Middle Knowledge in Scripture

One of the criticisms I repeatedly hear of middle knowledge is that it’s a philosophical system rather than scriptural. Now the two scriptural pillars of middle knowledge are the many passages saying men choose and the many passages saying God is in control. Middle knowledge reconciles the two.


However, there’s no shortage of the passages more directly supporting middle knowledge – those passages showing that God’s knows what we would choose under different settings. It’s not as if scripture limits middle knowledge to the famous examples of David in Keilah or the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon. Here’s a list of passages showing God does know what we would choose in various circumstances : Deuteronomy 28:51-57, 1 Samuel 23:6-10, Ezekiel 3:6-7, Jeremiah 49:9, Obadiah 1:5, Matthew 11:21-23, Matthew 12:7, Matthew 23:27-32, Matthew 24:43, Luke 16:30-31, Luke 22:67-68, John 8:39, John 8:42, John 14:28, John 15:19, John 18:36, 1 Corinthians 2:8, Galatians 4:15, and 1 John 2:19.

Some may still protest this fall short of a full-fledge systematic presentation. Well show me the scriptural full-fledge systematic presentation of supra or sub lapsarianism or the Trinity or your brand of eschatology.

Comments

Turretinfan said…
A) Even William Lane Craig admits that these passages fall short.

B) But even if his authority were on their side, these all speak to God's knowledge after the decree - which is not middle knowledge.
December 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hey TF,

A) Yes, two of the passages (Ez 3:5-6 & Matt 11:21-23) seem to move against WCL's particular theory of trans-world damnation so he takes another (and in my opinion mistaken) view of those passages.

B) That assumes choice and voluntary actions are compatible with determinism. I don't assume that and see good reason to think that's false, implying the contradiction that we can and cannot do otherwise.

God be with you,
Dan
December 15, 2011 at 1:20 PM
Turretinfan said…
As to your (A), it is possible that such is his motivation. He does acknowledge that early advocates tried to use those passages. On the other hand, you almost make it sound like he's trying to remove unhelpful passages rather than trying to develop a Biblical doctrine.

As to your (B), no it doesn't assume that. God's knowledge after the decree is not middle knowledge under a simple foreknowledge view, for example.
December 15, 2011 at 5:29 PM
Godismyjudge said…
A) people can arrive a locations via different via's. Just ask Hubner. When WCL defends trans-world damnation, he is going above and beyond defending middle knowledge. He might be referring to his whole system when he says it’s cannot be proven from scripture.

In any case, you certainly wouldn’t accept his whole point - that neither Calvinism nor his system can be established from scripture.

B) simple-foreknowledgeologians hold to 'the decree'?

God be with you,
Dan
December 15, 2011 at 7:32 PM
Turretinfan said…
Regarding (A), I would find it surprising if WLC would use MK to refer only to his specific version when denying that it is taught in Scripture.

I obviously don't accept his error that Calvinism isn't taught in Scripture. My reason for mentioning his position is that I'm surprised you are trying to step out beyond him and claim more than he does.

Regarding (B), "the decree" for each position means something different. Nevertheless, God's knowledge now is God's knowledge after the decree.

-TurretinFan
December 15, 2011 at 9:37 PM
Godismyjudge said…
One the one hand, I do think Calvinists jump the gun on just how decisive scripture is. On the other hand, I sometimes think WLC drags his foot on deciding what a passage means. I find the scripture quite clear on LFW, which implies counterfactual knowledge is middle knowledge.

God be with you,
Dan
December 16, 2011 at 11:29 AM
Turretinfan said…
One problem is that any time you see a choice, you read LFW into it. But what is the actual definition of LFW as contrasted with CFW?

-TurretinFan
December 16, 2011 at 3:17 PM
Godismyjudge said…
TF,

Here are some links to my discussions with Paul and Steve on this topic.

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/07/my-final-post-on-choicedeterminism.html

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/02/capstone-on-choice-debate-with-paul.html

If you really want to get into it, I am game. We could debate via blogs or verbal or whatever.

God be with you,
Dan
December 16, 2011 at 4:52 PM
Turretinfan said…
Sounds good. I may be responding to something from WLC soon, which should provide some counter-point post from blog. If you would like to debate by Skype, we may be able to arrange that as well.
December 16, 2011 at 10:00 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Good deal. Skype would be fine. The resolution: Libertarian Free Will is Biblical. Your call on the format (i.e. speach length, cross ex times...)

God be with you,
Dan
December 17, 2011 at 9:21 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more