🤔 Free “Will” Or Free will… can you tell the difference in a theological discussion? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[CCShorts]

Imagine discovering a perspective that shares a familiar term with your own, but carries an entirely distinct meaning. Consider the notion that this term holds a significance completely divergent from your understanding. You might respond by saying, "That's not surprising; I'm already aware of the differing interpretations." But what if I told you that its true meaning goes beyond your expectations? Allow me to introduce you to an intriguing understanding of free “Will" that you may have never contemplated, despite it being right in front of you all along:

In theological discourse, various perspectives have been proposed to reconcile the concepts of free “Will” and divine foreknowledge. One intriguing view presents a distinctive understanding where free “Will” is portrayed as a transcendent entity, operating alongside God's determinations. This perspective draws upon analogies such as a chess game, a choose-your-own-adventure book, and the experience of watching a movie. By carefully integrating these elements, a coherent and thought-provoking understanding emerges.

The Chess Game Analogy:
Imagine a chess game where two transcendent beings engage in a strategic competition. God, as one player, determines certain moves on the chessboard, representing events and circumstances within creation. On the other hand, "Will" represents the second player, making independent choices that shape other events and circumstances. The chess pieces symbolize individuals within creation, subject to the influence of both God's and "Will's" determinations.

The Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Book Analogy:
In a similar vein, consider a choose-your-own-adventure book where God serves as the author. God has written all possible paths and endings, establishing the overarching narrative of the story. However, "Will" is the active participant, determining the specific choices, actions, and paths that the character will take within the story. The character in the book represents the individual influenced by the decisions made by "Will" – decisions that shape the character's journey within the predetermined framework.

Foreknowledge as Informed Revelation:
Within this view, "Will" possesses the ability to inform God of the determinations that will be made for the chess pieces or the storybook characters before the game or story begins. This communication allows God to have foreknowledge of the specific moves, choices, and paths that will be taken. Thus, God's foreknowledge is not passive but actively acquired through the revelation provided by "Will."

The Movie Analogy:
To further illustrate this concept, consider the analogy of watching a movie. God is depicted as watching a movie for the first time, yet possessing complete foreknowledge of every action and the ending. But how? This foreknowledge is attributed to the fact that God has already read the book that serves as the source material for the movie, a book authored by "Will". God's foreknowledge stems from having already encountered the predetermined narrative structure and outcomes outlined in the book by “Will”.

Coherently Combining the Elements:
By merging these analogies, a comprehensive view emerges. God, as the transcendent creator, shares a cooperative relationship with "Will," a separate transcendent entity. Both entities possess active roles in determining events and outcomes for creation. God's determinations intertwine with those made by "Will," reflecting a shared authority and power.

While God's foreknowledge encompasses all possibilities within the determined framework, certainty regarding the specific determinations made by "Will" is not known until they are communicated. "Will" actively informs God of the choices and actions that will be made, enabling God to possess foreknowledge of their outcomes. The cooperative narrative between God and "Will" allows for the harmonious interplay of free “Will” and divine omniscience.

Conclusion:
The perspective presented here offers a not so unique lens through which to understand the relationship between free “Will” and divine foreknowledge. Drawing upon analogies of a chess game, a choose-your-own-adventure book, and watching a movie, this view posits a cooperative narrative where God and "Will" play distinct yet interdependent roles. God's foreknowledge is acquired through the informed revelations provided by "Will." By embracing this perspective, we deepen our understanding for the duality of God’s sovereignty and “Will’s” agency, and the intricate transcendent interplay between them to bring about the grand tapestry of a creation.

Now you might not believe me that this view is a real view but don’t take my word for it, click here to hear it for yourself. (Use the gear icon in the video to slow it down to .75 if it’s to fast for you)

…

 

[ReverendRV]

Imagine discovering a perspective that shares a familiar term with your own, but carries an entirely distinct meaning. Consider the notion that this term holds a significance completely divergent from your understanding. You might respond by saying, "That's not surprising; I'm already aware of the differing interpretations." But what if I told you that its true meaning goes beyond your expectations? Allow me to introduce you to an intriguing understanding of free “Will" that you may have never contemplated, despite it being right in front of you all along:

In theological discourse, various perspectives have been proposed to reconcile the concepts of free “Will” and divine foreknowledge. One intriguing view presents a distinctive understanding where free “Will” is portrayed as a transcendent entity, operating alongside God's determinations. This perspective draws upon analogies such as a chess game, a choose-your-own-adventure book, and the experience of watching a movie. By carefully integrating these elements, a coherent and thought-provoking understanding emerges.

The Chess Game Analogy:
Imagine a chess game where two transcendent beings engage in a strategic competition. God, as one player, determines certain moves on the chessboard, representing events and circumstances within creation. On the other hand, "Will" represents the second player, making independent choices that shape other events and circumstances. The chess pieces symbolize individuals within creation, subject to the influence of both God's and "Will's" determinations.

The Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Book Analogy:
In a similar vein, consider a choose-your-own-adventure book where God serves as the author. God has written all possible paths and endings, establishing the overarching narrative of the story. However, "Will" is the active participant, determining the specific choices, actions, and paths that the character will take within the story. The character in the book represents the individual influenced by the decisions made by "Will" – decisions that shape the character's journey within the predetermined framework.

Foreknowledge as Informed Revelation:
Within this view, "Will" possesses the ability to inform God of the determinations that will be made for the chess pieces or the storybook characters before the game or story begins. This communication allows God to have foreknowledge of the specific moves, choices, and paths that will be taken. Thus, God's foreknowledge is not passive but actively acquired through the revelation provided by "Will."

The Movie Analogy:
To further illustrate this concept, consider the analogy of watching a movie. God is depicted as watching a movie for the first time, yet possessing complete foreknowledge of every action and the ending. But how? This foreknowledge is attributed to the fact that God has already read the book that serves as the source material for the movie, a book authored by "Will". God's foreknowledge stems from having already encountered the predetermined narrative structure and outcomes outlined in the book by “Will”.

Coherently Combining the Elements:
By merging these analogies, a comprehensive view emerges. God, as the transcendent creator, shares a cooperative relationship with "Will," a separate transcendent entity. Both entities possess active roles in determining events and outcomes for creation. God's determinations intertwine with those made by "Will," reflecting a shared authority and power.

While God's foreknowledge encompasses all possibilities within the determined framework, certainty regarding the specific determinations made by "Will" is not known until they are communicated. "Will" actively informs God of the choices and actions that will be made, enabling God to possess foreknowledge of their outcomes. The cooperative narrative between God and "Will" allows for the harmonious interplay of free “Will” and divine omniscience.

Conclusion:
The perspective presented here offers a not so unique lens through which to understand the relationship between free “Will” and divine foreknowledge. Drawing upon analogies of a chess game, a choose-your-own-adventure book, and watching a movie, this view posits a cooperative narrative where God and "Will" play distinct yet interdependent roles. God's foreknowledge is acquired through the informed revelations provided by "Will." By embracing this perspective, we deepen our understanding for the duality of God’s sovereignty and “Will’s” agency, and the intricate transcendent interplay between them to bring about the grand tapestry of a creation.

Now you might not believe me that this view is a real view but don’t take my word for it, click here to hear it for yourself. (Use the gear icon in the video to slow it down to .75 if it’s to fast for you)

…

It sounds like Open Theism...

 

[ReverendRV]

It sounds like Open Theism...

I just watched the Link, now I get it...

Professor Flowers places God's Learning, prior to Foreknowledge; IE placing Foresight before Foreknowledge. It's kind of like Learning something twice, but the second time God learns it, he already knew it??

 

[CCShorts]

It sounds like Open Theism...

Although this view has aspects of Open Theism I believe this view is further off the rails from the Bible than OT. At least OT does not create a third party that determines both the movements of the pieces and the knowledge of God before the foundation of the world.

…

 

[ReverendRV]

Although this view has aspects of Open Theism I believe this view is further off the rails from the Bible than OT. At least OT does not create a third party that determines both the movements of the pieces and the knowledge of God before the foundation of the world.

…

It seems to be a way to keep God's Omniscience, and keep God's Learning; at the same time...

But if God's Omniscience in Logical Order is also due from Learning from the Book, prior to God Learning from watching the Movie; Omniscience is STILL due to God Learning from the Script...

A Shell Game?

 

[CCShorts]

I just watched the Link, now I get it...

Professor Flowers places God's Learning, prior to Foreknowledge; IE placing Foresight before Foreknowledge. It's kind of like Learning something twice, but the second time God learns it, he already knew it??

