Guided Reading Course

« Previous Entries

14. Free Will - 3 February 2012

Introduction

We remain on the doctrine of sin and its effects in week 14 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, and in particular the tricky subject of Free Will.

We’ll try to achieve two things in this tutorial. First, as usual, we’ll work through the reading to seek to grasp what Calvin is saying. Second, we’ll step back slightly and try to get a fuller picture of what the Bible teaches about the relationship between human freedom, human sin, human moral responsibility, and God’s sovereignty. This will take us into the work of Jonathan Edwards, though you won’t need to read anything from his writings before the tutorial.

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

Outline

Discussion of Calvin, Institutes, II.ii.
Broader discussion of human freedom, moral responsibility, divine sovereignty, etc.

Questions for reflection

i. “If God is sovereign, he can’t blame me for my sin.” Discuss.

ii. Can unbelievers do good? Explain your answer, with examples if possible.

iii. Can believers do good? Explain your answer, with examples if possible.

Study questions

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 II.ii.2-9 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 (sections 2-3); the church fathers (section 4); Lombard (sections 5-7); Augustine (section 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” (II.ii.12-17) and spiritual discernment” (II.ii.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?

29. Covenant and Election - 3 February 2012

Introduction

In recent weeks we’ve looked at the outworking of God’s plan of salvation in history (O. Palmer Robertson on Covenant Theology in The Christ of the Covenants) and the origin of God’s plan of salvation in eternity (John Calvin on the doctrine of election). We now bring these two topics together with an article by American theologian and Pastor John Barach entitled “Covenant and Election” (pp. 15-44 in The Federal Vision, ed. S. Wilkins and D. Garner [Monroe: Athanasius Press, 2004]).

This article helps us to think through the practical and pastoral relevance of the doctrine of election. In particular, it highlights some problems which (according to Barach) can arise from a common Reformed misunderstanding of the doctrine of election, and proposes what he regards as a more biblical alternative which avoids these problems.

It’s important to realise here that Barach is discussing an issue about which there is disagreement within the Reformed tradition. This is helpfully reflected in the gracious and measured tone of Barach’s article – a tone which of course should characterise all such discussions. At the same time, the pastoral issues at stake are potentially quite significant, and Barach’s article therefore rightly poses some challenging questions, which if we are wise we will want to engage with in a clear-headed and robust way.

Questions for reflection

i. What is “assurance of salvation”?

ii. Can assurance of salvation be experienced? If so, how?

iii. Does the doctrine of election have anything to do with assurance?

iv. Should a professing believer ever be excluded from the Lord’s Table? Why or why not?

Study questions

1. How, according to Barach, should we approach the subject of election (pp. 15-17)? What particular mistakes must we take care to avoid (pp. 15-17)?

For reflection: Do you notice here any echoes of Calvin’s approach to the doctrine of election (see Institutes, III.xxi. 1-4)?

2. What does Barach believe about the doctrine of predestination? (pp. 17-18)

3. “There are [Reformed] churches where perhaps twenty out of seven hundred partake of the Lord’s Supper” (p. 19). What flawed logic leads to this practice (p. 19)? What response does Barach make briefly on p. 19?

For reflection: How do you think you would feel if you, as a believer, were refused admission to the Lord’s Table (either at your church or elsewhere)?

Barach now summarises two views on the relationship between election and the covenant: (1) The Arminian view; and (2) What he calls “one Reformed view” which is “more popular in our circles.”

Let’s look at the Arminian view first.

4. How does Barach summarise the Arminian position on election (pp. 19-20)?

*5. Read the following extract from Francis Turretin’s description of the Arminian doctrine of election:

“[The Arminians] attribute a certain causality to faith, so that God is moved by its foresight to choose this rather than that one … Moreover, they make a twofold decree of election: the first general, of saving believers; the second special, of saving individuals by name whom God foresaw would believe” (Turretin, Institutes, IV.xi.7; 1:356-357).

Does Barach agree with Turretin about the Arminian doctrine of election? If not, how do they differ?

Now let’s look at what Barach calls “one Reformed view” which is “more popular in our circles.”

6. What is the other view of election and the covenant which is “more popular in our circles” (p. 20)?

7. “This view presents a number of pastoral problems” (p. 20). What are these problems (pp. 20-21)? What happens “if we hold this view consistently” (p. 21)?

For reflection: Do you agree with Barach that this view of election and the covenant will tend to produce the problems he describes?

Having outlined this second view of the relationship between covenant and election, Barach now proceeds to critique it, and to propose an alternative view.

8. What point does Barach seek to make from Hebrews 10 and John 15?

For reflection: Do you agree with this exegesis of Hebrews 10 and John 15?

9. What alternative view about “the relationship between covenant and election” does Barach propose (p. 23)? Who else (according to Barach) also held this view? (Barach also discusses the historical pedigree of this view on pp. 39-41.)

According to Barach, some who hold this view distinguish sharply between covenant and election (bottom of p. 23). However, he argues, “This isn’t the way Scripture speaks” (p. 24).

10. How, according to Barach, does Scripture use the language of God’s “chosen ones” and “elect ones” (pp. 24-26)? What texts does Barach mention in this context?

11. “The Old Testament election involved the whole body and it involved history. But that was the Old Testament. Election revealed in the New Testament is a different kind of election” (p. 27). How does Barach reply (pp. 27-31)?

For reflection: What do you think of Barach’s response? Do the following New Testament texts add anything to this discussion?

1 Corinthians 10
Jude 5
Romans 9-11, especially Romans 11:17-21

12. “We need to hold three things together as we think about the relationship between covenant and election” (p. 31). What are these three things (pp. 31-32)?

*13. What will happen “If we try to do our theologizing and our pastoring and our speaking to God’s people from the perspective of God’s eternal predestination” (p. 32) rather than from the perspective of the covenant (pp. 32-33)?

14. Barach discusses several possible descriptions of someone who is a member of God’s covenant people for a time but then falls away (p. 36)? What are these different descriptions? What are their strengths and weaknesses?

15. “If apostasy is a real danger, can we ever have assurance?” (p. 39). If so, how?

For reflection: Has Barach’s article changed the way you think about assurance of salvation? If so, how?

28. Election - 3 February 2012

Introduction

Session 28 of the Guided Reading Course takes us back to Calvin’s Institutes (III.xxi-xiv; 2:920-987), where we’ll be looking at the doctrine of election.

This topic follows naturally from our previous sessions of the doctrine of salvation. So far we’ve looked at an overview of the Bible (Peter Leithart, A House for My Name), before looking in particular at how God’s relationship with his people has unfolded through history in a series of covenants (O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants). Now we pull back the curtain of history, so to speak, and look into eternity, as we consider the fountainhead of all God’s blessings to his people – God’s eternal decree of election.

Calvin seems to use the terms “predestination” and “election” slightly differently here in the Institutes. “Predestination” refers to God’s eternal decree (i.e. decision) concerning every part of a person’s life. “Election” refers to God’s eternal decree concerning whether or not a person will be saved.

There’s quite a lot of reading in these four sections, so you probably won’t be able to finish it all in the time available. As ever, let the study questions guide you, and if you’re pressed for time omit the questions marked with a *.

Outline of Calvin, Institutes, III.xxi-xxiv

III.xxi Introduction to the doctrine of election

III.xxi.1 Introduction

III.xxi.1-2 First wrong way of approaching the doctrine of election

III.xxi.3-4 Second wrong way of approaching the doctrine of election

III.xxi.5-7 Definitions

III.xxii Biblical evidence for the doctrine of election

III.xxiii Misunderstandings of, and objections to, the doctrine of election

III.xxiii.1 Misunderstanding 1: Election is true but reprobation is not

III.xxiii.2-5 Objection 1: Election is unjust

III.xxiii.6-9 Objection 2: Election takes guilt and responsibility away from man

III.xxiii.10-11 Objection 3: Election implies that God shows favouritism

III.xxiii.12 Objection 4: Election takes away all motivation for godliness

III.xxiii.13-14 Objection 5: Election makes rebukes and encouragements pointless

III.xxiv.1-11 How God deals with the elect

III.xxiv.12-17 How God deals with the reprobate

Questions for reflection

i. Calvin describes the doctrine of election as “a baffling question” (III.xxi.1). Do you agree? Why?

ii. “The doctrine of election is very complicated and confusing. We shouldn’t teach it – especially not to young Christians.” Discuss.

iii. “If God chooses to save some people, that must mean that he chooses to damn everyone else.” Discuss.

Study questions

1. Calvin believes that “we shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the wellspring of God’s free mercy until we come to know his eternal election” (III.xxi.1). Why?

