Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility:
An Examination of Reformed Theology's Terminology
An Examination of Reformed Theology's Terminology
One of the central debates in Christian theology, particularly in regard to the Reformed tradition, is the relationship between God's sovereignty and human responsibility. Reformed theology, as articulated in documents like the Westminster Confession of Faith, asserts that God's sovereignty (i.e. His absolute control over all events) coexists with genuine human freedom and moral responsibility. This claim, however, is challenged by critics who argue that Reformed theology redefines key concepts, making the entire system unfalsifiable, undebatable, and ultimately meaningless. By examining the theological framework's reliance on redefined terms, such as "freedom," "justice," "righteousness," "love," and "sovereignty", this essay aims to critique the internal coherence and philosophical viability of the Reformed position.
The Redefinition of Key Terms
A major attribute of Reformed theology is the internal definition of crucial terms. In everyday language, concepts like freedom, justice, righteousness, love, and sovereignty have widely accepted meanings. However, within Reformed theology, these terms are redefined in ways that diverge significantly from their common usage.
1. Freedom:
In common parlance, the concept of freedom is usually taken to mean that a person has real options from which to choose and the power to make decisions without external determination such that whatever a person does, they could have done otherwise. This is often referred to as “libertarian free will” or simply “free will”. In contrast, Reformed theology views freedom through the lens of what is called “compatibilist free will”, where people are considered free as long as they act according to their own desires, even if those desires are determined by God's will such that there was no real alternative, and they could not have done otherwise. This difference in how freedom is understood often leads to misunderstandings and frustration anytime the two parties attempt to discuss the issue.
2. Justice and Righteousness:
Concepts of justice and righteousness undergo significant redefinition within the Reformed framework. In common usage, these terms convey a sense of moral fairness and the alignment of actions with ethical standards. In Reformed theology, however, God's justice is framed in terms of His sovereign will, which is often arbitrary, the very opposite of what justice normally means. For example, the doctrine of double predestination posits that God actively chooses some for salvation and others for damnation and does so for no reason related to either set of persons but entirely because God simply wills to so choose. This portrayal of divine justice is inconsistent with moral accountability as normally understood in any other context.
3. Love:
The notion of love is also redefined in Reformed thought, particularly when applied to God. Love is generally understood as a relational quality that prioritizes others over oneself, where one not only has affection for another but also acts in their best interest, and love is hoped to be reciprocated. In Reformed theology, however, God’s love is not in response to a relationship with others. On the contrary, it is portrayed in terms of God's will, which, as mentioned above, is arbitrary, having nothing to do with what the object of His love has or has not done, the quality of the person’s character or any other such consideration and it is only reciprocated if and when God predestined for it to be. This radical difference in concepts that are communicated by both parties with the use of the same word leads to breakdown in communication that is very difficult to overcome.
4. Sovereign:
The term sovereign is perhaps one of the most critical in Reformed theology. In common usage, “sovereign” simply means “highest authority”. It, like love, is a relational term and conveys hierarchical relationships between persons, with God, being the Creator of all things, being the highest authority in existence. However, in Reformed thought, God's sovereignty is viewed as absolute and unqualified control over all events no matter how mundane or trivial. This change in definition from authority to control alters the meaning so dramatically that no meaningful discourse can occur when this term is employed between these two parties. What may sound like agreement when either party acknowledges God’s sovereignty is anything but that.
Emphasis on Different Divine Attributes
In theological discourse, it is inevitable for adherents to prioritize certain divine attributes over others, depending on their theological lens. This selective emphasis shapes how adherents understand the character of God and His relationship with humanity.
Within Reformed theology, there is a tendency to emphasize God's sovereignty, power, and immutability, often at the expense of His goodness, righteousness, and justice. This prioritization can create a theological framework where divine power is seen as the foremost attribute, leading to interpretations of God's justice that may appear arbitrary or inconsistent with moral accountability. Conversely, other theological traditions, such as Open Theism, emphasize that God’s righteousness and justice are central to His authority, grounded in biblical affirmations like Psalms 89:14 and 97:2, which articulate that righteousness and justice are the very foundation of God's throne.
The necessity of making choices about which attributes to emphasize is inherent in any theological framework. Reformed theology tends to foreground God's sovereignty, which can lead to interpretations of His actions that overshadow His goodness. For example, the doctrine of double predestination can be perceived as undermining God's character, as it presents a picture of divine justice that is arbitrary rather than being grounded in moral accountability.
The challenge for theologians lies in achieving a balance that reflects the complexity of God's character as depicted in Scripture. An overemphasis on God’s power and what God controls obscures God's relational qualities and His moral character, creating a disconnect between the nature of God and His moral requirements for humanity.
The Problem of Falsifiability
The reliance on redefined terms like "freedom," "justice," "righteousness," "love," and "sovereign" renders the system of Reformed theology unfalsifiable. When key concepts are defined in ways that are immune to contradiction or critique, the theological framework becomes insulated from any potential disproof. This creates a self-contained system in which no external argument can effectively challenge the internal logic. If the term "justice" can be redefined to accommodate God's sovereign will, then the system is structured in such a way that it can always explain away any apparent contradiction.
This issue of falsifiability is a significant problem in theological and philosophical systems alike. When the terms of the debate are constantly shifting to fit the framework, meaningful critique becomes impossible. If someone points out that God's justice seems inconsistent with His goodness, Reformed theology can respond by redefining justice in a way that allows both to coexist. However, this strategy does not engage with the critique directly; it sidesteps it through redefinition.
When a system becomes unfalsifiable, it also becomes undebatable. If key concepts are defined in ways that are immune to external critique, any attempt to challenge the system is met with responses that simply adjust the definitions to fit the critique. This leads to circular reasoning because the system’s claims are always validated by the system’s own redefinitions, making it difficult, if not impossible, to engage with in a meaningful way.
The consequence of this is that the system also becomes unprovable. Since its claims can never be disproved, they also cannot be definitively proven. Reformed theology may assert that human freedom is compatible with divine sovereignty, but because it relies on a specialized definition of freedom, it becomes impossible to test or verify that claim meaningfully. This creates a closed system of thought, where internal consistency is maintained at the expense of broader coherence with other systems of thought or common human understanding and use of language.
Ultimately, when a theological or philosophical system relies on constant redefinition to defend its claims, it essentially becomes meaningless outside of its own internal framework. Words like "freedom," "justice," "righteousness," "love," and "sovereign" hold certain meanings in common discourse, and when these terms are redefined in theological contexts, the conversation becomes detached from shared language. In Reformed theology, the claim that God is just becomes unrecognizable to those who understand justice in its more traditional sense.
This detachment from common usage makes the system appear incoherent to those outside the Reformed tradition. If the terms are constantly shifted to avoid contradiction, the system becomes inaccessible to those who don’t share the same theological assumptions. When such redefinition is pervasive, the entire framework loses its relevance. A theological system that cannot be debated or engaged with meaningfully becomes isolated, and its claims lose weight for those who do not already subscribe to its internal logic.
Philosophical and Theological Alternatives
The problem of redefinition and falsifiability in Reformed theology opens the door for alternative theological frameworks that maintain more common understandings of key concepts. For example, Arminianism holds to a view of libertarian free will, arguing that while God is sovereign, humans have genuine freedom to choose between alternatives. In this system, God’s foreknowledge of future events does not necessitate the deterministic predestination seen in Reformed theology.
Similarly, open theism suggests that God’s knowledge of the future includes possibilities rather than fixed certainties, allowing for genuine human freedom and contingency. These frameworks attempt to preserve the common understanding of human freedom while still affirming divine sovereignty in a way that does not involve controlling all events. In so doing, the system also maintains the common understanding of justice, righteousness and love, as well as the whole rest of the English language for that matter.
Conclusion
The Reformed theological system, as articulated in documents like the Westminster Confession, asserts the compatibility of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. However, the reliance on redefined terms like "freedom," "justice," "righteousness," "love," and "sovereign" renders the system unfalsifiable, undebatable, and unprovable. Such redefinition makes the entire system meaningless outside of its own framework, as the theological claims become detached from shared human understanding. By emphasizing God’s power and control, adherents attempt to navigate the complexity of His character, but this prioritization leads to a lack of coherence with broader biblical narratives that speak to His relational and moral qualities. Ultimately, this tension invites deeper exploration into how various theological frameworks can engage with and challenge one another, aiming for a richer understanding of divine nature and human responsibility.
"Open Theism is a more rationally consistent and practically satisfying understanding of the divine-human relationship" – John Sanders - The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence.
Clete (10/9/2024)
Last edited:
