On Behalf of a Molinist Perspective | Gracepoint Church - San Francisco

I was delighted when Chumlee invited me to address the subject of ammo leanest doctrine of divine providence this is a fascinating and important subject but one that I rarely have the opportunity to address and so I'm very very glad to be able to share with you about this subject today in Charles Dickens wonderful story a Christmas Carol the climax of the story comes when Scrooge shaken by the scenes shown to him by the spirit of Christmas yet to come pleads answer me one question are these the shadows of things that will be or are they shadows of things that may be only and the spirit does not answer Scrooge a word with good reason for had the spirit responded these shadows are merely scenes of things that could be scroge might then well breathe the sigh of relief and gone on with his life as before after all he might quietly reflect virtually anything could happen no need to lose sleep about that on the other hand if the spirit had told him candidly no these shadows are not things of scenes of things that will be as we know to be the case from the stories and then Scrooge might have held no cause for alarm whatsoever since none of what he had witnessed would in fact come to pass in that case he might not have been led to repent and change his life hence the spirits terrifying silence Scrooge's problem was that he was asking the wrong question he had failed to exhaust the alternatives for in between what could be and what will be lies what would be what the spirit was revealing to Scrooge was what would happen if Scrooge were not to repent and change the spirit was not exhibiting mere possibilities it's possible that Scrooge would sell his business and open a flower stand in Covent Garden but who cares about that nor was he showing Scrooge what was in fact going to take place Dickens assures us that Tiny Tim did not die rather the spirit was warning Scrooge that if he did not repent all of these terrible things would come to pass in philosophical terminology what the spirit was revealing to Scrooge was a bit of counter factual knowledge counterfactuals our conditional statements in the subjunctive mood for example if I were rich I would buy her Mercedes if Goldwater had been elected president he would have won the vietnam war if you were to ask her she would say yes counterfactuals are so called because the antecedent and consequent clauses are typically contrary to fact I am NOT rich Goldwater was not elected president the u.s. did not win the Vietnam War nonetheless sometimes the antecedent and/or consequent are true for example your friend emboldened by your reassurance that if you were to ask her she would say yes does ask the girl of his dreams for a date and she does say yes counter factual statements comprise an enormous significant part of our ordinary language and are an indispensable part of our decision-making if I pulled out into traffic now I wouldn't make it if I were to ask JB for a raise with his mood he'd tear my head off if we sent the third army around the enemy's right flank we would prevail clearly life-and-death decisions are daily made on the basis of the presumed truth of counterfactual statements Christian theologians have typically affirmed that in virtue of his omniscience God possesses counterfactual knowledge he knows for example what would have happened if he had spared the Canaanites from destruction what Napoleon would have done had he won the Battle of Waterloo how Jones would respond if I were to share the gospel with him not until the advent of modern theology did theologians think to deny to God knowledge of true counterfactuals everyone who considered the issue agreed that God has such knowledge what theologians did dispute however was so to speak when God has such counterfactual knowledge the question here does not have to do with the moment of time at which God acquired is counterfactual knowledge for whether God is timeless or everlasting throughout all time and neither case are their truths that are unknown to God until some moment of time at which he discovers them as an omniscient being God must know every truth there is and so can never exist in a state of ignorance rather the when I mentioned refers to the point in the logical order things that God has counterfactual knowledge post-reformation theologians disputed we're in the logical order of God's decrees his counterfactual knowledge belongs everybody agreed that logically prior to God's decree to create a world God has knowledge of all necessary truths including all the possible worlds he might create this was called God's natural knowledge it gives him knowledge of what could be moreover everyone agreed that logically subsequent to his decree to create a particular world God knows all the contingent truths about the actual world including its past present and future this was called God's free knowledge it involves knowledge of what will be the disputed question was where one should place God's counterfactual knowledge of what would be is it logically prior to or posterior to the divine decree Catholic theologians of the Dominican Order held that God's counterfactual knowledge is logically subsequent to his decree to create a certain world they maintained that in decree that a particular world would exist God also decreed which counterfactual statements are true logically prior to the divine decree there are no counterfactual truths to be known all God knows at that logical moment are the necessary truths including all of the various possibilities at that logically prior moment for example God knows there is a possible world in which Peter denies Christ three times and another possible world in which Peter affirms Christ and yet another possible world in which it is Matthew who denies Christ three times and so on God picks one of these possible worlds to be actual and the subsequent to his decree it is true that Peter will deny Christ three times moreover God knows this truth because he knows which world he has decreed not only so but also in decree in a particular world to be real God decrees which counterfactuals are true thus he decrees for example that if Peter had instead been in such-and-such circumstances he would have denied Christ two times God's counterfactual knowledge like his foreknowledge is logically posterior to the divine creative decree by contrast Catholic theologians of the Jesuit Order inspired by the theologian luis molina maintained that god's counterfactual knowledge is logically prior to his creative decree this difference between the mullennix and the Dominicans was no mere matter