Baptist but not a Calvinist?

[Faith alone]

Gerhard Ebersoehn FA:
"Now I realize that no Calvinist would express it like that, but the basis for my salvation is simply that Christ died for my sin and I have trusted in Him. I may fall into sin again, though I have been changed, but his promise is secure since it does not depend on my perseverance in good works but in His finished work at the cross alone."

True; yet it is as sure the elect shall persevere in faith (and good works such as faith) even unto the end. God shall "find him faithful" in that day.

FA's response:

Faith alone GE,

FYI, that's where we part ways. The promise is that He will raise us up at the last day. Some Christians do not live faithfully.

FA

GE's response:

Do you really believe God is going to raise you up because of your faithful living? Or because of Christ's faithfulness in your stead? The last is Protestantism; the first, Romish error.

GE,

OK, sorry but I have been very busy and just now noticed this... OK, here's my response to this:

No, I never said nor did I imply that I believe Jesus is going to "raise me up" because of faithfulness on my part. I actually carefully said just the opposite. The promise to raise me up is from John 6 and it is based on His having chosen me.

Here's a portion of a recent post:

But John 6:44, 45 says...

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me

So the gospel message is our opportunity, and how we respond to it is critical. Yet He did choose us before heeven created the world. It says that in at least 3 places that i am aware.

FA [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

Instead what I said was that he WOULD raise me up, and it was not based on my perseverance in good works but on His finished work on the cross. IOW, I do say that He will raise me up because of Christ's faithfulness in my stead. I was merely pointing out that some Christians (I almost said "many") do NOT live faithfully. Yes, there are consequences for that. But our sonship is not one of them.

FA
[/FONT]

 

[Faith alone]

HP: If the unsaved individual does not have the gospel presented to them, and the Holy Spirit does not convict them of sin and reveal to them their need, no salvation is possible. Once we have violated the law of God, we are condemned by the law, and nothing other than acceptance of the atonement of Christ on our behalf, by fulfilling the conditions of repentance and faith, can one be saved. That is what I see that verse implying.

FA: Agreed.

What I do not see that verse implying is that God has to grant a dead log floating down the stream the ability needed to respond to the offer of grace. There is nothing in the word ‘draw or drawing’ that necessitated the notion of granted abilities. I believe all men have the necessary abilities to respond to God granted to them as necessitated means requisite of moral agency. It is not abilities grace needs to bring, but opportunity and influence.

Very nicely put. Let me put my position this way: God told Moses that he was to ask Pharaoh to let the Israelites go. He also told Moses that He would harden Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh would notlet the people go without a long battle.

Now that does not mean that Pharaoh did not have a free will int the thing. In fact, some context (not all) shows that Pharaoh hardened his heart in respone to Moses. But that was precisely how God was going to harden Pharaoh's heart. God not only knows everything in the past, present and future, He also knows all of the possibilities. ("Middle knowledge") So God brought about just such circumstances such that Pharaoh would, of his own free will, harden his heart. I do not believe that God violates the free will of people. He could, but He has chosen not to act that way, in general.

Now I did not refer to "granted abilities" above. Here then was my post:

FA: Could be, though I imagine there's more to it than that.

But John 6:44, 45 says...

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me

So the gospel message is about opportunity, and how we respond to it is critical. Yet He did choose us before heaven created the world. It says that in at least 3 places that I am aware.

We need to be careful not to leave God's working out of the formula. How God draws us, in general, is clear in John 6:45 - through His Word - His gospel. But according to John 16:8-11 He also convicts us of sin, righteousness and judgment.

So it is not "granted abilities" that I was referring to - too "Calvinistic" for me. That is not what I mean when I refer to God "enabling" us to respond to the gospel. It was the working of God to bring about a conviction of our needs and a desire to consider the gospel message.

In the matter of choosing us before He created the world, that does not necessitate the outcome. God foreknows matter of perfect choice, and due to His omniscience and foreknowledge understands perfectly the choices we will make, without necessitating the outcome. The only alternative to that is to accept fatalism with all its ugly necessitated logical ends, which can land you no where but God as the author of all evil and the predestination of the damned. I cannot accept either of those as Scriptural or within the bounds of reason.

I pray that you will have a wonderful week in the classroom, and that by your life’s example others might desire to come to know the God of your salvation.

I understand, but I think it involves more than just foreknowledge. Have you ever considered the "middle knowledge" position regarding free will and election? It allows for both to be completely true simultaneously.

FA

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: Now that does not mean that Pharaoh did not have a free will int the thing. In fact, some context (not all) shows that Pharaoh hardened his heart in respone to Moses. But that was precisely how God was going to harden Pharaoh's heart. he not only knows every thing in the past, present and future, he also knows all of the possibilities. ("Middle knowledge") So God brought about just such circumstances such that Pharaoh would, of his own free will, harden his heart. I do not believe that God violates the free will of people. He could, but He has chosen not to act that way, in general.

HP: The first time I heard of ‘middle knowledge’ I was in discussion with several holding to the limited foreknowledge view, or what they call the ‘open view.’ I personally do not hold to such a view, as it denies that God has true foreknowledge, but rather only possesses a good ‘guesser.’ Scriptural prophesy denies any such guessing by God. He knows, not guesses.

It would appear that this so-called ‘open view’ is an attempt to distance themselves from predestined fatalism, but in the attempt they create far more difficulties than they fix. It is my opinion that if one attribute of God can be shifted from Omniscience to a great guesser, so could all of God’s attributes suffer like distress.

I would rather solve the problem of predestined fatalism with the simple solution that God foreknows matters of perfect choice as well as things of necessity. Such a view keeps God’s Omniscience in tact as well as His prophetic ability.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: Instead what I said was that he WOULD raise me up, and it was not based on my perseverance in good works but on His finished work on the cross. IOW, I do say that He will raise me up because of Christ's faithfulness in my stead. I was merely pointing out that some Christians (I almost said "many") do NOT live faithfully. Yes, there are consequences for that. But our sonship is not one of them.

HP: I have a question regarding this comment. Would you feel offense in any way if I were to tell you that this sounds Calvinistic to me, or that such a view is Calvinistic? I just want an honest answer. Some on this list obviously would take offense evidently. I cannot understand why for the life of me, but none the less they do. Do you see such comments as out of order, offensive, or unjust?

 

[Faith alone]

HP: The first time I heard of ‘middle knowledge’ I was in discussion with several holding to the limited foreknowledge view, or what they call the ‘open view.’ I personally do not hold to such a view, as it denies that God has true foreknowledge, but rather only possesses a good ‘guesser.’ Scriptural prophesy denies any such guessing by God. He knows, not guesses.

It would appear that this so-called ‘open view’ is an attempt to distance themselves from predestined fatalism, but in the attempt they create far more difficulties than they fix. It is my opinion that if one attribute of God can be shifted from Omniscience to a great guesser, so could all of God’s attributes suffer like distress.

I would rather solve the problem of predestined fatalism with the simple solution that God foreknows matters of perfect choice as well as things of necessity. Such a view keeps God’s Omniscience in tact as well as His prophetic ability.

HP,

Actually, what you are referring to here is not "middle knowledge" but "open theism." They are far different from one another. Now those who hold to open theism have a particular view of middle knowledge, but it does not agree with William Lane Craig and others who hold to middle knowledge at all.

I have the same reaction to it that you have. IMO it makes God not really God and not reaslly sovereign.

The middle knowledge view actually goes the opposite direction from that which open theism takes. Open theism says that God does not really know the future, but knows so much about the present and past that He makes a good guess of it. (I'm sure I am not being fair to their position, and I apologize to any who hold to OT if I have. ) Middle knowledge says the opposite: that God knows much more than just the past, present and the future. He also knows all of the possibilities out there - not only of this world but of all the possible worlds He could have actualized. It is a stronger sovereignty position and a strong free-will position as well.

