Customer Reviews

Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Four theologians - John Feinberg, Norman Geisler, Bruce Reichenbach, and Clark Pinnock - attempt to reconcile divine sovereignty and human freedom. The first two advocate a type of specific sovereignty whereas the latter two advocate a type of general sovereignty. Therefore, Feinberg and Geisler have more in common with each other than the other two who also have more in common among themselves. The differences between Feinberg and Geisler center around defining the nature of God's "determining" the future. Feinberg holds to a type of causal determinism whereas Geisler holds to a type of epistemological determinism. Because Geisler, like Reichenbach and Pinnock, holds to a contra-causal type of human freedom (actually, Geisler calls it "self-determined" or self-caused), he thinks that Feinberg's view of divine determinism makes God solely responsible for evil. Feinberg, on the other hand, thinks that "God cannot guarantee that something will assuredly occur if contra-causal freedom is correct." He thinks that if God "cannot guarantee it, then at best he thinks it will occur but does not know that it will" (pg. 128). For Feinberg, God foreknows because he foreordains and does not, as many Arminians say, foreordain because he foreknows. He feels that Geisler doesn't make his position clear on this crucial issue and part of the reason is that he thinks Geisler confuses God's mental acts with his essence or attributes (e.g., omniscience).

Reichenbach and Pinnock (who consider themselves Arminians) seem to agree on everything except on what God can know. Pinnock agrees in principle with Feinberg that if foreknowledge presupposes that all events are certain, then foreordination must render them certain. However, he feels that since humans are free, God must not foreknow future free acts. Why? Because "free actions are not entities which can be known ahead of time" (pg. 157). Reichenbach, on the other hand, agrees with Feinberg and Geisler that God does know future free acts, but differs with them in that he makes foreknowledge DEPEND upon the event and not vice versa. He says, "God will know the event if and only if the event occurs" (pg. 110). Geisler responds: "But an independent Being who is the cause of everything which exists, or ever will exist, is not dependent on his creatures for anything. They are dependent on him" (pg. 133). Reichenbach also differs from Feinberg and Geisler in limiting God's omnipotence. Geisler critiques his view by saying that he gives God only the greatest ACTUAL power, but not the greatest POSSIBLE power (see pg. 132).

Although Feinberg and Geisler consider themselves "moderate Calvinists," it seems clear that Feinberg has more in common with Reformed theology than Geisler. For more on these issues, see Geisler's book "Chosen but Free" and James White's Reformed response to Geisler, "The Potter's Freedom". Regarding Pinnock and Reichenbach (and the editors, the Basingers), their departure from Classical Theism is addressed in Geisler's book "Creating God in the Image of Man?" This book addresses Pinnock and other "neotheists" (as Geisler calls them).

I consider myself a "moderate Arminian" because I embrace Classical Theism and reject neotheism (what Geisler calls "extreme Arminianism"). This book under review, among others, helped me refine my position. Of all the positions in this book, I related more to Geisler (excluding his belief in "once saved, always saved") . Remember this: God created everything (except himself) OUT OF NOTHING and causally SUSTAINS it all in existence by his sovereign will. This providential will does NOT contradict his prescriptive will which actively "permits" sin and evil. I'm an Arminian who accepts specific sovereignty (see pg. 14).

The issue of predestination and free will rests at the base of many theological interpretations of all subjects. To understand God's Word correctly, this is one of the first issues that must be tackled because of other theologies' reliance on this. There is a perceived conflict, but it can be resolved through Scriptural reading and through guiding commentaries such as this one that discusses the meaning of the key Scriptures.

The Bassinger brothers begin with a general discussion of the perceived contradiction regarding our freedom and God's sovereignty. Then each writer proposes their viewpoint in an essay, which is immediately responded to by the other 3 contributors.

The first author, Dr. Feinberg, begins with a moderate Calvinistic viewpoint. He uses much Scripture and presents a good idea that our freedom is not inhibited by God's Sovereignty. God knows what will happen prior and directs His will. Our freedom is limited.

The second author, Dr. Geisler, writes from a different moderate Calvinistic viewpoint. He too uses Scripture profusely, and states that God's work through sovereignty does not affect our freedom, and that they can coexist. This is because God limits His sovereignty to allow free will. His knowledge beforehand of our actions does not affect our freedom to choose.

The third author, Dr. Reichenbach, writes from an Arminian standpoint and uses Scripture profusely as well. He states that the issue of Predestination and Free Will outlined in Scripture is a mystery that cannot yet be known. He states that we are completely free and God is completely sovereign.

The fourth author, Dr Pinnock, writes from an Open Theism standpoint and uses little Scripture in his writing compared to the other writers. He states that God does not know how things will work out exactly. He knows the end-result, and knows all the possibilities in the middle (scientia media), but doesn't know exactly what path we will take. This is because Scripture's statement of God being "almighty" has been traditionally misinterpreted.

Of the 4 positions, the last is the only one that I did not think belonged. I would have much liked to have seen a strong Calvinistic viewpoint, even though it is not as widely believed as the first 3 authors' writings.

