Middle Knowledge is one of the most sophisticated attempts to reconcile divine sovereignty with human freedom. Proposed by the 16th century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, the concept suggests God possesses a special type of knowledge that allows Him to know what any free creature would freely do in any possible circumstance.

While the view has gained some popularity, it fundamentally contradicts the biblical witness of God’s sovereignty. Despite its intellectual appeal and apparent solution to age-old theological tensions, Middle Knowledge ultimately compromises divine sovereignty and fails to align with Scripture’s clear teaching about God’s comprehensive decree.

 

UNDERSTANDING MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE

Let’s break down what Middle Knowledge is all about in plain terms. Those who believe in Middle Knowledge (called Molinists) suggest God knows things in three ways:

• Natural Knowledge: This is God knowing everything that could possibly happen. Think of it as God knowing all the rules of reality and all possible scenarios—including, say, all possible moves in a chess game.
• Middle Knowledge: This is God knowing what any free person would choose to do in any situation—even before God decides to create the world. For example, God would know, “If Tim were offered this job, he’d freely choose to accept it”— even if Tim never actually exists or is never offered that job.
• Free Knowledge: This is God knowing what will actually happen in the world He decides to create. This knowledge comes after God chooses which world to make.

The distinctive claim of Molinism is this: God knows what we’d freely choose before He creates the world. Molinists claim this solves a major problem: it lets God remain in control of His creation while still allowing us to make genuinely free choices. It’s like saying God can look at all possible versions of us in all possible situations, see what we’d freely choose in each one, and then create the world where our free choices fit with His plans.

 

BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE

While Molinists claim biblical support for their position, Scripture actually presents a view of divine knowledge that contradicts the fundamental premises of Middle Knowledge.

God’s Comprehensive Decree: The Bible consistently portrays God as operating according to a comprehensive decree that encompasses all events. Ephesians 1:11 states God indicates nothing falls outside His sovereign determination. Similarly, Romans 9:15-18 emphasises God’s freedom in showing mercy “as he wills,” not based on prior knowledge of human choices.

Analysis of Key Molinist Proof Texts: Molinists frequently appeal to several biblical passages to support their view:

1 Samuel 23:11-13: David inquires whether the men of Keilah would surrender him to Saul, and God answers they would. Molinists see this as evidence of God’s Middle Knowledge—His knowledge of what free creatures would do in counterfactual situations (a counterfactual is a ‘what if’ scenario that never actually happens: in this case, David ends up fleeing Keilah, so the situation of him staying never occurred).

However, this passage doesn’t require Middle Knowledge to explain it. God, as sovereign Lord, knows what His creatures will do because He has ordained it, not because He has special access to all counterfactuals. This is simply God revealing what He had determined would happen if David remained.

Matthew 11:21-24: Jesus states Tyre and Sidon would have repented if they’d witnessed the miracles performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida.

Again, this doesn’t necessitate Middle Knowledge. God’s omniscience includes knowledge of all possibilities according to His decree. Jesus isn’t appealing to independently grounded counterfactuals but to God’s comprehensive knowledge of His creation and His sovereign plans.

God’s Knowledge as Causal, Not Merely Observational: A critical biblical point against Middle Knowledge is this: God’s knowledge is causal rather than merely observational. Isaiah 46:9-11 declares God announces “the end from the beginning” and that His “counsel shall stand.”

Divine Sovereignty Over Human Choices: The Bible repeatedly affirms God’s sovereignty over human choices. Proverbs 21:1 states, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.” Philippians 2:13 tells us that “it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” These passages indicate human choices aren’t independent of God’s sovereign determination.

 

PHILOSOPHICAL/THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS WITH MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE

Middle Knowledge also faces several significant philosophical and theological problems.

The Grounding Objection: Perhaps the most formidable challenge is the “grounding objection”: What grounds the truth of our creaturely freedom? If these truths exist logically prior to God’s decree, then they exist independently of God, effectively making them brute facts outside divine determination.