Not quite as Leighton would deny that God “learns” anything from the movie. He claims God already knows all things before the movie starts. This is what makes it where he can distance his view from OT and give the illusion that it’s closer to biblical than OT.

…

 

[Arial]

It sounds like Open Theism...

I was thinking the exact same thing as I read it.

 

[CCShorts]

It seems to be a way to keep God's Omniscience, and keep God's Learning; at the same time...

But if God's Omniscience in Logical Order is also due from Learning from the Book, prior to God Learning from watching the Movie; Omniscience is STILL due to God Learning from the Script...

Almost…

But if God's Omniscience in Logical Order is also due from Learning from the Book, prior to God Learning from watching the Movie; Omniscience is STILL due to God Learning from the Script...

That’s it.

A Shell Game?

Yes. As long as he can prevent you from noticing the third party shell that transcends ”the movie” determining God’s knowledge he can move the shells to make you think there is only two shells in play in his game.

If you point to God learning “in time”, “from the movie”, like OT claims he will lift the shell and show there is “no learning” under it. If you point to the shell of the “character in the movie or book” before or after creation he will lift it and show there is “no learning” under it either. Most people don’t see the third shell because it is intentionally labeled to appear like the second shell.

Now here is where the crafty part comes into play if you point out that he has a “third party” shell in play then he will name that shell “agent” or “Will” but still lift shell #2 “character in book, character in movie, piece on chess board” and show that there is “no learning” under it… but he never lifts the “agent” shell to reveal what’s under it.

The “agent” is “Will” sitting across from God in the chess game, the Author of the book before the movie, and the determiner of the characters choices in the choose-your-own-adventure-book analogies.

“Will” as the character’s “agent” determines the character’s every action irrespective of the character’s personality or preferences.

“Will” is the puppet master that also determined God’s knowledge before the foundation of “the chess match, the movie, and the reading of the CYOA book”.

Watch him as he deceptively lifts shell #2 here:

…

 

[Arial]

Not quite as Leighton would deny that God “learns” anything from the movie. He claims God already knows all things before the movie starts. This is what makes it where he can distance his view from OT and give the illusion that it’s closer to biblical than OT.

…

And illusion it is.

One intriguing view presents a distinctive understanding where free “Will” is portrayed as a transcendent entity, operating alongside God's determinations.

The starting point to arrive at the theory and analogy is deeply flawed and so everything that follows is a bucket full of holes.

There is no such thing as an entity called will. And there is only one transcendent entity and that is God. Transcendent being defined as surpassing others; preeminent or supreme; exceeding usual limits; exceeding or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience and knowledge; being beyond comprehension; transcending the universe or material existence.

Our will is a part of us, it is not a free floating entity that independently makes choices and decisions. It is always acted upon by internal or external pressures. It is not free.

The entire philosophy (and that is all it is) places the will of man on equal footing if not superior footing with the will of God as well as putting them in constant conflict, and producing utter chaos. God is not omniscient because he read a book or watched a movie. He knows all because He created all and governs all. It is not two transcendent entities, will and God's determinations, operating alongside each other. It is God's sovereignty and man's responsibility working alongside each other.

 

[CCShorts]

I was thinking the exact same thing as I read it.

And that’s exactly what Leighton wants you to think because he can use your accusation of Open Theism against you. Open Theism is a distraction from what he is really hiding in his view.

Think about it. If you were to accuse Leighton of teaching Open Theism would he not simply deny it and say “Provisionism affirms God knows all things before the foundation of the world therefore we are not Open Theists”?

How can he say this but also deny that God determined all things known?

You have to see that Provisionism is not Open Thism… it’s WORSE!

It posits a dualistic collaboration between two transcendent entities working together to determine all things known before the foundation of the world.

One entity determines some things and the other determines other things and together all things are determined.

Consider if you were to say to Leighton No created being can determine other than what God foreknows. Would he not say back to you “Just because God foreknows does not mean he determined what he knows”?

How can he say this? How can God foreknow what he did not determine?

You might reply back with something like “Leighton is teaching that God learns by looking down the corridors of time to see, or learn, and that’s how he foreknows” but this is also not his view. He will deny this accusation also.

So how does God know all things without determining all things before the foundation of the world on Leighton’s view?

Think about it. There is a third party that determines both humans actions and God’s knowledge before the foundation of the world.

…

 

[CCShorts]

And illusion it is.

Yes.

The starting point to arrive at the theory and analogy is deeply flawed and so everything that follows is a bucket full of holes.

