Reformed Theology, God's Knowledge, and the Possibility of Alternative Possibilities

Question

Hey Tim, I hope you are doing well. At the church I pastor, we are going through Ken Keathley’s "Salvation and Sovereignty" book with our leaders. Some lean toward the Reformed view of providence. A question was raised last night that I’m needing help with. I thought you may be able to lend a hand. Here it is: If God is certain about what will happen then how are there other possibilities? (In the sense that only that will happen) So, take the incident with Moses and God when God was angry with Israel. Here is the passage: “And the Lord said to Moses, 'I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you.' But Moses implored the Lord his God and said, 'O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?'” ‭‭(Exodus‬ ‭32:9-11‬ ‭ESV)‬‬ Was God’s desire to make Moses into a nation a real possibility? If so, how so if God knew for certain that God would relent? If before time God used his middle knowledge to know what would happen in that situation, knew how he would respond to Moses, knew for certain Moses would intercede, then how could there have been a genuine possibility? Maybe this comes back to counterfactuals. In that moment with Moses, God knew the counterfactual but how does that not make God disingenuous if he knew for certain what would happen? Does that make sense? If you have a resource to point to, I would greatly appreciate that. Thanks - Jason

Dr. Stratton’s Response

You ask a great question, Pastor Jason! Before answering it, however, I would want to know what your colleagues mean when they say they lean toward a "Reformed view of providence." Reformed theologians, from the beginning of the Reformation until the present day, disagree on the topic of exhaustive divine determinism (EDD) and human libertarian freedom (at least in a limited sense). That is to say, many Reformed theologians would say that although soteriological matters are completely determined (which is not my view), pre-fall Adam possessed libertarian freedom and so do regenerate Christians when tempted to sin (1 Corinthians 10:13). Reformed scholar, Richard Muller, makes this clear:

Not a few of the proponents and critics of the Reformed doctrine of free choice and divine willing have confused the specifically soteriological determination of the Reformed doctrine of predestination with a “divine determinism of all human actions."

Philip Melanchthon – the great systematic theologian of the Reformation seemed to make it clear that humans can choose one thing or the other (libertarian freedom):

You yourself have experienced that it is in your power to greet or not to greet him, to put on this coat or not put it on, to eat or not to do so . . . . By contrast, internal affections are not in our power.

There is good reason to believe that the original Reformers would reject the idea of EDD that James White and many other Calvinists affirm today. Consider also the words of W. G. T. Shedd (a Reformed systematic theologian), who affirms the sourcehood libertarian freedom (at minimum) of Adam:

In respect to its having no sinful antecedent out of which it is made, sin is origination ex nihilo. Sin is the beginning of something from nothing, and there is this resemblance between it and creation proper. In holy Adam, there was no sinful inclination or corruption that prompted the first transgression. Adam started the wicked inclination itself ex nihilo, by a causative act of self-determination.

Bottom line: If God was surprised by Adam’s “free fall,” then some flavor of Open Theism is true. If God knew Adam would freely fall prior to the foundation of the world – and also predestined it – then Molinism is true! Let me add one more quote from a well-respected 5-Point Calvinist:

The problem with is that without freedom, rationality would have no room to operate. Arguments would not matter, since no one would be able to base beliefs on adequate reasons. One could never judge between a good idea and a bad one. One would only hold beliefs because he had been predetermined to do so . . . Although it is theoretically possible that determinism is true . . . no one could ever know it if it were. Every one of our thoughts, dispositions, and opinions would have been decided for us by factors completely out of our control. Therefore, in practice, arguments for determinism are self-defeating (Greg Koukl, Tactics).

I discuss this in Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism and also in my debate with James White. Indeed, I consider myself to be one who practices Reformed Theology and do not believe there is a contradiction between affirming the libertarian freedom of man and the middle knowledge of an omniscient God.

