thoughts and ruminations while in exile (1 Pet. 2:11)

Introduction and Thesis Statement

“If God exists, how can there be so much evil in the world?” has long been a question that philosophers and theologians have done their best to answer.[1] Many skeptics assert that the presence of evil is proof of the fact that God does not exist. Their syllogism usually follows this order:
Premise 1: If God were all powerful, he would be able to prevent evil.
Premise 2: If God were all-good, he would desire to prevent evil.
Conclusion: So, if God were both all-powerful and all-good, there would be no
evil.
Premise 3: But there is evil.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is no all-powerful, all-good God.[2]


While this syllogism has been used in the past, in light of the “New Atheists” (i.e. Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, etc.) spreading their propaganda, this argument is resurfacing with some force. That is to say, the idea and concept of atheism is now attractive to many people. This is significant due to the fact that ideas have consequences. As Alister McGrath has wisely noted, the Great Empires are no longer Rome or Great Britain, but rather ideologies.[3] Also of importance is the fact that “The New Atheism is not just a reassertion of atheism.” Rather, “It is a movement that represents a far greater public challenge to Christianity than that posed by the atheistic movements of previous times.”[4]


Al Mohler suggests that this is the case because “The New Atheists are . . . evangelistic in intent and ambitious in hope.”[5] In his book The God Delusion Richard Dawkins asserts that belief in God is evil and leads to violence.[6] It is because of the past and present violence that has been done in God’s name that many question whether or not God exists, and if so, whether such a belief is legitimate. I will canvass two traditional arguments put forth by Christian theists, and one argument advocated by non-traditional theists to see if they are sufficient in dealing with the problem of evil. My argument is that open theism, along with two traditional Christian theodicies—that evil is a privation, and the free will defense—are not adequate answers to the problem of evil.


The Need for an Answer
When Christians are confronted with the problem of evil—through personal trials or questions put forth by skeptics—it is important for them to have answers. The reality of evil becomes even more apparent when tragedy strikes an individual. It is during these difficult times that one’s theology is either strengthened or weakened. Thus, it is necessary that Christians have “a vision of God . . . that will not let us down in the worst of times.”[7]


The problem of evil has been a reality that many Christians have had a hard time accepting. For example, both Augustine and C.S. Lewis considered this an almost insurmountable hurdle through which to jump. Lewis reasoned thus: “If GOD were good, He would wish to make His creatures happy, and if God were almighty, He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both.”[8] He admits it was the problem of evil that gave him the most difficulty in becoming a Christian.[9] John Frame says the problem of evil is the most difficult question to answer.[10] John Feinberg agrees that this is a difficult question as well.[11] Alister McGrath agrees: “Suffering is a problem for Christian apologetics primarily because it appears to demonstrate the logical incoherence of Christianity.”[12] Peter Kreeft also says, “The reality of evil seems to refute the reality of God . . .”[13] One of the more popular apologists, Ravi Zacharias says, “Pain, suffering, and evil are indisputable realities and present the sharpest edge of criticism against God’s existence.”[14] This topic seems to generate so much discussion for the simple fact that everyone has to deal with it at some point in their life. Feinberg says, “Anyone who has ever suffered affliction or had friends or loved ones who have suffered has probably wondered why there should be such pain if there is a God who truly loves us and has power to do something to remedy our plight.”[15] With the reality of these questions looming large, Christians must have satisfying answers that will sustain them through personal tragedy, as well as meet the demands of rational debate.


As has been mentioned, the existence of evil has been an issue tackled by many philosophers. From a philosophical standpoint it appears that the first person to deal with the issue was Plato.[16] Thus, by the time Christian philosophers were on the scene, the debate had already been raging for quite sometime. As McGrath notes, “Christian theology has long learned to live with the reality of pain and evil.” Sarcastically, he continues, “It is not as if suffering was a well-kept secret, whose existence has suddenly been sprung on the world that fervently believed it did not exist.”[17] Just as throughout history Christians have dealt with this problem, so likewise today, many Christian philosophers and theologians have put forth answers that they believe sufficiently vindicate their position.


