of God, either by uniting him to the “world process” (Wink) or by making predetermined evil a necessary requirement for God’s maximal glorification (Piper). Recognizing the complexities of the issues at hand, I would argue that both moves are unnecessary and unacceptable. In Hart’s view, the problem lies in denying even “a scintilla of creaturely freedom.” Yet unfortunately, as soon as one begins to talk of creaturely freedom and responsibility, the charges of (semi-)Pelagianism are sure to follow.