Monthly Archives: April 2013

Molinism

Posted on by
Reply

In an article entitled “Molinism 101” found Paul Helm outlines the basics of Molinism.

Ligonier comments: In recent months and years, an old controversy about the nature of God’s knowledge has been re-ignited in certain Christian circles. The doctrine at the center of this controversy is called “middle knowledge” (also known as Molinism). In an effort to help our readers better understand the issues at stake, we have invited Dr. Paul Helm to write an introduction to this important subject.

God’s Knowledge

In thinking about God’s knowledge theologically it was customary for many years, until and including the Reformation, to distinguish between God’s necessary knowledge and His free knowledge. The distinction is obvious and natural. God’s necessary knowledge includes several kinds of truths. It is the knowledge of matters such as the truths of mathematics (for example, 2+2=4). It is also the knowledge of truths such as the whole is greater than the part and no circle can be a square. God’s necessary knowledge also includes His knowledge of all possibilities, such as possible people, the possible lives they could lead, and the whole range of possible worlds. These are known to God immediately and intuitively.

God’s free knowledge, on the other hand, is His knowledge of His decree (of that which, in His wisdom, God freely and unchangeably ordained to come to pass). That which God decrees is obviously a subset of all the possibilities that are known to Him. His decree also has its source solely in His mind and will.

Middle Knowledge

In the late 1500’s a new kind of knowledge was proposed by two Iberian Jesuit thinkers, Luis de Molina (1535-1600) and Pedro da Fonseca (1528-1599). Middle knowledge (or ‘Molinism’ as it came to be called), was their contribution to a controversy within the Roman Catholic church over grace, free will and predestination. In our own time Molinism has been proposed by Alvin Plantinga and others in connection with God’s relation to evil. I think it is fair to say that while Roman Catholic theologians have long discussed middle knowledge in their textbooks, recent interest in it has been due to Plantinga and his discussion of the topic in his book God, Freedom and Evil.

What is middle knowledge? At the center of this recent interest has been God’s knowledge of possibilities involving human choice (the ‘counterfactuals of freedom’ as they have been called). Why this innovation? Its proponents are concerned to preserve what they consider to be two vital beliefs. The first is God’s providence and total foreknowledge. The second is the idea that human beings are ineradicably free in an indeterministic sense. When we speak of indeterministic freedom, we mean that any human being, in a given set of circumstances, has the power to choose A or to choose not-A. The problem is obvious. How can this be consistent with God’s universal providential rule and his purposes of redemption?

The Molinists’ way of attempting to keep all this together was to suggest that there existed, besides God’s natural knowledge and his free knowledge, a third kind of knowledge. They argued that God also has “middle knowledge” (between the other two). What this means can be briefly explained. Given a whole array of possible worlds (that God knows), given worlds in which men and women were free in the relevant indeterministic sense, God knows what they would freely choose in every possible circumstance. God has knowledge of all such possible outcomes. If placed in one set of circumstances, God knows what Jones would freely choose. If placed in another set of circumstances, God knows what Jones would freely choose. This is true for all possible people and all possible circumstances. God has this middle knowledge by inspection of all the possibilities that the free will of each person might choose.

In His power and wisdom, He chooses that possible world, that total combination of individuals and circumstances, whose expressions of free will best serve His purposes. Thus, God’s omniscience is preserved, and human free will is preserved. The moral evil that occurs in the chosen world is not the direct responsibility of God but of those creatures who exercise their choices in a malevolent fashion.

What Are The Implications of Molinism?

We need to emphasize that the view of free will held by Molinists both ancient and modern is what is often called “libertarianism” or “indeterminism.” By contrast their opponents, in the Roman Catholic Church and in the churches of the Reformation, have held views of human freedom that are deliberately consistent with God’s decree of all that comes to pass and the irresistibility of His grace.

What About Biblical Arguments for Molinism?

Insofar as its proponents sought direct biblical support for middle knowledge, they used the example of David at Keilah recorded in 1 Samuel 23. At this point in the biblical narrative, the Philistines were attacking Keilah. David asked the Lord if he should go to Keilah to fight the Philistines, and the Lord said that he should. David’s companions were fearful and so David enquired a second time. At Keilah, fearing that Saul would attack him there, David asked the Lord whether Saul would come to Keilah. At this point, we read the following conversation: “And the Lord said ‘He will come down.’ Then he said ‘Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, ‘They will surrender you.’ Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go” (1 Samuel 23:11–13).

To the minds of the Molinists, this incident showed middle knowledge at work, for it showed that the Lord knew what would happen if a certain free action occurred (they assumed that David and the other participants were acting with free will in the libertarian sense). God knew that if David freely stayed at Keilah, then the Keilahites would freely surrender him. So David freely took evasive action, and Saul freely gave up the expedition against David when he learned of what David had done. God knew all of this (and much more besides) by His foreknowledge.

What is Wrong with Molinism?

Since the Reformed held that all that occurs is unconditionally decreed by God and that men and women are responsible for their actions, they saw no need for a third kind of divine knowledge, a middle knowledge, which depended upon God foreseeing what possible people would freely do in certain circumstances. The Reformed interpreted the Keilah incident differently. God did not simply see what Saul would do; He ordained that Saul would come down if David remained. He ordained that David would depart from Keilah upon hearing what Saul would do. And He ordained that Saul would change his mind.