My concern, FYI, with the "simple foreknowledge" position, such as you seem to be expressing, is that it minimizes God's sovereignty out of a desire to preserve the free will of man. MK allows man to still operate with a free will and God to also be completely sovereign at the same time with no conflicts. For me, it allowed me to see both as biblical at the same time without conflict. (For many years I said that both were true at the same time, but I could not logically defend such a position.) God didn't merely choose us based on His foreknowledge that we would trust in Him, but he brought it about. It is also true that we chose to trust in Him freely. No conflict.

There's a neat book out which considers the 4 basic views of God's foreknowledge/omniscience (Open theism, simple foreknowledge, Calvinistic, and middle knowledge) called, Divine Foreknowledge - Four Views, edited by James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy. Good stuff - though quite deep! But "open theism" and "middle knowledge" are the two most extreme views from one another of the four.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

FA: Instead what I said was that he WOULD raise me up, and it was not based on my perseverance in good works but on His finished work on the cross. IOW, I do say that He will raise me up because of Christ's faithfulness in my stead. I was merely pointing out that some Christians (I almost said "many") do NOT live faithfully. Yes, there are consequences for that. But our sonship is not one of them.

HP: I have a question regarding this comment. Would you feel offense in any way if I were to tell you that this sounds Calvinistic to me, or that such a view is Calvinistic? I just want an honest answer. Some on this list obviously would take offense evidently. I cannot understand why for the life of me, but none the less they do. Do you see such comments as out of order, offensive, or unjust?

I wouldn't feel any offense. But actually, I imagine that most Calvinists would oppose what I said above. They would instead insist that a true believer WILL persevere in good works while I insist that this is not true and that in fact many Christians (genuine ones) do not persevere in their good works. I do insist on their security - based on Christ's death though.

So no offense taken. But I don't think that many Calvinists would agree with me here. We agree with many things - of significance: the security of the believer. Actually, I cannot count the times that I have been labeled an Arminian by those who are Reformed because of my position here.

FA

 

[Plain Old Bill]

You guys are really civil down here! How refreshing.:thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Plain Old Bill: You guys are really civil down here! How refreshing.

HP: Howdy Bill! The only wounds you will get here are the ones from friends. No kisses allowed.

Pr 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

 

[Faith alone]

HP: Howdy Bill! The only wounds you will get here are the ones from friends. No kisses allowed.

Pr 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

:laugh:

Love that verse, though.

FA

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: God didn't merely choose us based on His foreknowledge that we would trust in Him, but he brought it about. It is also true that we chose to trust in Him freely. No conflict.

HP: Forgive me FA, but see that as a contradiction. No offense, and you well may see far above what I can see, but if God is the one bringing it to pass, in that He determines the outcome, how can man possibly have a free will? Free will on the part of man demands the possibility of the man, not God, making an alternative choice. If God is ‘the cause,’ ‘bringing it to pass,’ man has no other option but to fall lock step with necessity as I see it. Help me out here. What am I not seeing that you see?

 

[BobRyan]

So you say that you are Baptist but not a Calvinist.

Total depravity.

• Unconditional election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Perseverance of the saints

T - kinda true - as in Romans 3 "There is NONE that seeks after God no not one"

U - Unconditional Election is merely another way of saying "arbitrary selection" when in fact the Bible says God is "NOT partial".

L - Limited Atonement - is in fact "limited grace, limited love, limited God" when used in the 4 and 5 point Calvinist model. But when used OUTSIDE of that model it means that NOT ALL enter into the full atonement process because NOT ALL will repent and accept salvation.

I - Irresistible Grace - is the the 4 and 5 point Calvinist's way of saying "Behold I storm down the door and enter instead of standing at the door and knocking".

P - Perseverance of the saints - is a good thing for 3 and 5 point Calvinists BUT is tarnished by their clinging to the error of OSAS and when they do that - they turn this into a total lack of assurance of salvation.

The Arminian can KNOW for certain that he is saved today but can not know that he will CONTINUE to persevere 10 years from today. The 3 and 5 point Calvinist can not even know that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BD17]

U - Unconditional Election is merely another way of saying "arbitrary selection" when in fact the Bible says God is "NOT partial".

