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?

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?

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)?

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)?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

“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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Introduction

Having considered the theme of natural revelation (God’s revelation in the created world) last week, we continue our study of the doctrine of revelation in this session with special revelation (God’s revelation in Scripture). In particular, we’re thinking about the divine inspiration of Scripture, the authority of Scripture, and the canon of Scripture (i.e. the question of which books belong in this Bible and why.

We’ll be reading two texts: a portion of Calvin’s Institutes (I.vii-ix), and an essay by Douglas Wilson entitled “Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesiastical Authority,” pp. 255–286 in Keith A. Mathison (ed.), When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed response to hyper-preterism (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2004).

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

Wilson’s essay comes from a collection of essays addressing a heretical doctrine known as hyper-preterism, which is almost unknown outside one tiny sector of the North American church. This isn’t why we’re looking at the essay, so don’t worry if you can’t follow the details. To help you understand what he’s talking about, I’ve included a short introductory note below explaining what hyper-preterism is. But you don’t need to understand this issue in order to address the study questions below.

Outline

• Questions for reflection
• Calvin, Institutes, I.vii.ix
• A (very) brief introduction to hyper-preterism
• Wilson, “Sola Scriptura”

Questions for reflection

Think about these questions before your start reading. Try to identify what you really think about these questions, not what you think you ought to think.

i. Why do you believe that Scripture the inspired and authoritative word of God?

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

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

Study questions on Calvin, Institutes, I.vii-ix (1:69-96)

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

2. How does Calvin respond to this error in I.vii.2?

For reflection: Take a closer look at Ephesians 2:20, the text Calvin cites in I.vii.2, and also at Ephesians 3:5. Do you think Ephesians 2:20 supports Calvin’s argument here? Why or why not?

In I.vii.3, Calvin discusses Augustine’s controversial statement, “I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the catholic church” (cited by Calvin on p. 76, footnote 6). Calvin argues that Augustine did not mean by this what the medieval Catholic church claimed that he meant.

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

4. According to Calvin, what is “the highest proof of Scripture” (I.vii.4)? How does Calvin expand on this in I.vii.5)? Do you agree with Calvin here?

For reflection: If Calvin’s argument here is correct, how should we seek to persuade unbelievers that Scripture is God’s authoritative word?

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

6. Can you identify and summarise the following arguments for the credibility of Scripture, outlined in I.viii:

• The content of Scripture (I.viii.2)
• The great antiquity of Scripture (I.viii.3)
• The miracles described in Scripture (I.viii.5-6)
• The prophecies of Scripture (I.viii.7-8)
• The character of the New Testament (I.viii.11)
• The testimony of the church (I.viii.12)
• The testimony of the martyrs (I.viii.13)

For reflection: Which of these arguments do you find most persuasive? Which do you find least persuasive?

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

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

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

Study questions on Douglas Wilson, “Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesiastical Authority”

Douglas Wilson’s essay is one chapter of a longer book about a strange heresy called “Hyper-preterism.” You don’t need to understand much at all about this view to answer the study questions below, so please don’t worry if you’ve never heard of it before. The reason we’re reading it is that Wilson’s critique of hyper-preterism involves some helpful observations about the canon of Scripture, and this is the subject we’re really interested in. However, just to put you in the picture, here’s a brief introduction to hyper-preterism.

“Hyper-preterism,” which is sometimes called “full preterism” or (by its advocates) “consistent preterism,” is the view that all of the future-oriented texts in the Bible have now been fulfilled. All the events prophesied in the Bible, they claim, have now happened. Consequently, hyper-preterists believe that the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment and so on have all taken place – probably at or around AD 70, when the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed by the Romans. Hyper-preterism is therefore heretical, since it denies the orthodox doctrines of the future bodily resurrection of believers, the final judgment, and so on.

Hyper-preterism must be carefully distinguished from “preterism,” sometimes called “partial preterism,” which states that some, but not all, of the future-oriented texts in the Bible have now been fulfilled. All of us are preterists on some texts (like Isaiah 53, for example), but not on others (such as the promise of the general resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:50-55). The big questions arise with texts like Mark 13:1-31 – some people think this refers to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70, while others argue that it is about the last judgment. A “preterist” interpretation of this text is one that locates its fulfilment in the past. Evangelical scholar R. T. France argues in favour of such an interpretation in his commentary on Mark’s Gospel. The important things to remember are (1) that preterism is fine on some texts – indeed, all of us are preterists on some texts; but (2) only a hyper-preterist would make the heretical claim that the general resurrection of last judgment have already happened.

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

Now let’s turn to Wilson’s essay. As you’ll see, he begins with a discussion of hyper-preterism, but quickly moves to the underlying issue of the canon of Scripture. It’s this latter issue that we’re interested in. However, there’s quite a lot in the essay that doesn’t concern us directly, so don’t be afraid to skip over the parts not addressed directly by the study questions. And feel free to omit the question marked with a *.

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

11. Why can’t a hyper-preterist simply appeal to Scripture to support his rejection of what the creeds say about the future (p. 258; cf. p. 265)?

12. Why does Wilson think that the tradition of the church is an especially significant argument against hyper-preterism (p. 259)?

For reflection: Do you agree with the argument Wilson outlines here? Why or why not?

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

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

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

Introduction

The reading for session 4 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course takes us to the beginning of Calvin’s Institutes, and to the well-known section on the subject of the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves (John Calvin, Institutes, I.i-vi [1:35-74]). It’s worth paying close attention to the development of the argument in this portion of Calvin’s work (especially chapters i-iv and vi) in order to grasp fully what Calvin is saying, both because it lays some important foundations for what follows, and also because some contemporary scholars have misread Calvin at this point.

Here, just remind you, are a couple of examples of the format for references in Calvin’s work:

• I.ii.3 means book I, chapter ii, section 3.
• I.iii means book I, chapter iii.

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

Outline

• Introduction
• Questions for reflection
• Calvin, Institutes, I.i-vi

Questions for reflection

i. Read Psalm 19. What do vv. 1-6 tell us about how we can find out about God? Why do you think vv. 7-11 are included at this point in the Psalm?

ii. Read Romans 1:18-32. According to these verses, what has God revealed about himself in the creation? What do we naturally tend to do with this knowledge?

Study questions

In I.i (book I, chapter i), Calvin explains how the knowledge of God is related to the knowledge of ourselves.

1. “No one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God” (I.i.1). Why not? According to Calvin, what particular aspects of the world lead us to contemplate God?

2. “Man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face” (I.i.2). What does Calvin mean by this? What examples does he give?

In I.i.3, Calvin discusses some important biblical evidence to support the point made in the previous section, namely that “Man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face” (I.i.2).

3. What biblical evidence does Calvin provide in I.i.3 to support the point made in the previous section?

In I.ii, Calvin discusses in more detail what he means by “the knowledge of God,” the nature of such knowledge, and so on.

