What do you think?
Rate this book
Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom
David and Randall Basinger present four different answers to the question "If God is in control, are people really free?" Contributors include proponents of foreordination, foreknowledge, self-limited power, and self-limited knowledge.
177 pages, Paperback
First published September 30, 1985
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
September 25, 2016
In Predestination and Free Will the editors identify the difficulty of cooperating God’s sovereignty with human free will. The purpose of the book happens to be for exhortation. Yet, it really does not matter what theological view that the reader holds. The book has four authors, four different views, and this enables the reader to think about four different options. It is possible that this book can cause a reader to think about old theology in a new way, or the reader can reject much of the book and remain grounded in traditional thought. The important thing is that one walks away challenged by the thoughtfulness of each contributor. Theology is important because it dictates the way Christians live.
Feinberg the writer of the first view, God Ordains All Things, holds to a more traditional view. Feinberg cites Scripture thirty-one times. He interprets Scripture through the theological lens of determinism. He states, “I also believe that God has chosen at once the whole interconnected sequence of events and actions that have and will occur in the world.” (Feinberg 29) Feinberg did not come to this conclusion from Scripture. Rather, he tries to support his presupposed view with Scripture, and this is circular reasoning. He should establish his view from Scripture. His exposition of Ephesians one is false. Ephesians one explains God’s plan for all who trust in Christ. John Feinberg is the Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Norman Geisler, writer of the second view, argues that God Knows All Things. Geisler cites more Scripture than all others, with an impressive 148 references. Geisler holds the view that, “God determinately knows and knowingly determines what we are freely deciding.” (Geisler 73) Geisler declares this difficult matter a mystery, but he chooses a soft view of determinism. Using Psalm 76.10 as a proof text, he states that God “has planned our failures into his overall program of success for eternity.” (Geisler 82) Like Feinberg, Geisler also misuses Ephesians one. The implication that is made, God has planned and purposed all things according to His will. The plan that was finalized was God’s redemptive plan. Believers were not chosen before the foundation of the world, Christ was. The plan recorded in Ephesians one involves all that a believer receives by trusting in the work that Christ did on the cross. Norman Geisler is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary.
Bruce Reichenbach wrote the fourth view, God Limits His Power. Reichenbach quoted 120 individual verses and chapters combined. Reichenbach took a simplistic, and explanatory approach and his was the most enjoyable to read. He described this difficult matter as a puzzle, metaphorically of course. There are six pieces to the puzzle, Human Freedom, Divine Sovereignty, Omnipotence, Omniscience, God and Time, and lastly Providence. Reichenbach states, “God has chosen to work through the persons whom he has created, inspiring, persuading, encouraging and commanding to do his work on earth.” (Reichenbach 122) This explanation makes sense; God involves Himself in the lives of His creation. He does not force His will, but enables everyone the opportunity respond to His involvement, whether it is direct or indirect. This explanation is also one that would be consistent with the theme of the Bible. All of the writers used the Bible to support their view. They also used philosophical reasoning. In many ways, each writer holds to biblical truth and each write some questionable statements. However, Reichenbach explained himself the best, made the most sense and seemed to be on the right track. Bruce Reichenbach is Professor Emeritus at Augsburg College.
Clark Pinnock wrote the last view, God Limits His Knowledge. Pinnock was one of the most interesting to read, and probably strays further away from traditional theology than all the others. Pinnock cited thirty-four passages of Scripture. Pinnock states, and this writer agrees, “people must be free to enter into the saving relationship with God which God has planned for us.” (Pinnock 148) Ephesians one is probably the strongest text that validates this truth. God had a plan, utilized His plan, and is waiting for the fulfillment of His plan. However, there is no room in this truth for absolute determinism. One of the most interesting things about Pinnock was his honest reflection about many verses that could contradict his view, but he tells his readers what he believes the Bible implies. He makes these claims, and he does so with humility. Before passing away in 2010 Pinnock was Professor Emeritus of Christian Interpretation at McMaster Divinity College.
Predestination and Free Will was a good read. It was difficult at times, but will remain a favorite and a great resource for the future. The book identifies the different views that others hold as well as the diversity of theologians and theology. It is a great reminder of the finiteness of human understanding as men try to understand more difficult matters such as predestination and free will. Any reader or theologian who approaches this book with an open mind, and with a desire to learn, will enjoy a great experience.
