BOOK REVIEW: PREDESTINATION & FREEWILL

A Paper

Submitted to Dr. Peter Kendrick

of the

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

Systematic Theology II: THEO 5301

In the division of Pastoral Leadership

Christopher C. Robinson

B.S., Leavell College, 2008

January 13, 2011

1

Feinberg, John, Norman Geisler, Bruce Reichenbach, and Clark Pinnock. Predestination

& Freewill: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom. Edited by David Basinger

and Randall Basinger. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1986.

Introduction

Predestination & Freewill is written to give readers a glimpse into four different

views on the issue of how God's sovereignty interacts with human freewill. Each of

these four views is argued represented by a different author. The book is divided into 5

main sections: an introduction and a section devoted to each view. The book follows a

format typical to books of its ilk; each section beings with a proposal and then each of

the other three authors offer a rebuttal. In attempt to demonstrate how this primarily

philosophical and theological debate affects normal living each author was also asked

to deal with two case studies. The first involved a man named Fred who was dealing

with how God's sovereignty and will related to his wealth and the poverty of others.

The second involved a girl named Mary who had been rejected from medical school

and was questioning God's will for her life and whether it is possible she missed out on

it.

The various views being presented are divided by groups based on their answers

to the question, "To what extent does human freedom pose limitations on God's control

over earthly affairs?" There are different views being considered are: God ordains all

things by John Feinberg, God knows all things by Norman Geisler, God limits is power

by Bruce Reischenbach, and God limits his knowledge by Clark Pinnock. It is notable

that this book is a part of the "four views" series and as such choosing only four views

does not stem from an examination of the views that exist but was decided from the

2

beginning. This has caused the editors to omit a major player in the predestination and

freewill argument—those who hold that freewill and predestination are compatible but

together they form a divine paradox that is beyond human comprehension. (14)

Delimit

Composing a review of a book with four authors competing with each other

leaves the reviewer with a few decisions to make. Does he review the book as a whole

or each individual author? Reviewing the entire book would require dealing with the

format, the question posed to the authors, the choice of authors and topics, and the

overall completeness of the presentation. In reviewing the entire book the cogency of

any individual argument is not particularly important; the editor cannot be held

responsible for inconsistencies present in entire theories if these theories are significant

enough to warrant a section in the book. The problem with reviewing a book like this as

a whole is that the book itself does not say anything; there is no coherent message or

argument to evaluate. Reviewing the arguments of each author is in actuality typing

four different reviews as the strengths of one may be the weaknesses of another. In lieu

of reviewing either the whole book or the individual papers it contains this work will

attempt both strategies; it will begin with a summary and brief evaluation of the

arguments and then will evaluate the book as a whole.

God Ordains All Things

John Feinberg argues that God has ordained all things. (19) As a compatibilist,

Feinberg has no problem stating that man can have freedom even though God is

completely sovereign over absolutely everything. (26) Feinberg's best argument for his

case stems from his common sense reading of Ephesians 1:11; he makes a relatively

convincing argument that it settles the Biblical case in his favor. (30-2) He holds that

3

God can in fact force humans to choose exactly what he wants in any given situation.

(29) The key word in the previous sentence sentence is "choose;" for Feinberg, God

influences agents to decide to do whatever he wants. Freedom still exists in that

everyone chooses their actions; sovereignty still exists in that God makes sure everyone

chooses exactly what He wants them to do.

Unfortunately, Feinberg repeatedly weakens the overall presentation of his

argument with inaccurate representations of other positions; Feinberg has either

misunderstood his opponents or is attempting to mislead his readers. A good example

is found on page 36 as Feinberg attempts to argue against indeterminists; Feinberg

presents indeterminists as having to choose between there being no cause for any action

or every action being causally determined. Indeterminists would of course argue that

the presence of external and internal motivations is completely unrelated to whether the

world is determined or not. This false dichotomy does not advance Feinberg's

argument; he writes off proponents of the idea that actually opposes his own—those

who appeal to agent causation—in a footnote. Whether acts are determined by humans

or by God is the purpose of the entire book; arguing that your opponents are wrong

because hunger causes them to eat is either ignorant or misleading. This same failure is

evident in Feinberg's discussion of middle knowledge on page 34. Feinberg seems to

define middle knowledge however he sees fit in this section; in adjacent sentences

Feinberg defines middle knowledge as "knowledge of what might occur" and therefore

irrelevant to God's knowledge of the future but then states that it does not mean that

"God knows what could occur if something happened, but rather what would happen if

something else occurred." (34) Feinberg may be making a subtle distinction between

these two ideas but without further clarification it seems to be contradictory.

4

Problematic as this may be, it is not the primary problem with that statement above.

