Guided Reading Course

There is a higher throne - 8 June 2011

We’re continuing our study of eschatology in session 52 of the Guided Reading Course with an essay by David Field entitled “Samuel Rutherford and the Confessionally Christian State,” which appears in A Higher Throne (ed. Chris Green; Nottingham: IVP, 2008). David’s essay evaluates the arguments for and against a “Confessionally Christian State,” that is, a state which explicitly and deliberately attempts to base its constitution and statutes upon the declaration that Jesus is Lord. It draws upon the Reformed tradition as exemplified in Samuel Rutherford’s Lex, Rex, and considers the various alternative proposals found among both secularists and Christians.

A version of the essay is available online here, though page references in the questions below relate to the published version.

Before you begin, consider the following question: Would you like to live in a theocracy?

1. In what two ways is “evangelical defeatism” a “failure of … perspective” (pp. 85-86)? What are the consequences of this failure (pp. 86-87)? How would Samuel Rutherford react (p. 87)?

2. How would Samuel Rutherford respond to the claim that “belief in a confessional state produces, or at least tends to, a fundamental intolerance” (p. 89)?

3. What are “the main lines of Rutherford’s argument” (p. 90) in Lex, Rex?

4. How could “those who want a confessionally Christian state … be identified” (p. 90)?

For reflection: Would you want a constitution like this?

5. Explain how the “three questions” which “may be asked about the relationship between the lordship of Jesus and the kings of the earth” (p. 93) enable us to distinguish (a) Christians from non-Christians; and (b) Christians who support the confessionally Christian state from those who oppose it.

6. Consider in turn each of the “sixteen objections to a confessionally Christian state” (p. 94). In each case, please be ready (a) to explain how the objection might be expanded or strengthened (for example, with specific biblical texts or further theological arguments); and (b) to explain and defend your view of each objection.

7. Can you explain how the argument for “no favoured confession” actually leads either to arbitrariness or tyranny (pp. 108-111)?

8. What is wrong with so-called “principled pluralism” (pp. 112-114)?

9. Why is “natural law” important for principled pluralists (p. 114)? What are the “three versions of the natural law argument” (pp. 114-115)?

10. How does David respond to these natural law arguments (pp. 115-115)? Do you agree?

11. What do you make of the overall thrust of David’s argument in this essay?

A tangled web - 2 June 2011

We remain on the doctrine of sin and its effects in week 15 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, as we consider the effects of sin on the human will. After a brief detour into John Murray’s Imputation of Adam’s Sin, we’re back with Calvin’s Institutes, II.ii (1:255-289). Murray led us through a consideration of the imputation of Adam’s sin, guilt and corrupt nature to his posterity; Calvin now explores the effect of this inherited corruption on our capacity for good and evil.

Alongside this, we’ll return to Peter Leithart’s article, “Natural Law: A Reformed Critique,” which we glanced briefly at a few months ago, since it covers some important related material.

If you’re pressed for time, skip fairly quickly over sections 2-9 of Calvin, and omit the questions marked with a *.

John Calvin, Institutes, II.ii (1:255-289)

For reflection: Before you begin reading, consider this question: Can unbelievers do good? If so, how, and in what sense(s)? What relevant examples can you think of?

1. What question does Calvin set out “to investigate more closely” (II.ii.1)?

2. What are “the perils that threaten man on both sides” (II.ii.1)? How does Calvin urge us to avoid them?

In sections 2 to 9 Calvin expounds the views of various philosophers and theologians on the subject of the human will. He discusses “the philosophers” such as Cicero, Plato and Aristotle (2-3); the church fathers (4); Lombard (5-7); Augustine (8); before summarising his view of them in section 9.

*3. What do “the philosophers” believe about human capacity for good and evil (II.ii.2-3)?

*4. What does Calvin think about the doctrine of the freedom of the will espoused by the Church Fathers (II.ii.4)?

*5. Lombard declares at the end of II.ii.6 that “we have free will, not in that we are equally capable of doing or thinking good and evil, but merely that we are freed from compulsion.” What does Calvin think of this statement (II.ii.7)? Do you share Calvin’s reservation here?

After a brief introduction to this part of the chapter at the start of II.ii.12, Calvin discusses in turn the effect of the fall on man’s “understanding” (sections 12-17) and spiritual discernment” (sections 18-21).

6. What effect, according to Calvin, has the fall had on humanity’s “natural gifts” and “supernatural gifts” (II.ii.12)? Do you agree with this distinction? What effect did the fall have on the will (II.ii.12)?

7. How does Calvin account for the competence of unbelievers in fields such as art and science (II.ii.14-16)? Do you agree? You might find it helpful to look also at section II.iii.3.

8. What does Calvin believe fallen human reason is able (and unable) to discern concerning what he calls “God’s Kingdom” and “spiritual insight” (II.ii.18-25)? Do you agree?

*9. How does Calvin interpret Romans 2:14-15: “When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do the works of the law, they are a law to themselves … and show that the work of the law is written on their hearts” (II.ii.22)? Do you agree with this interpretation?

Peter J. Leithart, “Natural Law: A Reformed critique”

10. What is “natural law” (pp. 3-4)? Why, according to Myers, might it be a useful concept (p. 4-5)?

11. What are your initial reactions to Leithart’s “denials and affirmations” (pp. 6-7)?

12. What biblical texts might be adduced to support natural law theory (pp. 14ff.)? What do you make of Leithart’s exegesis of them?

13. “Recent advocates” (p. 19) of natural law theory have, in Leithart’s view, simultaneously claimed too much and too little (pp. 19-20). What, precisely, is his argument here? Do you agree?

Everything lasts - 1 June 2011

Eschatology is much more than merely the study of “the last things”. It includes this, of course, and indeed much of our discussion under this heading has focused around events that still lie in the future. Yet notwithstanding its etymology (eschatos means “last” in Greek), eschatology is properly speaking the study of the Christian philosophy of history. It includes not merely the study of things that haven’t yet happened, but also the study of what God is doing in the whole of history – past, present and future – and how all of this should influence how we live today.

We’re continuing our study of eschatology in the next two sessions of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course by looking at two articles by David Field, who has taught eschatology for many years and knows a thing or two about the subject. The first is entitled “Not the Least Lash Lost,” and addresses the question, “Does everything we do have eternal significance?” David’s essay is freely available online here. It’s a cracker.

If you’re pushed for time, omit the questions marked with a *.

1. What, according to Field, do “some evangelical Christians appear to believe” (p. 1)? Why? How does Field summarise his response (p. 1)?

2. “The topic under consideration is a version of the continuity-discontinuity question” (p. 5). What does Field mean by this?

3. Field describes the “all that really counts is evangelism” position (as represented by the quotations on p. 6) as “confused, unworkable, and potentially humanistic” (p. 6). Why? Do you agree?

4. “Somewhere in the background of these quotations lies a unduly narrow reading of the Great Commission” (p. 8). Explain.

5. What is “the challenge which Reformed Christians often need to hear” (p. 9)?

On p. 11, Field poses the question to be addressed in the essay: “Does everything we do have eternal significance?” On pp. 13-44, Field outlines a series of six arguments which together incline him to answer, “Yes”.

6. Summarise Field’s first argument (pp. 13-17), paying particular attention to:

Jesus’ resurrection as the pattern for our resurrection;
the quotation from Robert Jenson (p. 14);
the (biblical?) illustration of the seed (p. 16).

7. Summarise Field’s second argument (pp. 17-22).

8. “In order to describe as fully as possible the Lamb who was slain, you will end up saying absolutely everything about absolutely everything which has ever happened” (pp. 18-19). Do you agree?

*9. What is the “particular difficulty” (p. 20)? How does Field resolve it?

10. Summarise Field’s third argument (pp. 22-28), paying particular attention to:

the church as the body of Christ (p. 23);
the “new creation deeds” argument (p. 24);
the Ecclesiastes / 1 Corinthians argument (pp. 24-25).

11. Summarise Field’s fourth argument (pp. 28-35), paying attention to each of the four parts of the argument in turn:

judgment, rewards, and differentiation (pp. 28-29);
identity and fullness (pp. 29-31);
our identity as “glorified agglomerations” (pp. 31-32);
“the associations and appearances which make up the fullness of our identity” (pp. 32-35).

12. Summarise Field’s fifth argument (pp. 35-38), paying attention to:

the quotation from Herman Bavinck (p. 35);
the analogy of the audition or rehearsal (p. 37)

*13. Summarise Field’s sixth argument (pp. 38-43), paying attention to Field’s claim that “the Father doesn’t know the Son according to his human nature apart from the body of Christ” (p. 39).

14. How persuasive do you find each of Field’s arguments?

Trinitarian conundrums - 27 May 2011

A couple of questions on the Trinity from a student on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. Is this statement true: “The persons of the Trinity are so distinct from one another that they can relate one to another. Yet they are so united that it is impossible for them to separate from one another.”