4. What does Calvin mean by “the knowledge of God” in I.ii.1? What kind of response to God should such knowledge involve (I.ii.1-2)?

In I.iii, Calvin explains and seeks to prove that there is in the natural human mind “an awareness of divinity.”

5. What evidence does Calvin give in I.iii.1 that “there is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity”?

For reflection: What do you think of the evidence that Calvin gives here? Are you persuaded? Why or why not?

6. What would Calvin say to someone who thought that “religion was invented” by men as an instrument of power (I.iii.2)?

For reflection: Where do you think Calvin would say that the various different religions of the world come from?

I.iv is a crucial portion of this part of Calvin’s Institutes, for it explains what men and women do with the knowledge of God which has been implanted within us.

7. How do human beings naturally respond to the “seed of religion” implanted within them (I.iv.1)?

8. What would Calvin say to people who thought that “zeal for religion … is sufficient” (I.iv.3)?

For reflection: How would Calvin respond to the claim that some non-Christians are genuinely seeking to worship and serve the true God?

For reflection: What implications does Calvin’s argument have for contemporary evangelism?

9. In I.iv.4, Calvin discusses “a second sin.” What is this sin, and how (according to Calvin) do people commit it?

For reflection: How does Calvin’s argument so far (I.i-iv) fit with what Paul says in Romans 1:18–32?

In I.v Calvin covers in more detail some of the themes he has already discussed in the previous chapters. I suggest you move more quickly through this chapter, though you may find it helpful to look at the sections highlighted in questions 10 and 11.

*10. In what particular ways does God make himself known to humanity (I.v.1-2)?

*11. How do we naturally respond to what God has revealed to us (I.v.4-5, 9-13)?

*12. What important points does Calvin make as he summarises his argument in I.v.14-15?

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

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

WLC Question 151: What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?

Answer: Sins receive their aggravations,

1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.

2. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good of all or many.

3. From the nature and quality of the offence: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.

4. From circumstances of time, and place: if on the Lord’s day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.

1. Write an ethical commentary on the life of Saul as presented in 1 Samuel 9-31, drawing particular attention to the following:

(a) ways in which John Frame’s “perspectives” (normative, situational, existential) draw attention to moral defects in Saul’s actions;

(b) examples of ethical “aggravations” discussed in the answer to question 151 in the Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC 151).

Note: As before, I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Bullet points or something very conversational in style (perhaps akin to a blog post) is fine. Try to distribute the 4 hours reasonably evenly across the whole of this narrative of Saul’s life. About 10 minutes per chapter would get you through the whole lot with a few minutes to spare.

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

1. How could each of the following actions be rendered sinful by a defect in each of the three perspectives (normative, situational, existential)?

a. Helping an old lady across the road.

b. Preaching a sermon.

c. Getting married.

d. Remaining single.

e. Going to church.

f. Reading a book on Christian ethics.

2. Analyse the answer to WLC 151, explaining how each of the “aggravations” mentioned could be viewed from one of Frame’s three perspectives. (You will probably find it helpful to group the aggravations into categories for this purpose, rather than discussing each one individually.)

3. Find biblical examples of each of the “aggravations” mentioned in the answer to WLC 151. (Please do not look at the WLC proof texts; do not use Bible software or a concordance for any purpose other than to find biblical references that you can already remember; and do not use Google at all. This is an exercise in thinking carefully about the Bible, not in whether you can type and use a dictionary.)

Suggested time allocation: 45-60 minutes for question 1; about 30 minutes for question 2; and the rest of the 4 hours or so for question 3.

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.

Introduction

This is the third of the three introductory sessions to the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, which are together designed to pave the way for the programme of theological study that follows. Here’s an outline of the first three weeks:

Session 1: Approaching theological study

Session 2: Godliness and theological study

Session 3: Prayer

The reading for week 3 is from Calvin’s Institutes, III.xx, on the subject of prayer – arguably one of the most profound and thought-provoking pieces of writing on this subject within the Reformed tradition.

This is quite a long chapter, so please don’t worry if you don’t have time to finish it all. I suggest that you focus your attention on the first part of the chapter, up to section 33 (p. 897). Don’t worry so much about the exposition of the Lord’s Prayer from sections 34 to 49 – it’s great stuff, but we can’t do everything. That gives you a lot fewer pages to read, which should be more manageable. I’ve marked with an asterisk * the questions not to focus on.

Outline

• Introduction
• Questions for reflection
• Calvin, Institutes, III.xx

Questions for reflection

Before you begin reading, consider the following questions:

i. What teaching (from sermons, books, wherever) have you encountered in recent years on the subject of prayer?

ii. How and when do you pray?

iii. What aspects of your prayer life are you most happy with, and which are you most dissatisfied with?

Study questions

1. How does Calvin seek to persuade us of the importance of prayer (III.xx.1-2)?

2. How would Calvin respond to the claim that prayer is superfluous since God already knows what we need (III.xx.3)? What do you think of his counter-arguments?

3. What would Calvin say to a believer who found it hard to concentrate during prayer (III.xx.5)? Have you ever found this yourself? Do you find his advice helpful?

4. Why, in Calvin’s view, must prayer be accompanied by “an earnest—nay, burning—desire to attain” what we pray for (III.xx.6)? Do you ever neglect prayer because you don’t feel any immediate or pressing need to pray?

5. Why is prayer for forgiveness so important (III.xx.8-9)?

6. Should we be sure that God will answer our prayers? Why or why not (III.xx.11-14)?

7. How does God regard imperfect prayers? Why (III.xx.15-16)?

8. What does it mean to pray in Jesus’ name? Why is this so important (III.xx.17-19)?

9. Why is it wrong to seek the intercession of the saints (III.xx.21, 27)?

10. What dangers should we be alert for in public prayer? What steps should we take to avoid them (III.xx.29)?

11. What does Calvin think about singing (III.xx.31-32)? Do you agree?

12. Why should prayer be “in the language of the people” (III.xx.33)?

*13. Why is the Lord’s Prayer useful (III.xx.34)?

*14. How, according to Calvin, is the Lord’s Prayer structured (III.xx.35)?

*15. What is the significance of addressing God as “our Father in heaven” (III.xx.36-39)?

*16. What does “hallowed be your name” mean? Why is this petition important (III.xx.41)?

*17. How does Calvin understand God’s “kingdom”? What should be our priority in praying “your kingdom come” (III.xx.42)? How is this related to the following petition, “Your will be done” (III.xx.43)? Do these priorities shape your prayers?

*18. What does it mean to pray for our “daily bread”? What attitude should underlie this petition (III.xx.44)? Do you find it easy to maintain such an attitude at all times?

*19. How, in Calvin’s view, are the fifth and sixth petitions related to Jeremiah 31 (III.xx.45-46)?

*20. What does it mean to “forgive our debtors” (III.xx.45)? Have you done this?

