The Sovereignty of God and the Free Will of Man
This article is a spinoff from our the Sovereign Power of God, in which we provide a theological and historical development of the doctrine, along with the sub-doctrines of the absolute and ordained power of God.
This article was completed and published in January 2026.
The Sovereignty of God and the Free Will of Man
First, we would like to offer this disclaimer regarding this article. We are not expecting to completely solve the “mystery” or provide all the answers to questions on our subject that have been debated by theologians for centuries. To paraphrase a quote from the late great theologian RC Sproul, “I don’t want to appear so arrogant as to say that, just because others including myself have failed to completely understand it, that it is unsolvable. Perhaps it will be solved in the future”. Yet, he then adds, “but I seriously doubt it”. That said, I hope this article will provide helpful information that leads to a better understanding of the subject.
The Bible strongly affirms human free will and moral responsibility, presenting people as moral agents who make meaningful choices, some with temporal and some with eternal consequences. Yet, Scripture also emphasizes God's sovereignty (even including predestination in some passages). These themes are woven throughout Scripture, yet very seldom does the author attempt to harmonize the apparent tensions. This has led to many ongoing theological debates over the centuries. In addition, the differing theological positions, such as Calvinism, Arminianism, or Compatibilism for example, drives an additional wedge between coming to a doctrinal agreement. We’ll examine some of the positions further down in this article.
Before we attempt to address the tension between these two biblical truths, we’ll begin with an examination of the basic doctrinal issues behind each one.
Human Free Will and the Moral Responsibility of Man
First, the Bible acknowledges that humans possess a certain amount of freedom that appears to allow us to choose whether to obey or disobey God’s commandments. We see from Genesis 2:15-17 that, The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die. Thus, this strongly implies that Adam and Eve had the freedom to choose whether to either obey or disobey God, and also that they would be held personally responsible for their choices and actions (see also Galatians 6:7-8, Romans 2:1-16, and Revelation 20:11-15). In Deuteronomy 30:19, Moses presents the Israelites wandering in the desert with a choice between life and death, and blessing and curses. His successor, Joshua, likewise commanded the people to make a deliberate choice between serving the false gods of their ancestors or the One True God (Joshua 24:14-22). In addition, the Apostle Paul also affirms that every one of us will be required to give an account of ourselves to God (Rom 14:10-12; see also 2Cor 5:10).
Jesus Christ Himself gave an invitation to His disciples to follow him, which also implies giving them a choice. Finally, James, the half-brother of Jesus verifies human responsibility. When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death (Ja 1:13-15). Thus, the Bible consistently confirms humans as culpable moral beings with a certain amount of free will. This means that the choices we make come with consequences. Some may be only temporal, but others may be eternal.
Theologians and philosophers often use the terms “free will” and “moral responsibility” interchangeably, even though their meanings can sometimes vary. That is because they are so closely linked. In order for someone to be morally responsible for his or her thoughts, words, deeds and actions or inactions, the person must be free to make a choice. That is, it seems unjust to hold a person morally accountable for thoughts or deeds if the person has no choice.
The Sovereignty of God
The Bible also clearly teaches the
doctrine of God’s sovereignty.
This doctrine basically refers to His supreme power and continuous authority
over all that He has created, including the redemption of His people throughout
all of human history.
He maintains such sovereignty that, nothing can happen
outside of His knowledge or control. This also insures that all His plans will
be fulfilled according to His ultimate purposes. All
the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases
with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold
back his hand or say to him: “What have you done?” (Dan 4:35).
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God,
and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make
known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, “My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Is
46:9-10).
The Co-existence of the Two Truths
The divinely inspired writers of Holy Scripture treated the doctrines of God’s sovereignty and human moral responsibility as twin truths. They consistently held up both doctrines without attempting to rationalize between the two. Primary examples are seen in the Old Testament (OT) account of Joseph and his brothers, and in the New Testament (NT) with Christ on the Cross and in Paul’s letter to the church at Philippi. In the story of Joseph, his brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt. When his brothers were forced to go to Egypt for food due to a severe drought and famine in Canaan, they learned that he had risen to second in command to Pharaoh. Thus, they were terrified until he reassured them that, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen 50:20).
