Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
My understanding is that the Jesuit, Luis de Molina, first articulated what is called middle knowledge; the idea that there is a necessary knowledge of God, the decrees of God, and this middle area where all kinds of contingencies are unfolding. Sinclair Ferguson has spoken on this before and made a parallel (of middle knowledge) to a chess match. In short, middle knowledge says God knows all the possibilities, but He doesn't know what world is actually being "spun" into existence. J. Ligon Duncan has indicated that Francis Turretin, in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, "tears de Molina limb from limb" on his middle knowledge.
William Lane Craig is a proponent of middle knowledge. It seems to me that any notion of God not knowing all things inerrantly, infallibly, and without contingency is a frontal assault to the character of God. Here are some questions to bat around:
1-Does the very ascent to middle knowledge deny the omniscience of God?
2-If yes, how do we handle someone who says they believe God is omniscient, but also believes in middle knowledge?
3-Is Craig's view identical with those of de Molina or are there significant differences?
4-?
William Lane Craig is a proponent of middle knowledge. It seems to me that any notion of God not knowing all things inerrantly, infallibly, and without contingency is a frontal assault to the character of God. Here are some questions to bat around:
1-Does the very ascent to middle knowledge deny the omniscience of God?
2-If yes, how do we handle someone who says they believe God is omniscient, but also believes in middle knowledge?
3-Is Craig's view identical with those of de Molina or are there significant differences?
4-?