of theological hair-splitting the Molina Sarge that the Dominicans had in effect obliterated human freedom by making counterfactual truths a consequence of God's decree for it is God who determines what a person will do in whatever circumstances he finds himself by contrast the mullennix by placing God's counterfactual knowledge prior to the divine decree made room for human freedom by exempting counterfactual truths from God's decree in the same way that necessary truths like two plus two equals four are prior to and therefore independent of God's decree so counterfactual truths about how people would freely choose under various circumstances are prior to and therefore independent of God's decree not only does this view make room for human freedom but affords God a means of choosing which world of free creatures to create for by knowing how persons would freely choose and whatever circumstances they might be in God can by decreeing to create just those persons in just those circumstances bring about his ultimate purposes through free creaturely decisions thus by employing his counterfactual knowledge God can plan a world down to the last detail and yet do so without annihilating creaturely freedom since what people would freely do under various circumstances is already factored into the equation by God since God's counterfactual knowledge is logically in-between his natural knowledge and his free knowledge Mullen has called it God's middle knowledge on the dominican view there is one logical moment prior to the divine decree at which God knows the range of possible worlds he might create and then he chooses one of these to be actual on the Molina stee you there are two logical moments prior to the divine decree first the moment at which he has natural knowledge of the range of possible worlds and second the moment at which he has knowledge of the proper subset of possible worlds which given the counterfactuals true at that moment are feasible for him to create the counterfactuals which are true at that moment thus served to delimit the range of possible worlds two worlds feasible for God for example there is a possible world in which Peter affirms Christ in precisely the same circumstances in which in fact denied him but given the counterfactual truth that if Peter were in precisely those circumstances he would freely deny Christ then that possible world in which Peter freely affirms Christ in those circumstances is not feasible for God now of course God could make Peter affirm Christ in those circumstances but then his confession would not be free so on the Molina scheme we have the following logical order illustrated by this PowerPoint in moment one we have God's natural knowledge by which God knows the entire range of possible worlds which are symbolized by the circles in moment two we have God's middle knowledge in which he knows the range of worlds feasible for him given the counterfactuals true at that time and you notice that the feasible worlds are a proper subset of the possible worlds some of the possible worlds drop out at this moment and are not feasible for God because in order to be actualize about different counterfactuals would have to be true next comes God's creative decree whereby he chooses one of feasible worlds to be the actual world and finally in moment number three we have God's free knowledge where God knows the actual world past present and future and you see the single circle symbolizing the actual world that God has chosen from the range of feasible worlds known to him by his middle knowledge so on the Malena scheme we have three different logical moments with respect to God's knowledge his natural knowledge of all necessary truths secondly his middle knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom then his divine decree on the basis of his natural knowledge and middle knowledge and then finally his free knowledge of the actual world now why think that the Molina scheme is correct basically three lines of argument present themselves biblical theological and philosophical biblically speaking it's not difficult to show that God possesses counterfactual knowledge one of the favorite proof texts of the Jesuit theologians was first samuel 23 verses 6 to 10 which tells of david's inquiry of the lord by means of a divining device called an ephod whether saul would attack kyla where david was ensconced and whether the men of kyla would deliver david over to Saul in both cases the ephod registered an affirmative answer whereupon david fled the city so that the predictions did not in fact come true what the device had mediated to David was not there for simple foreknowledge of the future but counterfactual knowledge God was letting David know that if he were to remain at then Saul would come after him and that have saw were to come after him then the men of Kyla would deliver him over to Saul the answers given by the ephod were thus correct answers even though the events did not come to pass since the answers were indicative of what would happen under certain circumstances although most scriptural prophecy is given in an unconditional way sometimes prophecies are provided explicitly in the conditional form that David received at khaila consider for example Jeremiah's prophecy to King Zedekiah in Jeremiah 38 17 to 18 thus says the Lord the God of hosts the God of Israel if you will surrender to the princes of the king of Babylon then your life shall be spared in this city shall not be burned with fire and you and your house shall live but if you do not surrender then this city shall be given into the hand of the Chaldeans and they shall burn it with fire and you shall not escape from their hand Jeremiah 38 17 to 18 in his omniscience God knew what would happen which ever course of action Zedekiah chose indeed construing certain prophecies as counterfactual warnings rather than as categorical declarations of simple foreknowledge enables us to explain how it is that in Israel the test of a true prophet is the fulfillment of his predictions according to Deuteronomy 18 22 and yet some predictions given by true prophets do not actually come to pass due to a change on the part of the people for warned think for example of Jonah 3 and the people of men yet 40 days Nineveh will be destroyed or in Isaiah 38 one to five God's prophecy to Hezekiah that in two weeks time he would die in such cases what God was giving was counterfactual knowledge of what would happen under the prevailing circumstances but were intercessory prayer or repentance to occur then God would not carry out what had been threatened we also find counter factual knowledge exhibited by