*21. How should we envisage that God will answer the sixth petition (III.xx.46)?

*22. “This prayer is in all respects so perfect that any extraneous or alien thing added to it, which cannot be related to it, is impious and unworthy to be approved by God” (III.xx.48; cf. III.xx.49). What does Calvin mean by this? Do you agree?

23. What do you make of Calvin’s practical advice about times of prayer (III.xx.50)?

24. What does Calvin advise in order that “we shall easily learn to persevere in prayer” (III.xx.51)? How is this related to Calvin’s advice in the case of unanswered prayer (III.xx.52)?

25. What aspects of Calvin’s teaching on prayer have challenged you most strongly? Are you planning to introduce any changes to your habits of prayer?

1. Make the appropriate distinctions and clarifications necessary to explain what is right and what is wrong with the following statements:

a. Sunday School lessons should have a single, simple, clear application.

b. God’s Spirit already indwells all Christians, so it makes no sense for a congregation to ask God to pour out his Spirit upon us.

2. Choose any sin described in a narrative portion of the Bible, and explain how this sin is a violation of each one of the Ten Commandments.

3. Explain briefly what light is shed on the following problems by each of the three “perspectives” on ethics: situational, normative, existential. (You may find that the three perspectives do not contribute equally to every situation – that’s fine.)

a. At what age should a child be given alcoholic wine at the Lord’s Supper?

b. At what age should a parent give a child alcoholic wine at family meals?

c. A Police Officer, who is required to work two weekends every five, is converted to Christ. Should he quit his job?

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. Aim to spend around 4 hours in total, and spread your time reasonably evenly across the different questions.

1. Make the appropriate distinctions and clarifications necessary to explain what is right and what is wrong with the following statements:

a. Sunday School lessons should have a single, simple, clear application.

b. God’s Spirit already indwells all Christians, so it makes no sense for a congregation to ask God to pour out his Spirit upon us.

2. Choose any sin described in a narrative portion of the Bible, and explain how this sin is a violation of each one of the Ten Commandments.

3. Explain briefly what light is shed on the following problems by each of the three “perspectives” on ethics: situational, normative, existential. (You may find that the three perspectives do not contribute equally to every situation – that’s fine.)

a. At what age should a child be given alcoholic wine at the Lord’s Supper?

b. At what age should a parent give a child alcoholic wine at family meals?

c. A Police Officer, who is required to work two weekends every five, is converted to Christ. Should he quit his job?

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. Aim to spend around 4 hours in total, and spread your time reasonably evenly across the different questions.

Introduction

We’re continuing in session 22 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course with our study of the doctrine of salvation (soteriology), looking at the next section of Peter J. Leithart, A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000), pp. 129-214.

You will recall from the previous session that this part of the course is deliberately structured to help you see how a Reformed evangelical doctrine of salvation emerges from a systematic reading of the whole Bible, taking into account the progressive character of God’s revelation to humanity and the coherence and interconnectedness of the Scriptures. Here’s a reminder of where we’re going in the next few sessions:

Biblical overview. An overview of the whole Bible, attempting to piece together a few of the countless themes that trace the story of God’s saving work through the Scriptures from beginning to end. We’ll also look in some detail at biblical imagery and biblical typology with the help of Peter J. Leithart’s A House for My Name.

Covenant theology. Historically, Reformed theologians have integrated the apparently diverse strands of the Bible’s story by tracing the theme of God’s covenants with man. We’ll be doing the same thing with the help of O. Palmer Roberson’s book The Christ of the Covenants, as we make the step from biblical theology to systematic soteriology via covenant theology.

Systematic soteriology. The Reformed didn’t stop with covenant theology, and neither shall we. Rather, we’ll see how a robust Reformed evangelical doctrine of salvation emerges naturally and organically from covenant theology as we return to John Calvin’s Institutes to consider such familiar topics as election, the offices of Christ, the atonement, repentance, faith and justification, all within the framework of the central doctrine of union with Christ.

As before, you’re unlikely to have time to reflect in detail on everything in this section of Leithart’s book. I therefore suggest that you don’t try. Instead, approach the questions like this: (1) Read a chapter through; (2) Look at the questions for that chapter, and reflect on a few of them as your mood takes you; (3) Move on to the next chapter.

You’ll benefit more from this book if you look at a few questions in detail than if you look at lots of questions superficially. So don’t worry if you don’t complete all the questions. 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. 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. What do the following passages have in common: Genesis 3:15; Judges 9:53; 1 Samuel 17:49; Psalm 74:14; John 19:2?

Study questions

1. What parallels does Leithart identify between the capture of the ark by the Philistines (1 Samuel 3-6) and Israel’s exodus from Egypt (pp. 129-130)? What “important difference” does he highlight (p. 130)? What according to Leithart, is this difference “a picture of” (p. 130)?

For reflection: What do you think of the parallel Leithart draws between this OT narrative and the work of Christ? If Leithart is right, what implications would this have for how you read the Bible?

2. What is sinful about Israel’s request for a king in 1 Samuel 8 (pp. 133-134)? How does the LORD respond to Israel’s request (pp. 134-135)?

3. In what ways does Saul initially appear to be “an ideal choice to lead and judge Israel” (pp. 136-137)?

4. “In 1 Samuel 13-15, Saul commits three sins” (p. 137). What are these three sins (pp. 137-140)? How are they related to the “three areas” of the earth: “garden, land, and world” (p. 139)? What is significant about this (pp. 139-140)?

*5. As Saul goes to meeting Samuel, he meets some women at a well (1 Samuel 9:11-13). How is this occasion similar to the scenes in Genesis 24, Genesis 29 and John 4? How is it different? Why is this significant?

6. “Goliath wears ‘scale armour,’ dressing himself like a serpent (1 Samuel 17:15)” (p. 142). Why is this significant? (You might find it helpful to consider you answer to question i, above.)

7. In what ways are God’s promises to David (1 Samuel 7) similar to the promises he made to Abraham (pp. 148-149)? In what ways are they different?

For reflection: How does this help us to understand the overall “shape” of God’s saving purposes for the world?

8. “Solomon has moved beyond Adam, and God allows him, as it were, to eat from the tree of knowledge” (p. 154). What does Leithart mean by this? Do you agree?

9. In what ways is Solomon’s temple different from the Mosaic tabernacle (pp. 155-156)? Why is this significant?

*10. Why is the episode of the two prostitutes placed at this particular point in the narrative (1 Kings 3:16-28)?

11. “Elijah … follows closely in the footsteps of Moses” (p. 169). How (pp. 169-172)?

12. “Two things help to explain why Jonah flees to Tarshish rather than going to Nineveh” (p. 180). What are these two things (pp. 180-182)?

*13. “Just as Jonah is thrown into the heart of the sea, so Israel will be flooded by the Gentile nations … Converts in Nineveh will be like the fish, rescuing Israel from drowning in the Assyrian sea” (p. 185). What does Leithart mean by this? Do you agree?