A Heretical Argument
With the reality of evil constantly being witnessed, a variety of defenses have been asserted. Some are cogent, some are not, and others are sub-Christian. The first argument is a rather poor defense being espoused by those claiming to be Christian. This view is known as open theism. Open theism deals with the problem of evil by suggesting that God does not know the future. This view contends that evil in no way impugns the character of God, because God never saw it coming. By asserting that God does not know the future, He is “off the hook.” One of the well-known open theists presently is Greg Boyd. In his book God of the Possible, Boyd asserts that God does not know the future “exhaustively.”[18] He says, rather, “To whatever degree the future is yet open to be decided by free agents, it is unsettled. To this extent, God knows it as a realm of possibilities, not certainties.”[19]


Despite this position, Boyd assures readers that “Open theists affirm God’s omniscience as emphatically as anybody else does.”[20] He says, “The issue is not whether God’s knowledge is perfect. It is. The issue is about the nature of the reality that God perfectly knows.”[21] How can open theists claim that God is omniscient, yet still maintain that He does not know the future exhaustively? Boyd speaks for himself: “If God does not foreknow future free actions, it is not because his knowledge of the future is in any sense incomplete. It’s because there is, in this view, nothing definite there for God to know!”[22] Thus, in open theism, God only knows that which is knowable. It should be pointed out that open theists are aware that their view is different from the “classical view of divine foreknowledge.”[23]


Theological Differences and Distinctions
When it comes to divine foreknowledge, theologians usually either find themselves as Augustinian (Calvinistic) or Arminian.[24] Stated simply, Augustinians (or Calvinists) assert that God knows the future because He has foreordained it.[25] For example, speaking for the Calvinistic position, Lorraine Boettner says, “What God foreknows must, in the very nature of the case be fixed and certain as what is foreordained.”[26] In contrast, Arminians assert that God simply knows the future, but He does not necessarily ordain everything that comes to pass.


These theological positions are important for this discussion because, if open theism is true, then the problem of evil is lessened considerably. Further, the distinctive positions between Calvinists and Arminians are important because open theists disagree with both views. However, what is significant is that open theists appear to think the Calvinistic position is more logical. They would agree that God knows the future because He has ordained it to come to pass. They think the Arminians want to “have their cake and eat it too.” They find the Arminian position both unbiblical and illogical. Boyd agrees: “Open theists agree with some followers of Augustine and Calvin that future events cannot cause God to know them.”[27] For one to say that God knows the future but does not cause it is unacceptable to them. Therefore, they invent a third category. They say that if God foreknows a future event in any way, human actions are not truly free, and it makes God responsible for the action. For instance, open theist Clark Pinnock writes: “Total knowledge of the future would imply a fixity of events. Nothing in the future would need to be decided. It also would imply that human freedom is an illusion, that we make no difference and are not responsible.”[28]


Again, this position is dealt with because if God does not know the future, then tragedies, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other events can be answered by simply saying, “God did not want this happen, but there was nothing He could do. He simply did not see it coming.” It was indeed these very issues (i.e. human freedom and the problem of evil) which led Greg Boyd to question the classical view. He writes:


If you think about the matter deeply, the classical view raises a number of thorny questions. For example, if every choice you’ve ever made was certain an eternity before you made it, were you really free when you made each choice? Could you have chose differently if it was eternally certain you’d make the choice you did? . . . Even more troubling, if God foreknew that Adolf Hitler would send six million Jews to their death, why did he go ahead and create a man like that? If I unleash a mad dog I am certain will bite you, am I not responsible for my dog’s behavior? If so, how is God not responsible for the behavior of evil people he “unleashes”
on the world—if, in fact, he is absolutely certain of what they will do once “unleashed”?[29]


Boyd actually continues with his tirade and finally questions that if God foreknows every person who will go to heaven and hell, why does He create them?[30] Open theism is thus a fitting discussion when pondering the problem of evil. Open theists accuse traditional theists of adopting a theological view that is not historically Christian. They believe those who affirm the classical understanding of God’s foreknowledge have imported Hellenistic philosophy into their Christianity.[31] Moreover, open theists believe that the early church agreed with them, since none of the early church documents affirm God’s exhaustive foreknowledge. Apparently the absence of an affirmation not only implies agreement, but also, that antiquity necessitates veracity.


To sum up, open theism proposes to be a solution to the problem of evil. It would be incorrect, however, to assume that this is the only position that has been put forward. Rather than list all of the theodicies Christians have used throughout the ages, looking at two of the more popular ones will suffice.


Two Traditional Christian Theodicies
One of the most historical theodicies is that evil does not exist, but rather it is a privation. This position asserts that evil does not exist because it is not a physical entity. Further, this position asserts that evil is an absence (that is, a privation) of good. John Frame calls this argument “The Unreality-of-evil Defense.”[32] Historically, Augustine is credited with having introduced this idea. In Augustine’s Confessions, after recounting some of his difficulties with the problem of evil, he says, “The reason was that I did not know that evil is only the privation of a good, even to the point of complete nonentity.”[33] Later on he confesses, “I had not as yet known or learned that evil is not a substance.”[34] Augustine is convinced evil cannot be a substance since everything God created is good. He says, “If things are deprived of all good whatsoever, they will not exist at all.”[35] Lastly, Augustine concedes, “But evil, of which I asked, ‘Whence is it?’ is not a substance, for if it were a substance, it would be good.”[36] While Augustine says evil is a privation, he is not suggesting that evil is an illusion. He is arguing that God is responsible for creating everything that has “Being.” God is not, however, responsible for creating “Nonbeing.”[37] Nevertheless, as Frame says, “These explanations are quite inadequate.”[38] Even if evil is seen as a nonentity, this explanation does not solve the dilemma of how a good God allows this to happen. Frame notes, “There is no point in creating a distinct metaphysical category (“nonbeing,” or “privation”) for evil. The problem is simply that God is sovereign over all events, good and evil, and however one analyzes evil metaphysically, it is part of God’s plan.”[39] Thus, this theodicy does not appear to be too helpful after all.


The “Free Will” Defense
The most common theodicy put forth by Christians is free will.[40] The argument is simple: Evil exists because human beings use their free will. Geisler and Bocchino write, “When people use their free will, their ability to make an unforced decision between two or more alternatives, they actualize their potential to do good or evil.”[41] Thus, in this view God is not held responsible for evil in the world since evil came about by the free will of man. “Since that free choice was in no sense controlled or foreordained or caused by God,” John Frame explains, “he cannot be held accountable for it.”[42] It should be mentioned, however, that the theologians who use this argument hold to a particular view of free will, namely, libertarian free will.


Those who hold to this view assert that human “choices are not determined in advance by God.”[43] Furthermore, libertarians (as they are called) espouse that “our character may influence our decisions, as may our immediate desires. But we always have genuine freedom to choose contrary to our character and our desires,[44] however strong.”[45] They assert that humans must have the power of contrary choice, for if humans do not, they cannot be held responsible. Frame summarizes this position as follows: “To be responsible, we must be able to do otherwise.”[46] While those who hold this position seek to uphold moral responsibility, an argument can be made that in reality, libertarian freedom actually destroys it. Further, there is evidence to suggest that libertarian freedom is in fact, unbiblical. If this is true, then the free will argument collapses and should no longer be used by Christians.


