The providence of God has become a controversial issue in modern Christian theological thought. Since the dawning of the Enlightenment in the 18th century, secular humanists and liberal theologians have been questioning classical views regarding the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom. Although the providence of God is shrouded in mystery and is difficult to comprehend, this doctrine has serious implications in a Christian’s view of God, His eternal plan, His omnipotence and omniscience, and His care for His creation. This paper seeks to answer the main question if God controls all things, then how can human actions have real meaning? What is the meaning of human freedom? Does God will or direct people to sin? Are human beings truly accountable for their actions? How does the doctrine of providence impact how Christians are to view their relationship to God and their service for His Kingdom? These are serious questions that must be answered prayerfully and with great consideration. What is providence? Simply put, providence means the “continuing action of God by which he preserves in existence the creation which he has brought into being, and guides it to his intended purposes for it.”
[1] Although the doctrine of providence also covers the concepts of God’s preservation of His creation and God’s government over His creation so that it fulfills His plans, this paper focuses on the concept of providential concurrence. Concurrence describes how God “cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do.”
[2] It is this concept that causes most of the divergence between theological and philosophical systems.
Most of the more popular providence models offered in modern theological debate are considered general providence models with an emphasis on the libertarian freedom of humanity as the basis of each doctrinal belief. A majority of these models lie on the fringes of orthodox Christian belief. The main perspectives that fall within this group are deism, process theology, and open theology. Deism, a model developed at the height of the Enlightenment, upholds that God has created a world governed by laws of physical and moral order. This view allows for total free will and random chance, but sacrifices divine sovereignty to the extreme, along with a list of other important Christian doctrines, such as special revelation and miracle. From the Deist perspective, God created the universe in accordance to natural laws He developed and ordained. Also, through this powerful creative act, those physical laws then behave in a regular, law-like way. Thus, God leaves these ordained laws alone and does nothing but preserves them in their motions and actions.
[3] The same approach is applied to humanity, where God expects humans to “act wisely, in accordance with the rules of the established order,” but will not step in to impose his will on people and keep them from either their own improper behavior or from that of others. Random chance is considered to be the more logical explanation to human freedom.
[4]Process and Open theism have become popular alternatives to the traditional Christian beliefs regarding divine providence. According to process theism, God is a being that is not fully actualized, but becoming. Process theists identify God with the world and its natural processes. God has a plan for his creation, but his objectives are subject to influences outside of himself, mainly human activity. He takes these influences into himself and responds accordingly, so that he is in constant interaction with everything in creation, which places Him in a mutual, give-and-take relationship with them. In terms of God’s providential action in the world, this means God is continually at work in every situation, but is limited in his ability to achieve this because other beings have the ability to oppose his influences.
[5] Open theism gets its name from the view that God is open to humanity, to whom he has given libertarian freedom, and that the future is open “because it will be brought about to a large degree by the decisions those creatures make.” God is omnipotent, but He has freely restricted His own power to control every event within creation by giving absolute free will to moral creatures. Due to the personal nature of God’s relationship with these spiritual and human moral creatures, he is influenced by them through their free activity as he impacts history through divine intervention, if needed. In God’s eternal plan, the open theist would argue that God willfully took a risk, deciding it was better to have a world with totally free creatures than to have a world that guaranteed his predetermined plan would always be done. Instead, He is working out all the details of that plan in the time and space that he created responding to the free actions of man in the process.
[6]Within traditional Christian thought, two theological systems have provided the basis of most of the theological conversation regarding providence. These two competing views are the Arminian position and Calvinism. The Calvinist view of providence was developed mainly out of the beliefs of Saint Augustine. According to Calvinist thought, God is totally in control of all aspects of his creation, including the action of human beings. Nothing occurs on earth that is apart from God’s eternal plan and is not fulfilling His will for His creation. This includes seemingly random or chance events and all aspects of our lives. Not only does God have the omnipotence to rule over the creation, but He also has the “choice and determination” over the world, that “nothing at all in the world is undertaken without his determination.”
[7] Not only does Calvin assert that all things are controlled by the eternal decrees of God, but that God has the best reasons for his plan and that “however hidden and fugitive from our point of view” those reasons may be, “we must hold that they are surely laid up with him.”
[8] Calvin, therefore, rejects the idea of an absolute, unrestrained, and libertarian free will. Reformed theologians assert this, mainly because Scripture “contains no hint that God has limited his sovereignty in any degree” regarding human freedom.
[9]Arminian thought, developed by the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius in the late 1500’s, is a reaction against the Calvinist model. Those who hold to an Arminian position maintain that in order to preserve the real human freedom and choices necessary for genuine human personhood, God cannot cause or plan our voluntary actions. Therefore, Arminian theologians conclude that God’s providential control of history must not include every specific detail of every event that happens, but that God simply reacts to human actions as they occur. God does this in such a way that his eternal objectives are ultimately achieved in his creation.
[10] Against Calvinism, those who hold to the Arminian position assert that the verses in Scripture describing God’s providential control are “exceptions and do not describe the way that God ordinarily works.”
[11] They also claim the Calvinist view makes God responsible for sin, and that human choices predetermined by God are coercive and cannot be truly authentic. Arminian theologians would maintain that their position encourages Christian accountability and devotion, while the Calvinist framework sets up a dangerous determinism. Thus, the difference even between the two most prominent evangelical Christian positions on providence is one not merely of terminology, but of genuine substance that must be biblically and theologically considered.
In light of these competing views, the basic concept that must be answered prior to formulating any model of providence is to determine what must be upheld as the highest priority in one’s theories. What is the theologian to start with? Is libertarian freedom the necessary starting place with regards to providence, or is it the sovereignty of God? Is one to begin with Scripture, or experiential logic? The answer to these questions determines the path one is to choose in the providence puzzle. Since theology at its core is the application of God’s Word to all areas of human life, then it is of extreme importance to start with the biblical data available and put together a theological model that best reflects the intent of Scripture.
A study of God’s Word will illustrate that Scripture clearly teaches that God is sovereign and man is responsible. These teachings are not simply exceptional descriptions of God’s divine action, but are a comprehensive catalog of passages that overwhelmingly illustrate God’s ordinary work in and through His creation, especially human beings. Therefore, if one removes absolute sovereignty from God, then he has lost the God of Scripture. The Psalmist states that “whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.”
[12] Paul writes in Ephesians that God “works all things after the counsel of His will.”
[13] Even the most seemingly mundane processes in nature are to be attributed to God, where he providentially causes the grass to grow for the cattle and the vegetation for mankind,
[14] and also feeding the birds of the air.
[15] He also sends fire, hail, snow, clouds, and wind to fulfill His Word.
[16]But God is not only sovereign over the acts the natural order and the animal kingdom, but also over the free actions of humans. Even though the mind of man may plan his ways, “the Lord directs his steps.”
[17] Even sinful actions are a part of God’s providential workings. Peter preached at Pentecost that Jesus was “delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” and was “nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men.”
[18] At one point in David’s reign, the Lord is said to have incited David to number the people, and thus sin.
[19] At another point in David’s life, a rebel curses the king publicly, yet David realizes that the Lord is behind this and says, “Let him alone and let him curse, for the Lord has told him.”
[20]Not only does Scripture assert that God is absolutely sovereign, but the Bible also establishes that human beings are morally responsible creatures, who choose to make decisions that have real consequences and that they are truly accountable for their actions. Nonetheless, the biblical data never makes God’s decrees contingent upon the actions of humanity. Scripture teaches “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.”
[21] God also tests humanity to find out the intentions of our hearts, such as the time when God tested Abraham to see if he truly feared the Lord.
[22] At the end of days, God will also judge humanity “according to their deeds.”
[23]Any theological model that upholds libertarian freedom as the inalienable right of humanity at the expense of restricting the total sovereignty of God does not hold a high view of Scripture as a whole. In light of the Scripture references listed above and the recognition that there a scores more found in the Bible, one should clearly see that the popularity of certain general providence models, such as openness and process theism, “undermines the very basis for an authoritative and inerrant Bible.”