Feinberg, John, Geisler, Norman, Reichenbach, Bruce, Pinnock, Clark. Predestination and Free Will. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Feinberg the writer of the first view, God Ordains All Things, holds to a more traditional view. Feinberg cites Scripture thirty-one times. He interprets Scripture through the theological lens of determinism. He states, “I also believe that God has chosen at once the whole interconnected sequence of events and actions that have and will occur in the world.” (Feinberg 29) Feinberg did not come to this conclusion from Scripture. Rather, he tries to support his presupposed view with Scripture, and this is circular reasoning. He should establish his view from Scripture. His exposition of Ephesians one is false. Ephesians one explains God’s plan for all who trust in Christ. John Feinberg is the Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Norman Geisler, writer of the second view, argues that God Knows All Things. Geisler cites more Scripture than all others, with an impressive 148 references. Geisler holds the view that, “God determinately knows and knowingly determines what we are freely deciding.” (Geisler 73) Geisler declares this difficult matter a mystery, but he chooses a soft view of determinism. Using Psalm 76.10 as a proof text, he states that God “has planned our failures into his overall program of success for eternity.” (Geisler 82) Like Feinberg, Geisler also misuses Ephesians one. The implication that is made, God has planned and purposed all things according to His will. The plan that was finalized was God’s redemptive plan. Believers were not chosen before the foundation of the world, Christ was. The plan recorded in Ephesians one involves all that a believer receives by trusting in the work that Christ did on the cross. Norman Geisler is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary.
Bruce Reichenbach wrote the fourth view, God Limits His Power. Reichenbach quoted 120 individual verses and chapters combined. Reichenbach took a simplistic, and explanatory approach and his was the most enjoyable to read. He described this difficult matter as a puzzle, metaphorically of course. There are six pieces to the puzzle, Human Freedom, Divine Sovereignty, Omnipotence, Omniscience, God and Time, and lastly Providence. Reichenbach states, “God has chosen to work through the persons whom he has created, inspiring, persuading, encouraging and commanding to do his work on earth.” (Reichenbach 122) This explanation makes sense; God involves Himself in the lives of His creation. He does not force His will, but enables everyone the opportunity respond to His involvement, whether it is direct or indirect. This explanation is also one that would be consistent with the theme of the Bible. All of the writers used the Bible to support their view. They also used philosophical reasoning. In many ways, each writer holds to biblical truth and each write some questionable statements. However, Reichenbach explained himself the best, made the most sense and seemed to be on the right track. Bruce Reichenbach is Professor Emeritus at Augsburg College.
Clark Pinnock wrote the last view, God Limits His Knowledge. Pinnock was one of the most interesting to read, and probably strays further away from traditional theology than all the others. Pinnock cited thirty-four passages of Scripture. Pinnock states, and this writer agrees, “people must be free to enter into the saving relationship with God which God has planned for us.” (Pinnock 148) Ephesians one is probably the strongest text that validates this truth. God had a plan, utilized His plan, and is waiting for the fulfillment of His plan. However, there is no room in this truth for absolute determinism. One of the most interesting things about Pinnock was his honest reflection about many verses that could contradict his view, but he tells his readers what he believes the Bible implies. He makes these claims, and he does so with humility. Before passing away in 2010 Pinnock was Professor Emeritus of Christian Interpretation at McMaster Divinity College.
Predestination and Free Will was a good read. It was difficult at times, but will remain a favorite and a great resource for the future. The book identifies the different views that others hold as well as the diversity of theologians and theology. It is a great reminder of the finiteness of human understanding as men try to understand more difficult matters such as predestination and free will. Any reader or theologian who approaches this book with an open mind, and with a desire to learn, will enjoy a great experience.
Feinberg, John, Geisler, Norman, Reichenbach, Bruce, Pinnock, Clark. Predestination and Free Will. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
April 7, 2026
I wasn’t convinced that human beings have free will before reading this book, and reading this hasn’t changed that. If anything, it made me wonder why it is so important for some theologians to fit free will into the equation of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility.
I found it surprising that Romans 9 is largely ignored, which is arguably the most explicit biblical discussion of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. For a book dedicated to predestination and free will, that omission is difficult to justify.
