Middle knowledge refuted by St. Augustine and St. Thomas

First proof:On the predestination of the saints (ch. 9) and gift of perseverance (ch. 9)

Second proof:Gift of perseverance (ch. 17) and predestination of the saints (ch. 10)

Third proof:On the Gift of Perseverance (ch. 18)

Fourth proof:Didn’t use scientia media (middle knowledge) to respond to the pelagians, rather used orthodox soteriology.

“…and in them we recognize that these divine judgements pertain to the causes of predestination, apart from prejudice to those hidden causes, in regard to which I then said I made that reply”Gift of Perseverance ch 9

St. Augustine rejected the opinion for why Christ didn't come in earlier times.- ST. III. Q1. A5. a.2- St. Augustine reply on the 6 questions- Gift of Perseverance, ch. 9

In the 2 cited places, St. Augustine is speaking of future conditionals.- either St. Augustine rejects the same form of scientia of conditionals- or he no longer admits it except insofar as it presupposes predestination, or divine decree.

He affirms that what he said said before was said without prejudice to the hidden counsel of God. We can also deduce that he didn’t teach scientia media even in the abused version which is:

furnishing God without a motive or bestowing grace or for reckoning good works without grace.

1. that issue wasnt under discussion in the context of his argument against the pagans

2. such a position would be erroneous and semi-pelagian.

St. Augustine responding to Hilary:

“are the things foreseen by God also predestined by Him, so that foreknowledge is supported by a decree”The Gift of Perseverance, ch. 17

this is the question of scientia media according to its substance. St. Augustine lays down a principle and rule that if our good works aren't predestined by God

“then neither are they given by God, nor did He know that He would give them; but if they're given and He foreknew that He would give them, He undoubtedly predestined them”The Gift of Perseverance, ch. 17”By predestination, God foreknew the things He himself was going to do”On the Predestination of the Saints, ch. 10

If one grants this then middle knowledge is refuted because it asserts that good things are foreseen by God, but not predestined. St. Augustine cites the earlier Fathers (hilary, prosper) and shows that the term praescientia (foreknowledge) wasnt understood by them to mean foreknowledge prior to the divine decrees and depends upon it:

”what then, prevents us, when we read in some authors of the word of God the foreknowledge of God and it concerns the calling of the elect, from understanding that as predestination itself?”Gift of Perseverance, ch. 18

Scientia Media is refuted since it asserts a foreknowledge of the good pertaining to the calling of the elect. Conditionally future consent to grace (isnt predestination). Tournely, Gabriel daniel both of who are molinists along with others admit that St. Augustine Didn’t employ the molinist formula aka the semi pelagian formula. St. Augustine didnt approve of it and no one can accuse St. Augustine for being blameworthy in neglecting to apply the doctrine against the scandals of his time either.

First proof: Denying the object of Scientia media = rejection of scientia media. St. Thomas denies the object therefore he rejects it.

Second Proof: rejects Scientia media since it teaches that creatures cannot be known by God immediately in themselves, but only in His own essence.

St. Thomas only mentions the science of simple understanding (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). This regards mere possibilities and (scientia visionis) regards futures supposing the decree.

Proof of the First proof.

The object of Scientia media (middle knowledge) is a future conditional prior to God’s actual decree and according to St. Thomas nothing is future before the actual decree.

The proof of the minor proposition from above is seen in St. Thomas’ ST. I, Q. 16, A. 7, rep. 3.

On the Second Proof:

Let’s grant scientia media for this scenario to make sense. According to it God wouldn't see the conditionally future consent of man in His own essence as able to produce it. Neither in the essence as determined by a decree. Rather He would see it immediately in the creature itself (this is what Molinists teach). St. Thomas on the contrary teaches that creatures aren't known by God immediately in themselves, but in His very essence.

St. Thomas rejects the notion:“But among those things which are not in act, a certain distinction must be made. Some things, although they are not now in act, nevertheless have existed or will exist [either absolutely or under some condition]: and all of these God is said to know by the science of vision (scientia visionis). For since the understanding of God, which is His very being, is measured by eternity-which exists without succession and encompasses all time-the present gaze of God extend to all time and to all things which exist at any point in time, as if they were all present to Him. Other things, however, are only in the potency of God or of creatures, which nevertheless neither are, nor will be, nor have been [either absolutely, or because the condition is not fulfilled]. In regard to these, He is not said to have the science of vision (scientia visionis), butthe science of simple understanding (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). This is said because the things we see, in our case, have an existence distinct from the one seeing them.”ST. I, Q. 14, A.9

St. Thomas teaches that those things that don’t have existence outside the knower pertain to the science of simple understanding and those who do have such an existence pertain to the science of vision. 2 cases

1. either future conditionals truly will be because the condition will be fulfilled which consequently renders that they have existence outside the knower hence becoming objects of scientia visionis.

2. they truly will not be because the condition wont be fulfilled which consequently infers that they dont have existence outside the knower hence being objects of scientia simplicis intelligentiae.

St. Thomas on if God has speculative knowledge:

“It must be said that God has only speculative knowledge of himself , since He is not operable. But of all other things He has both specualtive and practical knowledge. Speculative, as to the manner of knowing: for whatever we know speculatively in things by defining and dividing, God knows all these more perfectly. But of those things which He can make but does not make at any time, He does not have practical knowledge insofar as practical knowledge is defined by its reference to and end. He has practical knowledge only of those things which He does in time. And even evils, though not operable by Him, still fall under His practical knowledge, insofar as He permits, hinders, or orders them.”ST. I, Q. 14, A.16

So we can safely infer about St. Thomas that those things which in any way are future are known by God through scientia visionis (practical) and those things which arent future meaning their futurition is impeded God knows by science of simple understanding (speculative). Therefore St. Thomas implicitly and explicitly excludes the notion of scientia media by determining the objects of both the science of simple understanding and vision that no intermediate object can be imagined which God would know in a third mode.