John Frame asserts that human beings are free in the sense that we choose according to our desires, and we are not slaves to determinism. R..C. Sproul agrees with this assessment: “This is the very essence of free will—to choose according to our desires.”[47] He also agrees that humans are not slaves to determinism, since “Determinism teaches that our actions are completely controlled by something external to us, making us do what we don’t want to do.”[48] Further, libertarians are to be commended in that they realize that man is responsible for his own sin. Libertarians appear to be incorrect, however, in saying that human actions are in no way ordained or caused by God. The example of Joseph is worth noting. Despite all of the bad that came about in his life, he said, “As for you, you meant it for evil against me, but God meant it for good . . .” (Gen. 50:20). Concerning His crucifixion Jesus says, “For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” (Lk. 22:22 emphasis mine). In Zechariah 11:12-13 it is prophesied that Jesus will be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver. This raises the question about Judas: Could he have not betrayed Jesus? Is it better to say that God only knew the event would take place, rather than saying He caused the event to take place? If one concedes that God ordained the death of Jesus Christ, one would also be admitting that God ordained[49] the means by which that event took place.[50] If this is so, this would mean that God ordained both lying and killing, which was necessary to take place in order for Jesus to be killed. This would also imply that it was not human beings who killed Jesus Christ, rather it was God.[51] In fact, Isaiah 53:10 actually says, it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he [God] has put him to grief (emphasis mine). The NASB says, “the LORD was pleased to crush Him” (emphasis mine). In Acts 2:23 God says He foreknew the event and still held the people accountable for doing it. While these passages may not convince all, it is what has led some theologians to reject libertarian free will.


Problems with Libertarianism
Libertarians assert that the human will is not determined by anything, not even a person’s nature. Regarding the will, they say, “Its motions to choose one course of action over another are self-motivated or spontaneous.”[52] If a will is not determined by anything, then what causes it to act in the first place? Further, there does not seem to be any passage in the Bible that teaches libertarian freedom. John Frame notes, “There is no passage that can be construed to mean that the human will is independent of God’s plan and of the rest of the human personality.”[53] It appears that libertarian freedom is nothing more than metaphysical speculation, rather than a view based off an exegetical conclusion.


As far as being morally responsible, Scripture nowhere teaches humans must be able to do the opposite in order to be held responsible. God holds humans responsible, “because [He] made us, owns us, and has a right to evaluate our conduct. Therefore, according to Scripture, God’s authority is the necessary and sufficient ground of human responsibility.”[54] Those who want to assert that humans cannot be held responsible if they do not have the power of contrary choice must appeal to Scripture to justify their position, rather than philosophical notions.[55] Thus, it appears that God is sovereign over the sins of men. God can stop people from sinning if He so chooses (Gen. 20:6), but in His most holy wisdom He allows sin to take place for His own glory. Why He does this, He has not revealed to us. This discussion is germane to the problem of evil because “Scripture never uses the free-will defense in any passage where the problem of evil is up for discussion. You will not find it in the book of Job, in Psalm 37, or in Psalm 73. Indeed, all of these passages presuppose the usual strong view of divine sovereignty.”[56]


The Inevitable Conclusion
If the “Unreality-of-evil Defense” fails, and so does the free will argument, what answer are Christians to give? Is there an answer to the problem of evil? With respect to how to answer this question, John Piper gives sound advice: “To answer a question like [this] we should put our hands on our mouths and silence our philosophical speculations. Our opinions don’t count here. All that counts is what God himself has shown us in his word” (Piper, Spectacular Sins 101).[57] The question that must be answered here is: Is God the author of evil? The answer to that question is an emphatic “No.” The prophet Habakkuk says, “You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong . . .” (Hab. 2:13). Moreover, the Bible reveals that God is three times holy (Is. 6:3). The clear revelation from Scripture is that God is holy and therefore, He is not the author of sin.