Welcome to the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course! A particular welcome to the seven students who have signed up for the new course beginning in October 2011. All the questions will be contained in the “Guided Reading Course, Class of 2011″ blog category, and can be accessed easily from the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course section of the website.

We’re beginning the course with three introductory sessions designed to pave the way for the programme of theological study that follows. Here’s an outline of the first three weeks:

Session 1: Approaching theological study

Session 2: Godliness and theological study

Session 3: Prayer

As you know, you’ll be given around four hours of reading accompanied by study questions before most of the tutorials. The first tutorial, however, is a little different. On this occasion we’ll be thinking more broadly about how to approach the reading during the rest of the Course. Nonetheless, there is some reading to be done before the tutorial.

The main material to read is Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise For Young Theologians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962). (I believe Thielicke’s name is pronounced “tea-licker.” Seriously.) Some of Thielicke’s language is a little complicated, but the basic message is pretty clear, and it’s extremely important for all students of theology.

If you find some sections hard to follow, don’t worry – just skip over them at the stage. We can look in more detail at the important parts during the tutorial. Importantly, let the study questions (below) be your guide. In other words, let them guide you towards those parts of the book where your attention should be focussed, and don’t worry so much about other parts, especially if you find them tricky to understand. The questions focus on chapters 3-6, 8 and 13.

Finally, please remember to bring the following things with you to the tutorial: this handout, Thielicke’s book, a Bible, any other handouts that have been supplied, and something (laptop, notebook, paper, etc.) to make notes with.

Outline

Here’s an outline of what we’ll be doing in the first tutorial. The handout for the final section (Logical Fallacies) will be provided at the tutorial (by email for Skype students). We’ll go through it together.

• Welcome; introductions; housekeeping
• What to read and how to read
• Thielicke, A Little Exercise For Young Theologians
• Handout: “Logical Fallacies: How Not to Think”

Questions for reflection

Before you begin reading, consider the following questions:

i. Which of the following sins are most likely to result from studying theology? Why?

“For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (Mark 7:21-23)

“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19-21)

ii. Are there any sins listed here that you feel personally tempted to?

Study questions

1. What happens to the “lively, active young man … when he comes home after his first semester” of theological study (pp. 6-7)?

2. “There is a hiatus [gap] between the arena of the young theologian’s actual spiritual growth and what he actually knows intellectually about this arena” (p. 10). Can you explain the problem that Thielicke is talking about here? What do you think of the illustrations Thielicke uses elsewhere in this chapter?

3. Describe the scene Thielicke depicts in chapter 3 (pp. 13-15). Have you ever witnessed anything like this?

For reflection: How do you feel as you read this section?

4. “Theology makes the young theologian vain and so kindles in him something like gnostic pride. The chief reason for this is that in us men love and truth are seldom combined” (p. 16). How does Thielicke illustrate and explain this in the rest of chapter 6?

For reflection: How might the student have responded to his landlord if love and truth had been combined?

5. “The church has the prior right to question us, even if it does not and cannot understand the details of our work” (p. 25). Why?

For reflection: How could you let people at your church “question” you about what you believe if they can’t understand some of the things you say?

6. “A person who pursues theological study is spiritually sick unless he reads the Bible uncommonly often” (p. 40). How much time do you intend to devote to the prayerful study of Scripture during your time on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course?

Check out the course overview, the syllabus, and the book lists. You can also read some feedback from current students.

To apply, go here, then get in touch.

We’ll begin with Peter J. Leithart, A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000), pp. 13-128.

This part of the course is deliberately structured to help you see how a Reformed evangelical doctrine of salvation emerges from a systematic reading of the whole Bible, taking into account the progressive character of God’s revelation to humanity and the coherence and interconnectedness of the Scriptures. It may be helpful to give a brief overview of where we’re going in the next few sessions:

Biblical overview. An overview of the whole Bible, attempting to piece together a few of the countless themes that trace the story of God’s saving work through the Scriptures from beginning to end. We’ll also look in some detail at biblical imagery and biblical typology with the help of Peter J. Leithart’s A House for My Name.

Covenant theology. Historically, Reformed theologians have integrated the apparently diverse strands of the Bible’s story by tracing the theme of God’s covenants with man. We’ll be doing the same thing with the help of O. Palmer Roberson’s book The Christ of the Covenants, as we make the step from biblical theology to systematic soteriology via covenant theology.

Systematic soteriology. The Reformed didn’t stop with covenant theology, and neither shall we. Rather, we’ll see how a robust Reformed evangelical doctrine of salvation emerges naturally and organically from covenant theology as we return to John Calvin’s Institutes to consider such familiar topics as election, the offices of Christ, the atonement, repentance, faith and justification, all within the framework of the central doctrine of union with Christ.

We begin, then, with Peter Leithart’s superb little book A House for My Name. Before you begin reading, consider the following questions:

i. What do Genesis 3:19; Ezekiel 44:18 and Luke 22:44 have in common? Try to tell the story of human history with reference to only these three texts.

ii. What does Genesis 3:24 have to do with Genesis 22:6? What was Isaac thinking of when he looked at his Dad?

iii. What light does Genesis 3:18 shed upon Matthew 27:29?

iv. How would you respond to someone who thought that the texts cited in the previous questions were completely unrelated to one another?

Introduction (pp. 17-42)

The introduction to Leithart’s book is well worth reading, though we won’t spend much time on it during the tutorial. At times it feels a little technical, so here’s a rough outline to guide you on your way:

Leithart outlines two main mistakes in reading the Old Testament:

(1) Liberalism  and Marcionism consign the Old Testament to irrelevance. Alarmingly, some contemporary evangelicals look little different in certain respects (pp. 17-21).

(2) Antisupercessionism, exemplified by Kenneth Soulen, claims that ethnic Israelites are still in covenant with God irrespective of their response to Jesus (pp. 21-26).

To read the Old Testament as Christians, we must get beyond the so-called “grammatical-historical” method of exegesis, which, though fine (indeed, necessary) as far as it goes, doesn’t go far enough. In particular, it fails to place sufficient weight upon the recurring types and images of Scripture, and upon the storyline of the whole (pp. 27-40).

The rest of the book is a whirlwind tour of the Bible, highlighting many of the themes, storylines, images and types that give coherence and meaning to the whole. The following questions are designed to encourage you to reflect upon some of the themes Leithart identifies, and to work out whether you agree with the direction in which Leithart takes them.

You probably won’t have time to reflect in detail on everything in these chapters, and I suggest you don’t try. Instead, try this: (1) read a chapter through; (2) Look at the questions for that chapter, and reflect on a few of them as your mood takes you; (3) Move on to the next chapter.

One more word of advice: You’ll benefit more from this book if you look at a few questions in detail than if you look at lots of questions superficially. So don’t worry if you don’t complete all the questions. You may also find it helpful to look at Leithart’s questions scattered throughout each chapter. Keep your Bible open as you read this book, and read them both with imagination and energy. You never know what you might discover.