Throughout the book, there are several unexamined assumptions that seem to drive the discussion. The most important one is that free will must exist in order for the biblical story to make sense. This assumption shows up repeatedly in different forms: without free will, we cannot be morally responsible; love would be meaningless; or we would be reduced to tools manipulated by God. For example: “If God has created us free to choose to love and serve him, then God cannot cause us to do so” (p. 108), and “we are not tools to be manipulated by God.” But why is the alternative immediately framed as manipulation or coercion?
If God determines what we do, it doesn’t automatically follow that He “forces” us. Force implies resistance, and resistance implies agency capable of resisting. But if our will itself is shaped or determined, the idea that we are “forced” becomes much less obvious. The alternative view posited in the book, where God gives us a “free” choice, can also look like a form of pressure: we are told we are free not to love God, but the consequence is separation from Him. It’s not obvious that this is less coercive.
Another recurring claim is that love must be freely chosen to be meaningful: “The love God wants from us is a love we are not compelled to give,” or that it “would not mean much if an animal were programmed to love.” But this is presented as self-evident rather than argued. If we imagine a robot programmed to care for someone in a way that genuinely improves their life, does the fact that it “cannot do otherwise” make its actions meaningless? I don’t think so. Even God, if He is essentially loving, cannot do otherwise than love. Yet we don’t conclude that His love is meaningless.
The same pattern appears in discussions of moral responsibility. A common argument is: without free will, we cannot be held accountable; but we are accountable, therefore we must have free will. This overlooks a central biblical theme: our sinful nature. Scripture repeatedly describes sin not merely as a series of free choices, but as something rooted in who we are. We sin because we are sinners by nature, not simply because we freely choose each act in isolation. Yet we are still held accountable. The coexistence of a determined or inherited condition and moral responsibility is already present in the Bible, but the authors don’t seem to seriously engage with this tension.
Much effort is spent defining concepts like foreknowledge to make them compatible with free will. Since foreknowledge seems to imply a fixed future, which would challenge free will, some authors engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid that conclusion. In this regard, I think they are better off as theologians, not as philosophers.
When biblical examples are used, they are often interpreted in a way that assumes free will rather than demonstrating it. Bruce Reichenbach, for example, acknowledges that Scripture does not discuss human freedom explicitly, but he suggests that the Bible is filled with instances of posed choices which presuppose freedom. This includes Adam and Eve’s option to obey or disobey. Norman Geisler uses Acts 2:23 as an example that reflects God’s sovereign will and free human choice: “This man (Jesus) was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you … put him to death by nailing him to the cross.” The fact that someone performs an action does not automatically imply that the action was undetermined. In the case of Adam and Eve, one could just as well see the fall as part of God’s providential plan leading to Christ, rather than as a genuinely open alternative that could have changed the course of history.
Clark Pinnock claims that the Bible clearly teaches that humans are “historical agents who can respond to God in love” and “sinners who have deliberately rejected God’s plan,” concluding that these only make sense if humans have strong free will. But these claims are not as clearly “apparent” in Scripture as suggested. Where does the Bible explicitly say that humans can respond to God in love by free choice? Or that our rejection of God is fundamentally a free, undetermined decision? These conclusions seem to be read into the text rather than derived from it. I do not reject the idea that some passages can suggest these assumptions, but I don’t think they can be used as strong evidence in the way these authors use them.
Overall, the book feels constrained by assumptions it never seriously questions. In my opinion, the need to preserve free will shapes the arguments more than the biblical data itself. For readers who are already committed to libertarian free will, this may be satisfying. For those who are not, the book raises more questions than it answers.
I found it surprising that Romans 9 is largely ignored, which is arguably the most explicit biblical discussion of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. For a book dedicated to predestination and free will, that omission is difficult to justify.
Throughout the book, there are several unexamined assumptions that seem to drive the discussion. The most important one is that free will must exist in order for the biblical story to make sense. This assumption shows up repeatedly in different forms: without free will, we cannot be morally responsible; love would be meaningless; or we would be reduced to tools manipulated by God. For example: “If God has created us free to choose to love and serve him, then God cannot cause us to do so” (p. 108), and “we are not tools to be manipulated by God.” But why is the alternative immediately framed as manipulation or coercion?
