Deep Meditations on The Doctrine of Providence

A Thorough Case for God's All-Encompassing Purposeful Sovereignty

Preface

I worked on this project for two reasons.

First, I love the doctrine of providence. I believe that when seen clearly and savored as it ought to be, the doctrine of God's all-ecompassing, all-good, never-ending providence is one of the most precious truths contained in the scripture. The fact that God is working all things together for the good of those who love him is a soul-swelling reality.

Second, I want to provide a rigorous defense of what I believe the biblical doctrine of providence is. Namely, meticulous providence. I believe that the bible teaches that God’s providence extends to every single thing that happens in our lives. From our best moments to the most terrible tragedies - from earth-shattering events to the seemingly mundane- I believe that the bible teaches that God sovereignly ordains whatsoever comes to pass. As Solomon writes…

“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” - Prov 16:33

However, this understanding is under attack today. Wanting to preserve God’s moral purity, many would suggest that God is not intimately involved in our lives and merely governs the world at a general level. I think that is a tragedy.

So, these are my deep meditations on the doctrine of providence. As I mean for this to be a deep dive into a complex issue, I have written in a more academically rigorous style than usual. This analysis was stretching for me to write, and I imagine to some degree that it will be stretching to read, but I hope that it is an edifying stretch. In the final analysis, despite my best efforts, this is still not an exhaustive treatment of the issues of providence, but I do believe it is a thorough treatment.

Introduction

The doctrine of divine providence is central to our formulation of a Christian worldview. No other doctrine has such far-reaching scope or such profound philosophical implications for our lives as creatures. As Dr. Stephen Wellum puts it…

In Christian theology, a correct understanding of providence is not a minor issue: it is of crucial significance. Without a doctrine of providence, the idea of the triune God and his involvement with his creation is largely irrelevant to what is actually happening in the world. - Steven Wellum

Given the existence of the triune creator God, natural questions arise: "What are the implications of God's existence for my life? Is God intimately involved in my life, or is He distant? Does He have a plan for me? A plan for the world? Will His plan surely come to pass, or might it be thwarted? If God has planned all things from eternity past, are humans still free? How can humans be held responsible for their actions if they were foreordained?" These are the questions that the doctrine of providence seeks to answer. Put simply, providence is God's purposeful sovereignty by which He governs and sustains the world, bringing His divine decree to pass.

Unfortunately, Dr. Wellum is right in noting that "the doctrine of providence has fallen on hard times today." In the West, materialistic naturalism has become the air we breathe. The average Westerner has been conditioned to believe that rationality requires naturalism, and anything beyond that amounts to superstition. While Christians reject this notion, the effects of this dominant cultural worldview persist within the church, and many professing believers today could be considered practical naturalists.

Here, I will argue for an understanding of providence that directly challenges this naturalistic worldview. Specifically, I will demonstrate that the Bible presents providence as God's all-encompassing, exhaustive, and purposeful sovereignty. This providence extends from major world events to the finest details of our lives, including our free actions as creatures. Throughout this analysis, I will use the term "Meticulous Providence" to describe my view. Though I first encountered this term in a critique of the Reformed understanding of providence, I believe it effectively clarifies what Reformed theology teaches about the extent of God's providence.

To establish my thesis, I will first provide a brief survey of the varying Christian and even sub-Christian views of providence. Then, I will present arguments for why the Reformed view (Meticulous Providence) is correct. My argument will be twofold. First, I will show that from cover to cover, the Bible presents God's providence as utterly meticulous. Second, I will demonstrate that this understanding aligns with the historic understanding of the church and, therefore, should be accepted by Christians today. Finally, I will address the two most common objections to the doctrine of meticulous providence:

Objection 1: The doctrine of meticulous providence renders human freedom impossible.

Objection 2: The doctrine of meticulous providence makes God the author of evil.

I will demonstrate why both of these objections rest on flawed presuppositions and, therefore, fail as valid objections to the biblical doctrine of providence.

