The problem with this dynamic, right off the bat, comes with how that alignment to scripture is accomplished. There can be a very wide range of claims made that "have Bible passages" to support them, but with significant external philosophical underpinnings to explain the connections.
Calvinism is a label for a collection of doctrines that claims to be biblical. The evaluation of the claim is at least superficially well grounded in that there are passages in the Bible which appear to be discussing the things that a Calvinist finds topically relevant. Upon closer inspection, there are disconnects between the concept in view regarding Calvinism, and what the original authors were actually talking about, and in general it is never a good practice to "make" the Bible say something that wasn't actually being said via simplistic word associations.
Annihilationism is a label for a collection of doctrines that also calims to be biblical, with a focus specifically on the fate of unbelievers after Judgment in the book of Revelation. While there is significant support in the Bible for many of the claims about God's character, temple sacrifices, and so on, the Bible very literally does not say anything explicit about the eternal fate of those who have entered the lake of fire. As such, there is a lot about Annihilationism that is biblical, the core claim regarding the fate of unbelievers is not, because extrapolation is very dangerous territory.
In both of these "-isms", extrapolation is used to "fill in the gaps" between what the Bible literally states in the plain text, and the claims of the system, so the danger here is in trying to take what man presumes to be approriate filler to try and create a cohesive and complete picture which is not otherwise provided with the plain text of the Bible.
With both Calvinism and Annihilationism, there are many post-hoc rationalizations used, man-made philosophies, to try and go above and beyond the claims of the Bible in order to formulate and sustain the validity of the collection and retain status as being biblical.
It is important to note that up to this point, this dynamic has nothing to do with whether the claims or intent of the collection are actually true or false. Something can be true and not be biblical, for example, as one might find instructions with a BBQ that provide direction on how to assemble the BBQ, yet those instructions are not within the pages of the Bible. There is a correct or true way to assemble the BBQ, and the Bible simply says nothing about the topic either way.
The Bible lacking truth content is not a serious problem objectively, because the text is finite. If it attempted to contain all possible truths, to start it would yet still be in the process of being authored. Trying to read any of it would only compound the issue further, because now record of who has read it, how much they understood, and things of that sort would also need to be recorded if the Bible is the only source of all truths.
The Bible thus is not the only source of truths, but for Christians who adhere to "sola scriptura", the basic claim is that the Bible is the highest authority among sources of truth. This claim is a whole seperate topic, so aside from a basic understanding, nothing further will be explored on that topic in this writing. Simplest put, where the Bible speaks to truth, it is the highest authority.
Now, that said, the Bible is also a source of false things as well. A significant portion of the book of Job is commentary from Job's friends regarding his state in life amidst great tribulation. If taken individually, the many philosophical arugments made are cogent. They aren't inherently irrational or confusing, but it takes reading through the end of the book to find God's chastizement of such commentaries as being an incorrect representation of truth. Job's friends were wrong, and the Bible recorded them being wrong, but the author of Job does not then go back and correct all of their claims to make them accurately reflect the truth. As such, the Bible is a source of false things as well as true things.
Given all of this, there is another "-ism" called Molinism with a claim that, among other things, God posesses a specific category of knowledge dealing with the future. If such a claim is true, then it would be true even when not associated with the remainder of the claims, or even the label. If God does posess a certain kind of knowledge, the means by which we find out about that isn't particularly important if the claims are verifiably and observably true. That said, if the Bible describes this kind of knowledge, then our source would no longer be Molinism, but the Bible itself.
Before looking at the specifics of the claim and trying to establish what that category is, we'd want to see what the Bible says and do our best not to bring any presupposition into the picture. As best we can, we want to read the text for what it states alone, and not go looking for things, as this would allow cognitive biases to even more greatly influence the perception of support for such a claim.
Today we'll be looking at a section of the Old Testament that deals with David and asking God about the future. While we can't have no biases, if we keep them obvious and clear, then others examining our work can understand what the selection criteria was. In 1 Samuel 23, there are a number of questions that David asks of God regarding the future.
For the sake of avoiding potential copyright claims, I will be using the KJV translation, but that is not the only approriate one available.
1 Samuel 23:1-6 Then they told David, saying, Behold, the Philistines fight against Keilah, and they rob the threshingfloors. Therefore David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And the LORD said unto David, Go, and smite the Philistines, and save Keilah. And David's men said unto him, Behold, we be afraid here in Judah: how much more then if we come to Keilah against the armies of the Philistines? Then David enquired of the LORD yet again. And the LORD answered him and said, Arise, go down to Keilah; for I will deliver the Philistines into thine hand. So David and his men went to Keilah, and fought with the Philistines, and brought away their cattle, and smote them with a great slaughter. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah. And it came to pass, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand.
In this passage, David asks God about what he should do, and God gives him a command.
Fearing the consequences, David's men question David as to whether they should do that or not.
David asks God again more specifically, and God not only repeats the basic instruction, but also tells David that God will deliver the Philistines into David's hand.
The Bible then records that David went as God commanded, and what God said would happen did happen.
In this passage, we can see that at some level or another, God is aware of the future and what God said would come to pass came to pass. We don't see specifics "behind the scenes" as to how this was accomplished, such as God giving David powers like a superhero. David asked God about the future, God gave David an answer as to what the future held, and what God said came to pass.
Let's continue in this chapter.
