The TULIP of Middle Knowledge Calvinism
As I have wrestled with questions related to the relationship between human free will and the sovereignty of God the concept that made the most sense to me is “Middle Knowledge Calvinism” (see Craig Blomberg’s article “Middle Knowledge” here). There are many smaller details that I will need to think through over time, but as a big-picture theory it makes the most sense. I have been educated in both a strong Arminian perspective as well as a strong Calvinist perspective. Usually I come away with the sense that both sides have to explain away certain parts of the canonical testimony. I have not felt that way about the middle knowledge position.
For those unfamiliar with middle knowledge let me provide you with a paragraph from the aforementioned article by Blomberg:
Simply put, middle knowledge affirms, with classic Arminianism, that God’s predestining activity is based on his foreknowledge of what all humans would do in all possible situations that they could find themselves in. But it also observes that God’s omniscience is so great that it is not limited just to what all actually created being would do but to what all possibly created beings would do in all possible situations. Because God creates only a finite number of persons between the beginning of the universe and Christ’s return, his sovereign choice is preserved, because he must choose to create some beings and not others. Thus, with classic Calvinism, his sovereign, elective freedom is preserved.
In other words, along with Arminians I can affirm that God does not elect on the basis of some arbitrary game of soteriological duck-duck-goose. Along with Calvinist I can affirm that God is sovereign is determining who will be saved since God knows all things, including all possible humans and all possible decisions made by all possible humans in all possible worlds. Also, along with Calvinist I can disagree with Arminians who understand foreknowledge to be a reference to God electing whom He knows will choose salvation as if humans are ever so free from sin as to choose God (contra Romans 3:10-18).
The almighty acronym of many Calvinist is “TULIP”:
T – Total Depravity
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints
Let us examine how Middle Knowledge Calvinism compares with classic Calvinism as we work our way through the TULIP.
Total Depravity: Middle Knowledge Calvinism affirms total depravity. As I read through the aforementioned Romans 3:10-18 it becomes obvious that the Arminian suggestion that there are some humans that actually can choose God contra those who are just too selfish and too evil does not seem to line up, at least with Pauline thought.
On the other hand, in Romans 7:14-25 it is equally true that although we cannot seek God there is something within us that cries out for God. There is a desire to do good, to do the law of God, but we cannot actually do it. In the Middle Knowledge Calvinist paradigm God can know what every individual would choose if the choice could be made. In other words, God can see what every humans that has ever existed would do in a sort of recreated Eden where the question of a free salvation through Christ is offered. Some may choose this reversal fruit. Others may remain in rebellion against God.
Since only God knows what all people would do if we could do it only God has the power to send the Spirit to those people to make sure that they have the faith to come to God through Christ. This is a sovereign act of God, but it is not an arbitrary one. Equally, it does not side with Arminianism suggesting that there are actually people who by their own desire freely “choose’ God.
Unconditional Election: This may appear to be the place where Middle Knowledge Calvinist and classic Calvinist part ways. I did write in that last paragraph that God does not make arbitrary decisions and that God makes His choice on the basis of not only foreknowledge, but Middle Knowledge of all possible people, times, place, and decisions in all possible worlds. But does this make it a conditional election?
Some may say that it does, I do not. The Calvinist understanding of election derives from the Pauline understanding that humans can do nothing to earn salvation. Humans can do nothing. This does not mean that God cannot see past our inability to do. God can see what the heart might desire if the person could respond in his/her own strength.
Therefore, although election is not arbitrary it can be unconditional if we understand that it is not conditioned on anything that the Apostle Paul or the Reformer John Calvin would have seen as merit behavior. If someone thinks that this is conditional because God sees the heart we will just have to agree to disagree. I feel that at this point we must move to TALIP with the U being replaced by an “A” for arbitrary!
Limited Atonement: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever should believe on him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).” “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 (2 Peter 3:9).” These passages are not very friendly to classic Calvinism. It is simply bad exegesis to suggest that the “world” of John 3:16 is the “world of the elect”, especially since the “world” in Johannine thought is the exact opposite.