Moving to the New Testament (NT), we find Peter addressing the crowd at Pentecost. “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him” (Ac 2:22-24). Even though God ordained the crucifixion of His Son, the “wicked men” were still held fully responsible for their actions. To give one more example, Paul writes to the church at Philippi, instructing the members to continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose. Thus, believers had the human responsibility to work out their own salvation, because it is God who in His divine sovereignty, works in each of them. To give an additional example from the OT, the wise King Solomon wrote that, In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps (Pr 16:9). Thus, God’s sovereign control does not relieve humans from their free choices.
Yet, although theologians and philosophers have long attempted to harmonize the two doctrines, all who have tried have failed. Many rightly see the two doctrines as irrevocably interlinked. Still others see a contradiction between divine sovereignty and human free will, often due to a misunderstanding of the doctrines or due to personal biases. We’ll now attempt to address the explanations and solutions offered by some of the various theological and philosophical positions.
We begin with, in my opinion, one of the best explanations of the relation and co-existence of the seemingly opposing doctrines. This view is one that was given by the late Anglican theologian JI Packer (1926-2020). He sees the two truths as an antinomy. He writes:
What is an antinomy? The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary.” For our purposes, however, this definition is not quite accurate; the opening words should read “an appearance of contradiction.” For the whole point of an antinomy—in theology, at any rate—is that it is not a real contradiction, though it looks like one. It is an apparent incompatibility between two apparent truths. An antinomy exists when a pair of principles stand side by side, seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable. There are cogent reasons for believing each of them; each rests on clear and solid evidence; but it is a mystery to you how they can be squared with each other. You see that each must be true on its own, but you do not see how they can both be true together. - J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Westmont, IL: IVP Books, 2012), 25–26.
He then gives us an example:
Modern physics faces an antinomy, in this sense, in its study of light. There is cogent evidence to show that light consists of waves, and equally cogent evidence to show that it consists of particles. It is not apparent how light can be both waves and particles, but the evidence is there, and so neither view can be ruled out in favor of the other. Neither, however, can be reduced to the other or explained in terms of the other; the two seemingly incompatible positions must be held together, and both must be treated as true . Such a necessity scandalizes our tidy minds, no doubt, but there is no help for it if we are to be loyal to the facts. (ibid - bold emphasis added).
Packer then cautions against confusing an antinomy with a paradox. A paradox is a figure of speech, a statement or idea that seems contradictory at first, but on closer examination, reveals a deeper or larger truth or logic. On the other hand, an antinomy is not a figure of speech. It is an observed relation between two statements of undeniable facts. It is insolvable and beyond comprehension. So, what shall we do with an antinomy? Packer advises:
Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it. Refuse to regard the apparent inconsistency as real; put down the semblance of contradiction to the deficiency of your own understanding; think of the two principles as not rival alternatives but, in some way that at present you do not grasp, complementary to each other. Be careful, therefore, not to set them at loggerheads, nor to make deductions from either that would cut across the other (such deductions would, for that very reason, be certainly unsound). Use each within the limits of its own sphere of reference (i.e: the area delimited by the evidence from which the principle has been drawn). Note what connections exist between the two truths and their two frames of reference, and teach yourself to think of reality in a way that provides for their peaceful coexistence, remembering that reality itself has proved actually to contain them both. This is how antinomies must be handled, whether in nature or in Scripture. This, as I understand it, is how modern physics deals with the problem of light, and this is how Christians have to deal with the antinomies of biblical teaching. (ibid - bold emphasis added).
Packer also adds: We ought not, in any case, to be surprised when we find mysteries of this sort in God’s Word. For the Creator is incomprehensible to his creatures. A God whom we could understand exhaustively, and whose revelation of himself confronted us with no mysteries whatsoever, would be a God in man’s image and therefore an imaginary God, not the God of the Bible at all. (ibid).