Christ for example he tells Peter go 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 Matthew 17 27 the passage is most naturally understood as an expression of Jesus knowledge that if Peter were to carry out Jesus instructions he would find things just as the Lord had stated or again Jesus commands the disciples after a futile night of fishing cast the net on the right side of the boat and you will find some John 21 6 the miraculous catch that ensued shows that Jesus knew exactly what would happen if the disciples obeyed his command sometimes Jesus makes counter factual statements himself for example if I had not come and spoken to them they would not have sinned if I had not done among them the works which no one else did they would not have sinned John 15 22 and 24 or again if my kingship were of this world My servants would fight that I might not be handed over to the Jews John 18:36 or again woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed it would be better for that man if he had not been born Matthew 26 verse 20 for examples of this sort could be multiplied I think it's plain then that the God of the Bible exhibits counterfactual knowledge given God's infallibility it will not do to construe these examples as mere hunches on God's part if God believes that Saul would besiege kyla if David were to stay there then that counterfactual is known by God to be true since it is logically impossible for God to subscribe to false beliefs unfortunately this does not settle the matter of whether God has middle knowledge for the scriptural passages show only that God possesses counterfactual knowledge and as I've said until modern times all theologians agreed that God possesses counterfactual knowledge the dispute concerned when in the logical order of things that knowledge comes is it before or after the divine decree since scripture does not reflect on this question no amount of proof texting concerning God's counterfactual knowledge can go to prove that such knowledge is possessed logically prior to God's creative decree this is a matter for theological philosophical reflection not biblical exegesis thus while it is clearly unbiblical to deny that God has simple for knowledge and even counterfactual knowledge those who deny middle knowledge cannot be accused of being unbiblical rather the strongest arguments for the mullennix perspective are theological once one grasps the concept of middle knowledge one will find it astonishing in its subtlety and power indeed I would say that it is the single most fruitful theological concept that I have ever encountered with respect to our concerns this morning middle knowledge provides an illuminating account of divine providence and human freedom the Molina Sekou of divine providence is stunning consider the following biblical passages acts 2:23 this Jesus delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men acts 2:23 acts 4:27 228 for truly in this city they were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place acts 4:27 228 here we have a staggering assertion of divine sovereignty over the affairs of men the conspiracy to crucify Jesus involving not only the Romans and the Jews in Jerusalem at that time but more particularly Pilate and Herod by name who tried Jesus is said to have happened by God's plan based on his foreknowledge and foreordination how are we to understand so sweeping a Providence as this if we take the word for knowledge to encompass mental knowledge then we can make perfect sense of God's providential control over a world of free agents for vias middle knowledge God knew exactly which persons if members of the Sanhedrin would freely vote for Jesus condemnation which persons if living in Jerusalem would freely demand Christ's death favoring the release of Barabbas what herod if King would freely do in reaction to Jesus and two pilots plea to judge him on his own and what Pilate himself if holding the prefecture of Palestine in AD 27 would freely do under the pressure of the Jewish leaders and the crowds knowing all the possible circumstances persons and permutations of these God decreed to create just those circumstances and just those people who would freely do what God willed to happen thus the whole scenario Luke insists unfolded according to God's plan this is truly mind-boggling when one reflects that the existence of the various circumstances and persons involved was itself the result of myriads of prior free choices on the part of these and other agents and these in turn of yet other prior contingencies and so on and so forth then we see that only an omniscient mind could providentially direct a world of free creatures toward his sovereignly established ends in fact Paul reflects that none of the rulers of this age understood this for if they had they would not have crucified the Lord of glory 1st Corinthians 2:8 once one grasps at the doctrine of middle knowledge thus issues in adoration and praise of God for so breathtaking a sovereignty now what account of divine providence might be given in the absence of middle knowledge there are three alternatives divine openness simple foreknowledge and divine determinism advocates of divine openness freely admit that without foreknowledge or middle knowledge a strong doctrine of divine providence becomes impossible but such a viewpoint can make no sense whatsoever of scriptural passages such as those I cited a moment ago it is bewildering to me that partisans of this camp can deny divine foreknowledge while claiming to be biblical when foreknowledge in the Greek Praga gnosis is part of the very vocabulary of the New Testament nor can it be said that God's plan was hit upon by him late in the game once he could reasonably guess what the relevant agents would do for his Paul whose want to emphasize this was an eternal plan made from the foundations of the world but hidden for ages in God and now realized in the fullness of time as God sent forth his son manifesting the wisdom of God to the principalities and powers who opposed him Ephesians 3:9 2:11 and Galatians 4:4 proponents of simple foreknowledge of the future without middle knowledge can make no good sense of God's providential planning of a world of free creatures for logically prior to the divine decree God has only natural knowledge of all the possible scenarios and no knowledge whatsoever of what would happen under any circumstances thus logically posterior to the divine decree God must consider himself extraordinaire aliy lucky to find that this world happened to exist what a break we could have imagined God saying to himself Herod and Pilate and all those people all reacted just