1 Samuel 23:7-13 And it was told Saul that David was come to Keilah. And Saul said, God hath delivered him into mine hand; for he is shut in, by entering into a town that hath gates and bars. And Saul called all the people together to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. And David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod. Then said David, O LORD God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake. Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O LORD God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the LORD said, He will come down. Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up. Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to go forth.
Saul hears about where David is at, and comes up with a plan.
David comes to know about the plan, and asks God about the future again. Take special note of the two things that David asks about:
1) Will the men of Keilah deliver David to Saul?
2) Will Saul come down at all?
God says that Saul will come down, and that the men of Keilah would deliver David to Saul.
Now, because of this, David chooses to leave Keilah. And when word of David leaving Keilah reaches Saul, he does not go to Keilah either.
As such, these two things God said would happen did not happen. The men of Keilah did not deliver David to Saul, and Saul did not come down to Keilah.
So did God lie about the future to David?
The Bible does not record God saying "Saul will come down if you remain in Keilah."
Nor does the Bible record God saying "They will deliver thee up if you remain in Keilah."
The Bible records that God said something would come to pass, but then because of the choices of David, those things didn't then come to pass.
Is there anything that can be said about this?
Well, for one, God does not lie. The Bible states this in passages like Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18, where in various contexts God is stated as not lying, or being capable of lying. Indirectly this could also be argued from passages like 2 Timothy 2:13, John 14:6, John 17:17, 1 John 5:20, and Proverbs 12:22. There is ample evidence that the Bible describes God as himself not lying or being deceitful.
We'll deal with 1 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 18 later, but suffice to say that the Bible does not describe God speaking directly to Ahab and Jehoshaphat. God being in command over a spirit that can lie is not the same as God lying, and 1 Samuel describes God as the one answering David with no apparent intermediary.
So, if God cannot lie, and said that Saul would come down and the men of Keilah would hand David over, then what God said was true. But it cannot have been true in the sense of accurately foreseeing the actual future, as the things God said did not come to pass.
This is where I want to introduce another text, this time from the New Testament, which may give us something to work with.
Matthew 11:20-23 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
In this passage, Jesus Christ is speaking to cities where mighty works were done, but they were not repentant and did not believe. He then compares these cities to others, saying things which I think are interesting and relevant to this topic.
Jesus states that if he had done the same works in other cities, then those other cities would have repented.
Jesus, being God and one of the specific subjects of the passages regarding Gods truthfulness, cannot be lying here. If He did those works in those cities, we can by default assert He is correct that they would have repented. This is also not a story being told, any sort of parable, so trying to dismiss this as hyperbole would be inconsistent and undermine the severity of the consequences Jesus is describing for their lack of repentance.
The language Jesus uses here is a bit more detailed than in 1 Samuel, and so there cannot be an easy correlation drawn. The literal words aren't the same, and the situations are not identical, but this is where the Bible might be able to fill a gap for itself.
In the words Jesus is using, it is apparent that He is claiming to understand accurately what would happen under certain conditions. Jesus saying that doing the works in other cities would have produced a certain result. The Bible does not record Jesus subsequently going to those places and doing those things, so this was not foreseeing or forknowing an actual future that would come to pass.
This is where I think the things Jesus is describing here means that God knows how things would be different with different circumstances. That God appears to know what a future state would be like under certain conditions. When Jesus says that "If X, then Y." He is accurately stating what Y would happen, given X.
We don't see that language in 1 Samuel, so again, it is not necessarily a direct correlation. The idea for that type of knowledge being within God's purview would be consistent with both passages however.
God could have been telling David what would happen, not what will happen. In this manner, God is being truthful, but what God has told the truth about coming to pass does not need to come to pass, as God was telling David what could happen.
Contrasted with David's first petition and commands, there is something worth noting. In the first petition, God commands David to do something specific. God tells David what will happen. David does what God says, and what God says will happen happens.
In the second petition, God does not tell David what to do. God does not instruct David to stay in Keilah, or to leave. God does not tell David to surrender to Saul at Keilah, or to resist, or anything specific at all. God simply answers the questions David asks, and then David chooses a path to follow.
Note that David isn't recorded in the Bible asking God what will happen if he leaves Keilah either. David isn't recorded in the Bible as asking about alternatives, or for further direction from God.
David gets an answer, and then changes the conditions that prompted his question.
God does not lie and answers what would happen, but because David then changes his conditions, what would have happened no longer comes to pass.
This type of knowledge is about the future, but not what will actually happen in the future, and yet God appears to know it nonetheless, and can communicate the content of a potential future without being deceitful.
That type of knowledge is what I understand "middle knowledge" to be: that God knows what the state of all things would be under any given combination of circumstances, even if that combination of circumstances will never actually come to pass.
I think this would be a very solid biblical foundation for believing that such a type or category of knowledge exists, in that the Bible is taken at face value, and completely external ideas are not introduced to try and fill a perceived gap. The existing context of the passages is also respected, in that while trying to understand what God potentially knows and communicates about the states of things, these passages are God communicating states of things, or potential states of things.
This is my attempt at a biblical foundation for what I understand to be "middle knowledge".
What do you think? Where could better loyalty to the text be achieved? Where are there assumptions and gaps in my own thoughts which need to be addressed? Where are there grammar or spelling errors?
Whether you answer or not, thank you for your time, and may God bless you!