Packer then gives his opinion on how to proceed:
[We must] try to take both doctrines perfectly seriously, as the Bible does, and to view them in their positive biblical relationship. We shall not oppose them to each other, for the Bible does not oppose them to each other. Nor shall we qualify, or modify, or water down, either of them in terms of the other, for this is not what the Bible does either. What the Bible does is to assert both truths side by side in the strongest and most unambiguous terms as two ultimate facts; this, therefore, is the position that we must take in our own thinking. (ibid), 43.
Packer also provides a useful analogy to explain the “antinomy”:
“What we are talking about is a wall—a high wall—that separates two gardens. On one side of the wall is the garden of divine sovereignty; on the other side is the garden of human responsibility. We walk in the garden of human responsibility: we are to pray, evangelize, make decisions, repent, believe—as if everything depended on us. But when we climb up a ladder and look over the top of the wall into the other garden, we see that everything is ultimately planned and ordered by God. The mistake is to think that we can dig under the wall or bore a hole through it to see exactly how the two sides connect. God has not revealed that to us. Our job is to stay in our garden, obey what He has told us there, and trust that the two gardens are perfectly consistent in His mind, even if we cannot see how.” (ibid).
How Free is Man’s “Free Will”?
Man’s will is free in that he makes willing choices that have actual consequences. Yet man’s will is not morally neutral because we are in bondage due to our sins. Therefore, we require divine grace to be able to choose the right path. Otherwise, we would freely and consistently choose to to reject God (Rom 3:10–12; Eph 2:1–3; 2; Tim 2:25–26). Scripture affirms both divine sovereignty and man’s willing activity. Pharaoh’s rise to power and rejection of the True God was entirely in accordance with his own will, yet it was also entirely by the hand of God (Ex 9:13-16). As we mentioned earlier, the crucifixion of Christ was fully the free act of rebellious men, and at the same time, fully the purpose of God (Acts 2:23; 4:27–28). Also in Acts, we see a typical case of spiritual conversions that are consistent with both concepts. In Acts 13:42-48, we see Paul and Barabbas teaching both Jews and Gentiles. Many of the Jews became jealous because salvation was coming to the Gentiles, who were honoring the word of the Lord. Yet verse 48 also notes that, all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
The Apostle Paul, in his divinely inspired letter to the Roman Church, also confirmed both doctrines, that of God’s sovereignty (Rom 9:6-29) and human responsibility (Romans 10). In addition, the great English Baptist preacher, Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) was once asked how he would reconcile the two truths. He replied, “I would never try to reconcile two friends”.
Historical Debates
To complicate matters further, there are a number of theological traditions that will influence a person’s view on this topic. On the other hand, the various traditions also help us to understand why a person would tend to take a certain position. Thus, we’ll take a look brief look at some of these major traditions.
Theologians and philosophers have debated our topic since the first few centuries AD. We’ll briefly examine a few of the most well-known debates. Historically, these debates have centered on how an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator can coexist with humans who are morally responsible for their actions. The first major debate in the 4th century AD centered primarily on the state of the human will. St Augustine of Hippo (~354-430) argued that the human will was enslaved to sin due to the fall. Thus, only the sovereign God’s irresistible grace could move a person toward Him. This was in response to St Pelagia of Tarsis who had argued that humans had the ability to choose good or evil without divine assistance. He also denied that humans are born with a sinful nature (conflicts with Psalms 51:5). Palagianism was widely condemned by several church councils, such as the Council of Carthage in 418, the Council of Ephesus in 431, and with condemnations renewed at later councils like Orange in 529 and at the Council of Trent (1545-1563).