If God determines what we do, it doesn’t automatically follow that He “forces” us. Force implies resistance, and resistance implies agency capable of resisting. But if our will itself is shaped or determined, the idea that we are “forced” becomes much less obvious. The alternative view posited in the book, where God gives us a “free” choice, can also look like a form of pressure: we are told we are free not to love God, but the consequence is separation from Him. It’s not obvious that this is less coercive.
Another recurring claim is that love must be freely chosen to be meaningful: “The love God wants from us is a love we are not compelled to give,” or that it “would not mean much if an animal were programmed to love.” But this is presented as self-evident rather than argued. If we imagine a robot programmed to care for someone in a way that genuinely improves their life, does the fact that it “cannot do otherwise” make its actions meaningless? I don’t think so. Even God, if He is essentially loving, cannot do otherwise than love. Yet we don’t conclude that His love is meaningless.
The same pattern appears in discussions of moral responsibility. A common argument is: without free will, we cannot be held accountable; but we are accountable, therefore we must have free will. This overlooks a central biblical theme: our sinful nature. Scripture repeatedly describes sin not merely as a series of free choices, but as something rooted in who we are. We sin because we are sinners by nature, not simply because we freely choose each act in isolation. Yet we are still held accountable. The coexistence of a determined or inherited condition and moral responsibility is already present in the Bible, but the authors don’t seem to seriously engage with this tension.
Much effort is spent defining concepts like foreknowledge to make them compatible with free will. Since foreknowledge seems to imply a fixed future, which would challenge free will, some authors engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid that conclusion. In this regard, I think they are better off as theologians, not as philosophers.
When biblical examples are used, they are often interpreted in a way that assumes free will rather than demonstrating it. Bruce Reichenbach, for example, acknowledges that Scripture does not discuss human freedom explicitly, but he suggests that the Bible is filled with instances of posed choices which presuppose freedom. This includes Adam and Eve’s option to obey or disobey. Norman Geisler uses Acts 2:23 as an example that reflects God’s sovereign will and free human choice: “This man (Jesus) was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you … put him to death by nailing him to the cross.” The fact that someone performs an action does not automatically imply that the action was undetermined. In the case of Adam and Eve, one could just as well see the fall as part of God’s providential plan leading to Christ, rather than as a genuinely open alternative that could have changed the course of history.
Clark Pinnock claims that the Bible clearly teaches that humans are “historical agents who can respond to God in love” and “sinners who have deliberately rejected God’s plan,” concluding that these only make sense if humans have strong free will. But these claims are not as clearly “apparent” in Scripture as suggested. Where does the Bible explicitly say that humans can respond to God in love by free choice? Or that our rejection of God is fundamentally a free, undetermined decision? These conclusions seem to be read into the text rather than derived from it. I do not reject the idea that some passages can suggest these assumptions, but I don’t think they can be used as strong evidence in the way these authors use them.
Overall, the book feels constrained by assumptions it never seriously questions. In my opinion, the need to preserve free will shapes the arguments more than the biblical data itself. For readers who are already committed to libertarian free will, this may be satisfying. For those who are not, the book raises more questions than it answers.
September 4, 2025
The more I read on this topic, the more I realize while it is beneficial to think about how these subjects interact, we will never know with any level of certainty “the answer” to this question this side of heaven.
Very interesting to read the differing perspectives, especially the response essays.
Very interesting to read the differing perspectives, especially the response essays.
October 16, 2025
The views expressed by Reichenbach and Pinnock are off the table for anyone who considers themself to be a believer in orthodox Christianity. They are non-starters for not being in harmony with the Biblical text. However, I'm equally convinced that the views of Feinberg and Geisler are also inadequate, albeit for philosophical reasons. In sum, while I don't fully agree with either Feinberg or Geisler, the material they provide gave me a lot to think on.
February 11, 2023
Pinnock for the win!
It's good to try and see others' perspectives and challenge ourselves. This presents four varying views on the issue. Each view is followed by the other three contributors' rebuttals. From the first rebuttal, I sided most closely with Pinnock, whose essay is the last. The only hard disagreement I have is his position on Western economics, which isn't the main point here, but one I still take issue with. I will likely end up reading more Pinnock material.
