Who's Your Father?: Returning to the Love of the Biblical God

Who's Your Father?: Returning to the Love of the Biblical God

by Robert Bernecker

ISBN: 9781482068382

Publisher CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform

Published in Christian Books & Bibles/Church & Church Leadership, Religion & Spirituality/Other Practices, Christian Books & Bibles, Religion & Spirituality

Are you an AUTHOR? Click here to include your books on

Special Pricing

Kindle Edition Only $2.99 until 10/31/13

Book Description

Kirkus calls Who’s Your Father? “a bright examination of modern Christianity,” adding that Bernecker’s points are “well-researched and “well-articulated,” giving the reader “a thought-provoking look at the modern definition of God.”

This eye-opening new book challenges readers to reevaluate their perceptions of God, and it thoughtfully exposes many misconceptions that are commonly found in the church of our day. Readers are led into a deeper understanding of the real God of the Bible and shown the path to a new and immensely satisfying relationship with their loving Father.

Sample Chapter

The Illusion of a Gentleman God

How deeply do men err who conceive of God as subject to our human will or as standing respectfully to wait upon our human pleasure.

—A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of Man(1)

In each of three separate books within the acclaimed Chronicles of Narnia series, C. S. Lewis’ characters make the observation that "Aslan is not a tame lion."(2) Mr. Lewis’s metaphor is quite accurate, of course. Our God is not tame; he does not answer to us (Daniel 4:35; Isaiah 40:13–14), nor is he our servant or our butler. These basic facts appear to be lost in today’s church, where it seems normal for most Christians to casually believe that God indeed does our bidding. Moreover, very few are willing to dispute the common notions that "God is a gentleman" and "God will not interfere with a person’s free will." While we may stop short of joining those who teach that humans may indeed become gods, we nonetheless embrace doctrines and teachings that strip sovereignty from God and hand it over to humans, thereby coming dangerously close to elevating the created above the Creator. A. W. Pink observed this trend back in 1918 and, perhaps somewhat prophetically, wrote the following:

The trend of modern theology…is ever toward the deification of the creature rather than the glorification of the Creator, and the leaven of present-day Rationalism is rapidly permeating the whole of Christendom.(3)

In the preceding chapter, the resplendent principle of God’s sovereignty over his entire creation was explored at length. While this tenet is truly magnificent and worthy of nothing less than our awe and worship, the fuller truth of God’s loving sovereignty is deeper still and yet more precious. Indeed, we should rejoice that no matter how well we come to know our Father, because we are finite creatures, there will always remain a deeper and fuller truth about our infinite God for us to endeavor to comprehend and worship. We should therefore set our hearts to understand that our God is not a sovereign God who always fulfills his will for the universe but does so in an inscrutable manner while managing to leave humans alone to "do their own thing." Rather, our God is a personal God who exercises his sovereignty at the personal level. For example, Proverbs 21:1 teaches us that God works in human hearts to accomplish his divinely perfect purpose. The passage states that the "heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes" (NASB).

This dramatic statement is not some isolated assertion of a single Bible verse. It is a constant characteristic of a God who "fashions the hearts" of men and women (Psalm 33:15). This same attribute—that God moves, turns, and influences free hearts to accomplish his own purpose—is also seen throughout the entire Bible. In fact, any doctrine teaching God’s unwillingness to interfere with each person’s supposed free will runs head-on into a vast host of scriptural examples and teaching. To illustrate this fact, a partial list of such references is presented here:


Genesis 20:6      2 Kings 3:13      Jeremiah 1:15

Genesis 24:12–50    2 Kings 10:32    Jeremiah 32:39–40

Genesis 39:20–21    1 Chronicles 5:26    Jeremiah 51:1

Genesis 50:20    2 Chronicles 17:10    Jeremiah 51:11

Exodus 3:21    2 Chronicles 21:16    Ezekiel 23:22–23

Exodus 34:24    2 Chronicles 22:7    Ezekiel 36:22–29

Numbers 22:38    2 Chronicles 25:20    Ezekiel 38:10–11

Deuteronomy 2:30    2 Chronicles 36:22    Daniel 1:9

Joshua 11:20    Ezra 1:1    Zechariah 14:2

Joshua 24:10    Ezra 1:5–6    John 1:13

Judges 14:4    Ezra 7:27    Acts 2:23

1 Samuel 2:25    Psalm 105:17    Acts 4:28

2 Samuel 17:14    Psalm 105:25    2 Thess. 2:11–12

1 Kings 11:14    Isaiah 19:2    James 1:18

1 Kings 12:15    Isaiah 22:11    1 Peter 1:3

1 Kings 22:20    Isaiah 37:7    Revelation 17:17

This is not a complete list by any means. From Genesis to Revelation, God freely interferes with human will to accomplish his own eternal purpose. Even the great sinful rebellion seen in Revelation 17 is said "to carry out God’s purpose" (v. 17). In regards to the choices and actions of the ten sinful, rebellious kings described in this passage, we are told explicitly that "God put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose" (v. 17), which in this case will be his inevitable conquering of these rebellious kings and people (v. 14).

The collective preponderance of these many Scriptures thoroughly dispels the notion that God is somehow a "gentleman" that is either unable or unwilling to turn the hearts and wills of humans (and thereby their choices) to accomplish his own purpose. In fact, Psalm 33:10 (NASB) teaches us the exact opposite: "The Lord nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples." We do not read that the Lord honors the counsel of the nations and carefully respects the plans of the people. Instead, we are told, "The Lord reigns, let the people tremble!" (Psalm 99:1). We should learn from Jeremiah, who declared his awareness of this glorious truth in Jeremiah 10:23: "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps."

Contrary to much popular teaching of our day, our Father clearly can and regularly does interfere with human free will. To our great loss, we have drifted far from the historic confession of God’s sovereign involvement in every facet of his creation. In fact, Augustine made no effort to conceal his disdain for any such suggestions that would artificially limit God’s ascendancy, and he wrote bluntly that it was "blasphemous" and "foolish" to assert that God does not change the wills of men whenever and however he chooses.(4) We must repent of such foolishness, and we should instead praise our God that he does change our will! Many who profess that "God is a gentleman" have probably never considered the consequences of a world where God, for whatever reason they may assert, did not actually influence, change, and interfere with humanity’s fallen will. How horrible indeed that would be!

We sing songs such as the popular "Our God Reigns" with great enthusiasm and joy, and then we turn right around and teach that God does not in fact reign over the wills of humans, perhaps even in the very same church service. Do we believe he reigns or do we not? Do we even realize how perilous it is to impudently suggest that our God’s reign is somehow only partial? I suspect that for most of us this insolence is born of nothing more than having never actually reasoned the matter through completely. For example, we do not seem to have any difficulty accepting and rejoicing in the fact that God placed Esther as the queen of Persia "for such a time as this" in order to accomplish his purpose of saving the Jewish people (Esther 4:14), but we stumble when we fail to consider how this might actually have happened. Assuming it was not all just an auspicious accident by which the Israelites in exile were delivered from the total extermination threatened by the evil man Haman (Esther 3:8–9), did not God have to interfere with and influence the so-called free will of King Ahasuerus by causing him to find Esther pleasing (2:17) and then further causing the king to choose Esther to be the replacement for the previous queen Vashti?

For that matter, was even the banishment of Vashti just an unlikely but fortuitous accident that fell into God’s lap and created a vacancy into which he could insert Esther? Are we to seriously believe God simply seized upon an opportune stroke of good luck when a drunken Ahasuerus just happened to call for Queen Vashti to put her on display (1:11), Vashti just happened to refuse because she was offended in her own pride (1:12), the king’s counselors just happened to advise the king to banish her (1:19), and these same advisors later came up with an idea out of their own sinful hearts for the king to replace Vashti—a plan that would just happen to work out to a "gentleman" God’s advantage? Such an assertion quite obviously strains credibility, and, worse yet, it also creates severely misplaced boundaries upon God’s trustworthiness, omniscience, and faithfulness—boundaries that should not exist at all.