Arbitrary and partial seems like an oxymoron to me, to be partial there has to be something about the person that you are partial to. So God is not partial, He says himself before the foundation of the world, before either had done good or bad. So if arbitrary means partial what was it about Jacob that God was partial to?

Now arbitrary that one may be true and why is that a problem? God as creator can choose anyone whom He pleases and who are we to question His decision? We know that He works all things according to His will, and we KNOW that it will be good and glorifying to HIM, so why question it? Why not TRUST and BELIEVE in it instead is that not what we are called to do?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: The Arminian can KNOW for certain that he is saved today but can not know that he will CONTINUE to persevere 10 years from today. The 3 and 5 point Calvinist can not even know that.

HP: I have heard you say this before, but I for one believe you a have a false idea of Arminians. First, the Arminians I have known believe in salvation by faith. The salvation they hold is held by the same faith that gives them assurance that indeed God will keep them. To state that they ‘know for certainty’ is true, IF 'certainty' to you is by faith. An Arminian walking in the light is just as sure of his final standing before the Lord as he is of his present salvation.

I am sure that some may be deceived as to their final standing, but there are some of every persuasion that are deceived as to their initial standing as well. Deception is always a possibility in anything known and held by faith.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: P - Perseverance of the saints - is a good thing for 3 and 5 point Calvinists BUT is tarnished by their clinging to the error of OSAS and when they do that - they turn this into a total lack of assurance of salvation.

HP: Would you mind explaining this? The only way I have ever heard a Baptist state P is OSAS. What other concept could they possibly have? How does that equate to a total lack of assurance?

 

[Faith alone]

FA: God didn't merely choose us based on His foreknowledge that we would trust in Him, but he brought it about. It is also true that we chose to trust in Him freely. No conflict.

HP: Forgive me FA, but see that as a contradiction. No offense, and you well may see far above what I can see, but if God is the one bringing it to pass, in that He determines the outcome, how can man possibly have a free will? Free will on the part of man demands the possibility of the man, not God, making an alternative choice. If God is ‘the cause,’ ‘bringing it to pass,’ man has no other option but to fall lock step with necessity as I see it. Help me out here. What am I not seeing that you see?

That's where the understanding of "middle knowledge" comes to play. With this view God does predetermine what will happen, yet man's will is never violated. This is a very dee psubject, and takes some time to explain, so I don't know that we want to go down that path! That book I listed is excellent for a start. Each viewpoint is described and defended by a guru of that position, and the other 3 describe the flaws they see in that position.

So that said, in my next couple of posts I'll try to give a better overview of "middle knowledge."

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Middle knowledge - an overview - part I

So since this is a diversion of the theme of this thread, if no one wishes to pursue this path I have no objection. That said...

In this system ("middle knowledge") God has chosen to give man the abilty to choose - He created man in His image, and that's part of the package. In one sense, He didn't exactly do that with angels - I'm not sure of all the distinctions. Yet even angels have the ability to choose. But God remains fully sovereign and need not act independent on others within His creation. The fact that He is intimately aware of things we have no idea about and makes decisions and acts based on such knowledge out of compassion is not capricious by any means.

The foundation for MK is that God holds different kinds of knowledge. God has what is termed necessary knowledge – that is knowledge that can never be false. This encompasses things like the laws of physics and basic mathematical truths, for example. God also has free knowledge. But free knowledge is knowing the world as it actually is – including the past, present and the future as well.

The difference between free knowledge and necessary knowledge, though, is that "God could not lack [specific free] knowledge and still be God. He must have this sort of knowledge to be God, but its content would be different. For if he would have created a different world, his free knowledge would be different."
The Only Wise God, by William Lane Craig

If actions are truly free, some argue that they cannot exist until the person choosing them makes that choice. Since they don't exist, there is nothing for God to know. That is the foundation for a theological view of God's knowledge called "open theism." IMO, it does not necessarily follow that because a choice has yet to be made that God cannot know future contingent events and even what the person will choose as well. God's Word supports this in many instances.

For example, in 1 Samuel 23:6-13 we read about an instance in which Saul had been pursuing David, who was hiding with his few men in the city of Keilah.

