With the debate raging in contemporary Baptist life concerning Calvinism, I have been asked with increasing frequency my position in the discussion. I find it interesting that the debate is not between Calvinists and Arminians, but rather between those who are Calvinist and non-Calvinist. Even those who are non-Calvinist in Baptist life affirm many of the points of Calvinism. But they typically do not embrace all of what have come to be known as "The Five Points of Calvinism," which have been articulated memorably as "TULIP":
- Total Depravity
- Unconditional Election
- Limited Atonement
- Irresistable Grace
- Preservation/Perseverance of the Saints
Up front in the discussion, it must be recongnized that the greatest minds of church history have debated this issue for centuries and yet it remains a dividing line between believers. Therefore, we must with humble realism acknowledge that we are only hoping in our day to glean from and add to the age-old conversation. None of us should be so bold as to say we have it all figured out. We ought to recognize that there are limitations to every system, and only the Word of God is infallible.
Admittedly, the doctrine of election is the most troubling of those doctrines related to evangelism. However, we do not have the liberty to say, “I do not believe in election or predestination.” The fact is that the Bible teaches these things. Ephesians 1:4-6 is only one example of many that could be offered which affirms election: “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.”
Some, however, emphasize "free will" to the exclusion of election by saying that an individual’s choice for Christ was solely self-caused with no external influence. Here again, the Bible does teach that there is a choosing on the part of the individual. Second Peter 3:9 is a fitting example of this: “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” Because humanity does not exist in an autonomous vacuum, perhaps the term “free will” is a bit of a misnomer. There is no place where we may conduct ourselves free from external influence. Perhaps it is better to use the phrase “power of moral choice.” “In the phrase power of moral choice, the word power signals that man has been given the ability (authority) to make authentic choices from the options permitted within his circumstances. In that way his choices may be limited,” but not his ability to choose. [1]
The problem for this debate is that while the word of God clearly establishes God's providence, sovereignty, foreknowledge, and electing purposes, there remains a measure of moral freedom on the part of human agents. So, is there a way to bridge the gap between Calvinism and Arminianism, or at least between Calvinism and non-Calvinism? I have become persuaded that the doctrine of middle knowledge (scientia media) set forth in antiquity by Luis de Molina and popularized in recent days in the writings of William Lane Craig and others offers us help and hope in the dialogue. At the risk of over-simplifying the doctrine of middle knowledge, I shall attempt to provide a condensed summary. The full explanation of the doctrine is complex and involves many tedious philosophical distinctions elements which are beyond the bounds of this forum.
For reasons known only to Him, God chose to create a world – this world that we know and in which we live. Why this world and not another? His reasons for choosing this world are known only to Him. He is sovereign, meaning that no one or nothing determines the choices He makes. He has His own reasons for all that He does, and ultimately, "The End for Which God Created the World" (to borrow from Jonathan Edwards) is to bring the most glory possible to Himself. God was pleased, again for reasons unknown to us, to create this world in which we now live. When He did, He elected, He predestined all those whom He foreknew would make a choice to believe in Jesus in this world. Those who do not choose Jesus in this world were foreknown to Him as well. In this way, God receives glory for electing all those who are in Christ, but He cannot be blamed for the “reprobation” of souls to hell. They are unredeemed because of their choices. So we are able to say that salvation is all of God’s grace. We did not do anything to earn or deserve God’s choosing, and we cannot boast in our choice, because if one microscopic variable had been rearranged by God’s providence, we would be lost. Yet His election and predestination through His divine foreknowledge does not counteract our power of moral choice. The choice was ours to make, and we did – either for salvation or destruction.
This should not be confused with the view known as "simple foreknowledge," which states that God elects those whom He foreknows will choose to be saved. That view makes God the reactor as opposed to the initiator of salvation. He does not elect on the basis of His foreknowledge. He elects on the basis of His creative purpose to bring glory to Himself. It is unconditional. Nothing I do makes me disposed toward His election. My election is encompassed in the actualization of this present world, which God in His sovereignty was pleased to create. Again, in some other possible world, I might have used the same power of moral choice to reject Christ, so it is not God's foreknowledge of me or my choosing which gains me election. It is all of God's grace that He should be pleased to actualize the world which involves me being saved.
