# Predestination and Free Will



## cih1355 (Mar 17, 2008)

I just started reading _Predestination and Free Will_. The four contributors are John Feinberg, Norman Geisler, Bruce Reichenbach, and Clark Pinnock. Each of them presents their own positions and responds to the others. Has anyone read this book?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 17, 2008)

Well I would steer way clear of Clark Pinnock.


----------



## danmpem (Mar 18, 2008)

...and Geisler. I always thought Pinnock was Arminian. What position does he take in the book?


----------



## BJClark (Mar 18, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian;



> Well I would steer way clear of Clark Pinnock.





He teaches Hell isn't real and people will just cease to exist?? Is that correct?


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 18, 2008)

Pinnock avoids using as much Scripture to ground his case as the other three authors. His Open Theism is on display with an appeal to the heart rather than to the intellect. As one person described his contribution: "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."

Yech! If you like the format, you may want to consider *Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views *(with contributions by Gregory A. Boyd, David Hunt, William Lane Craig, Paul Helm), ed., James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (IVP)


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 18, 2008)

danmpem said:


> ...and Geisler. I always thought Pinnock was Arminian. What position does he take in the book?



Pinnock's an Arminian gone to seed - he's an Open Theist, and hence an unbeliever.


----------



## cih1355 (Mar 19, 2008)

danmpem said:


> ...and Geisler. I always thought Pinnock was Arminian. What position does he take in the book?




Pinnock takes the position that God does not know what will happen in the future.


----------



## cih1355 (Mar 19, 2008)

Feinberg defends the position that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass including evil. He believes that man has freedom in the sense that he acts according to his desires. He denies freedom in the sense of the power of contrary choice. Geisler, Reichenbach, and Pinnock respond to Feinberg's essay.

Here is one of the responses that Geisler makes: "Second, Feinberg believes that all acts must be causally determined by God, yet he holds that God does not coerce us. But is this possible? The difficulty is concealed behind some euphemisms such as 'incline decisively' (p.25), 'changed desire' (p.26), and 'guarantee' the outcome (p.26). But how can God decisively guarantee the result without forcing or coercing the individual? What if individuals reject the non-coercive impulse God gives? What if they decide not to allow this new desire to rule them? Feinberg responds elsewhere by claiming that God 'did not create men's actions themselves'. That is, God gives the power of choice to humans but leaves the performing of the actions up to them. But if this were so, then we would be free to reject the persuasion or desires which God offers us."

My response to Geisler is that God ordains what our hearts will be like. God ordains what our desires, thoughts, and intentions will be like. We act according to our desires. Therefore, we act according to what God decreed we will do. However, this does not mean that we are forced to do something. The doctrine of effectual calling is an example of how it can be possible that God can guarantee that we will do something and at the same time not be forced to do something. When God effectual calls the elect to come to Christ, He guarantees that the elect will come to Christ, but the elect are not forced to come to Christ. An elect person's will is changed so that he can come to Christ without being forced. 

In response of Feinberg's essay, Reichenbach asks a question concerning Ephesians 1:11. He asks, "Does the passage teach that God does or works out everything in conformity with His purposes or does it teach that everything God does He does in conformity with His purposes?". How would you answer Reichenbach's question?

The following is an excerpt from Reichenbach's response to Feinberg. How would you respond to it?

"Secondly- and this strikes at the heart of every compatibilist position- if every event and thing is caused, then my very choices, beliefs, and desires are caused. But if my choosing and desiring are caused by causes which ultimately can be traced back prior to the existence of the individual human person, I cannot will, choose, or desire other than I am caused to do. But then the freedom asserted by Feinberg is an illusion, for there is no sense to his analysis of freedom given in terms of what the person would have done or chosen to do even if the causes had not been present, for there are no events where there are no sufficient causes present. Further, on Feinberg's theistic compatibilism, my desiring and choosing must be decreed by God, since my having a desire and choosing are events. Thus there is no instance in which I can desire anything other that that decreed by God. Should I desire other than that decreed by God, that very desire is itself decreed by God. Again freedom becomes an empty notion, for there can be no desire independent of God's decree."

Pinnock responds to Feinberg's essay as well. Pinnock says that people can and do reject God's will and plan. From the examples that he uses, I can discern that he confuses what God has commanded with what God has decreed. He confuses what God delights in with what God guarantees will come to pass. The following is an excerpt from Pinnock's response to Feinberg and I would like to know how you would respond to it. 

"What Feinberg is pleased to call freedom does not deserve the name. Let me use an example to make it clear. Joseph robs a bank. He did not have to do it. Nobody made him do it. But he felt like it. His background and desires were such that robbing the bank at that moment was inevitable. He couldn't help himself. Joseph was a victim of causal factors over which he had no control. A doctor might try to reprogram him, but no judge has a right to condemn him for doing what he could not help. Any sense of moral responsibility just flew out the window with Feinberg's definition of freedom. The Bible presents a very different world from this. In it people make choices which determine the future in ways not determined already by the past. They make weighty decisions which involve them in the realm of moral responsibility. All this is clear both in the Bible and in ordinary life."


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 19, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> > ...and Geisler. I always thought Pinnock was Arminian. What position does he take in the book?
> ...



Yes, and unfortunately in Nov. 2003, the Evangelical Theological Society allowed friendship for an old colleague to keep 2/3 of them from voting to remove him from the ETS. If an "Arminian gone to seed" (GREAT turn of phrase) is an evangelical in good standing, then who isn't?


----------



## danmpem (Mar 20, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > danmpem said:
> ...



Those who affirm John 14:6.


----------