This book helped me to understand free will and predestination in a much grander scheme. One issue I had with the book was that each author tried to pin God into a neatly labeled box in which He acts in every situation, whether it be choosing a flavor of ice-cream or choosing whether to follow the left fork or right in a big life-changing decision. I believe God acts differently in different situations and that He is more flexible than is provided by any of these 4 interpretations.

A superb reading regarding this key issue in theology. Of course, the first place to start is Scripture, but this is a good second read regarding this perceived conflict.

This book is one of the first attempts to commingle opposing views on one of the most acute issues in theology : how an Almighty God can control events and yet leave people 'free' enough to be responsible. Putting full weight on the sovereignity of God is John Feinberg, who proposes that God controls everything with nothing having been left out of His will. In this view, all of Man's actions have been ordained since eternity and nothing escapes His determining.

At the extreme opposite is Clark Pinnock coming in with his now very popular (and strong) thesis that God's project of creation involves bestowing humans with the power of agency and genuine creativity; the future is 'open' and God can be genuinely surprised and disappointed by His creatures. In between Feinberg and Pinnock, we have Norman Geisler proposing a model in which God's desires still cannot be disappointed in spite of the genuinely free - the technical word used throughout is 'contra-causal' - actions of people (in the sense that everything that ever happened and will happen falls within the plan of God) and Bruce Reichenbach defending probably the most popular view around: that God does not get everything He desired because His mode of governance does not consist of controlling every iota in existence, but rather involves delegation. Both uphold exhaustive foreknowledge.

I was impressed with Feinberg's introduction to the various possibilities involved with the word 'can'. Still I felt it wasn't necessary since the whole issue revolves around the fact that whatever we do has been 'fed into' and 'determined' for us since eternity and done so in an unconditional way. We can define freedom whatever way we care to, but the fact that God's determining hand has an UNCONDITIONAL role completely rules out whatever defense Feinberg's theology can have for our accountability towards evil.

The best portion in Geisler's writings was his exposition of self-determinism (with which I'm sure Pinnock and Reichenback would agree). I think he hit the hammer on the head by his assertion that it is meaningless to ask what 'caused' the actor to choose his actions. This is like asking how God created the world ex nihilo. And I think this adds damage to Feinberg's case, because he (Feinberg) fails to consider that there is an irreducible element of 'self' in any meaningful talk of personal choices - and that this element simply cannot be 'pointed to'. Feinberg's constant requests for what caused a choice shows some kind of 'metaphysical Newtonianism', IMO. Almost like asking, "What CAUSED him to fall in love with his wife?". However, Geisler seems to be reveling in the contradiction of taking the strong points of determinism and indeterminism, juxtaposing them together and leaving it at that (as Reichenbach carefully points out). Nevertheless he has a wonderful habit of first stating on what points he agreed with the author he's criticising. That's quite a gracious move, I must say.

Reichenbach presents a rather 'heavy-going' but clearly argued essay on how God has opted not for meticulous control but broad governance of His universe (something like the mayor of a city who delegates responsibility to his subordinates). Only the staunchest determinist would find problems with Reichenback's argument that God grants us freedom within limits to fulful our given role as stewards of the created order. Overall, I think many Arminian Christians would hold to Reichenbach's view which, except for his view on foreknowledge, could be easily added to Pinnock's essay without contradiction. Unfortunately, I felt his criticism of Pinnock's theory that God cannot 'know' free future actions, to have missed the point. Pinnock wasn't so much saying that God can't predict future actions, just that some future actions cannot be infallibly known (God's repentance documented so many times in Scripture should make this clear).

As for Pinnock, what can I say? He writes like a music-lover simultaneously enjoying and explaining a symphony to a friend. I think most open theists (like me) would've preferred a presentation more solidly grounded in Scripture but as a beautiful description of the creative project God has decided to embark on and of the 'flower of human freedom' He has blessed His people with, Pinnock's essay is quite second to none. He may not convince anyone not willing to let go of God's total foreknowledge but his work does have an emotional, and almost surreal, appeal to our hearts.

For the Calvinist, this book will be a good challenge to (and, hopefully, a source for modification of) your ideas. I think many will agree that Feinberg seems almost 'lost for words' throughout. Determinism is really a dead-end; the power of God may be upheld but it is a great cost to His love and our understanding of evil. For the Arminian, Reichenbach's work add sufficient intellectual support to your beliefs. Ironically, Geisler's explanation of 'self-determinism' can be fully integrated into your understanding of humanity without accepting his odes to determinism (just read what Reichenbach has to say). For the open theist, there are probably better places to look if you want more support for the non-actual ontological status of the future in the present. But Geisler and Reichenbach still provide necessary criticisms of the theory and implications that God may not know all the future, and it's always good to know the possible problems with our position. For the 'general reader', do get this book for a solid introduction to the issues involves and the arguments and assumptions employed by the various theological camps.

And no, we're not 'ordained from eternity' to read this book but let's put some of our human agency to good use and self-determine to dig in and think through the kind of world (and life) God has created for us.

