The Sovereignty of God and Freewill of Man free essay sample

CONTENTS Introduction†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 1 The Anchors of Stability.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 2 Foreknowledge As Hinge†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 3 What Shall We Say To These Things? †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 7 Do Sovereignty And Foreknowledge Diminish Freedom To Counter Choices? †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 8 Conclusion†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 10 Bibliography†¦.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦14 Introduction While the pendulum of opinion among evangelicals concerning the degree to which created man is free under the sovereign God revealed in the bible continues to swing between views that virtually eliminate either man’s freewill or God’s sovereignty, the Scripture teaches that both exist in such a way that neither is diminished. In man’s grappling with this seeming paradox in an attempt to understand, some untether their definitions of God and His attributes from traditional understandings and biblical teaching. Others, remaining tethered to the bible, create explanations that emphasize one aspect (man’s free will or God’s sovereignty) in a way that is extra-biblical. That God is sovereign is biblical. That man is held accountable and commanded to exercise his will is also biblical. We will write a custom essay sample on The Sovereignty of God and Freewill of Man or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The meaning of these concepts is important. While their meaning has been bantered about through the years, consistent understandings of certain attributes of God’s have served as a stability stake of position. Among these attributes are knowledge, simplicity, wisdom, immutability, infinity and timelessness, though this is not an exhaustive list. Whatever conclusion is reached must adhere to a conservative view of these attributes’ definitions. Otherwise, the base source, the Bible, becomes inadequate, untrustworthy and anyone’s opinion is equally valid. Instead, the Bible’s authority is unquestioned, and the conclusion will have to hold to both God’s sovereignty and man’s freewill. The conclusion will not redefine these terms in such a way that it strips genuine meaning in order to suit a personally preferred view. With the previous attributes and their conservatively understood definitions acting as a position of tability, God’s foreknowledge will be examined, as it is the hinge on which most arguments sway in this debate. The degree to which man has free will in the midst of God’s sovereignty is a question framed around the issue, moment and cause of salvation. The Anchors Of Stability Many theologians, including theological text books, express that an understanding of God i s important to the rest of theology. Dr. Norman Geisler says that every other doctrine is based on understanding God. [1] Similarly, Millard J. Erickson declares, â€Å"The doctrine of God is the central point for much of the rest of theology. One’s view of God might even be thought of as supplying the whole framework within which one’s theology is constructed, life is lived, and ministry is conducted. †[2] This section will briefly scan the attributes of God mentioned earlier. This is not an exhaustive list of attributes, nor is it intended to be a full and technical review of them. But, these attributes and their definitions will serve as the anchor from which this review’s conclusion can not drift. Knowledge is the first attribute. Simply put, God knows everything. He is omniscient. This doctrine long been understood by the description given in this paper. 3] What God knows, which is everything, he’s always known. There has never been a moment inside or outside time and space he learned anything. And what God knows, he knows at once. Flowing from his knowledge is wisdom. Everything God does is according to what he knows. [4] He is never wrong and never miscalculates. He can not be separ ated from his holy character in action, what he knows, or how he acts according to what he knows. God is simply or indivisible. [5] There will be no division within him. He is also immutable. He simply doesn’t change. [6] God is also timeless, which is to say he remains the same. As beings who â€Å"grow up† and â€Å"mature†, its difficult to grasp God’s timelessness. God doesn’t need to develop. He is completely perfect and always has been. He doesn’t mature, nor does he ever need to see things from a different vantage point. What he knows is everything and he’s always known it. He can’t be separated from himself or his holy nature. But the most important element of his timelessness is that God is not subject to time and space, though he is aware of the sequence of events due to time and space. [7] Finally, God is infinite. He is limitless. [8] Its not that there are an infinite umber of things about God, but that he, himself as a being, is limitless. Foreknowledge As Hinge Since this paper deals with God’s sovereignty and man’s free will, a working understanding of sovereignty and free will are in order. Sovereignty pertains to rule or governance. [9] God’s authority extends to all that exists in and out of time and space. But sovereignty deals with more than the expanse of authority. It deals with control over that territory. To say that God is sovereign is to say that God has absolute control over his entire creation, including man. 10] Free will speaks of man’s ability to freely choose. For man to have genuine freedom to choose, man must be capable of a contrary choice. [11] Does man have genuine freedom to choose anything, especially God, independent of God? Does God’s sovereignty, his authority and control, cause man’s choices, so that man is not at all free? Or, is there a third option where God’s sovereignty somehow allows man to freely choose while still being under the sovereignty of God as understood in the historically conservative manner? Foreknowledge seems to be the hinge upon which these questions swing. Paul told the Romans in Romans 8:27-30, â€Å"†¦and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined , He also called; and these whom He called, he also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. Paul follows these statements with the basic questions being explored in this paper in Romans 8:31, â€Å"What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? † What does Paul mean by â€Å"foreknowledge†? Whose knowledge and knowledge of what? Equally important, if not more, is the question of â€Å"fore†. Does this mean â€Å"befor e†? If so, before what or who? Some argue that this foreknowledge speaks of God’s knowledge for what each man would believe and do before they actually believed and did, so that God’s predestination, calling, justifying and glorifying of each believer is based on each man’s belief and ction. [12] On the surface this may sound acceptable. But it suggests that God’s actions are subject to man’s decisions, thereby limiting or changing what is understood of God’s sovereignty and knowledge. It posits God as one waiting to discover something and man as his informant. This is significant in that it suggests God does not know all. Some use Genesis 6:6,7, God’s regret over how humans behaved, as evidence that God doesn’t have a firm handle on the future. [13] Proponents of this view reference several passages to make the same argument. However, Erickson makes the point that the disappointment expressed by God would only be possible if God had a certain knowledge of the future. [14] A passage which influenced Gregory A. Boyd toward open theism is 2 Kings 20:1-20, where God is changing his actions in regard to Hezekiah. Ironically, Erickson references the same passage as evidence of God’s knowledge and control over history, time and the future. [15] Erickson’s point is that God specifies his extension of Hezekiah’s life by fifteen years. How else could God extend a life, except that he has control? And, that this life was extended by a specific amount, fifteen years, displays a strength in controlling the future that is beyond mere power to even finesse and delicacy. Yet Boyd, an open theist, contends that the future is not â€Å"exhaustively settled in God’s mind. [16] When faced with texts that seem to display God’s knowledge of the future, like Jesus declaration of Peter’s denials, Boyd basically asserts that Jesus made a tremendously educated guess, as opposed to knowing the future. [17] This view seems untethered from the stability point of understanding God’s omniscience. On the other hand, some argue that God’s foreknowledge is one of relationship to an individual, even though the individual is yet to be created. [18] This logic seems to suggest that God has created individuals with pre-determined outcomes to the degree that man is merely playing out a role for which he has no control to the contrary. One may think of a human as a puppet. [19] In this line of thought, it’s not merely the outer actions being controlled, but even desires and thoughts. Many free will theists argue that this view of foreknowledge locks man into a forced life of thoughts, actions and decisions. If God foreknows that one will drive to Texas, then that person is left no choice but to drive to Texas because God is never wrong and he foreknew it. [20] One Arminian theologian, Roger E. Olsen, says that God’s predestination is â€Å"conditional† to his foreknowledge. [21] What Shall We Say To These Things? Paul’s question in Romans 8:31 is still hanging, â€Å"What then shall we say to these things? † The string of foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification and glorification is cause for great thought, as evidenced by the raging debate over God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. Paul’s next question, a rhetorical one based on the string he just mentioned, seems to stake a claim in this very debate. The continuation of Romans 8:31 is, â€Å"If God is for us, who is against us? † According to J. I. Packer, â€Å"the thought here is that no opposition can finally crush us. †[22] He goes on to say this makes God our â€Å"sovereign protector† through â€Å"his covenant commitment to us. †[23] If, as Packer asserts, the point of Paul’s questioning is to cause one to cognitively assess the strength of opposing forces to God’s strength, then Paul’s point must be that God is in utter control. 24] This seems to confirm Francis A. Schaeffer’s assertion that history is God’s and there is a specific course and destination upon which history is traveling. [25] Schaeffer contends that what God knows is not merely what is or will be, but even all possibilities of what could have been. [26] If true, and a ccording to traditional conservative definitions it is, God is utterly in control. When strong enemies are in view, this is a comforting understanding. But for those who hold to both that man has free will and God’s knowledge, especially foreknowledge, limit free will, are not so comforted. This explains why their views of God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge have deviated from traditional conservative definitions. But is there any merit to the view that God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge, as understood in conservative definitions, necessarily eliminate man’s freedom to counter choices? Do Sovereignty And Foreknowledge Diminish Freedom To Counter Choices? Though speaking of natural disasters, Tony Campolo declares that God isn’t in control, that it would be too offensive for God to have control over weather systems like tornados and earthquakes which have claimed the life of so many people. 27] Realizing the previous point seems an odd fit to the general question of this section, do sovereignty and foreknowledge diminish freedom to counter choices, a couple of observations are necessary. First, those who hold to such a view as expressed by Tony Campolo have made weather and nature supreme to God, as agents against which he must contend becaus e he can not control them. This observation seems obvious. The second observation, however, seems to undercut the very intention for which such proponents want to make God less than sovereign. Man is subject to weather and nature because man can’t accurately predict it, nor control it. In this sense, Campolo’s logic is merely a trade of God for nature sovereign over man. To some degree this is descriptive of the debate. Going deeper, Erwin Lutzer references Job’s circumstances as both an example of God’s control over nature, but more importantly, as an example of â€Å"immediate† and â€Å"ultimate† cause. [28] The immediate cause of the forces that destroyed Job’s property and took his family was Satan. But the ultimate cause was God, as he ultimately had to approve of Satan’s actions with respect to Job. Even Job recognized this when he said in Job 1:21, â€Å"The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Some will say that God merely permits such occurrences, as if this alleviates God’s control or responsibility over the situation. But Lutzer points out, â€Å"†¦the God who permits natural disasters to happen could choose to not permit them to happen. †[29] Martin Luther said that the devil is God’s devil. [30] So if God is sovereign according to historically conservative definitions, doesn’t his sovereignty cause man’s actions to such a degree that man has no freedom to counter choices? One of the main objections for open theists is that God’s elect must believe and those not elect can’t believe. [31] Ware points out that no individual is without influence in decision making. [32] Even if God completely removed his influence, man would still be influenced by other men, personal desires, innate preferences. His point is that free will as open theists describe it does not exist. Influence does not require or force a specific decision. A person who gags at the thought of liver and onions will likely never order it at the cafeteria, but this doesn’t remove the ability for them to choose it. The ultimate influence is what the individual most wants. [33] That God can not be wrong and that he knows everything and is sovereign doesn’t mean that God forces salvation or obedience. Conclusion Norman Geisler summarized the debate well, â€Å"Sartre used freedom to eliminate God, and Edwards (Jonathan) seemed to use God to eliminate freedom. Since the biblical Christian grants both God’s sovereignty and human responsibility for free choice, there remains the problem as to how to reconcile them. †[34] Geisler asserts that man is both commanded by God and held responsible. Three examples demonstrate his position: Genesis 1-3, Matthew 23 and II Peter 3. [35] In Genesis God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit. When they did God held them responsible by telling them â€Å"you† did this. This seems to hold them accountable to their actions which were counter to God’s command. To believe God forced their actions is to believe that God set them up against his own command. This is evidence of free will. In Matthew 23:37 Jesus tells Jerusalem that they were not â€Å"willing†. Jesus expressed desire to gather Jerusalem, but Jerusalem wasn’t willing. This, too, is an example of free will. Finally, in II Peter 3:5 deliberate or willful disobedience is referenced. Here is free will, but where is sovereignty? Of the biblical references Geisler points to as examples of sovereignty, Job 42, Proverbs 21 and Ephesians 1 are illustrative. [36] After all Job had been through, he says in Job 42: 2, â€Å"I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. † This demonstrates sovereignty in the sense that whatever God plans can not be changed. Proverbs 21: 1 declares, â€Å"The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases. And Paul says in Ephesians 1:11 that God, â€Å"works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will. † Geisler not only pronounces a difference between Arminianism and Calvinism, but between Extreme Calvinism and Moderate Calvinism. [37] Geisler quotes William Ames, a Strong Puritan Calvinist and summarizes the view by saying, â€Å"According to this view (extr eme Calvinism), God’s predestination is done independent of His foreknowledge of human free acts. God operates with such unapproachable sovereignty that His choices are made with total disregard for the choices of mortal men. Extreme Calvinism, as Geisler calls it, posits God as the puppet-master, controlling man beyond actions to even their thoughts and desires. Free will plays no role as God inserts the very desire to desire him, and inserts the desire in others for things other than him. Desiring God is only possible if God gives the desire. For these reasons Geisler describes extreme Calvinists by â€Å"predetermination is independent of His foreknowledge. † Arminiansim, on the other hand, is described as â€Å"predetermination is based on His foreknowledge. †[38] Some in the camp, Wesleyans Arminians in particular, believe that election is based on â€Å"foreseen faith. Others believe that God â€Å"willed that salvation would be received on the condition of faith. †[39] In either view, God did not force belief, but acted on what he could see from the future. Finally, Geisler offers another solution, moderate Calvinism, which he describes as â€Å"predetermination is in accord with His foreknowledge. † He asserts, â€Å"there is no chronological or logical priority of election and foreknowledge. †[40] It seems incongruent to this reporter that a biblically conservative view of God’s sovereignty would exclude the possibility of man’s free will. By argument, wouldn’t this be a limitation to his sovereignty? Is he not sovereign enough to allow free will? On the other hand, anything that diminishes God’s sovereignty or his knowledge, wisdom, timelessness, foreknowledge, and other attributes is a deviation from Scripture. This is worse than a slipperly slope. Understanding God is infinite means we, as finite, can’t fully understand him. But we’d be wise to stick within the bound of historically conservative understandings of God, or risk sliding the slippery slope to a mind that changes God and rejects objective truth. This is easier than one might think. Attempts to reconcile such debates with this tempt the thinker to compromise ever so slightly in order to satisfy a weary mind. While the debate continues to rage, Geisler’s moderate Calvinism makes sense. As foreknowledge speaks of knowledge before something, must we conclude this is anything besides a communication of God’s eternally held knowledge expressed to man in terms of time for man’s comprehension. Seriously, is there a difference between God’s knowledge and foreknowledge? The scriptures indicate God operates within time and space. But they also indicate that he is not subject to time and space. He created time and space outside of time and space. So his foreknowing doesn’t have to mean he looked through the annals of history to discover something. Man, who is subject to time and space, is simply told that God already knew and he’s always known. And what about God’s free will? On the one hand he is absolutely free. But according to his immanence and indivisibility, God can never act counter to his holy nature. So in this sense, isn’t God’s free will limited to his holy nature? Finally, one must conclude that both God is sovereign and man has free will. The bible speaks of both. Clever arguments to prevent unbiblical assertions sometimes, themselves, land on solutions that inordinately ignore or emphasize specific truths as sort of a balance to opposing arguments. Though the reference eludes, some think this a description of Augustine and an explanation of the difference between his earlier and later writings. That both exist is this author’s stance, though unexplainable it is. This was basically John McArthur’s stance at a recent conference attended by this author. When asked how the two, both existing, work together, McArthur bluntly said, â€Å"I don’t know. † Bibliography Feinberg, John. Geisler, Norman. Reichenbach, Bruce. Pinnock, Clark. Predestination And Free Will: Four Views Of Divine Sovereignty And Human Freedom. Edited by Basinger, David. Basinger, Randall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986 Cottrell, Jack W. Pinnock, Clark H. Reymond, Robert L. Talbott, Thomas, B. Ware, Bruce A. Perspectives On Election: Five Views. Edited by Brand, Chad Owen. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2006 Lutzer, Erwin W. Where Was God? : Answers To Tough Questions About God And Natural Disasters. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. , 2006 DeYoung, Kevin. Kluck, Ted. Why I’m Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008 Basinger, David. The Case For Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996 Schaeffer, Francis A. Genesis In Time And Space: The Flow Of Biblical History. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972 Walls, Jerry L. Dongell, Joseph R. Why I Am Not A Calvinist. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004 Olson, Roger E. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006 Sproul, R. C. Chosen By God: Know God’s Perfect Plan For His Glory And His Children. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. , 1986 Geisler, Norman. Chosen But Free: A Balanced View Of Divine Election. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001 Packer, J. I. Knowing God. 20th Anniversary Ed. , Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973 Boyd, Gregory A. Hunt, David. Craig, William Lane. Helm, Paul. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Edited by Beilby, James K. Eddy, Paul R. , Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001 Erickson, Millard J. What Does God Know And When Does He Know It? : The Current Controversy Over Divine Foreknowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003 Reymond, Robert L. John Calvin: His Life And Influence. Geanies House, Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2004 Ryrie, Charles. So Great Salvation: What It Means To Believe In Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989 Owen, John. The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ. Volume 10 of the Works Of John Owens, Southhampton: The Camelot Press, Ltd. , 1967 Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide To Understanding Biblical Truth. Wheaton: SP Publications, Inc. , 1986 Wright, R. K. McGregor. No Place For Sovereignty: What’s Wrong With Freewill Theism. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996 Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. , Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009 Geisler, Dr. Norman. Systematic Theology: God Creation. Volume Two. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003 [1] Geisler, Dr. Norman. Systematic Theology: God Creation. Volume Two. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003, 17 [2] Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology, 2nd ed. , Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009, 290 [3] Geisler, Dr. Norman. Systematic Theology: God Creation. Volume Two, 180 [4] Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology, 2nd ed. , 301-302 5] Geisler, Dr. Norman. Systematic Theology: God Creation, Volume Two, 39-40 [6] Ibid, 74 [7] Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology, 2nd ed. , 300-301 [8] Geisler, Dr. Norman. Systematic Theology: God Creation. Volume Two, 124-125 [9] Ibid, 536 [10] Ibid, 536 [11] Ibid, 544 [12] Wright, R. K. McGregor. No Place For Sovereignty: What’s Wrong With Freewill Theism. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996, 139 [13] Erickson, M illard J. What Does God Know And When Does He Know It? : The Current Controversy Over Divine Foreknowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 17-18 [14] Ibid, 21 [15] Ibid, 23 16] Boyd, Gregory A. Hunt, David. Craig, William Lane. Helm, Paul. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Edited by Beilby, James K. Eddy, Paul R. , Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 17 [17] Ibid, 20 [18] Sproul, R. C. Chosen By God: Know God’s Perfect Plan For His Glory And His Children. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. , 1986, 137 [19] Ibid, 129 [20] Walls, Jerry L. Dongell, Joseph R. Why I Am Not A Calvinist. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004, 60-61 [21] Olson, Roger E. Arminian Theology: Myths And Realities. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006, 19 [22] Packer, J. I. Knowing God. 20th Anniversary Edition. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973, 260 [23] Ibid, 260 [24] Ibid, 263 [25] Schaeffer, Francis A. Genesis In Space And Time: The Flow Of Biblical History. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972, 63 [26] Ibid, 73 [27] Lutzer, Erwin W. Where Was God? : Answers To Tough Questions About God And Natural Disasters. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. , 2006, 25 [28] Ibid, 28 [29] Ibid, 30 [30] Ibid, 30 [31] Cottrell, Jack W. Pinnock, Clark H. Reymond, Robert L. Talbott, Thomas B. Ware, Bruce A. Perspectives On Election: Five Views. Edited by Brand, Chad Owen. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2006, 35 [32] Ibid, 36 [33] Ibid, 37 [34] Feinberg, John. Geisler, Norman. Reichenbach, Bruce. Pinnock, Clark. Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom. Edited by Basinger, David. Basinger, Randall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986, 63 [35] Ibid, 64-65 [36] Ibid, 63-64 [37] Geisler, Norman. Chosen But Free: A Balanced View Of Divine Election. 2nd ed. , Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, 47 [38] Ibid, 51 [39] Ibid, 51 [40] Ibid, 53