Survey of Positions

Throughout the history of the church, the doctrine of providence has been heavily debated. While diverging views appeared in the early church, they became more clearly systematized through the work of Augustine, Aquinas, and especially during the Reformation. We will survey the three positions most commonly held among Christians today, along with one more recent innovation that should be considered sub-Christian: The Reformation View (Meticulous Providence), Molinism (Middle Knowledge), Classic Arminianism, and Open Theism.

The Reformation View (Meticulous Providence)

Let me begin by describing the Reformed view of meticulous providence, which is the view I hold. I will first present a simple description of the position and later provide robust biblical and historical support for it.

Meticulous Providence holds that God's providence (His purposeful sovereignty) is all-encompassing and exhaustive—nothing occurs in this world outside of God's predetermined plan and perfect will. The Westminster Confession of Faith articulates Meticulous Providence well where it reads...

OF GOD'S ETERNAL DECREE "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." —Westminster Confession of Faith, 3.1

Along with this, there are a few theological entailments that make the Reformed view distinct from the other views we will consider.

1. Meticulous Providence Springs From a High View of God

It is important to highlight how this view of divine providence is rooted in the doctrine of God. Specifically, meticulous providence is closely tied to God being totally a se, simple, and immutable. When we speak of God being simple, we mean that all of God's attributes are essential to His being. Everything that makes God who He is—such as His omniscience and omnipotence—has always been and remains immutably true of Him. Hence, we describe God as a se; that is, He has life in Himself. From eternity past and forever, He is completely self-sufficient and therefore cannot depend on His creatures for anything essential to His being.

Herman Bavinck is helpful here. In his Reformed Dogmatics, he describes aseity in these terms…

"He is the source of all being, the fountain of all life, the cause of all that exists. He does not derive his being from another; rather, he is absolute being, the fullness of being, who gives to all and receives from none." — Vol. 2, p. 155

He goes on to say…

"God is not dependent on the world. His existence and blessedness are not contingent upon his creation. He does not need the world. Yet he freely wills it, sustains it, and reveals himself in it."— Vol. 2, p. 158

Holding to this high view of God's self-sufficiency has radical implications for our understanding of God's decree, and thus His providence. Namely, if God is a se in His knowledge (omniscience), then His knowledge of the future cannot be conditioned upon the free actions of His creatures. Instead, His perfect knowledge must flow from Himself and His perfect divine decree. Therefore, His providence must extend to everything involved in His decree, which necessarily involves everything He has knowledge of. If God indeed knows all things, then it follows that His providence is meticulous.

2. According to Meticulous Providence, God is Established as Primary Cause

A second entailment that makes Meticulous Providence distinct from competing views is that it establishes God as the primary cause of all things. This can be seen in the Westminster Confession, where it explains that by God's providence, "the liberty or contingency of second causes [is not] taken away, but rather established." What is unsaid but presumed here is that God is the primary cause that stands behind and above all secondary causes.

In this sense, meticulous providence holds to a view of concurrence that is distinct from competing views. Dr. Wellum is again helpful here, where he observes that

God not only preserves all things; he also acts as the primary cause in and through all things which function as secondary causes, but in such a way that he upholds each thing's created integrity. - Steven Wellum

Many who reject the doctrine of Meticulous Providence object at this point. In their view, God being established as primary cause inevitably results in Him being morally corrupt. We will return to this issue when we consider whether the doctrine of meticulous providence makes God the author of evil.

3. According to Meticulous Providence, God Has Predestined the Future Free Actions of His Creatures

Lastly, it must be highlighted that according to meticulous providence, God has predestined the future free actions of His creatures. In this sense, it is fair to say that meticulous providence presents a "deterministic" view of the future. However, it must be qualified that Reformed determinism is not equivalent to fatalism, where choices are irrelevant or meaningless, nor should it be confused with hard determinism, where free will (or better, true volition) is denied entirely. To flatten these ideas would be to ignore the Reformed doctrine of concurrence. What is meant by Reformed determinism is that God has declared the end from the beginning, that He has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass down to the smallest detail, and that nothing can thwart that plan. This core idea is ultimately denied by Arminian views of providence.