For reflection: Do you agree with Calvin’s claim that only the doctrine of election can persuade us fully of God’s free mercy?

In the last part of III.xxi.1, Calvin mentions “two kinds of men,” whom he then discusses in the following sections:

III.xxi.1-2 The first kind of men

III.xxi.3-4 The second kind of men

2. According to Calvin, what mistakes do “the first kind of men” and “the second kind of men” make (III.xxi.1-4)? How does Calvin respond to each mistake?

For reflection: How might Calvin have answered the second “Question for Reflection,” above?

In III.xxi.5-7 Calvin defines the terms “predestination” / “election,” and “foreknowledge,” explaining the distinction between the election of the Israelite nation and the election of specific individuals.

3. How does Calvin define “foreknowledge” and “predestination” in III.xxi.5?

4. What biblical evidence does Calvin cite to support his definition of predestination in III.xxi.5?

5. What two “degrees” of election does Calvin discuss in section III.xxi.6-7? What are the similarities between them? What are the differences between them?

In III.xxii Calvin explains in more detail the doctrine he has summarised in the previous chapter. He begins by tackling an important misunderstandings of the doctrine of election.

6. What misunderstanding does Calvin describe in the first paragraph of III.xxii.1?

For reflection: Why do you think many people might be attracted to the misunderstand Calvin mentions?

7. What biblical texts and other arguments does Calvin cite in III.xxii.1-5 to support his position? Are you persuaded?

8. What biblical texts and other arguments does Calvin cite in III.xxii.7 to support his position? Are you persuaded?

*9. In III.xxii.8, Calvin cites Romans 9:14, “What then? Is there injustice with God?” Calvin notes that Paul does not respond with a certain argument at this point. What is this argument, and why is its omission significant?

*10. What is “the subtlety of Thomas [Aquinas]” (III.xxii.9)? How does Calvin respond?

In III.xxiii, Calvin responds to some misunderstandings of, and objections to, the doctrine of election. The chapter falls into the following sections:

III.xxiii.1 Misunderstanding 1: Election is true but reprobation is not

III.xxiii.2-5 Objection 1: Election is unjust

III.xxiii.6-9 Objection 2: Election takes guilt and responsibility away from man

III.xxiii.10-11 Objection 3: Election implies that God shows favouritism

III.xxiii.12 Objection 4: Election takes away all motivation for godliness

III.xxiii.13-14 Objection 5: Election makes rebukes and encouragements pointless

11. Briefly explain each misunderstanding and objection in turn, and explain how Calvin responds in each case.

III.xxiii.1 Misunderstanding 1: Election is true but reprobation is not
III.xxiii.2-5 Objection 1: Election is unjust
III.xxiii.6-9 Objection 2: Election takes guilt and responsibility away from man
III.xxiii.10-11 Objection 3: Election implies that God shows favouritism
III.xxiii.12 Objection 4: Election takes away all motivation for godliness
III.xxiii.13-14 Objection 5: Election makes rebukes and encouragements pointless

For reflection: How would Calvin respond to someone who said, “If God has predestined my sin, he can’t blame me for it.” (See objection 2, III.xxiii.6-9)

Unless you are a very fast reader you probably won’t have time to look at III.xxiv in much detail. However, here are some questions to guide your reading – either now or at some time in the future.

*12. Does Calvin think we can be sure of our election (III.xxiv.1-5)? If so, how?

For reflection: Do you find any problems with Calvin’s argument here?

*13. What biblical texts come to the forefront in Calvin’s discussion of the perseverance of the elect (III.xxiv.6-11)? Should any others have been mentioned?

*14. Why does Calvin take such trouble to distinguish two different senses of “election” in his discussion of Judas (III.xxiv.9)?

*15. What differences exist between God’s dealings with the elect and his dealings with the reprobate (III.xxiv.12-14)?

13. Original sin (2) - 3 February 2012

Introduction

In this session we’re continuing our study of the doctrine of original sin, looking at chapters 3 and 4 of John Murray’s book The Imputation of Adam’s Sin. This will complete our overview of Reformed (and some other) positions on the subject. Alongside Murray, I’ve also included some questions on Calvin, Institutes, II.i. You almost certainly won’t have time to read all this material, so please don’t try to. Instead, read whichever sections you feel most able and most inclined to. We’ll cover all the bases in the tutorial.

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

(Just a quick reminder: the term “impute” means “count,” or “reckon”. Therefore to say that sin is “imputed” to someone means that it is “counted” against them, or “reckoned” to stand against them.)

Here’s a reminder of what Murray has said so far.

In chapter 1 (sections I and II), Murray outlines the crucial text (Romans 5:12-21), and summarises four different views of the phrase “in that all sinned” (Romans 5:12). These views were (1) The Pelagian view (we imitate Adam’s sin); (2) The Roman Catholic view (non-culpable sinful state imputed, but no sinful act imputed); (3) Calvin’s view (culpable sinful state imputed, but no sinful act imputed); (4) The classical Protestant view (sinful state and sinful act imputed). Murray takes view (4).
In chapter 2 (section III), Murray asks what kind of union between Adam and his descendants can account for the imputation of this sin. The two options are (1) Realist; (2) Federalist/representationist. Murray takes option (2).

This sets the stage for the next chapter, in which Murray addresses the following questions:

In chapter 3 (section IV), Murray asks how the sin of Adam is imputed to his descendants. He considers two options: (1) Mediate imputation; (2) Immediate imputation. These terms are explained by Murray, and also in the text below.
In chapter 4 (section V), Murray considers the character of our involvement in Adam’s sin. This is a complex chapter, and is not especially relevant for our purposes, so we won’t spend much time on it.

This material is some of the most complex we have yet encountered. It’s very worthwhile, but please don’t worry if you find it a bit baffling – just do what you can, and skip the questions marked with a * if you’re pressed for time.

I’ve also included some questions on the relevant chapter in Calvin’s Institutes (II.i). This is considerably easier than the final section of Murray; you might like to spend your time looking at Calvin instead. Whatever you spend your time reading, we’ll have plenty of opportunity in the tutorial to gather together the various loose ends.

Here, building on the partial outline from last week, is a full outline of the contents of Murray’s book:

Outline of Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin

Chapter 1

Section I: Syntax of Romans 5:12-21

Section II: The meaning of “in that all sinned” (Romans 5:12)

(1) The Pelagian interpretation

(2) The Roman Catholic interpretation

(3) Calvin’s interpretation

(4) The Classical Protestant interpretation

Chapter 2

Section III: The nature of the solidarity between Adam and his descendants

(1) The Realist view

(2) The Representative (i.e. Federalist) view.

Chapter 3

Section IV: The mode of the imputation of Adam’s sin to his descendants

(1) Mediate imputation

(2) Immediate imputation

Chapter 4

Section V: The character of our involvement in Adam’s sin

Study Questions on Murray, Imputation, chs 3-4

Chapter 3 (section IV)

Chapter 3 is divided into two parts: (1) Mediate imputation; (2) Immediate imputation. Here’s a quick definition of these terms:

The doctrine of mediate imputation states that the sin of Adam is not imputed directly to his posterity; instead, Adam’s corrupt and sinful nature is imputed directly, and Adam’s sin is imputed as a consequence of the imputation of Adam’s corrupt nature. The imputation of Adam’s sin is thus mediated through the imputation of his corrupt nature.

The doctrine of immediate imputation states that the sin of Adam is imputed directly to his posterity, and that we inherit Adam’s corrupt nature as a consequence of the imputation of his first sin. The imputation of Adam’s sin is thus immediate – it is not mediated through the imputation of his corrupt nature.

More detailed explanations are found early in this chapter of Murray, to which we now turn. Questions 1 to 10 focus on the first part of the chapter; questions 11 and 12 focus on the second.

1. What was Placaeus accused of believing by the 28th Synod of the Reformed Churches in France in 1644-45?

2. Murray helpfully explains what Placaeus actually believed: “In a word his position was…” what?

For reflection: How do you think Placaeus would have felt when he received news of the decrees of the 28th Synod of the Reformed Churches in France?

After a brief discussion of some of the debates that took place at the 28th Synod of the Reformed Churches in France, Murray proceeds to outline the views of some other theologians whose views in some (though not necessarily all) respects resembled the doctrine of mediate imputation. We’ll look particularly at Samuel Hopkins, Nathanael Emmons, Timothy Dwight and Nathaniel W. Taylor, before turning our attention to the altogether more sophisticated and subtle theology of Jonathan Edwards.

3. What did Samuel Hopkins believe about the imputation of Adam’s sin?

For reflection: Why might Hopkins’s position seem attractive?

4. What is wrong with Hopkins’s position? Why can Hopkins’s view “scarcely be classified with the other exponents of mediate imputation”?

