Replies

[From Warfield:] ............ I say that it is more accurate to say that we will not admit that we are controlled. For we are controlled, whether we admit it or not. To imagine that we are not controlled is to imagine that there is no God. For when we say God, we say control. If a single creature which God has made has escaped beyond his control, at the moment that he has done so he has abolished God. A God who could or would make a creature whom he could not or would not control, is no God. The moment he should make such a creature he would, of course, abdicate his throne. The universe he had created would have ceased to be his universe; or rather it would cease to exist-for the universe is held together only by the control of God.

That statement presupposes that our actions signify something outside God's control -- which is false.

Warfield is saying that if someone held that our actions could be outside of God's control, then that person is either wrong or there is no Biblical God. So, Warfield would agree with the intent of your first sentence, as I perceive it.

For God, His control is the ability he's given us to choose. He doesn't micromanage, yet He has His plan for mankind. If Hitler choose to be evil, that does not negate God's plan, nor does it mean God cannot come down "deus-ex-machina" and resolve things, but that would remove our free will.

The key question to answer is whether God gives us the ability to choose against His will. Warfield (and other Reformers) would say that if we answer "yes" then that is beyond God's control and Warfield's implications would come to be. We cannot just say that God's control is giving us freedom, and then stop right there. We must explore the nature of that freedom.

So, with the Hitler example, would we say that what Hitler did was part of God's plan all along, OR, would we say that God's giving Hitler free will meant that the "rule" was that Hitler could do anything he wanted and God wouldn't interfere, even if it disagreed with God's plan, because the "rule" said Hitler was free? If we say the latter then Warfield and we would say that's elevating man's will above God's and the implication of that would be that our God is no god at all.

A similar argument would apply if we said that God's plan was simply to roll with the punches of human decisions and deal with history as we gave it to Him. That would also be God abdicating His control and ceasing to be God.

A creator cannot be sovereign and moral if he gives up control over his creation. Warfield is saying that if God actually DID give people the kind of freedom that many suppose they do have, then it would actually be a sign of immorality and that God did not love His creation.

Have to say I don’t agree with Warfields position. Mainly because God doesn’t need us to validate himself.

Warfields frequent use of the word “imagine” itself is distracting, as well as frequent use of “control”.
Additionally, the whole article presents a negative and distorted view of who God is.

Example: Just in his first two sentences his repetitive use of——

..we are controlled
..we are controlled
..we are controlled

I wonder, do you think this guy is clearly not asking questions rather stating his stance pretty forcefully and surrounding his words with a bunch of fluff to make it palitable. Not for me....

Do you believe we love God of our own free will?

Warfield is saying that if someone held that our actions could be outside of God's control, then that person is either wrong or there is no Biblical God

FK, God can control our actions, he does not make us do some evil, but our free will choices do not affect or in any way impugn His Will or His control.

So, with the Hitler example, would we say that what Hitler did was part of God's plan all along, OR, would we say that God's giving Hitler free will meant that the "rule" was that Hitler could do anything he wanted and God wouldn't interfere, even if it disagreed with God's plan, because the "rule" said Hitler was free? If we say the latter then Warfield and we would say that's elevating man's will above God's and the implication of that would be that our God is no god at all.

And Warfield would be wrong. Hitler was wholly responsible for his actions, God did not direct or predestine Hitler to commit his actions. However, do not forget that the outcome of WWII was Israel's rebirth after 1876 years. Was that God's plan? God knows. Was it God's hand that directed Hitler to commit the Holocaust -- NO.

A creator cannot be sovereign and moral if he gives up control over his creation

And I repeat that the question postulated is wrong. Free will of man does not impact or negate or in any way dminish the sovereignity or control of God. Just because God is more a loving parent than a tyrannical though-police dictator, only enhances Him.

So when Satan came to God about Job and basically said, “He only serves and loves you because you’ve given him so much.” In essence, who wouldn’t love a Santa-Claus God? What did God then say to Satan? “Do whatever you want to him, just don’t kill him.” What happened next we all know and we wouldn’t wish on our worst enemy, yet Job in the end said, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.”

My question is why the test? What would it prove if Job was predestined to weather everything that was thrown at him, not even knowing it wasn’t God who was doing it, because God programmed him to? Why did God even give us this tremendous example of faith at all? I might be thick as pea soup, here, but I just don’t see it. Again, I think it shows God to be so much more all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving when he is ABLE to fulfill his plan and make all things work together for good with angels and mankind free to choose or reject him. Where is the glory in creating robots?

“Warfield is saying that if someone held that our actions could be outside of God’s control, then that person is either wrong or there is no Biblical God.”

That assumes we are out of God’s control because we choose to be. But if God gives us a choice to make, and allows us to make it freely, that is within his will and his control.

“The key question to answer is whether God gives us the ability to choose against His will.”

Well, look at scripture. Does it clearly teach we are to repent? Yes. Does it clearly teach we are to believe? Yes. Are these presented as something we decide, decisions for us to make? Yes.

If God’s will is to have loving sons vs obedient robots, then giving us that choice is critical to his higher will. He may want us all to be saved, but if he desires sons more than he desires compelled obedience, then he has to give us choices - that we may screw up badly.

As an officer goes up in rank, one of the greatest challenges is to figure out how much freedom to give a subordinate. Too little, and you stifle growth. Too much, and you permit failure. And failure can mean death, or it may mean being fired for your subordinate’s actions.

We do it as men, with very imperfect knowledge. God doesn’t make mistakes, but he does give us freedom. When we choose to believe, or to harden our hearts, we are exercising the freedom he gave us, and are still subordinate to him. And those who reject Christ will find that out to their pain, while those who accept Christ find it to their joy.

Our choices. Not because I say so, but because scripture from Genesis to Revelation demonstrates it.