John D. Laing. Middle Knowledge: Human Freedom in Divine Sovereignty. Kregel Academic, 2018. See here to purchase the book.
John D. Laing has a doctorate from Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary. He teaches systematic theology and philosophy at the Houston
campus of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and he is also a
chaplain for the Texas Army National Guard.
As the title indicates, this book is about the concept of Middle
Knowledge, which was articulated by Luis de Molina, a sixteenth century
Jesuit theologian. According to this concept, God foresaw various
hypothetical worlds, how humans would act and things would unfold in
different settings and situations. With this in mind, God acts to
effect God’s will. God, in a sense, is limited: God chooses not to
violate human free will, and God can only effect a world that is
feasible. But God acts in light of the various alternative scenarios
that God foresees: God knows that, if God does A, humans will do B. God
wants humans to do B, so God decides to do A. God works with human
free will: God is constrained by human choices, yet God can effect God’s
will by influencing humans to make the choices that God wants.
The Introduction situates Middle Knowledge among other Christian
models of divine providence and human free will, including Process
Theology, Open Theism, and Calvinism. Chapter 1 explains Middle
Knowledge, and Chapters 2-4 respond to objections to the concept of
Middle Knowledge. Chapter 4 is noteworthy because it addresses the
question of how God can interact with the world in time when God is said
to exist outside of time. In Chapters 5-8 and 10, Laing contends that
Middle Knowledge sheds helpful light on contentious theological issues:
predestination and salvation, the problem of evil, biblical inspiration,
science (particularly origins), and the efficacy of prayer. Chapter 9
focuses on what Laing considers to be biblical evidence in favor of
Middle Knowledge. I Samuel 23:7-13, where God guides David in reference
to a danger that would come if David were to remain in a particular
area, is cited more than once in the book. Laing also refers to other
Scriptural passages in which God is aware of alternative scenarios.
Interestingly, Matthew 11:23-24, in which Jesus declares that Sodom and
Gomorrah would have repented had they seen the sorts of miracles that he
was performing, is denied by Laing to be an illustration of Middle
Knowledge; rather, Laing claims that Jesus there is being rhetorical.
Chapter 9 is also where Laing offers his interpretation of Romans 9, as
he argues that God foresaw, not predestined, how Jacob and Esau would
act as God chose Jacob instead of Esau.
The greatest strength of this book is that it meticulously goes
through various positions and evaluates them. Chapters 2-3 were
difficult because they used logical equations, but the rest of the book
was fairly easy to understand. In some cases, Laing arrived at a
position that made sense, as when he argued that libertarian freedom
does not mean that choices lack motivation or influences; choices, in
short, do not pop out of thin air, but what libertarian freedom affirms
is that a person has some ability to choose otherwise. Another example
of a sensible conclusion is when Laing stated that God is not required
to create a perfect world, but that God creates a world that fits God’s
purposes. In a number of cases, Laing’s conclusions were a little
tepid. For instance, after an exhaustive discussion of views about
whether divine foreknowledge undermines human free will, Laing simply
concludes that humans have libertarian free will, even if their choices
were foreseen. It is not so much the conclusion itself that is
bothersome. What makes it disappointing is that one might expect a more
robust defense of it after all of the build-up. Laing deserves credit
for attempting to tackle the issue of natural evil. Essentially, he
questions whether there is “natural evil”: “natural evil,” Laing muses,
is subjective, and what one may see as natural evil may serve a positive
purpose. But is there anything naturally beneficial about cancer? To
his credit, Laing acknowledged situations in which readers might deem
his conclusions to be inadequate, or begging the question.
The book is lucid, overall, in summarizing different positions, and
Laing does well to reiterate what Middle Knowledge is throughout the
book. There is still unclarity on my part, however, on how Middle
Knowledge adds to many of the theological discussions that Laing
discusses. There are so many variables and so much randomness that,
even if God were to intervene through creation or providence, could God
get entirely what God wants? And how does God effect God’s will? Okay,
those who lack an opportunity to hear the Gospel are people whom God
foresaw would not believe it anyway, if given the chance. Did God
arrange for them to be born in non-Christian areas that have little
access to the Gospel? That makes God somewhat of a micro-manager, which
Molinism seems to argue that God is not.
In writing this review, I feel as if I am looking at a blurry image
that becomes clear, then blurry again. Middle Knowledge makes sense,
then it does not, then it does, and the cycle continues.
A slight point of critique: Laing frequently uses the term
“counterfactual,” and he seems to mean by that term the various
alternative realities that God foresaw, including the one that God chose
to work with. That muddied the waters a bit. “Counterfactual,” one
would think, implies contrary-to-fact, the alternative realities that
did not take place.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.