Postscript: The doctrine of middle knowledge is maleable. I know Calvinists who hold it, Arminians who hold it, and none-of-the-aboves who hold it. There is room for diverse understandings of the nature of man's freedom (libertarian, determinist or compatibilist), and other theological intricacies. In recent days, due in large part perhaps to Gregory Boyd and others attempting to restyle Open Theism as "Neo-Molinism" that many people confuse middle knowledge with openness, or at least put forth a slippery slope argument (nearly always fallacious) saying that it will lead to openness. This could not be further from the truth. Middle knowledge in no way limits God's foreknowledge or omniscience. Rather, it seems to me that any rejection or denial of middle knowledge DOES limit God's omniscience because it denies Him the foreknowledge of possibilities. Acknowledging God's knowledge of possibilities (or counterfactuals, or potentialities) does not mean that God is ignorant of what REALITY will in fact transpire. He knows from eternity past what circumstances will providentially come about and what choices moral agents will make in those circumstances, as well as the outcomes of those choices, the responses to the outcomes, ad infinitum.
I would challenge the reader to investigate further the doctrine of middle knowledge. For Calvinists struggling with how to integrate it into their system, see Terrence Tiessen's book Providence and Prayer.
Second Postscript: Some have asked the significance of the name "middle knowledge." Molina's understanding was that we must comprehend God's knowledge in three LOGICAL (NOT Chronological) "moments." Of course God does not actually ponder this, for His omniscience has for eternity been all-encompassing (remind me to tell you about the conundrum at the Hare Krishna compound over this one - maybe in the comments section). It may be helpful to think of these as "categories" rather than "logical moments" of knowledge, but I think I would urge caution in either case. By God's natural knowledge, He perfectly and eternally knows all necessary truths and possibilities. By His free knowledge, He knows what is. This is His perfect knowledge of that which actually exists. Molina posited that in between these two was scientia media (middle knowledge), "through which God knows, prior to His own free decrees, how any possible rational agent would freely act in any possible situation," (Alfred Freddosso).
1 comment:
This post was modified 3 hours after original post.
Now for the promised Hare Krishna conundrum. While visiting the Hillsborough, NC Hare Krishna Compound with George Braswell's Practicum in World Religion class, we were told by one of the primary leaders that God is infinite in all His attributes, and then in the same sentence, that God's attributes are ever increasing. I asked if this was a contradiction, for it seems that infinity cannot be increased. There is no infinity + 1. Rather than an answer, I got a patronizing smile and was told, "Ah, this is a wonderful subject for meditation." Not satisfied, I took my question to the Swami (whom I understand is one of the worlwide Hare Krishna leaders). He insisted that God's attributes were infinite and ever increasing. I asked if he believed God knows everything. He said yes. I said "Do you believe He will know more tomorrow than He knows today?" He initially said, "No," but when I called his attention to the "ever-increasing" that he professed to believe, he changed his answer to a reluctant "Yes." I said, "Then He doesn't know everything." The Swami said, "Well, He is always making it so that there is more to be known." I said, "This doesn't solve it, for if that was indeed the case, He would already know what He was going to make, and what could be known afterwards." At this point, I was told, "This is a wonderous subject for meditation." Look, people, please: If you can't answer the question, just say you can't answer the question. Admit that it is a conundrum. Since truth is a nebulous reality in Hare Krishna spirituality, just admit that you are willing to hold two points in tension.
Now, practical application time: Christians are just as guilty when we fail to "give a reason for the hope within us." When we dodge hard questions and cop out by saying, "You have to just take that by faith," we might as well say, "Ah, what a wondrous subject for meditation." Justification is by faith. Discipleship is by the renewing (not the removing) of the mind.
Post a Comment