Molinism (Middle Knowledge)

Molinism is the view that before God created the world, He not only knew everything that could happen (natural knowledge) and everything that will happen (free knowledge), but also everything that would happen if free agents were put in certain situations. Therefore, because of God's exhaustive knowledge of all possible worlds, He is able to ensure that His desired ends come to pass while maintaining human freedom (in Molinism, the freedom in view is libertarian freedom). God does this by choosing to create the world, out of all possible worlds, that would bring about His desired ends. In this sense, God brings His sovereign will to pass via arrangement, not coercion.

This view was first formalized by Luis de Molina in the 16th century and has been carried on and refined by modern scholars such as William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and Tim Stratton. A few details that make Molinism distinct from competing views should be noted.

1. Molinism Seeks to Maintain Extensive Sovereignty and Libertarian Freedom

At the heart of Molinism is the attempt to maintain both God's absolute sovereignty and libertarian freedom. Regarding the former point, Molinism shares some commonalities with the Reformed view. Though many Molinists would likely not embrace this label, it is fair to say that Molinism is deterministic regarding its view of the future in that it does not see God's decree as fluid or the future as uncertain from God's perspective. Molinism maintains that all of God's desired ends will certainly come to pass and cannot be thwarted.

On the other hand, Molinism differs from the Reformed view in that it seeks to maintain libertarian freedom.

In his book on divine sovereignty and human freedom, William Lane Craig gives this definition:

"Libertarian freedom means that an agent is free with respect to a given action if he is able to perform that action or to refrain from performing it." - William Lane Craig

In other words, according to those who hold to libertarian freedom, a person is only free in an action if, at any given moment, they have the ability to choose otherwise. Their will cannot be sufficiently inclined toward one option or another by any preconditions or external forces. Molinists maintain that because God accomplishes His will by arranging things according to His divine foreknowledge—but does not Himself incline the human will toward one option or another—libertarian freedom and divine sovereignty can coexist.

2. Molinism Does Not Understand God to be A Se in His Knowledge

Another point where Molinism diverges from the Reformed view is in its understanding of God's foreknowledge. Namely, Molinists do not understand God's knowledge to be a se the way that the Reformed view does. In an attempt to be fair to Molinists, we must recognize that many would say they do hold to aseity. However, we must question whether that assertion is coherent given their understanding of how God brings about His purposes. Many theologians have pointed out that if God's decree is dependent upon His knowledge of all possible worlds, which includes the free actions of His creatures, then His decree is necessarily dependent upon his creation. This is known as The Grounding Objection:

How can God know what a free creature would do, unless that knowledge is grounded in something real—either God's decree (which Molinism denies), or the creature's nature (which limits freedom)?

Reformed thinkers like Paul Helm, James Anderson, and John Frame argue that this makes God's knowledge contingent—at least in this one area—on something outside Himself, which undermines His aseity and self-sufficiency.

Classic Arminianism

During the Reformation, as different groups of Protestants were systematizing their theology, debates arose—as they had in the past—around the issues of divine decree, God's sovereignty, and human freedom. Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who studied under Theodore Beza (John Calvin's successor), sought to modify the Reformed understanding of the relationship between God's sovereignty and human freedom by emphasizing the role of divine foreknowledge. In the Arminian system, God acts in His providence based on His foreknowledge of what His creatures will do in the future. Therefore, from the Arminian point of view, providence is more permissive than it is decretive. This stands in sharp contrast to the Reformed or even Molinist view, which both hold that God has exhaustive control over the future and that everything happening in this universe occurs perfectly in accordance with God's sovereign will, down to the smallest details. Arminians do not believe that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and they argue that because God has chosen to prioritize libertarian free will, His creatures may act in history in ways that oppose His sovereign will. That being said, most Arminians do hold that God has ways of ensuring certain events come to pass, such as the crucifixion, but this is not how God normally operates in the Arminian worldview. A few points of distinction should be highlighted here…