Yes. Indeed, it is precisely the relationships between the persons of the Trinity that distinguish them one from another (first part of the quotation). In relation to the second part of the quotation, it’s perhaps helpful to recall that the thing the three persons are united in, which makes them inseparable, is the divine nature itself. (Remember, the “divine nature” is just a way of talking about God.) Since you can’t chop the divine nature into parts (remember the doctrine of divine simplicity), it follows that the persons are inseparable.

2. Is it right or is there a sense in which it is true to say that the Holy Spirit is Lord or Jehovah?

There are a few things to say here.

First, and most obviously, there must be a sense in which it is possible to say that “the Holy Spirit is Lord,” because 2 Corinthians 3:17 says “the Lord is the Spirit.”

Secondly, it’s helpful to ask the further question, In precisely what sense is it true to say “the Lord is the Spirit”? What does Paul mean in 2 Corinthians 3:17? In particular, what does “Lord” mean here?

It seems to me unlikely that Paul means “the Lord Jesus is the Spirit,” in such a way that he is identifying the second and third persons of the Trinity. This would be an odd thing to say, and quite unparelleled elsewhere in Scripture. Moreover, it doesn’t fit the context. In the previous verses, Paul is reflecting on Moses’ encounter with the LORD, Yahweh, the God of Israel in Exodus 34. This text says that when Moses went in to speak with the LORD, his veil was removed (Exodus 34:34). Paul pick up this theme in 2 Corinthians 3:16, and says that “when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.” It seems likely therefore that the “Lord” of 2 Corinthians 3:17 is Yahweh, “the LORD,” the Triune God who is revealed throughout Scripture.

This makes sense of the statement, “the Lord is the Spirit,” because as we mentioned above the Spirit, like the Father and the Son, fully possesses the divine nature. The Holy Spirit is God, so we can legitimately say that in this sense the Lord (God) is the Spirit.

One final caveat: I don’t think “Jehovah” is a good name to use for the God of the Bible. I know it’s found in some Bibles, including some that tend to be regarded very highly by many Christians. But it’s a mixture of the consonants from one word (YHWH, the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3) with the vowels from another (Adonai, meaning “Lord”). These vowels were added as a reminder to readers of the Hebrew Scriptures that they shouldn’t try to pronounce the divine name YHWH; they should just say “Adonai” instead. No one who read the Hebrew Scriptures would ever have actually tried to say “Jehovah” at all – indeed, it would have been impossible to do so, for the combination of vowels and consonants breaks the rules of Hebrew word construction.

Jesus wins - 26 May 2011

We continue our study of eschatology in session 50 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course by turning to the doctrine of the millennium. Since we looked at various forms of premillennialism earlier in the course when we looked at O. Palmer Robertson’s Christ of the Covenants, we’ll focus our attention now on the two other major millennial views found among evangelicals: postmillennialism and amillennialism.

We’ll be reading Kenneth L. Gentry’s article chapter entitled “Postmillennialism,” in Darrell L. Bock (ed.), Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), followed by Robert B. Strimple’s “Amillennial Response” in the same volume.

Gentry’s article is refreshingly easy to read. The start of each major section contains a brief summary of the progress of the argument and the place of that section within it. Strimple’s article is fairly short, but outlines some important responses to Gentry and also some important arguments in favour of amillennialism.

Gentry, “Postmillennialism,”

1. “Eschatology’s considerable task is” … what (p. 13)?

For reflection: Why is it inadequate (despite the etymology of the term eschatos, meaning “last”) to think of eschatology as “the doctrine of the last things”?

2. What are the important elements in Gentry’s definition of postmillennialism that distinguish it from other millennial views(pp. 13-14)?

For reflection: how might Gentry respond to the criticism that postmillennialism replaces the proclamation of the gospel with social and political endeavours to extend the Kingdom of God?

3. What do you think of the material from the early church cited by Gentry on pp. 14-16?

4. Do you think it is legitimate, given the evidence Gentry cites, to describe Calvin as “an incipient postmillennialist” (p. 17)?

5. What additional element, not mentioned in Gentry’s definition (question 2), was a common feature of “the Puritan form of postmillennialism” (p. 18)?

For reflection: what biblical evidence might be cited in support of this additional element? Do you have a view on this subject? If so, what?

6. What is “theonomic postmillennialism” (p. 19)? How is it related to what Gentry calls “generic” postmillennialism (p. 18)?

For reflection: why do you think many theonomic postmillennialists tend also to be preterists? Do you think it would be possible to be a postmillennialist without also being a preterist on those passages that speak of an imminent coming of Christ?

7. How, according to Gentry, do each of the following covenants support postmillennialism (pp. 25-31)? How persuasive do you find Gentry’s argument in this section? Why?

the creation covenant
the Edenic covenant
the Abrahamic covenant
the new covenant

8. Summarise in your own words Gentry’s exegetical argument for postmillennialism from Psalm 2 (pp. 33-36).

9. How, according to Gentry, do the parables of the sower, the weeds, the hidden treasure, the mustard seed and the yeast support postmillennialism (pp. 39-41)?

10. How, according to Gentry, do the following passages support postmillennialism (pp. 41-50)?

John 12:31-32
Matthew 28:18-20
1 Corinthians 15:20-28

11. How important does Gentry believe Revelation 20 is in the discussion of the millennium (pp. 50-55)? Do you agree?

Strimple, “Amillennial Response”

12. Strimple claims that the New Testament “presents a different picture of the character of this age” (p. 60) from that described by Gentry. How does Strimple believe the biblical description differs from that offered by Gentry (pp. 60-61)?

For reflection: what biblical passages would enable you to adjudicate between Strimple and Gentry one this issue?

13. “When the apostle Paul thinks of this present time, he thinks of sufferings as its characteristic mark” (p. 63, italics original). Is this a cogent argument against postmillennialism?

14. “When the New Testament locates the church in the history of redemption, the paradigm to which it points is not the Canaan occupation but the desert experience (Heb. 3:7-19)” (p. 63, italics original). Is this a cogent argument against postmillennialism?

15. Strimple quotes Cornelius Venema’s view that “Postmillennialism alters the focus of the believer’s hope for the future” from that set out in the New Testament (p. 66). Do you agree?

16. “The New Testament permits no ‘date-setting’ with regard to Christ’s second coming … even in the broad general terms demanded by postmillenialism” (p. 66). Is this a cogent argument against postmillennialism?

Rotten branches - 17 May 2011

In the last set of questions we began our consideration of the doctrine of original sin. We’re continuing on this topic, turning to the relevant chapter in Calvin’s Institutes (II.i; 1:241-255). This is quite a short chapter, and it will work well to combine it with our discussion of John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, chs 1-2 in the next tutorial.

Here’s a nice (though that’s not really the right word) illustration of Calvin’s take on the matter:

“There is nothing absurd in supposing that, when Adam was despoiled, human nature was left naked and destitute … rotten branches came forth from a rotten root, which transmitted their rottenness to the other twigs sprouting forther from them.” (Calvin, Institutes, II.i.7; 1:250)

1. Calvin says we may “divide the knowledge that man ought to have of himself” into two parts (II.i.3). What are these two parts? What are the goals of these two aspects of self-knowledge?

Section 4 is a description of the sin of Adam.

2. Why, in Calvin’s view, was Adam “denied the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (II.i.4)? What do you make of Calvin’s description of Adam’s sin in the second half of II.i.4?

3. What does Calvin think is meant by the phrase “original sin” (II.i.5, 6, 8)? How does his view differ from other Reformed position outlined by John Murray in The Imputation of Adam’s Sin? Having read Murray, do you think he represents Calvin accurately?

4. What are the “two things” that Calvin is at pains to clarify in the second part of II.i.8?

5. How much does Calvin say about the mode of transmission of sin from one generation to the next (II.i.7)? Do you find his explanation satisfactory?

6. How does Calvin respond to the objection that God has created us sinful (II.i.10-11)? In what sense is our sinful nature “natural” (II.i.11)?

All have sinned - 16 May 2011

We began the doctrine of creation last week by considering the creation of man. In session 12 we move on, following the biblical logic, to consider the fall of man and the doctrine of original sin. We’ll be looking at John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin.

A couple of portions of Murray’s book are rather complex, so I’ve provided some explanation to help you find your way through them. There are also some questions on these sections, which I encourage you to have a crack at if you’re able to.

Murray’s book has been re-printed as the appendix to Justified in Christ, ed. K. Scott Oliphint (Fearn: Christian Focus, 2007), with different pagination from the original. However, the section markers and chapter headings remain intact, so we’ll use them (rather than the page numbers) to guide us through the questions.