1 Samuel 23:6-13 (HCSB)So David rescued the inhabitants of Keilah. Abiathar son of Ahimelech fled to David at Keilah, and he brought an ephod with him.

When it was reported to Saul that David had gone to Keilah, he said, "God has handed him over to me, for he has trapped himself by entering a town with barred gates." Then Saul summoned all the troops to go to war at Keilah and besiege David and his men.

When David learned that Saul was plotting evil against him, he said to Abiathar the priest, "Bring the ephod."

Then David said, "Lord God of Israel, Your servant has heard that Saul intends to come to Keilah and destroy the town because of me. Will the citizens of Keilah hand me over to him? Will Saul come down as Your servant has heard? Lord God of Israel, please tell Your servant."

The Lord answered, "He will come down."

Then David asked, "Will the citizens of Keilah hand me and my men over to Saul?"

"They will," the Lord responded.

So David and his men, numbering about 600, left Keilah at once and moved from place to place. When it was reported to Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he called off the expedition.

In this story, Saul heard that David was hiding in Keilah. David discovered that someone had told Saul this. Then He asked God what would happen if... we see that that God knew that if David were to remain at Keilah, then Saul would come to get him, and that if Saul were to come to get David, then the men of the city would hand him over to Saul. You can see why MK is referred to often as the knowledge of "would-of"s - of counterfactuals.

David specifically asked God, if such-n-such happens, then will this transpire, and God answered him. So God does know the possibilities - all of them. That's why I do not prefer the name "middle knowledge," for IMO this system has a very high view of the knowledge of God, yet often when peoplefirst hear this name they assume that in some way that such a view has a limited view of God's knowledge. The reason I object to open theism is because it is contradicted by such examples as this one in 1 Samuel. In open theism, God cannot know the future. But since He understands our present world, and knows everything that has ever happened, He makes really good guesses. (Please do not confuse open theism and middle knowledge.)

Some assume that all genuine knowledge is based on either immediate perception or some causal inference. IOW, we can only know something if we experience it or experience its effects. But that is thinking like men. God is not a man. He is sovereign over His creation.

Another example of God's free knowledge can be found in Isaiah 45, where God speaks directly to Cyrus, the conqueror of Babylon 150 years before he was born! Craig says regarding such free knowledge, "God’s knowledge seems to encompass future contingencies: God foreknows Nebuchadnezzer’s divinations to determine his battle routes (Ezek. 21:21-23). Even more remarkably, just as God knows the thoughts that humans have, so he foreknows the very thoughts they will have."

Psalm 139 is another powerful testimony to God's knowledge of man's thinking and future actions.

So God knows every single event in human history - even the smallest detail... past, present, and future. That is some pretty awesome knowledge! That also includes every detail of the entire universe, as well as every single thought and attitude that every single one of us thinks, how the insects will move, what every creature on this earth will do - there is nothing outside His knowledge.

Isaish 55:8, 9 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways," says the Lord. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts."

God knows all truth. If reality were in some way different, though, God’s knowledge would be different as well, of course. God not only knows the truth to be true and what will happen, but as I said earlier, He also Knows all possibilities in the web of life.

Perhaps I should explain a few other things that "middle knowledge" (I'll refer to it as MK) does not teach first.

MK also does not say that God knows what future choices men will make (accumulated), and hence simply works so as to cause things to work out based on this knowledge - that He is unable to override mankind. He is able, and often does. Thank God He does, or so many of my poor choices would come back to haunt me! I mean, there is some truth to that statement. The difference is in God's choosing to give mankind freedom to choose - the ability to make decisions and act on those decisions, within the framework of the personal control that God has allowed each individual. God remains sovereign though.

But there is no way to discuss God's sovereignty and ignore His tremendous knowledge. Just read Psalm 139 and it blows you away. Yet there is no way to logically not hold God responsible for man's bad choices otherwise - if we say that God completely ignores man's desires and intentions to act, and forces him to do what He wants in every instance. Also, there is no way that scripture would command man to do something that he is not capable of doing - in such a theology.