Does God Will Evil to Come to Pass?
Another question that must be answered, however, is: Does God will evil to come to pass? The answer to this question is a bit more complicated. What do the Scriptures say? For starters, there is no such thing as a random event with God. He withholds rain from one town and gives it to another (Amos 4:7). Regarding the famine that led Joseph’s brothers to Egypt, the Bible does not say that God simply foresaw the famine; it says He summoned the famine (Ps. 105:16). In Proverbs 16: 4 it says, “The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (emphasis mine). Despite king Nebuchadnezzar, and all the evil he would do, God calls him “My servant” (Jer. 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). Further, in Jeremiah 25:8-12, God prophesies that He will use Nebuchadnezzar to punish His people Judah and take them into captivity. God says, “This whole land will be a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jer. 25:11). Then, in the next verse God says, “ ‘Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and the nation,’ declares the LORD, ‘for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it an everlasting desolation’” (Jer. 25:12 emphasis mine).


In context, God says He is going to use the Babylonians to punish His people, but then later punish them for their own sin (Jer. 50-51). The events in the future do not seem to be merely known, but rather settled facts. In Isaiah 45:7, God says, “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things” (emphasis mine). Lamentations 3:37-38 says, “Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?” (emphasis mine). In Amos, the prophet asks, “Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?” (Amos 3:6). As unsettling as it may be to some, John Frame appears to be right in saying that, “God does not merely allow these things to happen; he makes them happen.”[58] Again, this is not to suggest that God is the author of evil, but rather that He does will evil to come to pass. God controls what happens in this world. Even if it is asserted that God merely allows these things to happen, since He does not forbid it from coming to pass, He is in control of what happens. Next question: How can God allow the evil to come to pass, yet not be responsible? The Bible does not answer this question. The Bible assures readers that God is not the author of sin, and nothing more.


In seeking to answer questions to which humans do not have access, R. Scott Clark diagnosis this as a “Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty.”[59] This happens when humans seek “to achieve epistemic and moral certainty” on issues which God has not sought to reveal.[60] Simply put, why God does what He does with respect to evil—why He allows it and chooses not to stop it—we do not know. John Frame gives the best answer: “By his failure to defend himself, God is claiming his sovereign right to be trusted and believed, whatever suspicions his actions may provoke in human minds.”[61] Why? “In his decisions, he will not submit to man’s judgments.”[62] This is the whole point of the book of Job. God is not going to submit Himself to be questioned by sinful human beings who have no right to an answer. As Frame states it, “God is not subject to the ignorant evaluations of his creatures.”[63]


Conclusion
To the extent that the biblical writers fail to deal with these questions shows that they are unaware that any such problem exists.[64] In dealing with the problem of evil, John Frame offers four pieces of advice:


(1)We have no right to complain against God, and when we do, we expose ourselves as disobedient.
(2) God is under no obligation to give us an
intellectually satisfying answer to the problem of evil. He expects us to trust him in spite of that.
(3) God’s sovereignty is not to be questioned in connection with the problem of evil; it is rather to be underscored.
(4) God’s word, his truth, is altogether reliable.[65]


In the end, all attempts to answer the problem of evil may never satisfy the human heart and mind. Christians must joyfully bow under the mighty hand of God. While evil will persist until the end of time, Christians can be sure that when evil takes place, it does not happen arbitrarily. It happens for a purpose, and under the watchful eye of a sovereign God. Christians must not pry too deeply into the mind of God and attempt to find answers to questions that God has not revealed. If one desires to keep asking God these types of questions, it appears that God has two questions of His own: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding” (Job 38:4). Or, “who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (Rom. 9:20). Believers can rest and know that they are loved by a sovereign God.



Works Cited

Augustine. The Confessions of St. Augustine. Translated by John K. Ryan. Doubleday:
NY, 1960.

Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Presbyterian & Reformed:
Philipsburg, 1932.

Boyd, Greg. God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God.
Baker: Grand Rapids, 2000.

Clark, Scott. R. Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and
Practice. Presbyterian & Reformed: Philipsburg, 2008.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Houghton-Mifflin: NY, 2006.

Feinberg, John. The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problem of Evil.
Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1994.

Frame, John. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction. Presbyterian &
Reformed: Philipsburg, 1994.

---. No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. Presbyterian & Reformed: Philipsburg, 2001.