5. What underlying conviction do Nathanael Emmons and Timothy Dwight share?

*6. What “two explicit denials” were made by Nathaniel W. Taylor? What did Taylor affirm? What problems could you identify with Taylor’s position?

We turn now to Jonathan Edwards’s doctrine of original sin. Here it gets a little complicated. Try to follow the threads as well as you can, but don’t despair if you feel a dull headache coming on. The tutorial will relieve the pain. In fact, if you’re pressed for time (or feeling slightly cross-eyed) then I suggest you skip straight on to question 11.

*7. What did Charles Hodge and William Cunningham think Jonathan Edwards believed? What did B. B. Warfield think Edwards believed?

*8. What does Edwards’s position have in common with a doctrine of immediate imputation? How did he differ from Hopkins?

*9. What does Edwards mean when he rejects the idea of “double guilt”?

*10. Why does Edwards’s belief that “The evil disposition is first, and the charge of guilt consequent” not imply a doctrine of mediate imputation?

For reflection: How might Edwards rebut the claim that the imputation of Adam’s sin to his descendants is unjust?

We turn now to the second part of section IV, the doctrine of immediate imputation.

11. What arguments does Murray set forth in favour of the doctrine of immediate imputation?

*12. Does the fourth of Murray’s arguments in favour of immediate imputation challenge Jonathan Edwards’s position?

Chapter 4 (section V)

This final chapter is technical, and is not so significant for our purposes as the previous three. Don’t spend to much time on it – any questions, bring them to the tutorial

*13. What is the question under discussion in this section? How does it follow logically from the flow of the argument so far?

*14. What did Charles Hodge believe is imputed to Adam’s descendants? What is the problem with this view?

*16. What do you make of Murray’s attempts to answer the question posed in this section?

Study Questions on Calvin, Institutes, II.i

17. 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.

18. 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?

19. 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?

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

21. 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?

22. 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)?

12. Original Sin (1) - 3 February 2012

Introduction

In the previous session we considered 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. In this and the following session, we’ll be looking at John Murray’s book 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. Some of the questions relate to these sections, and I encourage you to have a crack at if you’re able to. But don’t worry if you run out of time or if you find them too hard to understand – that’s what the tutorial is for.

To help you get a feel for the shape of Murray’s book, I’ve included a brief outline below. The notes interspersed among the questions are also designed to help you keep track of the argument of the book.

At some point you might also want to read Calvin, Institutes, II.i (1:241-255). This is quite a short section, and is quite easy to get through, especially once you’ve had the orientation from Murray. The key parts are sections 4 to 8.

As ever, omit the questions marked with a * if you’re short of time.

Outline of Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, chs 1-2

Chapter 1

Section I: Syntax of Romans 5:12-21

Section II: The meaning of “in that all sinned” (Romans 5:12)

(1) The Pelagian interpretation

(2) The Roman Catholic interpretation

(3) Calvin’s interpretation

(4) The Classical Protestant interpretation

Chapter 2

Section III: The nature of the solidarity between Adam and his descendants

(1) The Realist view

(2) The Representative (i.e. Federalist) view.

Questions for reflection

i. How do you react emotionally and intellectually to the idea that unbelievers are condemned because of the sin of Adam? How do you think unbelievers would tend to feel about this?

ii. How do you react emotionally and intellectually to the idea that the unrighteous are justified through faith in Christ?

Study questions

Chapter 1 (Introduction; sections I and II)

The first couple of pages are an introduction to the subject.

1. Can you explain the “ancient conception” that underlies Paul’s argument in Romans 5?

For reflection: How prevalent do you think this “ancient conception” in the modern world? Can you think of any examples?

Section I is very short, and contains some brief comments on the crucial text, Romans 5:12-21. It paves the way for section II, entitled “The Sin Contemplated,” in which Murray explores several different interpretations of the relevant passage.

2. What does Murray regard as “the crux of the question”?

Before you go any further, spend a few minutes reading Romans 5:12-21 at least twice through. Unless you have memorised it (actually, that’s not a bad idea) you will be wasting your time from this point on if you’ve not recently read the biblical text that Murray is 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?

4. According to Murray, what is wrong with the Pelagian view? Which of Murray’s counter-arguments do you find most compelling?

5. According to the Council of Trent (the “official teaching of the Romish church”), what do Roman Catholics believe is transmitted to Adam’s descendants? What is not transmitted?

6. What is wrong with this view? (NB “Concupiscence” means “sinful desire”.)

*For reflection: Can you think of any biblical texts that explicitly disprove the Roman Catholic view that concupiscence (sinful desire) is “not itself truly and properly sin”?

7. In what respect(s) is Calvin’s view similar to the Roman Catholic view? How does his view differ?

Having outlined the views of Pelagianism, Roman Catholicism, and Calvin, Murray turns to his own position, which he calls “The Classical Protestant Interpretation.” He first sets out three considerations that the correct interpretation must account for.

8. According to Murray, what three “considerations” of Paul’s argument are accounted for in “the Classical Protestant Interpretation”?

9. Do you agree with Murray’s understanding of the text here?

10. What, according to Murray, is “the only solution” (final paragraph of the chapter) 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 Realist view (which Murray tends to call the “realistic” view);

(2) The Representative view (sometimes called the “federalist” view, or just “federalism”).

Let’s take them one at a time, beginning with the Realist view.

11. 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. Murray’s aim here is to identify more clearly the difference 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 (i.e. Federalists) believe that the unity between Adam and his posterity is constituted in another way, namely by a divine decree according to which Adam is established as a “representative” head (or “federal” head) of the whole human race. This, federalists believe, is the sole basis of the imputation of Adam’s sin to his offspring.

All clear? If not, go back a couple of paragraphs and try again. If so, let’s have a crack at the next question:

*12. What does Murray call “the crux of the question” in the debate between 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.

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

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

Next, Murray discusses the views of the realist W. G. T. Shedd, who raised some objections against the realist view.

*15. Why does Shedd think that “it is unreasonable to regard representative union of Adam and posterity as a proper basis for the imputation of Adam’s sin”?

*For reflection: What do you feel about the objection Shedd raises here?

Finally, at the end of the “Realist view” sub-section, Murray identified four problems with realism, numbered (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv).

*16. 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.

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

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

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

27. Covenant theology (4) - 2 February 2012

Introduction

In session 27 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’re looking at the final two chapters of O. Palmer Robertson’s book, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). In this session we’re looking at the Davidic Covenant (ch 12) and the New Covenant (ch 13).

You’ll recall from the previous sessions that covenant theology is a way of reading the whole Bible that takes into account the unfolding shape of God’s work in the world and his unfolding relationship with humanity. This relationship always takes the form of a covenant, and Covenant Theology attempts to trace the development of these covenants through Scripture.

As ever, if you’re pressed for time omit the questions marked with a *.

Questions for reflection

i. What is the “New Covenant”?

ii. Is the New Covenant breakable?

iii. What are the major differences between the New Covenant and previous covenants?

iv. What do you understand by the phrase “S/son of God”?

Study questions

We begin with chapter 12, looking at the Davidic Covenant, which Robertson calls “The Covenant of the Kingdom.” After a brief introduction, (pp. 229-230), Robertson makes some comments on the Davidic enthronement narrative in 2 Samuel 7 (pp. 230-234). He then addresses some distinctive features of the Davidic covenant (pp. 234-252) before looking at the historical outworking of the Davidic Covenant in the history of the Old Testament (pp. 252-269).

First, a quick look at the introduction (pp. 229-230).

1. “In the Davidic covenant God’s purposes … reach their climactic stage of realization so far as the Old Testament is concerned” (p. 229). What evidence does Robertson give to support this claim (pp. 229-230)?

For reflection: Why is it significant that there is a man on Israel’s throne at the “climactic stage” of God’s OT covenants with Israel? (Hint: Consider Genesis 1:26-28)

Now let’s look at the Davidic enthronement narrative in 2 Samuel 7 (pp. 230-234).

2. In preparation for the inauguration of the Davidic covenant, David “took Jerusalem from the Jebusites” (p. 230). Bearing in mind Genesis 3:15, Exodus 3:17 and Joshua 15:63, why might this be significant?

3. Explain the “interconnection between dynasty and dwelling-place” (p. 232).

For reflection: Why is the construction of a permanent dwelling-place for Israel’s God significant in the light of Genesis 12:1-3?

4. What does “son of God” mean in the context of the Davidic covenant (pp. 233-234)?

5. What Old Testament evidence does Robertson mention which points toward a “divine Messiah” (p. 234)?

Robertson now considers a series of distinctive features of the Davidic covenant (pp. 234-252).