1. Arminians See God's Commitment to Libertarian Freedom as the Explanation for Evil

The problem of evil is often considered the "Achilles' heel" of Christian theology. Many atheists construct their argument against God's existence by presenting the following propositions:

If

A) God is perfectly good, and, therefore is opposed to evil,

and

B) God is powerful enough to prevent evil,

then

C) Evil would not exist.

But

D) Evil does exist.

Therefore

E) God does not exist.

This line of argumentation is as old as time itself. It appears in our contemporary context through thinkers like Richard Dawkins, but we can find it in the Epicureans¹ in the 4th century BC and almost certainly existed prior to that.

Christians must provide a logically satisfying answer to this problem to establish the validity of the Christian worldview, and they have approached this challenge in different ways. Arminians have historically answered the problem of evil by asserting that God, in His infinite wisdom, deemed it morally necessary to preserve human libertarian freedom—even though this meant creating a world in which evil would be possible. Roger Olson puts it this way in his book "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities":

"God does not will the evil actions of his creatures. He permits them because he has granted them the dignity of freedom, which is necessary if love and moral goodness are to be real. God could prevent all evil by removing human freedom, but then we would no longer be human in any meaningful sense." - Roger Olson

This "Free Will Defense" differs from how Reformed thinkers would answer the problem of evil, which is a point we will return to when we answer objections to the doctrine of meticulous providence. For now, the point is that in the Arminian worldview, the preservation of libertarian freedom is essential to their theological construction.

2. Arminians Ground The Doctrine of Election in Divine Foreknowledge

Another point of distinction between Arminians and Reformed theologians is in their understanding of the grounds of election. Arminians hold to what is known as "Conditional Election." That is, God has conditioned His electing work upon something in the object of election. Typically, in Arminianism, it is argued that the precondition that grounds election is God's knowledge of a person's future decision to follow Christ. God foreknows what humans will do in the future, and based on His foreknowledge of our future free actions, He elects some to salvation (those whom He knew would choose Him) and passes over others for reprobation. Often, an appeal is made to Romans 8:29–30

Ro 8:29–30

29 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. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 8:29–30.

It is important to note that the Arminian view of election shapes their view of providence—understanding God's governance of the world as fundamentally responsive and permissive. This contrasts with both the Reformed and Molinist views, which understand God's governance to be active and decretive (though this is more pronounced in the Reformed view than in Molinism).

This understanding of providence creates the same problems with divine aseity that Molinism does. If God's knowledge of the future depends on the future free actions of His creatures, and libertarian freedom is preserved, then we cannot say that God is a se in His omniscience. While some Arminians may claim to hold that God is a se in His knowledge, such a statement would be a flat contradiction. It is even difficult to understand how Arminians can hold that God knows the future, given their commitment to libertarian freedom. If humans are free agents who are always capable of choosing one thing or another, how can the future possibly be fixed, and thus known? In the final analysis, while Arminians want to hold Divine Sovereignty, Divine Omniscience, and libertarian freedom together, their arguments become self-contradictory.

Open Theism

Finally, we will consider the Open Theist view. As noted earlier, while the three views we have surveyed so far certainly have their differences—even concerning their doctrine of God—all three make generally orthodox statements concerning God's nature and divine attributes. All three positions have been found within historic Christianity and therefore should be received as "orthodox." This, however, is not true of Open Theism. Open Theism first emerged in the 1990s and was popularized by a book called "The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God" co-authored by Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. Open Theism denies essential truths concerning the nature of God and therefore should be considered sub-Christian—specifically, it denies the doctrine of providence by asserting that God does not know the future. Let us highlight a few important features...

