4 Views of Divine Foreknowledge: Middle-Knowledge

This past Spring I read a book called Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views by James Beilby. If you are interested in purchasing this, you can do so on Amazon.com. This is a comparison of four views of God's foreknowledge from different scholars. What do we mean by God's foreknowledge? We mean what does God know and when does He know it. My last post, I summarized David Hunts's view of God's foreknowledge: simple-foreknowledge. Check it out here. This week I will look at the middle-knowledge view, which is fleshed out by William Lane Craig. I will refrain from commentary until then last addition. Let me reiterate, I am not claiming which of these is my view, but rather a concise summary of the authors explanation and view of these opinions on God's foreknowledge. 

Middle-Knowledge View by William Lane Craig

Counterfactuals is a key concept in formulating the middle-knowledge view. Counterfactuals are “conditional statements in the subjunctive mood…Counterfactuals are so called because the antecedent or consequent clauses are typically contrary to fact.”[1] That probably sounds confusing. But simply stated, it's a statement that contains an "if" resulting in an alternate reality. For example, "If I would have been born in Germany, I would have been a great chef." Or perhaps one for the Cornhusker Nation: "If Taylor Martinez wouldn't have had turf toe last year, we could have won the Big 10." 

The Doctrine of Middle Knowledge

Theologians agree that God is omniscient. Where they disagree is when God knows counterfactual truths. God must know every truth; therefore He is never ignorant. It was agreed that prior to God’s decree to create the universe, He knew all necessary truths, including all possible universes He might create. This is known as God’s natural knowledge. Therefore he knows what could be. Subsequent to His decree to create a universe, He contained all contingent truths, including the past, present, and future. This is God’s free knowledge. Therefore he knows what will be. The question is where does God’s counterfactual knowledge begin? Is it before or after the divine decree? The Molinists place God’s counterfactual knowledge before the decree which provides mankind with free will. This provides God the means to choose which universe to create. God’s counterfactual knowledge is between His natural knowledge and free knowledge. The result is middle knowledge. [2]

Arguments for Middle Knowledge

Biblical proof texts show God has simple foreknowledge and counterfactual knowledge.[3] Christ too displayed counterfactual knowledge.[4] Theologically, divine foreknowledge and providence provide the best arguments.[5]

Divine Foreknowledge

Is divine foreknowledge compatible with future contingents? How can God know future contingents? Opponents argue that:

1. Necessarily, if God foreknows x, then x will happen.
2. God foreknows x.
3. Therefore x will necessarily happen.[6]

A main reason for the fatalist’s confusion here is thinking is blending necessity with certainty. Fatalists see God’s foreknowledge as a handcuff to a future action. The Molinist’s answer to theological fatalism is he agrees there is nothing can be done to produce the past.[7] Middle knowledge makes divine foreknowledge and human free will clearly compatible.

Some who reject divine foreknowledge sometimes argue future events have not occurred therefore unknown to God. To understand which events God knows will transpire an understanding of the two modes of divine cognition. The perceptualist model is like sense perception. The conceptualist model is a self-contained knowledge. God knows all truths resulting in knowing all future events. God’s foreknowledge is therefore based on God’s middle knowledge of what each creature under any circumstance.[8]

Divine Providence

If God’s foreknowledge is meant as an all-encompassing middle knowledge, this makes divine providence and free will compatible. The philosophical argument for middle knowledge is as follows:

1. If there are true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, then God knows these truths.
2. There are true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.
3. If God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, God knows them either logically prior to the divine creative decree or only logically posterior to the divine creative decree.
4. Counterfactuals of creaturely freedom cannot be known only logically posterior to the divine creative degree.
5. Therefore, God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.
6. Therefore, God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom either logically prior to the divine creative decree or only logically posterior to the divine creative decree.
7. Therefore, God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom logically prior to the divine creative decree.[9]

In sum, the middle-knowledge view hold that this world is the best possible world to accomplish God's goals and purpose. Contained in God's knowledge is all possible options and alternate worlds that could have been.

---

[1] Ibid, 120.

[2] Ibid, 120-123.

[3] 1 Samuel 23:6-10, Jeremiah 38:17-18, Deuteronomy 18:22, Isaiah 38:1-5, Amos 7:1-6, Jonah 3:1-10

[4] Matthew 17:27; 26:24, John 21:6; 15:22, 24; 18:36.

[5] Ibid, 123-125.

[6] Ibid, 126.

[7] Ibid, 126-131.

[8] Ibid, 132-133.

[9] Ibid, 136-137.