Is it not more likely by several orders of magnitude that this is a powerful example of how God exercises his sovereignty over human free will in order to accomplish his own purpose and that it also clearly demonstrates his willingness to do so? We should rejoice in the fact that God, human free will notwithstanding, invariably works out his "plans formed long ago with perfect faithfulness" (Isaiah 25:1 NASB).

There are many such examples of this same principle in Scripture, and one worthy of close examination is the account of Rehoboam’s choice found in 2 Chronicles 10 and 1 Kings 12. In this vivid narrative, it is quite clear that Rehoboam certainly did have a choice. Following the death of King Solomon, the people of Israel had come to his son Rehoboam and offered to serve him faithfully if he would only reduce the heavy load that his father had placed upon them. Rehoboam gave this choice much deliberation. He asked the old men for advice regarding the choice before him, he asked the young men for advice about the choice, and he asked the people for three days in which to consider his choice. In the end, he decided to choose the way of the young men’s advice, and he refused to lighten the burden on the people. The results were disastrous for Rehoboam. His subjects revolted, his kingdom was split into two separate kingdoms, and he lost ten of twelve tribes.

As tragic as Rehoboam’s choice may have been, the story did not begin with the people approaching Rehoboam regarding the heavy load that Solomon had placed upon them. Instead, it had its beginning back in 1 Kings 11:26–43. We see there that Solomon’s construction foreman, Jeroboam, is given the ten northern tribes in advance and by the Lord through the words of the prophet Ahijah. This occurred while Solomon was still alive and still firmly king of all twelve tribes. We are told the Lord’s reason and purpose in verses 31 to 33; it was because of Israel’s idolatry and wickedness that the Lord was going to "tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon" (as usual, human responsibility is not absent). In other words, long before Rehoboam ever had the opportunity to make his "free" choice between the counsel of the old men and that of the young men, God had already declared to Jeroboam in no uncertain terms that God’s purpose would be fulfilled and thereby the kingdom would be split.

Here we see the paradox clearly; God uses human free will to accomplish his predetermined sovereign purpose. Rehoboam’s choice was a real choice with real consequences—the Scripture is clear about that. He was presented with the wisdom of the old men (good advice) and the wisdom of the young men (bad advice), and he chose the latter to his own detriment. At the same time, Scripture is equally clear that he was destined to choose the latter, for God had already declared years before what Rehoboam’s choice would be! The Puritans had a saying: "What God sovereignly decrees in eternity, man will always freely choose in time." As this saying would suggest, Rehoboam was free to choose either direction, but his destiny (decreed by God) was the latter choice, and there was no possibility that he would choose the former and thereby prove God wrong. It was not going to happen! He freely made the choice he was destined to make and thereby accomplished that which God himself was actually doing.

The pivotal question in the matter is whether God actually exerted his sovereignty over Rehoboam’s free will or merely knew in advance which choice Rehoboam would make. Was the promise of the northern kingdom to Jeroboam simply God’s opportunistic use of his eternal knowledge regarding Rehoboam’s eventual decision? To accept the premise that it was mere foreknowledge rips sovereignty out of the hand of God and places it instead in the hands of men. At worst, this is heresy, and it is unscriptural at best. For example, God shared the future in Ezekiel 39, and then in verse 8 declared that "it is coming" and that "it will be brought about!" In Isaiah 25:1, we are told that God works with perfect faithfulness "plans formed long ago."