Chapter 1: Book of Beginnings

1. How is the world like a three-storey house (pp. 43-45)? How does this help us to understand the ten plagues on Egypt (pp. 47-48)?

2. “Very often the land pictures Israel and the sea pictures the nations” (p. 48). Are you persuaded? Can you think of any other biblical texts upon which this claim might shed light?

3.  Can you explain what Leithart means by the three-fold structure of the earth: “the Garden, the land of Eden, and the larger world” (p. 52)? How does this relate to the three “falls” described on p. 56?

4. “Throughout Genesis, the patriarchs … meet their wives by wells in oases” (p. 54). What light does this shed on John 4?

5. “Joseph is a picture of what Adam is supposed to become” (p. 64). How (see also p. 65)? Do you agree?

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt I Have Called My Son

6. Outline Leithart’s exposition of Genesis 31:33-35 (pp. 71-72). Are you persuaded by his reading? Why or why not? Could his reading be taken further? If so, what does this passage contribute to a critique of idolatry that could not easily have been contributed any other way?

7. Why does Exodus 1:7 use so many words to say so little (p. 74)? What about Exodus 1:13-14 (p. 74)?

8. How is Exodus 20-24 like a marriage feast (pp. 78-80)?

9. Is what ways does the three-part structure of the tabernacle reflect the structure of the universe and the structure of the earth (pp. 82-86)?

10. What do the terms qorban and “bread of God” tell us about the significance of Israel’s sacrifices (pp. 87-88)?

11. “Jesus is always eating fish” (p. 88). Why?

Chapter 3: From Sinai to Shiloh

12. “The big sin of Israel comes … when Israel arrives at Kadesh” (p. 103). What is this “big sin,” and how is it related to previous events recorded in Scripture?

13. Instead of organising the army, Joshua focuses on what the priests are going to do” (p. 110). Why is this significant (see also p. 111)? What implications might it have for the contemporary church?

14. What did Gideon do right? What did he do wrong (pp. 115-118)?

15. Why is Ruth 4:18-22 significant in the light of Genesis 38 and Deuteronomy 23:2?

Applications are now open for the new course, beginning in October 2011. More information here.

The next class of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course is scheduled to start in October 2011, just a few months away. So now is the time to get thinking about whether you want to sign up. Blog, tweet and share the love.

To celebrate, the Guided Reading Course section of the website has had a minor facelift. Beautiful. Head on over and check it out.

FWIW, the Skype thing worked very well, so if you’re wanting to take part but worried that you live too far away, well, you don’t.

1. Three tasks for post-fall humanity, all accomplished in Christ:

Sin – atonement
PURITY

Evil – conquest
FREEDOM

Immaturity – growth
GLORY

2. Athanasius on the de-creative effects of sin

The world as created:

1. God (Father)
2. Man (Son)
3. Woman (Spirit-filled Bride, church)
4. Creation (world)

The corrupted world as fallen:

1. Creation (world)
2. Woman (Spirit-filled Bride, church)
3. Man (Son)
4. God (Father)

3. Athanasius’ dilemma

Compromise the truth of God’s WORD

OR

Undermine the creative power of God’s WORD

God’s solution:

The incarnation of God’s WORD

Having introduced the subject of the incarnation in the previous session with Athanasius great work On the Incarnation, we turn in the next couple of sessions to consider the subject of the incarnation in more detail. This will at times involve us in some fairly complex philosophical discussion, especially in the next session. This week, in session 19, however, we begin with an overview of the subject from Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, (pp. 321-330), before looking at Calvin, Institutes, II.xii-xiv (pp. 464-493).

Outline

• Introductory questions
• Berkhof
  • Overview
  • Christological errors
    • Reformed and Lutheran understandings of the communicato idiomatum
    • Kenotic Christology
    • Gradual incarnation
• Calvin
  • II.xii The necessity of the incarnation
  • II.xiii The true humanity of Christ
  • II.xiv The two natures of Christ in one person

Introductory questions

i. Do you recognise these lines? What, if anything, is wrong with them?

He left his Father’s throne above,
So free, so infinite his grace;
Emptied himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race.

ii. What do you think about these lines?

Amazing love! how can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me? …
‘Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies!
Who can explore His strange design?

iii. What’s wrong with this statement: “Jesus’ human nature died on the cross, but not his divine nature”?

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 321-330

1. What observations does Berkhof make about the Christological declarations of the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 (p. 320)?

2. What is meant by the terms “nature” and person” in Christological discussion (p. 321)?

3. How many persons, and how many natures, are there in Christ (p. 322)? What biblical evidence does Berkhof cite to support this (fairly standard!) view (pp. 322-323)?

For reflection: Do these particular biblical texts support Berkhof’s point?

We now turn to the first significant Christological error discussed by Berkhof: the Lutheran (mis)understanding of the communication of the attributes (communicato idiomatum). In order to understand what (some of) the Lutherans got wrong, we must first consider what the Reformed got right.

4. What is meant by the term communicato idiomatum in Reformed theology (p. 324)? What must we “be careful not to understand the term to mean” (p. 324)? How does Lutheran theology get this wrong (p. 325-326)?

For reflection: Consider the consequences of this Lutheran mistake listed by Berkhof on pp. 326-327. Which do you think are most obviously fatal to the Lutheran view?

We now turn to the second significant Christological error discussed by Berkhof: the so-called “Kenotic theory” of the incarnation. (The important names here include P. T. Forsyth and Charles Gore.) Mercifully, this notion is not as popular among theologians as it once was, but the underlying ideas are still remarkably common, perhaps because they seem to make intuitive sense, and because they appear at first glance to resolve some of the supposed difficulties of the incarnation.

5. What key element lies at the heart of the Kenotic theory of the incarnation (p. 327)?

6. How might an advocate of Kenotic Christology defend his view from the following texts?

• 2 Corinthians 8:9
• Philippians 2:5-8
• John 17:5

7. What objections does Berkhof raise against Kenotic Christology (p. 328-329)?

Berkhof concludes the chapter with a brief discussion of Dorner’s “Theory of Gradual Incarnation,” which, though of some historical interest, is not now particularly prominent and will probably not occupy our attention during the tutorial.

Calvin, Institutes, II.xii-xiv (1:464-493)

II.xii

8. Why, according to Calvin, did the mediator need to be true God and true man (II.xii.1-3)?

9. “Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator” (II.xii.1). Do you agree? Can you reconcile what Calvin says here with his comments at the start of II.xii.4 (see also II.xii.5)?

10. What does Calvin think of question 2, above? Why (II.xii.5)?

II.xiii

11. What evidence does Calvin adduce to prove Christ’s true humanity (II.xiii.1)?

12. What objection does Calvin address in II.xiii.4? How does he respond?

II.xiv

13. What misunderstanding of Christ’s human and divine natures does Calvin address in II.xiv.1? How does he correct this erroneous view? What analogy does he offer?

