I keep thinking about this statement that John Piper posted three days ago:

God never does only one thing. In everything he does he is doing thousands of things. Of these we know perhaps half a dozen.

Layton Talbert reflects on Job 26:14a: “Behold, these are but the outskirts [“outer fringe,” NIV] of his ways.”

“These are the mere edges of His ways.” The word edges (KJV, “parts”) denotes a termination, a boundary line or coastline, an edge or corner. What we can discern of the infinite God from His works in nature and history are the mere coastlines of the continent of the mind and character of God. Imagine landing for the first time on the seventeenth-century American continent. You have no idea that the sand onto which you step is the fringe of a continuous landmass over 3,000 miles wide and 9,500 miles long. Imagine formulating views of what this whole continent is like based on what you can see from the bay where you drop anchor. Suppose you forge your way five miles inland, or even fifty miles, to get a better idea of what what this new country is like. As tangible and verifiable as what you see is, you are experiencing a minuscule fraction of an unimaginable stretch of vast and varied terrain yet to be explored—massive and multiple mountain ranges, trackless prairies, impenetrable forests, mammoth lakes and mighty rivers with deafening waterfalls, swamps and deserts, flora and fauna yet unknown. How much more there is to know about our magnificently infinite God than what we can see from where we are, only eternity can tell.

–Beyond Suffering: Discovering the Message of Job (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2007), 146.

Related: A few years ago I reviewed Talbert’s book and linked to MP3s of his sermons on Job.

Is antinomy a good word to describe the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility? It depends what you mean by antinomy.

D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 201n13:

Owing to the popularity of the little book by J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, it has become common to designate the two truths, that God is utterly sovereign and human beings are morally responsible, as an antinomy. [Cf. my summary and outline of Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.] But there is some confusion over the term, and a comment may help.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, an antinomy is: (1) “a contradiction in a law, or between two equally binding laws”; (2) “a contradictory law, statute, or principle; an authoritative contradiction”—and here an illustration is drawn from Jeremy Taylor, who in 1649 wrote that certain signs of grace “are direct antinomies to the lusts of the flesh”; (3) “a contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable, or necessary; a paradox; intellectual contrariness”—and this last meaning OED attributes to Kant.

Packer means none of these things. Continue Reading »

Justin Taylor’s gentle, respectful response to John Piper notes this:

(1) The fact that God ordains all things (i.e., his secret will) has a limited effect on our decision making. It can’t prescribe how we act, but it can prevent us from having the wrong perspective (e.g., anxiety, fear, despair, misplaced trust, etc.). But in terms of interpreting events, the main way to read providence is backwards (as John Flavel wrote: “Some providences, like Hebrew letters, must be read backward”).

(2) The fact that God ordains means ensures that our actions have significance. The ordained outcome can never be seen as an excuse for complacency or fatalism.

Calvinists believe in God-ordained means. This is not merely a platitude. John M. Frame says it well in Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1994):

The relation of divine sovereignty to human responsibility is one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith. It is plain from Scripture in any case that both are real and that both are important. Calvinistic theology is known for its emphasis on divine sovereignty—for its view that God “works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:11). But in Calvinism there is at least an equal emphasis upon human responsibility.

An equal emphasis? Many would not be willing to say that about Calvinism. . . . God’s sovereignty does not exclude, but engages, human responsibility. Indeed, it is God’s sovereignty that grants human responsibility, that gives freedom and significance to human choices and actions, that ordains an important human role within God’s plan for history (pp. 14-15, emphasis added).