Geisler, Norman and Peter Bocchino. Unshakable Foundations: Contemporary Answers
to Crucial Questions about the Christian Faith. Bethany House: Minneapolis, 2001.

Kreeft, Peter. Making Sense Out of Suffering. Servant Books: Ann Arbor, 1986.

Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain: How Human Suffering Raises Almost Intolerable
Intellectual Problems. Macmillan: NY, 1962.

McGrath, Alister. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern
World. Doubleday: NY, 2004.

---. Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths: Building Bridges to Faith
through Apologetics. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1993.

Mohler, Albert. Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheism. Crossway:
Wheaton, 2008.

Pelikan, Jaroslav and Valerie Hotchkiss. Eds. Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the
Christian Tradition. Volume II: Reformation Era. Yale University Press: New Haven, 2003.

Piper, John. Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die. Crossway: Wheaton, 2006.

---. Spectacular Sins And Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ. Crossway:
Wheaton, 2008.

Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes. Vol. III:
The Evangelical Protestant Creeds. Baker: Grand Rapids, 1969.

Sproul, R.C. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Tyndale House: Carol Stream,
1992.

---. Reasons to Believe: A Response to Common Objections to Christianity. Zondervan:
Grand Rapids, 1978.

Wright, R.K. No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism?
Intervarsity: Downers Grove, 1996.

Zacharias, Ravi. Ed. Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend. Thomas Nelson:
Nashville, 2007.




[1] Charles Feinberg. The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problem of Evil. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), pg. 13.
[2] John Frame. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction. (Philipsburg: P&R, 1994), p. 150.
[3] Alister McGrath. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. (NY: Doubleday, 2004), p. xi,
[4] Al Mohler. Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheism. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), p. 12.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. (NY: Houghton-Mifflin, 2006), p. 47-50.
[7] John Piper. Spectacular Sins And Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), p. 14.
[8] C.S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain: How Human Suffering Raises Almost Intolerable Intellectual Problems. (NY: Macmillan, 1962), p. 26.
[9] Ibid., p. 13-15.
[10] Frame, Apologetics, 149.
[11] Feinberg, Ibid., p. 11.
[12] Alister McGrath. Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths: Building Bridges to Faith through Apologetics. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), p. 100.
[13] Peter Kreeft. Making Sense Out of Suffering. (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1986), p. 30.
[14] Ravi Zacharias, Ed. Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007), p. 178.
[15] Feinberg, Ibid., p. 11.
[16] McGrath, Intellectuals, p. 101.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Greg Boyd. God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), p. 15
[19] Ibid, Emphasis mine.
[20] Ibid, p. 16.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid, emphasis in original.
[23] Ibid, p. 10.
[24] Ibid, p. 22-23.
[25] For example, in the Westminster shorter catechism, question 7 is: What are the decrees of God? Answer: The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass (Schaff 677). Similarly, question 28 in the Heidelberg Confession asks, What does it benefit us to know that God has created all things and still upholds them by His providence? Answer: We can be patient in adversity, thankful in prosperity, and with a view to the future we can have a firm confidence in our faithful God and Father that no creature shall separate us from His love; for all creatures are so completely in His hand that without His will they cannot so much as move (Schaff 316). To see the distinction between foreknowledge and foreordination with respect to the election of certain persons to salvation see the Canons of Dort, Rejection of Errors, First Head, paragraph 5 (Pelikan & Hotchkiss 577).
[26] He goes on to clarify, “If future events are foreknown to God, they cannot by any possibility take a turn contrary to His knowledge.” (Boettner 42). It appears what Boettner is trying to say is, what God knows, happens. God can’t know something is going to happen in the future, and then what He knows is going to happen, fails to take place. An example would be prophetic events.
[27] Greg Boyd, ibid, p. 23.
[28] Pinnock quoted in John Frame. No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. (Philipsbug: P&R, 2001.), p. 192.
[29] Greg Boyd, ibid, p. 10.
[30] Ibid, p. 10-11.
[31] Greg Boyd, ibid, p. 17; Frame, No Other God, p. 149.
[32] Frame, Apologetics, 155
[33] Augustine. The Confessions of St. Augustine. Trans. John K. Ryan. (NY: Doubleday, 1960), 85, emphasis mine.