14. What does Calvin mean by “the communicating of properties” (II.xiv.1)? How do the scriptural texts cited in II.xiv.2 fit with this doctrine? How does Calvin’s view differ from the Lutheran doctrine (cf. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 324ff.)?

15. What, in Calvin’s view, is demonstrated by the texts cited in II.xiv.3? Do you agree?

16. What were the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches (II.xiv.4)? How does Calvin reply?

In the next session in the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, we’re starting to move towards Christology, which in turn will pave the way for the doctrine of salvation. To this end, we’ll be reading Athanasius, On the Incarnation, which sets the incarnation in the context of the de-creative effects of sin and our consequent need for renewal in the image of the Creator.

A further benefit of reading this work is that it exposes us to one of the greatest minds of the early church – a theological giant whose writing cannot be ignored by anyone serious about getting to grips with historic Christian thought. This week’s reading is slightly shorter than in some previous weeks, but don’t be deceived – though there are fewer words, they need to be chewed carefully.

On the Incarnation is available free online here, and hard copies will be provided for students formally enrolled on the Guided Reading Course. We won’t be reading the whole work – the questions focus on just the first five chapters, though I encourage you to read the sixth chapter if you have time.

Almost as good as Athanasius’ work (though not quite) is the introduction to the St Vladimir’s Seminary Press edition, written by C. S. Lewis. This, too, is available free online here. Well worth reading, though we probably won’t have time to discuss it at length during the tutorial.

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

Chapter I

1. Why, according to Athanasius, was the Word of God “manifested in a human body” (section 1)?

2. What three “opinions” about “the making of the universe and the creation of all things” does Athanasius discuss in section 2? What do you make of his critique of these three views?

3. What does Athanasius believe would have happened to Adam and Eve if they had not sinned (section 3)? Do you agree? What biblical evidence might be relevant?

For reflection: Would the Word of God have become incarnate if man had not sinned? Why or why  not? What do you think Athanasius would have said?

4. “The transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature” (section 4). What does Athanasius mean by this (see also section 5)? What explicit biblical support could Athanasius have adduced at this point?

5. “The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it” (section 4). Can you explain Athanasius’ argument here? (See also section 5.)

Chapter II

6. Can you explain clearly and precisely the nature of “the divine dilemma” (section 6)?

7. Why would repentance have been an inadequate remedy (section 7)?

For reflection: Can you think how this aspect of Athanasius’ argument might be helpful in apologetics and evangelism?

8. How did the incarnation solve “the divine dilemma” (section 8-9)?

For reflection: Athanasius returns to this point repeatedly in the following chapters, often in very thought-provoking ways. Make a note of them as you go along.

9. What place does the resurrection have in Athanasius’ explanation of the work of Christ (section 9; see also section 22)? Do you find this persuasive? What biblical data might be relevant?

10. “The solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which death has lost its power over all” (section 9). What do you think of Athanasius argument here?

11. What do you make of Athanasius’ use of biblical data in section 10?

Chapter III

*12. “When God the Almighty was making mankind,” what limitation did he perceive in them (section 11)? How did he resolve this (section 11)? How did man respond to this act of divine grace (section2 11-12)?

*13. What did God do “in face of this dehumanising of mankind” (section 13; cf. section 14)?

14. Why, according to Athanasius, was it so beneficial for us that God “became Himself an object for [our] senses” (section 15)? Do you agree with Athanasius here? Why or why not?

15. Why did Christ not “offer [his] sacrifice on behalf of all the moment he came” (section 16)?

16. What “paradox” does Athanasius discuss in sections 17-18?

Chapter IV

17. Can you identify the different reasons why, according to Athanasius, Jesus died a public rather than a private death (sections 21-25)?

*18. Do you agree with Athanasius that Christ’s body “did not see corruption” (section 21)? Why? What implications, if any, does this have for Jesus’ human nature?

19. On what basis does Athanasius conclude that there is “no excuse … for those who would divide the church” (section 24)? What do you think of his argument here?

20. What significance does Athanasius perceive in the outstretched arms of the crucified Christ, and in the fact that Jesus was “lifted up” on a cross (section 25)? How do you feel about exegesis like this?

If you have time, read chapter VI too, though we probably won’t have time to discuss it in the tutorial.

Having concluded our study of the doctrine of sin and its effects, we turn now in session 17 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course to the doctrine of providence. We’ll be looking at Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, pp. 165-178 and Calvin’s Institutes, I.xvi-xviii (1:197-237). This is slightly more material than we’d usually try to cover, but you’ll be able to move quite quickly through the early sections of Calvin, as much of the material will have been covered in Berkhof.

A word of caution from Calvin before we begin: “We must so cherish moderation that we do not try to make God render account to us, but so reverence his secret judgments as to consider his will the truly just cause of all things” (Institutes, I.xvii.1).

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 165-178

Section A discusses providence in general, in preparation for sections B to D (covering each of the “three elements in providence” and section E (covering miracles).

1. How does Berkhof define providence (p. 166)? Can you explain what is meant by each of the “three elements in providence” (p. 166)? Why might these distinctions be useful?

2. “While we distinguish three elements in providence, we should remember that these are never separated in the work of God” (p. 167). What does this mean?

3. What theological arguments (as distinct from arguments drawn from explicit biblical texts) could be used to oppose the three misconceptions Berkhof describes on pp. 167-168?

• prescience (i.e. foreknowledge) or prescience plus foreordination;
• the deistic view;
• the pantheistic view.

Section B discusses preservation, the first element in providence.

4. How is the doctrine of preservation related to the doctrines of God and creation (p. 170)?

5. How does Berkhof describe the doctrine of “continuous creation” (p. 171)? What, in his view, is wrong with this position? Can you think of any other problems with it?

Section C discusses concurrence, the second element in providence.

6. What is wrong with illustrating the concurrence of divine and secondary causes as “a team of horses pulling together” (p. 172)?

7. How does Berkhof reply to the claim that his view of divine concurrence “makes God the responsible author of sin” (p. 174; cf. also p. 175)? Is his defence adequate?

Section D discusses government, the third element in providence.

8. What perspective upon providence does divine government emphasise? (p. 175)

Section E discusses miracles.

9. How might the “distinction … between providentia ordinaria and providentia extraordinaria [ordinary providence and extraordinary providence],” (p. 176) be useful in conversation with an atheist who believes miracles are impossible?

John Calvin, Institutes, I.xvi-xviii

I suggest that you move quite quickly through chapter xvi, since much of this material is covered well in Berkhof.

9. As you read through I.xvi, where in particular do you find themes which are echoed in Berkhof?

Chapter xvii is predominantly pastoral in character, being concerned with how we may apply the doctrine of divine providence to our greatest benefit. Accordingly, the intention of question 10 in particular is to encourage you to reflect in the pastoral implications of God’s providence.