6. Robertson describes Israel’s King as a “covenant mediator” (p. 235). What sorts of things does the King do in this capacity (p. 235)?

For reflection: What light does this connection between “Kingdom” and “Covenant” shed on the summary of Jesus’ teaching in Mark 1:14-15?

On pp. 243-252, Robertson considers the question of whether the Davidic Covenant is “conditional or unconditional” (pp. 244). Some such as R. E. Clements see the Davidic covenant as an outworking of the promise to Abraham (pp. 244-245); others such as M. Tsevat see a connection between the Davidic and Mosaic covenants (pp. 245-246). Robertson proposes another perspective which (unlike those just mentioned) does not involve alleging contradictions (Tsevat) or misrepresentations (Clements) inGRC-27a Scripture.

Robertson addresses the conditionality/unconditionality question in stages – first, considering the people of Israel corporately (pp. 246-247); second, considering individual participating in the covenant (p. 247).

7. “Is it certain that God’s purposes to establish a kingdom for himself among redeemed sinners shall be realized?” (p. 246). Why?

8. Does the certainty of God’s purposes guarantee “individual participation in the blessings of the covenant” (p. 247)?

Robertson turns next to the historical outworking of the Davidic Covenant (pp. 252-269). Among other things, this section highlights the connection between Israel’s King and God’s covenant with Israel (see especially p. 267). This section is well worth reading, though we probably won’t have time to discuss it in detail during the tutorial.

In the final chapter Robertson turns to the New Covenant, focussing much of his attention on the important prophecy of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34. You might like to read this text in its context before continuing.

9. Robertson identifies “several major motifs … which relate essentially to the new covenant concept” (p. 247) in Jeremiah 31 and related passages. What are these motifs (pp. 274-278)?

10. The “concept of newness [in the New Covenant] implies a break with the past” (p. 280). According to Robertson, what particular covenantal administration(s) is/are left behind (pp. 280-281)? Do you agree?

11. “Yet the newness of the new covenant must not stand in absolute contradiction to the previous covenants. A factor of continuity must be recognized” (p. 281). What aspects of continuity does Robertson identify (pp. 281-286)? Do you agree?

12. Why does Jeremiah emphasise the forgiveness of sins available under the New Covenant (p. 283)?

13. What is wrong with R. K. Harrison’s claim that the New Covenant manifested “personal, as opposed to corporate, spirituality” (p. 286)?

14. How does Robertson relieve “the tension between individuality and corporateness in the new covenant” (pp. 287-290)?

15. How does Robertson explain Jeremiah’s apparent insistence that under the New Covenant there will be no need for teachers (pp. 293-296)? Do you agree?

26. Covenant theology (3) - 19 December 2011

In session 26 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’re continuing our study of Covenant Theology with the help of O. Palmer Robertson’s book, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). You’ll recall from the previous sessions that covenant theology is a way of reading the whole Bible that takes into account the unfolding shape of God’s work in the world and his unfolding relationship with humanity. This relationship always takes the form of a covenant, and Covenant Theology attempts to trace the development of these covenants through Scripture.

We’ve looked in previous sessions at the theme of the divine covenants in general terms, and then at some specific biblical covenants, beginning with the so-called “Covenant of Creation,” made with Adam before the fall, and then looking at God’s covenant with Abraham. We continue today where we left off, looking at the seal of the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant, before working through Robertson’s critique of dispensationalism.

As ever, if you’re pressed for time omit the questions marked with a *.

Questions for reflection

i. “The Mosaic Covenant was an external covenant requiring external obedience; the New covenant is an internal covenant requiring – and indeed providing – transformation of heart.” Do you agree?

ii. Can a Christian be saved without being baptised? Explain your answer?

iii. Explain what is going on Exodus 3:24-26. Does this have any implications for your answer to the previous question?

iv. To whom should baptism be administered? Why?

Study questions

We begin in chapter 8, still looking at the Abrahamic covenant, but focussing on the seal of the Abrahamic covenant: the sign of circumcision.

1. “Far from being an optional aspect of the covenantal bond, the seal is the covenant” (p. 148). What does Robertson mean by this?

For reflection: What light does your answer to the above question shed on Ex 2:24-26?

2. What are the five points identified by Robertson which highlight “the import of circumcision as originally instituted for Abraham” (pp. 150-152)? Do any of these points surprise you?

3. “This absolute openness to the incorporation of Gentiles into the community of Israel has far-reaching significance affecting the interpretation of massive portions of Old and New Testaments” (p. 154). Why?

4. What do you think of the following statements from Robertson? In particular, is there a tension with his previous claim that “the seal is the covenant” (p. 148)?

“The circumcision symbol of the old covenant has no value whatsoever unless it be joined with the true righteousness which it represents” (p. 160)
“The symbol of circumcision under the old covenant is not the thing which makes a man acceptable to God. Only the true circumcision of the heart by the Spirit accomplishes the cleansing which is sufficient to make a man acceptable to God” (p. 161).

5. Robertson argues that “circumcision under the old covenant is replaced by baptism under the new covenant” (p. 162). What do you think of the argument as Robertson develops it on pp. 162-166?

Chapter 10 discusses the Mosaic covenant. After some opening remarks about dating based on alleged parallels with Hittite treaties (pp. 168-169), Robertson moves on to the theological significance of the Mosaic Covenant (from p. 170 onward).

6. “Whatever concept of law may be advanced [concerning the Mosaic era], it must at all times remain subservient to the broader concept of covenant” (p. 171). What does this mean? Why does it matter?

7. How does Robertson describe “the distinctiveness of the Mosaic covenant” on pp. 172-173?

For reflection: Do you agree with Robertson’s characterisation of the Mosaic covenant here? You might find the following texts helpful as you consider this question:

Deuteronomy 6:4-6
Deuteronomy 30:14
Psalm 37:31
Psalm 40:8
Psalm 119:11

(Note: Robertson himself seems aware of some problems in his argument here – see footnote 13 on p. 190. It isn’t clear, however, that he manages to resolve them.)

Robertson tackles head-on what he calls the “difficult question” of whether “the covenant of law [is] still significance for participants in the new covenant” (p. 178).

8. “The Christian does not live under an externalized ministration of law engraved on stone tablets … he no longer relates to that law as an impersonal code standing outside himself” (pp. 182-183). What do you think of this statement?

9. How does Robertson believe that Jeremiah 31:33-34 supports his argument (p. 190-191)? Do you agree with him?

Chapter 11 is an extended critique of dispensationalism. If you’ve never heard of dispensationalism, you’re about to find out how lucky you are (as Calvin used to say) to have been spared the experience.

10. Why, according to Robertson’s brief comments on p. 201, is “covenant” a significant framework through which to understand biblical revelation?

11. What alternative system of structuring biblical revelation does Robertson interact with? What caveats does he note?

12. How do the earlier dispensational treatments of Gen 1-3 differ from the later developments (pp. 204-206)?

13. What crucial passage does dispensationalism misunderstand in its elaboration of “the dispensation of conscience”? What are the effects of this misunderstanding (pp. 206-208)?

14. “The treatment of the ‘covenant’ with Noah [‘the dispensation of human government’] in dispensational thinking may be characterized as secularistic rather than redemptive-historical” (p. 210). What exegetical factors lead dispensationalism towards this way of thinking?

15. What “basic dualism” (p. 212) in dispensational thinking is manifested in their treatment of the covenant with Abraham? How does it arise? What “basic distinction” is “involved in God’s treatment of his elect people” (p. 214)?

16. What misunderstanding leads dispensationalists to postulate a “Palestinian covenant” (pp. 217-218)?

17. What is Robertson’s “focal point of disagreement with dispensationalism” (p. 220) concerning the Davidic covenant? What evidence does he adduce to establish his view (pp. 220-221)?

18. How do dispensationalists believe Jesus responded to the Jewish rejection of his kingship? How did Jesus actually respond (p. 224)?

19. What implications does Robertson believe that dispensationalist thinking has for understanding Jesus’ resurrection (pp. 225-227)?

20. “The present age is not a ‘parenthesis’ unforeseen by the prophets of old” (p. 227). Why do dispensationalists disagree?

Every Christian is a theonomist - 14 December 2011

This morning’s tutorial in the new Ethics module of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course touched on the subject of theonomy. This topic has become somewhat controversial among some evangelical and Reformed churches in recent years, so it’s worth being clear about what exactly we’re talking about.

“Laws” in the sense of “rules that must be obeyed” (as distinct from “the Law of Moses”) are inescapable in Christian ethics, and indeed in the Christian life generally. The key question is not “Law or no law?” but rather, “Which law should we follow?” or perhaps better, “Whose law should we follow?”