At some point in the next two weeks, please also read Calvin, Institutes, II.i. This is quite a short section, and is quite easy to get through, especially once you’ve had the orientation from Murray.

If you’re pressed for time, omit the questions marked with a *.

Chapter 1 (introduction; sections I and II)

1. What “ancient conception” underlies Paul’s argument in Romans 5?

For reflection: How prevalent do you think this “ancient conception” is in modern thought?

2. What biblical data does the first part of Murray’s argument address? What does he regard as “the crux of the question”?

Before you go any further, please spend a few minutes reading the relevant passage of Scripture at least twice through. Unless you have it memorised (actually, that’s not a bad idea…) you’re really wasting your time from this point on if you’ve not read the biblical text that Murray’s going to be talking about.

In the rest of chapter 1 (section II), Murray outlines and critiques four views of the crucial clause “in that all sinned” in Romans 5:12: (1) the Pelagian view; (2) the Roman Catholic view; (3) Calvin’s interpretation; and (4) the Classical Protestant interpretation. (Note the helpful numbering in the subsections.)

[Notice in passing that this is an example of significant variation within the Reformed tradition on an important theological issue. The Reformed tradition is far from uniform.]

3. What is the Pelagian view? What is wrong with it? Which of Murray’s counter-arguments do you find most compelling?

4. According to the Council of Trent, what do Roman Catholics believe is transmitted to Adam’s descendants? What is not transmitted? What is wrong with this view? (NB “Concupiscence” means “sinful desire”.)

5. What biblical evidence could be adduced to support or disprove the Roman Catholic view that concupiscence is “not itself truly and properly sin”?

6. In what respect(s) does Calvin’s view differ from that of Rome? How does his view differ?

7. According to Murray, what three “considerations” of Paul’s argument are accounted for in “the Classical Protestant Interpretation”? Do you agree with Murray’s exegetical reasoning here?

8. What, according to Murray, is “the only solution” that can make sense of these exegetical considerations?

Chapter 2 (section III)

Having reached the conclusion at the end of chapter 1 that “there must be some kind of solidarity existing between the ‘one’ [Adam] and the ‘all’ [Adam’s descendants],” Murray proceeds in chapter 2 to consider the nature of this solidarity. He discusses the two options in turn: (1) The Realistic view; and (2) the Representative view. (Note again the helpful numbering in the subsections.)

Let’s begin with the Realist view.

9. How does Murray summarise the “Realistic” view of the imputation of Adam’s sin? What do you think of this position?

The next few pages are a bit complicated. Let me give you a helping hand.

Murray clarifies that representation does not deny the realist view that “Adam is the natural head as well as the representative head of the race”; they simply insist that this natural union alone is insufficient to account for the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity. Moreover, representation agrees with realism that “the human nature which became corrupt in Adam is propagate to the members of the race”; they simply disagree that this human nature is “an entity that is specifically and numerically one.”

OK – can you feel a dull headache coming on? Don’t worry. The purpose of clarifying this is to identify the different between the realistic and representative positions more precisely. Here goes:

Realists believe that there was in Adam a “thing” that was corrupted when he sinned, and this thing is “human nature,” and this human nature is transmitted to all Adam’s descendants, and this transmission gives rise to the unity between Adam and his posterity which is the sole explanation for the imputation of Adam’s sin.

Representationists (Federalists would be a better term) believe that the unity between Adam and his posterity (which is the sole explanation for the imputation of Adam’s sin) is constituted in another way, namely by a divine decree according to which Adam is established as a “representative” head of the whole human race.

Now, if you’re up for it, have a crack at the next question:

*10. What does Murray call “the crux of the question” in the debate bewteen realism and representationalism?

Murray then briefly discusses Calvin’s view (Calvin’s emphasis on the transmission of a corrupt nature does not imply that he was a realist) and Augustine’s view (it’s not certain that he was a realist either). If you have time, look at the following two questions. If not, leave them.

*11. How would Murray respond if a realist claimed support from Calvin?

*12. What support could a realist claim from Augustine?

13. What objection does Shedd raise against the “Representative” view?

14. What four problems with realism does Murray identify? Are you convinced?

Murray turns now to the second major subsection in the chapter: an explanation and defence of the Representative view.

15. What aspects of the realist view does the representative view not deny?

16. What biblical data, which cannot be accounted for by realism, is the representative view able to explain?

17. What conclusion does Murray draw at the end of chapter 2?

That’s just human nature - 6 May 2011

So far in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’ve covered some introductory material, the doctrine of revelation and the doctrine of God. We’re moving on in session 11 to the next major topic: the doctrine of creation.

We begin with the creation of man. First, we’ll be looking (with the help of Gordon J. Wenham’s commentary on Genesis) at what Genesis 1 means when it says man was created “in the image of God.” Second, we’ll be continuing to work through Calvin’s Institutes, turning to I.xv (1:183-196), the discussion of “Human Nature as Created.” Finally, we’ll be looking at the chapter on “Human Nature” in the second volume of Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (chapter 12).

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, pp. 29-32

1. What meanings have been suggested for “image” and “likeness” in Genesis 1:26-27? What do you think of the various options?

John Calvin, Institutes, I.xv (1:183-196)

2. “This knowledge of ourselves is twofold” (I.xv.1). What does Calvin mean by this? How does Calvin explain what he is setting out to do in this chapter?

3. What does Calvin think “the soul” is (I.xv.2)? What reasons does he give for his view (I.xv.2)? What do you think?

4. What does Calvin think is meant by “image” and “likeness” in Genesis 1:26-27 (I.xv.3)?

5. How is the image of God in man most clearly seen (I.xv.4)?

6. What is “the delusion of the Manichees” concerning the soul (I.xv.5)? Can you think of any biblical text that might at first glace seem to support the Manichees’s view? (Note that Calvin does not address this directly.) What is wrong with the Manichean view?

7. According to Calvin, what “faculties” (i.e. capacities) does the soul possess (I.xv.6-7)?

8. What kind of freedom does Calvin believe Adam had before the fall?

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 2, ch 12 (pp. 530-562)

9. What does Scripture say about man’s created nature, and where does it say it (pp. 531-533)?

10. What arguments does Bavinck adduce against the theory of naturalistic evolution (pp. 536-539)?

11. What are the key features of “Roman Catholic Supernaturalism” (pp. 539-542)? What are its shortcomings (pp. 542-548)?

12. Why did the Reformers reject the Roman Catholic view of the divine image? What alternative(s) did they propose (pp. 548-554)?

13. In what five ways does Bavinck flesh out his conviction that “the whole person is the image of God” (p. 555; cf. pp. 556-562)?

God’s terrible justice - 2 May 2011

Our study of eschatology continues in session 49 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course with the subject of hell. We’re focusing on the thought of Jonathan Edwards, but this time via John Gerstner’s summary of Edwards’s teaching on the subject in his book, Jonathan Edwards on Heaven and Hell.

As discussed in the previous session, we’ll retain Edwards’s use of the word “heaven,” even though it is not the best term to summarise the future hope of the righteous, since Edwards himself evidently does not fall prey to the modern misunderstandings associated with the term.

Gerstner’s article is helpfully divided into short sections, which are reflected in the headings below. Page numbers refer to the document supplied to students formally enrolled on the Guided Reading Course.

The Nature of Hell

1. How does Gerstner describe Edwards’s “overall view of hell” (p. 1)? How do you react to this description?

2. What is the image that Gerstner calls “a common and most apt biblical representation of future punishment” (p. 1)? Is this image “spiritual or material” (p. 1)? What does this image imply (p. 1)?

3. What is “the reason the great furnace is material and spiritual” (p. 2)? What implications follow from this (p. 2)?

4. “All the interesting people will be in hell” (p. 3, paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw). How would Edwards reply (p. 3)?

5. Who inflicts the torture of hell (p. 3)?

The Locality of Hell

6. Where do the damned go after death until judgment day? Where do they go after judgment day?

For reflection: How do you think the New Creation could be perfectly good if hell is also present there? (Note: Gerstner doesn’t address this question specifically.)

The Degrees of Torment

7. Does Edwards believe there will be “degrees of torment” in hell (p. 4)? Do you agree? What biblical texts would you cite to support your view?

8. What factors in this life intensify the torment of hell (pp. 4-6)?

Growth in Misery

9. What reasons does Edwards give for believing that sinners in hell “[grow] in misery” (pp. 6-7)?

Hell Beholding This World

10. Why does Edwards believe that “wicked men will remember how things were with them in this world” (pp. 7-8)? What will be the effect of the particular things the wicked remember?

Hell Beholding Heaven

11. “The Scriptures seem to speak as though the world of misery would be in the sight of the world of happiness” (p. 8). Do you agree?

The Eternality of Hell

12. Why does Edwards reject “annihilation” (the doctrine that the damned eventually cease to exist, pp. 10-11)? What do you think of his arguments?

The Rationale of Hell

This section is rather longer than the others, and the logic is a little harder to follow. Here’s a rough outline to help you.

The section begins with a discussion of “the rationale of hell” – that is, how the infinite, eternal punishment of hell can be morally justified (p. 12 to the middle of p. 13). Gerstner then proceeds with an outline of Edwards’s sermon on Romans 3:19, which discusses the subject of hell in some detail (middle of p. 13 to the middle of p. 14). This leads to a more general discussion of Edwards’s preaching about hell (middle of p. 14 to p. 16).

13. How many distinct arguments in support of the existence of hell can you identify on pp. 12-13?

14. “I think it is a reasonable thing to endeavour to fright[en] persons away from hell” (p. 16). Do you agree?

The Objections to Hell

Here Gerstner draws together Edwards’s responses to three major objections against the doctrine of hell: (1) “How could God create men destined for endless suffering?” (p. 16); (2) “Does not the extremity of an infinite punishment for finite sinners not violate the elemental principles of justice?” (p. 17); and (3) “How can hell consist with the merciful nature of God?” (p. 17).

15. What do you think of Edwards’s responses to these objections? Would you want to add anything to what he says?

Conclusion

16. Gerstner claims that A. H. Strong’s view is “the doctrine of hell with hell left out” (p. 19). Do you agree?

Word, Breath, Breather - 27 April 2011

We’re continuing our study of the doctrine if the Trinity in session 10 of the Guided Reading Course, looking this week at some of the early portions of Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, ch. 6. We’re building on the material from Berkhof and Calvin in the previous session, exploring in more detail some of the exegetical basis (especially from the Old Testament), historical background, and theological and philosophical nuances of this doctrine.

You almost certainly won’t have time to study the whole chapter in detail, so don’t try to. Indeed, I’ve not even set any questions on the second half of the chapter, so although this section is worth reading, don’t worry if you don’t make it that far in the time available. As always, let the questions be your guide as to where your attention should be directed. The questions focus on pp. 261-264, 280-290 and 298-299.

If you’re pressed for time, miss out the questions marked with a *.

The first two questions are about the exegetical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament.

1. Where in the OT does Bavinck find “seeds” of trinitarian doctrine (pp. 261-264)? What do you think of this exegesis? You might find it helpful to consider the following elements in particular:

the plural form of the name “Elohim” (p. 261);
God’s works of creation and providence by his Word and his Spirit (pp. 261-262);
the texts mentioned on p. 264 that indicate “self-differentiation in the divine being.” (These texts are included for your convenience at the end of these questions, but don’t forget to check the context where appropriate).

2. How does Bavinck explain the OT appearances of “the angel of the LORD” (pp. 262-263)? How does his view differ from that of the early Fathers (Justin Martyr, Theophilus etc., p. 262), Augustine (p. 262), and Luther and Calvin (p. 263)? What is wrong with the view of Justin Martyr, Theophilus, etc?

Pages 264-279 discuss trinitarian ideas found in intertestamental Judaism (which isn’t very relevant to our study) and the exegetical basis of the doctrine in the New Testament (which is highly relevant but probably quite familiar to you). Don’t worry too much about this material at this stage.

The next four questions are about the historical development of trinitarian doctrine in the early centuries of the church, beginning with the early church Fathers (question 3), through the contributions of Nicea (question 4), Athanasius (question 5) and Augustine (question 6).

3. What distinctive contributions to the elucidation and development of trinitarian doctrine were made by the Apostolic Fathers (p. 280), Justin Martyr (pp. 280-283), Irenaeus (p. 283), Tertullian (pp. 283-284) and Origen (p. 284-285). In each case, try to identify why they got right, and where they went wrong.

4. What decisions were made at Nicaea about previous trinitarian reflection (p. 285)?

5. How does Athanasius articulate the distinctions between the divine persons without denying their deity (pp. 285-286)? How does his understanding of the divine attributes help him to articulate the relationships between the divine persons?

6. What does Augustine gain by taking as his “starting point” the “one, simple, uncompounded essence of God” (p. 287)? Does this lead to a denigration of personal distinctions within the Godhead? Why or why not?

The next question is about Arianism and Sabellianism, two of the most significant trinitarian heresies.

7. What are the distinctive features of Arianism (p. 289) and Sabellianism (p. 290)? Do any of the tenets of Arianism sound familiar? (You might want to read through pp. 291-296 too, but don’t get bogged down here.)

Pages 296-298 contain a useful, but rather daunting, discussion of the theological vocabulary that came into use during the development of trinitarian theology. It’s worth looking at this, but, once again, don’t get bogged down if you find it complicated. The purpose of this section is to set the stage for what follows, which we consider in question 8.

On p. 298, Bavinck moves on from these questions of vocabulary to identify the three crucial questions that lie at the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity.

8. “For a true understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity three questions must be answered” (p. 298)? What are these questions (pp. 298-299)?

*9. What problems arise if we seek an analogy for the distinction between “nature” and “person” in the life of creatures (p. 299)? How does orthodox trinitarianism avoid these problems (p. 300)?

*10. What challenge is presented to orthodox trinitarianism by the concept of “personality” found in “modern philosophy” (pp. 301-302)? How does a right understanding of the divine “persons” correct this error (p. 302)?

The next section addresses the distinctions between the divine persons and the particular personal properties of each of the persons (pp. 304-314). Like the rest of the chapter, this is well worth reading, but you probably won’t have time to do so at this stage, and we won’t have time to discuss it in the tutorial.

Biblical texts mentioned in question 1, discussed by Bavinck on p. 264.

Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.

Psalm 45:7 Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions

Psalm 110:1 The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Hosea 1:6-7 And the LORD said to him, “Call her name No Mercy, for I will no more have mercy on the house of Israel, to forgive them at all. ⁷ But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the LORD their God. I will not save them by bow or by sword or by war or by horses or by horsemen.”

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor

Isaiah 63:9-12 ⁹In all their affliction he was afflicted,and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. ¹⁰But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them. ¹¹Then he remembered the days of old, of Moses and his people. Where is he who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is he who put in the midst of them his Holy Spirit, ¹²who caused his glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses, who divided the waters before them to make for himself an everlasting name

Haggai 2:4-7 Work, for I am with you, declares the LORD of hosts, ⁵according to the covenant that I made with you when you came out of Egypt. My Spirit remains in your midst. Fear not. ⁶For thus says the LORD of hosts: Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land. ⁷And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory, says the LORD of hosts.

These three are one - 7 April 2011

We’re continuing with the doctrine of God in session 9 of the Guided Reading Course, turning now to the doctrine of the Trinity. I’ve set a short section from Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (pp. 87-89) as an introduction to some of the key concepts. Calvin’s Institutes, I.xiii (1:120-159) forms the main body of the reading.

Please don’t worry about reading the whole of the chapter on the Trinity in Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. Just look at the pages identified in the questions below. Then get stuck into Calvin.

This chapter of Calvin is quite long, but for our purposes some portions are significantly more important than others. I suggest you focus particularly on section 6 and sections 16-20. Sections 21-23 are also worth a good look (see questions 11 to 13). The other sections are still well worth reading, of course, but given the constraints of time the above-noted sections are probably the best places to focus your attention. As before, let the notes and questions below help you.

Here’s an outline of the chapter to help you find you way around:

Sections 1-2: Introductory material and brief discussion of Hebrews 1:3

Sections 3-5: Defence of the use of extra-biblical words.

Section 6: Definition of important words.

Sections 7-13: Proofs for the deity of the Son.

Sections 14-15: Proofs for the deity of the Sprit.

Sections 16-20: Discussion of the unity of the persons of the Trinity (section 16) and the distinctions between them (sections 17-19), with a concluding summary (section 20).

Sections 21-29: Refutation of trinitarian heresies.

If you’re pressed for time in answering the questions (and this week I’ll be surprised if you’re not!), skip the questions marked with a *.

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 87-89

1. What, according to Berkhof, do the persons of the Trinity have in common (p. 87-88)? How are they distinguished (p. 87-89)?

In case you have time, you will find further discussion relevant to question 1 on pp. 91-97.

*2. What biblical texts could be adduced to support (a) the essential oneness of God; (b) the distinctions between the divine persons; (c) the essential deity of each of the divine persons?

3. What kind of “subordination” exists between the persons of the Trinity (p. 88)? What kind of “subordination” does not exist?

John Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii (1:120-159)

4. By what “special mark” does the true God distinguish himself from idols (I.xiii.2)?

5. What two conclusions does Calvin draw from the statement in Hebrews 1:3 that “the Son of God is called ‘the stamp of the Father’s hypostasis’” (I.xiii.2)?

Sections 3 to 5 are an aside, in which Calvin defends the use of terms like “trinity” and “person” against critics who claim that such extra-biblical words should not be used in theology. Calvin argues that such terms aid the interpretation of Scripture and help to distinguish true doctrine from false. Don’t worry too much about these sections.

Section 6, on the other hand, is rather important, and worth grappling with. However, it’s also extremely dense and hard to follow, so don’t worry if you find it confusing. That’s what the tutorial is for.

6. What does Calvin infer from John’s statements that “the Word was always with God” and yet “the word was also God himself” (I.xiii.6)?

Sections 7 to 15 are a detailed scriptural demonstration of the deity of the Son and the Spirit. Though these doctrines are of course vitally important, these sections are less significant for our present purposes.

*7. How does Calvin prove the deity of the Son in sections 7-13? What do you make of his arguments?

*8. How does Calvin prove the deity of the Spirit sections 14-15? What do you make of his arguments?

9. What point does Calvin seek to prove from the two texts concerning baptism that he cites in I.xiii.16 (Eph 4:5 and Mt 28:19)? What do you think of this argument?

10. What does Calvin think about “analogies” of the Trinity drawn “from human affairs” (I.xiii.18)?

11. What distinctions between the Father, Son and Spirit does Calvin find in Scripture (I.xiii.18-19)?

12. In what three main ways have trinitarian heretics erred (I.xiii.21-22)?

*13. Which errors are seen in the heresies of Servetus (section 22) and Valentine Gentile (the “similar monster” mentioned in section 23; cf. footnote 51)? How are these errors manifested in each case?

*14. Why do Valentine and his associates think that Calvin has “set up a quaternity” (I.xiii.25)? How does Calvin respond to this charge?

*15. Why does the “order” (I.xiii.26) that exists between the Father and the Son not support Valentine’s case? What kind of order does exist between the Father and the Son?

An infinite ocean of being - 5 April 2011

We’re continuing with Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics in session 8 of the Guided Reading Course, turning this time to the subject of God’s incommunicable attributes in vol. 2, ch. 4. As you’ll have noticed last time, Bavinck writes pretty densely. But you will also have seen that it’s well worth spending the time chewing it over. If you want candy floss, look elsewhere. If you want sirloin steak, you’ve come to the right place.

To help you follow the thread of what Bavinck is saying, I’ve divided the questions up into sections corresponding with the major section headings in the chapter. Here and there I’ve also provided a brief summary of what Bavinck is saying. You’ll probably find it helpful to read the italic chapter-summary on pp. 148-149.

To make Bavinck a bit more manageable, try breaking it down a little. You’ve got 4 hours to read 29 pages, and there are 8 questions below. So, every 30 minutes or so, you want to be answering one question and covering (on average) about 3 or 4 pages of reading.

If you’re pressed for time, omit the questions marked with a *.

Aseity / Independence (pp. 149-153)

Aseity is sometimes called independence. To say that God possesses aseity means that God is not dependent for his existence on anything or anyone else. He causes himself to exist; he is self-caused.

1. What is significant about the name YHWH as it is revealed in Exodus 3:14-15 (p. 150)? How does Bavinck explain God’s aseity, or independence, on p. 151?

For reflection: What might be some of the practical and/or pastoral implications of God’s aseity (cf. p. 150)?

Immutability (pp. 153-159)

Immutability means “unchanging-ness.” To say that God possesses immutability means that “God is and remains the same” (p. 153).

2. “At first blush, this immutability seems to have little support in Scripture” (p. 153). What does Bavinck mean by this? What biblical evidence supports the doctrine of divine immutability (p. 153)

Bavinck discusses some challenges to the doctrine of divine immutability on pp. 155-156 (deism, pantheism), before returning to the significance of divine immutability half-way down page 156.

3. “The doctrine of God’s immutability is highly significant for religion” (p. 156). Why?

*4. Immutability “should not be confused with monotonous sameness or rigid immobility” (p. 158). Why might someone think of immutability in these terms? How, according to Bavinck, should we think of God’s immutability?

Infinity (pp. 159-170)

Bavinck discusses God’s infinity in general terms on pp. 159-160, before considering God’s eternity (pp. 160-164) and omnipresence (pp. 164-170) in turn.

To say that God is infinite means that “he is not limited by anything finite or creaturely”; that “in him every virtue is present in an absolute degree” (p. 160).

Both eternity and omnipresence are related to the previous attribute, immutability (unchanging-ness). Eternal means “unchanging with regard to time”; omnipresent means “unchanging with regard to space”.

5. Highlight some of the most helpful ways in which Bavinck describes the concept of God’s eternity on pp. 162-163.

Bavinck’s discussion of God’s omnipresence quickly becomes rather complex on pp. 165-169, so don’t worry too much if you can’t really follow it. However, the beginning and end of the section are a little easier to follow, and contain some thought-provoking material.

6. How does Scripture describe God’s omnipresence (pp. 164-165)? What might be some of the pastoral implications of God’s omnipresence (p. 170)?

Unity

Bavinck distinguishes two aspects of God’s unity (i.e. oneness), namely singularity and simplicity.

God’s singularity is a statement about the number of divine beings that exist. Divine singularity means that there is only one God.

God’s simplicity is a statement about the nature of this one divine being. Divine simplicity means that every attribute of God is identical with every other attribute of God and also with the essence of God itself.

Singularity is discussed in this section (headed Unity); simplicity is discussed in the next section.

*7. How is the doctrine of God’s unity related to the subject of idolatry (pp. 170-171)?

Simplicity

8. Bavinck uses an elegant biblical argument for divine simplicity on p. 173. Can you put it in your own words?

Bavinck discusses the historical development of the doctrine of divine simplicity on pp. 174-175. Don’t worry too much about this. But spend a few minutes trying to follow the discussion on pp. 176-177, and consider the following statements:

Because God is simple (his essence is identical with his attributes), he cannot be without also being love, being good, being just, and so on.

Because God is simple (his essence is identical with his attributes), to know God’s love is to know God.

For reflection: Why might it be pastorally relevant to say that in God love is justice, mercy is truth, judgment is life, and so on?

Another intriguing question - 1 April 2011

The first-year students on the Guided Reading Course continue to come up with a continuous stream of probing questions. Here’s the latest: “According, to our study of Bavinck so far, is it right to say that not even ‘Holiness’ can be called God’s most important attribute?”

Before I answer the question, here’s a bit of background. Last week we read ch. 3 of Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2. This chapter, entitled, “The Names of God,” introduces some of the basic concepts in classical theism, paving the way for a more detailed study of the divine attributes in the following chapters.

One of the claims Bavinck makes (along with pretty much the entire patristic, orthodox, Reformed tradition) is that God is simple. That is to say, he’s not made up of “parts” which can be split off from each other. He can’t be separated into little “bits” – a “holy part” and a “loving part” and a “wrathful part” and so on. Rather, in God, the attributes of holiness and love and wrath are all identical with one another, and indeed with the divine essence itself.

This in turn means that there cannot be any “hierarchy” of attributes in God. There is no “central” or “most important” attribute in the divine being. Every attribute that can rightly be ascribed to God is, so to speak, on the same level from God’s perspective. In this sense, then, the answer to the question is no. Not even holiness can be called God’s most important atttribute.

However, there is an important qualification to this. When God’s attributes are revealed to us, it is possible to make distinctions between them. From our perspective, God’s wrath is very different from God’s love. These distinctions between attributes are real, even though they don’t exist in the divine being itself.

This means that at any particular moment in our lives a particular attribute of God might be most important (or perhaps “significant” is a better word) from our perspective in our relationship with him. And on some occasions (like in Isa 6), this attribute might be holiness. This doesn’t mean that “holiness” is a more important attribute in general; it simply means that in this particular case, if we experienced what the Prophet Isaiah experienced in the temple, holiness would be the particular attribute of God that would be most evident to us.

All the time in the (new) world - 30 March 2011

We’re continuing on the topic of eschatology in session 48 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, turning this time to a selection of Jonathan Edwards’s Miscellanies on the subject of “heaven”.

Edwards’s Miscellanies are a series of private theological notebooks containing numbered entries ranging in length from a few words to several pages, in which he recorded his musings on a range of theological topics. They are freely available on the web in various places (and in various editions), though for the sake of convenience copies of the relevant extracts will be provided for students formally enrolled on the Guided Reading Course. Others following the course can find the appropriate reading by following the various links to the Miscellanies at the Yale University Jonathan Edwards Center. We’re looking at Miscellanies h, 5, 105, 137, 188, 263, 272, 371, 430, 431, 432, 435, 576, 639, 721, 741, 934, 1072 and 1137.

Edwards’s writing is often rather tortuous and hard to follow, with lots of long sentences that doubtless made sense to him but can be a little hard to decipher for us. The commas, don’t, help, very much, either. Stick with it. I’ve added a little explanation here and there to some of the questions to help you follow the flow, and in one case (M741), I’ve included a full paragraph-by-paragraph summary. If in doubt, try reading it (Edwards, not the questions) aloud, with as much expression as possible. If all else fails, skip on to the next sentence and try to figure out where he’s heading. It’s sometimes hard work, but it’s well worth it.

Finally, it’s worth noting in passing that Edwards’s use of the word “heaven,” though unfortunate in some respects (since there are more fitting biblical terms for the eternal abode of the righteous, as the Revd Dr David Field has previously pointed out), does not denote the disembodied, ethereal existence than the term often implies in contemporary evangelical discourse. Edwards anticipated that the eternal state would be emphatically embodied, physical and glorious. According to Miscellany 371, for example, “the saints will be in their natural state of union with bodies, glorious bodies, bodies perfectly fitted for the uses of a holy glorified soul.” Recognising this, I’ll stick with “heaven” in the questions even though I personally prefer the less ambiguous term “glory.”

References in the form “Mx” denote “Miscellany no. x”. Page numbers (in the outline of M741) refer to the printed handout provided for students formally enrolled on the course.

1. “When a saint dies, he has no cause at all to grieve because he leaves his friends and relations whom he dearly loves” (Mh). Why not? How do you think Edwards’s reasoning here should affect those loved ones who survive?

2. M5 begins by explaining that different degrees of happiness in heaven will not diminish (“damp”) the happiness of those whose happiness is less. On the contrary, he says, “instead of the superiority of some above others in happiness, being a damp on the happiness of those that are inferior, there is undoubted reason why it should be an addition to their happiness” (M5). Why?

3. How does Edwards believe the “the glorified saints” will be able to communicate in heaven (M188)? What do you think of this idea?

4. According to M263, how will our senses of sight and hearing be transformed by the resurrection? What more does M721 say about this subject?

5. Can you explain what M272 means? If Edwards is right that the saints’ knowledge will always be increasing in heaven (cf. M105), what implications does M272 have for our thoughts in heaven?

6. Edwards believes that part of the “happiness” of the glorified saints “will consist in hope of what is to come” (M371). What does he mean by this? If Edwards is right, why would this not lead to a perpetual sense of unfulfilled expectation?

7. If in heaven “God will have obtained the end of all his great works” (M371, italics added), how is this compatible with the notion of his saints’ increasing happiness?

8. What do M430 and M431 add to what M5 says about different degrees of happiness in heaven?

9. Why, according to M432, won’t the memory of our sins mar the joy of heaven? If Edwards is right in what he says here, does his argument imply that we need not grieve over our sin now?

10. How does Edwards seek to articulate the “incredible” intensity of the happiness of heaven in M576?

M741 is rather complex. Here’s a paraphrase of the first sentence, which summarises Edwards’s point: “The way in which we have redeemed encourages us to hope for every aspect of the happiness of heaven, our intimacy with Christ and our enjoyment of God.”

Here’s an even simpler summary: “Thinking about how we’ve been redeemed helps us to anticipate the joy of heaven.”

Now, to help you follow the argument of M741 a little more easily, here’s a paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown of what it’s saying. Use this to help you answer question 11.

[Paragraph 1, pp. 8-9] We might think that our guilt would prevent us entering heaven, never mind enjoying it, but our redemption in Christ cleanses us from guilt.

We might think that the lowliness of our human nature would hinder us from enjoying heaven, because there is such a vast gulf between the human nature and the divine. But Christ has bridged this gulf in his very own body by uniting himself with a human nature, thereby inviting us to intimate communion with him. The fact that Christ humbled himself in this way encourages us to “ascend to the most intimate convers[ation] with him,” since if he can humble himself like that, he can certainly raise us up to be with him. Indeed, God has shown that he wants to “admit the church into the divine family,” so that we shall enjoy God the Father just as the Son himself does.

[Paragraph 2, p. 9] There will in heaven be no limit to our closeness with the Father, just as there is now no limit to the closeness between the human and divine natures of Christ.

[Paragraph 3. p. 9] Jesus is our brother – and that’s really close.

[Paragraph 4, p. 10] Christ’s self-giving for our redemption really highlights all this, because there’s no joy too expensive for Jesus’ death to purchase for us.

[Paragraph 5, p. 10] If it’s not too much for God to give us his Son (and it’s not), then it’s not too much for God to give us all this joy.

[Paragraph 6, p. 10] It’s appropriate to approach God with boldness because we have the right to joyful intimacy with Christ.

[Paragraph 7, p. 10] We’re supposed to think of Christ as belonging to us, as shown by the example of John; John 6:51; and other texts [Isa 53:10, 12?].

[Paragraph 8, pp. 10-11] Christ’s enemies were bold in deriding him; therefore Christ’s friends should feel equally free in enjoying him.

[Paragraph 9, p. 11] Jesus opened his arms wide.

[Paragraph 10, p. 11] God gave it all; he won’t hold back now.

[Paragraph 11; p. 11] God’s terrifying majesty won’t hinder our intimacy with him, because that majesty has already been “displayed, vindicated, and glorified in Christ’s blood.”

[Paragraph 12, p. 11] The veil has been torn open.

[Paragraph 13, p. 11] The joy of the saints will be as absolute as the misery of the damned.

[Paragraph 14, p. 12] Humble yourselves.

[Paragraph 15, p. 12] Come to God boldly and openly.

11. As you follow through the argument of M741 with the help of the above outline, what particular points strike you most forcefully?

12. What point does Edwards seek to establish in M934 with his reference to Ahasuerus’s feast?

13. What conclusion does Edwards draw in M1072 from the biblical imagery of Christ as the head of the body?

14. What conclusion does Edwards draw in M1137 from the fact that God rested after finishing his work of creation?

15. How has reading Edwards changed your thoughts about the future?

Pictures of the Almighty - 14 March 2011

The reading for session 6 of the Guided Reading Course covers a portion of Calvin’s Institutes on the subject of images (Institutes, I.xi-xii) and a chapter of Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics on the doctrine of God. There’s far too much material here for one week, but don’t worry – the intention is to spread it over two weeks, and to include it in the tutorials for both session 6 and session 7. However, the material from Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics will take considerable longer than that from Calvin’s Institutes, so the questions on the former are included here to allow you to make a start on them. We’ll focus mainly on Calvin’s Institutes in the first week, perhaps starting to look briefly at Bavinck too. Then we’ll finish with Bavinck in the second week.

Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics is a demanding read. Don’t be surprised (and don’t worry!) if you occasionally find some of the detail a bit baffling, especially in the philosophical and historical discussions. Rather, let the questions below guide your reading so that you know where to focus your attention. This should encourage you to focus primarily on pp. 97-106, and then secondarily on pp. 118-121, and to spend less time on the other parts of the chapter.

Before you begin looking at Calvin, think about these questions: Is it permissible to paint pictures of Jesus? What about God the Father, or the Holy Spirit? Does context matter (e.g. icons in worship, children’s Bibles, art galleries, graffiti, etc)? What biblical and theological arguments might be relevant?

Calvin, Institutes, I.xi-xii

1. What does Calvin think about statues or images of God (I.xi.1-2)? Why? Can you think of any connection between what Calvin says here and the doctrine of creation?

2. What arguments in favour of images of God does Calvin address in I.xi.3? How does he respond? Are you persuaded by Calvin’s arguments here?

3. What do you think of Calvin’s tone in I.xi.4? Do you think such an approach is justifiable? Why?

4. Does Calvin think images of God are acceptable as “books of the uneducated” (I.xi.5)? Why (I.xi.5-7)? Do you agree?

5. What will tend to be the result, in Calvin’s view, if people begin using images for educational purposes (I.xi.9)? Why, according to Calvin, will this result follow (I.xi.9)? Do you agree?

6. What “wily distinction” does Calvin mention in I.xi.11, and how does he respond? (You might find it helpful also to look at I.xii.2-3.)

7. What, in Calvin’s view, are artists permitted to reproduce (I.xi.12)? What implications does Calvin’s argument have? Do you think Calvin is being consistent here? Do you agree with his view?

8. What further arguments against the use of images does Calvin outline in I.xi.13? What do you think of this argument?

9. What do you think of the allegedly Scriptural arguments in favour of images in I.xi.15?

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, ch. 3 (pp. 95-147)

1. “We do not name God; he names himself” (p. 98). What does Bavinck mean by this? Why is it important?

2. Why does God describe himself in the ways described on pp. 100-101? Do any of these descriptions surprise you?

3. How do the quotations on p. 102 from Augustine, Thomas and Bonaventure illuminate what Bavinck has said so far?

4. How should “a reverent mind” understand Calvin’s astonishing statement that “nature is God” (p. 103; quoting Calvin, Institutes, I.v.5)?

5. What is the “peculiar intellectual difficulty” (p. 104)? How, according to Bavinck, should it be resolved? What consequences would follow if we were to maintain that it is impossible to speak of God using human language?

From the bottom of p. 105 through to the middle of p. 110, Bavinck explores the issue of what kind of knowledge of God is available to us. The discussion is complex and rather philosophical, but the basic point is quite simple. Bavinck rejects two errors: first, the idea that our knowledge of God is complete and exhaustive; and second, the idea that our knowledge of God is untrue and incorrect. He argues that whereas God has “archetypal” knowledge of himself (he knows himself completely and exhaustively), we have “ectypal” knowledge of him (we know him truly, yet not exhaustively).

The five-point summary on p. 110 is particularly helpful.

6. Can you highlight some places on pp. 105-110 where Bavinck’s point about our true yet finite knowledge of God is particularly clear?

On pp. 110-118, Bavinck reflects on the attempts of theologians to describe the “essence” of God. Central to Bavinck’s approach is his claim that “Scripture … never proceeds from an abstract concept of God, nor does it ever highlight one attribute of God at the expense of others” (p. 110). All God’s attributes describe his essence. Despite this, various theologians have attempted to identify a “predominant attribute” which identifies God and “differentiates him from all creatures” (p. 112). These different attempts are outlined on pp. 112-117.

7. Given the previous discussion of God’s names, can you think why Bavinck would be so insistent that no single attribute of God should be emphasised above the others?

8. What is the doctrine of “divine simplicity” (p. 118)? How does this doctrine enable us “to honor equally all the attributes of God” (p. 118)?

9. What is meant by the Christian conception of God as “being” (pp. 120-121)? How does the Christian idea differ from the pagan philosophical notion of “being”?

10. What kinds of distinction can be made between God’s attributes (pp. 124-128, especially pp. 126-127)? How do the illustrations of fire and grain (bottom of p. 127) help at this point?

On pp. 131-132 Bavinck discusses various classifications of God’s attributes, and on pp. 137-147 turns to some of the proper names applied to God in Scripture. These sections are well worth reading, but we won’t consider them in detail during the tutorial.

Not blessed inaction - 9 March 2011

We’re remaining in Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics for session 47 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course. This week we’re looking at vol. 4, ch. 18, “The renewal of creation” (pp. 715-730). As before, we’re deliberately taking a shorter section than we would with Calvin in order to allow time to reflect on and appreciate the complexity and subtlety of Bavinck’s writing.

Before you begin, spend a few minutes thinking about the question, What do you think the new creation will be like? Jot down some thoughts if you’re able to, and then try comparing them with what Bavinck says.

If you’re pushed for time, omit the questions marked with a *.

1. “In [its] expectation of world renewal, Scripture assumes a position between two extremes” (p. 716). What are these two extremes? Where have you heard them today? What, according to Bavinck, is the scriptural position?

*2. Which of the biblical arguments on pp. 716-717 do you find most persuasive? Are there any you find particularly unpersuasive?

3. Bavinck states that “God’s honour consists precisely in the fact that he redeems and renews the same humanity, the same world, the same heaven and the same earth that have been corrupted by sin” (p. 717), but at this stage he does not support his point with arguments. What arguments do you think could be given at this point?

4. “The essence of future blessedness” is “construed … spiritually,” but “this does not confine this blessedness to heaven” (p. 718). What does Bavinck mean by this? What arguments does he adduce to support his point at this stage? Are you persuaded?

5. Summarise what Bavinck says will happen when our “inheritance” is “revealed” (p. 719).

6. What do Bavinck’s illustrations of the butterfly, the diamond and the grains of wheat imply about the new creation (p. 720)?

7. Bavinck says that in the new creation “the redeemed [will] see God” (p. 722). How?

8. “The blessedness of communion with God is enjoyed in and heightened by the communion of saints” (p. 722). What does this mean?

*9. Bavinck says that “Scripture often uses very universalistic language” (p. 723). What does Bavinck mean by this, and what conclusions does he draw from these texts?

On p. 724 Bavinck begins a discussion of various forms of universalism, before turning to the salvation of children in believing homes who die in infancy.

*10. What does the Roman Catholic church teach about the salvation of children who die in infancy (p. 725)? What (according to Bavinck) do the Reformed believe (p. 725-727)? What do you believe? Why?

11. “The rest enjoyed in the New Jerusalem is not to be conceived … as blessed inaction” (p. 727). What does Bavinck mean by this? What biblical evidence does he cite? Do you agree?

12. Are there “degrees of distinction in glory” (p. 728)? How does Bavinck avoid creating a conflict here with the doctrine of justification by faith alone (p. 729)?

*13. According to Bavinck, what is God’s “purpose” (p. 729) in granting different degrees of glory in the new creation? What do you make of this explanation?

Chateau Bavinck, 1921 - 24 February 2011

The reading for sesion 46 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course is Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, ch. 17 (pp. 691-714).

We’ve reached the end Calvin’s Institutes, excluding only a few chapters directed against particular issues that were prominent in Calvin’s day but which don’t concern us so directly. However, there are still several theological topics that ought to feature in an overview of Reformed systematic theology about which Calvin has said rather little. These include the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the renewal of the creation, the final judgment, eternal glory, eternal punishment, and the various millennial views. We will look outside Calvin for this material, and take the opportunity to read some other theological giants who have had (or at least should have had, and hopefully will have in the future) a significant influence upon contemporary Reformed evangelicalism. We’ll begin with the fourth volume of Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, volume 4, chapter 17 (pp. 691-714).

Bavinck’s writing is rather more dense and complex than Calvin’s (as you’ll no doubt remember from when we read extracts from volume 2 of his Reformed Dogmatics during our study of the doctrine of God). If Calvin were a crisp, dry Sauvignon Blanc, Bavinck would be a rich, smooth Merlot. We will therefore read shorter sections, in order to give you time to reflect more deeply on what Bavinck is saying, to look up biblical references and so on.

1. How is “the Day of the Lord” (p. 692) depicted in the Old Testament?

2. What events, according to Bavinck, mark the beginning of “the present aeon” and “the aeon to come” (p. 692)? (You might find it helpful to sketch a rough timeline!) Do the texts Bavinck cites support his view?

3. “Undoubtedly Scripture teaches a general resurrection, a resurrection not only of believers but also of unbelievers” (p. 693). According to Bavinck, why is this resurrection necessary? And what purpose does it achieve?

On pp. 694-698 Bavinck explores his claim that in the resurrection “the identity of the resurrection body with the body that has died will be preserved” (p. 694). It is evident that Bavinck regards this issue as important, both because of the space he devotes to it and also because he says so explicitly and repeatedly. Questions 4 to 7 are intended to help you follow Bavinck’s discussion of this theme.

4. What biblical evidence does Bavinck adduce to support his view that in the resurrection “the identity of the resurrection body with the body that has died will be preserved” (p. 694)?

5. What two additional reasons does Bavinck adduce to support his claim that “the “identity of the resurrection body with the body that was laid aside at death is of great significance” (p. 694)? Can you think how are these two reasons relate to each other?

6. What does Bavinck think about cremation and burial (p. 695)? Do you find his reasoning persuasive?

7. According to Bavinck, the Christian church “frequently swung over to another extreme” (p. 695). What “extreme” view is he referring to (p. 695)? How does he respond to it (pp. 695-696)?

8. How, according to Bavinck, is the final judgment “pictured in the Old Testament” (p. 698)? And in the New Testament (p. 698)? How do you think these two perspectives on divine judgment might relate to each other?

9. “In the final judgment … all the works performed by people and recorded in the books before God are considered” (p. 700). What does Bavinck mean by this? What scriptural evidence does he adduce? Do you find this view surprising?

10. Scripture “clearly states that consideration will be given to the measure of revelation that any given person has received” (p. 700). What does Bavinck mean by this (p. 700-701)? Do you agree with him?

11. What do you think of the scriptural material with which Bavinck depicts the nature of punishment (pp. 702-704)?

12. What reasons have historically been adduced in opposition to the doctrine of eternal punishment (pp. 704-705)? How persuasive to you find these arguments? Before reading Bavinck, how would you have responded to them?

13. What “three hypotheses” (p. 705) have been constructed by opponents of the doctrine of eternal punishment (pp. 705-707)?

On pp. 708-710 Bavinck discusses some of the biblical evidence in favour of the eternal punishment of the lost, before proceeding to respond to aspects of the “three hypotheses” mentioned on p. 705.

14. What is “above all necessary” if we are “to appreciate the fact of eternal punishment” (p. 711)?

15. How does Bavinck respond to the claim that eternal punishment is “inconsistent with the goodness and love of God” (p. 712)?

16. “For the person who disputes [the reality of] eternal punishment, there is enormous danger of playing the hypocrite before God” (p. 712). Why?

His sacred lips - 24 February 2011

The reading for session 5 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course is John Calvin, Institutes, I.vii-x (1:69-99) and Douglas Wilson, “Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesiastical Authority,” pp. 255–286 in Keith A. Mathison (ed.), When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed response to hyper-preterism (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2004).

Having considered the theme of natural revelation (God’s revelation in the natural world) in the previous session, we continue our study of the doctrine of revelation in this session with special revelation (God’s revelation in Scripture). We’re looking at two texts: a portion of Calvin’s Institutes (I.vii-x), and an essay by Douglas Wilson entitled “Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesiastical Authority.”

Both Calvin and Wilson are writing within a confessionally Reformed framework, though of course in very different contexts. Calvin develops the theme of the necessity of Scripture and discusses how its authority may rightly be established, while Wilson addresses some problems that may arise from a misunderstanding of the doctrine of sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone).

Wilson’s essay comes from a volume addressing a heretical doctrine known as hyper-preterism, which is almost unknown outside one tiny sector of the North American church. This isn’t why we’re looking at the essay, so don’t worry too much if you can’t follow the details. To help you understand what he’s talking about, I’ve included a short introductory note explaining what hyper-preterism is.

Here are a couple of questions to get you thinking before you start reading:

Why do you believe that Scripture is God’s authoritative word?

Why do you believe that the 66 books of the Bible are exactly what ought to be there – no more and no less?

If you’re pushed for time, omit the questions marked with a *.

Calvin, Institutes, I.vii-x (1:69-99)

1. What, precisely, is the nature of the “pernicious error” that Calvin identifies in I.vii.1?

2. How does Calvin respond to this error (I.vii.2)? Do you find Calvin’s argument here persuasive?

*3. How has “that statement of Augustine” been misinterpreted by Calvin’s opponents (I.vii.3; cf. footnote 6)? How, in Calvin’s view, should Augustine be understood here (I.vii.3)?

4. How, in Calvin’s view, is the divine authorship of Scripture properly established (I.vii.4-5)? Do you agree with Calvin here?

5. If Calvin’s argument in I.vii is correct, how should we seek to persuade unbelievers that Scripture is God’s authoritative word?

6. How significant, in Calvin’s view, are the arguments for the authority of Scripture outlined in I.viii? In what context are they significant?

7. Which of Calvin’s arguments in I.viii do you find most persuasive? Which do you find least persuasive?

8. What is the error of the “giddy men” whom Calvin criticises in I.ix.1? How does Calvin respond?

*9. How do the texts alluded to in I.ix.2 support Calvin’s argument?

10. In what ways does Calvin express the relationship between God’s word and the ministry of the Spirit? (I.ix.3)

Douglas Wilson, ‘Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesistical Authority’

Introductory note

“Hyper-preterism” (sometimes called “full preterism” or [by its advocates] “consistent preterism”) refers strictly speaking to the view that all of the future-oriented texts in the Bible have now been fulfilled. In practice, it tends to describe the claim that all of the texts traditionally thought to refer to the general resurrection, final judgment and so on were in fact fulfilled with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70. Hyper-preterism therefore entails (among other things) a denial of the traditional orthodox doctrines of the future bodily resurrection of believers, the final judgment, and so on.

Hyper-preterism must be carefully distinguished from ‘preterism’ (sometimes called ‘partial preterism’), which states that some, but not all, of the future-oriented texts in the Bible have already been fulfilled. For example, some preterists (such as evangelical NT scholar R. T. France) hold the perfectly respectable and orthodox view that Mark 13:1-31 was fulfilled in AD70. But only a hyper-preterist would make the heretical claim that 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 has already been fulfilled.

For more, see http://northlondonchurch.org/2009/07/25/what-is-preterism/ and http://northlondonchurch.org/2009/06/03/objections-to-preterism/

1. What, in Wilson’s view, is “the fundamental question” (p. 256) to be addressed? Why is this question important (p. 257)?

2. Why can’t a hyper-preterist simply appeal to Scripture in his rejection of creedal eschatology (p. 258; cf. p. 265)?

*3. Why is the tradition of the church especially significant in Wilson’s critique of hyper-preterism (p. 259)?

4. In what way(s) do hyper-preterists misunderstand the doctrine of sola Scriptura (p. 260-262)? Why is this significant?

5. “Before we come to the word of God in Genesis 1:1, we come to the word of the church in the table of contents” (p. 265). What do you think of this statement?

6. “The positions adopted within modern evangelicalism actually are the same as Rome’s teaching” (p. 279). What does Wilson mean by this? Do you agree?

A doctrine well worth defending - 24 February 2011

Here’s the first essay title for current students on the first year of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course: “Outline Calvin’s defence of the authority of Scripture in Institutes, I.vii-viii.” 2000 words; deadline Tuesday 29 March.

Remember a couple of obvious points: (1) The title requires you to “outline,” not “discuss” or “evaluate”; and (2) The title asks you to outline a particular thing that Calvin talks about in those chapters (namely his defence of the authority of Scripture), not to outline those chapters per se, so if you discover that he says other things in those chapters that don’t contribute to his defence of Scripture’s authority, you should ignore them.

You can find a copy of the marking criteria for essays here.

Theologian, know thyself - 10 February 2011

The reading for session 4 of the Guided Reading Course takes us to the beginning of Calvin’s Institutes (I.i-vi), where we find the well-known section concerning the knowledge of God and of ourselves. It’s worth paying close attention to the development of the argument in this portion of Calvin’s work (especially chapters i-iv and vi) in order to grasp fully what Calvin is saying, not least because some contemporary scholars have misread Calvin at this point.

In addition to this reading, you may find it interesting and useful (either now or at some point in the future) to look at two articles by Peter J. Leithart entitled “Did Plato Read Moses? Middle grace and moral consensus” and “Natural Law: A Reformed critique.” Questions relating to these articles are also found below, though (unless you come armed with questions!) we probably won’t discuss them in detail in the tutorial, as Calvin will give us plenty to be going on with.

1. How, in Calvin’s view, are the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves related (I.i.1-2)? Do you agree with everything he says here? If not, why not?

2. What is meant by “the knowledge of God,” as Calvin describes it in I.ii.1-2?

3. What kind of knowledge of God do all people have “by natural instinct” (I.iii.3)? What, in practice, do we all do with this knowledge (I.iii.3)? Where in Scripture might Calvin find support for these claims?

4. Where, in Calvin’s view, do the religions of the world originate? What do the variety and prevalence of such religions tell us about human nature (I.iii.2-3)?

5. How do human beings naturally respond to the “seed of religion” implanted within them (I.iv.1)? How would Calvin respond to the claim that some non-Christians genuinely seek to worship and serve God (I.iv.1-3)?

6. What further form of irreligion does Calvin describe in I.iv.4?

7. In what ways does God make himself known to humanity (I.v.1-3, 6-8)? How do we naturally respond (I.v.4-5, 9-13)?

8. What key points does Calvin make in the course of summarising his argument in I.v.14-15?

9. What has God done in order “to direct us aright” to him (I.vi.1)? What, precisely, is the nature of the knowledge of God that Calvin is discussing at this point (I.vi.1-2)?

10. How should God’s revelation in Scripture affect how believers look at and interpret the world (I.vi.3-4)?

Peter J. Leithart, “Did Plato Read Moses? Middle grace and moral consensus”

1. What is the key question Leithart addresses (p. 1)?

2. What is his initial response (p. 1)?

3. Why is “the notion of a universal moral consensus” (p. 3) important?

4. What is Leithart’s substantive response to the initial question (pp. 4-5)?

5. How cogent do you find the evidence adduced on pp. 6-16? Compare Leithart’s appraisal (p. 16).

6. How persuasive is the evidence adduced from the biblical data (pp. 16-19)?

7. Is Leithart’s conclusion justified (pp. 19-20)?

8. If Leithart is right, what will happen in the non-Christian Western world in the coming decades? What implications does his argument have for how the church should attempt to engage in the public square?

Peter J. Leithart, “Natural Law: A Reformed critique”

1. What is “natural law” (pp. 3-4)? Why, according to Myers, might it be a useful concept (p. 4-5)?

2. What are your initial reactions to Leithart’s “denials and affirmations” (pp. 6-7)?

3. What biblical texts might be adduced to support natural law theory (pp. 14ff.)? What do you make of Leithart’s exegesis of them?

4. “Recent advocates” (p. 19) of natural law theory have, in Leithart’s view, simultaneously claimed too much and too little (pp. 19-20). What, precisely, is his argument here? Do you agree?

5. How does Leithart’s argument here relate to that found in his article “Did Plato read Moses?”

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Recent Sermons

Recent Blog Posts