1. Open Theism Denies the Doctrine of Providence

Put honestly, Open Theism is a denial of the doctrine of Providence. While some Open Theists may not want to concede this point, any attempt to hold onto the doctrine of providence from an Open Theist perspective would require a radical redefinition of Providence's meaning. Greg Boyd, a prominent Open Theist, puts it this way:

"God is a competent God, perfectly able to achieve his purposes despite not meticulously controlling every detail of the cosmos." - Greg Boyd

In this scene, Open Theists may hold to what they call a "dynamic providence," but the critical distinction between this view and the historic understanding of providence is that from the Open Theist perspective, God is not the sovereign Lord of all who accomplishes all He pleases. He is, instead, merely another player on the cosmic stage. He is a free agent, just like humans are free agents. To be sure, from the Open Theist perspective God is the most powerful free agent, the wisest free agent, and the most morally upright free agent—but nevertheless, He is still just a free agent and cannot guarantee that what He wants to happen will always come to pass in a world where He has to deal with other free agents. John Mark Comer, who is not a stated Open Theist but certainly has Open Theist tendencies, has said:²

"Yes, God is all-powerful and all good. But, I would argue that God does not always get His way. You have to factor in the reality that human beings and spiritual beings have free will to either partner with God for all that is good and beautiful and true, or to rebel and rage against God." - John Mark Comer

2. Open Theism Denies Divine Omniscience

Along with this denial of the doctrine of providence comes a denial of Divine Omniscience, even though they would claim to still hold to Omniscience. From the Open Theist perspective, God knows perfectly all that there is to be known, but critically, the future free actions of human beings cannot be known. Therefore, God can be omniscient in that He knows all that there is to be known, but still does not know the future because the future essentially cannot be known. It is important to note that this theological construction is actually logically consistent. In many ways, Open Theism is simply Arminianism followed through to its logical conclusions. Arminians and Open Theists both affirm libertarian freedom, and thus a problem arises when trying to square divine foreknowledge with human freedom. While Arminians live with this tension, Open Theists resolve it by denying foreknowledge. The problem with Open Theism is not that it is logically inconsistent, but that it is biblically indefensible. Time and time again, the bible makes the clear assertion that God knows and even plans the future, seeing to it that everything that he wills will certainly come to pass. Biblically speaking, this is part of what it means for God, to be God.

A Defense of Meticulous Providence

Now that we have introduced the issue of Providence and provided a survey of the differing theological positions, I will provide a defense for the view that I hold—namely, Meticulous Providence. My defense will be twofold. First, I will argue that the doctrine of meticulous providence is thoroughly biblical, being seen clearly throughout Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments. Second, I will argue that the doctrine of meticulous providence has robust roots in history, being not only the apostolic teaching but also the consistent teaching of the creeds and confessions and therefore should be received as true for the church today.

The Biblical Evidence for the Doctrine of Meticulous Providence

From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible presents Yahweh as the Creator God who has life from himself. He is all-powerful (Jer 32:17), all-knowing (Ps 139:1-4), and accomplishes his will supremely and without difficulty. Daniel 4:25 reads

"All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What have you done?'"

Or consider Psalm 115:3

"Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases."

This raises the question: How can God guarantee that he will accomplish his will perfectly? The biblical answer is that God's sovereign control extends to every aspect of the created world, even down to the smallest details of our lives. In other words, God's providence is meticulous.

To establish this, rather than simply listing verses that demonstrate meticulous providence (which would be sufficient), I will highlight several biblical principles and show how meticulous providence is fundamental to their integrity.

1. In the Bible, God Positively Works All Things for Good, Even Through Evil

In Genesis 50:20, Joseph tells his brothers

*"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good"*Ge 50:20.

This statement reflects on Joseph's story, where God's providence used the wicked actions of Joseph's brothers and Potiphar's wife to accomplish His saving purposes for Israel's sons. More broadly, Genesis 50:20 illuminates the entire book of Genesis, revealing how God had been working out His redemptive plan from the beginning. Through the Fall, the Flood, and the promises to Abraham, God worked in His sovereign providence to fulfill His will—ultimately establishing a people in Egypt whom He would later liberate as His own possession.