There are three possible answers to this question: (1) God’s law; (2) My law; (3) Someone else’s law. Every Christian must of course be committed to the first of these – God’s law, another name for which is theonomy (theos = God; nomos = law). Every Christian, therefore, is a theonomist.

This position must be distinguished from another possible theological viewpoint that also bears the name “theonomy”. This is the position espoused by Greg L. Bahnsen, James B. Jordan, Gary North, Rousas J. Rushdoony and others, who at various times during their ministries have been described as theonomists. These men believe(d) not only that all Christians are required to obey God’s law, but also that this law has a certain content.

Clearly, one could be committed to the view that Christians are required to obey God’s law (theonomy) while disagreeing with these theonomists about what that actually entails. In fact, these men all held rather different views about the particular shape of God’s law. This only serves to underline further the crucial point: every Christian is (or should be) a theonomist, although as we study the Scriptures we may reach different conclusions about precisely what the relevant nomoi are.

(Not) abolishing the Law - 14 December 2011

Here is the assignment following the eighth tutorial in the newly-launched Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. Write brief notes about how Jesus’ insistence that he did not come to abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17-20) is consistent with Paul’s statement that Jesus has abolished the Law (Ephesians 2:14-16).

You might find it helpful to reflect on the following sub-questions (among others):

What does “abolish” mean in each context?
What “Law” is being referred to in each context?
What purpose is served by the non-abolition / abolition in each context?

The following commentaries and other secondary works represent a variety of different perspectives, and may be helpful:

Calvin’s commentaries on the relevant texts
D. A. Carson, Matthew (Expositor’s Bible Commentary)
Peter T. O’Brien, Ephesians (PNTC)
Chapter 2 of Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics
Other standard Reformed texts (Turretin, Institutes; Calvin, Institutes; etc.)

If you are unable to answer these questions comprehensively or with certainty, try at least to clarify (1) the questions that would need to be addressed; and (2) some possible answers that might be given.

Bowing in the Temple of Rimmon - 9 December 2011

Here is the assignment following the seventh tutorial in the newly-launched Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. How do the eleven questions in the section of the notes headed “Some questions to clarify the situation under consideration” shed light on the actions found or described in the following texts, where someone is (implicitly or otherwise) either commended or criticised for their response to another person’s sin?

a. 2 Kings 5:17-19. Naaman is excused for bowing down in the Temple of Rimmon when his master sinfully bows while leaning on his arm.

b. Nehemiah 13:23-25. Nehemiah responds with considerable vigour to the sinful intermarriages between Israelites and their Pagan neighbours.

c. Psalm 1. This Psalm forbids some forms of association (walk … stand … sit) with some sinful people. You may find it helpful to reflect also on the following texts: Proverbs 13:20; 22:24-25; 24:21-22; 29:24.

d. Acts 12:21-23. Herod is struck down when he “did not give God the glory” after the people shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not a man!”

e. 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. Paul instructs the Corinthians “not to associate” with certain people, while not forbidding association with others.

Note: I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Brief notes or bullets points are fine.

25. Covenant theology (2) - 7 December 2011

Introduction

In session 25 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’re continuing our study of Covenant Theology, the next part of our study of the doctrine of salvation, as we work through O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). You’ll recall from the previous session that covenant theology is a way of reading the whole Bible that takes into account the unfolding shape of God’s work in the world and his unfolding relationship with humanity. This relationship always takes the form of a covenant, and Covenant Theology attempts to trace the development of these covenants through Scripture.

Last week we looked at the theme of the divine covenants in general terms. This week we’ll be starting to look more closely at some specific biblical covenants, beginning with the so-called “Covenant of Creation,” made with Adam before the fall.

There are quite a lot of pages to read here. However, as you’ll remember from the first couple of sessions, you don’t have to spend an equal amount of time on every sentence in a book. In the notes that follow I’ll try to help you to work out which bits to focus on and which bits to skip over more quickly. These chapters will test your ability to read selectively and vigorously, and to avoid getting bogged down in the details. Remember: the questions are there to help you.

As ever, don’t worry if you’re pressed for time; just omit the questions marked with a *. We will be able to pick up any loose threads in the tutorial.

Outline

Recap: biblical theology to systematic soteriology
Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, chs 5-8

Questions for reflection

i. Someone asks, “How can you justify the Canaanite genocides described in the book of Joshua?” How would you reply?

ii. Someone says, “Evangelism is the most important thing – we need to spend less time thinking Christianly about art, culture, work, education and family life; and more time saving souls.” How would you respond?

Study questions

Chapter 5 discusses the “covenant of creation,” made with Adam in Genesis 1. After a brief introduction Robertson discusses its so-called “general aspect” (pp. 68-81) and “focal aspect” (pp. 81-86). Don’t be put off by the unfamiliar terminology; the ideas are quite simple.

I encourage you to skim quite quickly through this chapter, in order to get a general picture of what Robertson is saying without getting too bogged down in the details. We’ll have plenty of time for further discussion in the tutorial.

1. What is the “covenant of creation” (p. 67)? What does Robertson mean by its “general aspect” (pp. 68-81) and “focal aspect” (pp. 81-86)?

2. Robertson is concerned that “the broader responsibilities of man as created in God’s image [which he calls the “general aspects” of the covenant of creation] frequently have been ignored” (pp. 67-68). What does he mean by this? What would be the consequences of such an emphasis of the “focal aspect” of the covenant of creation (see especially pp. 81-83)?

For reflection: Do you think that the “general aspects” of the covenant of creation are given due weight in contemporary evangelicalism?

In chapter 6 (part 3 of the book), Robertson begins his discussion of what he calls “the covenant of redemption,” by which he means God’s plan to overturn the effects of sin, to redeem his people, and to accomplish his original purposes for us. As he explains on p. 93, the covenant of redemption begins with God’s words to the serpent, Eve and Adam in Genesis 3:14-19.

3. “From the very outset, God intends by the covenant of redemption to realise for man those blessings originally defaulted under the covenant of redemption” (p. 91). What does Robertson mean by this?

For reflection: What implications follow from Robertson’s claim here? (Consider particularly what follows if we take into account the “general aspects” of the covenant of creation.)

Chapter 6 is divided into three main sections, each of which discusses a different section of Genesis 3:14-19:

The Word to Satan (Genesis 3:14-15; pp. 93-103)
The Word to the Woman (Genesis 3:16; pp. 103-104)
The Word to the Man (Genesis 3:17-19; pp. 105-107)

4. Read Genesis 3:14-15. How would you summarise the basic message of God’s word to Satan in these verses?

5. Who, according to Robertson, is Satan’s “seed” (p. 98)? What biblical data does Robertson adduce to support his conclusion (pp. 99-103)?

6. Does this section shed any light on the battles between Israel and the Canaanites (which Robertson calls “the cherem-warfare of Joshua’s day,” p. 102)?

7. What curse is contained in God’s word to the woman (p. 103)? What blessing is contained (pp. 103-104)?

8. What curse is contained in God’s word to the man (p. 105-106)? What blessing is contained (pp. 105-106)?

Chapter 7 discusses God’s covenant with Noah, “the covenant of preservation.” Don’t worry too much about the extended discussion of capital punishment on pp. 117-121.

9. What six characteristics of the covenant with Noah does Robertson identify (pp. 110-125)?

For reflection: Think about each of these aspects of the covenant with Noah. In each case, ask yourself (a) whether you agree with Robertson; (b) what implications might follow if he is right (or indeed if he is wrong). Think in particular about the first, third and fifth aspects.

Robertson turns in chapter 8 to the Abrahamic covenant, which he calls “the covenant of promise”.

10. What important features of the Abrahamic covenant does Robertson identify on pp. 127-128?

11. Robertson discusses the formal inauguration ceremony of the Abrahamic covenant on pp. 128-130, before asking the question, “What is the meaning of this striking ceremony?” (P. 130). What is the answer to this question?

On pp. 131-137 Robertson discusses several OT allusions to the Abrahamic covenant ceremony. Don’t worry too much about this. However, if you have time, you might like to consider the following question for reflection:

For reflection: How is the imagery of “the birds of the air/heavens/sky” employed in the biblical passages quoted on pp. 135-137? Why do you think Jesus uses this imagery in Mark 4:32?

10. The Trinity (2) - 7 December 2011

Introduction

We’re continuing our study of the doctrine of the Trinity in session 10 of the Guided Reading Course, looking this week at parts of chapter 6 of Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2. This is a long chapter, but don’t worry – we’re not going to be trying to read all of it.

We’re building on the material from Berkhof and Calvin from 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. 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 *.

