In Matthew 11, Jesus speaks about unrepentant cities, and it is striking.
20 Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”
Matthew 11:20-24 ESV
I’m struck this time by Jesus’ statements where it’s plainly stated (vs 21) and implied (vs 23) that “if the mighty works done in you had been done in <city>, they would have repented.” That is some meat to chew on.
For me, this is timely and the reason is I’ve been seeing Dr. William Lane Craig’s name pop up lately. I’ve not listened to his work or read his books, but I’ve seen him on YouTube, and he seems a quite likable, nice, reasonable person sincerely defending the faith.
So, what’s the issue? I also know that he is the foremost person today teaching Molinism, and I’ve heard him use these very verses as the primary basis of his scriptural support. Molinism, named after the 16th century Jesuit Molina, is a system of thought seeking to reconcile the sovereignty of God with a libertarian, autonomous, free-will of man. To over-simplify, it teaches God has ‘middle knowledge’ which consists of knowing what an autonomous individual would choose to do in any given situation and thus God uses this to accomplish his will by orchestrating circumstances so that autonomous creatures accomplish it. In that regard, it is an attempt to synthesize God’s sovereignty and the idea of an autonomous free will in man. I tread lightly here as this is a man far more educated and accomplished than I. However, there are things here I must wrestle with and it’s like eating fish; eat the meat but be careful of any bones.
I can read Matt. 11:20-24 by itself and see his point. It’s not like he’s stretching the verses beyond recognition to support his view. Jesus clearly says if conditions had been different, the people of these cities would have chosen differently and in fact repented. That’s a bit troublesome. This Molinist idea of ‘middle knowledge’ is a bit intriguing; God’s knowledge of what free and independent creatures would do in any given set of circumstances, and his use of that knowledge to create a world where all the circumstances would line up to His given end; all while the creatures remain autonomous in their decisions.
But I caution myself in that it’s intriguing because it’s a higher view of man in his autonomy, and man is not autonomous from God. That is not the message of the Bible.
I’ve heard Dr. Craig’s heart in the video I’ve watched and what I’ve gathered is he wants to avoid at all costs making God the author of sin. I get that; all true believers do per the clear teaching of James 1:13. But where I’ve landed is Molinism goes too far in its attempt to ‘help God out’ with theodicy and begins to mean things I cannot agree with. It ends up lessening and lowering my view of God. So whatever Jesus is saying here in Matthew 11, I don’t think he’s allowing for Molinism.
I went to ‘https://molinism.com/beliefs/’ and read the doctrinal statement. At the core is this:
“Understood in theology, counterfactuals (or “counterfactuals of creaturely freedom”) represent real options a free creature would have taken if he or she were placed in a certain circumstance.”
That sounds like what Jesus is saying in these verses. It goes on:
“God’s knowledge of these counterfactuals is understood by the Molinist as existing logically prior to the creative decree – in between God’s natural knowledge and free knowledge. Thus, this “middle knowledge” informs God of the decisions creatures would make if placed in circumstances, and allows him to actualize a world wherein the sum of freely made creaturely decisions ultimately allows God to accomplish His purposes. As William Lane Craig defines it, middle knowledge best synthesizes divine providence with human free will.”
What I take from that, in essence, is in order to deal with theodicy, Molinism doesn’t assign to God direct sovereignty over man’s actions, but instead He sovereignly directs circumstances so that man accomplishes His will. As I think through this, three main objections come to my mind:
- First, I believe God reveals in Scripture his direct sovereignty over man’s actions, such as in Proverbs 21:1: “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.” I see in Scripture where God sovereignly directs man’s heart, He isn’t limited to only working through setting up circumstances.
- There are two words that jump out and shout at me. In the sentence “Thus, this middle knowledge informs God of the decisions creatures would make,” I stumble all over the two words “informs God”. Let me be clear, in my view of God, he is NEVER ‘informed’. I’m at a full stop right there. This leads to the next issue.
- It seems there is a ‘something’ OUTSIDE of God that is a source of some form of ‘truth’. It’s as if God is faced with a choice based on some determinant outside of his own good pleasure. He uses ‘it’ to accomplish His will, but what is the ‘it’? If he creates a world with circumstances <X>, then the outcome is determined to be <Y> because the creatures will freely decide in way <Z>, and if <Z> is sinful, God’s off the hook which is the goal of Molinism from what I understand. But what is this ‘knowledge’ that seems to put some constraints on God’s decision, and where does it come from? It presents a God who it seems is responding to something outside of himself – that he fully knows but is not the absolute source of. This is where it is attempting to lower my view of God and thus I must reject it. The God of Scripture causes, he decrees, he ordains, he makes everything come to pass, and he does so sinlessly while even using our sin to accomplish his purposes. That’s part of his glory.
- Though a system designed to uphold the free, autonomous will of man, it doesn’t seem to really accomplish it. For this to work, humans are simply complex “if-then” constructs. If the inputs are X, their ‘free will’ decision must be Y. If there is some ‘middle knowledge’ truth out there that can be used to determine beforehand what you WILL do given a certain set of circumstances, then exactly how ‘free’ are you?
I can’t let these verses in Matthew 11 skew my view of God derived from the rest of scripture, particularly the glorious Isaiah 40’s and the heights of Romans and Acts 4:27-28. It also doesn’t really satisfy the question of theodicy for me. It seems Molinism just moves God from primary to secondary cause.
While I don’t think we can fully settle the issue of theodicy in this life (and Molinism doesn’t do it for me), I’ve settled it to my own satisfaction for now. Gen 50:20 is my key. One event concerning Joseph (throwing him into the pit and selling him into slavery). Two parties – the brothers and God. Both MEANT what happened. Both DESIRED the action. The brothers ‘meant’ and God ‘meant’ the same action and outcome. That’s huge. But the key for me is the parties had polar opposite intent and motive behind that same exact act. One totally sinful on the part of man, one totally saving on the part of God. So, God can decree ‘terrible’ things for totally good purposes, and man will (and must) fully carry out that decree, all the while doing it with a heart filled with freely chosen evil intentions. God is fully responsible for whatsoever comes to pass, but we are responsible for the sinful motives in our hearts as we carry it out. God is responsible for what HE meant in it; WE are fully responsible for what we meant in it. Motive matters.
That makes God fully the author of the act and the outcome, but not the author of the sin. We are the author of the sin, God is the author of the action and result, always with a righteous intent and goal of His own glory.
This helps me with the issue of Judas. Judas must betray, it was prophesied before he was even born; yet Judas is responsible for the sinful intent he had while doing it. One act that must occur – two polar opposite intents/motives in that one act. That’s the best I can do with theodicy, and it is satisfying to me. It puts some bedrock under my feet. Molinism is not required and is unsatisfactory in its view of a God who is in some way constrained. God is a just a little less glorious in this ‘ism’ to me, and man a little bit elevated.
So I think I’m on solid ground here, although I still have to fully deal with Jesus’ hypothetical statements here in Matthew 11. I have no doubt they are true, just not quite sure what category to put them in. The more I think about it, the more these statements of Jesus actually harm the Molinist position rather than helping it. He is saying clearly that had He organized circumstances (even if we grant according to the counterfactuals, his middle knowledge) differently, they would have repented. That still is not satisfactory because he did NOT arrange it that way; he did not do the works and signs there so they would repent. This actually says even though he knew what circumstances would bring them to repentance due to his “middle knowledge”, he chose not to. It still doesn’t get God ‘off the hook’.
But The Creator doesn’t need us to “get him off the hook”. Exodus 33:19 tells me: “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” There are far too many verses that show God’s direct decree governing human decisions. Man is not autonomous from his Creator.
I’m left to put Christ’s statements in the category of Romans 9. I put my hand over my mouth, realize I’m clay, He is potter, and say no more. I bow. The One who spoke the universe into being doesn’t need my “help” to justify Him. I need His help to justify me.