There is no such thing as an entity called will. And there is only one transcendent entity and that is God.

I agree 100%. This is why I am pointing out this view so that we can recognize it an address it as such.

Transcendent being defined as surpassing others; preeminent or supreme; exceeding usual limits; exceeding or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience and knowledge; being beyond comprehension; transcending the universe or material existence.

Yes. It’s a view that been around for a while now but it hasn’t been noticed due to tactics keeping it hidden right under your nose.

Our will is a part of us, it is not a free floating entity that independently makes choices and decisions. It is always acted upon by internal or external pressures. It is not free.

100% agree.

The entire philosophy (and that is all it is) places the will of man on equal footing if not superior footing with the will of God as well as putting them in constant conflict, and producing utter chaos. God is not omniscient because he read a book or watched a movie. He knows all because He created all and governs all. It is not two transcendent entities, will and God's determinations, operating alongside each other.

100% agree.

It is God's sovereignty and man's responsibility working alongside each other.

This needs to be explained further so as to not contradict your previous statment “place the will of man on equal footing… with the will of God as well as putting them in constant conflict, and producing utter chaos”.

…

 

[ReverendRV]

Almost…



That’s it.



Yes. As long as he can prevent you from noticing the third party shell that transcends ”the movie” determining God’s knowledge he can move the shells to make you think there is only two shells in play in his game.

If you point to God learning “in time”, “from the movie”, like OT claims he will lift the shell and show there is “no learning” under it. If you point to the shell of the “character in the movie or book” before or after creation he will lift it and show there is “no learning” under it either. Most people don’t see the third shell because it is intentionally labeled to appear like the second shell.

Now here is where the crafty part comes into play if you point out that he has a “third party” shell in play then he will name that shell “agent” or “Will” but still lift shell #2 “character in book, character in movie, piece on chess board” and show that there is “no learning” under it… but he never lifts the “agent” shell to reveal what’s under it.

The “agent” is “Will” sitting across from God in the chess game, the Author of the book before the movie, and the determiner of the characters choices in the choose-your-own-adventure-book analogies.

“Will” as the character’s “agent” determines the character’s every action irrespective of the character’s personality or preferences.

“Will” is the puppet master that also determined God’s knowledge before the foundation of “the chess match, the movie, and the reading of the CYOA book”.

Watch him as he deceptively lifts shell #2 here:

…

I think I get it...

Let me read this a few times...

 

[makesends]

It sounds like Open Theism...

That was my thought, too.

Imagine discovering a perspective that shares a familiar term with your own, but carries an entirely distinct meaning. Consider the notion that this term holds a significance completely divergent from your understanding. You might respond by saying, "That's not surprising; I'm already aware of the differing interpretations." But what if I told you that its true meaning goes beyond your expectations? Allow me to introduce you to an intriguing understanding of free “Will" that you may have never contemplated, despite it being right in front of you all along:

In theological discourse, various perspectives have been proposed to reconcile the concepts of free “Will” and divine foreknowledge. One intriguing view presents a distinctive understanding where free “Will” is portrayed as a transcendent entity, operating alongside God's determinations. This perspective draws upon analogies such as a chess game, a choose-your-own-adventure book, and the experience of watching a movie. By carefully integrating these elements, a coherent and thought-provoking understanding emerges.

The Chess Game Analogy:
Imagine a chess game where two transcendent beings engage in a strategic competition. God, as one player, determines certain moves on the chessboard, representing events and circumstances within creation. On the other hand, "Will" represents the second player, making independent choices that shape other events and circumstances. The chess pieces symbolize individuals within creation, subject to the influence of both God's and "Will's" determinations.

The Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Book Analogy:
In a similar vein, consider a choose-your-own-adventure book where God serves as the author. God has written all possible paths and endings, establishing the overarching narrative of the story. However, "Will" is the active participant, determining the specific choices, actions, and paths that the character will take within the story. The character in the book represents the individual influenced by the decisions made by "Will" – decisions that shape the character's journey within the predetermined framework.

Foreknowledge as Informed Revelation:
Within this view, "Will" possesses the ability to inform God of the determinations that will be made for the chess pieces or the storybook characters before the game or story begins. This communication allows God to have foreknowledge of the specific moves, choices, and paths that will be taken. Thus, God's foreknowledge is not passive but actively acquired through the revelation provided by "Will."