With that in mind, allow me to address your question. You ask: “If God is certain about what will happen then how are there other possibilities?” The answer is found in a point I made to James White in our debate regarding the biblical support for Molinism. Here's a segment from the transcript: James: There is no libertarian free will involved when God says, “I'm going to put the perpetrator there and the victim there. Tim: Well . . . that's still free in a libertarian sense. James: But God knows what the result’s going to be. So He -- He has decreed it. Tim: But -- knowledge doesn’t stand in causal relation. Let me say that again. Knowledge does not stand in causal relation! There is a break -- look, antecedent conditions, prior conditions, are either sufficient or insufficient to causally necessitate all the effects of the human. James: So God decrees to put people in that position but because it's not causally determined – Tim: There's a break in the causal chain. So therefore, that man who raped the child was responsible – James: But it was absolutely certain to happen when God decreed. Tim: Certainty is not necessity and that's a huge philosophical mistake you’re making. Here's the point, just because God knows – with certainty – what would/will happen (including evil), this does not necessitate it. In the same debate, I offered three definitions of libertarian freedom. None of them entailed the "ability to trick God." What libertarian freedom essentially requires is that "antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally necessitate the agent's choice." And if an agent genuinely has at least two choice options each compatible with his nature at a specific time and place (as is described in scripture on multiple occasions), then we know this person possesses libertarian freedom (even though God knows with certainty how the non-causally determined agent will freely choose). Knowing exactly how a free agent will freely choose does not entail the agent does not freely choose. So, this ultimately comes down to the philosophical difference between certainty and necessity. Although an agent genuinely COULD choose otherwise (nothing is preventing them from doing so), God knows they WOULD not choose otherwise.

You ask, "Was God’s desire to make Moses into a nation a real possibility?"

Yes, nothing prevented or necessitated this from being otherwise. God simply knew that Moses would freely choose to "pray" if He were to create this world, and God chose to answer his prayer. 

You ask, "If so, how so if God knew for certain that God would relent? If before time God used his middle knowledge to know what would happen in that situation, knew how he would respond to Moses, knew for certain Moses would intercede, then how could there have been a genuine possibility?"

God knew the truth-value to the counterfactual that if Moses were not to pray and intercede, then God's wrath would burn hot against them and they would be consumed. So, God is not "disingenuous" in His threat against Israel, even though He was certain that Moses, after hearing this threat from God, would intercede for the Israelites. God chose to answer the prayer of Moses. Indeed, it was His plan prior to the foundations of the world. A plan, God knows with certainty will come to perfect fruition. 

As expressed above, let me reiterate that certainty ought not be confused with necessity. Remember, antecedent conditions are either sufficient or insufficient to causally necessitate all effects (including all choices). If antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally necessitate Moses's choice to pray, then God, although knowing with certainty how Moses would freely choose to pray, does not causally determine and necessitate Moses's choice to pray.

With prayer in mind, consider the words of Kirk MacGregor: 

“Because God middle-knew how each possible individual would freely pray in any set of circumstances, God uses this information providentially to order the world in such a way that at least some of our prayers make a profound difference in the history of the world. As part of the cornucopia of free decisions God makes in his decree to create this world, God decides to respond to some of our prayers in such a way that prayers change the course of the future.”

In this instance, God chose to respond to the non-causally determined and free prayer of Moses. It made a difference in the world, just as your prayers can and do. 

One last thing: consider how silly it is when this passage of scripture is read through the lens of exhaustive divine determinism:

"And the Lord said to Moses, 'I have seen this people, and behold, I have causally determined them to be a stiff-necked people. Now therefore let me alone (although I will causally determine you to not leave me alone), that my wrath may burn hot against them for what I causally determined them to do and I may consume them" (EDDV - Exhaustive Divine Determinism Version).

In summary, we have seen that Reformed theology is not inconsistent with limited libertarian freedom, certainty ought not be conflated with necessity, prayer makes a real difference, and we have witnessed the absurdity of EDD. 

I hope this helps. As far as a resource goes, there is no better book on this topic than William Lane Craig’s The Only Wise God. Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18), Dr. Tim Stratton