Not only is middle knowledge unnecessary to an all-knowing, all-decreeing God, but the Molinists’ conception of free will makes it impossible for God to exercise providential control over his creation. Why? Because men and women would be free to resist His decree. God can only bring to pass the actions of free agents via his middle knowledge of what they would freely do if…

Further, given the Molinist view of freedom, it is impossible for God to bring about the conversion of any person by the exercise of His effective call, for in the view of the Molinists it is always possible for an individual to resist God’s grace. Men and women must freely cooperate with what God says and does if they are to become Christians. God’s grace is always resistible. Reformed Christians have no good reason to accept the speculative concept of middle knowledge and strong reasons to reject it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we may say that there is much that is interesting and puzzling about Molinism, but the Reformed response to it has been—and should continue to be—that not only are there unresolved difficulties in the idea of middle knowledge itself, it is also an unnecessary speculation. Scripture scarcely mentions anything that may be thought to give support to Molinism, while teaching perfectly clearly that God works all things, even the evil actions of people who act with full responsibility, after the counsel of His own will. As Peter said on the Day of Pentecost, Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” and lawless men crucified and killed him (Acts 2:23).

To learn more about Molinism read the relevant section in Dr. Helm’s book, The Providence of God.

The Goodness of God

Posted on by
Reply

“You won’t catch me speaking about such things.” The statement came from a minister who had just heard me preach.

“What things?” I asked.

“Judgment, hell, wrath and the like,” he said.

“Oh, so why is it that you will not speak of such things when the Bible clearly does?” I then asked.

I expected him to say something like, “well the Bible is a primitive book written in a primitive culture. People are more sophisticated in our day and need to hear a different kind of message; one that is affirming, and encouraging.” That’s what I expected the minister to say. I expected him to ridicule me for believing and preaching the Bible in the 21st century, but this would be a wrong assumption on my part.

From his response to my question I could readily see that this man was in fact a Bible believing Christian; a Bible believing minister, no less. Here’s what he said:

“Well brother, Romans 2:4 says that it is the goodness of God that leads to repentance, so I believe if we want to see people repent, we have to preach on the goodness of God, not these other attributes.”

I was stunned! Completely stunned! The man was totally sincere, but I could hardly believe how the text he mentioned in Romans 2 could be so badly mistreated.

Just a brief scan over the passage in Romans 2 would reveal words like judgment, wrath and fury. Clearly Paul believed in and mentioned such concepts. Here’s the passage from the NASB:

Romans 2:1-8 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness,

The text of course nowhere states preaching on the goodness or kindness of God is what draws sinners to repentance, but clearly this was how the minister interpreted this statement. I wonder if he thought Jesus would need to be corrected for many times speaking of such “negative” themes as hell and judgment as he addressed vast crowds. We in fact learn more about hell from the lips of Jesus than any other person in the pages of Scripture.

The more I thought about the words of this minister, the more I was troubled. A very poor interpretation of a verse, has led, I believe, to a very poor theology, and as a result, those who hear the man will receive a very poor diet of the Word of God. More than that, this obscuring of God has led to what Dr. R. C. Sproul describes as the Eclipse of God in our churches – the full replendent glory of God has been deliberately hidden from view by the traditions of men.

Clearly, the minister would see attributes such as love and mercy and grace as “good” but other attributes as something less than so. But again, this is to miss the entire point of what Scripture says about God.

God is good. On this we can agree. But I would also say that everything about God is good. God is good in every one of His attributes. God is good in His Sovereignty, His holiness, His love, His justice, His mercy, His grace, and all His other attributes.

When I say God is good in His justice, I mean that God will make sure that justice takes place to punish every sin. Why is that good? It is good because justice is a good thing. It is good when criminals are brought to justice. It is a bad thing in fact when (at least in this life) the guilty man seemingly gets away with his crime.

Think of it this way: if a Judge in a murder trail hears that the jury has come to a unanimous decision in pronouncing the guilt of the accused, but then says, “Look, I know you have been found guilty.. and the law says that I should sentence you to serve a minimum 20 year prison sentence, but I’ve got good news… today is my birthday.. I’m feeling in a very good mood.. so lets just say that you’ve learnt your lesson now (I’m sure this whole trial has not been an easy time for you), so just go and try not to do this kind of thing again. O.K., court dismissed!”

If such a thing were to take place, I don’t think the judge would keep his job very long. Why? Because the judge himself would be condemned for not dispensing justice. An injustice occurs when justice is not administrated.

Taking this illustration back to the theme of God’s attributes, when we talk of God being good, it certainly does include the idea that God is a good judge. God is good when it comes to dispensing justice. This of course is not so good for us, because if each of us receives justice, we will all end up in hell. That’s what each of us as sinners deserve. We deserve for each of our sins to be punished to the full. We don’t want or need justice, we need mercy! And that’s what we find at the cross… our sins were laid on Christ (Isa. 53:4-6) and He received the full wrath and punishment of God which we deserved. God’s justice was poured out on Him to the full; yet in great mercy, God imputes the very righteousness of Christ to all who believe in Him. It is an unblemished righteousness, without spot or wrinkle, which has perfectly fulfilled the law and pleased the Father. 2 Corinthians 5:21 declares, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Christ the just, suffered for the unjust. He bore our sin and its full punishment. He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53).