Questions for reflection

i. This week we’ll spend quite a lot of time tracing the development of theological ideas through the centuries. Before you begin, spend a few minutes reminding yourself why it’s so very worthwhile thinking about what a bunch of dead guys thought, even if they were wrong. (If you find it helpful, write some of these reasons down.)

Study Questions

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 did the following people explain the OT appearances of “the angel of the LORD” (pp. 262-263)?

The church fathers before Augustine (p. 262)
Augustine (p. 262)
Luther and Calvin (p. 263)

*For reflection: Can you explain why “the later church fathers” (p. 263) opposed the view of the church fathers before Augustine?

3. How does Bavinck explain the OT appearances of “the angel of the LORD” (p. 263)?

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 doctrine of the Trinity were made by the following people? In each case, try to identify why they got right, and where they went wrong.

the Apostolic Fathers (p. 280)
Justin Martyr (pp. 280-283)
Irenaeus (p. 283)
Tertullian (pp. 283-284)
Origen (p. 284-285).

4. What judgment(s) did the church make at the Council of 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, according to Bavinck, was Augustine’s “starting point” (p. 287)?

7. Some people have claimed that Augustine’s starting-point (the one, simple, uncompounded essence of God) undermines the importance of personal distinctions within the Godhead? Does Bavinck agree? Why or why not?

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

8. 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.

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

*10. 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)?

*11. 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.

A trinitarian challenge - 7 December 2011

I’ve set an extra assignment today for first-year students on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course. In case anyone else wants to join in, here it is:

The above diagram represents the three basic errors that can be made in articulating the doctrine of the Trinity. These errors are:

(1) Denying the deity of one or more of the persons;

(2) Denying the oneness (unity) of the Godhead;

(3) Denying the distinction between the divine persons.

The boundary between truth and error in each of these three aspects of trinitarian doctrine is represented by a line on the diagram. Any point within the triangle is orthodox in all three respects. As soon as you leave the triangle, you’ve crossed one of the lines, and become unorthodox in the respect represented by that line. So, for example, if you head “down”, crossing the “Deity” line, you’ve denied the Deity of one (or more) of the persons of the Godhead.

You’ll see that it’s possible to cross more than one line – you could deny both the deity of the Son and the unity of the Godhead, for example, and find yourself in the space between the dotted lines on the bottom left of the diagram.

Here’s the assignment: Make your own copy of the diagram, and add points representing the following trinitarian heresies:

Modalism / Sabellianism
Arianism
Tritheism
Islam
The view of Servetus (Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.22)
The view of Valentine Gentile, the “monster” (Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.23)
The “Quarternity” position mentioned in Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.25

If you’re a student on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, please bring your diagram to the next tutorial. If not, then you’ll need to be imaginative – maybe post the image on your own blog, and upload a link in the “comments” section following this post on my Facebook page.

24. Covenant theology (1) - 1 December 2011

Introduction

Session 24 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course brings us to the subject of Covenant Theology, the next part of our study of the doctrine of salvation. Covenant theology is a way of reading the whole Bible that takes into account the unfolding shape of God’s work in the world and his unfolding relationship with humanity. This relationship always takes the form of a covenant, and Covenant Theology attempts to trace the development of these covenants through Scripture. Covenant theology is not an alien framework imposed on the biblical text; it is a perspective that the Bible’s own covenantal structure drives us to. It thus draws together the various different strands of Scripture into a single coherent whole that reflects the structure of God’s self-disclosure to humanity.

In the next three sessions we’ll be reading O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). We begin this week with chapters 1 to 4. Robertson’s book is an outstanding piece of work, though of course we may find ourselves disagreeing with him at one or two points. As ever, don’t worry if you’re pressed for time; just omit the questions marked with a *. We will be able to pick up any loose threads in the tutorial.

Outline

Recap: biblical theology to systematic soteriology
Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, chs 1-4

Questions for reflection

i. How would you define a “covenant”?

ii. Where in the Bible would you look for a more complete or precise answer to the previous question?

iii. What is the old covenant? What is the new covenant? What are the differences between them?

Study questions

In chapter 1 (pp. 3-15), Robertson defines a covenant as “a bond in blood sovereignly administered” (p. 4), and then proceeds to provide evidence to support this definition. The different sections in the chapter cover different aspects of this definition: a covenant is a bond (pp. 4-7), in blood (pp. 7-15), sovereignly administered (p. 15). Let’s think about how Robertson approaches the question of defining a covenant:

1. Why does Robertson think that a covenant is a bond (pp. 4-7)?

2. Why does Robertson think that a covenant is a bond in blood (pp. 7-15)?

3. Why does Robertson think that a covenant is sovereignly administered (pp. 7-15)?

For reflection: How well do the following biblical passages fit with Robertson’s definition of a covenant?

Genesis 9:1-17
Genesis 15
1 Samuel 18:1-4
Luke 22:14-22

The word “covenant” first appears in the Bible in Genesis 6, in relation to God’s dealings with Noah. Some have therefore argued that the concept of “covenant” cannot be found in the Bible before this point. However, Robertson thinks the concept of covenant is found even where the word “covenant” itself is not. In chapter 2, he argues that “the relationship of God to man prior to Noah may be designated as ‘covenantal’” (p. 19). Let’s try to work out whether we agree with him.

4. Summarise the different strands of evidence Robertson offers to support the idea of a covenant between God and man prior to Noah. The following section divisions might be helpful:

Some initial points (p. 18)
Jeremiah 33 (pp. 19-21)
Hosea 6:7 (pp. 22-24)
Some “elements essential to the existence of a covenant” (pp. 24-25)

In chapter 3, Robertson considers how the different covenants in Scripture relate to one another.

5. How does Robertson summarise the relationship between the different covenants in Scripture (p. 28)? What two main lines of evidence does he provide to support his position (p. 28)?

Chapter 3 is quite long, and at times rather complex. However, the biblical texts that Robertson highlights are fairly clear, and they’re certainly important. Let’s focus on these key texts as we try to navigate through this chapter. First, let’s look at the first major section of the chapter – what Robertson calls “the structural unity of the divine covenants”.

6. How do the following texts support what Robertson calls (on p. 28) “the structural unity of the divine covenants” (pp. 28-45)?

Exodus 2:24 (p. 29)
Exodus 6:4-8 (pp. 29-30)
2 Samuel 7:6 (p. 31)
1 Kings 2:3 (p. 32)
Exodus 32:13-14 (p. 32)

*7. What does Robertson mean by “a unity in genealogical administration” (p. 34)? How does he explain this idea on pp. 34-41? What extra element does he add on pp. 41-44?

For reflection: What implications might this principle of “unity in genealogical administration” have for our understanding of the church?

Now let’s consider the second major section of the chapter – what Robertson calls “the thematic unity of the divine covenants” (pp. 45-52).

8. What is the key phrase that serves to bind together the different biblical covenants into a thematic unity (p. 45)? Where does this phrase occur (pp. 45-51)?

In chapter 4, Robertson highlights some important differences between the biblical covenants. Let’s look at these one by one.

9. What does Robertson think about the idea of an eternal covenant between the persons of the Trinity (p. 54)?

*For reflection: Could our previous reading on the doctrines of God and creation provide any support for the idea of an eternal covenant between the persons of the Trinity?

10. What is “the second structural distinction among the divine covenants” (p. 54)? What does Robertson think of “the terminology traditionally associated with this scheme” (p. 55)?

*11. What is “the third distinction among God’s covenants” (p. 57)?

*12. What must we do “to avoid a blatant misreading of [the apostle Paul’s] primary intention” in the letter to the Galatians (p. 58; see also pp. 59-61)?

The good or the best? - 30 November 2011

Here are the questions following the sixth tutorial in the newly-launched Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. Give examples of how Scripture (implicitly or explicitly) nuances or modifies each of the Ten Commandments such that actions which might superficially appear to violate one of the Commandments turn out on closer inspection to be permissible or praiseworthy.

Here’s an example: Rahab is commended (explicitly in James 2:25 and implicitly in Joshua 2) for lying to the soldiers who were searching for the Israelite spies (Joshua 2:3-6). Though one might think at first glance that Rahab’s actions violated the ninth commandment, in fact these other considerations show that the commandment “Do not bear false witness” is nuanced in such a way that it is not being violated in this situation.

2. Give examples (either from Scripture or elsewhere, though not from Luke 10:30-37, see below) of ways in which the following eight factors (highlighted by Austin Fagothey in Right and Reason) might allow us to determine which of two competing affirmative duties ought to be undertaken.

a. the nobler person – God before man
b. the closer relationship – closer relatives before remote ones
c. the more common good – world peace before personal comfort
d. the wider social order – family before individual
e. the graver matter – life before property
f. the greater urgency – fighting a fire before reading a book
g. the higher law – inalienable rights before alienable
h. the clearer title – paying a debt before giving a gift

3. * Explain how each of the eight factors listed above are (a) exemplified by the Good Samaritan; and/or (b) ignored by the Priest and the Levite in Luke 10:30-37.