perfectly actually the situation is much worse than that for God had no idea whether Herod or pilot or the Israelite nation of the Roman Empire would even exist posterior to the divine decree indeed God must be astonished to find himself existing in a world out of all the possible worlds that he could have created in which mankind falls into sin and God himself enters human history as a substitutionary sacrificial offering to rescue them now of course I'm speaking anthropomorphic ly here but the point remains of without middle knowledge God cannot know prior to the Creator decree what the world would be like if the defender of simple foreknowledge goes on to say that God's foreordination of future events is based upon his simple foreknowledge then this trivializes the doctrine of for ordination making it a fifth wheel which carries no weight since the future by definition cannot be changed once God knows that an event really is future there's nothing more left for for ordination to do for ordination becomes a redundancy and surely there's more substance to the biblical doctrine of for ordination than the triviality that God decrees that what will happen will happen the divine determinist interprets the above passages to mean that foreknowledge is based upon foreordination god knows what will happen because he makes it happen knowing the intentions of his will and his almighty power God knows that all his purpose shall be accomplished but this interpretation inevitably makes God the author of sin since it is he who moved Judas for example to betray Christ a sin which merits everlasting perdition for the hapless Judas but how can a holy God move people to commit moral evil and moreover how can these people then be held morally responsible for acts over which they had no control thus of the options available the mole inist approach provides by far the most elucidating account of divine providence it enables us to embrace divine sovereignty and human freedom without mysticism or mental reservation thereby preserving faithfully the biblical texts affirmation of both of these doctrines we therefore have powerful theological motivation for adopting the mullennix perspective finally I think that we also have good philosophical grounds for thinking that a doctrine of divine middle knowledge is correct what we may call the middle knowledge argument runs as follows one if there are true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom then God knows these truths - 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 for counterfactuals of creaturely freedom cannot be known only logically posterior to the divine creative decree from premises 1 & 2 it follows logically that 5 therefore God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom from 3 and 5 it follows that 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 and from 4 and 6 it follows that 7 therefore God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom logically prior to the divine creative decree which just is the essence of the doctrine of middle knowledge let me say a word in defense of each of the middle knowledge arguments premises the truth of premise 1 is required by the definition of omniscience which I have listed here as o4 any agent X X is omniscient if and only if for every proposition P if P then X knows the P and does not believe not P for any agent X X's omniscient means that for every proposition P if P then X knows that P and does not believe not P what or acquires is that a person is omniscient if and only if he knows all truths and believes no falsehoods this is the standard definition of omniscience it entails that if there are counterfactual truths then an omniscient being must know them premise 2 asserts that there are true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom we have every reason to think that there are true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom in the first place we ourselves often know the truth of such counterfactuals for example if I were to offer my wife jam a plate of chocolate chip cookies and a plate of liver and onions I know which one she would freely choose as but certainly as I know almost anything a little reflection reveals how pervasive and indispensable such counterfactual truths are to rational conduct and planning we base our very lives on their truth or falsity second as I pointed out earlier scripture itself gives examples of such true counterfactuals think again about Paul's statement in first Corinthians 2:8 none of the rulers of this world understood this for if they had they would not have crucified the Lord of glory premise 3 of the middle knowledge argument states logically exhaustive alternatives for an omniscient deity and so must be true counterfactual is of creaturely freedom are known by God either prior to his decree or only after his decree finally premise four must be true because of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom were known only posterior to the divine creative decree than it is God who determined what every creature would do in every circumstance Augustinian Calvinist thinkers bear witness to the truth of this premise in their affirmation of compatibilist theories of creaturely freedom they thereby testify that God's all determining decree precludes libertarian freedom which is the sort of freedom that we are here concerned with thus if God knows counterfactual truths about us only posterior to his decree then they really are no counterfactuals of creaturely freedom if there are such counterfactuals they must be true logically prior to the divine decree given the truth of the premises the conclusion follows that prior to his creative decree God knows all true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which is to say that he has middle knowledge QED in conclusion then while not explicitly taught by the biblical text the doctrine of divine middle knowledge is certainly compatible with it which cannot be said of at least some of its competitors middle knowledge redounds to the glory of God and illuminates biblical truth in a dazzling way moreover we have good theological and philosophical grounds for affirming middle knowledge theologically middle knowledge enables us to provide an intelligible account of God's providence over a world of free creatures philosophically omniscience by definition entails knowledge of all truth and since counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are true logically prior to God's creative decree they must therefore be known by God at that logical moment therefore I believe we should affirm that God has middle knowledge there's a philosopher Saul