It's good to try and see others' perspectives and challenge ourselves. This presents four varying views on the issue. Each view is followed by the other three contributors' rebuttals. From the first rebuttal, I sided most closely with Pinnock, whose essay is the last. The only hard disagreement I have is his position on Western economics, which isn't the main point here, but one I still take issue with. I will likely end up reading more Pinnock material.
August 13, 2016
At times, the philosophical jargon exceeded my ability to understand, but overall it was a very helpful discussion. It did seem that the participants were talking past each other; one recurring example is when the Arminians insisted that even a soft determinism mutually excluded any meaningful/significant freedom of agents.
John Feinberg (who argues that "God ordains all things" position) was the most philosophically careful/precise. I agree with Feinberg more than with any of the other contributors, and I'd like to read his argument again.
Pages 10-14 outline the four positions. Each contributor writes about 20 pages, and then the other three respond in about 3-5 pages. Each participant seems to have a high view of Scripture, so as much as they disagree with each other, there seems to be a certain amount of trust between them, since at least they're all trying to be faithful to the text.
John Feinberg (God ordains all things):
24: comapatibilism / soft determinism (causal determinism, but non-constraining sufficient conditions)
27: contra-causal sense of "can" (Feinberg disagrees with this)
33-34: middle knowledge and counterfactuals
34-35: without some form of determinism, there's no predictive prophecy, no inspiration, and no eternal security (Pinnock admits most of this)
35-36: Feinberg relies a lot on Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will
36: indeterminism has problems with moral responsibility too (according to Edwards, people make choices based on their strongest desires; but choosing according to desires is a form of causality, and contra-causal freedom denies that there are any sufficient causes for human decision-making; if there's no sufficient cause for our choices, then our choices are random/arbitrary, and we're not morally responsible for our actions)
Norman Geisler (God knows all things):
68-69: Geisler resists "strong Calvinists" (66), who believe in irresistible grace
70-71: God's foreknowledge is simultaneous with His forechoosing
Bruce Reichenbach (God limits his power):
106: God is not a divine novelist (111 too)
117: God works through persuasion; His plans/purposes are sometimes thwarted
116 (and n9): God doesn't want to disrupt the "natural order"
118: somehow God can guarantee His ultimate purposes (Feinberg questions how)
138 (Pinnock's response): consistent Arminians can't affirm God's omniscience or omnipotence
139 (Pinnock's response): Pinnock actually calls his own unorthodox position "faintly heretical," because it's out of the mainstream
Clark Pinnock (God limits his knowledge):
144: admits to being an open theist
147: he's sympathetic to parts of process theology, but unsympathetic to other parts (see n6)
155-56: Pinnock rejects, in some sense, God's immutability, impassibility, timelessness, and omniscience
156-57: for Pinnock, foreknowledge eliminates freedom (the future must be open and not closed/fixed)
158: "We need to read the Bible more literally"
158: God can bend things toward His ultimate objectives without violating its own integrity (a quote that he affirms)
165 (Feinberg's response): Scripture never says that God limits His power
166 (Feinberg's response): with contra-causal freedom, there's no way for God to guarantee His general or specific/ultimate plans/objectives
166-68 (Feinberg's response): Feinberg answers Pinnock's denial of God's foreknowledge (in connection to predictive prophecy)
John Feinberg (who argues that "God ordains all things" position) was the most philosophically careful/precise. I agree with Feinberg more than with any of the other contributors, and I'd like to read his argument again.
Pages 10-14 outline the four positions. Each contributor writes about 20 pages, and then the other three respond in about 3-5 pages. Each participant seems to have a high view of Scripture, so as much as they disagree with each other, there seems to be a certain amount of trust between them, since at least they're all trying to be faithful to the text.