This principle reaches its pinnacle at the cross, where God used the gravest sin ever committed—the slaughter of the Son of God—to achieve the greatest good ever conceived: salvation for all who trust in Christ. If God sovereignly works even through evil actions, it follows that His providence is unlimited in scope and therefore meticulous.

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it." - Ac 2:22–24.

2. In the Bible, Our Confidence in Future Provision Is Rooted in God's Meticulous Providence

In Psalm 139, David writes

"Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them."

This great declaration of God's meticulous providence is the grounds for David's assurance, even in the face of persecution.

Jesus tells his disciples in the Gospels

"28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows." - Mt 10:27–31.

Without the doctrine of meticulous providence, these assurances would be empty words from Jesus—a nice idea in theory but not a concrete reality that someone would stake their life on. When Jesus says that not a sparrow falls to the ground apart from our heavenly Father, He communicates that nothing happens in all of creation apart from God's meticulous providence, not even things that seem utterly meaningless to us, like the death of a sparrow sold for a penny. Jesus makes an argument from the lesser to the greater: if God's meticulous providence governs even the death of a sparrow, how much more does it govern the lives of His own children? Meticulous Providence is the core truth that grounds Christian assurance.

3. In the Bible, Meticulous Providence is Core to what it means to God, to be God.

It is important to note that biblically speaking, Meticulous Providence—that is, God's purposeful, sovereign rule over all things—is a core aspect of what it means for God to be God. Often, as God defines Himself and contrasts His holy character against the idols of men, He presents His sovereign control and perfect knowledge over the entire universe as a key distinguishing factor between the true God and false gods. Space does not allow us to give an entire survey of the biblical evidence for this point, but would suggest that these three compounding statements in the book of Isiah settle the issue. As God confronts the false idols of the people of Israel, he says…

Isaiah 41:22–24

"Let them bring them (the idols), and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them... declare to us the things to come. Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods... Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you."

Isaiah 45:6–7

"That people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things."

Isaiah 46:9–10

"Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’"

The Historical Evidence for the Doctrine of Meticulous Providence

Not only is Meticulous Providence the consistent teaching of Scripture, but it is also the consistent confession of the Church throughout history. While church history contains significant controversy surrounding God's sovereignty and human freedom, the church has consistently returned to a robust articulation of meticulous providence. I will demonstrate this by examining several primary sources with brief comments on each.

The Church Fathers Articulating Meticulous Providence

After the biblical authors, the church fathers were the first to articulate the doctrine of meticulous providence.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202)

"God has a plan, and His providence directs all things to their proper end, according to the counsel of His will."— Against Heresies, Book 4, ch. 38

Tertullian (c. 155–220)

"It is God who directs all things—by whom all things are arranged, all things governed, all things administered."— Apology, ch. 17

Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

"Nothing, therefore, happens unless the Omnipotent wills it to happen: he either permits it to happen, or he brings it about himself." — Enchiridion, ch. 100

"For not even a leaf can fall from a tree without the will of God." — City of God, Book 5, ch. 11

John Chrysostom (c. 349–407)

"Nothing escapes the eye of God; nothing is done without His command; not even a single hair falls without His will."— Homily on Matthew 10:30

In the early church, a robust view of God's meticulous providence was clearly the established teaching.

Meticulous Providence Articulated in the Middle Ages

During the Middle Ages, even as the Catholic Church faced challenges that would later spark the Reformation, the doctrine of meticulous providence remained firmly articulated.

