Greg Koukl is a very influential Christian apologist (and rightly so). His book Tactics comes highly recommended (it does not teach people how to debate, but instead teaches people how to communicate with others interested in a dialogue with Christianity). Koukl made a video concerning Molinism and middle knowledge. However, in his discussion on Molinism and middle knowledge I believe he evinces some misunderstandings. I wish to clear those up here.
Some of the mistakes are minor. For instance, Koukl has framed the debate in terms of Molinism's being Arminian. For some, that would constitute a poisoning of the well; it perhaps implies that if one were to be a Calvinist, he would reject Molinism. However, this is not true. Ken Keathley seems to come from a somewhat Calvinistic perspective in his soteriology despite clearly being Molinist in his thinking. Bruce Ware and others have similarly adapted the concept of middle knowledge (albeit incorrectly); in any case, these people are not Arminian (even if many of them are). This is because Molinism, strictly speaking, is not about Calvinism vs. Arminianism. It is about omniscience.
Some of the mistakes are quite major. In his description of natural knowledge, Koukl rightly states that it involves possibilities of what might occur. In his description of middle knowledge, he states that it is what a free creature might do in any given set of circumstances. This isn't quite true, and it's extremely important. Rather than might-counterfactuals, middle knowledge discusses would-counterfactuals. That is to say, the content of middle knowledge is what any free creature would freely choose to do under any given and fully-specified set of circumstances.
He then moves to explain why he does not believe in Molinism and middle knowledge, offering a particular view of many Molinists about election to salvation (many Molinists believe God actualizes the possible world in which the largest number of people freely choose to believe; this is simplistic but roughly accurate [there are some distinctions that are crucial to that topic but unimportant here]). The problem is that such a view is not entailed by Molinism proper, so that a rejection of this view just is not a rejection of Molinism.
He also rejects Molinism because of God's decision to elect a world and not individuals. However, there are two major problems with this interpretation. First, it's an equivocation on "election." What Molinism actually states is an actualization of a world. Now it is a world that God chose to create, but it by no means must be understood as referring exclusively to a soteriological state. Second, nothing in Molinism necessitates that one believes God only elects entire worlds to the exclusion of individuals. Moreover, even if a Molinist says this, we can safely assume he is false because a possible world is a maximally-described set of circumstances, which entails individuals and their choices! This means that even an election of worlds entails an election of individuals. However, even supposing a Molinist took the route of believing in a corporate election (which many do), this is not a tenet of Molinism.
Moreover, Koukl makes the claim that he holds "middle knowledge" under "natural knowledge." The problem is twofold: first, if this is the case, then the knowledge is not in the middle of anything. Second, if would-counterfactuals are true under necessary knowledge, then not only could God not control their content, but not even individuals can control their content. Since all natural knowledge is necessary knowledge, the counterfactual "If Peter were in C, he would not freely deny Christ" (where C is the set of biblical circumstances surrounding Christ's crucifixion) is not only false (as it is in fact), but also impossible! Such a claim strikes me as needing a serious argument.
Koukl is a fine representative of the Christian apologetics community, but he got it wrong on this one.
 This is analogous to not believing in God because some people who believe in God believe in speaking in tongues and someone else does not. That would not be a very good reason to reject Him!
All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.