Feinberg applies his own understanding of the future—that it is already determined—

and applies it to his definition of middle knowledge. With a simple switch from the

world "could" to the word "would" Feinberg subtly defines middle knowledge in a way

that makes it sound like it could only support his position; he then uses this definition

to refute others arguments. In reality both parties could use the word "would"

comfortably; when Feinberg goes on to imply that word "would" definitively eliminates

any openness he unfairly limits middle knowledge to only support determinism.

Feinberg makes some convincing arguments but his repeated abuse of straw men

weakens his case considerably. His case is also weakened by his complete contradiction

of his own ideas in the case studies. On page 40 Feinberg uses the words "If human

agents...God cannot stop them without contradicting his intentions in making them the

sort of creatures that they are." This seems to contradict Feinberg's earlier statement that

God is "absolutely sovereign" and that the "basis for His sovereign choices is

not...anything else external to His will." (29) While the statements can be reconciled by

stating that God has already willed them to be what they are and now He is powerless

to change it. This statement would probably give Feinberg pause; even if it does not,

this interpretation renders Feinberg's advice to Fred completely meaningless. In essence

Feinberg says, "God cannot stop them because he has already decided not to stop

them." Feinberg's response to Mary falls back into the oft-used tactic of referring to

God's permissive will in contrast to His perfect will. (41) This statement is irreconcilable

with Feinberg's argument that God is absolutely sovereign and can guarantee that His

5

will will come to pass.1 If God has so much control how is there such a thing as a

permissive will? God "ordains all things" but somehow some of the things He ordains

are less His will than others? These glaring problems render Feinberg's paper less than

impressive.

God Knows All Things

Geisler argues that God determines as He foreknows. (70) This is an interesting

position as Geisler refuses to place either human action or divine predestination

logically or chronologically prior to the other. (67) If one forgets the original question,

this may seem to be an attempt to avoid giving an answer. Geisler attempts to solve the

question of how God's determinism can coexist with our freedom and he is faithful in

this attempt. Even though Geisler does not verbally claim some divine paradox his

argument may to some amount to the same claim. Humans are so tied to the sequential

nature of time it seems impossible that God could simultaneously foreknow and

determine. That literally as we act freely God is determining our actions. Geisler's

response is perhaps the strongest in the book; this may be because an argument based

on a incomprehensible idea is very difficult to disprove.

God Limits His Power

Reichenbach argues that God chooses to limit His power in order to give humans

freedom to make choices. Reichenbach presents a fairly strong Biblical case for his

general position because the Bible deals with human beings on these terms. (115-7)

There is less evidence that it happens as Reichenbach describes it—that God chooses to

limit His power—than there is that human being seem to be described in the Bible as

1 Feinberg does not seem to actually state his claim that God can guarantee that His will will always be accomplished but on page 30 he does argue that determinism must be true because with indeterministic

6

free agents except for a few specific cases. Reichenbach does a particularly good job as

he deals with the compatibility of foreknowledge with true human freedom. He argues

that knowledge does not indicate causation; God knows what we will do only because

we do it. Instead of God's foreknowledge causing human actions Reichenbach argues

that human actions actually cause God to foreknow. (109-10) Reichenbach's weakest

argument lies in his attempt to establish that God must limit his power in order to

preserve human freedom. Reichenbach states that "when persons must be manipulated

or restricted (as, for example, when we must [forcibly] restrain one person from

harming another), it must be recognized that such manipulation and interference can

destroy the personhood of the individual." (109) This statement not necessarily true; the

premise behind this statement is that an individuals "personhood" lies entirely in their

freedom to act as they wish. It is clear that constraining someone's behavior does not

change who they are; putting someone in jail only constricts their behavior it does not

end their personality, talents, or desires. Reichenbach would have surely no problem

with "forceably" removing his daughter a busy street that she was playing in; he would

certainly argue this is a just cause but would he argue that he somehow took away from

his daughters personhood by removing her from the street? I would argue that he did

not. Speeding cars are much more likely to take away a child's "personhood" than a

loving father who removes them from a busy street. Granting a child freedom to

destroy themselves in no way preserves their nature as a person. This argument fails

when applied to the relationship between God and man in the same way it fails when

applied to the relationship between fathers and children. Restricting human freedom to

prevent their destruction would not destroy but preserve their "personhood" and, even

freedom God does not have the ability to guarantee his will will come to pass.