* Do question 3 only if you have time after having done questions 1 and 2, and please don’t select any of your examples for question 2 from Luke 10:30-37.

Note: I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Something more conversational in style, or perhaps akin to a blog post is fine. If you find it easier to write brief notes rather than continuous prose, that’s fine too.

8. The attributes of God - 24 November 2011

Introduction

We’re continuing with Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics in session 8 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, turning this time to the subject of God’s incommunicable attributes in volume 2, chapter 4 (pp. 148-177). As you’ll have noticed last time, Bavinck writes pretty densely. But you will also have found that the time you spent chewing it over was very worthwhile. If you want candy floss, look elsewhere. But if you want a full roast dinner with all the trimmings, you’ve come to the right place.

Here are a few ideas to help you follow the thread of what Bavinck is saying:

The questions have been divided up into sections corresponding with the major section headings in the chapter. There are also some brief summaries along the way to help you keep track of what Bavinck is saying.
The italic summary of the chapter on pp. 148-149, though not written by Bavinck himself, is nonetheless very helpful. Indeed, you might find it worth coming back to this as you read through the chapter, to keep the big picture in your mind.
If you find Bavinck’s writing a bit unmanageable, try breaking it down a little. You’ve got 4 hours to read 29 pages, and there are 9 questions below. So, every 25 minutes or so, you want to be answering one question and covering (on average) about 3 pages of reading.

On this occasion, more of the questions for reflection are scattered throughout the study questions. As ever, they’re designed to encourage you to reflect more broadly on the issues under consideration.

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

Questions for reflection

i. “I don’t really like ‘theology’. It just makes everything complicated, and it’s always full of long words and obscure Latin. I just want to know God better and love him more.” Discuss.

Study questions

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.

One important text for the doctrine of divine aseity is Exodus 3:14-15. Read Exodus 3:7-15 to remind yourself of the context, and then consider the following question:

For reflection: Why might the doctrine of divine aseity be significant for Moses on Exodus 3?

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 (see especially p. 150)?

2. On p. 152, Bavinck says that “by this perfection [i.e. aseity] he [i.e. God] is at once essentially and absolutely distinct from all creatures.” But then a few lines later he says, “there is nevertheless a weak analogy in all creatures also of this perfection of God.” What does Bavinck mean by these two statements? How can they fit together?

Immutability (pp. 153-159)

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

3. “At first blush, this immutability seems to have little support in Scripture” (p. 153). What does Bavinck mean by this? What kind of biblical evidence does he mention?

4. “Amid all this alteration God is and always remains the same” (p. 153). What does Bavinck mean by this? What biblical evidence does he mention (p. 153)?

On pp. 154-157 Bavinck discusses various ways in which the doctrine of divine immutability has been understood historically by philosophers and theologians. If you’re pressed for time (or a bit dazed by the detail!) then skip this section and pick up again on p. 158.

On p. 158 Bavinck sets out an important argument in support of divine immutability.

*5. “The idea of God itself implies immutability” (p. 158). What does Bavinck mean by this?

In the next paragraph on p. 158, Bavinck attempts to avoid a common misunderstanding of divine immutability.

*6. 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?

For reflection: Which of these statements is a better summary of God’s immutability? Why?

“God is immutable in the way that Mount Everest is immutable.”
“God is immutable in the way that Niagara Falls is immutable.”

*For reflection: Can you think of any pastoral implications of the doctrine of divine immutability? You might find it helpful to look at Psalm 33, especially vv. 10-12.

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”.

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

8. How does Scripture describe God’s omnipresence (pp. 164-165)?

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.

For reflection: What might be some of the pastoral implications of God’s omnipresence? You might want to look at the quote from Augustine on 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.

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

Simplicity

Before you proceed, just remind yourself briefly of the definition of divine simplicity, above.

10. Bavinck uses an elegant argument for divine simplicity at the bottom of 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.

On pp. 176-177 Bavinck talks a little more about the doctrine of divine simplicity and its implications.

*11. “In the case of creatures … there is a difference between existing, being, living, knowing, willing, acting and so on” (p. 176). What does this mean?

For reflection: Try to answer the following questions. Why might these questions be pastorally important?

Could a human being exist without being loving?
Could God exist without being loving?

My conscience is clear - 23 November 2011

Here are the exercises to be completed in the week following the fifth tutorial in the Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

1. Write brief notes on 1 Corinthians 8-10 (focussing particularly on chapters 8 and 10) to explain how Paul’s example and teaching exemplify the proper role of the conscience in ethical reflection. Some issues to bear in mind may include (but may not be limited to) the following:

the importance of following one’s conscience;
the importance of educating one’s conscience;
the distinction between material sin and formal sin;
ignorance as a modifier of culpability;
the distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance;
the distinction between natural evil and moral evil;
what one should do in cases of ethical uncertainty;
whether one should seek to compel someone else to act against their conscience;
whether, how, and when one should seek to educate another person’s conscience.

Note: I’m not looking for a detailed essay here. Something more conversational in style or a series of bullet points would be fine.

I was afraid, so… - 22 November 2011

Here are the exercises to be completed in the week following the fourth tutorial in the Introduction to Christian Ethics course, the new module in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

Consider the following situations, in which fear might inclined a person to do something which, if looked at in isolation, we would consider bad:

A Christian denies the gospel after being threatened with execution if he refuses to worship Allah.
A man steals his friend’s car keys to prevent his friend driving home after drinking too much alcohol.
A Missionary-Pastor abandons his church after he and his family receive threats of violence from members of the local community.
A homeowner hears a burglar downstairs in the dead of night, attacks him and renders him unconscious.
A 20-stone weightlifter breaks a child’s arm after the child threatens him in the gym.
A child joins in with playground bullies after being threatened, “Punch the new kid or we’ll punch you.”
A Christian child joins in with Halloween celebrations at school out of fear of social ostracism.
A sailor, fearing an impending storm, throws his passengers’ belongings overboard.

State briefly whether the fear provoked by the perceived threat justifies the action performed in each case. If you think that the action would be justified in some circumstances, but not in others, explain the nature of the circumstances that would make the difference.

Then explain what principles you employed to distinguish between the different situations. You may wish to consider (among others) the following factors:

What kind of evil the agent fears (moral evil or natural evil);
The degree of active, studied consent involved at the moment the action is performed;
The credibility of the threat;
The degree of proportion between the threat and the action taken.

Note: I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Something more conversational in style, or perhaps akin to a blog post, is fine. If you find it easier to write brief notes rather than continuous prose, that’s fine too.

6-7. Images of God and Names of God - 2 November 2011

Introduction

We’re moving on in the next few weeks of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course to the next major topic: the doctrine of God. Over a period of a few weeks we’ll be thinking about God’s essence and attributes, and also about the doctrine of the Trinity.

We’ll also be working through some of the practical implications of the biblical doctrine of God. Indeed, this is where we start in week 6 – with a portion of John Calvin’s Institutes on the subject of images of God (Calvin, Institutes, I.x-xii). This was obviously a big issue when Calvin wrote in the sixteenth century, for like the other Reformers Calvin was confronted with medieval Catholic churches that were stuffed full of icons, statues and so on. It remains an issue for us today, for we find images of God all over the place – and not just in churches.

After looked at these chapters of Calvin’s Institutes, we’ll be turning in week 7 to volume 2 of Herman Bavinck’s superb Reformed Dogmatics. We’ll be beginning with chapter 3 (pp. 95-147), which may take a little longer than four hours to read. However, the section from Calvin’s Institutes is rather shorter, and the study questions for Bavinck are included below in order to give you more time to complete this reading. I suggest that you try to use some of the time from this week’s reading to get started with Bavinck.

Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics is a demanding read. So don’t be surprised (and don’t worry!) if you occasionally find some of the details a bit baffling, especially in the philosophical and historical discussions. I’ve included plenty of notes to let you know which bits to spend your time on (mainly on pp. 97-106 and pp. 118-121). And, as ever, let the questions below guide your reading so that you know where to focus your attention. And if you’re pressed for time, omit the questions marked with a *.

Outline

Over the next two weeks we’ll be looking at both of the above works – focussing on Calvin in week 6 and Bavinck in week 7.