The Movie Analogy:
To further illustrate this concept, consider the analogy of watching a movie. God is depicted as watching a movie for the first time, yet possessing complete foreknowledge of every action and the ending. But how? This foreknowledge is attributed to the fact that God has already read the book that serves as the source material for the movie, a book authored by "Will". God's foreknowledge stems from having already encountered the predetermined narrative structure and outcomes outlined in the book by “Will”.

Coherently Combining the Elements:
By merging these analogies, a comprehensive view emerges. God, as the transcendent creator, shares a cooperative relationship with "Will," a separate transcendent entity. Both entities possess active roles in determining events and outcomes for creation. God's determinations intertwine with those made by "Will," reflecting a shared authority and power.

While God's foreknowledge encompasses all possibilities within the determined framework, certainty regarding the specific determinations made by "Will" is not known until they are communicated. "Will" actively informs God of the choices and actions that will be made, enabling God to possess foreknowledge of their outcomes. The cooperative narrative between God and "Will" allows for the harmonious interplay of free “Will” and divine omniscience.

Conclusion:
The perspective presented here offers a not so unique lens through which to understand the relationship between free “Will” and divine foreknowledge. Drawing upon analogies of a chess game, a choose-your-own-adventure book, and watching a movie, this view posits a cooperative narrative where God and "Will" play distinct yet interdependent roles. God's foreknowledge is acquired through the informed revelations provided by "Will." By embracing this perspective, we deepen our understanding for the duality of God’s sovereignty and “Will’s” agency, and the intricate transcendent interplay between them to bring about the grand tapestry of a creation.

Now you might not believe me that this view is a real view but don’t take my word for it, click here to hear it for yourself. (Use the gear icon in the video to slow it down to .75 if it’s to fast for you)

…

Not to ignore the fact that this is unbiblical and not just an extrabiblical construction, but it is as illogical as Open Theism. Granted, Open Theism and this construction here are more logically cohesive (not saying 'coherent') but for their assumptions, than Arminianism, they both waste enormous amounts of energy just to say, "God is not really first cause."

If this fiction were true, God would be under the thumb of "Will"; if Open Theism were true, God would be under the thumb of "Chance". Both notions suppose that there is something co-first with First Cause, which is logically self-contradictory. By definition, there can be only one First Cause.

 

[makesends]

Although this view has aspects of Open Theism I believe this view is further off the rails from the Bible than OT. At least OT does not create a third party that determines both the movements of the pieces and the knowledge of God before the foundation of the world.

…

But in effect, Open Theism DOES assume a third party —mere "Chance". In fact, in spite of protests to the contrary, the power that they attribute to "chance", and the effects of "chance", sound interestingly close to a being with its own purposes. But, still, like Pelagianism and Arminianism, these two still posit a limited Creator.

 

[CCShorts]

But in effect, Open Theism DOES assume a third party —mere "Chance". In fact, in spite of protests to the contrary, the power that they attribute to "chance", and the effects of "chance", sound interestingly close to a being with its own purposes. But, still, like Pelagianism and Arminianism, these two still posit a limited Creator.

Yes, like Molinism implying that circumstances determine both God’s knowledge and human actions… but what or who determined the “circumstances” for all the possible worlds, for God to choose from, in the first place?

…

 

[ReverendRV]

Yes, like Molinism implying that circumstances determine both God’s knowledge and human actions… but what or who determined the “circumstances” for all the possible worlds, for God to choose from, in the first place?

…

This is why it's Open Theism in Sheep's Clothing...

It doesn't matter if Professor Flowers denies it or not. This is about Categories and Category Mistakes...

If you dress a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, the Category remains; it's still a Wolf. If you dress Open Theism in Determinism's Clothing; it's still Open Theism. If you dress Learning up as Omniscience; it's still Learning...

 

[ReverendRV]

"Will" playing Chess with God, is like saying "Morality" is playing Chess with God; it's the Euthyphro Dilemma, but with different Players. Which came first; God or Morality? That's the Euthyphro Dilemma. Which came first; Will or God?

That's the Flowers Dilemma...

God always comes first in Logical Order. A Christian like Professor Flowers shouldn't have a Dilemma THIS similar to THAT Atheistic Objection...

 

[Arial]

This needs to be explained further so as to not contradict your previous statment “place the will of man on equal footing… with the will of God as well as putting them in constant conflict, and producing utter chaos”.