Kripke and he distinguished his epistemology and metaphysics and that epistemology metaphysics may be related but they are independently distinct so when you say that a counterfactual knowledge is true do you mean it to be true metaphysically or epistemic Lee if used mean epistemic Lee to me that would make sense because and that preserves human freedom but how can something really be epistemic Lee true without it being metaphysically true and if it's metaphysically true then I would argue you lose actual human freedom and is between epistemic truth and metaphysical truth I don't understand that distinction I would just speak in terms of truth these statements are true and by that I mean that the world is as these statements described so for example if I were rich I would buy a Mercedes actually that's a false statement but in in the case of some persons that's just a true statement if you want to call it metaphysical I guess that's fine I just mean that's the way reality is so I just had a clarification or maybe you could help me out with the philosophical argument from onanism so premise 3 we bring it up on the screen so we can all see it particularly me Julie if you can bring it up on these screens so it talks about God knowing counterfactuals prior or posterior so like before after his creative decree um is there any way you could help me like understand like because God is timeless so it's kind of hard to think about like God knowing something before or after or like yeah right as I emphasized the order here is not chronological its logical if you don't like the idea of logical priority you could think of it in terms of explanatory priority some things are explanatorily prior to other things for example say in mathematics the axiom of a mathematical theory our explanatorily or logically prior to the theorems that are derived from them it's not a matter of chronological priority if they're true they're true eternally but nevertheless there can be a relation of explanatory or logical priority between the axioms and the theorems that are derived from them and similarly here natural knowledge and middle knowledge are logically or explanatorily prior to an independent of God's decree thank you that doesn't help yeah thank you hi dr. Craig hi my question is if God chooses which world to create based on his knowledge of what we would do in each of those worlds with his counterfactual knowledge and then he chooses a world to decree isn't he in effect choosing what we choose yes so does that take away from our human freedom no because he chooses what you choose that you stated it correctly your choice is explanatorily prior to his choice which world is actual I see and it's still me that's choosing exactly accountable for my choices yes exactly one French mole honest put it in this way that sounds very paradoxical but when you think about it I think it's quite profound he said it is up to God whether I find myself in a world in which I am predestined but it is up to me whether I am predestined in the world in which I find myself it is up to God whether I find myself in a world in which I am predestined God chooses which feasible world actualized right it's up to God whether I find myself in a world in which I am predestined but it is up to me whether I am predestined in whichever world I find myself that is to say in every feasible world God gives sufficient grace to every person for salvation so it's up to you whether you want to be predestined in whichever feasible world God creates that you're in okay thank you okay I think mine's a good follow-up to that because you described how Olin is allows God to use free agents to accomplish his will yes and so could you elaborate a little I guess on the tension that I feel like that creates because if God is relying on free agents to accomplish his will their sense I sense some kind of loss of sovereignty or a sense of his God surrendering some sovereignty or is he maintaining that because he's the ultimate well you know what yeah small initiative often pointed out to determinist that a Mullins de count of sovereignty actually exalts and magnifies God's sovereignty because he can control a world of free creatures whereas for the determinist he can't he has to determine them yesterday he can only control a world of Puppets world creatures which he himself determines but that sort of God lacks the sovereignty to manage a world of free creatures where Molen ism says God doesn't need to causally determine creatures in order to sovereignly direct history toward his provisioned ends so what actually exalts his sovereignty and power by showing how he can sovereignly and providentially direct the world without having to resort to causal determinism yeah hi dr. Craig thank you for being here so my question is if God has access to counter factual knowledge and he creates people who freely choose what He wills then why is our world like wise there's sin in the world are we saying that there's no feasible world where people don't sin and if so could you speak on that a little bit sure Alvin Plantinga is the contemporary philosopher who in utter ignorance of Molina reinvented the doctrine of middle knowledge in the 1970s and one of the reasons planning it did this was to deal with the problem of evil he said why didn't God create a world in which everybody freely always does the right thing that's got to be a possible world there's got to be logically possible worlds in which people freely always make the right choice so why didn't God create that world and what planning is says is that it's possible that such a world is not feasible for God that given the counterfactuals that are true it may well be the case that a world of free creatures it always does the right thing and is without sin is not feasible for God in fact planning to go so far as to say that it's possible that there is no world feasible for God of three creatures that involves as much moral good as this world but with lesyk moral evil and so planning a cut the ground from under the problem of evil by appeal to this monist perspective and distinction between possible worlds and feasible worlds and I've since tried to apply this to many other theological questions I think it sheds light on New Testament inspiration on the question of the unev anja lized why didn't God create a world in which everyone freely receives Christ and is saved things of that sort it may be that there are a lot of these worlds that simply aren't feasible for God given the counterfactuals that are true okay thank you uh-huh always keep in mind that these counterfactuals are independent of God's will because they