7

if a part of their humanity was destroyed with their absolute freedom, surely

preventing eternal destruction is a just enough cause to warrant this loss. Reichenbach

makes some decent arguments but a few glaring flaws prevent his argument from being

convincing

God Limits His Knowledge

Clark Pinnock argues that God limits his knowledge. Pinnock makes it clear that

while he is arguing for the openness of the future he is not a process theologian. (147)

Pinnock does an excellent job arguing his case; perhaps his strongest point is that the

Bible seems to indicate that prayer can change things. Any system with a closed future

will find it difficult to explain how exactly prayer can changed God's mind in the Bible

or how it can change the outcome of our situation. How a person believes prayer

interacts with the future is a good indicator of how their understanding of freewill and

predestination is applied to their actual life. While the passages Pinnock and others use

in support of open theism do not conclusively state that the future is open and they

especially do not state that God limits his foreknowledge they do cause serious

problems for those who argue for predeterminism. His second strength can be found in

his pointing out that man of the assumptions people hold about God stem not from the

Bible itself but from the ideas of philosophers throughout the ages. (146, 150, 155) The

idea that God is outside of time and must be in order to remain God is not found in the

Bible; it reeks of the influence of early Greek philosophy which largely assumed God

could not even create the world without a series of intermediary demi-deities. This

influence should only serve to send readers back to the Bible to discover what it actually

does convey about God and his plan; here Pinnock fails to have a good answer. His

8

point was a strong one but it only called into question what some might consider the

status quo; it does not actually point toward his position being the correct one.

Pinnock's proposal does have some flaws. The first of these flaws is his comment

that the "price in terms of evangelism will be high if we can offer no rational hypothesis

to explain sovereignty and freedom."(144) While Pinnock may be correct in his

statement, he is incorrect to imply that the truth about God should somehow be altered

in order to avoid incurring a "price in terms of evangelism." Should we cease preaching

Christ crucified because it is "a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to the Gentiles?" (1

Cor 1:23 ESV) Our solution need not be more palatable to the modern mind; it must be

Biblical whatever its impact on evangelism to philosophy majors. This is a minor side

note in Pinnock's argument but it should give orthodox readers pause and does not add

any real support to Pinnock's argument; removing this statement will only enhance

Pinnock's proposal. On the whole Pinnock does a good job arguing for the openness of

the future; his arguments are strong enough to call into question a good bit of the other

writers' ideas. Unfortunately for Pinnock, Biblical evidence stops at questioning the

complete closedness of the future; Pinnock is as convincing as the Biblical evidence will

let him be.

Evaluation of Entire Book

The book as a whole does a decent job of presenting some of the views held on the

issues of predestination and freewill. It suffers from the complete lack of cohesiveness

typical of any book that uses the proposal/response format. Each section begins as if the

others never happened, leaving readers to forget what they just read and move on.

While this is not inherently a bad thing, it keeps the book from working towards an

end. A point/counterpoint format would be more difficult to pull off fairly but it would

9

allow the work to actually be a whole instead of 4 different parts.

There is a problem inherent in the combination of authors chosen for the book as

well. A debate between compatibilist and noncompatibilist thinkers cannot really

continue until that issue is settled. At various times throughout the book an author will

simply reject the idea that freewill and God's sovereignty are compatible and then move

on. (90, 150, 157). While the book is designed to answer this question the focus of the

proposals is on how these two interact not on whether it is possible for both to coexist;

all discussion and reactions between compatibilist and noncompatibilist thinkers that

reach beyond this primary issue is not productive.

The exclusion of a thinker who argues for a paradox was an oversight; this middle

road position has value and would have brought a fresh perspective to each segment.

Beginning a series with the title "Four Views" was the instigator of this problem and is

not conducive to remaining balanced on each issue. Because some issues may need five

views and some may only need two, imposing this artificial limit is an unnecessary step

that could prevent books from reaching their full potential.

Given its parameters, the book does an acceptable job at accomplishing its

purpose. The audience for the book is a fairly small one. It deals with enough

philosophical and theological terminology that it is probably not aimed at being a true

consumer level work. If it is designed as a book for the masses then it has missed the

mark considerably; sorting through the misrepresentations and sarcastic jabs (Pinnock

was especially guilty of off topic sarcasm) is not the ideal for the masses. A book with a

single author that clearly lays out the options without attempting to persuade anyone

will be much more effective than this book. In fact a well single author survey of the

topic would be better for just about every reader. It would be cohesive and could be just

10

more informative as it would not be written as a persuasive argument or a critique of

someone else's persuasive argument. This book is not sufficient for readers who are

serious about understanding this issue and want to form an opinion of their own. They

will need to read books on the topic by various authors; this book could possibly serve

as a starting point but a decent single author survey would have a much better

bibliography and would allow for a more objective understanding of the strengths and

weaknesses of each point. This leaves one audience for which the book may be ideal:

seminary classes. The argumentative nature of the work makes a critique easier and it

introduces students to the sort of writing and thinking that should be required of them.

It is also fairly short so it could be a secondary reading assignment. For understanding

the issue at hand a well written survey of the topic is still superior but this book would

be efficient at starting discussion and forcing students to think critically. The book is

worth reading if it is on a syllabus; those with options would probably be better off

looking elsewhere.