John Feinberg (God ordains all things):
24: comapatibilism / soft determinism (causal determinism, but non-constraining sufficient conditions)
27: contra-causal sense of "can" (Feinberg disagrees with this)
33-34: middle knowledge and counterfactuals
34-35: without some form of determinism, there's no predictive prophecy, no inspiration, and no eternal security (Pinnock admits most of this)
35-36: Feinberg relies a lot on Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will
36: indeterminism has problems with moral responsibility too (according to Edwards, people make choices based on their strongest desires; but choosing according to desires is a form of causality, and contra-causal freedom denies that there are any sufficient causes for human decision-making; if there's no sufficient cause for our choices, then our choices are random/arbitrary, and we're not morally responsible for our actions)
Norman Geisler (God knows all things):
68-69: Geisler resists "strong Calvinists" (66), who believe in irresistible grace
70-71: God's foreknowledge is simultaneous with His forechoosing
Bruce Reichenbach (God limits his power):
106: God is not a divine novelist (111 too)
117: God works through persuasion; His plans/purposes are sometimes thwarted
116 (and n9): God doesn't want to disrupt the "natural order"
118: somehow God can guarantee His ultimate purposes (Feinberg questions how)
138 (Pinnock's response): consistent Arminians can't affirm God's omniscience or omnipotence
139 (Pinnock's response): Pinnock actually calls his own unorthodox position "faintly heretical," because it's out of the mainstream
Clark Pinnock (God limits his knowledge):
144: admits to being an open theist
147: he's sympathetic to parts of process theology, but unsympathetic to other parts (see n6)
155-56: Pinnock rejects, in some sense, God's immutability, impassibility, timelessness, and omniscience
156-57: for Pinnock, foreknowledge eliminates freedom (the future must be open and not closed/fixed)
158: "We need to read the Bible more literally"
158: God can bend things toward His ultimate objectives without violating its own integrity (a quote that he affirms)
165 (Feinberg's response): Scripture never says that God limits His power
166 (Feinberg's response): with contra-causal freedom, there's no way for God to guarantee His general or specific/ultimate plans/objectives
166-68 (Feinberg's response): Feinberg answers Pinnock's denial of God's foreknowledge (in connection to predictive prophecy)
April 20, 2023
This is a good example of why debate books can be helpful. Each author presents his view unashamedly, interacts with the other positions, and allows the reader to assess for themselves. I appreciated this book on a confusing and important subject, and it is definitely worth reading!
November 4, 2018
I love this series, and this one (from 1986) is particularly good. Two running case-study dilemmas also add interest. The four views presented are these:
- John S. Feinberg (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield) defends the classical Calvinist/Thomist view of predestination + compatibilist free will
- Norman L. Geisler (Dallas Theological Seminary), a "moderate Calvinist," gives a somewhat confused Boethian account that seems to deny predestination as generally understood
- Bruce R. Reichenbach (Augsburg College, Minneapolis) gives a somewhat confused Neo-Arminian/Open-Theist account that explicitly limits God's power, but does not realise the well-known logical inconsistency in combining libertarian free will, a God restricted to time, and divine foreknowledge
- the late Clark H. Pinnock (McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton) gives a Neo-Arminian/Open-Theist account that explicitly limits both God's power and foreknowledge (God cannot know the future, because the future does not exist). This makes libertarian free will logically possible, but results in an extremely weak view of God.
- John S. Feinberg (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield) defends the classical Calvinist/Thomist view of predestination + compatibilist free will
- Norman L. Geisler (Dallas Theological Seminary), a "moderate Calvinist," gives a somewhat confused Boethian account that seems to deny predestination as generally understood
- Bruce R. Reichenbach (Augsburg College, Minneapolis) gives a somewhat confused Neo-Arminian/Open-Theist account that explicitly limits God's power, but does not realise the well-known logical inconsistency in combining libertarian free will, a God restricted to time, and divine foreknowledge
- the late Clark H. Pinnock (McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton) gives a Neo-Arminian/Open-Theist account that explicitly limits both God's power and foreknowledge (God cannot know the future, because the future does not exist). This makes libertarian free will logically possible, but results in an extremely weak view of God.
March 6, 2022
Predestination and free will is a topic that has crossed my mind a lot but I haven’t actually studied or sought Scripture regarding predestination and free will until now.
This book presents four different views. Each contributor writes an essay explaining his view and the other three respond at the end of each chapter explaining their agreements/disagreements they have with that particular view.
This book doesn’t tell you what to think. It does a great job of giving you a launch pad for your own thought and philosophical process.