Peter Lombard (c. 1100–1160)

"God by His providence governs all things which He created, and He directs them to their end."— Sentences, I.39.1

Lombard rejected the idea that providence applied only to the general order of the universe. Instead, he insisted that:

"The providence of God reaches not only to the universal, but to the particular as well."— Sentences, I.39.3

Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274)

"All things are subject to Divine providence, not only in general, but even in their own individual being."— Summa Theologica, I, Q.22, Art.2

"Since God is the universal cause of all things, it must be that His providence extends even to human acts of the will."— Summa Theologica, I, Q.19, Art.8

"Nothing can happen outside the order of divine providence. Even evil is subject to it—not by being caused directly by God, but by being permitted and governed."— Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, ch. 71

Meticulous Providence Articulated in the Reformation

During the Reformation, and in its resulting confessional statements, the doctrine of Meticulous Providence was boldly asserted.

John Calvin (c. 1509–1564)

"Nothing happens but what is knowingly and willingly decreed by Him." - Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.xvi.3

Martin Luther (c. 1483–1546)

"God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things by His immutable, eternal, and infallible will." - The Bondage of the Will, Section IX

Heidelberg Catechism (1563)

"God's providence is his almighty and ever present power, whereby, as with his hand, he still upholds heaven and earth and all creatures... and so governs them that... all things come not by chance, but by His fatherly hand." - Q&A 27

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

"We believe that all things in heaven and in earth, and in all creatures, are preserved and governed by the providence of this wise, eternal, and almighty God. Nothing happens in this world without the appointment of God... yet God neither is the author of, nor can be charged with, the sins which are committed." Chapter 6 – Of the Providence of God

I could cite one thousand more sources throughout church history that have articulated the doctrine of Meticulous Providence. Our point is clear: meticulous providence is the consistent teaching of Scripture, has been the historic teaching of the Church, and therefore should be received as truth for Christians today.

Objections Answered

Finally, I will provide answers to the two most common objections to the doctrine of meticulous providence.

Objection #1: The Doctrine of Meticulous Providence Renders Human Freedom Impossible

The objection that the Reformed view of meticulous providence renders human freedom impossible exists at both popular and scholarly levels. Those who reject the Reformed doctrine on this issue believe that determinism, which is part and parcel of meticulous providence, cannot be reconciled with libertarian freedom and must, therefore, be rejected. In his book Most Moved Mover, Clark Pinnock (Open Theist) writes

"God, in deciding to create humankind, placed higher value on freedom leading to love than on guaranteed conformity to his will." - Clark Pinnock

First, it is important to concede that the doctrine of meticulous providence indeed cannot be made to fit with libertarian freedom with any amount of logical consistency. However, I would suggest that it is not the doctrine of providence that must therefore be rejected, but the doctrine of libertarian freedom.

To state the issue clearly, libertarian freedom is the idea that a person is only free if, in any given choice, that person could have chosen otherwise. If a person chooses A, they could have equally chosen B and thus can be said to be free. In this view of freedom, there must be no outside forces or preconditions that sufficiently incline the will toward one option or the other.

There are multiple problems with this view. First, the fundamental problem of the Fall means that as morally corrupt humans, our wills are not free. Because of the Fall and the moral corruption all mankind inherits from Adam, our wills are fundamentally enslaved to sin. This means that in our natural state, our wills are so inclined toward evil that our choices will be bent toward sin (Rom 3:9-20, 8:7). Beyond that, libertarian freedom creates problems with human moral accountability. If our choices flow from a will that is fundamentally neutral, and if no sufficient inclination is behind our choices, then nothing is revealed in our choices. Our choices in the libertarian view are fundamentally arbitrary, and one has to wonder if arbitrary choices communicate moral accountability.

I suggest that instead of libertarianism, Christians should embrace a compatibilistic view of human freedom. From the compatibilistic view, a person is free if and when they are able to make a choice that is in line with their greatest moral inclination in any given moment. In other words, a person is free in any given choice if in that choice, they are doing what they want to do. A choice, that is consistent with the moral inclinations of the chooser, is a free choice.

On this issue, Johnthan Edwards is profoundly helpful. In his book, The Freedom of the Will, Edwards writes

“The plain and obvious meaning of the words [free will], in common speech, is the power, opportunity, or advantage that anyone has to do as he pleases... The will always is as the greatest apparent good is... That necessity which is consistent with liberty is not a constraint upon the will, but the certain connection of the act of the will with the motive which is strongest.”

To make the argument clear, freedom means the ability to do what we want, not being able to always do otherwise in the libertarian sense.

This compatibilistic understanding of freedom fits into our systematic theology, allowing us to make sense of the Fall and human moral accountability. If our actions flow from our greatest moral inclinations, then our actions reveal our hearts and therefore carry moral significance. When compatibilism is embraced, the tension between meticulous providence and human freedom dissolves. God is able to work in the hearts of His creatures, inclining their will toward the good by the power of His Spirit or leaving a person's heart to be hardened by sin, and the actions that those people make are still their free actions—thus they can be held morally accountable for them.

Objection #2: The Doctrine of Meticulous Providence Makes God the Author of Evil

Finally, many who reject the doctrine of Meticulous Providence believe that the Reformed understanding of providence inevitably results in God being the author of evil. The problem of evil, in their eyes, renders the Reformed understanding of God implausible. Roger Olson has said…

"If Calvinism is true, God is the author of sin, evil, innocent suffering and hell." - Roger Olson

On this point, we must highlight that the problem of evil is resolvable if we can show there is a morally sufficient reason for God to allow evil to exist. As mentioned earlier, Arminians have answered the problem of evil by arguing that God saw fit to preserve libertarian freedom, thereby allowing evil to exist. From a Reformed perspective, we take a similar approach but offer a different solution. If there is a morally sufficient reason for God to allow evil to exist, then evil's presence in a world with an all-good and all-powerful God becomes logically coherent. However, we reject the preservation of libertarian free will as this morally sufficient reason. Instead, we propose that God has allowed evil to exist so that his divine attributes, namely, his eternal power and infinite love, might be more fully displayed (Rom 9:22-24). Evil exists so that God might be glorified, which is the chief purpose of man, the chief purpose of creation, and even the chief purpose of God himself.

Dr. John Piper puts it this way

“The ultimate reason that evil exists is so that God’s glory might be displayed in the universe through His mercy and wrath. In other words, the existence of evil is part of the plan to display the full panorama of the glory of God.” — John Piper, “Why Does God Allow Satan to Live?”

Having resolved the problem of evil, it follows that God can, in His providence, work in and through evil means to accomplish His good and God-glorifying ends. As we have previously established, He is able to do this while being free from any moral complicity with sin, due to the fact that it is the secondary agents whose wills are being expressed in their evil actions, and therefore they hold all moral accountability.

Conclusion

If you're still with me, I am deeply encouraged by you and hope that the encouragement is mutual. I hope that you have seen with greater clarity the doctrine of providence and that your affections for our sovereign Lord have been powerfully stirred.

And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. - Romans 8:28

Bibliography

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Contra Gentiles. Translated by Anton C. Pegis. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975.

———. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1981.

Augustine of Hippo. Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love. Translated by J.F. Shaw. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

———. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 2. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004–2008.

Boyd, Gregory A. God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Craig, William Lane. The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000.

Edwards, Jonathan. The Freedom of the Will. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974.

Heidelberg Catechism. Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2011.

Lombard, Peter. The Sentences. Vol. 1. Translated by Giulio Silano. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2007.

Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Translated by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2012.

Olson, Roger E. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.

Pinnock, Clark H. Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Piper, John. “Why Does God Allow Satan to Live?” Desiring God. Accessed March 30, 2025. https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-does-god-allow-satan-to-live.

Second Helvetic Confession. Translated by Henry E. Jacobs. Reprint, Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1992.

Wellum, Stephen J. Systematic Theology: The God Who Is, the God Who Creates. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2024.

Westminster Confession of Faith. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2007.

1. Lactantius – On the Anger of God (De Ira Dei)

2. [1] https://bridgetown.church/teachings/the-sage/why?