10. What pastoral implications follow from the following observations? Can you think of practical situations in which these lessons might be particularly important?

• “However hidden and fugitive from our point of view the causes may be, we must hold that they are surely laid up with him” (I.xvii.1).
• “We must so cherish moderation that we do not try to make God render account to us” (I.xvii.1).
• “He who has set the limits to our life has at the same time entrusted to us its care; he has provided means and helps to preserve it” (I.xvii.4).
• “Then the heart will not doubt that God’s singular providence keeps watch to preserve it, and will not suffer anything to happen but what may turn out to its good and salvation” (I.xvii.6).

11. How does Calvin address the issue of God’s “repentance” (I.xvi.12-14)?

Chapter xviii addresses the vexed issue of God’s sovereignty over sinful actions. Here Calvin explains how God remains holy even when sovereignly upholding the sinful actions of the wicked.

12. Why, according to Calvin, do some adopt a “distinction … between doing and permitting”? What does Calvin think of this distinction? What biblical data does he adduce to support his view? (I.xviii.1)

13. How does Calvin believe God’s will is related to human actions (I.xviii.2)?

14. “But even though [God’s] will is one and simple in him, it appears manifold to us” (I.xviii.3). Why does Calvin feel it necessary to make this clarification? What does he mean by it?

15. What point does Augustine make in the lengthy quote with which Calvin believes “all godly and modest folk agree” (I.xviii.3)?

16. What point is proved by the example of “the choice of king Jeroboam” (I.xviii.4)?

17. What advice does Calvin have for “those for whom this seems harsh” (I.xviii.4)? Do you agree?

We continue our study of the doctrine of sin and its effects in session 16 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, looking this week at Calvin, Institutes, II.iii-v (1:289-340). These chapters might be summarised as follows: the capacity of the fallen human will, and how God works in us to draw us to him (chapter iii); the sense in which God can be said to be involved in evil actions (chapter iv); and several arguments against his view of the human will (chapter v).

Before you begin, consider the following question: If our inherited corruption makes sin inevitable, how can God hold us responsible for it?

Chapter iii

1. What, according to Calvin, is meant by the Scriptural description of fallen man as “flesh” (II.iii.1)?

2. What biblical texts does Calvin cite in II.iii.1-2 to support his view of the depravity of human nature? In your view, do these texts adequately support Calvin’s point?

3. “Almost the same question that was previously answered now confronts us anew” (II.iii.3). What is this question, and how does Calvin answer it?

4. Calvin argues that fallen man sins “willingly, not unwillingly or by compulsion” (II.iii.5)? What does he mean by this? Why is it important?

5. Can you summarise how, according to Calvin, “divine grace corrects and cures the corruption of our nature” (II.iii.6)?

6. How does Lombard misrepresent Augustine’s statement that “grace precedes every good work” (II.iii.7)? What “two things” does Calvin emphasise in order to prevent this misunderstanding?

7. What biblical texts and other arguments does Calvin adduce in II.iii.8-9 to support his view that all good in us “takes its origin from God alone” (II.iii.8)?

8. What does Calvin believe Chrysostom means when he said, “Whom he draws he draws willingly?” (II.iii.10). Why does Calvin object to this notion (II.iii.10)? How does Calvin’s position differ from Chrysostom’s (II.iii.10)?

9. What “most wicked error” does Calvin describe in II.iii.11? How does he respond?

10. According to Calvin, what contrast does Augustine draw between Adam’s unfallen will and our redeemed will (II.iii.13)?

Chapter iv

In this chapter, Calvin addresses “the question whether we ought to ascribe to God any part of the evil works in which Scripture signifies that some action of his intervenes” (II.iv.1).

11. Can you explain the illustration Calvin cites from Augustine in II.iv.1? Does this strike you as a biblical way of thinking?

12. In what sense(s) are God, Satan and man all active participants in the same events (II.iii.2)? How do Calvin’s scriptural examples serve his point here (II.iv.4-5)?

Chapter v

In this chapter Calvin considers a number of objections against his understanding of the human will.

13. Please summarise (a) the objections set out in the following sections; and (b) Calvin’s response to them. Do you find Calvin’s responses persuasive?

• II.v.1
• II.v.2
• II.v.3
• II.v.4-5

14. Some of Calvin’s critics claim that “God’s precepts [are] so accommodated to our capacities that we are of necessity able to fulfil their demonstrable requirements” (II.v.6). What does this mean, and how does is serve as an argument against Calvin’s view? How does Calvin respond (II.v.6-11)?

15. Calvin considers a number of other arguments against his position in II.v.12-19. Try to outline these arguments and Calvin’s responses to them. Which position do you find most persuasive?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For reflection: Would you want a constitution like this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a few things to say here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gentry, “Postmillennialism,”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strimple, “Amillennial Response”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 4 is a description of the sin of Adam.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1 (introduction; sections I and II)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2 (section III)

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

Let’s begin with the Realist view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Hell

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

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

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

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

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

The Locality of Hell

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

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

The Degrees of Torment

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

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

Growth in Misery

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

Hell Beholding This World

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

Hell Beholding Heaven

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

The Eternality of Hell

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

The Rationale of Hell

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

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

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

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

The Objections to Hell

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 6: Definition of important words.

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

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

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

Sections 21-29: Refutation of trinitarian heresies.

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

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 87-89

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aseity / Independence (pp. 149-153)

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

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

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

Immutability (pp. 153-159)

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

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

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

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

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

Infinity (pp. 159-170)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unity

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

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

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

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

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

Simplicity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paragraph 14, p. 12] Humble yourselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calvin, Institutes, I.xi-xii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introductory note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the questions for session 45 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course. This week we conclude our discussion of Calvin’s chapter on civil government (Institutes, IV.xx), before looking at a more recent Reformed discussion of the nature and role of civil government by Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Theonomic Position,” pp. 21-53 in God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government, ed. G. S. Smith (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989).

As you’re reading Bahnsen, try to identify where you think he might be saying something different from what you read in Calvin last week, and where he’s saying the same thing in different ways. Inevitably you will probably prefer one or the other – try to articulate why.

Before you begin, here’s a question to get you thinking. Leviticus 20:10 declares that “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” What is your emotional response to this commandment? If you were asked to justify your emotional response, how would you do so?

Calvin, Institutes, IV.xx

1. May a Christian go to court? Under what circumstances? With what motives (IV.xx.17-21)?

2. Must Christians obey unjust rulers? Why (IV.xx.22-29)?

3. What should a magistrate do if a King becomes tyrannical (IV.xx.30-31)?

4. What should a citizen do if a civil ruler commands something sinful (IV.xx.32)?

Bahnsen, “The Theonomic Position”

5. According to Bahnsen, theonomists repudiate both “secularism” (p. 21) and “the sacred-secular dichotomy” (p. 22). What does Bahnsen mean by this, and what is his preferred alternative?