Yet we know the atonement must have some limitations, otherwise we do not have Arminianism, we have universalism! Let us make this really simply. The best way to maintain balance while letting the entire canon have a voice is this: (1) the atonement is unlimited in scope and availability; it was sufficient enough for the salvation of all people, everywhere, at all times, but (2) it has limited application, namely to the elect.
The benefits of the atonement are accessed by/in/through faith alone. This does not mean that the atonement was limited in power. It means it is limited in application. Therefore, the Middle Knowledge Calvinist position affirms the limited atonement position by stating that God has only applied the atoning work of Christ to those whom we have already discussed as being elected by God.
Irresistible Grace: For those whom God has chosen on the basis of His Middle Knowledge there will be no avoiding the grace of God. This is not “Divine rape” as some have so crudely said. This is simply God seeing those who would be saved if they could choose salvation and God determines to save. In other words, God is not the gods of the pagans. God does not change His mind about those who He intends to save based on whether or not they have a bad day or do the right things. God is sovereign and God will see the elect through to the end. Those whom God chooses cannot resist this grace.
Perseverance of the Saints: I think I already said in gist what I am going to say here. Those whom God chooses will make it all the way to the end. Classic Calvinism sees this as being because God arbitrarily elected people and therefore those people cannot fail. Middle Knowledge Calvinism agrees to some extend, except the arbitrary part. Both agree that the elect will be saved and that nothing can prevent that.
So yes, I think Middle Knowledge Calvinism can use the TULIP acronym, though there is no reason to feel too dependent upon doing so unless you have some people that need to be convinced you are not a closet Arminian!
Interesting article.
I’m not familiar with Middle Knowledge, so I have a few questions and comments.
- I don’t think I’ve ever met a Calvinist who would say that God arbitrarily elects people. They would say that God predestines people “according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will” (Eph 1). Nothing arbitrary about it at all.
- What does Middle Knowledge say about the fact that Jesus knew Sodom & Gomorrah would have accepted Him (Matt 11:23), yet He chose to torch them instead of save them (Gen 19:24)? (If you re-read that verse, that’s Jesus standing on the ground, calling down fire and brimstone from the Father in heaven. So we’re compelled to ask: why did He press the ‘Burn them to kingdom come’ button instead of the ‘Go forth and do miracles and save them’ button?)
- What doe Middle Knowledge say about the myriad of verses where God deliberately hardens/blinds/deafens/stupors/deludes/deceives people so that they cannot know the truth and be saved, but rather, so they will be destroyed instead? (Exod 4-14, esp Ex 9:15-16 – note that Pharaoh repented twice, yet God never softened his heart, choosing instead to further harden it, Deut 2:30, Deut 29:4, Joshua 11:20, 1 Kings 22:23, Is 6:9-10 [which is repeated in at least once in all the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 2 Cor, etc], Is 63:17, Ezek 14:9, 2 Thess 2:10-12, Rev 12. There are plenty more verses, but these should hopefully show that this method is a frequently used method of God.)
If you have any thoughts on these, I’d appreciate it.
Thanks.
TIM
@Tim:
I apologize for the delayed response. This post is a bit old and I was informed via email that there was a comment, but it slipped my mind to reply. Let me try now:
(1) There may not be the use of the statement “arbitrary”. That is more my way of interpreting responses like, “Well, Paul said God will show mercy where he will show mercy, and wrath where he will show wrath.” Even your statement that it is according to God’s plan sounds a bit arbitrary. It doesn’t answer why, if God elects without the respondent having anything to do with it, God doesn’t show mercy to all. It pushes it back toward mystery, which is fine, but nevertheless cannot really avoid the critique that there is no good reason for God’s choice other than it is God’s choice.
(2) This question is a bit more confusing. I am not sure why is being asked, to be honest. Middle Knowledge says that God knows what every person would choose to do in every possible situation in every possible world and that God acts according to that knowledge to save those whom he will save. I don’t see what this question is asking.
(3) Again, since Middle Knowledge proposes God knows how every person would respond in all possible situations in all possible worlds, we can suggest that God didn’t harden Pharaoh’s heart simply to harden Pharaoh’s heart. God knew that Pharaoh wanted to have a hard heart and so God did nothing to prevent this in his foreknowledge. Since God did not override the desires he knew Pharaoh already had in his heart, there is a sense in which God did predestine Pharaoh to condemnation, but this is because God knew how Pharaoh would respond.