If one does not accept some form of MK, then he must say that God resists all of man's choices, and forces him to do something else, sometimes evil, IOT accomplish a purpose to choose some of mankind for salvation. That is, if one accepts some form of individual election or a God that is sovereign. IMO with some view of God such as MK which has a much greater description of His omniscience, one cannot support a goodGod who is also sovereign. That simply cannot be supported from scripture, and paints a picture of God which is neither accurate nor very attractive.

Now we know that God does work based on His knowledge of some of man's choices, as we see many examples of this in scripture. That does not make Him the puppet of man. To deny this does make man the puppet of God. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply and to rule over His creation. Obviously, God allowed man to make choices in order to do so. I do not see how the Reformed-Augistinian view even allows men to make a single choice at all.

The most obvious example of God's working with the knowledge of what man will do is the Son of Man accomplishing God's plan while here on earth. Pilate convicted Jesus of a capital crime - or I suppose you could say that he refused to release Him even though he found no fault deserving crucifixion in Him. Jesus told him that if this were His kingdom, that the angels would fight to release Him from Pilate's power. That's what MK is saying - merely explaining what we see happening in scripture.

Otherwise, what you have is God forcing Pilate to do what he did, then holding him accountable for his robotic actions orchestrated by God Himself. I refuse to believe that God works in such a subversive manner. That's my problem with the understanding of God's sovereignty that many hold.

So, as I said before, MK does not simply say that "God chooses, plans, works based on Man's choices." It says that God has chosen to give man a free will (I prefer "free agency") so as to make choices. MK assumes a knowledge of God much more comprehensive than Christians often assume. "Open theism," OTOH, assumes a knowledge of God much more limited than usually assumed by Christians. That's why I have a real issue with OT.

end of part I

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Middle knowledge - an overview - part II

OK, time to make a definition:

Counterfactuals - "Possibilities" which never actually occured (or will occur). It refers to possible worlds. I know, sounds like we are stepping out into another world... the Twilight Zone. But if you read up on anyone who speaks about God's knowledge, this term which will be tossed about.

Let me repeat: MK is not simply a system based on God's foreknowledge. Neither is it a system based solely on God's sovereignty. Arminians and some others essentially say that God's election and His predestining is essentially only foreknowledge, not real predistination. They may speak of a corporate election (choosing) rather than an individual election. MK does not say either of these things. That is a critical distinction.

God is sovereign. He does interact actively in this world. But just how He interacts is based on His understanding of all the possibilities out there. To say that He does not do so is to say that either His omniscience is limited or that His mercy and love are limited - that He simply does not care about the consequences of His choices and will. And if God knows all of the possibilities - counterfactuals - of His own actions and that of others, why should we assume that He would not sovereignly use such knowledge? With God's omniscience, there are many, many ways He could accomplish any particular desire He way have. But we should not assume that he is not aware of all of the interactions of His choices and actions. Of course He is aware of it - every last detail of it. He is God. He is sovereign. He certainly could force any of us to do what He wants regarding any particular part of that plan, but He chooses to give us freedom of action and choice - in general.

Do you see how such a view of God has an elevated understanding of both His omniscience, His wisdom, His love and mercy, and of His sovereignty?

One of the biggest issues with the point-of-view that it is God's sovereign edicts that govern all of man's choices is that this is essentially just fatalism. If God is the one who is making man choose this way or that, as some propose, then should man really be held responsible for acting on those choices? Are they truly choices at all? Undeniably, if God is forcing every man to choose a particular way, then no man has it in his own power to even choose otherwise. And if there are no options but one, then there really isn't a choice at all, ever - man is merely acting out a design preordained in God's play... Act 7, scene 12.

And I also understand that Calvinism does not express such a view of the sovereignty of God in such words, but IMO it inevitably heads down that path. Calvinism allows that man can choose... just not choose for the good until regenerated.

So regarding MK, it seems that many never try to rationalize the apparent contradiction of their views - merely saying that they accept both free will and election simultaneously or taking a position of sovereignty which does not present a God which is biblical IMO or that of predestination which is not really predestination - only foreknowledge. Neither treat God's Word honestly IMO. Well, at any rate, middle knowledge is an attempt to make some sense out of it.