God did not look into the future, foresee Rehoboam’s foolish choice, and then tell Jeroboam that Rehoboam would lose ten of twelve tribes of his kingdom because of this bad choice; rather, God spoke that he would tear the kingdom away from Solomon and Rehoboam and give it to Jeroboam instead! Not surprisingly, this is exactly what God made happen. The word tear is an action verb; the tearing of the kingdom from Rehoboam was an action of our eternal, unchanging God, not a result of an autonomous human choice. We can know, therefore, that God brought it about; it was not just happenstance. If God was involved in the split—and the Bible says that he was—then he had a single perfect plan for the split. If God had to change his plan to accommodate Rehoboam’s choice, then the original plan was not perfect, and if God’s plan is not perfect, then God is not God at all. If, on the other hand, the plan was perfect, then it was set in place long before the world began by our eternal God who stands outside of time. Therefore, Rehoboam could only have freely chosen one of the two choices. Indeed, just like us, he freely chose what God had destined.

Should there remain any doubt about Rehoboam’s choice being inevitably what God had destined, then 1 Kings 12:15 (and 2 Chronicles 10:15 as well) dispels any such doubt. This Scripture plainly states, "The king did not listen to the people, for it was a turn of affairs brought about by the Lord that he might fulfill his word." This could not be clearer. This was not mere foreknowledge; rather, we are told directly that God brought about the outcome and that he did this so that his word would be fulfilled—as it always is and always will be! This inescapable conclusion is reinforced further by the prophet Shemaiah in 2 Chronicles 11:4, where Shemaiah gave the direct command of the Lord to Rehoboam to cease from his plans to fight against Jeroboam. God himself took direct credit for the series of events, stating that the split of the kingdom, which may have appeared on the surface to be a result of Rehoboam’s poor choice, was actually his own sovereign work. He declared, "This is my doing" (NIV), "This thing is from me" (ESV), or "This thing is done of me" (KJV). Manifestly, there remains no room to doubt that God fulfilled his eternal, sovereign purpose, and he imposed his purpose on human free will in the process of so doing.

In his well-known 1754 treatise The Freedom of the Will, Jonathon Edwards famously and masterfully pointed out that humans are indeed free to choose what seems best to them.(5) But Edwards noted that Scripture is also clear that God can and does influence and determine what seems best to humans. As such, God influences human choices. A perfect example of this is found in 2 Samuel 17. Here, Absalom is given both what most would call "good" advice (it would have been better for him) and "bad" advice. He had a choice, and Absalom chose the "bad" advice of Hushai instead of the "good" advice of Ahithophel. Why would he do this? Was it just his bad luck or his bad judgment? Actually, it was neither. We are given the real reason in verse 14: "For the Lord had ordained to thwart the good counsel of Ahithophel, in order that the Lord might bring calamity on Absalom" (NASB). The Lord had willed (ordained) that Absalom would perish, and he influenced Absalom’s free will by making the good counsel seem bad and the bad counsel seem good to Absalom, in order that Absalom would freely choose what the Lord had destined—thereby fulfilling God’s divine purpose! We can praise our Father because he still works this way today and because his purposes are always fulfilled.

God’s willingness and ability to sovereignly control what course of action humans perceive to be the best choice is also clearly exemplified in Genesis 34 and 35. In these chapters, when Jacob’s sons slaughtered all the men of Shechem and plundered the city in retaliation for Shechem’s defilement of their sister Dinah, Jacob accurately feared that he did not have the numbers or strength to defend his family should the other Canaanites and Perizzites seek revenge for this slaughter (34:30). Left to their own free will, there is little doubt that the remaining Canaanites and the Perizzites would have indeed pursued and killed Jacob and his family in revenge for the massacre at Shechem. However, we know that God’s eternal purpose for Jacob was to bless him and make a mighty nation of him and his family, and God had previously promised to be with Jacob until God’s purpose was fully accomplished (Genesis 28:13–15). It is therefore no surprise that God conspicuously interfered with the free will of the Canaanites and the Perizzites. According to Genesis 35:5, the people from the Canaanite cities freely chose not to pursue Jacob and his family as they fled to Bethel because God had sent a great terror into their wills. In other words, the people were caused to be unreasonably afraid to pursue Jacob when in actuality they possessed the superior strength to crush him. This divine interference with human free will allowed Jacob and his family to safely travel out of the area as God had instructed, and God’s purpose was again accomplished.

It would be a great mistake to attempt to explain away these many accounts of God’s interference with human free will and human desire as isolated incidents that are somehow not characteristic of God’s dealing with the human race. We know that our God does not change, and we have no biblical suggestion that God will take on a role of less sovereignty in later ages than that which he clearly exhibited in earlier ages. It is tremendously more likely that we just do not notice God’s hand most of the time, supposing him to be absent when he is not. For example, in Exodus 34:23–24, God told his people that all males, without exception, were to travel to the tabernacle three times a year to offer sacrifices, a command that was looking forward to the time when they possessed the Promised Land (also Deuteronomy 16:16). However, this command raised an obvious question—what would keep their enemies from attacking and plundering their families, their land, and their belongings while they were on these triannual pilgrimages? God’s promise in this regard was unambiguous. He promised that no enemy would even desire to attack or plunder while the Israelites were away.

God’s fulfillment of this promise would necessarily encompass countless nearby enemies who no doubt would quickly learn of these very predictable absences, if for no other reason than regularly observing a mass exodus of Israelites to the location of the tabernacle. Nevertheless, only as a result of divine interference with human will, it would never even enter into these enemies’ minds to take advantage of these absences by attacking and plundering while all of the men of the entire nation were away from their lands offering sacrifices at the tabernacle. This divine interference with human free will is no isolated assertion of Scripture; we read in Proverbs 16:7 that God would indeed make the enemies of those who serve him to be at peace with them. Moreover, although the Bible does not state it directly, it seems nearly certain that these enemies would never realize that their desires, choices, and actions were being influenced by a sovereign God. It would therefore be reasonable for us to believe that our God always remains sovereign over all, and more often than not humans do not even realize that God’s will is sovereignly influencing their own.

When the will of men conflicts with the purpose of the Lord, Scripture teaches us plainly that it is God’s will that prevails. God does not respectfully acquiesce to the imagined sovereignty of man’s free will, as some might suppose would be appropriate for a "gentleman" God. At the city that would come to be called Babel (Genesis 11), humans had decided of their own free will to create a name for themselves, and apparently a religion abhorrent to the Lord as well, by building a tower with which they supposed they might connect to the heavens. The desire of their human free will was readily apparent, but God’s purpose was obviously quite different. As we all know, rather than respecting human free will, God confused their language in order to thwart and change their chosen course of action. It is noteworthy that God could have easily just spoken his command and instantly transported the tower builders to as many other places as he saw fit (à la Philip or Enoch), or he could have merely commanded the earth to open up and swallow them (à la Dathan and Korah in Numbers 16). Instead, God acted in a manner that resulted in the humans separating and going in different directions of their own free will. God made them freely decide to scatter—so off they went! According to Acts 17:26, we can know that they did not just wander off haphazardly (although it probably seemed that way to them); rather, they each went to the exact place that God had ordained by his sovereignty. It is quite likely that they did not realize at all that the change in their desires and free will was in fact the handiwork of the Lord; they merely chose what seemed best to them at the time, exactly as Edwards postulated. God interfered with and changed their free will, but, as is always the case, he did so using his own sovereignly chosen method.


Excerpted from "Who's Your Father?: Returning to the Love of the Biblical God" by Robert Bernecker. Copyright © 2013 by Robert Bernecker. Excerpted by permission. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher. Excerpts are provided solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Thanks for reading!

Join BookDaily now and receive featured titles to sample for free by email.
Reading a book excerpt is the best way to evaluate it before you spend your time or money.

Just enter your email address and password below to get started:


Your email address is safe with us. Privacy policy
By clicking ”Get Started“ you agree to the Terms of Use. All fields are required

Instant Bonus: Get immediate access to a daily updated listing of free ebooks from Amazon when you confirm your account!

Author Profile

Amazon Reviews