[24] It is therefore, in the light of Scripture, that the compatibilist view of divine providence appears to be the only providential model that holds high the biblical assertion of absolute sovereignty as it relates to human action.
In order to understand the concept of human freedom in light of divine sovereignty, one must properly define the term freedom. Do humans have libertarian freedom, or is it less absolute? Models that claim libertarian freedom assert that nothing significantly predisposes the human will in one direction or the other. While the sentiment of this argument is understandable, there is no scriptural basis to suggest that this is the case, as we have seen previously. Compatibilism interjects to say that through the providence of God, there are sufficient conditions and reasons that would determine the action to be taken. The cause of these conditions that predetermine the decision that will be taken is God himself. As long as these determinative reasons do not force the agent into an action, then the moral agent is free in his decision. Another scriptural aspect of freedom that rejects libertarianism is the freedom to be experienced in the heaven. In the life to come, human freedom will be perfected through the glorification of God, who will make us not able to sin. This freedom will not come from ourselves, but be totally from the power of the Lord after the resurrection of the body.
[25] Perfected freedom will glory in total and unfettered submission to God’s will for eternity. This end goal of the context of freedom within the eternal plan of God rejects libertarianism.
How, then, does compatibilistic freedom work? If man is free in his actions, yet those actions are determined by God, then how can those actions not be forced? Although it appears rational to assume that if our choices are real they cannot be caused by God, it seems theologically better to affirm that “God causes all things that happen, but that he does so in such a way that he somehow upholds our ability to make willing, responsible choices.” These decisions “have real and eternal results, and for which we are held accountable.”
[26] But this does not mean that human history is totally determined by the “radical intervention” of God.
[27] Although the comprehensiveness of divine sovereignty should not be placed in doubt, God’s “providential care for the details of the lives of all his creatures does not require ceaseless interventions on his part.”
[28] Much of what goes on in every day human life would be on the “order of divine permission.”
[29] The term divine permission must be used very carefully, though. In fact, Calvin himself avoided using this term without extreme caution.
It seems absurd to them for man, who will soon be punished for his blindness, to be blinded by God’s will and command. Therefore, they escape by the shift that this is done only with God’s permission, not also by his will; but he, openly declaring that he is the doer, repudiates that evasion. However, that men can accomplish nothing except by God’s secret command, that they cannot by deliberating accomplish anything except what he has already decreed with himself and determines by his secret direction, is proved by innumerable and clear testimonies.
[30]Thus, we must not “in the place of God’s providence, substitute bare permission – as if God sat in a watchtower” acquiescing to the chance events unfolding in human history.
[31] Thus, when every day human life and activity is described as falling under God’s divine permission, this is not a passive permission, but an active permission. But when permission is used to “indicate the manner of Divine ruling, by which He grants room within His ruling for human freedom and responsibility, then the line of Biblical thinking has not been wholly abandoned.” Thus, human freedom finds its place within God’s rule over his creation.
[32]But, if God’s omnipotence makes him able to achieve his will in all situations through providence, then is man truly responsible for his actions and decisions? In Scripture, the providence of God and human responsibility “do not exist together as something problematic. They both reveal the greatness of Divine activity, in that it does not exclude human activity and responsibility, but embraces them and in them manifests God on the way to the accomplishment of His purposes.”
[33] To be morally responsible, humans must be significantly free since a person is not responsible for an action that is coerced or forced. But his does not mean that human decisions are completely random and indeterministic.
Radical indeterminism is as destructive of moral responsibility as coercion would be. If there are no reasons for a person’s choices, then those choices are as random as the number-selecting computer in a lottery and just as amoral. To be responsible, an act must be intentional. Thoroughly indeterministic or libertarian freedom is therefore not only unnecessary to “significant freedom,” it would destroy the intentional selfhood of that very freedom that indeterminists are so anxious to preserve.