Because this is a tertiary issue of my faith, my position is open. I thought at first I would lean more toward Bruce Reichenbach’s view that God limits His power in order not to interfere with “natural order” so humans can have genuine free will. Then Normal Geisler’s rebuttal made me realize I don’t agree with Reichenbach’s view entirely so at this point I disagree and agree with all four of the views here 😂 I’ll continue to study and chew on all this information over time.
4/5 ⭐️ - informative and interesting, I liked it a lot.
This book presents four different views. Each contributor writes an essay explaining his view and the other three respond at the end of each chapter explaining their agreements/disagreements they have with that particular view.
This book doesn’t tell you what to think. It does a great job of giving you a launch pad for your own thought and philosophical process.
Because this is a tertiary issue of my faith, my position is open. I thought at first I would lean more toward Bruce Reichenbach’s view that God limits His power in order not to interfere with “natural order” so humans can have genuine free will. Then Normal Geisler’s rebuttal made me realize I don’t agree with Reichenbach’s view entirely so at this point I disagree and agree with all four of the views here 😂 I’ll continue to study and chew on all this information over time.
4/5 ⭐️ - informative and interesting, I liked it a lot.
July 3, 2021
I finished "Predestination and Freewill," by Basinger and Basinger.
It was good but after three similar books, that "the butler did it" came as no surprise. The Calvinist said the butler was decreed from all of eternity to do it to the glory of God; The Arminian said the butler had a choice but choose poorly, God was saddened; Geisler who seems to happily plant his flag in mid air, above the gulf between Calvin and Arminius sounded metaphysically challenged by saying the butler was decreed to have the freewill to do it; Pinnock said the butler had total freewill, God knew all possible futures including the one which he does it and the one which he has a change of heart, confesses his ill harboured feelings to God and then goes to join the circus.
The above is my less academic and semi humorous take on the positions. There is more to it than that but three similar books wore me out.
It was good but after three similar books, that "the butler did it" came as no surprise. The Calvinist said the butler was decreed from all of eternity to do it to the glory of God; The Arminian said the butler had a choice but choose poorly, God was saddened; Geisler who seems to happily plant his flag in mid air, above the gulf between Calvin and Arminius sounded metaphysically challenged by saying the butler was decreed to have the freewill to do it; Pinnock said the butler had total freewill, God knew all possible futures including the one which he does it and the one which he has a change of heart, confesses his ill harboured feelings to God and then goes to join the circus.
The above is my less academic and semi humorous take on the positions. There is more to it than that but three similar books wore me out.
May 3, 2025
In het boek 'Predestination vs. free will' worden vier visies uit een gezet, die ieder op hun eigen manier dit ingewikkelde vraagstuk proberen te beantwoorden.
Twee calvinistische visies, een met meer nadruk op almacht en de ander meer op alwetendheid.
En twee arminiaanse visies, namelijk dat Hij Zijn kennis beperkt en de ander spreekt over dat God Zijn macht beperkt.
Hierin wordt ook duidelijk dat een discussie rondom vrije wil en predestinatie veel verder rijkt dan enkel die thema's. Maar dat ook Gods natuur, eigenschappen en betrokkenheid met deze wereld bestudeerd moeten worden om dit vraagstuk te beantwoorden.
De Bijbel spreekt over Gods soevereiniteit en over vrije wil, maar definieert niet hoe deze termen ingevuld horen te worden. Daarom is het de zoektocht om deze termen te definiëren en samen te verenigen.
Twee calvinistische visies, een met meer nadruk op almacht en de ander meer op alwetendheid.
En twee arminiaanse visies, namelijk dat Hij Zijn kennis beperkt en de ander spreekt over dat God Zijn macht beperkt.
Hierin wordt ook duidelijk dat een discussie rondom vrije wil en predestinatie veel verder rijkt dan enkel die thema's. Maar dat ook Gods natuur, eigenschappen en betrokkenheid met deze wereld bestudeerd moeten worden om dit vraagstuk te beantwoorden.
De Bijbel spreekt over Gods soevereiniteit en over vrije wil, maar definieert niet hoe deze termen ingevuld horen te worden. Daarom is het de zoektocht om deze termen te definiëren en samen te verenigen.
January 25, 2022
This book provides readers with an excellent introduction into the spectrum of views regarding predestination and free will (excluding extreme views on either end of the spectrum). However, like practically all "four views" books, I'm left with more questions than answers, as each author seemed to understand the assignment differently. Rather than responding directly to the same exact question, each author expounded particular concepts within the predestination and free will discussion without significant overlap on several issues. Therefore, I recommend the book for anyone looking for an introduction to the topic, but I'm not likely to recommend the book for anyone who is not a serious scholar looking to develop his or her own complex view.
May 31, 2022
When you say that God knows everything that can be known you are implying that he has omniscience, complete knowledge. But you are also saying that there are things that can't be known. What can't be known? Well, the future can't be known because it hasn't happened yet and therefore does not exist. So the future cannot be known even by God. God does not know what does not exist. If we assume that God created in us free will it means that we make our own future...as we go along so to speak. This and other theological problems related to it are discussed intelligently in this book by four philosophical theologians. It's a good read.
October 19, 2025
I went into this a compatabilist, and while all the other arguments were interesting, I still find it the most compelling logically and biblically. I could almost see myself taking Pinnock's view of open theism honestly (I think there's some good biblical basis), but when you consider prophecy, it kind of falls apart. Good read!
September 18, 2020
Feinberg war hilfreich und ganz richtig. Geisler's Kapitel war besser als 'Chosen but Free' aber langweilig noch. Clark Pinnock war interessant, aber total falsch. Sein Gott ist chao! Er stimmt gar nicht.
August 2, 2021
Of the four views regarding the interplay between God's sovereignty and the free will of humans, three are well-reasoned and relatively compelling.
However, as is often the case with this series of books, the waters appear (to me) to be more muddied at the end than they were at the start!
However, as is often the case with this series of books, the waters appear (to me) to be more muddied at the end than they were at the start!
July 17, 2024
Somehow it helped me, but it is (or tries to be, sometimes the arguments seemed too complicated for me) more of a logical discussion on the matter, rather than a biblical one.
April 5, 2012
Not that I have any better theory, but there were gaping wholes in every one of these positions, both from a logic standpoint as well as scriptural. It seems like they are trying too hard to make a middle ground make sense. Though one of the authors at least doesn't pretend to find a balance. Unfortunately, he picks the side least supported by scripture and reason. I read it in one sitting, so it was definately interesting and I liked the format, though ivory tower scholars can argue like little kids sometimes:) I think the strongest case that was made actually gave ample credence to a view not expressed in the book...
November 29, 2014
Overall, I enjoyed the content the book presented. It wasn't your typical "Calvinism versus Arminianism" debate with a whole bunch of Scripture that backed both sides, ending in a non-conclusive way that left the reader bored and pissed. Each author gives his two cents about his beliefs and his other three counter parts write a response to his chapter. The vocabulary used is understandable, so long as you've read other predestination and free will books. After a while the reading does get extensive and slightly boring, but there is a constant flow of information at all times, and it leaves the reader pondering their own thoughts. Decent book, overall.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 23, 2012
Well put together presentation of four views of human freedom and God's sovereignty. Four authors, John Feinberg, Norman Geisler, Bruce Reichenbach, and Clark Pinnock each present their view on the subject then make application of their views to two scenarios. The views are presented in the order that I listed the authors and are from the most Calvinistic to the most Arminian. After each address the others critique the presentation so that you have the argument and three rebuttals for each. It was a helpful study for me to see the arguments that each held for his position.
March 10, 2014
I actually hate books of this type, but i feel as it must be read. The spokesman for God's sovereignty was such a poor spokesman that I started to waver until I read the chapter by Clark Pinnock. It was then that I became certain that I could not suffer his argument, which is essentially this...God is in the dark about what will happen and God bows at the altar of complete human freedom and autonomy.
March 20, 2011
An excellent summary of different views of predestination and free will. One of the main factors in convincing me to become a Calvinist, because that position was much more clearly shown from scripture.
February 2, 2017
You will disagree with 3/4 of the book given the nature of this title. It provided a clear understanding of the four different views being explored. I found it very helpful in better understanding those with whom I disagree.
July 14, 2009
Not very good.
August 15, 2013
Okay counterpoint treatment.
September 7, 2016
Read this a number of years ago, very interesting book.
August 20, 2022
Definitely recommend. The arguments were fascinating yet many times they contradicted themselves and were later called out by the other authors.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews