Westminster Conference Papers 2018 now out

Last year's papers have now been published. They begin with Paul Wells' clear and fair minded introduction to Amyraldianism. This is followed by Geoff Thomas on A W Pink urging us to love Pink despite his evident failures. Then comes Phil Arthur's paper on the Great War and modern Christianity. The fourth paper is James Eglinton's on Herman Bavinck and the fifth Jeremy Walker's on John Owen and the Person of Christ. Last but by noe mans least is Nigel Graham on David Brainerd.

Westminster Conference 2018 Session 2

Our afternoon session day two of the conference was Geoff Thomas on A W Pink and that was a very good session, showing Pink to have been a fine evangelsitic Calvinist if not a good model on remaining in church fellowship.

Geoff's conclusions drawn from Iain Murray were as follows

His writings, his teaching, was self-consciously written with the authority of a man called by God to teach his word. His business was to speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority (Titus 2:15). 

The clarity of his method of teaching was focussed on one great aim of bringing people to definite conclusions concerning the truth. The presentation of the message was always aimed at instructing people in what was true. 

His teaching was not ended in the clear explanation of the meaning of a passage. The principles learned needed to be applied to our daily walk in order to convict and stimulate, comfort and strengthen (op cit Murray, pp.285&286). 

Iain concludes splendidly thus: “It is on the practical and devotional side that Pink really comes into his own, and that he is almost uniformly uplifting, stimulating and often inspiring. Here he needs to lean on none. He speaks what he has ‘seen and heard’ when he takes up such subjects as prayer and self-denial, communion with Christ and growth in grace. His grasp of the ways of God in conversion and in spiritual experience is masterly and reveals a gift which has been exceedingly rare among preachers and writers of our times. He has sound counsel for the spiritual infant and for the mature Christian. As a spiritual physician who knows the heart in all its multiplicity of need he talks like one of the Puritans. He is able to walk, and to assist others to walk through that Valley, which says Bunyan, ‘is as dark as pitch’, where there is ‘on the right hand a very deep ditch’ and on the left ‘a very dangerous quag, into which, if ever a good man falls, he finds no bottom for his foot to stand on.’ This pastoral ability and discernment is surely Pink’s foremost strength as a teacher”

(Murray, p 296).

10 theologians known by their double initial

1. F F Bruce (Frederick Fyvie)
2. D A Carson (Donald Arthur)
3. N T Wright (Nicholas Thomas)
4. B B Warfield (Benjamin Breckinridge)
5. D M Lloyd-Jones (David Martyn Lloyd-Jones)
6. A W Pink (Arthus Walkington)
7. J P Moreland (James Porter)
8. J I Packer (James Innell) 
9. D M Macleod (Donald M?)
10. A A Hodge (Archibald Alexander)

A W Pink on Sleep

Adrian's book brought this passage to mind. Not sure why he did not add it in (though the gist is there in his book). I must have read this when I was 15 or 16. It has stayed with me ever since.

THE BLESSEDNESS OF SLEEP

 A.W. Pink

 “It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so He giveth His beloved sleep”.  [Psalm 127:2]

How often is it now lost sight of that the Lord cares for the bodies of His saints as well as for their souls. This is more or less recognized and owned by believers in the matter of food and clothing, health and strength, but it is widely ignored by many concerning the point we are here treating of.

SLEEP is as imperative for our physical well-being as is food and drink, and the one is as much the GIFT of our heavenly Father as is the other.

We cannot put ourselves to sleep by any effort of will, as those who suffer with insomnia quickly discover. Nor does exercise and manual labour of itself ensure sleep: have you ever lain down almost exhausted and then found you were “too tired to sleep”?

Sleep is a DIVINE GIFT, but the nightly recurrence of it blinds us to the fact.

When is so pleases Him, God withholds sleep, and then we have to say with the Psalmist, “Thou holdest mine eyes waking” (77:4). But that is the exception rather than the rule, and deeply thankful should we be that it is so. Day by day the Lord feeds us, and night by night He “giveth His beloved sleep.” Thus in this little detail - of Elijah’s sleeping under the juniper tree - which we are likely to pass over lightly, we should perceive the gracious hand of God ministering in tenderness to the needs of one who is dear unto Him.

Yes, “the Lord pitieth them that fear Him,” and why? “for He knoweth our frame; He remembereth that we are dust” (Ps. 103:14). He is mindful of our frailty, and tempers His winds accordingly; He is aware when our energies are spent, and graciously renews our strength. It was not God’s design that His servant should die of exhaustion in the wilderness after his long, long flight from Jezreel, so he mercifully refreshes his body with sleep. And thus compassionately does He deal with us.

Alas, how little are we affected by the Lord’s goodness and grace unto us. The unfailing recurrence of His mercies both temporally and spiritually inclines us to take them as a matter of course. So dull of understanding are we, so cold our hearts Godward, it is to be feared that most of the time we fail to realize WHOSE loving hand it is which is ministering to us. Is not this the very reason why we do not begin really to value our health until it is taken from us, and not until we spend night after night tossing upon a bed of pain do we perceive the worth of regular sleep with which we were formerly favored?

And such vile creatures are we that, when illness and insomnia come upon us, instead of improving the same by repenting of our former ingratitude, and humbly confessing the same to God, we murmur and complain at the hardness of our present lot and wonder what we have done to deserve such treatment. O let those of us who are still blessed with good health and regular sleep fail not daily to return thanks for such privileges and earnestly seek grace to use the strength from them to the glory of God.

[Quoted from A.W. Pink’s ‘Life of Elijah’]

Westminster Conference 2010 04

The opening paper on day 2 of this year's Westminster Conference was given by Sam Waldron on "The Uneasy Relationship of Repentance and Sola Fide in the Reformed Tradition"

He began provocatively by speaking of how he had noticed similarities between Calvin and Norman Shepherd, the successor to John Murray at Westminster Seminary, eventually dismissed from his post because of the division his views on salvation were causing. We were given an outline of the paper which I have reproduced here.

Introduction: Method of Treatment

I. Reactions to Legalism

A. Sofa Fide and Repentance in Calvin

See diagram above 

B. Faith and Then Repentance in the Marrow Men

1. The Marrow Controversy and the Marrow Men

2. The Distinctive View of Faith and Repentance of the Marrow Men

C. Faith and Then Repentance in the Sandemanians

II. Reactions to Easy-Believism

A. Repentance and Then Faith in R. L. Dabney, A. W. Pink, and D M Lloyd-Jones*

B. Repentance and Sola Fide in Norman Shepherd

III. Resolution: Repentant Faith and Believing Repentance

A. Historical Representation: Spurgeon, Ryle, Gerstner, and John Murray

B. Relational Considerations

1. Response to Calvin

2. Response to the Marrow Men

3. Response to the Sandemanians (and Easy-Believism)

4. Response to Dabney, Pink, and Lloyd-Jones

5. Response to Shepherd

*It was suggested in the discussion that Lloyd-Jones shifted on this one to putting faith first.

This was a very thorough, sometimes difficult, paper helping us to think this issue through. Perhaps John Murray spoke best when he said

 “Repentance is the twin sister of faith - we cannot think of the one without the other, and so repentance would be cojoined with faith.”

Catch the vision 1

With others I have been re-reading John J Murray's Catch the Vision recently. I am leading a discussion at the John Owen Centre on Moday June 8. These are the questions I have raised to help our study (part 2 to follow).

1. Losing the vision 1900-1950 (15-25)
Why the word vision? Is that the best choice? Does it need more explanation? (Cf p 144)
The rise of liberalism in the 19th Century Was the story of the 19th Century so very different to the 18th Century as far as downgrade in the churches is concerned?
The influence of liberalism in the universities and colleges Was the lack of conservative evangelicals teaching in the universities really a new thing?
Effect of liberalism in the churches JJM says that “the people in the pews did not apprehend the dangers”. Is it not more accurate to say that they were kept in ignorance? He says Reformers and Puritans were practically forgotten – why? Why (if so) was there more and more man-centredness?
Scarcity of evangelical literature Is the rise of C S Lewis and his writings genuinely significant in the recovery of the Reformed faith?
Resistance to liberalism Why was the story of resistance in the USA so different to the story here?Should the Welsh revival of 1904 (see p 153) have been mentioned in this first chapter? Are there other events or people who should have been mentioned?

2. Recovering the vision: the forerunners (27-44)
The year 1919 and the IVF In what way is what we read here of the Keswick men significant in the recovery of the Reformed faith?
E J Poole-Connor and contending for the faithfully What happened to others who heard both Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones? Is the founding of FIEC and BEC important in the history of recovering the Reformed faith?
A W Pink and Studies in the Scriptures Is it correct to see A W Pink as an early influence given that Search the Scriptures always had a very small circulation?
Jay Green and the Sovereign Grace Book Club Why has Jay Green and the SGU been forgotten? Does it matter?
Ernie Reisinger and Carlisle USA/W J Grier and the Evangelical bookshop, Belfast Was there anyone else who heard both Machen and Lloyd-Jones? What is the significance of the fact that something similar was happening both in Ireland and the USA?
Other influences Are there other things that should have been mentioned? (eg The Bible League Trust, Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony, the denominational revival fellowships, changes among SBs, area Bible rallies [though see p 71], etc) Should there be more about I C Herendeen and shouldn't he have been highlighted in his own right?

3. D Martyn Lloyd-Jones: the recovery of the vision I: Preparation of the man (47-56)
Are the statements on p 48 correct that God often raises up individuals to forward his work and that Lloyd-Jones was almost alone as 'a champion of true biblical faith' in the fifties?
Introduction to Calvinistic Methodism What can we do to keep the history of the Reformed faith alive? What does this section tell us about the power of Christian biography?
Discovering the English Puritans Is there such a thing as a call to the ministry that precedes conversion? Why would God do that? How is it that Baxter is so often the most prominent of the Puritans despite his unorthodoxies? What might have happened if Lloyd-Jones had studied for the ministry in Bala?
Discovering Edwards and Warfield What does the doctrine of providence have to teach us about books and when they are read? Was Lloyd-Jones' move to Westminster the 20th Century's 'most far-reaching and consequential development ... in the history of the evangelical cause in Britain'?
A link with A W Pink What do we make of Lloyd-Jones's experience? Did the word glory have to come from a book by Pink or would a copy of Tambourines to glory by Langston Hughes serve the purpose just as well? Is the experience really important in the recovery of the Reformed faith?

Sovereignty Responsibility 06

(Final post in this short series)
So the fact of human responsibility rests on our natural ability, is witnessed to by our consciences and is insisted on throughout the Bible. The ground of man’s responsibility is that he is a rational creature capable of weighing eternal issues and that he possesses a written Revelation from God, in which his relationship with and duty toward his Creator is plainly defined. We can add that the measure of responsibility is different for different individuals. Some have more light (increasing their guilt) and some have less. What we all need to do is to make the use of means and avoid a fatalistic inertia gripping us.

“The same God who has decreed that a certain end shall be accomplished, has also decreed that that end shall be attained through and as the result of His own appointed means. God does not disdain the use of means, nor must I.” (A W Pink, who I have relied on heavily for this message).

*

The example of Acts 27 is often cited. God made known that he was going to save everyone who was with Paul on the ship but Paul did not hesitate to say to the centurion and the soldiers at one point, Unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved.
Perhaps the best text to bring the subject into sharp relief, however, is Philippians 2:12, 13 and I want us to close with this. There Paul writes
Therefore, my dear friends (my beloved), as you have always obeyed - not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence - continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act (or do) according to his good purpose.
He is writing to the Philippians here and urging them to continued godly living. On the one hand, he stresses human responsibility very clearly telling the believers to continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Yet, when he comes to motivation it is all on the other side - for it is God who works in you to will and to act (or do) according to his good purpose.
When a minister wants to encourage believers to live the Christian life and be holy then he must stress their responsibility to do this. He will encourage them, if he can, by noting how they have been obedient in the past, but he will urge them to continue in the right direction and keep working out their salvation with diligence and hard work, making the most of the opportunities they have. He will want to call them to reverence and care not becoming lazy or presumptuous. He will want to keep them from complacency.
I want to stress that. I would say to every believer – are you working hard at being a Christian? Don't get complacent. Fear and tremble before God. Are you taking every opportunity to grow in grace? Are you at the meetings on the Lord's Day and in the week? Do your read the Bible at home? Are you prayerful? Do you endeavour to lead a holy life? What are you doing to let others know about the Saviour?
Yet, at the same time, a faithful preacher will want also to stress the sovereignty of God. He will want to remind every believer that it is God who works in you to will and to act (or do) according to his good purpose. His will is bound to prevail, however weak and wayward we may be.
Again I want to stress that too. Ah, believer, you are aware of many troubles and difficulties but don't forget that God is in control. He is working his purposes out in your life and though some things do not seem to make sense to you – do not be afraid. He is in control. His purpose will prevail.
I think there are at least three great dangers that often beset us as Christians and a right understanding of these doctrines and how they relate will help us to avoid them.
1. Laziness. We can grow lazy about serving God as believers and we can even misuse the doctrine of God's sovereignty to excuse ourselves. We must not make any excuses. Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. It is God's command.
2. If we are not lazy then we face two other obvious dangers. If we work hard and well we can begin to be proud. Whenever that danger comes we need to remind ourselves that it is God who works in you to will and to act (or do) according to his good purpose. Without him we can do nothing.
3. The other danger is the opposite one. When we see how little we have done we are tempted to despair. Once again the answer is to remember that it is God who works in you to will and to act (or do) according to his good purpose. Never forget (1:6) that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. We must still fight the good fight and serve him but he will make sure that we complete the task in him.

Amen

Sovereignty Responsibility 05

Four Questions (3, 4)
3. How can God decree that men should commit certain sins, hold them responsible for committing them, then judge them guilty for doing so?
Here we can think of the extreme case of Judas. It is clear from Scripture that God decreed from all eternity that Judas would betray Jesus. The prophecy about the 30 pieces of silver in Zechariah 11:12, for example, shows that. So the next question is, was Judas a responsible agent in fulfilling this decree of God? He was. Responsibility is to do mainly with the motive and intention of the one doing something. This is generally recognised. The law distinguishes between a blow inflicted by accident (without evil intent) and one delivered with malice aforethought. Think of Judas then. What did he design in his heart when he bargained with the priests? He was not conscious of fulfilling God's will. He did not know it. Yet that is what he did. His actual intention was only evil, and so, though God had decreed and directed his act, yet because of his own evil intention he is surely guilty. He himself says afterwards I have betrayed innocent blood.
Something similar can be said about the crucifixion. Again the Bible is clear that Jesus was handed over to his killers by God's set purpose and foreknowledge. The kings of the earth took their stand and the rulers gather(ed) together against the Lord and against his Anointed One. ... Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in Jerusalem to conspire against God's holy servant Jesus, whom he anointed. But as the early church confessed to God They only did what God's power and will had decided beforehand should happen (Acts 4:26-28). Yet at the same time the guilt of those who crucified the Saviour is not in doubt. You, says Peter to the citizens of Jerusalem, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
It is wrong to say then that because these things were pre-ordained by God that the perpetrators are not guilty. That is a false logic. God is never the author or approver of sin in the absolute sense. As Augustine long ago well put it “That men sin proceeds from themselves; that in sinning they perform this or that action, is from the power of God who divides the darkness according to his pleasure.” Proverbs 16:9 is similar In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.
4. How can the sinner be held responsible to receive Christ, and be damned for rejecting him, when God foreordained him to be condemned?

This question has really been answered but we can identify certain things that we need to keep in mind.
1. No-one in this life can know for certain that he is damned. Such things are hidden in God's secret will. Only his revealed will is known and that is that all men everywhere should repent and turn to Christ. All who do that will be saved.
2. It is the duty of every sinner to search the Scriptures which are able to make him wise to salvation (2 Timothy. 3:15). God blesses the use of means and those who will study God's Word and do what it says have good reason to hope that they will be saved.
3. But people come back and they say but isn't it still true that the non-elect are unable to repent and believe? The answer is yes, of course, but then no sinner has the power to come to Jesus of himself. We're all the same on that score. We not only cannot save ourselves but we do not want to be saved. Nevertheless God commands us to obey him.

This brings us to the question of why God demands from us what we can't do. With Pink, we answer, firstly, that God is not going to lower his standards just because of sin. God is perfect and so he sets perfect standards before us. Further, we are responsible to acknowledge before God our inability and to cry to him for help to find grace.
Pink uses the illustration of a slip on the ice. A man slips and breaks his hip. He is unable to rise but if he remains there he will freeze to death. What, then, should he do? If he's determined to be rescued he will cry out for help. In a similar way, the sinner, unable to get up himself and take the first step to Christ, is responsible to cry out to God for help - and if he does (from the heart), God will hear him. God is not far from any one of us (Acts 17:27). But if we refuse to cry to the Lord, then our blood will be on our own heads.

Sovereignty Responsibility 04

Four Questions (1, 2)
A W Pink helpfully boils the main question down to four subsidiary ones and this is the first
1. How can God bring his power to bear on people in such a way that they are either prevented from doing what they want to do or compelled to do what they don't want to do and yet still hold them responsible?
If God uses his power and exerts a direct influence on a person doesn't that interfere with their freedom? Pink takes us to 3 or 4 OT texts to look at the problem.
In Genesis 20:6 we are told that God spoke to the Philistine king Abimelech with whom Abraham had sought refuge. The King had been tempted to have Sarah for himself because of Abraham's lies. God says Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. Then in Numbers 22-24 we have the story of Balaam the prophet. He is clearly willing, indeed keen, to accept Balak’s offer of money for cursing Israel, a sin against God and his people. But, he says (22:38) I must speak only what God puts in my mouth. In 23:20 he says I have received a command to bless; he has blessed, and I cannot change it.
So how should we understand things in light of such verses? There is no question that both Abimelech and Balak were still responsible for their actions. God can clearly prevent people from doing things without reducing them to mindless robots. We ask, of course, why didn't he stop Adam sinning? And why didn't he stop Satan tempting Adam or falling in the first place? Such questions cannot properly be answered, however. There is a mystery at least at this point.
An obvious area where God sovereignly overruled and yet allowed freedom within that is the construction of the Holy Scriptures. We teach the children that the Scriptures were written by holy men (yes human beings doing as they intended but) as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. God sovereignly superintended the whole thing from beginning to end.
One of the problems here is a general failure to understand freedom properly. True freedom is not the power to do as you please but to live as you were intended to live. The illustration is often used of a railway engine – true freedom for an engine is found on the track not in a field. That's why it is true to say that the only man who ever lived a truly free life on earth was Jesus Christ, who always did his Father's will. Or think of it this way. Here is a horse in a large field. The owner has constructed a fence around the property on which the horse roams, but the fence can't always be seen because the property is so large. Now, the horse belongs to its owner and is "fenced in" (whether it realises or not!). At the same time, the horse has a great deal of freedom within those parameters. He can run freely from here to there. He can jump or play. He may also choose to attempt to jump over something, miscalculate its height and fall - even be injured. He may choose to wallow in a mud hole for a time. The owner may have granted the horse a great deal of freedom within the parameters of where he has placed the horse. But the horse is still fenced in - this was the owner's choice. All illustrations fail at some point but they can help us.
2. How can the sinner be held responsible for doing what he can't do anyway? And how can he be justly condemned for not doing what he can't do anyway?
As creatures we are all responsible to love God and obey and serve him. Sinners have a duty to repent and believe the gospel. However, sinners in and of themselves are unable to do these things. That is clear from John 6:44 where Jesus says No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
By nature our hearts are desperately wicked and left to ourselves we will never come to Christ. John 8:34 I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. First, by nature, we don't realise our danger, so we are unconcerned about our souls and about turning to Christ. By nature, we are unwilling too to admit that there is nothing we can do to save ourselves. Further, we will not trust in Christ but would prefer what is false and contrary to God. This is why Romans 8:7, 8 says that the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
But how can God hold a sinner responsible for failing to do what he is unable to do? To answer that we have to be quite clear about what we mean by "unable". It is not, as is sometimes claimed, that people want to come to Christ but are kept away. No, they don't want to come to Christ in the first place. Pink cites Genesis 37:4 where it says that Joseph's brothers hated him and could not speak a kind word to him. They could speak all right and they could have spoken kind words to Joseph but they were unwilling. It was their hatred that drove them.
This is the inability of man then – what makes him sin. He is separated from the life of God and full of darkness and sin. Why can't he come to Christ? Because his wicked heart loves sin and hates Christ. It is because people's hearts are calloused so that they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and Christ would heal them.
Though the sinner is morally or spiritually unable to come to Christ he is nevertheless responsible to do so. Our inability does not absolve us or mean we are not accountable to God. Rather it serves to increase our guilt. If I lose my temper and break something I can't excuse myself by saying "ah but I lost my temper". If I break a law because I'm drunk do you think the magistrate will let me off? He may well take it into account but it will not mean that I am not guilty.
Man's responsibility is clear from Scripture and our own consciences testify to it too. Pink uses an illustration at this point. He imagines a man who owes him $100. The man says he can't afford to pay back what he owes. However, he seems to find plenty of other things to spend his money on. So what's his problem? “I would say” says Pink “that the only ability that was lacking was an honest heart.” It would be unfair to take that to mean an honest heart is what is needed to be able to pay the debt. No; the ability of the debtor lies in his power to write a cheque and this he has. What is lacking is an honest principle. It is his ability to write a cheque that makes him responsible. The fact that he lacks an honest heart doesn't destroy his accountability.
People don't lack what we may call the natural ability to love God and serve him but they refuse to do so. For this they will have to give an account. We may have lost our power to do good but God hasn't lost his right to expect good from us. A drunken servant is still a servant and it is against all sound reason to suppose that his master loses his rights because of his servant’s failure.

Sovereignty Responsibility 02

Jim Packer is perhaps in danger of falling into this mystical way of thinking with his introduction of the word antimony (in Evangelism and the sovereignty of God). He defines "antinomy" as "an appearance of contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary" (18). It "is neither dispensable nor comprehensible ... It is unavoidable and insoluble. We do not invent it, and we cannot explain it" (21). God "orders and controls all things, human actions among them"...yet "He holds every man responsible for the choices he makes and the courses of action he pursues" (22). "To our finite minds this is inexplicable" (23). John Piper has criticised him for this language. It is not, in his judgement, “improper to probe into the very mind of God if done in the right spirit”. Pink agrees.

Certainly those who speak of the mystery involved have a point and we should not suppose that we can simply solve what is no doubt a mystery to some extent. However, it is right that we should prayerfully study the Scriptures and at least try to see how these two Bible doctrines fit together. There are difficulties it is true but we should seek to face them honestly and seek as much light from the Word as we can.

Perhaps Spurgeon gets the balance about right (in his autobiography) when he says, slightly poetically,

“That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory, but they are not. The fault is in our weak judgement. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that the converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, when all truth doth spring."

Sovereignty Responsibility 01

I want us to consider the subject of God's sovereignty and human responsibility. In his important book on The Sovereignty of God A W Pink wrote, when he came to his chapter on this, that “This is, admittedly, the most difficult branch of our subject. Those who have ever devoted much study to this theme have uniformly recognised that the harmonising of God’s Sovereignty with Man’s Responsibility is the Gordian knot of theology.”

Inadequate proposed solutions
In the face of the apparent problem professing Christians have reacted in different ways.
(1) Some have tried to tackle it by denying God's absolute sovereignty. This has become popular in certain circles in more recent times. They deny that God is all knowing and all powerful and they argue for a certain amount of openness in God. They draw attention to verses that speak of God changing his mind, repenting. But these verses rather speak of God in human terms in order to help us to understand that there is no coldness in God. He is not like some sort of machine. There is so much else in the Bible that opposes the idea of God being anything less than absolutely sovereign that we can't suppose it right to to lessen it. It will rather serve only to denigrate the glory of God.
(2) Then there are other, perhaps less thought through, professing Christians who so stress human responsibility that they are in danger of leaving no room for the sovereignty of God. For them it is all about what we do. Yes, the very fact that they usually have a place somewhere in their scheme for prayer means that they cannot entirely do away with the idea that God is in control to some extent but for all practical purposes, they feel, it is all down to us.
(3) Then at the other extreme to these we have those who so stress the sovereignty of God that there is really very little room in their system for human responsibility. A fatalistic streak binds them so that they have no real place for human effort at all. They end up performing all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to explain themselves.
(4) Still others acknowledge that the Bible certainly does teach both the sovereignty of God and human responsibility but, they say, as to how it they fit together it is simply a mystery, one that we cannot penetrate and so there is little point in our even considering the subject. They would advise us to give up our question now.

Unfair slur 01

I am currently reading a book by Tim Keller. In a remark that has nothing to do with his main thesis Keller says he has often preached on Joseph. He calls him "an arrogant young man who was hated by his brothers". I know this is a common view (the majority view?) but I have also preached on Joseph and I beg to differ. Naive, yes; arrogant, no. Certainly Moses never says that Joseph was arrogant and we should be slow to assume he was.

A quick look reveals that certainly R T Kendall and Achille Blaize don't take this view. Blaize says "We have no evidence to show that Joseph was either cocky, proud or too sure of himself". Kendall: "It was not that he was arrogant or cocky; it was simply that he knew something of the ways of God and had no fear whatsoever of being contradicted". Also see on my side J G Vos, the NET Bible (in a footnote on page 86) and A W Pink.