Product Description

If God is in control, are people really free?

This question has bothered Christians for centuries. And answers have covered a wide spectrum. Today Christians still disagree.

Those who emphasize human freedom view it as a reflection of God's self-limited power. Others look at human freedom in the order of God's overall control.

David and Randall Basinger have put this age-old question to four scholars trained in theology and philosophy. John Feinberg of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Norman Geisler of Dallas Theological Seminary focus on God's specific sovereignty. Bruce Reichenbach of Augsburg College and Clark Pinnock of McMaster Divinity College insist that God must limit his control to ensure our freedom. Each writer argues for his perspective and applies his theory to two practical case studies. Then the other writers respond to each of the major essays, exposing what they see as fallacies and hidden assumptions.

A lively and provocative volume.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #216920 in Books
• Published on: 1985-10
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 179 pages

About the Author
David Basinger is professor of philosophy and ethics at Roberts Wesleyan College in Rochester, New York. He is the author of Divine Power in Process Theism (SUNY) and joint author of the books Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Oxford) and Religious Diversity: A Philosophical Assessment (Ashgate). IVP Books by David Basinger

Dr. Basinger is currently dean of curriculum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania. Among his published work is the essay "Faith/Reason Typologies: A Constructive Proposal," in Christian Scholar's Review (1997).

Customer Reviews

An Intellectually Stimulating Book: A Synopsis
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).

Superb book discussing a key issue in theology
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.

Good starting-point for further study
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.