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
So far, I’m finding MiddleKnowledge (MK) to be a sort of divine second-guessing (except in this case, the ‘guessing’ is assured because it’s being done by an Omniscient God). The problem with it, however, is that it proposes that man is the center of God’s actions. God acts in *response* to the choices man makes. Man acts first (albeit it hypothetically, since we’re dealing with alternate choices/universes/whatever), and God responds in ‘foreknowledge’ as a *result* of that action.
I find this disturbing.
Why should an omnipotent God create a universe and populate it with finite creatures upon whom He must wait and then make His choices as a result of what fallen man will choose (if he could)? Is there a verse/passage in the Bible that reads this way? I can’t think of any. And I daresay that if you and I created our own universes, it would never enter our heads to have our creatures calling the shots that we must then respond to. I’d sure like to see some Biblical passages that give more footing to this MK idea, because it’s quite foreign to me. (The idea of calling God’s choices ‘arbitrary’ because He hasn’t bothered to share His reasons with us …. Smacks too much of pride, if you ask me.)
Regarding my earlier post:
Q1: If I’m understanding what you’re saying, it would appear that MK would rather not deal with the situation that Paul presents it in Rom 9. He says, basically, that the whys of God’s actions are above our paygrade: But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Rom 9:20-21, ESV) In other words, it’s God’s universe: we have no place to challenge His reasons or legitimacy. I think Job speaks eloquently to this issue.
Going back to Rom 9, Paul explicitly says that God’s love/hatred for Jacob/Esau had nothing to do with their actions, but rather His purpose in election. Unless I’m understanding you incorrectly, MK says the exact opposite. Again, this God-centered volition is the focus not only in Eph 1, but also John 1. Nowhere is man’s “first action” cited as any possible reason for God electing. That makes it hard for me to see MK as a sufficient answer to the freewill/sovereignty debate.
Q2: Jesus is the one who destroyed S&G in Gen 19. Yet 2,000 years and 110 miles NE, He said that they would have believed if He had done in S&G what He did in Capernaum. The question is this: if “God is willing that (no human) should perish, but that all (humans) should come to repentance” why did He do nothing to save S&G? He admitted in Matt 10 that He knew exactly what it would take for them to get saved (namely, Him showing them as much grace as He had shown Capernaum – yet He chose to destroy them instead of show them grace. Since MK seeks to understand the mind of God, does MK attempt to answer the question of why Jesus did nothing to save them when He knew exactly what it would take to save them? The idea of MK is here, but it did S&G absolutely no good that Jesus knew they would have repented had their situation been changed: the only one with the power to change the situation for their good, did nothing to change it.
> we can suggest that God didn’t harden Pharaoh’s heart simply to harden Pharaoh’s heart.
The problem with this approach is that it contradicts the clear (and repeated) reasons that God gives for deliberately hardening Pharaoh’s heart. In Exod 9, God says, paraphrasing, “I could have destroyed you with one shot, but I dragged out the whole thing. I raised you up to this elevated position so that I could show My power in you for this reason: that the whole world will know that I am God”. Where does God ever say that His actions are motives are the result of Pharaoh *first* hardening his heart? To read Exodus 1-14 and then think that God is making his actions based on Pharoah’s choices is ludicrous. Pharaoh didn’t put himself in power; God did. (note that Pharaoh survived the 10th plague, meaning that he was *not* a firstborn son, and therefore should normally *not* have been on the throne. If you do your history, you’ll see that the the firstborn pharaoh at the time was (very likely) fighting a protracted war on the Syrian border and wasn’t in Egypt. Ergo, God literally placed this man on the throne (raised him up) so that He could show His power in him (destroy his entire polytheistic religion with 10 god-specific plagues) so that the world would know who is God and who is not. Pharaoh was nothing more than a pawn to be used for God’s purposes.
I think you’ve clarified MK.
Unfortunately, because it contradicts so many verses (“We love because he first loved us.” 1 John 4:19, ESV) – indeed, even the notion of a sovereign God, I have to conclude that it’s not helpful in understanding the mind of God.
Thanks.