are prior to his decree yes hi dr. Craig so my question is about salvation in terms of the world that God chooses so yes so if I'm understanding this correctly let's say he has a world one world two and world three and in world one a B person a and B is say but person C is not in world - it's a and C in world three its B and C so then if he chooses world two or whatever world he chooses is it that he chooses based on a utilitarian argument of the most people that are saved or if it's not like that is it favoritism on God's part that he chooses for me to be saying versus some other person in the world this is a question I think on which proponents of middle knowledge can disagree or have different views but Molina's view was that God does not pick worlds based upon what a B and C would do I think the idea there would be that God looks at the feasible worlds and he sees which ones are of the best value and he picks one of those blindly in a sense without seeing whether a B or C is the one who comes to salvation he leaves that up to a B and C to decide but he picks a feasible world that has a certain level of goodness that is sufficient for its being created but not with a view toward the salvation or damnation of particular persons and I find Molina's perspective on this to be I think very persuasive I think he he was right in saying this is their walk is there evidence no matter how is that logically reached well the argument would be I think similar to what you just said that God doesn't play favorites in that sense but he leaves it up to whomsoever will may come and and therefore allows creatures to decide whether or not they are predestined in whichever world they find themselves and so it would be motivated by not wanting to make God be the one who determines that a world is actual in which Peter is saved and surely is damned rather God simply chooses a feasible world that has a certain value and then it's up to Shirley and Peter whether they're both saved or both Damned or one is saved and one is damned and this isn't part of God's decree thank you mm-hmm hiya dr. Kate so I guess my question is someone similar to the one asked previously about the existence of sin but my question is really regarding to the implications I guess of middle of knowledge toward human pain and suffering so I think based on my understanding of what you've told us the idea of God's being able to orchestrate based on prior knowledge all these different circumstances to to fulfill his will means that in some cases let's say like a person God wants these like you know Apostle Paul to be his prophet to the Gentiles but it kind of in that process a lot of Christians who were persecuted and a lot of Christians were actually even like or dragged to prison or whatever is it that in these sorts of circumstances where it seems that God is allowing his people to be persecuted or to suffer even though it is kind of part of his plan is that because God is using that suffering to put maybe Paul in a position or a circumstance in which he then has the ability to choose him to choose the repent and turn to God I think that's very plausible and one of the reasons that I think that the problem of evil is so difficult for the atheist to put through successfully it could be that your daughter's dying of leukemia sends a ripple effect through history such that some person living in Nepal 300 years from now will come to know Christ and find eternal life and so that was permitted say with a view toward the salvation of this person which is an in commensurable good that would outweigh any suffering that you or your daughter had to endure so I think that middle knowledge does shed a lot of light upon human suffering and how this could be permitted by God with a view toward greater goods and ends your question yeah I think it does um just one quick question related to that is does that also apply them to let's say missionaries who go to Africa and they you know like there are some stories and people who like they get killed as soon as they get there or they never even make it or something like that or even for us you know we try to minister to a student and they're like totally they totally blow us off or don't pay attention all of that like is either putting us in a circumstance or putting them or some other people in a circumstance where then they have the opportunity to choose Christ at a later time yes that may well be and maybe not them but maybe others who are affected by the ripple effect that that failed evangelistic appointment ascends through history so this puts a totally different perspective on failure it may mean that God's will for your life might include failure and that there are things that God has to accomplish through failure that could never be achieved through a success we just don't know how in God's providence these sorts of frustrated efforts may bear fruit into into the future and into eternity thank you mm-hmm dr. Craig I'm a physics major as I am thinking about some related it's like the current understanding of quantum physics fundamentally it's the deterministic probability so just wondering for the middle knowledge is these photos the form of conditional probability it's not a form of conditional probability but middle knowledge would give God sovereign control not only if counterfactuals creaturely freedom but what we might call counterfactuals of quantum indeterminacy if you think that quantum physical events are really causally indeterminate then they too would have these counterfactuals of quantum indeterminacy that would be known by God and would be factored into his decree to create a world so this again gives God sovereign control even over quantum events that are causally indeterminate does that mean that the possibility of the world is just one god their God leaves for the possibility by just for certain events he predetermined no no if that's what you think you've completely misunderstood the theory the theory is that in addition to all of the possibilities that it could be the isotope will decay at this point rather than at some other point all these indeterminate things God knows which result would happen if that isotope would to be were to be measured say so he knows true counterfactuals of quantum indeterminacy and then on that basis can decree which world to make and there will be possible worlds that are not feasible for God because just as the wrong counterfactual is of creaturely freedom are true so the wrong counterfactuals of quantum indeterminacy might be true so this this is a this is a theory of divine providence that doesn't appeal to causal determinism and doesn't