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. Feinberg’s version of determinism is self-branded (but unnecessarily so, IMO) ‘soft’ determinism because he holds that God controls everything through the manipulation/alignment/arrangement of situations and events and not - unlike ‘hard’ determinism – through the full-blown determination of people’s thoughts and feelings.
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 because the future has yet to be settled. It’s a dangerous world indeed, but the only one in which true love and choices can be manifested by humanity.
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 free 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 still uphold exhaustive foreknowledge.
A quick summary of the positions would be as follows:
|
1. Feinberg
|
-
|
God is in full control
of everything that happens; humanity’s actions are all caused by God.Nothing
escapes the will and knowledge of God; He has ordained ALL things
|
|
2. Geisler
|
-
|
God is in full control
of everything that happens; humanity have genuine agency but God had nevertheless
determined everything.Nothing escapes
the will and knowledge of God, though people may try to.
|
|
3. Reichenbach
|
-
|
God is not in full control
of everything; humanity can disappoint God’s plans for them, but He still
knows all the future.
|
|
4.
Pinnock
|
-
|
God is not in full control
of everything and has even limited His knowledge; humanity’s power of choices
can impact the future which, even to God, is still open
|
Feinberg. I was quite impressed with his intro 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 eternal, efficacious, unconditional role completely rules out whatever defense Feinberg's school of thought can have for our accountability towards evil. (See here for a greater elaboration of what I mean). I'm also rather concerned that his strongest tactic was simply to call into question the others' definitions of freedom. Either way, even using his own definition, his case for compatibilism is seriously thin as the responses from the other three show.
The best portion in Geisler's writings must've been 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 is a strange case indeed. He 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 (for those who’re interested,
try Boyd’s
fantastic book) 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.