What Is the Relationship Between God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility?

One divine attribute deserves special consideration, since it is the focal point for much theological debate and confusion. The sovereignty or freedom of God is the idea that by His power, God has planned and now guides the events of the universe along with the actions of His creatures. The first part of this definition is evident in Ephesians 1:11, where Paul claims that God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (esv). God has a plan, and remembering this can give us confidence and hope amid pain and suffering. He is the master and sole ruler of the universe. He rules by His decree, which is His eternal, purposeful plan by which He determined everything that would occur. It is through this that God guides the events of the world. This part of the definition emerges in Isaiah 46:10, where God is seen as the one “declaring the end from the beginning . . . saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’” (esv).

The sovereignty or freedom of God is supported by two broader teachings in Scripture: creation and providence. Genesis 1:1 begins, “In the beginning God created . . .” These words anchor an idea central throughout Scripture: God is the creator of all things, and because of this we can have confidence that He also sustains His creation. This latter aspect of the doctrine is known as the providence of God— His continuing work that sustains and preserves the world He created, and that assures that the universe arrives at its God-glorifying intended end. His original act of creating the universe out of nothing is known as creatio ex nihilo (Lat. “creation out of nothing”). This means He did not use existing materials in His act of creation; rather, He spoke all things into existence (Rom. 4:17), a belief that ultimately comes “by faith” (Heb. 11:3).

The sovereignty or freedom of God is the idea that by His power, God has planned and now guides the events of the universe along with the actions of His creatures.

Maintaining God as the Creator of all things (Rev. 4:11) has been especially important since the mid-nineteenth century, when evolution emerged as a competing theory for the origins of the universe. Theologians have offered various responses to it, from wholesale rejection to full integration. The focus for the debate often hinges on the age of the earth. Those rejecting evolution, often referred to as young-earth creationists, think the universe was created as recently as six thousand years ago and seek to read Genesis 1–2 literally. Old-earth creationists, on the other hand, contend that the universe is significantly older. Some of them seek to fully integrate evolution with Christianity (theistic evolutionists), while others do not (progressive creationists). But all old-earth advocates read portions of Genesis 1 non-literally and incorporate scientific findings in ways young-earth creationists do not. Much of the debate revolves around how to understand “day” (Heb. yom) in Genesis 1: is it a literal twenty-four-hour day, or a longer period of time? While difficult to determine exegetically, one key point is that Exodus 20:8–11 grounds the fourth commandment on a literal reading of the days of Genesis 1. Whichever view is accepted, though, the historicity of Genesis 1–2 and the literal-historicalgrammatical approach to interpretation should be maintained. God’s original work of creation and continuing work of providence provide a foundation for understanding His sovereignty and human responsibility.

It is important to distinguish the decree of God from life’s imperfections. God is able to work through these and other actions of His creatures in order to accomplish His will. Paul reminds us of this in Romans 8:28: “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (esv). The fall of humanity in the garden of Eden did not result in the loss of God’s plan, nor remove His control over the world. The good news is that when life seems out of control, we can rest assured that God is still in control. He cares about seemingly insignificant details in our lives (Matt. 10:29–31); Christ continues to uphold all of creation (Col. 1:16–17; Heb. 1:3); and God’s purpose in the world cannot finally be thwarted (Job 42:2; Lam. 3:37–39). God’s sovereignty is a biblical teaching that should be a source of immense comfort in this life. So, while we may be tempted to question why He has allowed certain events to occur, biblical wisdom calls us away from such questions (Isa. 45:7–9; Rom. 9:19–21).

If God is sovereign to this degree, is there a place for human responsibility in the affairs of the world? These two ideas, God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, seem to stand in a paradoxical relationship; Scripture, though, places them in a compatible relationship. This view is known as compatibilism. It contends that divine sovereignty and human responsibility cohere. God is sovereign, but not in such a way that human responsibility is destroyed. Humans are morally responsible for their actions, but never to the degree that God’s sovereignty is redefined or diminished to being contingent on human actions.

This compatibilist framework is apparent in Scripture. Divine sovereignty is evident in Luke 22:21–22a: “But the hand of [Judas], who is going to betray me, is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed.” Judas’s betrayal was predetermined to occur. And yet human responsibility is also evident in Luke 22:22b: “But woe to that man who betrays him!” A similar compatibilistic understanding of Christ’s crucifixion is evident in Acts 2:23, where God’s plan and human agency are both highlighted. Divine sovereignty and human responsibility are also evident in regard to salvation. Divine sovereignty, or in this case election, is marked at the beginning of 2 Thessalonians 2:13: “But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit.” Then human response appears at the end of the verse: “through belief in the truth.” (See Election.)

God is sovereign, but not in such a way that human responsibility is destroyed.

Scripture never separates divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Those who disagree with this claim may be described as incompatibilists, since for them these two teachings cannot be reconciled. Scriptures such as Luke 13:34 represent real human choices and reveal self-imposed limitations on God’s sovereignty. An incompatibilist believes the causal nature of compatibilism is incompatible with libertarian free will, a view that human behavior is self-caused. The absolute sovereignty needed for the compatibilist position reduces free will to nothing, since free will must have the opportunity to do otherwise—or the concept is meaningless.

Another approach that maintains a high view of God’s sovereignty, but with a libertarian view of free will, is Molinism, named after the sixteenth-century priest Luis de Molina. The way the interpretive dissonance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is resolved is through the concept of middle knowledge, a type of knowledge that relies on “counterfactuals” of libertarian free choices. This seemingly allows for a resolution to the dilemma, since God is aware of all events that would arise based on all possible combinations of circumstances. God is therefore able to create a world with the outcomes He ordains while still granting libertarian free will to each person.

The doctrine of God’s sovereignty matters first because it reminds us of His glory and that He alone is worthy of our worship. It also gives us comfort and security in the midst of disappointment and pain, for we know that our good and sovereign God governs the world through His decree. While this might leave some wishing for a different type of understanding of reality and free will, it is at least worth pondering: would we really want to live in a world in which God doesn’t ordain what comes to pass?