[34] Ibid, 109.
[35] Ibid, 172.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Frame, Apologetics, 156.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Frame, Apologetics, 157
[40] Frame, Apologetics, 159; Also see Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino. Unshakable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions about the Christian Faith. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001), p. 233; R. C. Sproul. Reasons to Believe: A Response to Common Objections to Christianity. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), p. 124.
[41] Geisler and Bocchino, 233.
[42]Frame, Apologetics, 159, emphasis mine.
[43] Frame, No Other God, 120.
[44] The two words italicized are very important for understanding libertarianism’s understanding of free will. Since libertarians are committed to the idea that a person’s decisions are in no way determined—either by God or a person’s nature—one must understand that they assert that a person’s character or nature has no effect on why they choose to do what they do. In libertarianism, a person’s decisions are “self-caused.” That is, with regards to a person’s will, “Its motions to choose one course of action over another are self-motivated or spontaneous” (Wright, 47). This is in complete contradistinction to the Calvinistic understanding, which says that a person’s will is: 1) Free only in the sense that it is free to express the person’s character, 2) must be regenerated before it is free for obedience to God, and 3) is never forced to act against its own nature. For the Calvinist, the will must have its roots in moral causation in order to produce character (Wright, 52). This is critical for understanding why Calvinist’s reject libertarianism. From their standpoint, libertarianism does not provide a way for humans to be responsible for their actions. Rather, it removes all moral responsibility. In this sense, Wright says, “A totally random personality would be indistinguishable from [an] insane personality” (Wright, 48).
[45] Frame, No Other God, 120-121 emphasis mine.
[46] Frame, No Other God, 121.
[47] R. C. Sproul. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. (Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 1992), 179.
[48]Sproul, Essential Truths, 180-181 emphasis mine. Sproul differentiates between determinism and coercion. He argues that our actions are determined without being coerced. Our actions are determined in the sense that “they are determined by something within—by what we are and by what we desire” (181). He says, “It is important to note that even the unregenerate are never forced against their will. Their wills are changed without their permission, but they are always free to choose as they will. Thus, we are indeed free to do as we will. We are not free, however, to choose or select our nature” (180).
[49] By “ordain” I mean that God either positively ordained it, or allowed it to come to pass. Because nothing can happen without God’s permission, in some sense, He ordains everything that comes to pass. Piper says, “Nothing happens anyhow or without God’s most righteous decree, although God is not the author of or sharer in any sin at all” (Piper, Spectacular Sins 55, footnote 1). While this may seem difficult to understand, Piper encourages us, and I agree, “We should humble ourselves if we cannot explain how this can be. . . . Beware of bringing to the Bible assumptions that are not taught in the Bible” (Piper, Spectacular Sins 56).
[50] Or is this a non sequiter?
[51] John Piper. Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), p. 11.
[52] R. K. Wright. No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Freewill Thesim? (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1996), p. 47.
[53] Frame, No Other God, 124 emphasis mine.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Frame says “Libertarianism is a rather technical philosophical notion, which makes various assumptions about causality, the relationship of the will to action, the relationship of will to character and desire, and the limitation of God’s sovereignty” (Frame, No Other God 124).
[56] Frame, Apologetics, 162, emphasis mine.
[57] In context, Piper is seeking to answer the question: “What was God’s role in the death of Christ?” I use the quote, however, because I think it applies to the question I’m asking as well.
[58] Frame, No Other God, 58
[59] R. Scott Clark. Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2008), p. 39-70.
[60] Ibid, 40.
[61] Frame, Apologetics, 172.
[62] Ibid.
[63]Frame, No Other God, 138.
[64]Frame, Apologetics, 179.
[65] Frame, Apologetics, 178.