Divine Sovereignty and Human Choice Intersection Theology
Divine sovereignty refers to God's ultimate authority and control over all things, while human choice pertains to the ability of individuals to make their own decisions. The intersection of these two concepts has been a significant point of theological discussion, particularly within Reformed traditions [6].
The doctrine of divine decrees posits that God has foreordained all events, including the free acts of individuals [3]. This perspective emphasizes that God's glory is the final cause of these decrees, which are immutable, free, and efficacious [3]. However, this understanding often raises objections regarding its consistency with human free agency and the foreordination of sin [3].
One perspective on divine sovereignty is that God "hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth" [1]. This hardening is understood not as God directly causing evil, but as judicially abandoning individuals to the hardening influence of sin itself, as seen in passages like Psalm 81:11-12 and Romans 1:24, 26, 28 [1]. This view suggests that God's actions are a rightful prerogative, based on His infinite superiority and proprietorship over all creation, as well as His role as moral governor [5]. Just as a human sovereign can pardon one criminal and not another, God is seen as having the right to allow the sentence of a just law to be executed upon an offender without injustice [5].
The Augustinian scheme, which emphasizes divine sovereignty, acknowledges that there are "formidable objections" to it, often appealing more to feelings and imagination than to understanding [6]. These objections are sometimes presented in "distorted and exaggerated forms," which can lead to strong revulsion [6]. However, it is argued that such reactions are partly due to a distortion of the truth and partly to an "imperfectly or utterly unsanctified nature" opposing the doctrine [6].
Regarding the relationship between divine sovereignty and human choice, some Reformed theologians distinguish between God's decree and His permission. While God's decrees are said to relate to all events, including free acts, this does not negate human responsibility [3]. The purpose of theological speculation on these matters is not to "pry into the operation of the divine mind," but to understand the relationships between the truths revealed in Scripture concerning the plan of redemption [4].
The concept of eternal election is a key aspect of divine sovereignty, where God has predestined some to salvation and others to destruction [7]. This doctrine is considered "useful, necessary, and most sweet" within this theological framework, with ignorance of it seen as impairing understanding [7].
The interaction between divine sovereignty and human choice is not meant to imply that human actions are inconsequential. Instead, it suggests that human duty to God and others, encompassing "righteousness" and "path," remains paramount [2]. The theological discussion aims to reconcile God's ultimate control with the reality of human moral agency, without diminishing either.
Sources
- Romans (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Romans 9:18: Therefore hath he--"So then he hath." The result then is that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth--by judicially abandoning them to the hardening influence of sin itself (Psa 81:11-12; Rom 1:24, Rom 1:26, Rom 1:28; Heb 3:8, Heb 3:13), and of the surrounding incentives to it (Mat 24:12; Co1 15:38; Th2 2:17). Second objection to the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty:”
- Proverbs (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Proverbs 2:9: Then--emphatic, in such a case. righteousness . . . path--all parts of duty to God and man.”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 1: 1. The Nature of the Divine Decrees 535 The Glory of God the Final Cause of his Decrees.—Decrees reducible to One Purpose.—The Decrees of God are Immutable.—They are Free.—They are certainly Efficacious.—They relate to all Events.—Free Acts are foreordained 543 § 2. Objections to the Doctrine of Divine Decrees 545 1. Foreordination inconsistent with Free Agency.—2. Foreordination of Sin inconsistent with Holiness.—3. The Doctrine of Decrees destroys all Motives to Exertion.—4. It is Fatalism 548 CHAPTER X. CREATION. § 1. Different Theories”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 61: leave others in their sin. This view, as it seems, agrees with the representations of the Scriptures, and avoids the difficulties connected with the strict supralapsarian doctrine. It is to be borne in mind that the object of these speculations is not to pry into the operation of the divine mind, but simply to ascertain and exhibit the relation in which the several truths revealed in Scripture concerning the plan of redemption bear to each other.”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 67: does is inconsistent with his nature. (3.) That it is a rightful prerogative, founded not only on the infinite superiority of God and in his proprietorship in all his creatures; but also in his relation as moral governor to the race of sinful men. If even a human sovereign is entitled to exercise his discretion in pardoning one criminal and not another, surely this prerogative cannot reasonably be denied to God. There can be no injustice in allowing the sentence of a just law to be executed upon an offender. And this is all that God does ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 67: § 9. Objections to the Augustinian Scheme. That there are formidable objections to the Augustinian doctrine of divine sovereignty cannot be denied. They address themselves even more powerfully to the feelings and to the imagination than they do to the understanding. They are therefore often arrayed in such distorted and exaggerated forms as to produce the strongest revulsion and abhorrence. This, however, is due partly to the distortion of the truth and partly to the opposition of our imperfectly or utterly unsanctified nature, to the thi”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 76: 2202 CHAPTER 21. OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINATED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION. The divisions of this chapter are,—I. The necessity and utility of the doctrine of eternal Election explained. Excessive curiosity restrained, sec. l, 2. II. Explanation to those who through false modesty shun the doctrine of Predestination, sec. 3, 4. III. The orthodox doctrine expounded. Sections . l. The doctrine of Election and Predestination. It is useful, necessary, and most sweet. Ignorance of it impairs the”