I only briefly discuss this model / theory of knowledge. This is philosophical theology (in which I am not an expert). But this particular theory has, believe it or not, Scriptural support. (Yes, I was surprised too.)

I’m not a philosophical theologian or a systematic theologian, though I have read some philosophy and more systematic theology.

So I tread lightly.

Molinism (the same as middle knowledge) is named after the Spanish Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina (1535-1600).

Let me first quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The doctrine of middle knowledge proposes that God has knowledge of metaphysically necessary states of affairs via natural knowledge, of what He intends to do via free knowledge, and in addition, of what free creatures would do if they were instantiated (via middle knowledge).

So we have three kinds of knowledge.

(1) Necessary or natural knowledge, which says God knows things that are (e.g. that we exist and that 2 + 2 = 4).

(2) Free knowledge, which says that God wills things to come to pass (e.g. the crucifixion of his Son).

(3) Middle knowledge stands in the middle between those two descriptions of God’s knowledge (hence its name, middle knowledge). God knows all things that would come to pass, if certain things obtained. Also, God knows human character and free choice even if those things did not obtain. This latter description is called counterfactuals.

Example of a counterfactual: If you had signed up for baseball as a kid, you would have grown in your skills to play for the major leagues. But you did not sign up for baseball as a kid. This circumstance never obtained. Therefore you never played in the major leagues. God knows things that would have happened even when they did not actually happen. He knows that you would have played in the majors.

Example of a biblical counterfactual, which comes from 2 Samuel 23:7-13. David was in the town of Keilah. He knew Saul was in pursuit of him, to kill him. David consulted the ephod, an instrument of divination revealing God’s knowledge, getting the ephod from a local priest. David asked: Will Saul come to Keilah? The Lord said yes through the ephod. Next question: when Saul comes into the town, will the townspeople surrender David to Saul? The Lord said yes. David departed from the town with his men. Saul was told that David had left, so he never went to Keilah. Therefore the circumstances never obtained, but God knew what would have happened if the circumstances had come to pass.

And now let’s turn to the notion of God accomplishing his will and maintaining human free will. The next two illustrations are not counterfactuals. They did obtain.

Illustration One: God intended that his Son must be crucified to accomplish redemption. How would he work this event into the divine plan and maintain human free will and his sovereign purpose and his Son’s righteousness?

To begin with, God knew the character of Caiaphas the high priest, the chief priests, the Sanhedrin, and Pontius Pilate. (Let’s call the religious leaders ‘the Jerusalem establishment.’ Pilate was a Roman governor.) God knew what all of them would do if certain circumstances were to obtain.

What circumstances?

Throughout God’s Son’s ministry, Jesus righteously and justly challenged the Jerusalem establishment before his arrest and trial. They arrested him. At the trial, he proclaimed he was the Son of Man (Mark 14:62-63), which was the truth in God’s eyes but which the Jerusalem establishment misinterpreted as blasphemy. They declared him guilty of blasphemy, which carried the death penalty (Lev. 24:10-16).

Then they pressured Pilate to have Jesus executed because they said that Jesus challenged Caesar’s kingship. Jesus explained to the governor that his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). But prodded by the Jerusalem establishment, a large enough crowd shouted for his crucifixion. They had no king but Caesar. Pilate eventually conceded to their will (John 19:12-16).

Some if-then clauses, which show that God knows what will happen before certain conditions come to pass: If God were to get his Son crucified without his committing a crime in God’s sight, then he would create a world in which he knew how the major actors on the Jerusalem stage would act. (Those if-then clauses are called subjunctive conditionals by Molinists.)

If the Jerusalem establishment and Pilate were to live and act in those circumstances described above, then they would accomplish his purpose while maintaining their own (degraded) free will, and God would maintain his sovereignty and his Son’s righteousness.

God knew those conditions and which result would come to pass before the conditions actually happened. So he created a world in such a way that they would come to pass and maintain human free will and his sovereign purpose and his Son’s righteousness.

Bottom line (so far): The Jerusalem establishment and Pilate acted by their own (confused and evil) free will in those circumstances. God accomplished his intention while maintaining human free will and his sovereignty. Those humans are accountable for their unjust act, which they did by their own free will, which was contaminated with evil.

Illustration Two: This one is about Joseph (Gen. 37-50). God intended Joseph to go down into Egypt to rescue humanity (and God’s chosen family) from a future famine. But how? And how could God accomplish this and improve Joseph’s character and maintain God’s sovereignty and human free will?.

Joseph’s brothers, out of jealousy (their bad character), intended to kill him, because he was arrogant and flaunted his arrogance in their faces (his bad character). But the eldest, Reuben, said that instead of killing him (better character), they should sell him into slavery down to Egypt (still bad character). When they did this, they killed an animal and put its blood on Joseph’s coat of many colors. They showed the bloody coat to their father Jacob. He broke down with grief.

God did not cause the brothers or Reuben to do this. Reuben’s character was only slightly better than those of his brothers, in those circumstances.

However, God was with Joseph and prospered him, but only after more troubles, like a false accusation and unjust imprisonment. It seems he improved his bad character and got into a deeper relationship with God.  After Joseph’s release from prison and promotion in the Pharaoh’s court to second in command, a famine occurred throughout the entire area of Israel and beyond. Jacob sent his sons down to Egypt to buy grain. Joseph recognized them, but they did not recognize him. He toyed with them by planting valuable objects in their sacks of grain and falsely accusing them of theft (and other such things), He was motivated, in part, by his imperfect character (or so I believe).

After many events and encounters, Joseph finally revealed himself to his brothers and spoke these words: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Gen. 50:20, NIV). They reconciled and lived happily ever after.

God intended for Joseph to go down into Egypt, so he could rescue many people from a famine, particularly his own family. One way he got Joseph down there and built his character so he could be second in command over Egypt was through the deceit of his brothers. God did not cause his brothers to act as they did, but he knew their character and provided circumstances by which they would act in a bad way, using (but not causing) their free will, which was contaminated with evil.

Here is a series of if-then clauses about those events, boiled down. As noted, Molinists call them subjunctive conditionals.

If his brothers were to act badly out of their own free will, God knew (but did not cause) that they would sell Joseph into Egypt, given certain circumstances. If they were to sell him into Egypt, and he were to go through other trials, he would improve or develop his character. If his character were developed well, then he would be promoted. If he were promoted, then he would eventually rescue everyone, particularly his family, from the famine.

God knew that those conditions would come to pass before they did, before they existed. God’s intention was accomplished, without God causing people to act as they did. He maintained his sovereignty and human free will. He allowed them to act in this way by creating a world with those circumstances in it and by using (but not causing) their own free actions to accomplish his intentions.

Conclusion

This article is as deep as I care to or can get.

Bottom line: Middle knowledge is a sound way to interpret Scripture. It accords very well with the traditional doctrine of omniscience and with God’s sovereignty and human free will, even if it is contaminated with evil. Personally, I like it because human free will and God’s sovereignty over human affairs are compatible.

Do I Really Know God? He Is Sovereign and Free

Do I Really Know God? He Is Omniscient

For more detailed analyses, see William Lane Craig’s videos. Many of them are short. He is a major proponent of Molinism.

I got some of the illustrations from Gavin Ortlund and his youtube channel Truth Unites. Or maybe I got got them from Craig’s videos. I don’t recall right now.