require God to intervene in the quantum realm in order to these atoms and things about now thank you thank you um hello dr. Craig thank you for coming on giving this peace talks um I actually have a question related to the first plenary I'm not sure if that's okay but um so your fifth point about that the possibility of God's existence and him being a perfect being implies existence just the first this is the first time I'm actually really heard it that way and it kind of sounded circular to me I'm not sure how to word it exactly which seems like the definition of perfection that you're presenting is like because God is perfect there for him existing in any possibility means that Jesus and all all possibility was ours because of his perfection but that's like the definition of perfect I don't think that the argument is at all circular an argument is circular or a person begs the question or reasons in a circle if his only reason for affirming a premise is that he already believes the conclusion so if one believed that it is possible that God exists because you believe that God exists you would be begging the question you would be reasoning in a circle but that's not the way the argument was presented rather the idea is that the concept of a being which is omnipotent omniscient and morally perfect in every possible world is a perfectly coherent concept and is therefore logically possible and there's no circularity there at all I think you can see well I suppose me feel like the circularity comes from like the proof comes from the definition yes yeah but it's not just from the definition there are versions of the analogical argument I think failed versions that try to deduce God's existence from the definition of God by definition God is a metaphysically necessary perfect VA therefore he exists but see that's not the version that I gave which is stolen from Alvin phlanagus planning his version says it's possible that a maximally great being exists and so it's not based on the definition of God it's based upon the possibility that God exists do you think it's possible that a maximally great being exists and so planning is version of the argument of voids precisely the problem you mentioned of trying to define God's God into existence say the argument is clearly not an argument that God exists because of this is how God is defined it's based upon the idea that this is a possible concept thank you uh-huh so just following up on the same argument ontological okay so is the is it be cut so I'm on premise number three if a maximally great being is this in some possible world that exists in the actual world is because there but I think it was in every possible world but if you Shama tactician every okay is it because the definition of a maxima agree being is that it must exist in every world yeah okay so that's why thank you and that probably is where the other question or thought it was just defining God into existence hi I wanted to go back to the plenary we just had and I wanted to clarify two points quickly I'm having trouble understanding the difference between a feasible world and impossible yes I understand that feasible worlds are a subset but what distinguishes I guess the natural knowledge in the middle knowledge just the premise of free choices at that point what distinguishes them is that natural knowledge is God's knowledge of all necessary truths two plus two equals four if it is raining it raining everything that has a shape has a size all of these necessary truths are known by God by his natural knowledge middle knowledge is not knowledge of necessary truths this is something that sometimes misunderstood these counterfactuals creaturely freedom are contingent truths if if Jones were in circumstances C he would freely phone his wife that's a contingent truth that confronts God in moment to and so a world in which God creates Jones in precisely those circumstances C and Jones refrains from phoning his wife isn't feasible for God why because it's true that if Jones were in C he would really phone his wife so what middle knowledge is is knowledge of these contingent counterfactuals of freedom that are true independent of God's decree is that clear I don't know how to say it any more clearly I guess my second point I wanted to clarify is related to this case what goes into a free decision is Bob is the component of a free decision always determined by the circumstances around you yes I will I think that's right we're talking here about freedom permitting circumstances circumstances in which I have the ability to make a choice without being causally determined to do this or that and so this is a very different concept of freedom than those who think that freedom is compatible with being causally determined to do something those folks are called compatible lists I alluded to them in the talk at one point where as Mullen ISM endorses uh view of freedom called libertarianism which says that freedom is incompatible with causal determinism it's got to be up to you what you do in those circumstances rather than there being causally determining factors that are brought to bear upon you through those circumstances that make you do what you do so we are talking about this libertarian concept of freedom so my so I'm having trouble reconciling the whole like God understand hope he knows all the possible feasible worlds right and but then there's also he also intervenes based off of prayer right and so right and so um is it do i i'm how do i think of it as in terms of like in the and taking time into consideration for for us like do is it God knows all the feasible world's within like moment to moment within our world as it is now so I guess I'm just trying I'm having a hard time smiling the whole like how do I think of things in perspective of time like since we are about time okay that's of your question those worlds that I represented on the diagram by little circles are a whole history past present and future so it's it's you could think of them if you wanted to not as worlds but as histories if you wanted they are alternate histories and so once God chooses one of those boom he then has free knowledge which will involve his knowledge of past present and future of the actual world okay okay and so then now like God from this point on for us like God knows all the possible feasible worlds that could happen but so then and he knows like what will become but then how when getting from now to there he just knows that possibilities and it's like well let me trying to address your question I didn't talk about this but middle knowledge gives a very illuminating account of God's simple