[34]Therefore, the decisions of human beings are made for reasons and are not done in random fashion. God is able to accomplish his purposes through free human decisions because he “understands all of us” and his Spirit is active “within the mental worlds of rational beings.” God is able to guarantee that his plans are achieved “regardless of the power of creatures who are committed to preventing the realization of those purposes.” Nonetheless, people are accountable for the actions “they take within God’s all-determining providence, because God always deals with people as people and not as stones.”
[35] What God purposes to accomplish, he is able to achieve in, through, and with his creatures, but he can do so without removing their authentic moral agency and responsibility.
[36]If God is the ultimate cause of all actions and willing choices of humanity, then is God responsible for the deliberative and rebellious decisions by human beings against the moral law of God? Without delving into the problem of evil in this paper, it is still necessary to refute this charge. J.P. Boyce offers a comprehensive answer to God’s relationship to human sin. Although we can have no doubt that he could have prevented sin to exist, there is “nothing in its existence which makes him its author or shows any unholy action on his part in its introduction.”
[37] Biblical data and human experience teach us a few truths regarding the relationship between God and sin. First, sin only exists according to the purpose of God. Along that line, sin cannot occur “at any time nor in any form without his permission. While he does not actively originate it, he holds such absolute control over it that no single event in connection with it can take place without his permission.”
[38] Sin cannot accomplish any goal, which God has not providentially intended, nor can it “go any farther than the limits he has assigned.” Through sin, God works out his own righteous purposes. Another important truth is that the “same act may be sinful in the sinner” but not to God. This is true because God has “supreme control over life and property. Man has not.” Also, the sinful acts of human beings may be utterly reprehensible and vile, yet the concurrence of God in those acts is “altogether most holy.”
[39]The compatibalist view of God’s providence provides God’s children with reassuring and motivating implications for the Christian life. First, Christians must understand that compatibilism does not encourage them to sit back and wait in laziness for certain events to take place. To say that Christians are trusting in God instead of acting responsibly is pure slothfulness and is a misrepresentation of the doctrine of providence. Thus, a belief in the comprehensive providence of God is not an impediment but a call to action, such as Christian service, evangelism, and missions work.
[40] The compatibalist view also encourages believers to not be afraid in the conditions of life, but to place their trust in the Lord’s omnipotent care. Finally, the compatibilist view points to the scriptural truth that nothing occurs on earth by mere luck or chance. Therefore, Christians should give thanks for all good things that occur, for it is the Lord who is bringing these events about.
[41] On the flip side of this observation, if bad things occur in life, one ought to not assign the calamity to random chance, but realize that God is always in control and is mysteriously working out His eternal plan even through the tragic moments of life. That is the God who has revealed Himself through Scripture, and it is the God that all Christians should joyfully worship and serve.
[1]Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 387.
[2]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 317.
[3]Paul Helm, The Providence of God, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 73.
[4]Terrance Tiessen, Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World?(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 31.
[5]Ibid., 52
[6]Ibid., 71.
[7]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 20 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 205.
[8]Ibid., 211.
[9]John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2002), 144.
[10]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 338.
[11]Ibid., 339.
[12]Psalm 135:6
[13]Ephesians 1:11
[14]Psalm 104:14
[15]Matthew 6:26
[16]Psalm 148:8
[17]Proverbs 16:9
[18]Acts 2:23
[19]2 Samuel 24:1
[20]2 Samuel 16:11
[21]Romans 10:9
[22]Genesis 22:14
[23]Revelation 20:14
[24]Stephen J. Wellum, “The Inerrancy of Scripture,” in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, ed. John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Kjoss Helseth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003), 274.
[25]Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 243.
[26]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 321.
[27]G.C. Berkouwer, The Providence of God, trans. Lewis B. Smedes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 92.
[28]Tiessen, Providence & Prayer, 303.
[29]Ibid, 304.
[30]Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:229.
[31]Ibid., 1:231.
[32]Berkouwer, Providence of God, 140.
[33]Ibid., 98.
[34]Tiessen, Providence & Prayer, 312-313.
[35]Ibid., 314.
[36]Ibid., 315.
[37]James Petigru Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1887), 225.
[38]Ibid., 226.
[39]Ibid.
[40]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 335.
[41]Ibid., 337.
Posts