This creates several problems:

• It implies some truths exist independently of God
• It suggests aspects of our behaviour lie outside God’s control
• It compromises God’s aseity (self-existence) by making His knowledge dependent on something external to Himself

Molinists struggle to provide a satisfactory response to this objection because the very concept of libertarian freedom they wish to preserve seems incompatible with these counterfactuals being grounded in anything at all.

Undermining Divine Sovereignty: Middle Knowledge subtly but significantly undermines divine sovereignty by making God dependent on creaturely choices. If God must “look” at what creatures would freely do before making His decree, His options are limited by creatures. God becomes a responder to what creatures would do rather than the absolute determiner of all that occurs.

This reverses the biblical order: Scripture teaches creatures are dependent on God, not that God’s plans are dependent on creatures. As Romans 9:16 states, “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”

The Problem of Libertarian Free Will: Middle Knowledge presupposes libertarian free will—the idea that human choices are not determined by prior causes, including God’s decree. However, this concept conflicts with the Reformed doctrine of total depravity, which teaches that fallen humans, apart from God’s grace, cannot choose spiritual good (Romans 8:7-8). If we cannot choose spiritual good without God’s help, how can there be truthful counterfactuals about what they would “freely” choose in various circumstances?

Logical Incoherence: There are logical difficulties with the Molinist account as well. Consider:

• If these counterfactuals—or ‘what if’ statements about human choice—are true logically prior to God’s decision to create the world, then they’re necessary truths that God cannot change.
• If God cannot change these truths, His sovereignty is limited.
• Yet these same counterfactuals supposedly describe contingent, free choices.
• But how can contingent free choices be necessary truths?

This creates a paradox at the heart of Molinism that remains unresolved.

Synergism vs. Monergism: At its core, Middle Knowledge represents a sophisticated form of synergism—the view that salvation results from a cooperation between divine and human agency. By contrast, Reformed theology teaches monergism—that salvation is entirely God’s work, including the gracious gift of faith itself.

Ephesians 2:8-9 affirms that even faith is “not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.” If faith is God’s gift, then counterfactuals about who would freely believe given certain circumstances cannot be true independently of God’s sovereign decision to grant faith.

 

REFORMED ALTERNATIVES TO MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE

The Reformed tradition offers a more biblically faithful alternative to Middle Knowledge.

God’s Knowledge: Natural and Free Only: Traditional Reformed theology recognises only two aspects of divine knowledge. There is no “middle” knowledge because all that will occur—including human choices—stems from God’s decree.

God’s Comprehensive Decree as the Ground of All That Occurs: In the Reformed view, God’s decree is the ultimate ground of all that occurs in creation. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states: “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (WCF 3.1). This means God knows what creatures will do because He has ordained it—not because He has special access to independently grounded counterfactuals.

Compatible Determinism: Reformed theology embraces compatible determinism—the view that human freedom is compatible with divine determination. We make real choices according to our strongest desires, but God sovereignly works through these desires to accomplish His purposes. This view preserves both divine sovereignty and meaningful human responsibility without resorting to the problematic concept of libertarian freedom.

Biblical Fidelity: The Reformed position better accounts for the Bible’s teaching that:

• God works all things according to His will (Ephesians 1:11)
• God’s plans cannot be thwarted (Job 42:2)
• God’s knowledge is based on His decree (Acts 2:23)
• Salvation depends not on human will but on God’s mercy (Romans 9:16)

Unconditional Election: In contrast to the Molinist view of election based on foreseen faith, Reformed theology teaches unconditional election—that God chooses individuals for salvation not based on anything foreseen in them but according to His sovereign good pleasure alone.

This doctrine, clearly taught in passages like Romans 9:11-13 and Ephesians 1:4-5, cannot be reconciled with Middle Knowledge, which makes God’s election contingent on what creatures would freely do in various circumstances.

