the aspect of divine knowledge, existing between natural knowledge and free knowledge, by which God knows all counterfactuals. That is, God knows what would have been had different circumstances obtained. Among the range of possible worlds apart from this one, God knows everything that could have been had other things happened. Specifically, this knowledge extends to counterfactuals regarding human freedom. William Lane Craig explains,

Whereas by His natural knowledge God knew what any free creature could do in any set of circumstances, now in this second stage God knows what any free creature would freely do in any set of circumstances. (See Note 3)

Further, this knowledge is logically prior to the decree to create. In terms of the above model, God’s knowledge appears in the following way:

Natural Knowledge

Middle Knowledge

[Divine Decree]

Free Knowledge

The way this knowledge plays out in divine providence allows us to escape the perils of determinism without over emphasizing human freedom. God knows everything that could be (natural knowledge). Further, God knows what would be under any set of circumstances (middle knowledge). This includes acts of human free will in any circumstance. Using this knowledge, God orders the circumstances that will be in the world he creates (divine decree). Because God knows every set of circumstances that will be in the world he creates (free knowledge), He also knows how man will certainly, freely respond when placed in those circumstances. By arranging the circumstances, He is certain of the outcome. Thus God is sovereign and man is free.

Evaluation

The Molinist model of providence has distinct advantages over the former, traditional model of omniscience. First, it avoids determinism. As seen above, God can be said to control all things via his middle knowledge without violating human free will. God rules all things with certainty because He knows the circumstances that will bring about His will. Since God controls the circumstances, His will is always done while man remains free in his response. Second, Molinism offers the fullest account of divine omniscience. As we saw in our attempt to define omniscience, someone possesses omniscience if and only if He possesses innate, comprehensive knowledge of all true propositions. Under the traditional model, God possesses knowledge of the possible and the actual. However, His knowledge of the counterfactual is either subsumed as merely possible, or does not concern human freedom. However, if God possesses a distinct phase of knowledge concerning counterfactuals of human freedom, then He can be said to possess more knowledge than if He simply knew what was possible and what He had decreed. This means that Molinism actually provides a more complete account of divine knowledge than the traditional model. Thus, middle knowledge allows us to safely uphold both comprehensive divine sovereignty and human free will.

William Burt Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology: Being Analytical Outlines of a Course of Theological Study, Biblical, Dogmatic, Historical, Volumes 1 (London, UK.: Beverage and Co., 1879), 318 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1938), 66. William Lane Craig, “How Can the Bible Affirm Both Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom?” The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith, (Nashville, TN.: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1850.