Questions for reflection

Before you begin looking at Calvin, think about these questions:

i. Is it permissible to paint pictures of Jesus? Why or why not? Does context matter (e.g. icons in worship, children’s Bibles, art galleries, graffiti, etc.)?

ii. Is it permissible to paint pictures of God the Father, or the Holy Spirit?

iii. What is the second commandment? What does it prohibit that isn’t already covered by the first commandment?

iv. Leaving aside pictures of God, what do you think about churches that contain pictures of anything else?

Study questions on Calvin, Institutes, I.x-xii

In previous chapters, Calvin has been talking about the way in which God reveals himself in and through the created world. In I.x, Calvin explains briefly that God’s revelation in Scripture agrees with his revelation in creation. This opens the way for the subject of images in I.xi-xii, which will occupy most of our attention in the tutorial.

In I.xi Calvin sets out what he thinks about statues and images of God. He doesn’t mince his words.

1. What does Calvin think about statues or images of God (I.xi.1)? What reasons does he give in I.xi.1-2?

For reflection: How does Calvin’s teaching here compare with your answer to the “Questions for reflection” above?

For reflection: Can you think of any connection between what Calvin says here and the doctrine of creation?

In the following sections Calvin addresses a number of counter-arguments against the view he has set out in I.xi.1-2. The first counter-argument is addressed in I.xi.3.

2. What arguments in favour of images of God does Calvin consider in I.xi.3? How does he respond?

For reflection: Are you persuaded by Calvin’s response in this section?

3. What further argument against images of God does Calvin set out in I.xi.4?

For reflection: What do you think of the tone of Calvin’s discussion on this topic so far? Do you think such an approach is justifiable? Why or why not?

In sections I.xi.5-7 Calvin considers another argument sometimes advanced in favour of images of God: that they are “the books of the uneducated” (I.xi.5).

4. Does Calvin think images of God are acceptable as “the books of the uneducated” (I.xi.5)? What different reasons do he give to support his view (I.xi.5-7)?

For reflection: Do you agree with Calvin’s response at this point? Why or why not?

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?

Some people who supported the use of images in worship attempted to defend their position by saying that they weren’t really worshipping the idol. Calvin takes them on in I.xi.11.

*6. What is the “wily distinction” that Calvin mentions in I.xi.11? How does he respond? (You might find it helpful also to look at I.xii.2-3.)

Calvin’s views obvious have implications for what artists may depict. He sets out his view on this subject in I.xi.12.

7. What, in Calvin’s view, are artists permitted to reproduce (I.xi.12)?

For reflection: What implications does Calvin’s argument have? Do you think Calvin is being consistent here? Do you agree with his view?

Having outlined his view on what artists may legitimately depict, Calvin has some things to say in I.xi.12 about where such art may and may not be placed.

8. In Calvin’s view, is it permissible to have any images at all (whether of God or anything else) in churches (I.xi.13)? Why or why not?

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

I.xii is a brief chapter, which you may already have looked at briefly while considering question 6 above.

Study questions on Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, ch. 3

These study questions relate to Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, ch. 3. We’ll come to this in tutorial 7, but (as mentioned above) they’re included here to enable you to make a start on them earlier.

1. “We do not name God; he names himself” (p. 98). What does Bavinck mean by this (see pp. 97-99)? Why is it important?

2. Why does God speak about himself in the ways described on pp. 100-101?

For reflection: Do any of these descriptions surprise you? If you took these descriptions seriously, how would they change the way you think about God?

On p. 102, Bavinck quotes from several people, including Augustine, Thomas and Bonaventure.

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)?

For reflection: Does Calvin’s statement, “Nature is God,” make sense to you? Would you be happy to say it?

In the next section, beginning on p. 104, Bavinck confronts a tricky problem – “a peculiar intellectual difficulty” – raised by what he has said so far.

5. What is the “peculiar intellectual difficulty” (p. 104)? How, according to Bavinck, should it be resolved?

6. What consequences would follow if we were to insist 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, so don’t worry about it too much. Nonetheless, 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.

*7. 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.

*8. 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?

9. 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)?

10. 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”?

*11. 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.

23. Biblical overview (3) - 27 October 2011

Introduction

We’re continuing our study of the doctrine of salvation in session 23 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, looking at the final section of Peter J. Leithart, A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000), pp. 215-264.

As you’ll recall, this part of the course is deliberately structured to help you see how systematic soteriology (doctrine of salvation) emerges via covenant theology from an overview of the whole Bible. Despite it’s title (a survey of the Old Testament), this final section of Leithart’s book stretches past the Old Testament and into the New, thus helping us to see numerous connections between the Old Testament and the fulfilment of God’s promises in Christ.

As before, you’re unlikely to have time to reflect in detail on everything in this section of Leithart’s book, so don’t try. Instead, I suggest that you read a chapter through, look at the questions for that chapter, reflect on a few of them as your mood takes you, and then move on.

Don’t worry if you don’t complete all the study questions. It’s much better to look at a few questions in detail, following through the Bible wherever the threads take you. In particular, if you’re pressed for time, omit the questions marked with a *. You may also find it helpful to look at Leithart’s questions scattered throughout each chapter. Indeed, one or two of the questions below are based on Leithart’s questions. And, of course, keep your Bible open.

Outline

Recap: Biblical theology to systematic soteriology via covenant theology
Leithart, A House for My Name

Questions for reflection

i. “Reading the Gospel of Matthew without knowing the Old Testament is like reading the last chapter in a novel” (p. 241). You knew this already, of course; however, try to articulate new ways in which you’re realised this is true over the last few weeks.

Study questions

1. What happens in Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 8-11 (pp. 216-217)? Why?

For reflection: In Mark 13:1, Jesus comes out of the Temple before sitting down on the Mount of Olives (v. 3). What has this got to do with Ezekiel 11:22-24?

2. What happens when the LORD returns to his house in Ezekiel 43-47 (pp. 220-222)? Think in particular about:

the glory of the LORD (p. 221; Ezekiel 43);
the city (p. 221);
the river that flows from the temple (pp. 221-222; Ezekiel 47).

3. The stories in the book of Daniel “are not in the Bible just to tell us how great Daniel is. Every one of them is also a promise to Israel” (p. 224). What are these promises?

4. In what ways is the return from exile under Ezra and Nehemiah similar to the exodus from Egypt (230-231)? In what ways is it different (pp. 231-232). Why are these similarities and differences significant?

Chapter 8 of A House for My Name highlights some of the connections between the Old Testament and the accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry in the Gospels. In particular, it focuses on the Gospel of John, showing that “the story of Jesus is the last chapter of the story of Israel” (p. 241).

5. “When Jesus asks his disciples, ‘Whom do people say that I am,’ one of their answers is ‘Jeremiah’” (p. 242). Why, according to Leithart, is this significant (p. 242)?

For reflection: Leithart gives several examples of “the conflict between the Christian church and the Jewish synagogue” in the New Testament (p. 242). How many others can you think of? Would you agree that this is “the main conflict in the New Testament” (p. 242)?

For reflection: “Many people … don’t believe that John is as concerned about the Jews and the temple as the other Gospel writers are” (pp. 243-244). Before you reached this chapter of Leithart’s book, how closely did this reflect your opinion of John’s Gospel?

6. What evidence does Leithart adduce to demonstrate that “the early chapters of John’s Gospel, especially chapters 5-10, are full of debates between Jesus and the Jews” (p. 244; see also p. 245). Are you persuaded?

7. How, according to Leithart, is John 1 (especially vv. 1, 11) connected with the Old Testament creation narrative, the relationship between Old and New Covenants, and the ministry of Jesus (p. 246)?

8. “John’s visions in revelation … build on Jesus’ prophesies about the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem, and they show that Jesus is going to build a new city and marry a new bride” (p. 249). Can you explain how Leithart reaches this conclusion (pp. 248-249)? Do you agree?

9. Why do the people think that Jesus is a “prophet” (John 6:14) when he feeds the five thousand (cf. 2 Kings 4:42-44)?

10. How many different theological and typological themes does Leithart find in the account of the wedding at Cana (pp. 251-252; John 2)? Are you persuaded?

11. How many different theological and typological themes does Leithart find in the account of the healing at the pool (pp. 253-255; John 5)? Are you persuaded?

12. How many different theological and typological themes does Leithart find in John 6 (p. 255)? Are you persuaded?

13. What, according to Leithart, does Jesus mean by “the world” (p. 256, see also pp. 257-258)? Why is this significant?

14. “The water from Jesus’ side refers back to John 7, but it is also connected to several Old Testament incidents” (p. 262). What are these incidents (pp. 262-263), and why might they be significant? What do you think of the connections Leithart identifies?

For reflection: Has A House for My Name changed the way you read the Bible? How? Why?

« Previous Entries

Recent Sermons

Recent Blog Posts