In my view, the approach designated “middle knowledge” is superior to other views. In “middle knowledge” a full or greater account is taken of God’s omniscience so that room is left for the biblical concept of human responsibility as well as of divine sovereignty.

OK, we cannot speak much about "middle knowledge" without quoting William Lane Craig.

Some who oppose "middle knowledge" say that In order for God to be using knowledge of counterfactuals (possibilities which never actually happen) to decide which world to "actualize," (as William Lane Craig often refers to it) the counterfactuals must already be true.

Craig says that those who say this "err in thinking that God judges people on the basis of what they would do rather than what they in fact do." God doesn't judge people based on what they possibly might have done, but on what they did or will actually do.

Another key component to Craig's philosophy is that "there is no world feasible for God in which all persons freely respond to His gracious initiatives and so are saved." Otherwise, it might be asked, "Why did God choose to actualize a world in which some were condemned rather than saved... if He could have done so?"

And herein lies the crux of the problem, for those who oppose such "middle knowledge." They refuse to accept that there is anything which God is not able to do. But IMO this is merely semantics. The "can God create a rock so big He cannot move it" kind of reasoning. God cannot do just anything. There are certain things which, due to His nature, He simply cannot do. At first this seems proposterous. But consider...

God cannot sin.

God cannot lie.

God cannot do anything in opposition to His nature.

God cannot create a rock so big that He cannot move it... or can He? If He could, then He cannot move that rock! Choose your poison.

And since God has chosen to actualize a world in which man has a free will to choose, He refuses to do things, in general, which violate man's free will. Now, IMO, God can, has and does at times take actions which circumvent our free will. But, in general, He does not do so. This is the heart of the middle knowledge philosophical approach to viewing predestination. For example, God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son, Isaac. He opened the Red Sea and allowed it to collapse on the Egyptian army, to name just a couple.

Middle knowledge gives us a truly richer theological depth to our world than is possible if we ignore such knowledge.

Craig says,

For on the Christian view, hell is in fact good and the suffering of the damned just. The doctrine of hell constitutes the ultimate triumph of God's justice over evil; it assures us that we do, after all, live in a moral universe in which justice will prevail. A world without punishment for sin would be one in which the moral order is ultimately vacuous, justice is compromised, and God is not holy. The doctrine of hell shows us that God's terrible holiness and hatred of sin are not to be trifled with, that we cannot sin with impunity, that our sins shall, indeed, find us out.

According to the Christian view, the natural man exists in a state of rebellion against God, spiritually dead, alienated from God, and morally guilty before Him. The natural man is therefore already under the just condemnation of God, meriting only His wrath. Salvation of anybody is therefore only by God's grace, by His unmerited favour. God's choosing one person to be saved and leaving the remainder to their just desserts can thus never be a matter of unfairness or comparative injustice on God's part (except in the peculiar sense that God is not just toward the one saved, having chosen to be merciful instead).

Some people reason that the belief in predestination - and regarding our salvation - election - the idea that God has chosen each person who has or will ever come to believe in Him - will lead to a fatalistic view in life. IMO it will without something like MK. Reformed theologians are often accused of just this. Some reason that if we can be certain that had I failed to share the gospel with someone of the elect, that he would still have been saved by some other means. (Which is obviously true.) Thus my evangelistic efforts make no real difference to anyone's salvation, it can be reasoned, and hence it is not possible for my efforts to result in someone's being saved who would not otherwise have been saved. So then why even bother?

Middle knowledge helps us to resolve such things. It reveals the error in such reasoning. Middle knowledge also helps us to have a higher view of God. God's choosing to save some and denial of others seems to call into question, not God's justice, since all deserve condemnation, but rather His love. God is supposed to be always good and loving, and it seems difficult to deny that God would be more loving if He were to save all persons rather than just some... should this lie within His power to do so. And that is precisely the key to this dilemma. Those who object to God's election are challenging not God's justice, but His love, as Craig asserted.