In the 13th century, two additional opposing schools of thought emerged in the Roman Catholic Church. The first was Thomism, based on the theories of Thomas Aquinas, an Italian priest, theologian and philosopher, and one of the most influential thinkers of the Catholic tradition. Aquinas suggested that God moves the human heart in a way that is infallible, but still allows the person to act “freely” according to their nature. Molinism, named after Luis de Molina (1535-1600), a Jesuit priest, economist and theologian, introduced the concept of God’s “Middle Knowledge”. Molina argued that God knows what every possible person would do in any given circumstance. Thus, by creating a specific world, God remains sovereign while humans can make truly free choices. Thus, Molinism was created to explain how God can remain sovereign while humans retain free will. Many questions remain however that are too deep to go into here. One of the best known modern Molinists is William Lane Craig.
A new version of the Augustine vs Pelagia debate was re-ignited during the Reformation. The Reformed or Calvinist View typically holds that God’s sovereignty trumps man’s free will. Calvinists teach that God has absolute control over, and foreknowledge of, all things (Rom 8:28-30, Eph 1:3-14). In salvation, God unconditionally elects certain people based on His foreknowledge (Rom 9:14-21). Humans have some free will in that they can make real choices, but human choices are ultimately bound by God’s sovereignty. In the Calvinist view, ultimate self-determination does not exist. Salvation is considered a gift by faith alone. Incidentally, biblical faith is not considered as a work, but as a gift of God (Eph 2:8-10). On the other hand, those who hold the view known as Arminianism (aka Wesleyan) stress man’s responsibility before God, who grants divine grace operating on the human will prior to its turning to God. Yet God never forces a person to believe, only enables him or her to believe. A majority of the Roman Catholics and Methodists still tend to lean toward the Arminian view today.
Finally, we mention the Compatibilist View. Although the divinely inspired writers of Scripture never attempted to reconcile between the doctrines of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will / moral responsibility, many theologians historically have tried. Those in this camp contend that, even though it remains a mystery, God’s sovereignty and human freedom are nonetheless compatible. Thus, even though God’s will is always accomplished, it is done through free human decisions, not against them (see Genesis 50:20, for example). In addition, the fact that God is sovereign does in no way relieve humans of their moral responsibility. Compatibilists argue that moral responsibility does not require absolute spiritual freedom. Instead, it requires that a person acts according to their own nature and rational will free of external coercion. In this view, the terms “free choice” and "responsibility" are often used interchangeably to describe voluntary human actions, even if those actions are ultimately assured due to God’s ultimate providence.
Additional Thoughts
In the Bible, we consistently find a dynamic relationship between human free will and moral responsibility, often placing them alongside the absolute sovereignty of God in the same sentence. Thus, rather than teaching these as contradictions, Scripture presents this divine / human relationship as “twin truths” that coexist in mysterious harmony. The inspired authors consistently assumed that the two truths worked together in a way that transcends human logic.
Some take the attitude that asks, “if God is all sovereign, why should we evangelize?” Packer argues instead that “faith in God’s sovereignty is the only thing that can sustain it and gives Christians their only hope of success”. (ibid) This actually places the outcome in God’s hands rather than having to rely on our own arguments and persuasions.
As a summation, Christians should avoid both of the two extremes when doing evangelism. An exclusive focus on human responsibility leads to a pragmatic and technique-driven presentation. On the other hand, an exclusive focus on divine sovereignty often leads to complacency and inaction, reasoning that “if God wants to save them, He will do so regardless of my effort”. It is our duty to be faithful and obedient in presenting the gospel because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes (Rom 1:16).
In summary, the Bible clearly and unmistakably teaches that humans possess the ability to make real choices while, at the same time, bearing moral responsibility for their actions. Many of these choices will have eternal consequences. The fact of God’s sovereignty does not negate this; but rather, it frames it. True love and justice require the capacity to choose, which God dignifies in His image-bearers (Genesis 1:27).
Finally I’d like to close with an appropriate quote that I heard from an elderly pastor over 20 years ago. I’ve forgotten his name (and the exact words), but his words still rings true. To paraphrase:
“When I was a youngster going to seminary, I thought I had all the answers to the sovereignty of God versus the free will of man all figured out. Now that I’m older and wiser, I realize that no human totally understands it.” Soli Deo Gloria!