Three Denials and the Death of Open Theism: Why Jesus’ Prophecy Demands Middle Knowledge

Recently, a Calvinist philosopher attempted something rather surprising: he came to the defense of Open Theism after I published several articles critiquing the view. This was unexpected, given his usual opposition to any view that affirms libertarian freedom. But in this case, it seems his disdain for Molinism made Open Theism look like the lesser evil.

The context was a discussion of Jesus’ famous prophecy about Peter:

“Truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” (Matthew 26:34)

I had argued that this prophecy presents a serious challenge to Open Theism. Jesus doesn’t speak in vague or probabilistic terms. He doesn’t say, “Peter, you’re trending toward denial,” or “You might deny me somewhere between one and five times.” He says, with divine precision, what will happen—and then it happens, in exactly the way He described.

The Open Theist’s Escape Attempt

While defending Open Theism, this Calvinist suggested that perhaps Jesus could deduce Peter’s forthcoming denial based on the kind of person Peter had freely become. That is, through his past free decisions, Peter had formed a “Jesus-denying nature.” Jesus, then, simply observed the trajectory of Peter’s character and extrapolated the inevitable result.

This move has been used by some libertarians to explain how prior free choices shape the will. But it fails spectacularly as an explanation for Jesus’ foreknowledge in this case. Let’s walk through why.

1. This Redefines Foreknowledge as Estimation

Let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that Peter had developed a cowardly disposition. Even so, if libertarian freedom is true (as Open Theists insist), Peter still retained the genuine ability to do otherwise. He could have taken his thoughts captive. He could have resisted. He could have stood his ground.

This matters because Open Theists reject the idea that future-tensed propositions about libertarian free choices have truth value prior to the agent choosing. On their view, Jesus couldn’t have known what Peter would do—He could only make an educated guess, based on present and past data.

But Jesus didn’t speak in guesswork. He gave a precise, temporally anchored, and numerically exact prophecy:

• The three denials will happen that very night,

• These denials will occur before the rooster crowed,

• And Peter will deny Him exactly three times.

That’s not behavioral analysis. That’s not “tracing.” That’s divine foreknowledge of future free actions.

2. 1st Corinthians 10:13 Is at Stake

Let’s take this philosopher's idea seriously: suppose Peter had freely formed (in a libertarian sense) his will in such a way that his "denial nature" was now instantiated and his denial was determined. What would follow?

It would mean that Peter could not have taken the way of escape. But Scripture says otherwise:

“No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.” (1 Cor. 10:13, NIV)

So if Peter couldn’t have done otherwise, this verse is false. If Peter couldn’t have refrained, then not only does this verse collapse—so does the very concept of moral responsibility. To save Open Theism, this Calvinist philosopher would need to sacrifice Scripture—and that’s not a trade I’m willing to make.

3. What Kind of Nature? A Triple-Denial Nature?

Let’s assume—again, for argument’s sake—that Peter had a freely formed “Jesus-denying nature.” Are we really supposed to believe this nature was formed with such surgical precision that it entailed three denials?

Not one. Not two. Not four. But exactly three?

Count me as incredulous.

That’s not how character works. Character may incline us toward general behavior patterns, but it doesn’t predict frequency under specific circumstances. There’s no psychological profile that guarantees a triple betrayal spaced out across one short timespan. Even if Peter had a strong propensity to fold under pressure, no theory of character formation entails exact numeric inevitabilities under libertarian conditions.

So the question remains: how could Jesus know Peter would deny Him specifically three times?

4. Multiple Free Agents Were Involved

And this isn’t just about predicting one person (Peter)—it’s about coordinating a network of interacting free agents, all behaving freely in a time-locked sequence. That is to say, for Jesus’ prophecy to be fulfilled, other people had to freely act in certain ways as well:

• A servant girl had to recognize Peter and confront him,

• Bystanders had to pressure him multiple times,

• Peter had to walk into just the right places where each of these individuals would also freely congregate.

Jesus didn’t merely predict Peter’s actions—He predicted a complex sequence of interactions involving multiple libertarian agents, none of whom were determined, and all of whom could have done otherwise.

Unless, of course, the Open Theist wants to join the Calvinist and affirm that God determines all of these things. But then why bother rejecting determinism in the first place?

That level of knowledge can’t be gained through behavioral observation or character study. It’s middle knowledge—God’s knowledge of what free creatures would do in any possible set of circumstances.

5. This Was Prophesied Centuries Earlier

If Jesus’ prophecy was just a real-time deduction, what do we make of similar prophetic details found in Isaiah or the Psalms? To be clear, we are not just talking about Jesus’ foreknowledge in real time. Peter’s denial wasn’t merely predicted the night before—it was embedded in Old Testament prophecy about the execution of the Messiah, centuries before any of the people involved were born.

There was no character trajectory to trace. No observable patterns. No behaviors to analyze. Just a divine declaration grounded in… what?

Open Theism has no answer. If there are no true propositions about future libertarian choices, then Isaiah’s prophecy is either false or based upon fantastic luck. But Scripture does not present it as a gamble. It presents it as divinely revealed certainty that we can always count on.

It's what the Old Testament uses to separate the one Maximally Great Being from any other false gods (who are surely smart enough to make predictions like humans do).

6. The Grounding Problem Returns

So let’s pose the ultimate question: on what basis could God know Peter’s triple denial, the free choices of the bystanders, and the timing of the rooster—all culminating in the betrayal of the Messiah, prophesied centuries beforehand?

It wasn’t determined (as in Calvinism). It wasn’t an educated guess (as in Open Theism). It wasn’t deduced—certainly not from behavioral data that didn’t yet exist, and certainly not with the precision required to identify free actions involving multiple agents.

The answer is simple: middle knowledge.

God knows all true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. He knows, prior to His creative decree, what any creature would freely do in any circumstance. That’s how He could infallibly prophesy Peter’s three denials, Judas's betrayal for thirty pieces of silver, and the entire book of Revelation without eliminating libertarian freedom or resorting to determinism.

Final Thought

To my Calvinist friends: if fleeing Molinism leads you into the arms of Open Theism, perhaps it’s time to reconsider the enemy.

The denial of middle knowledge doesn’t lead to a stronger theology—it leads to theological absurdities. And Peter’s triple denial, far from being an embarrassing problem for Molinism, turns out to be a striking confirmation of it.

Bottom line: If Open Theism is true, then the Bible doesn’t mean what it plainly says.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton