The Broken Three-Legged Stool of Arminianism

 

To my mind, if Arminianism were to have any theological credibility, that credibility depends on three legs or strands of thought. These are the following:

• That prevenient grace exists 
• That human beings have libertarian free will
• That part of God's sovereignty involved giving up some sovereignty to give human beings the power to make important decisions according to their libertarian free will.

If any one of these three legs is broken, the Arminian stool is unstable. In my opinion all three legs fail biblically and theologically. 

For any readers unsure of what some of these key terms mean, I have linked to definitions on their first occurence in this piece.

Now, let's look at why each leg of the three-legged stool fails biblically and theologically.

The Myth of Prevenient Grace

The first leg of the stool is that there is such a thing as prevenient grace in the Arminian sense. This is very necessary for Arminians because all evangelical Christians must acknowledge that fallen human beings are unable to come to faith in Christ without divine help. Such are the effects of sin on us. Indeed reputable Arminians, just like Calvinists, acknowledge the truth of total depravity—that every part of us, mind, body, emotions, thoughts and will, are all corrupted by sin.

 Many verses allude to the truth of human inability. Here are a few:

• "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Romans 3:10-12)
• "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:7-8)
• "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:1-3)
• "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)
• "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." (John 6:44a)
• "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5)
• "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21)   
• "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
• "No one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:3) 

Given this, how do we explain those who do come to saving faith and are seeking God and desiring to do good? The Calvinist has a simple answer—God's irresistible grace operating on the elect. In this sense the idea of prevenient or enabling grace is obviously true and necessary. God's grace must operate on the sinner before he or she can come to saving faith. The Calvinist acknowledges this obviously, but sees this as applying only to the elect, in whom such grace is always and irresistibly saving.

But the Arminian has a problem. How does the Arminian attempt to explain how anyone comes to faith given their view that what God wants and does for believers is the same as what he does for unbelievers? And there is no distinction as far as God's attitudes and actions go between how he acts on the elect and the non-elect (in Arminian terms between how he acts for those who believe and those who don't).

The Arminian answer is the concept of "prevenient grace"—a grace of God that applies to everyone, overcomes man's hostility and deadness in sin, and enables anyone to come to faith in Christ or reject Christ.

The question is where is a concept of a grace of God that overcomes sinfulness and enables everyone to believe or not as they will?

The biblical evidence for such a massively important doctrine for the whole Arminian system is scant at best. Simply put, there are no verses that clearly teach such a doctrine as Arminian prevenient grace. There are no verses that combined clearly teach it either. At best—I repeat, at best—there are a handful of verses that might, if read in a certain way, perhaps point to something like prevenient grace, but in no case do those verse have to be read that way and I would argue are better read in other ways.

Let's look at those verses now.

Some Arminians cite John 6:44, which we've already looked at: ""No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." (John 6:44a).

This verse cannot mean what Arminian prevenient grace needs it to mean, for the whole verse reads: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

The grace operating here to enable a sinner to come is saving and effectual. All to whom it applies are raised up on the last day (clearly in context raised to salvation) and so this grace does not apply to those who reject it.

Other verses:

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people" (Titus 2:11)

In context this clearly means "all kinds of people" and not everyone without exception who ever lived. If it meant that, the verse teaches universalism in salvation and not just prevenient grace. The whole passage in Titus 2:1-11 talks about various different groups of people and this is a much more natural reading of verse 11.

"The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world." (John 1:9)

Although possibly the strongest support that can be drummed up for prevenient grace, this verse does not mention grace at all. The Arminian interpretation requires the words "which enlightens everyone" to be considerably expanded to mean "a would-be saving grace that undoes total depravity and enables everyone to respond positively to the gospel".

What the verse actually refers to is "enlightening" or bringing light to everyone. This can equally well simply mean bring the light of truth and the light of judgment to humanity's dark deeds of sin. Given the context and the following verses about Christ being rejected as opposed to accepted because of this enlightening, it seems a massive stretch to draw the whole Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace from this verse.

"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (John 12:32).

Another verse Arminians latch onto as supposedly teaching their concept of prevenient grace. I would suggest that "all people" or "all men" here is not referring to everyone without exception, but everyone without distinction as is common in John's writings. Here Jesus is saying that while in his earthly ministry his mission was within the Jewish nation, after his death and resurrection, his mission will expand to include every nation—"all people".

Obviously the Calvinist vs Arminian debate has been raging for nearly 400 years and this post is not going to resolve it. But in my view, the first leg of the Arminian stool rests on very little biblical evidence and I consider it broken because the Bible does not teach prevenient grace in the Arminian sense anywhere.

The Myth of Libertarian Free Will

The second leg that Arminianism depends on is libertarian free will.

A reasonable definition of libertarian free will is the human being's power to choose between more than one possibility in any situation in which such freedom pertains. It means that where libertarian free will exists, and a choice is before a person, all the antecedent factors are insufficient to determine the choice that will be made. In other words, when a person is faced with the choice to do A or not to do A (A can be any action), everything in that person—his character, his desires, his needs, his history, his genetics, his past and current environments, none of that is sufficient to account for whether the person will choose A or not-A.

This is in contrast with what is called compatibilist free will in Reformed theology. According to compatibilist free will, we are free if our choice is (a) what we want to do, (b) not forced or coerced by anything external to us, and (c) could have been otherwise if we had wanted to do otherwise. However, note that compatibilist free will acknowledges that our will (which Jonathan Edwards defined as "the mind choosing") is according to our strongest desire in any given situation. Most importantly, compatibilist free will recognises that many factors, such as character, needs, history, environment, genetics, and so forth, form a matrix according to which our strongest desire in any situation can be arrived at by a combination of all these factors.

To put it more simply, according to compatibilist free will, our free choices are compatible with God's decree because he is able to control the many factors that lead to what our strongest desire will be in any situation and upon the basis of which we will make our choices. But libertarian free will denies this. 

Essentially, since no prior factor or combination of factors can lead to a person having a desire that determines their free choice, libertarian free will ends up being unable to explain why a person chooses option A over option B at all. In fact, libertarian free will requires that exactly the same facts and factors that led a person to choose option A could just as easily have preceded the person choosing option B. The choice ultimately ends up being not because of anything, but because the person chose it, with no decisive explanatory reason. Otherwise, according to libertarians, the choice was not free. This in itself is problematic.

More significantly though, from a theological and biblical point of view, if we have libertarian free will, not even God can determine what our choices will be. Once he gives the gift of libertarian freedom, he simply has to accept what we choose. He can warn, threaten, persuade, woo, entice, and so forth, but he cannot make us do anything he decrees us to do, at least not if the choice is to be regarded as a free choice, or a choice made according to our free will.

The question we must ask is whether this is how the Bible speaks of human choices or not? Certainly, the Bible is full of  people being given choices and making choices. That much can scarcely be disputed:

• Perhaps most significantly for humanity, Adam and Eve in the Garden were given the choice of obedience or disobedience in eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2-3) and chose disobedience.
• "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them." (Deuteronomy 30:19-20)
• "Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:14-15)
• " No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." (1 Corinthians 10:13)

The problem is that whenever the Bible mentions choices or decisions or options, the Arminians sees this as proving libertarian free will, but it does no such thing. All it shows is that people make choices, real choices. In no way do any of these passages mean that the choices cannot be determined by prior factors as in compatibilist free will.

More important for libertarian free will is the fact that on a number of occasions the Bible is clear that people's free choices (free in the compatibilist sense of doing what we want to do) can be determined by God as to how the choices should go. This is perfectly in line with compatibilist free will but devastating to the concept of libertarian free will. 

Consider the following verses, each easily explained on compatibilist free will principles and impossible from a libertarian free will standpoint (except perhaps in Molinism where God uses foreknowledge to control libertarian free choices). The problems with Molinism I have addressed before here and here. Our present discussion concerns Arminianism as a whole.

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." (Genesis 50:20)

Here it is clear that though Joseph's brothers had evil intent towards him in selling him into slavery—and that choice was obviously freely made by them—nevertheless, they were carrying out the very purpose and intention of God which would ultimately lead to Joseph coming to power in Egypt and even saving the very brothers who had acted against him.

"And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians; and when you go, you shall not go empty, but each woman shall ask of her neighbour, and any woman who lives in her house, for silver and gold jewellery, and for clothing. You shall put them on your sons and on your daughters. So you shall plunder the Egyptians." (Exodus 3:21-22)

Another passage that points strongly towards comptaibilist free will. It seems clear enough that the Egyptian women gave gifts to the Israelite woman freely. But it could not have been libertarian free will because God says that he "will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians." He is able to ensure the Egyptians will have a favourable attitude, yet act freely. This is precisely what compatibilist free will allows for, but libertarian free will could not guarantee.

"But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day." (Deuteronomy 2:30)

Here instead of making someone willing to do something, God makes someone's heart obstinate. Yet Sihon was in no sense coerced. He did what he wanted to do, which was at the same time, what God wanted him to do. 

"And they kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days with joy, for the Lord had made them joyful and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel." (Ezra 6:22)

In this verse, not only does it say the Lord made his people joyful, but that he was able to "turn the heart of the king of Assyria". This is not something God is supposed to be able to do according to libertarian free will. 

"A man’s heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps." (Proverbs 16:9, NKJV).

"The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will." (Proverbs 21:1)

These two verses from Proverbs both indicate God ability to direct and turn our plans and decisions to what he wants us to do, even in the case of the king—the most powerful man in a nation in the ancient world.

"This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." (Acts 2:23) 

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." (Acts 4:27-28) 

Finally, we look at these two verses in Acts concerning the crucifixion of Jesus. Both verses make the point that the crucifixion took place according to God's plan and purpose, yet those human agents involved in it—the Jewish authorities, the Romans, Pilate and Herod—all acted to do what they wanted and are responsible for their wicked and lawless deeds. 

The point is made. Scripture clearly teaches that human beings act freely when they do what they want to do, and yet God is able to control human desires in order to achieve his own purposes. 

The fact is that God operates at a higher level than anything within the created order. He is able to exercise his sovereignty not just to influence but to determine human choices and actions that, nevertheless, remain free. Given this, the concept of libertarian free will, in which human beings act autonomously, outside of divine control must be adjudged unbiblical. Accordingly, the bedrock doctrine of Arminianism, that human beings have libertarian free will is likewise unbiblical and so two legs of the Arminian stool are either broken or mere human fancies.

The Myth That God's Gives Up Sovereignty to Human Choices

The third leg that Arminianism requires is this idea that though it is acknowledged that God is sovereign, apparently he has sovereignly decided to give up being sovereign over certain things and placed them under the control of human free will.

This is one of the cleverest and most necessary moves that Arminian theologian have to make. The biblical evidence for God's sovereignty and ability to do whatever he desires and pleases to do is overwhelming.

A. W. Tozer famously wrote in The Knowledge of the Holy: 

God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so. 

Although this is a clever argument, there is a huge problem with it. Despite how it sounds, this is actually a denial of God's sovereignty as understood by the biblical authors. Can you really imagine Isaiah or Paul accepting that God can somehow give up the very sovereignty that makes him the God of the Bible?

"For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose." (Isaiah 46:9-10)

"For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever. Amen." (Romans 11:36) 

No, this is a desperation move by the Arminians and it fails for lack of biblical evidence.  The Bible nowhere states that God uses his sovereignty in this way, to effectively give up his own sovereignty to the creature.

Given what the Bible does clearly state about how human free choices and human responsibility are compatible with God's sovereign control over all things, this last leg of the Arminian stool simply cannot bear the weight that would need to be placed on it. After all, God "works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11), including the free choices of human beings, for which we will ultimately be held responsible.

The Arminian stool is thus left without any legs and I would argue therefore must be rejected by anyone seeking to be guided by Scripture alone and in total (sola scriptura and tota scriptura) and not by human tradition or philosophy. 

21 Misunderstandings of Calvinism by Sam Waldron

This is an excellent resource that in short, sharp focus manages to destroy 21 common misunderstandings regarding Reformed theology.  

21 Misunderstandings of Calvinism | Sam Waldron

Warmly recommended. 

A Calvinist Exegesis of 2 Peter 2:1

This paper seeks to exegete a single verse in Peter’s Second Epistle, namely 2 Peter 2:1. This verse presents, on the face of it, a difficulty for the Calvinist doctrine of particular redemption.[1] The difficulty, in essence, is that the verse seems to indicate, according to one interpretation, that Christ’s atonement was on behalf of people who are not truly Christians, and therefore by implication, his atonement must be on behalf of every person—all without exception.

We Calvinists understand the Scriptures, as a whole, to teach that Christ’s death was intended only to save the elect and so Christ did not die to redeem (or buy) the non-elect, such as the false teachers whom Peter mentions.

Issues of Translation and Meaning

 Let us begin by looking at the verse in question. Although the verse presents difficulties of interpretation, it does not present any real significant translation issues. The main English translations, across the theological spectrum, all translate the verse in a similar way. Here is a list of ten translations and their publication years, ranging from 1611 to 2017.

 

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (KJV – 1611)

 

But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (ASV - 1901)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (RSV – 1971)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. (NRSV – 1989)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (NASB – 1995)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (ESV - 2001)

 

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves. (NIV – 2011)

 

But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them. In this way, they will bring sudden destruction on themselves. (NLT - 2015)

 

There were indeed false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves. (CSB - 2017)[2]

 

As can be seen, the translations are all very similar, particularly in the key words found in the middle of the verse, which are essentially this: ‘even denying the Master/Lord/Sovereign Lord that/who bought them.’ Within this phrase, the two important words are the noun that most translations render ‘Master’ and the verb that all the translations render ‘bought.’

We begin by looking at these two words important words.

‘Master’ or ‘Lord’ or ‘Sovereign’ is a translation of the Greek word δεσπότης (despotés). It is the root of the English words ‘despot’ and ‘despotism.’ It carries the connotation of an absolute ruler or sovereign, having power without limitations or restraints, Let us begin by looking at the verse in question.  though without necessarily having a negative connotation (unlike the English word).

The word is not very common in the New Testament, occurring just ten times, both as a singular and a plural. The meaning is not really in dispute in any of the occurrences. Slightly more open for discussion is who Peter is referring to as ‘Master’ or ‘Lord.’

The word was used to refer to a human master, i.e. an owner of slaves, though this meaning is rare in the New Testament. Or the word may refer to either God (the Father) or Christ the Son.

Of the other nine occurrences, the word refers to God or God the Father in four places (Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, 2 Timothy 2:21, Revelation 6:10), to human masters in four places (1 Timothy 6:1 and 6:2, Titus 2:9 and 1 Peter 2:18), and to Christ in one place (Jude 4).

Therefore, there is nothing inherent in the word that must mean Christ in 2 Peter 2:1. However, given that Jude 4 is probably the most important other reference, due to the close parallels between 2 Peter and Jude, this gives at least an indication that ‘Master’ in 2 Peter 2:1 may well refer to Christ himself.

The verse in Jude 4 reads: ‘For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ’ (ESV).

From the context, it is not certain whether Peter had in mind God the Father or Christ the Son as the ‘Master’ in this verse. We keep an open mind on that, but to make our task as difficult as possible from a Calvinist perspective, let us assume—in line with the Jude parallel—that Master means Christ here.

The second translational issue concerns the word ‘bought’ which is the Greek word ἀγοράσαντα (agorasanta), meaning indeed ‘having bought.’ It is an active aorist participle grammatically. It comes from the common verb ἀγοράζω (agorazo), to buy or purchase.  There can be no objection to the common English translations. It stems from the word for marketplace and from a person who goes to the marketplace.

A final brief word about the word ‘deny’ which is what these false teachers are said to do with their Master. The word is ἀρνούμενο (arnoumenoi), which is found in this form only here and in Jude 4 in the New Testament, but other forms of the verb are found at Matthew 10:33, Matthew 26:70 and 72, Mark 14:70, Luke 8:45 and Acts 3:14 among others. There is no dispute the word means ‘to deny’ or ‘to disown’ something or someone.

In terms of translation and meaning, therefore, the key phrase is relatively straightforward. The false teachers whom Peter identifies are said to ‘deny the Master who bought them.’

There is no dispute about the key phrase says. The issues, as we shall see, concern how we interpret this phrase.

Interpreting the Key Phrase

 We begin to explore the interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 agreed on what the verse says and how it should be translated. The ESV rendering is a good representative and is our starting point:

 There will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

 The meaning of the text seems clear enough. Peter says that the church will experience false teachers within its midst, similar to the way that false prophets plagued the people of Israel in the Old Testament. These false teachers will bring in ‘destructive heresies’ and they will even deny the Master who bought them. That much is clear.

Assuming the Master is Christ, then the false teachers will in one way or another deny Christ. Perhaps they will deny his deity, perhaps his full humanity, perhaps some aspect of his atoning death or his resurrection. Most Christians would have no issue with understanding that there may be false teachers in the church who will deny important truths about Christ.

The question really concerns the meaning of the words ‘who bought them.’ What does it mean that Christ somehow ‘bought’ these false teachers.

For Arminians and others who affirm a universal atonement, there is no difficulty. For them, Christ died with the intention of saving all, the false teachers as much as the true believers within the church. The little phrase ‘who bought them’ would simply mean that even though Christ died to save them, they denied him.

Calvinists, who maintain the doctrine of limited atonement or particular redemption, cannot interpret the verse this way. In our view, the intention of the atonement was to save God’s elect and according to our view the atonement is entirely effective in its intent. In other words, all those for whom Christ died to save are saved by him.

It is not our aim in this article to argue for the doctrine of limited atonement. The resources arguing for the truth of this doctrine are many and thorough.[3] Instead, for our purposes, we are going to assume its truth and then show why 2 Peter 2:1 presents a problem uniquely for Calvinism and offer a solution to that problem.

The apparent difficulty is obvious. If Christ’s death was a definite atonement (or particular redemption) made for the elect—those chosen for salvation and who are actually saved—then why would Peter talk about these false teachers denying the Master who bought them? The verse is clear that the end of these false teachers is not salvation, but rather ‘destruction,’ a form of the noun ἀπώλεια (apólia), which means in this context spiritual or eternal destruction, ruin or loss.

In essence, the interpretative difficulty boils down to this: if Christ died only with the intention of saving the elect, and the atonement is always successful in its divine intent, how can Peter say that Christ ‘bought’ these false teachers if their fate is ‘swift destruction’?

The advocates of unlimited or universal atonement do not only find this verse easily comprehensible according to their view, but use the verse to argue against definite or limited atonement.

How does the Calvinist respond?

As we have seen, the meaning and interpretation of most of the verse is simple. These false teachers are not ultimately saved, but rather will be destroyed. And they deny the Master, whom we accept likely refers to the Lord Jesus Christ himself. The only real room for interpretative variation concerns the meaning of ‘bought’ in this verse. Does it refer to the atoning death of Christ and if so in what sense can Christ be said to have ‘bought’ these false teachers who are not saved? Or does ‘bought’ have some other meaning here that is plausible?

Based on the understanding that Christ’s atonement was specifically and definitely made with the intention of saving only the elect, Peter saying the false teachers were ‘bought’ must either refer to the atonement in some other way than that Christ died with the intention of saving these false teachers or must refer to ‘bought’ in some sense other than the atonement altogether.

This, we find are the precise lines of argument that Calvinists have indeed taken on the interpretation of this verse.

In precise form we find the verb participle ‘having bought’ in this verse, there are no other occurrences in the New Testament. Apart from the verse in question, there are some 29 other occurrences of the verb in various forms in the New Testament. Of these, 23 are instances where buy or bought is used in connection with the ordinary purchase of goods, land or services.[4] More significantly for our purposes, a further six occurrences relate to redemption or the atonement. The following are all the relevant verses with the key words marked in bold:

 

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,  for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.’ (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, ESV)

 

You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. (1 Corinthians 7:23, ESV)

 

I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. (Revelation 3:18, ESV)

 

And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.’ (Revelation 5:9-10, ESV)

 

And they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-4, ESV)

 

These verses are instructive in their way but do not settle the matter of interpreting 2 Peter 2:1. The two instances in 1 Corinthians clearly refer to the atonement, but as they seem to refer to those saved by it, they cast no light on the verse in question. The same can be said of three of the instances in Revelation 5 and 14. The verse in Revelation 3:18 falls neither under the verses referring to the atonement nor the larger group referring to normal purchases. In that verse, Christ himself speaks to the church at Laodicea to buy (metaphorically) from Christ what they need. Again, the verse does little to help our discussion.

In no other verse does ‘buy’ or ‘bought’ refer to individuals or groups that are not saved. Therefore, they cannot settle the matter of the use of ‘bought’ in 2 Peter 2:1.

Given the evidence in favour of limited or definite atonement, what could ‘bought’ mean in this verse then? If indeed the atonement is intended to be effectual only for the salvation of the elect, in what sense can Christ be said to have ‘bought’ the false teachers who are destined for swift destruction?

There are three main Reformed interpretations of this verse that seek to interpret it in a manner that harmonises with the truth of particular redemption.

The first interpretation, advocated by many Reformed theologians,[5] is that ‘bought’ may refer to the external and apparent ‘redemption’ of the visible church, of which the false   were a part, though not a part of the saved elect of God. In this view, by being outwardly part of the people of God, even these false teachers could be said to have been ‘bought’ by their association with the church, though not truly a part of it. They may even have received certain covenant blessings as being in outward covenant with God’s people, though not the blessing of salvation.

This view is supported by verses in the Old Testament, which speak of God having redeemed or bought Israel as a nation, even though the nation contained both believers and unbelieving Jews.[6]

The second interpretation regards ‘Master’ as referencing God the Father rather than Christ.[7] The basis for this view is that despotes more often refers to the Father than it does to Christ (see Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24). In this view, the ‘bought’ refers to God’s deliverance of his people, again of whom the false teachers professed to be a part. The nation of Israel was said to be delivered or redeemed from slavery in Egypt, even though the nation included non-believers. Despite the pedigree of the exegetes who have taken this view, I do not consider it a convincing argument, particularly since the close parallel in Jude 4 clearly refers to Christ and not the Father.

The third interpretation sees ‘bought’ as applying to the professed faith of the false teachers.[8] It is as if Peter in a sense grants the false teachers profession. If they had believed in Christ, he would indeed have bought them and saved them. It is as if he is being ironic here. The false teachers deny the very Master they claimed had bought them.

Both interpretations one and three are similar and there is considerable overlap between them, in that Peter’s description applies to the outward profession and the visible church membership of these false teachers, rather than their true state before God, which was outside of salvation and heading for destruction in hell. It is no different to any preacher addressing a church congregation as the redeemed and saved, even though there may be false professors within the congregation.

Whether we take a pure form of interpretation one or three, or a blend of both, the important point is that it is perfectly consistent with the text to argue that Peter here is merely referring to matters from the point of view of outward covenant membership and profession of faith and not regarding the effectual, substitutionary redemption that only the actual elect enjoy.

This is not a case of special pleading for 2 Peter 2:1. In fact, throughout the Scriptures, there are numerous examples of places where the whole nation of Israel is spoken of as though they were God’s covenant people who enjoy salvation, even though the nation contained many unbelievers and only a faithful remnant.

Relevant verses include Deuteronomy 7:6-8 and Exodus 19:5-6 which speak of the whole nation being a ‘chosen people’ and ‘holy nation’ and as those ‘redeemed’ from Egypt, even though many were not truly in a saving relationship with God. The principle is that it is possible to be spoken of as ‘redeemed’ and ‘holy’ through outward covenant membership while remaining spiritually unregenerate.

Likewise, the covenant sign of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14) marked out a Jewish male as being in covenant with God, yet the Bible is clear that not all who are outward Israelites truly belong to God’s true Israel (Romans 2:28-29 and Romans 9:6-8).

In the New Testament, the same broad principle of a distinction between outward appearance and inward reality persists. The case of Judas Iscariot is significant in that Jesus chose him to be as apostle and appointed him with the others in the Twelve to mission, yet Judas was never saved (see Matthew 10:1-8 and compare John 6:70-71).

Also, in Jesus’ Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, both believers and non-believers are shown to co-exist in the visible or outward manifestation of the kingdom (Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43).

The distinction between the outward or visible church consisting of all who profess the faith (and also their children) and the invisible church consisting of the elect only is taught in the Reformed confessions, including the Westminster Confession chapter 25.

To conclude, therefore, 2 Peter 2:1 does not require the abandonment of the doctrine of definite or limited atonement. It is fully consistent in the Reformed faith to speak of false professors of faith as being part of the visible church, the redeemed community, and so in that sense ‘bought’ by Christ, while acknowledging that they are part of the invisible church, the elect, or actually redeemed by Christ.

 

---

[1] Particular redemption is also frequently called ‘limited atonement’ or ‘definite atonement’ in Reformed theology, but the

[2] The translations are the following: KJV is the King James (or Authorised Version), ASV is the American Standard Version, RSV is the Revised Standard Version, NRSV is the New Revised Standard Version, NASB is the New American Standard Bible, ESV is the English Standard Version, NIV is the New International Version, NLT is the New Living Translation, and CSB is the Christian Standard Bible.

[3] Some works arguing for the truth of limited atonement include classic works such as The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen, For Whom Did Christ Die? by R. B. Kuiper, and The Potter’s Freedom by James White. The most comprehensive large-scale work on the subject is From Heaven He Came and Sought Her edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson. In addition to these, any work on the Five Points of Calvinism including those by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, Edwin H. Palmer, W. J. Seaton, Robert Lewis Dabney, or John Piper. The relevant chapters of any Reformed systematic theology text such as those by Francis Turretin, Charles Hodge, Robert Lewis Dabney, W. G. T. Shedd, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, Wayne Grudem, John Frame, Robert Letham or Robert Reymond also cover the subject.

[4] These include: Matthew 13:44 and 46; Matthew 14:15; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 25:9 and 10; Matthew 27:7; Mark 6:36 and 37; Mark 11:15; Mark 15:46; Mark 16:1; Luke 9:13; Luke 14:18 and 19; Luke 17:28; Luke 22:36; John 4:8; John 6:5; John 13:29; 1 Corinthians 7:30; Revelation 13:17; Revelation 18:11.

[5] This is the view put forward by John Owen and John Gill among others.

[6] See Exodus 15:16, Deuteronomy 32:5. Also see Romans 9:6.

[7] This is the view of John Murray and Robert Reymond among others.

[8] This is the view of John Calvin and Francis Turretin among others.

Amyraldianism, Marrow Theology and Free Offer of the Gospel

I think it was the Princeton theologian, A. A. Hodge, who said that the free offer of the gospel was the point where the opponents of Calvinism have rightly focused their main attack. 

The reason for this is obvious. The distinctive of Reformed theology is particularism. Reformed theology teaches that God chooses some people for salvation, not everyone (unconditional election), that Christ died with the intention of saving only the elect and not everyone (limited atonement/particular redemption), and that God irresistibly or effectually calls only some by his grace to receive saving faith.

The problem with this particularism, true to Scripture though it is, is that it would seem to be in conflict with other Scriptures that teach that, at a minimum, the gospel call is to be made to all indiscriminately—elect and non-elect alike, and that there would seem to be some sense in which God wishes or desires everyone to heed the gospel invitiation and be saved.

This apparent tension has been addressed in numerous ways by theologians.

The Arminians address it by denying the Reformed truths of unconditional election, particular redemption and irresistible grace and thereby fall outside the sphere of Reformed theology. Since they maintain a sincere gospel offer to all, they conclude that there is no sovereign decree choosing some for salvation and not others, that Christ's death was an attempted atonement for everyone, and that God's grace tries to draw all the salvation. The definining element between the saved and the lost therefore becomes the human free will, the choice to believe or not.

At the other extreme, Hyper-Calvinism, addresses the tension by denying that the free offer of the gospel is for all, elect and non-elect alike. Instead, in one way or another, the Hyper-Calvinist restricts the gospel offer to the elect only.

Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism are the most extreme ways of meeting the apparent tension between Reformed theology's particularism of salvation for the elect alone and a free offer of the gospel for everyone. In a sense, both are rationalistic solutions to the apparent inconsistency of insising that both are true. They solve the "problem" by denying one side or the other in the tension.

Within the broad sweep of Reformed theology, there have been other attempts to explain or handle this tension. Two are of special interest, and in this author's view, one is deeply problematic, while the other is in harmony with the Reformed confessions.

Amyraldianism 

Amyraldianism is a deformed type of Reformed theology, named after a French theologian, Moise Amyraut, who taught at Saumur in the 17th century. Sometimes misleadingly called "Four Point Calvinism," Amyraldianism attempts to "soften" Reformed orthodoxy in the doctrines of unconditional election and especially particular redemption. 

First, as regards the doctirne of God's decree, Amyraldians suggest that there is a twofold aspect to the decree, whereby God first decreed hypothetically to save everyone without exception on the condition of faith in Christ, then recognising this would actually save none, God decreed to save the elect unconditionally or absolutely.

Second, Amyraldians hold to an unlimited atonement (i.e. that Christ's death was intended to make a universal provision for the salvation of all (in accord with the first decree) and it is only the application of salvation that is for the elect. 

Obviously, this view is at odds with orthodox Reformed theology, although it does hold to a form of uncondtional electon by adding a former conditional decree to save all and making the atonement universal. 

Amyraldianism is a kind of unstable half-way house between Calvinism and Arminianism and contrary to the Westminster Confession and the Canons of Dort, which know nothing of a hypothetical decree to save all and teach that Christ's death was intended only to save the elect.

The seeming rationale behind Amyraldianism is to make a genuine free offer of salvation possible to all because the atonement is viewed as made by Christ for all without exception. But as we will see, it is perfectly possible to hold to particular redemption and make a full and free offer of the gospel to sinners, as the Marrow Men demonstrated in Scotland in the 18th century.

Marrow Theology 

The famous Marrow Controversy in the Church of Scotland of the early 18th century touches on some of the same issues in theology. Named after a Purtian book, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (1645) by Edward Fisher, it split theological opinion in the Scottish Presbyterian church. From my perspective, I would tend to side with the Marrow Men and against their opponents. 

They were right to oppose the legalism and preparationism found in the Church of Scotland of the day. They were right to insist on the distinction between law and gospel. And they were right to preach the free offer of the gospel to all sinners. They did so while remaining orthodox, five point Calvinists.

However, the Marrow theology did introduce what A. A. Hodge termed some 'novelties' into Reformed theology and these are not beyond criticism. In particular, the Marrow theology can be said to have introduced a kind of twofold reference in the atonement, making it both a general gift to all humanity as well as particular gift to save only the elect. Such confusion is not helpful and could be seen as watering down the particularism of Dort and the Westminster Confession. 

The Marrow approach to the free offer in Fisher's book, later endorsed by the likes of Thomas Boston and the Erskine brothers, can be summarised in two well-known phrases in the Marrow that I would focus on in this regard. Fisher wrote:

The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind, that whosoever of them all shall believe in his Son shall not perish, but have eternal life.

The Marrow Men and Fisher used John 3:16 to support this view. Most Reformed theologians prior to this viewed the love of God in John 3:16 has God's saving love, lavished only on God's elect. The Marrow Men instead saw the love God is said to have for the world as being less than the saving, electing love that leads to the savlation of all the elect. The Marrow Men saw instead that the love of John 3:16 was genuinely for all sinners, and the giving of Christ was as God's appointed Saviour for mankind, offered to all who believe. 

A similar view, that the love of God for the world in John 3:16 extends to everyone, would appear to be the majority view among contemporary Reformed theologians. 

The old view, of the likes of John Owen and Francis Turretin that the 'world' in John 3:16 means Gentiles and Jews—everyone without distinction rather than everyone without exception, and with some kind of reference to the elect of all nations—now appears to be the minority view among Calvinists. 

Along similar lines is the second famous (or infamous) quotation from the Marrow:

Go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him, Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him, and accept of his righteousness, he shall have him.

The Marrow Men believed in particular redemption, that Christ died with the intention of saving only the elect. Yet alongside this, they accepted the rather strange language (not found in Scripture) that Christ is dead for all sinners who hear the gospel. So Christ did not die for all, but Christ is dead for all, by which they meant that not only was the message of Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2) was to be preached to all sinners in the free offer, but that God has a non-saving kind of love in the realm of salvation for al sinners without exception.

As with the "deed of gift and grant" language, it seems clear—at least in Boston's reading of the Marrow that the phrase means no more than that when the gospel offer is preached, the question is not whether a person is elect so that they know if the atonement was made for them, but rather that they know they are a sinner and that if they come to faith in Christ they will be saved no matter what they have done. That's what was meant by "Christ is dead" for sinners.

The trouble is that the Marrow theology comes perilously close to a kind of Amyralianism of its own. In other words, in teaching that there is in the gift of Christ for the world a divine intent (albeit a non-efficacious intent) not merely to save elect sinners, but to save all sinners.

In is excellent work on The Atonement, A. A. Hodge was critical of these aspects of the Marrow Men's theology. He found fault in what he calls a "double reference" in the Marrow doctrine of the atonement. Some of the language used in the Fisher's book can only be called misleading at best and simply in error at worst. Here I'm thinking of a phrase used that "Christ has taken upon himself the sins of all men". As a Calvinist, I do not believe that is true. While it is true that the atonement was of infinite value and sufficient to atone for all the sins of all humanity, it is also true, as the Westminster Confessions teaches that "Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only" (WCF 3.6).

Hodge was also critical of some of the terminology used. Although accepting that Thomas Boston and the other leading Marrow Men stayed within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy, Hodge was also clear that some of the Marrow language was not helpful or felicitous.

He wrote: "All their forms of expression were confused and their laborious distinctions utterly profitless. What is the significancy of making a special head of that 'giving love' which makes an actual grant of salvation upon conditions known to be absolutely impossible, and which makes no provision for its application, and which never intended the salvation of its objects?"

Quite.

He continues: "What real idea is signalized by the verbal distinction between the bona fide offer of the gospel to all, and the "Deed of Gift" of Christ upon which it is said to rest? What is the virtue of a 'Deed of Gift or Grant' which actually conveys nothing, and which was eternally intended to convey nothing?"

Indeed, we cannot disagree with Hodge here, nor when he maintains that God's "giving love" is "that highest and most wonderful form of love which 'spared not his own Son' [Romans 8:32] and not merely a kind of general benevolence towards the whole of humanity, even those destined not to be saved.

Hodge calls consistent Calvinists to reject any kind of double reference in the atonement, a general atonement for all on condition of faith, and a particular atonement for the elect. He recommends rejecting such "novelties" including these elements of the Marrow language.

The Free Offer of the Gospel

The final question then is what is the correct approach in Reformed theology, to warrant the full and free offer of the the gospel to all sinners? If it does not proceed from Amyralianism's hypothetical universalism nor from Marrow theology's universal deed of gift and grant of Christ to all?

The answer is that the free offer depends not on a universal atonement in one sense or the other, but on the sufficiency of the atonement, on the suitability of the atonement perfectly adapted for all sinners, on God's command and invitation expressed in the gospel offer, and in the promise made to all hearers of the gospel that if they believe in Jesus Christ they will be saved. To this we can safely add the comfort and encouragement that it is God's revealed will that he does not delight in the death of sinners, but rather desires that they would turn to him and live.

None of these require us to abandon or blur the teaching that on the cross Christ died to save his people from their sins and thereby save the world and that in doing so he fully achieved his intended aims, as John 3:17 plainly states: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him" (ESV). 

  

Why I am Not a Molinist (Part 2)

We explained what Molinism means in Part 1 of this article and listed a number of objections to this theological model and view of divine sovereignty and human free will. In this post, we will explore nine objections raised to Molinism in more detail. 

The points made are not much more than brief summaries. For much greater detail on many of these points, the reader is invited to delve into a vast literature on the subject. Perhaps the single best place to start, would be either to read the relevant sections of Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology, particularly Topic 4 (The Knowledge of God), Questions 9-11. For a moden discussion, Paul Helm's book The Providence of God is a good read. 

The weight of these objections constitute the reasons why I am not a Molinist.

Objection 1: Molinism Denies God's Absolute Sovereignty and His Exhaustive and Unconditional Decree

Fundamentally, Molinism denies that God has an exhaustive and unconditional divine decree. According to Molinism, there are a multitude of possible worlds which are not feasible for God to create. He is only able to actualize worlds which are in line with the contents of middle knowledge. Suppose God knows that there are no circumstances that he could bring about in which person A will freely choose to do act B at time C. God is therefore constrained. There is no way for the God of Molinism to ordain that A will do B at time C according to Molinism.

This is in sharp contrast, it seems to me, with the God revealed in Scripture, who can do anything he desires and no one can stop him. This would include ordaining that A does B at C. The only restrictions on what God can ordain in Calvinism are things which are logically impossible (such as making a four-sided triangle) or things which are inconsistent with God's own being and character (God cannot turn the Trinity into a Quadrinity or will himself out of existence).

The following verses are deeply problematic for a Molinist understanding of providence, since they seem to admit of no restrictions on God's absolute sovereignty, whereas Molinism is built around a very significant delimiting factor in what middle knowledge makes feasible .[1]

'But our God is in the heavens. He does whatever he pleases.' (Psalm 115:3)

'Whatever Yahweh pleased, that he has done, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.' (Psalm 135:6)

'But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? What his soul desires, even that he does.' (Job 23:13)

'I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be restrained.' (Job 42:2) 

'All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he does according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and no one can stop his hand, or ask him, “What are you doing?”' (Daniel 4:35)

'Yahweh has made everything for its own end—yes, even the wicked for the day of evil.' (Proverbs 16:4) 

'A man’s heart plans his course, but Yahweh directs his steps.' (Proverbs 16:9) 

'The king’s heart is in Yahweh’s hand like the watercourses. He turns it wherever he desires.' (Proverbs 21:1)

'Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other. I am God, and there is none like me. I declare the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done.
I say: My counsel will stand, and I will do all that I please.' (Isaiah 46:9-10)

'In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.' (Ephesians 1:11, ESV) 

'For of him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory for ever! Amen.' (Romans 11:36)

The fundamental objection to Molinism is that the God it presents and how his providence works does not reflect the power and glory of the God of the Bible. 

Objection 2: Molinism Teaches a Type of Creaturely Independence and Contradicts Divine Aseity

Molinism teaches a form of Creaturely Independence which contradicts Divine Aseity. God's aseity is self-existence and total independence from the creation. The eternal God is dependent on no one for anything. However, in Molinism, God's choices are restricted by the content of middle knowledge, which delimits the feasible worlds that God could create.

As we will see, it is incoherent at best where the content of middle knowledge comes from. To argue that it restricts what God can do, and that God is somehow beholden to the choices of human beings contradicts this attribute of God. 

Objection 3: Molinism Requires Libertarian Free Will, Despite Lack of Biblical Evidence

Molinism relies on libertarian free will. Indeed, Molinism was created by Molina in an attempt to show that God's sovereignty could be harmonised with libertarian free will. Yet the Bible teaches that even human free choices are under the control of God's sovereign choice. Some of the verses we have already quoted clearly teach that human choices are under God's control.

An excellent article called 'Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will' by John Hendryx explains the many problems with libertarian free will from a Christian point of view.

Libertarian Free Will is simply the view that when a person chooses to do something, at that moment, he could have chosen to do otherwise and that there is nothing determining the choice, not the circumstances, nor our desires, nor even our own affections. 

The problem with building a theological system around libertarian free will is that it is a philosophical concept and not one derived from Scripture. Rather the Scriptures presuppose that though we are free to make choices, such choices are not outside the scope of God's sovereignty. 

Objection 4: Molinism Teaches a Kind of Semi-Pelagianism 

Molinism smuggles in a kind of semi-Pelagian anthropolgy whereby sinners are able to do good, including saving good, in response to God's grace merely if put in the right set of circumstances, without the internal changes that Scripture describes, wrought in the sinner by the Holy Spirit. 

As human beings are dead in sin prior and unable to do good, prior to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, it would not matter what circumstances a person was placed in, they would still not have faith in Christ. The key action, the monergistic work of the Holy Spirit in imparting spiritual life to a sinner, is not something Molinism would typically accept. 

Objection 5: Molinism Undermines Divine Simplicity and Immutability 

Molinism undermines divine simplicity and immutability. It makes God's knowledge partly dependent on his creation and makes his decree reactive to imagined human choices, rather than eternal and simple acts of the divine will. 

Objection 6: Molinism Weakens God's Providence and Efficacious Grace 

Molinism weakens God's providence and efficacious grace. God is restricted and can only select from feasible worlds one which matches his desires as closely as possible rather than the biblical view that God's sovereign decree reflects God's own desires perfectly and the world perfectly matches God's desires and wishes.

Objection 7: Molinism Teaches a Type of Conditional Election which is Impersonal 

Election in Molinism can only be a kind of conditional election, in that God chooses those he knows will believe when put in certain circumstances. This is not the unconditional election taught in the Scriptures.

Molinism usually teaches that God choose to actualise the world in which the maximum number of people are saved, but that there were feasible worlds in which any other people would be saved, though no feasible worlds in which everyone is saved. Thus, person A's election in the real world does not rest on God's sovereign choice primarily, but on the fact that A was part of the maximum number of saved people in this world. On the other hand person B, might have been saved in another world, but he is lost in the real world merely because the world in which he would have been saved did not deliver as many saved people overall. This seems ridiculous compared with the Calvinist view that in the real world God saved everyone for whom he has saving love and desires to actually save.

Objection 8: Molinism Rests on the Concept of Middle Knowledge Not Found in Scripture 

Molinism rests on the concept of middle knowledge, which is not found in the Scriptures. It is merely a clever philosophical speculation. Calvinism does a better job of reconciling divine sovereignty, which is absolute, and human free will and responsibility, which is derived from God's decree and is compatible with God's determining all things.

The supposed evidence for middle knowledge usually cited by Molinists is scant at best and can clearly be explained as part of God's natural knowledge of possibilities. In fact there are only two passages cited, which indicates the weakness of the scriptural data in favour of Molinism.

Matthew 11:23 - "You, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, you will go down to Hades. For if the mighty works had been done in Sodom which were done in you, it would have remained until today."

For one thing, the Molinist view requires Jesus' words here to be taken hyperliterally and not regard them as rabbinical hyperbole, which is a more natural reading of the text and a vivid way of saying that the people of Capernaum are morally no better (or even worse) than the people of Sodom. Secondly, even if the words are to be taken literally, this does not prove middle knowledge as understood in Molinism. It merely proves that God has knowledge of couterfactual possiblities, which Calvinsm does not deny via God's natural knowledge.

The second passage is 1 Samuel 23:11-13, in which David asks God two questions about what would happen if he remained in the town of Keilah. God asks if Saul will come there and God answers yes. David then asks if the men of Keilah will give him up to Saul if he stays there and God again answers yes. David then leaves Keilah. Again, this proves God has knowledge of counterfactuals (what if questions) but in no way does this prove Molinist middle knowledge. God would know all possibilities and counterfactuals from his natural knowledge and even in his free knowledge insofar as God would have decreed that David would ask these questions and receive truthful answers from God himself. 

To have only two passages that even hint at middle knowledge is not enough in my view to built such a weighty doctrinal scheme upon, especially when the passages are easily and fully explained without invoking the Molinist concept. 

Objection 9: Molinism is Unable to Present an Adequate Explanation for Why God Has Supposed Middle Knowledge (The Grounding Objection) or Where Middle Knowledge Comes From

The grounding objection has never been satisfactorily answered by Molinism. The grounding objection states that the central claim of Molinism is either completely incoherent or impossible. There is nothing in Molinism that explains (or grounds) why God possesses such knowledge of what people would freely choose to do in any circumstance in which they were placed.

In Calvinism, by contrast. God foreknows what a person will choose because God has ordained it.

For God to know what a person will freely choose in the libertarian sense of free will is both inexplicable and incoherent.

To give an example. Imagine a scientist builds a simple robotic car and places it in a complex maze. He says that the robot is not controlled by him in any way. It makes it's own decisions. At any junction in the maze, the car decides for itself whether to turn left or right or head straight on. If that it true, would we not conclude that it would be impossible for the scientist to know the precise route the robot car would take through the maze? Now suppose the scientist claimed that the robot car was free to make any choice, but he was able to predict the car's path precisely—how it would first turn left, then go straight on, then right, left, etc. Would we not, with good reason, assess that in some way the scientist is controlling the car to know with certainty what it's choices will be at each junction?

Likewise, in Molinism for God to know with certainty what all free choices will be is either an impossibility or there is signiciantly more control being exercised than the Molinist will allow. 

Interestingly, the open theist takes the first option and says such foreknowledge of free choices is impossible; the Calvinist takes the second option and says that free choices are compatible with God's overall control of events via the divine decree.

Closely linked to this, Molinists cannot explain where middle knowledge comes from as it comes from creatures with free will before God has decreed to create such creatures. Middle knowledge comes across as a series of brute facts about the universe with no explanation of why such facts or truths exist as they do not come from God's will, not from the creatures.

To conclude, we have to agree with Turretin's assessment of Molinism, back in the 17th century: "The fiction of middle knowledge (scientiae mediae) devised to maintain the idol of free will cannot be approved. It destroys the independence of God’s knowledge, subjects it to the creature, and makes it dependent upon the free determination of man.” (Institutes IV.10.6)

Notes

[1]  Unless otherwise stated, quotations are from the World English Bible, in the public domain.