To rehash my statement so it is clear what I am addressing: it is God's sovereignty and man's responsibility that are active alongside each other.

It veers off slightly from the concept put forth as our will being a transcendent entity and God being a transcendent entity working in unity, but also touches on the interaction of man with God.

As the Creator of all that is, God is sovereign over all---that is there is no other governance higher or greater than His. He ordains all and governs all. That does not absolve man of all responsibility as to the choices we make. We are always and in every way responsible to Him, and if our choices violate His holiness (sin) we are responsible for them and bear the results and judgment of them outside of Christ. This neither makes Him the author or predeterminer of those choices.

To say that our will is not free is not the same thing as saying that we have no will. If we were not a creature created with the functioning ability to freely make choices, (which is not at all the same thing as a will that is free) we (1) would not be made in His image and likeness and (2) might as well be paper dolls---one dimensional---and there would be no relationship with our Creator as responsible creatures.

It was in the fall of mankind that brought about the need for redemption, and this was not a surprise to God, but of necessity had to part of His plan before creation. God knows all things, He is never learning new things. The difference between us and Adam and Eve is that they had a will that moved them one way or another but they had no knowledge of evil contained within them. Therefore there was nothing in them by nature that predisposed them to evil. Now that we have the knowledge of what is unholy we bend towards it, not always, but always sometimes, and our will is moved by our inner desires.

We still owe our loyalty to our Creator and are responsible for our own choices. What happened on the cross by Christ's betrayers is a perfect and dramatic example of this. God ordained it to happen from before the foundation of the world and without a hitch in the step brought it about exactly how and when He ordained it. Yet those who were a party to it were 100% responsible before God for the choices they made. 100% God's sovereignty, 100% man's responsibility---always.

Bottom line, all speculating and philosophizing aside, God says that it how it is---therefore that is how it is.

I watched an interesting video on youtube this morning by Sproul on the aseity of God. You might enjoy it. But in it he says this: in a chess game God knows all the contingencies but not contingently.

Very good thread btw.

 

[Arial]

And that’s exactly what Leighton wants you to think because he can use your accusation of Open Theism against you. Open Theism is a distraction from what he is really hiding in his view.

Think about it. If you were to accuse Leighton of teaching Open Theism would he not simply deny it and say “Provisionism affirms God knows all things before the foundation of the world therefore we are not Open Theists”?

How can he say this but also deny that God determined all things known?

You have to see that Provisionism is not Open Thism… it’s WORSE!

It posits a dualistic collaboration between two transcendent entities working together to determine all things known before the foundation of the world.

One entity determines some things and the other determines other things and together all things are determined.

Consider if you were to say to Leighton No created being can determine other than what God foreknows. Would he not say back to you “Just because God foreknows does not mean he determined what he knows”?

How can he say this? How can God foreknow what he did not determine?

You might reply back with something like “Leighton is teaching that God learns by looking down the corridors of time to see, or learn, and that’s how he foreknows” but this is also not his view. He will deny this accusation also.

So how does God know all things without determining all things before the foundation of the world on Leighton’s view?

Think about it. There is a third party that determines both humans actions and God’s knowledge before the foundation of the world.

…

I agree with all you say here and it is a very good lesson for Christians to be prepared to spot falsities and to be able to answer back as to why it is false. Apologetics at its most basic meaning and should be pursued by all Christians not just left to academia.

Leighton's sleight of hand did not get past his presenting his premise as a presupposition of the existence of something that does not exist. Will as a transcendent entity. There is no third party. And even though I saw the similarities between what he was saying and open theism (and there are some) my argument against what he says would never be "That is open theism." What he is doing is the same thing Norman Geisler did in his book "Chosen But Free." He claimed to be a Calvinist and then proceeded to tear apart every doctrine in that theology that is in TULIP. His purpose was to by sleight of hand completely muddy the waters.

The answer to that book by James White "The Potter's Freedom" wonderfully exposes every fallacy and eisegesis and failure of apologetics in Geisler's magic trick that plays loosley and carelessly with the word of God, but if one is not paying attention is very convincing.

 

[makesends]

Yes, like Molinism implying that circumstances determine both God’s knowledge and human actions… but what or who determined the “circumstances” for all the possible worlds, for God to choose from, in the first place?

…

Exactly! And so by implication, they invoke (without realizing it, apparently) a supposed first cause, that governs God and any other principle.