Divine Providence and Human Action Relationship Theology
Divine providence refers to God's continuous activity in preserving and governing all creation, ensuring that His purposes are fulfilled [3]. This doctrine asserts that God is not a distant, uninvolved creator, but rather actively sustains and directs the world and its inhabitants [2, 6]. The relationship between divine providence and human action is a complex theological topic, exploring how God's sovereign will interacts with human freedom and responsibility.
One foundational aspect of divine providence is the concept of divine decrees. These decrees are understood as God's eternal purposes, which are immutable, free, and efficacious, relating to all events, including the free acts of human beings [4]. This means that God has foreordained all things that come to pass, yet this foreordination does not negate human agency [4]. The glory of God is considered the ultimate end of these decrees [4].
The doctrine of providence is often divided into general and special providence. General providence refers to God's overarching governance of the natural order and the general course of history [6]. Special providence, on the other hand, refers to God's particular interventions and guidance in specific events and the lives of individuals [6]. Some theological perspectives acknowledge the necessity of God's providential intervention for the preservation of secondary causes but deny anything beyond this general oversight, rejecting the idea of special providence [6]. However, other views emphasize God's constant supervision and intervention, seeing the world not as a self-sustaining mechanism but as requiring the continuous activity of its Maker [6].
The interaction between divine providence and human action raises significant theological questions, particularly concerning human responsibility and free will. One common objection to the doctrine of divine decrees is that it seems to be inconsistent with human free agency [4]. If God has foreordained all events, including human actions, how can humans be truly free or responsible for their choices? This objection is also raised against the doctrine of efficacious grace, which posits that a change requiring "almighty power" is necessary before humans can do anything spiritually good, leading some to argue that this destroys human responsibility [9]. The response to this objection often involves asserting that inability and responsibility are not incompatible [9].
Theological traditions have approached this tension in various ways. For instance, the Reformed tradition, as articulated by John Calvin, emphasizes that God's secret and incomprehensible counsel governs the world [3]. This perspective maintains that while God is sovereign over all events, including human actions, He is not the author of sin, and human beings remain accountable for their wickedness [3]. The doctrine of providence, in this view, is intended to provide solid instruction and consolation to the godly [3].
The concept of prayer further illustrates the interplay between divine providence and human action. Prayer presupposes not only God's personality but also His nearness and willingness to interact with humanity [2]. It assumes that God is able and willing to hear and answer prayers, and that He understands even unuttered aspirations [2]. Prayer is understood as a real interchange where humans make requests and God complies, with the fulfillment of prayer being a mandate from heaven [5]. This implies that human actions, such as praying, are meaningful and can influence outcomes, even within a framework of divine providence.
Furthermore, human actions are seen as integral to expressing faith and love within the context of God's will. For example, acts of goodness and communication are described as "continual sacrifices" that God requires, stemming from a sense of God's love [1]. These acts of kindness and charity towards others are considered essential, and no reliance on Christ's sacrifice is acceptable without love and charity towards one's neighbor [1]. This suggests that while God's providence is supreme, human moral actions and ethical conduct are not rendered superfluous but are expected responses to God's grace.
The doctrine of providence also extends to societal structures and moral norms. For instance, the numerical equality of the sexes is seen as a providential intimation of God's will for monogamous marriage [7]. Consequently, anything that counteracts this providential arrangement is considered evil [7]. Similarly, the general judgment of mankind on certain moral issues, such as the condemnation of intermarriage among close relatives, is sometimes interpreted as the "vox populi" being the "vox Dei," meaning that such widespread moral consensus reflects God's will as founded in human nature [8].
Sources
- Hebrews (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on Hebrews 13:16: But to do good and to communicate - These are continual sacrifices which God requires, and which will spring from a sense of God's love in Christ Jesus. Praise to God for his unspeakable gift, and acts of kindness to men for God's sake. No reliance, even on the infinitely meritorious sacrifice of Christ, can be acceptable in the sight of God if a man have not love and charity towards his neighbor. Praise, prayer, and thanksgiving to God, with works of charity and mercy to man, are the sacrifices which every genuine follower of Christ must offer: and they are the p”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 73: Works, ed. New York, 1844, vol. ii. p. 319. Secondly, God, however, although a person, may dwell far off in immensity, and have no intercourse with his creatures on earth. Prayer, therefore, assumes not only the personality of God, but also that He is near us; that He is not only able, but also willing to hold intercourse with us, to hear and answer; that He knows our thoughts afar off; and that unuttered aspirations are intelligible to Him. Thirdly, it assumes that He has the personal control of all nature, i.e ., of all things out of Hi”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 33: 182 CHAPTER 17. USE TO BE MADE OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROVIDENCE. This chapter may be conveniently divided into two parts:—I. A general explanation is given of the doctrine of Divine Providence, in so far as conducive to the solid instruction and consolation of the godly, sect. 1, and specially sect. 2-12. First, however, those are refuted who deny that the world is governed by the secret and incomprehensible counsel of God; those also who throw the blame of all wickedness upon God, and absurdly pretend that exercises of piety are usel”
- 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. 3, section 73: This doctrine is presupposed in prayer; for “prayer and the answer of prayer, are simply . . . . the preferring of a request upon the one side, and compliance with that request upon the other. Man applies, God complies. Man asks a favour, God bestows it. These are conceived to be the two 695 terms of a real interchange that takes place between the parties — the two terms of a sequence, in fact, whereof the antecedent is a prayer lifted up from earth, and the consequent is the fulfilment of that prayer in virtue of a mandate from heaven.” ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 140: in nature and in the government of the world. To them the world is a great mechanism, which, admitting it to have been framed by an intelligent first cause, does not need the constant supervision and intervention of its Maker to keep it in successful operation. There are others who acknowledge the necessity of such providential intervention for the preservation of second causes in their activity, but deny anything beyond this potentia ordinata of God. They deny any special providence. Events in the natural world and among the nations of ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 49: of providence is the numerical equality of the sexes; and this is a clear intimation of the will of God that every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. Such being the will of God, as revealed both in his word and in his providence, everything which tends to counteract it must be evil in its nature and consequences. The doctrine which depreciated marriage, and made celibacy a virtue, flooded the Church with corruption. And everything in our modern civilization and modes of living which renders marriage difficult, ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 49: the general judgment of mankind. What all men think to be wrong, must be wrong. This unanimity cannot be accounted for, except by assuming that the judgment in which men thus agree is founded on the constitution of their nature, and that constitution is the work of God. There are cases, therefore, in which the “ vox populi ” is the “ vox Dei .” The Ground or Reason of such Prohibitions. The reason why mankind so generally condemn the intermarriage of near relations cannot be physical. Physiology is not taught by instinct. It is, therefore”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 141: § 6. Objections. There are no specific objections against the doctrine of efficacious grace which need to be considered. Those which are commonly urged are pressed with equal force against other allied doctrines, and have already come under review. Thus, — 1. It is urged that this doctrine destroys human responsibility. If we need a change which nothing but almighty power can effect before we can do anything spiritually good, we cease to be responsible. This is the old objection that inability and responsibility are incompatible. This di”