He took what we deserved, so we could receive what He deserved. He took the justice due to us, we receive the justice due to Him as One who pleased His Father at all times. What grace! What mercy toward us sinners!

My brief inter-change with this minister makes me wonder how often faulty interpretation leads to faulty theology, not merely in other’s people’s hearts and minds but my own. How often is it the case that I assume what a text means? We are all slaves to our traditions, and as my friend Dr. James White says so well, “those most enslaved to their traditions are those who don’t believe they have any.” All of us need to humble ourselves before God and treat His word with humility, allowing God to show us if our assumptions about the text can hold up to scrutiny.

I was able to share some of these thoughts with the minister, and I could see that he went away with much to think about, but sometimes I find, traditions are so deep and ingrained, that a good number of folk will not expose their traditions to the light of scripture. I don’t know if that is the case with this minister, but I know my own heart. I, all too often, assume what a verse means rather than taking the time to study to see if my pre-conceived notions are correct.

God in His goodness brings many to repentance. Whenever someone is brought to repentance, we can be sure that God’s goodness and kindness is the unseen cause behind it. Sinners do not come to Christ by their own power, but by the good and effectual call of God.

We can also be sure that God is good, all the time; and that means that all sins will be punished – either when they were laid on Christ and He was punished in behalf of all those who would ever believe on Him; or else the punishment will be meted out as wrath and fury is poured out on the sinner in hell. Either way, God remains just as well as the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:26).

Letter to a Grieving Parent

Posted on by
Reply

Original article by Pastor John Piper found a grieving mother, who recently had given birth to a stillborn son, wrote to me asking for counsel and comfort. The team at Desiring God thought this letter might be helpful to some others, whether other mothers who have lost infants, parents who have lost young children, or perhaps even more broadly.

Dear _____,

This loss and sorrow is all so fresh. I hesitate to tread into the tender place and speak. But since you ask, I pray that God would help me say something helpful.

First, please know that I know I don’t know what it is like to give birth to a lifeless body. Only a small, sad band of mothers know that. I say “lifeless body” because, as you made clear, your son is not lifeless. He simply skipped earth. For now. But in the new heavens and the new earth, he will know the best of earth and all the joys earth can give without any of its sorrows.

I do not know what age — what level of maturity and development — he will have in that day. I don’t know what level of maturity and development I will have. Will the 25-year-old or the 35- or the 45- or the 55-year-old John Piper be the risen one? God knows what is optimal for the spiritual, glorified body. And so it will be for your son. But you will know him. God will see to that. And he you. And he will thank you for giving him life. He will thank you for enduring the loss that he might have the reward sooner.

God’s crucial word on grieving well is 1 Thessalonians 4:13: “We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.” Yours is a grieving with hope. Theirs is a grieving without hope. That is the key difference. There is no talk of not grieving. That would be like suggesting to a woman who just lost her arm that she not cry, because it would be put back on in the resurrection. It hurts! That’s why we cry. It hurts.

And amputation is a good analogy. Because unlike a bullet wound, when the amputation heals, the arm is still gone. So the hurt of grief is different from the hurt of other wounds. There is the pain of the severing, and then the relentless pain of the gone-ness. The countless might-have-beens. Those too hurt. Each new remembered one is a new blow on the tender place where the arm was. So grieving is like and unlike other pain.

There is a paradox in the way God is honored through hope-filled grief. One might think that the only way he could be honored would be to cry less or get over the ache more quickly. That might show that your confidence is in the good that God is and the good that he does. Yes. It might. And some people are wired emotionally to experience God that way. I would not join those who say, “O they are just in denial.”

But there is another way God is honored in our grieving. When we taste the loss so deeply because we loved so deeply and treasured God’s gift — and God in his gift — so passionately that the loss cuts the deeper and the longer, and yet in and through the depths and the lengths of sorrow we never let go of God, and feel him never letting go of us — in that longer sorrow he is also greatly honored, because the length of it reveals the magnitude of our sense of loss for which we do not forsake God. At every moment of the lengthening grief, we turn to him not away from him. And therefore the length of it is a way of showing him to be ever-present, enduringly sufficient.

So trust him deeply and let your heart be your guide whether you honor him one way or the other. Everyone is different. Beware of blaming your husband, or he you, for moving into or out of grief at different paces. It is so personal. And what you may find is that the one who seemed to recover more quickly will weep the more deeply in ten years. You just don’t know now, and it is good not to judge.

May God make your grieving a bittersweet experience of communion with Jesus. Matthew tells us that when Jesus heard that John the Baptist had been beheaded, “he withdrew from there in a boat to a desolate place by himself” (Matthew 14:13). So he knows what it is to go with you there.

We do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize. He was tested in every way as we are — including loss.

Grace to you and peace.

Affectionately,

Pastor John