The Potter's Freedom Part 1

Dr. Geisler’s Critique of Calvinism and the Charge of “Extreme Calvinism”

Dr. Norman Geisler reminds us in a brand new book that belief affects behavior and so ideas have consequences. Likewise false doctrine will lead to false deeds. He says in looking at a particular theological Perspective dr. Geisler indicates that this viewpoint leads people to fail to take personal responsibility for their actions.

He also says this particular viewpoint leads people to blame God for evil. He says that in point of fact this viewpoint can have a devastating effect on one's salvation to say nothing of one's Enthusiasm to reach others for Christ and quote he says that this viewpoint lays the ground for universalism.

He says that it undermines trust in the love of God and says quote indeed this has been the occasion for disbelief and even atheism for many and quote. He likewise indicates that this viewpoint undermines the motivation for evangelism and that it undermines the motivation for intercessory prayer.

In Concluding his remarks on this particular perspective He says that a careful examination of Scripture reveals that this viewpoint is Unsupported by the many texts employed by those people who promote it when properly understood in their context those passages do not support their interpretation and The fact the Bible does not present this viewpoint at all.

We are told in this book that the position under examination is contradictory that proponents of this view quote go through exegetical contortions in order to make a text say what their preconceived theology mandates that it must say.

He says that the Bible is quote Seriously lacking in quote in verses that support some of the main elements of this system of belief. He says that these people quote misuse unquote the text of Scripture.

And he bluntly says that the God worshipped by these people quote is not all loving. He describes central aspects of this belief as quote. Shocking and on page 205 of this new book by dr. Geisler he even refers to elements of this belief as a hideous error a hideous error.

What is dr. Geisler referring to? What horrible belief could be described by all of these words? This horrible belief my friends is called Calvinism. Yes indeed these are all words from a new book entitled chosen, but free a balanced view of divine election By dr. Norman Geisler, and they are all applied To Calvinism.

Now if you have seen the book you say not really Calvinism instead Extreme Calvinism a new term that maybe you haven't heard of before. Because dr. Geisler identifies himself as a moderate Calvinist. Well beginning this week. We're gonna be taking a look at this new book called chosen, but free a balanced view of divine election.

There are many many things to look at many issues to address. But first and fundamentally I think the first thing that has to be made clear to anyone Who picks up this book to obtain a balanced view of divine election is that you need to know something?

This is not a balanced view of divine election. This is a thoroughly anti reformed anti-calvinistic book. The author may call himself a moderate Calvinist. But in point of fact as we will see the author rejects John Calvin's doctrine in regards to the sovereignty of God and how that works that is based upon the decrees of God.

He rejects the concept of the total depravity of man as taught by John Calvin. He rejects the concept of the unconditional electing grace of God as taught by John Calvin. He rejects the irresistible grace bringing regeneration to the enslaved will that John Calvin taught the only thing that could identify this individual as a Calvinist in any way shape or form is the fact that he does believe in eternal security.

And he rejects the standard Arminian viewpoint that God looks down through The corridors of time and elects people on the basis of seeing that they will have faith in him. However in four out of the five points of the system known as Calvinism Dr. Geisler is opposed to them so to call someone who is a four-point Arminian a Moderate Calvinist is to completely change the meaning of words and that is I think my first and most Fundamental concern about this book.

I believe these issues are very very important and I welcome opportunities to hear a vigorous debate on this subject and to in fact Dialogue in a vigorous debate on this subject. I have often in the past purchased Arminian works works that directly denied the fundamental elements of the faith that I call my own that I proclaim to others and Obviously as an individual who engages in debates all across the United States.

I can't consistently Have any problem whatsoever with someone publishing a book where they present their views and argue for their views. Especially when those views are against my own. But in each one of those instances those other books that I've purchased.

It was very clear from the title or from the the opening arguments that this was an argument against the reformed position. What I fear in regards to this work is the tremendous amount of confusion That can come into the mind of a person who is attempting to fairly weigh these issues.

Because by calling himself a moderate Calvinist while denying and rejecting the fundamental aspects of the reformed faith Dr. Geisler is in point of fact creating a a whole new redefinition of the entire argument and Is that redefinition that really concerns me?

You see there is a chapter an appeal for moderation. An appeal to we would please try to to take the the center road shall we say and and not go to extremes. This use of the term extreme is very popular in our culture today.

Nobody wants to be an extremist. You don't want to be an extreme Arminian and you don't want to be an extreme Calvinist. Let's all be moderate Calvinist. So what's a moderate Calvinist? It's an Arminian.

In essence that is exactly what's going on in regards to the definitions provided in this book. But people like this appeal to moderation. But the result is going to be very very very confusing because I just want you to realize that What this book is going to present to you is that Theodore Baza?

Zankeus the Westminster divines the Puritans Jonathan Edwards Charles Haddon Spurgeon Charles Hodge Jay Gresham Machen BB Warfield Roger Nicole John Piper RC Sproul. We're not actually Calvinist. They were extreme Calvinists and now we have a new group called moderate Calvinists who reject almost every single thing John Calvin taught on the subject of Salvation and yet can be called Moderate Calvinists.

I think the result of this changing of language is going to be a lot of confusion. I think as we work through the arguments presented here will become very very clear that dr Geisler is not a moderate Calvinist.

He is a moderate Arminian. That is he agrees with four out of five perspectives of the Arminian and On the one point where he believes in eternal security. I have to wonder at that point exactly how he believes that in light of some other things that he says but we're going to be examining these things and obviously in light of referring to quote-unquote extreme Calvinism and its fundamental assertions as a Hideous error as certain things as shocking and I could have culled a number of other citations from the book if I had wanted to it's very obvious that there needs to be a Dialogue about this because these are very serious charges when you talk about things as a hideous error I'll have to admit I don't recall and I could be wrong and I should sit down and double check but I don't recall words like shocking and hideous error being used in dr. Geisler's book about Roman Catholicism and So if it can be used of the Reformed Faith But not of Roman Catholicism.

What does that tell you in regards to the perspectives that are being taken? I think these are issues and obviously from my perspective there needs to be a dialogue and a response and Most importantly it needs to be done.

So in a fair manner that's why I'm going to quote from the book and I'm also going to be quoting from the books that are quoted in the book and hope that The individuals listening today and over the next number of weeks.

We'll take the time to maybe jot a few things down. Jot down a few references a look at a few things and and judge for yourself. Now it's interesting a number of years ago the late. Dr John Gerstner wrote a book called wrongly dividing the word of truth and R .C. Sproul quotes from this book in his book called willing to believe the controversy over free will which is cited in dr Geisler's new book.

Dr. Geisler is mentioned by the late John Gerstner. And here's the words that he said this is from page 115 of wrongly dividing the word of truth in Norman Geisler the implicit Arminianism of Dispensationalism has become explicit.

This former Dallas seminary professor now at Lynchburg very clearly makes the divine purposes and salvation entirely dependent upon human choice. Geisler writes quote. God would save all men if he could.

God will achieve the greatest number in heaven. He possibly can end quote the limitation of the divine Will is human will. God will save as many as God can quote without violating their free choice and quote.

Divine election is clearly dependent on the human sinners free choice. Norm Indian has ever been more specific in his denial of Calvinistic doctrine than this self-designated dispensational Calvinist.

Geisler not only denies the fourth point irresistible grace, but unconditional election as well because emphatically he makes divine election the result of fallen man's Free will. Now the next paragraph.

I think would have been very very helpful if it had appeared in dr Geisler's new book because this is an issue that I believe he does not understand in regards to reformed theology. Quote incidentally the Bible according to the reformed understanding Does not teach any divine quote violence and quote to the will of man.

Violence means compulsion and coercion which Calvinists do not believe any more than do Arminians. Dr. Geisler does not seem to grasp that fact. This was written in 1991 as I recall and that seems to be the case in 1999 as well as we will see when we look at the constant attack upon irresistible grace found in Dr. Geisler's book.

Now that very same section is quoted by RC Sproul in a much newer work called willing to believe. It's a fairly new book. Let me see here. 1997 is the date on that and dr. Sproul makes the following comments.

What exactly does Geisler mean when he says that God cannot save all men. I Assume Geisler agrees that God has the power to change the disposition of the fallen sinners will to the end that the sinner would then Believe.

I am confident that Geisler's cannot really means may not. That is he sees the reformed view of regeneration and effectual calling as Violating the sinners free will. Such a violation would not be quote right and quote for God to do.

Since the perfect moral character of God Restrains him from doing anything wrong. It follows that God cannot do what he may not do. In other words Geisler's cannot is shorthand for will not. God will not act in such a way that violates the free will of man.

This is small consolation to the sinner in hell who would probably be more than willing to have his will violated to get out of that Place. That's Sproul's comment. I continue quoting The monergistic regeneration that means one power.

God alone regenerates the monergistic regeneration of reformed theology. However does not violate the sinner's will. Indeed it is a change of the sinner's will wrought by the sovereign agency of God. It is precisely this work of God that liberates the sinner from slavery.

It is a strange thing to deem the liberation of an enslaved will as a violation of freedom. It is God's work of freeing not violating. That is in view that Paragraph should have been in this new book called Chosen but free but it is not because that issue Comes up over and over and over again now I turn to the book itself and point out Some of the basis upon which this new definition is given.

Throughout the text of the book. It is said that there are individuals who are Extreme Calvinists and that's would be RC Sproul. That would be John Piper. That would be myself. These extreme Calvinists are called extreme Calvinists according to dr. Geisler Because they disagree with John Calvin on other issues.

Unfortunately, the only issue that is raised at this particular point is the idea of Limited atonement. Now on page 20 of the book We have a footnote that says we should know the theologians We classify as extreme Calvinists consider themselves simply Calvinists and would probably object to our categorizing them in this manner.

I inter certain inject of the comment is exactly right. We do I Continue in their view anyone who does not espouse all five points of Calvinism as they interpret them is not strictly speaking a true Calvinist.

Nonetheless, we call them extreme Calvinist because they are more extreme than John Calvin himself and to distinguish them from moderate Calvinist. And on what basis are? They in point of fact Individuals who are extreme Calvinists on what basis they disagree with John Calvin.

Well page 50 says the following quote. Even John Calvin was not an extreme Calvinist on this point for he believed that by Christ's death all the sins of the world Have been expiated. Commenting on the many for whom Christ died in Mark 14 24 Calvin said the word many does not mean a part of the world Only but the whole human race and quote this means that people like Jonathan Edwards John Gerstner and RC Sproul who believe in limited atonement are more extreme than John Calvin.

Hence they have earned the title extreme Calvinists, so this is the basis upon which the presentation is made and the assertion is made that These are extreme Calvinists and therefore there's this other group called Moderate Calvinist now logically if that's the only issue and that is the only issue that I see raised.

Then a person who would be a Emerald Ian or a four-point Calvinist would be a moderate Calvinist because they'd agree with Calvin. Not dr. Gershwin dr. Geisler's perspective where he doesn't agree with any of those others points either except for the perseverance of the Saints for eternal security.

So I'm not sure exactly how that works, but throughout the book this term extreme Calvinism is used to refer to anyone who is a historic Calvinist. Now I will just mention in passing and I'm planning on doing an entire program on this later on probably in the month of July.

But I completely disagree. And with dr. Geisler's conclusion that John Calvin taught an unlimited atonement as dr Geisler presents it in point of fact, I was deeply disappointed because as I look through the book and as I look through the entire appendix provided that presents Quotations from John Calvin.

This is as I believe appendix number two in regards to John Calvin. I did not find a single. It's in fact, it's called was Calvin a Calvinist. I did not find a single citation of Any of the major works currently available on Calvin and the atonement.

For example, Roger Nicole wrote an article in the Westminster Theological Journal in the fall of 1985 John Calvin's view of the extent of the atonement. There is no interaction with Nicole's survey Robert Peterson wrote Calvin and the atonement.

There is no citation of that Paul Helm Wrote Calvin and the Calvinist. There is no reference to Calvin and the Calvinist in the book. There is an entire doctoral thesis that was published as a book in 1990 by Jonathan rainbow extensive work on the subject of Calvin's view of the atonement coming to the conclusion that he preached a definite atonement.

There is no discussion of that in the book. It is very very clear that Calvin connected the work of Christ on the cross with Christ work as high priest and intercessor and his comments on Christ's intercession and the results of that intercession are Picked up by pretty much any reformed theologian writing in the area John Owen Obviously in the death of death in the death of Christ focused upon this, but there is no discussion of that either there is and said just a number of quotations with very little commentary attached and In fact just to give you an example and I'll get back to the main point here a moment.

Just give you an example. At the end of this particular appendix. Dr. Geisler says whatever else Calvin may have said to encourage extreme Calvinism's tulip. He certainly denied limited atonement as they understand it where Calvin the atonement is universal in extent and limited only in its Application namely to those who believe now notice.

He says he certainly denied limited atonement. Except most of the scholars that I read say well. What we need to determine is his view of the atonement in regards to what he taught about intercession and the intercessory work of Christ and things like that and Then we might be able to come to some conclusions from that.

They are not any of them talk about the word certainly. But even this passage is quoted on page 159 of the new book and this is from John Calvin's commentary on 1st John 2 2 and just listen to what Calvin says and see for yourself what you think.

He put this in for application that believers might be convinced that the expiation made by Christ extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel. But here the question may be asked as to how the sins the whole world have been expiated.

I pass over the dreams the fanatics who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate and even to Satan himself. Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting. Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ suffered as sufficiently for the whole world but effectively only for the elect.

The solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Although I allow the truth of this I deny that it fits this passage. For John's purpose was only to make this blessing common to the whole church. Therefore under the word all in 1st John 2 2 he does not include the reprobate But refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth.

For as is meet the grace of Christ is really made clear when it is declared to be the settle the only salvation of the world. Now very clearly Calvin says that he does not believe that the distinction that was prevalent in the schoolman fits this passage.

Instead he says therefore under the word all in 1st John 2 2 he does not include the reprobate But refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth. And when you ask what did John Calvin to believe about who would believe there's only one answer that question.

And that is the elect and the elect were chosen by God not on the basis of foreseeing their faith but on the basis of a positive decree an Active decree on God's part not merely this idea that God had infallible knowledge of the future in his decree and his knowledge of the same Thing which seems to be what some people would like to present.

He even quotes this particular statement from John Calvin. How can the wicked? Drink Christ's blood which was not shed expiate their sins and Christ's flesh, which was not crucified for them. Well sounds to me like those passages and many others are very consistent with the concept of definite atonement and Yet the entire redefinition redefinition of the concept of what Calvinism is is Based upon saying well all those other people are extreme Calvinist because John Calvin didn't believe in limited atonement.

Well, I believe that he did and I believe that that particular perspective is completely consistent with what he taught about everything else and Therefore I guess the whole basis of redefining who is and who is not a Calvinist sort of evaporate to that particular point now since We have a redefinition of terms.

There's a lot of confusion presented. I'd like to look at a section of the book that says a moderate Calvinist understanding of tulip, but how does a modern? I'm sorry a moderate Calvinist understand the five points of Calvinism.

Well Let's take a look at its pages 116 through 117. T total depravity is Amply supported by scripture in the moderate Calvinist sense all the scriptures used by extreme Calvinists are accepted by moderate Calvinists.

The only difference is that Moderates insist that being dead in sin does not mean that unsaved people cannot Understand and receive the truth of the gospel as the Spirit of God works on their hearts. That is it does not in effect erase the image of God, but only effaces it now.

I'm not sure what quote-unquote extreme Calvinists. Dr. Geisler is referring to reform theology refers to man as The image bearer of God. It speaks of the effacing of that image the the damaging of that image by sin.

But it does not refer to man as Losing the image of God. There is a note that is provided. Some extreme Calvinist denied they believe the image of God is destroyed and fallen humans. Well. That's quite true.

In fact the vast majority of Calvinists recognize that at least formally. But dr. Geisler then says but logically this is what their view demands and practically this is what they hold. Well, dr. Geisler that is not the case.

In point of fact a total depravity simply means that man is spiritually dead. And we will go through the section where the alleged verses supporting this are presented. But one of the key elements that I gleaned from working through that section earlier was the fact that from dr. Geisler's perspective he seems to understand our viewpoint of Total depravity is meaning that not only must man sin.

Man cannot keep himself from sinning and if what he means by that is man can't be sinlessly perfect of course. But it comes across the idea that that man is almost compelled to sin. But even beyond that the argument was presented by dr. Geisler that well We see in Romans chapter 1 that men know that God exists therefore total depravity can't be true.

The problem is that the reformed perspective is not that man does not know that God exists. But that that knowledge of God is a part of general revelation. It is a part of God's creation. It's back to I would believe a part of the imago Dei the image of God itself.

We're talking here about the inability of man to free himself from the slavery of sin. We're talking about the inability the phrase ooh Duna tie not able found in John 644. No man is able to come unto me unless the father who sent me draws him.

There is an inability in man do his to his deadness and sin. Interestingly enough that phrase isn't addressed in regards to John 644. When John 644 is addressed in this book, the only discussion is on the meaning of the word draw El Cuso and Its use in John chapter 12 verse 32 not a sound exegesis of John 644.

Unconditional election going back to the book is also held by moderate Calvinists. It is unconditional from the standpoint of the giver even though there is one condition for the receiver faith. Now how you put those two together?

Will take us into the topic of the second half hour. We do have one caller on the line. But in the second half hour, I want to attempt to explain to you. Dr. Geisler is rather unique view of the relationship between God's decree God's Predetermination his sovereignty and the concept of man's free will his free agency.

It is an unusual perspective, but it allows him to affirm both things the same time. But in essence, I think we need to recognize something that in light of those citations given by Gerstner from Geisler's work elsewhere and some of the things that he says in a book predestination free will for views of divine sovereignty and human freedom.

This was a by Basinger and Basinger in 1985 IVP publication that is quite clear that what is being said is Unconditional election is the provision of salvation but the Condition on the part of the receiver determines whether salvation is actually going to take place which means That he's using the term election here in a different way than John Calvin did and that reformed theologians do today.

So there is a again a redefinition of the term. So far both the total gravity and the unconditional election Don't have the same meanings that they have when we talk about them from the historical standpoint the L even limited atonement Is affirmed by moderate Calvinist in the sense that it is limited in its application.

That is although redemption was purchased for all and is available to all nonetheless It will only be applied to those whom God chose from all eternity. That is the elect. I'm getting the indication that I need to pick that point up on the other side of the break.

So stick with us. We'll continue looking at the new book chosen but free looking at the redefinition of the five points of Calvinism. We'll be right back chosen but free a balanced view of divine election and What it says about the terrible horrible system that contains hideous errors is shocking Called Calvinism.

In other words, this is a strong frontal attack on the reformed faith. I hope everyone realizes that that's what it is so that we can deal with it from that perspective. I hope that a debate can take place.

It's meaningful on the basis of this and But I just hope people recognize it for what it is. Now. We were looking at the subjects of The Moderate Calvinist understanding of TULIP and I had read the L even limits its home and is affirmed by moderate Calvinist in the sense It is limited in its application.

That is although redemption was purchased for all and available to all Nonetheless, it will only be applied to those whom God chose from all eternity elect. Now the problem is that God's choosing them from all eternity is not a positive decree.

It is it is a Simultaneous thing with his knowing that they are going to believe him and this will try to get into us. Try to explain how dr. Geisler can say both things at the same time. I don't believe that you can.

I don't believe I Completely accept what John Feinberg said in predestination free will that dr Geisler's perspective does not answer the question that is laid before us and is based upon the assumption that you cannot Determine the logical relationship between God's decree and God's knowledge of future events but Also completely missing from the book as a discussion even though it started to come up once or twice it would never be dealt with and we'll look into this a discussion of the fact that from the reformed perspective The concept of limited atonement is directly related to what the atonement Accomplishes and one thing you need to realize is that Geisler's position this book is that the atonement makes man saveable.

It makes man saveable and as we get into that there are two perspectives on that. There is at the time of the Reformation there were two perspectives that it made that man is saveable and then by his action he actuates that salvation and then there's a viewpoint that God saves and This is one of the great dividing lines not to use a pun there in regards to that particular issue.

This one is the one that blew me away the most. I'll be perfectly honest with you. Then we'll go to our calls. Irresistible grace comes in for a tremendous amount of attack in this book back in 1985 in Dr. Geisler's presentation there.

He said Irresistible force used by God and his free creatures would be a violation of both the charity of God and the dignity of humans. God is love true. Love never forces itself on anyone forced. Love is rape and God is not a divine rapist.

Those are pretty strong words. They appear again in this book, but the term rape has been removed in Fact a majority of the presentation from 1985 does appear in this book in slightly edited form. And that's a pretty strong perspective and over and over and over again in almost every chapter there is some sort of attack upon The concept of the irresistible grace of God.

There is some sort of a denial. That since man is dead in sin that God by his grace raises him up that God by his grace frees him from the slavery to sin and That's why I felt it was so important to read that section from Sproul.

About what we believe about this because what we really believe about this is nowhere presented in this book. Not once. It is badly misrepresent. I think that's probably the worst misrepresentation in the book is on irresistible grace.

But here is the moderate Calvinistic viewpoint. Irresistible grace is held by moderate Calvinists. Irresistible grace is exercised on all who are willing as was stated in chapter 5. That is anyone who is receptive to God's work in his heart will be overwhelmed by his grace.

Again, anyone who knows what the historical meaning of the phrase irresistible grace is Likewise knows that that is is about that's it on the exact same level as my saying I believe in transubstantiation.

I just don't believe that the substance of the bread and wine ever changes. I don't believe in transubstantiation. Transubstantiation, but if I want to redefine the term I guess I can say that I believe in transubstantiation and You see there's so many people struggling with these issues That want to know what is irresistible grace folks irresistible grace is real simple.

Irresistible grace is what happened to Lazarus. Jesus performed irresistible grace when he said Lazarus come forth now was Jesus being violent. Was Jesus Engaging in divine rape. Of course not. Lazarus was dead and Jesus by his divine power raised him to life.

That's what irresistible grace is. It's taking a person enslaved to sin who's spiritually dead and Giving them spiritual life. Constantly it said what's against their will an Enslaved will it's not free.

It has no spiritual life to to animate it. I think not. I think not. This redefinition of terms will lead to nothing but confusion unless Someone stands up and says wait a minute. Let's let's define our terms here.

And I think since we've got about 400 years behind us. Those who've been using the term for 400 years have a little better basis for saying this is how we're using it. I Think that's an important aspect to point out.

We have some callers on the line in fact. We have a call from way back. Way way back in normal, Illinois. I'm not going to say a thing about what normal means. Chris, okay? Okay. This is a good friend of mine Chris from back in normal, Illinois.

I have some of you may remember I went back that direction early this year and Bothered them for a few days, and they got rid of me very quickly and haven't had me back since but actually having me back In October so I guess that means I wasn't too rough to have around was I we're looking forward to it all righty.

Well, you've got a have you been listening to what I've been saying. Yes. I have yes. I have got my blood boiling well. Okay. What's what's your comment today? Well?

I noticed that you were dealing Specifically with dr. Geisler's book chosen, but free and it it seems that quite a few people who reject historic Calvinism Seem to have a problem with the particular redemption.

My question that seemed what you were dealing with my question is is for a proof text. And and what your thoughts are about first Peter chapter 2 verse 8 with regard to the sovereignty of God and reprobation.

Well specifically let's let everybody know what that is. Let me read it from the New American Standard here and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. For they stumble because they were are disobedient to the word and to this doom they were also Appointed now guess what during the break since I saw what your question was I took the time to look up dr. Geisler's comments in this book on first Peter 2 8 and let me read them to you.

This is in chapter 3 viewing the alternatives the twin truths of sovereignty and responsibility. Now this is most interesting because the first part of the chapter most of us would agree with as long as we don't realize what?

Actually is being said Here's the question stumbling over Christ both disobedience and destiny. In his first letter Peter cites Isaiah. He Christ is a quote stone that causes men to stumble in a rock that makes them fall.

They stumble because they disobey the message which is also what they were destined for first Peter 2 8. With no sense excuse me with no sense of difficulty or disjunction. Peter records in the same verse that men reject Christ the stone.

Both because of their own disobedience and because God had destined them to it. There is no contradiction since God knew exactly what they would freely do. I? Heard that and the quote. So there is the that's all that's all the that's all the discussion of it is.

With no sense of difficulty or disjunction. Peter records in the same verse that men reject Christ the stone both because their own disobedience. And because God had destined them to it there is no contradiction since God knew exactly what they would freely do and every time there is a Positive action of God's sovereignty found in the text this becomes the answer that is that from Geisler's perspective God has perfect knowledge of Everything that will take place in time.

So he has perfect knowledge of the actions of free creatures. Now when you immediately ask the question well wait a minute, then what is the relationship between God's? Appointment his predetermination.

What you end up discovering is that from his perspective? There is no relationship. They are one in Point of fact and it's in the same chapter, and I know that this book isn't everywhere yet because I've had people Looking for it here is here.

Here is the key paragraph for you to understand Chris. God is a simple being this is on this page of 52 and 53 if some of somebody does have it or if they listen To this on the on the net and pick it up later pages 52 and 53.

God is a simple being all of whose attributes are one with his indivisible essence. Hence both foreknowledge and Predetermination are one in God. Whatever God knows he determines and whatever he determines he knows more properly we should speak of God as knowingly determining and Determinantly knowing from all eternity everything that happens including all free acts.

For if God is an eternal and simple being then his thoughts must be eternally coordinate and unified. According to the moderate Calvinist view whatever God for chooses Cannot be based on what he foreknows nor can what he foreknows be based on what he forechose.

Both must be simultaneous eternal and coordinate acts of God thus our actions are truly free and God Determined that they would be such. God is totally sovereign the sense of actually determining what occurs and yet man is completely free and responsible for what he chooses.

Now you got a chew on that one for a while you can't. There's a much fuller presentation of it in predestination free will the basinger basinger book from 1985 it is available. I picked mine up from either Barnes Noble or Amazon online.

One of the two just grabbed it like that came very quickly. But in essence the argument is you cannot distinguish Between God's decree and God's knowledge of future events. My problem with that is it it's based upon saying that God is one.