 

CONCLUSION

Middle Knowledge, despite its philosophical sophistication and apparent solution to the divine sovereignty-human freedom tension, ultimately fails both biblically and theologically. It compromises God’s sovereignty by making Him dependent on our decisions and creaturely freedom that are independent of His decree.

The fundamental question is: does God’s knowledge depend in any way on creaturely choices? Scripture consistently teaches it does not. God knows what will happen because He has ordained it, not because He has special access to ‘what ifs’ of human choices.

As believers committed to the authority of Scripture and the sovereignty of God, we must reject the Molinist compromise and embrace the biblical teaching that God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). After all, God declares, “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose” (Isaiah 46:10).

 

FATAL FLAWS OF MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE: RELATED FAQs

Doesn’t rejecting Middle Knowledge make God the author of sin? While God sovereignly ordains everything that comes to pass, including sinful actions, He does so in a way that preserves human responsibility. God takes ultimate responsibility for everything that happens in His universe under His sovereign care, yet He remains holy and untainted by sin because He never directly causes people to sin nor does He approve of sin. This is the God we should want for ourselves—one who is truly in control of all events, not limited by human choices.

• How can I find comfort in God’s sovereignty when suffering occurs? The comfort of absolute sovereignty means nothing happens outside God’s control—even suffering serves His purposes. When tragedy strikes, we can rest in knowing it didn’t catch God by surprise or slip past His notice; rather, it fits within His perfect, though often mysterious, plan for your ultimate good. This is the God we should want for ourselves—one who can truly promise that all things work together for good, not a God who is limited by ‘what ifs’ beyond His control.
• If God determines everything, why should I pray? Prayer isn’t about changing God’s mind but participating in the means God has ordained to accomplish His purposes. God has decreed both the ends (what will happen) and the means (including your prayers) by which those ends come about, making our prayers a real and effective part of His sovereign plan. This is the God we should want for ourselves—one who incorporates our prayers into His eternal plan rather than one who merely responds to what we might do in various circumstances.

Does rejecting Middle Knowledge mean evangelism is pointless? Evangelism becomes more meaningful, not less, when we understand God’s sovereignty, because we can be confident God will save His elect through the appointed means of gospel proclamation. Our evangelistic efforts aren’t random attempts to convince people who might freely choose God, but rather God’s ordained means of calling His chosen ones to Himself. This is the God we should want for ourselves—one who ensures our evangelistic efforts will accomplish His purposes rather than one whose plans depend on unpredictable human responses.

• How does God’s sovereignty relate to Christian living and moral responsibility? Christian living flows from gratitude for God’s sovereign grace rather than fear that our salvation depends partly on our own choices. Though God sovereignly determines all events, we remain morally responsible for our actions because we act according to our own desires, even while God works through those desires to accomplish His purposes. This is the God we should want for ourselves—one who both secures our sanctification and genuinely holds us accountable.
• If God is sovereign over all choices, why does the Bible contain commands and warnings? Commands and warnings in Scripture are among the means God uses to accomplish His sovereign purposes in the lives of His people. God works through these admonitions to produce the obedience He has ordained, using them to shape our desires and influence our choices in ways that align with His will. This is the God we should want for ourselves—one who not only decrees the end result but also sovereignly works through means appropriate to our nature as moral beings.

How does rejecting Middle Knowledge affect my assurance of salvation? Rejecting Middle Knowledge strengthens assurance of salvation because it grounds our salvation entirely in God’s sovereign election and effectual grace rather than in our foreseen faith or choices. We can have complete confidence that He who began a good work in us will bring it to completion, precisely because our salvation depends on God’s unchangeable purpose, not on our choices. This is the God we should want for ourselves—one who guarantees the salvation of His people rather than one who merely creates conditions where salvation is possible.

 

FATAL FLAWS OF MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE: OUR RELATED POSTS

• Calvinism vs Molinism: A Deep Dive into the Debate
• The Calvinist-Arminian Debate
• Can God Be Truly Sovereign and Man Be Free? The Biblical Perspective
• God’s Foreknowledge: Far More Than Mere Foresight