Questions about Middle Knowledge by randy Everest

[This is an important discussion for the debate concerning free-will and predestination.It also has many implications for apologetics. Randy Everest is a very gifted apologist and philosopher. So I have decided to let his work speak for itself. In Christ, Matt]


I have found while people have many questions about the teaching of middle knowledge, once explained it turns out to have been intuitively held by these same questioners. What I mean is that something very much like middle knowledge is believed to be true by the majority of Christians not already committed to some form of Calvinism or Arminianism. What is middle knowledge?

Certainly, it is not (directly) concerning predestination and free will (though it has application in that). Primarily, middle knowledge is related to omniscience. The simplest and most agreed-upon definition of omniscience is that “for any true proposition P, God knows and believes P and does not know nor believe not-P.” This means that whatever is true, be it in the future, now, or past, God knows it. Thus, quite literally, God knows what you are going to do before you do![1]

In order to understand middle knowledge in the context of omniscience, we finite beings break down God’s knowledge by logical relationship. First, there is God’s natural knowledge. This contains knowledge of all necessary truths (like “2+2=4” or “there are no married bachelors”) and all logical possibilities. Thus, one could say this is God’s knowledge of everything that could be. Next, there is God’s free knowledge. This is called “free” because the content of this knowledge is what God chose to be so. This includes God’s knowledge of this actual world (i.e. everything that is true in the history of the world up till now, and indeed throughout the potentially-infinite future).[2] One could say this is God’s knowledge of everything that will be. Finally, we have God’s middle knowledge. This is knowledge of a counterfactual form. This form is “if Gary were in circumstances C, Gary would freely do X.” One could say this is God’s knowledge of everything that would be in any other circumstances. In this way, God’s knowledge spans what could be, what will be, and what would be in every circumstance.

Middle knowledge is actually the conclusion of an argument from counterfactual knowledge. I have already explained the idea of counterfactual knowledge. Is it biblical? Absolutely! 1 Cor. 2:8 states, “Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” See the counterfactual? “If the princes of this world knew X, then they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”! Either what Paul is saying is true, false, or meaningless. Since it seems Paul really is conveying a truth by these words (and not a symbolic, deeper truth as in a parable), we can rule out meaningless. It also seems that Paul is teaching rather than relaying some other account, so that to say Paul was wrong is attacking the doctrine of inerrancy (not to mention we don’t have overriding reasons to think Paul was wrong). The only option left is to believe it is the truth. 1 Samuel 23:10-12 relay the story of David asking the Lord the counterfactual question, “If Saul comes down to Keilah, will they deliver me up?” The Lord answered in the affirmative. Since they did not deliver David up, this is a true counterfactual. Yet the Lord knew it! It seems the case for counterfactual knowledge, at least biblically, is quite solid. God knows what would happen in any other circumstance.

However, as some opponents have been quick to point out, counterfactual knowledge does not, in and of itself, mean middle knowledge. What would make it middle knowledge? Either counterfactual knowledge is known to God logically prior or logically posterior to the divine decree to create the world (or what we had called God’s “free” knowledge).[3] Essentially, counterfactuals here boil down to free choices of individuals. So then, either free will exists or God directly causes individuals to act. While much more could be written, it seems intuitive (for those not already committed to a position) and obvious, both biblically and experientially, that mankind has a free will. Just note if God causes individuals to act he causes them to sin.

So, if free creatures freely make choices, then it is not true that they act because God causes them to act. If that is the case, then counterfactual knowledge is known to God prior to the creative decree (logically). This is also very good, since if God does not force people to act and yet lacked counterfactual knowledge until the divine decree, then God would be completely lucky in getting this actual world. It gets worse: without this knowledge, God would have no idea how any of us would act in situations, including this actual one! God must, in order to create sovereignly and omnisciently, have counterfactual knowledge; specifically, he must have middle knowledge.

God’s knowing what any free creature would do in any set of circumstances is both biblically and intuitively held. If you ask most people on the street without using the relevant theological terms, “do you, as a Christian, think God knows what would have happened in any other set of circumstances?” they would say “yes.” If you asked them if they believe in free will, they would say “yes.” As we have seen, this just makes middle knowledge analytically true (that is, true in virtue of both of those prior question’s answers!). If you believe in counterfactual knowledge and free will, you believe in middle knowledge.

[1] While for some the idea that future contingents can be true now is controversial, we shall proceed with the intuitive knowledge that what I will do tomorrow is true as a datum.

[2] A discussion of why the future is potentially, rather than actually, infinite is an interesting one, but not one which ultimately matters. For our purposes, just know that God knows everything that will happen in this actual world.

[3] Please note that the usage of “logically prior and posterior” does not in any way have to do with time, as though God lacked knowledge at any point.