The question of how God’s sovereignty and human free will work together in salvation is a complex theological issue that has been debated for centuries. At the heart of the matter is an apparent paradox: If God is truly sovereign over all things, how can humans have free will to accept or reject His offer of salvation? And conversely, if humans have libertarian free will, how can God still be considered sovereign? There are various perspectives on how to reconcile these two truths, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. This article will provide an overview of the main views and examine what the Bible says about this topic.
God’s Sovereignty in Salvation
The Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign over all things, including salvation. Passages such as Romans 8:29-30 lay out what is often called the “golden chain of salvation,” demonstrating God’s control over every aspect of the saving process: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” Other verses that point to God’s sovereignty include Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-6, and 2 Thessalonians 2:13.
God’s sovereignty means that He alone has the power and authority to save sinners. Salvation originates in God, not in the fallen human will. The deadness of sinful man in their trespasses and sin leaves humans unable and unwilling to turn to Christ for salvation apart from God’s intervention (Ephesians 2:1-5). God must take the initiative if anyone is to be saved.
Furthermore, God’s sovereignty in salvation means that He not only has the power to save, but also the authority to determine whom and how many He will save. Some verses used to support this idea include Matthew 22:14, John 6:37-40, Romans 9:6-24, and Ephesians 1:4-5. This view sees God as actively choosing (i.e. electing) certain individuals to be saved, which is called “unconditional election.” While a deep mystery, this doctrine shows salvation is completely dependent on God’s gracious and sovereign choice.
Humanity’s Free Will in Salvation
At the same time, the Bible also teaches that human beings have a genuine free will and are responsible for their choices, including accepting or rejecting the salvation that God offers. Dozens of verses imply that our response to the Gospel is a matter of free choice (John 3:16-18, John 5:40, Acts 16:30-31, Romans 10:9-13). Scripture calls on all people to repent and believe in Christ for salvation.
Human free will means that, despite the effects of sin, humans still have the natural capability to accept or reject God’s saving grace of their own accord. Salvation is offered freely to all, and individuals must choose whether or not to receive Christ as Savior and Lord. People are held morally responsible when they hear the Gospel but reject it.
Furthermore, defenders of free will argue that it is necessary to explain human responsibility, moral agency, and the clear invitations in Scripture to repent of sin and place one’s faith in Christ. A robust view of human free will in salvation maintains that God, in His sovereignty, allows the human response to play a deciding role. Thus, both divine sovereignty and human freedom are preserved.
Views on Resolving the Issue
Throughout church history, Christian thinkers have proposed different views attempting to reconcile God’s sovereignty and human free will in salvation. Here is a brief survey of the main perspectives:
1. Augustinian / Reformed / Calvinist View
This view, associated with 5th century theologian Augustine and the 16th century Reformation leader John Calvin, sees God’s sovereignty as more foundational than human free will. It emphasizes God’s elected grace, the total depravity of sinners, and the certain salvation of the predestined elect. It proposes that God’s election is compatible with human responsibility because God changes the heart to irresistibly accept the Gospel when called internally. However, non-elect people cannot freely accept salvation because of the enslaving effects of sin.
2. Traditional Arminian View
This view, named after 16th century theologian Jacob Arminius, asserts that human free will is more foundational than God’s sovereignty. It proposes that God’s foreknowledge of human choice is the basis for predestination, rather than His sovereign will. Election is therefore “conditional,” based on God’s foreseeing who would believe. This view argues that God’s calling is resistible, since the Spirit does not irrisistibly change the heart. Sin impairs but does not destroy free will. A key text is 2 Peter 3:9 – God desires “all” to come to repentance.
3. Molinist View
Named after 16th century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, this view attempts to find a middle ground between the extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism. While maintaining a robust view of God’s sovereignty, it argues that God has “middle knowledge” – knowledge of what free creatures would do under any hypothetical circumstances, including whether or not they would accept salvation. Thus, God sovereignly places people in contexts where He knows they will freely choose to accept Christ.
4. Open Theism View
This is a more recent view associated with Clark Pinnock and other late 20th century thinkers. It proposes that in order to uphold real human free will, God has chosen to limit His foreknowledge and surrender some divine sovereignty. Thus, God allows Himself to be affected and His plans changed by human decisions. At the extreme end, open theism denies exhaustive divine foreknowledge of future free acts. But most open theists affirm God’s omniscience while arguing that He has chosen not to know some things to allow libertarian freedom.
5. Compatibilist View
This view argues that divine determinism and human freedom are in fact compatible, properly understood. While God ordains all that comes to pass, humans still make voluntary choices that flow from their desires. However, in God’s sovereign plan, human desires and choices are not ultimately self-caused but determined by God’s will. Prominent compatibilist views include Jonathan Edwards’ concept of “moral necessity” and the Westminster Confession’s idea of “voluntary condescension.” God’s sovereignty works in and through human free agency.
Evaluating the Different Perspectives
When assessing these major views, several key questions arise. First, does Scripture actually teach contradicting truths on this issue that seem paradoxical to human logic? Or is there a way to form a logically coherent view that accounts for all the biblical data? Second, how successful are the different views at upholding important theological principles like God’s sovereignty, human responsibility, and the existence of genuine free will?
Reformed thinkers argue their view alone recognizes God’s supremacy and glory in salvation, while accusing others of imperiling divine sovereignty. Non-Reformed scholars counter that Reformed theology limits the biblical evidence of human freedom and moral accountability. Each perspective has its own strengths and weaknesses in seeking to integrate the complexities of the biblical witness.
Pastoral Reflections on the Issue
While important for academic theology, this issue can be challenging to teach at a lay level. The paradox should be handled with care so as not to discourage believers or breed unhealthy controversy. There are a few key pastoral considerations:
First, the goal should be to provide a biblically balanced “both/and” perspective, affirming both human responsibility and God’s sovereignty, even if the details remain mysterious. Second, the absolute sovereignty of God over salvation should be taught with humility and care, avoiding impersonal deterministic rhetoric. Third, the believer’s assurance of salvation should be grounded in Christ’s finished work, not trying to discern God’s hidden will. Fourth, this doctrine should lead to worship at God’s glorious grace, not arrogant theological debate.
In summary, while complex, the Bible affirms both God’s sovereignty in salvation as well as meaningful human free will and responsibility. As Charles Spurgeon said, “I believe the doctrine of election because I am quite sure that if God had not chosen me I would never have chosen him; and I am sure he chose me before I was born, or else he never would have chosen me afterwards.” The ultimate goal is to marvel at and worship the God who “chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4).