Being able to explain how God is all-powerful and all-knowing, while at the same time people have free-will to make our own decisions is more than a philosophical exercise. It goes to the heart of what you believe about God, how He works in your life, and how you live before Him. This book presents four opinions on how to explain the issue, and reading it helped me to further clarify my own opinion in my mind. (I especially enjoyed the responses of each author to the others -- it was like being privy to a live debate, and much more entertaining than merely reading four different books on the subject). So if you, think you already know the answer, as I did, this book will be a real learning experience, if only to foster better understanding of how fellow believers think.

Similar to this book, and recommended with equal enthusiasm, is Donald Alexander (ed.), "Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification."

This book is an excellent tool to broaden your thinking as to the various ways in which Christians view the seemingly contradictory biblical truths of God's sovereignty and human free will.

When I first read the book, perhaps a dozen or so years ago, it really opened up my eyes as to the complexity and profoundness of the issue. Here we have four Christian scholars, each with a brilliant mind, who present their positions logically and convincingly, and yet, are unable to reach a consensus between them. When such apt erudites have difficulty agreeing on certain issues we shouldn't be surprised that the average Christian is puzzled as well.

It seemed to me that each author took hold of a particular aspect of the total revealed truth, and clung to it tightly, and gave it more weight or emphasis than the other aspects. And interestingly enough, each was able to argue their case persuasively using the scriptures and philosophical arguments. The comments of each author on the essays of the others revealed strengths and weaknesses of the arguments for each position. This really hit home and convinced me of the overwhelming complexity of the issue and why we should not be dogmatic in our assertions on this subject.

Before I read the book, I think I may have had an idea as to what I believed about the sovereignty of God and what its relationship is to human free will. But after reading it, I was really left with the impression that perhaps our finite minds really are incapable of fully comprehending this profound truth - that perhaps, God's thoughts truly are that much higher than our own. It really had a humbling effect, which I believe is good. Perhaps there is a higher common denominator that has not yet been discovered or revealed where these seemingly opposing truths can be reconciled. I do feel however that when we dogmatically emphasize a particular aspect of the entire revealed truth we tend to polarize ourselves from other brothers to whom God may have chosen to reveal a different aspect of his truth.

For ages, contemplative believers accepted both ideas as biblical truth and just lived with the tension between the two. But for those who just could not live with the tension, we have created for ourselves several ingenious theologies which explain things from basically one perspective to make it easier for our minds to grasp.

Without a doubt, I am certainly not an expert on this issue. But after a good deal of thought, for me, it still remains a mystery of God - something too high for me to fully understand, so I decided for myself to make no dogmatic conclusions. Perhaps I will feel differently about this later, but the book did have this infuence on me.

My hope is that the book opens up the minds of the readers so that they may be more understanding of their brothers who may feel differently than they do, and foster an attitude of grace, mercy, acceptance and love. This is a very thought provoking book.

Some pretty dense reading, may take twice for you to fully understand the arguments. However, much of what passes for theological debate between Calvinists and Arminians is really rooted in whatever philosophical construct has been erected to reconcile free-will and soveriegnty, so this book is important in that respect.
I was disappointed with the book for not dealing with such passages as Rom 9:19, Luk 7:30, the unpardonable sin, etc. I am having to look elsewhere for discussions on many key passages.

This book's method of delivery has to be the best way to explore such difficult issues. Although the reader will disagree with one or more of the contributors of the book, regardless of their position, a clear understanding of just how much can be discovered through other's point of view will be obtained.

This book will further develop your own position on the issue, and give you "something to chew on."

Years ago when I was struggling with the issues of election, freedom, Calvinism, Arminianism, I read this book. The four people they chose make solid arguments for their individual views. That is the right way to approach it. There are no "straw men" here. This is not going to present you with major treatises on the views. It is not intended to. This will give you a place to start if you feel like digging in deeper. Just remember, the single most important doctrine is one that all of the authors hold in common. You can have eternal life by trusting in Christ. Ultimately, that is what matters most.

Although published in 1986, this book is one of the best comparison/contrast discussions of various evangelical doctrines of God. Feinberg presents the best presentation to date of the Calvinist position. Other texts have attempted the Calvinist position and failed to do the kind of justice Feinberg does to Calvinism. (Paul Helm wrote the Calvinist response in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views and in Perspectives on the Doctrine of God. Both were awful.) The biggest disappointment was Geisler's presentations and responses. I read twenty pages for Geisler to say that the idea that humans have indeterminate freewill and God having absolute sovereignty is a mystery. How disappointing and unacceptable to most evangelicals. (Geisler's disappointing presentation may be the reason why he has not written in subsequent volumes on this topic). Reichenbach wrote a very good summary of classical Arminianism, while Pinnock's open theism perspective was emotionally compelling but lacked as much substance as Feinberg's and Reichenbach's. (Sanders's presentation in Perspectives on the Doctrine of God is much better, although Pinnock is always a joy to read).

Overall, this book is a wonderful start to an important conversation. I highly recommend this book to all interested in the subject.

The book provided a range of scholarly argument about a very complex subject which allowed the reader to find or develop a personal position based on his/her interpretation of the Scriptures. It blended practical, although sometimes outlandish, illustrations in real life to more clearly relate some abstract philosophical and theological concepts. Overall, it was a very interesting read and one that I would highly recommend.