Does it lie within God's power to save everyone? Could He do so, if He really wanted to? Well, I suppose so... if we were all essentially turned into puppets - into robots. But if God is going to give everyone the ability to choose... then I say that "no," He cannot. I also propose that God has sovereignly chosen to do things such that the maximum number of peope are eventually saved. Can I prove that based solely on scripture? No. It is a philosophical deduction based on biblical principles. But we do know that God is not willing that any should perish.

Some, mainly Calvinists, such as Hunt, propose that God could indeed save everyone but has chosen to save some and not others. This appears to be capricious to others. He can do this they say, because He is sovereign. They say that God "has hated Esau and loved Jacob." Most Calvinists do not accept MK because it provides a way for "whoseover will" (unlimited atonement) to be saved, and seems to limit God's sovereignty in their opinion. But it actually does not... it simply changes the way we view that God sovereignly brings things about.

Hope this helps some and at least gives you something to chew on.

FA

 

[Rippon]

I don't have the time or inclination to respond to most of the content of your posts ( there is something to be said for brevity ) , however when you identified Hunt as a Calvinist I had to say something . Dave Hunt is totally against what he things is Calvinism . His teachings also go against true Calvinism . The man is not accountable for a host of wrong-headed ideas which he puts forth as representing Calvinism . James White among others has countered his comments quite specifically , yet he persists in his same old statements . He has been proved wrong countless times and he just does not care . I like DH . I went to a weekend retreat with him as the guest speaker ( of course I did not agree with his talks ) . He is a personable man . He has been an honorable servant of the Lord for a long time -- but he is so very wrong on so much . It's a pity .

As for God not wanting to violate the "free-will " of people . I am sorry , but there is just too much biblical evidence to demolish that notion . Just take a walk through the OT for starters . The Lord softened the hearts of the Egyptians toward the Israelites . Joseph in an earlier time was given the favor of God . Joseph caused Potiphar to look kindly on him . The Lord gave Joseph favor in the sight of the chief jailer . The Pharaoh at that time was caused to look favorably on Joseph . The Lord did all these things and so much more ! The Lord changes hearts . He causes some hearts to melt and others to harden at His sovereign discretion .

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: Craig says that those who say this "err in thinking that God judges people on the basis of what they would do rather than what they in fact do." God doesn't judge people based on what they possibly might have done, but on what they did or will actually do.

HP: There are so many issue involved. I will but take this one to address first, as I see it of great importance.

God judges according to the intent of the heart, not simply the act subsequent to the intent. In morals, intent is everything. Scripture bears this out clearly. If you hate your brother in you heart, God sees you as a murderer even if you have not actually killed your brother yet. God see one as an adulterer when one simply lusts after one in their heart. Sin or righteousness is determined antecedent to any action, and is determined and judged by God at the point of formation of the intent in the will.

On the other hand, you can kill another, but if your motivation was not selfish in nature, and it was done in self-defense of to save the life of another, I believe you are justified. The same goes for accidents, such as the Scriptural illustration of the axe head coming off. No selfish intent, no sin in morals, as explained by Scripture and reason.

God most certainly can and will judge us on things we never actually had the opportunity to carry out. For instance, if I decide top commit murder and form the intent to carry it out if I have the opportunity, whether or not the opportunity ever arises I am as guilty as if though I actually did it in the eyes of God.

On this point I find Craig to be in moral error. This is sure to affect other issues in his theology as well. We need to start thinking right about morals if we are ever going to find the truth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: In my view, the approach designated “middle knowledge” is superior to other views. In “middle knowledge” a full or greater account is taken of God’s omniscience so that room is left for the biblical concept of human responsibility as well as of divine sovereignty.

HP: I find this strange, that while we try and sort out the foreknowledge of God, which we both agree is beyond our comprehension, at the same time we are found to be swallowing a distinctively Augustinian/Calvinistic dogma that clearly destroys all accountability and human responsibility and places all men under the cloud of fatalistic determination. I was under the impression that 'middle knowledge' is designed to to free us from thinking, but how can it if we hold tenaciously to the very principles that land us in the trap of determinism in the first place? Do you have any ideas as to what that dogma might entail and what it is commonly denoted as?