foreknowledge of the future if God has middle knowledge it becomes trivially easy to explain his knowledge of the future if God knows that if a person were in a certain set of circumstances he would freely do something then by decreeing to create that person in precisely those circumstances he knows exactly what he will do so foreknowledge is just a byproduct of middle knowledge plus the divine decree on the basis of middle knowledge and the divine decree to create these people in these circumstances God knows exactly what they will do mm-hmm so by middle knowledge he knows what they would do if they were in those circumstances is free knowledge he knows what they will do if in fact that's in the world he has chosen actualize okay and so then it's just based off of in the now like what we end up deciding I'm not sure what you meant the idea the idea is that you have the freedom in these freedom permitting circumstances to choose whatever you want it's up to you you just can't escape being known by God you can't escape being seen by God so but but you're perfectly free to do whatever you want so in going back to prayer yes I know went like he foresees like that we will pray intercessory prayers for like yeah well don't go ahead go ahead yes okay well let me try to complete your question for you am I saying that God has to wait until he hears your prayer to answer it yeah and well no not if he's got middle knowledge because he knew that you would pray if he created you in those circumstances and so knowing that you would pray he can also decree that a certain answer or something like that will also transpire and so he doesn't have to wait around for you to prayer to send the answer this can all be factored in from the start in terms of his middle knowledge okay okay thank you now this doesn't exclude miraculous interventions one one factor that I didn't mentioned in this scheme is if when you have in that diagram divine decree it not only is God's decree of which feasible world to create but he also decrees what he would do in any circumstances so he knows that if Adam and he were to fall in the garden he would freely expel them from the garden so in the divine decree there are also counterfactual of divine freedom that he decides at that point not simply counterfactuals of creaturely freedom but that's an extra subtle wrinkle that we don't need to get into I think ok thank you Wow yeah that's exactly my reaction when I first read about the doctrine of mental knowledge it was Wow if any of you are interested in following up on this fascinating area I have a little book called the only wise God which is defense of divine foreknowledge of the future and its compatibility with human freedom yes hello my question is if Mahlon wisdom is so persuasive why would so many theologians today be reformed where would their disagreements with it be and how would they respond to this perspective I think that many theologians in the reformed camp would share the attitude of someone earlier who came to the microphone and said I feel like it gives up something of God's sovereignty because it means that God doesn't determine what you would freely do in these various circumstances he doesn't declare the truth of these counterfactuals of creaturely freedom rather he finds himself confronted with them and then working with them he can arrange to create a feasible world so I think that for the reformed theologian many of them want God to decree even the truth of these counterfactuals of creaturely freedom and not to say that these are independent of God's decree and then as a follow-up holidays can I just say one more thing know when you read the Westminster Confession of faith when you read it it reads like a mole in the stock document it is a marvelous affirmation of both human freedom and divine sovereignty but then the fly in the ointment is that there's one article where it says God does not do this by knowing what people would freely do in the various circumstances it's a clearly animal inist of a statement but apart from that single sentence I could affirm everything in the Westminster Confession and I guess following up then how would they respond to your previous answer to what to your previous answer to the first set I'm sorry I didn't understand your previous answer Oh was that this in fact glorifies God even more because he's able to control yeah yeah I don't know I haven't heard a reformed theologian respond to this but I mean I think this is really a good point is it this this view exalts God's sovereignty because it doesn't require him to resort to causal determinism to sovereignly direct a world of free creatures it's actually a greater concept of sovereignty I spoke several years ago at Westminster Theological Seminary in San Diego area and I spoke on the subject of mental knowledge and afterwards it was almost a stone silence and finally one of the theologians said dr. Craig I've got to apologize for our community we don't even know what you're talking about we don't have any familiarity with this literature or this doctrine and he was he was very embarrassed so sometimes there's I think that's probably less frequent today because mullen ism has really take many people well it's it's it's greatly greatly expanded its influence fact one thinker Dean Zimmerman at Rutgers University Christian philosopher has said that Mullen ISM is now the most popular theory of divine providence in human freedom that's out there that doesn't mean it has the majority but it would it would be say like if it has 35% everybody else has say twenty percent nineteen percent something like that he says it's the most popular account today of divine sovereignty and human freedom in fact as long as I'm telling stories I spoke at Calvin College and Seminary in Grand Rapids Michigan several years ago they invited me to do this table lectures and as I was speaking to the theology department of systematic theologians at Calvin seminary we got to talking about this and one of the theologians said to me oh well we're all mol honest here and I said what at Calvin's seminary and he looked at his colleagues on either side of him he said yeah thank you thoughts

Channel: ReasonableFaithOrg

Views: 19,515

Rating: 4.8780098 out of 5

Keywords: William Lane Craig, God, Theology, Jesus, Christ, Christianity, Philosophy, Reason, Reasons, Evidence, Logic, Arguments, Atheism, Science, Cosmology, Good, Evil, Universe, The Existence of God, Resurrection, Gracepoint Church, Molinism, Middle Knowledge, Divine Providence, Divine Sovereignty, Luis de Molina

Id: VWly0PlaTMI

Length: 77min 32sec (4652 seconds)

Published: Thu Jun 11 2020