6. What do you think of Bahnsen’s 12-point summary of theonomy on pp. 23-25? Do you disagree with any of these points? If so, why?

The section entitled “Christ presently, Supremely Our King” begins with a brief introduction to the theme of Christ’s kingship before surveying the theme of the Kingdom of God in two numbered sub-points relating to the teaching of (1) Scripture in general (pp. 25-28); and (2) Psalm 2 in particular (pp. 28-30).

7. Bahnsen says that Psalm 2 “[asserts] the eschatological … and ethical … character of Christ’s reign” (p. 29). What does he mean by this (pp. 29-30)?

8. In what way(s), according to Bahnsen, is this biblical teaching ignored by “the pluralist political theories of our day” (p. 30)? Do you agree with Bahnsen’s critical assessment here?

9. How, in Bahnsen’s view, should “civil magistrates find the political dictates of God” (p. 31)?

10. How would Bahnsen respond to the objection that the discontinuities between the Old and New Covenants render the Mosaic Law invalid as a guide for political ethics (pp. 31-32)?

11. How would Bahnsen respond to the objection that the Mosaic Law was only ever intended for Israel, not the Pagan nations of the world (pp. 37-38, 48-50)?

12. Augustine asked, “Without justice, what are states but great bands of robbers?” (p. 43). What did he mean by this? What point is Bahnsen seeking to support with this quotation (pp. 43-44)?

13. How would Bahnsen recommend that Christians today seek to bring about the change he regards as desirable (pp. 52-53)?

Here are the questions for session 3 of the Guided Reading Course. The reading this week is from Calvin’s Institutes, III.xx, on the subject of prayer – arguably one of the most profound and thought-provoking pieces of writing on this subject within the Reformed tradition.

1. How does Calvin seek to persuade us of the importance of prayer (III.xx.1-2)?

2. How would Calvin respond to the claim that prayer is superfluous since God knows what we need (III.xx.3)? What do you think of his counter-arguments?

3. What would Calvin say to a believer who found it hard to concentrate during prayer (III.xx.5)? Have you ever found this yourself? If so, do you find his advice helpful?

4. Why, in Calvin’s view, must prayer be accompanied by “an earnest—nay, burning—desire to attain” what we pray for (III.xx.6)? Do you ever neglect prayer because you don’t feel any immediate or pressing need to pray?

5. Why is prayer for forgiveness so important (III.xx.8-9)?

6. Should we be sure that God will answer our prayers? Why or why not (III.xx.11-14)?

7. How does God regard imperfect prayers? Why (III.xx.15-16)?

8. What does it mean to pray in Jesus’ name? Why is this so important (III.xx.17-19)?

9. Why is it wrong to seek the intercession of the saints (III.xx.21, 27)?

10. What dangers should we be alert for in public prayer? What steps should we take to avoid them (III.xx.29)?

11. What does Calvin think about singing (III.xx.31-32)? Do you agree?

12. Why should prayer be “in the language of the people” (III.xx.33)?

13. Why is the Lord’s Prayer useful (III.xx.34)?

14. How, according to Calvin, is the Lord’s Prayer structured (III.xx.35)?

15. What is the significance of addressing God as “our Father in heaven” (III.xx.36-39)?

16. What does “hallowed be your name” mean? Why is this petition important (III.xx.41)?

17. How does Calvin understand God’s “kingdom”? What should be our priority in praying “your kingdom come” (III.xx.42)? How is this related to the following petition, “Your will be done” (III.xx.43)? Do these priorities shape your prayers?

18. What does it mean to pray for our “daily bread”? What attitude should underlie this petition (III.xx.44)? Do you find it easy to maintain such an attitude at all times?

19. How, in Calvin’s view, are the fifth and sixth petitions related to Jeremiah 31 (III.xx.45-46)?

20. What does it mean to “forgive our debtors” (III.xx.45)? Have you done this?

21. How should we envisage that God will answer the sixth petition (III.xx.46)?

22. “This prayer is in all respects so perfect that any extraneous or alien thing added to it, which cannot be related to it, is impious and unworthy to be approved by God” (III.xx.48; cf. III.xx.49). What does Calvin mean by this? Do you agree?

23. What do you make of Calvin’s practical advice about times of prayer (III.xx.50)?

24. What does Calvin advise in order that “we shall easily learn to persevere in prayer” (III.xx.51)? How is this related to Calvin’s advice in the case of unanswered prayer (III.xx.52)?

25. What aspects of Calvin’s teaching on prayer have challenged you most strongly? Are you planning to introduce any changes to your habits of prayer?

Here are the questions for session 44 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course. We’re looking this week at Calvin, Institutes, IV.xx (2:1485-1521).

Having previous discussed the government of the church, which “resides in the soul or inner man and pertains to eternal life,” Calvin now turns to the subject of civil government, “which pertains only to the establishment of civil justice and outward morality” (Institutes, IV.xx.1; cf. p. 1485, fn. 2-3).

Calvin begins in sections 1 to 3 with a condensed summary of, and introduction to, what follows. The rest of the chapter is divided into three areas: (1) The magistrate (sections 4-13); (2) The laws (sections 14-16); (3) The people (section 17-32).

1. What evidence does Calvin provide to support his claim that “the office of magistrate is approved by and acceptable to” God (IV.xx.4)?

2. How do “those who desire to usher in anarchy” support their position? How does Calvin respond?

3. How should magistrates respond to this recognition that they have been appointed by God (IX.xx.6)?

In section 7, Calvin explains his view that government takes a “variety of forms,” all of which are “ordained of God.” He then discusses these three forms (aristocracy, monarchy and democracy) in section 8.

4. What does Calvin mean by his insistence that “the office of the magistrates … extends to both Tables of the Law” (IV.xx.9)? What do you think this should look like in practice?

5. “If the law of God forbids all Christians to kill … how can magistrates be pious men and shedders of blood at the same time?” (IV.xx.10). How does this underline the importance of godly magistrates?

6. When is it justifiable for civil governments to wage war (IV.xx.11)?

7. How does Calvin answer the objection that “in the New Testament there exists no testimony or example which teaches that war is a thing lawful for Christians” (IV.xx.12)? What do you think of his answers?

8. What must magistrates “guard particularly against” (IX.xx.12)?

9. According to Calvin, may governments levy taxes? What justification does Calvin give for his answer (IV.xx.13)?

10. How does Calvin distinguish different parts of the Mosaic Law? How do these different parts of the law apply to civil magistrates (IV.xx.14-15)? What do you think of this argument?

11. How does Calvin qualify his statement that “every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees to be profitable for itself” (IV.xx.15)?

12. In Calvin’s view, is it necessary for every government to impose the same penalties for stealing? Would it be legitimate for a government not to punish stealing at all (IV.xx.16)? What do you think of Calvin’s argument at this point?

13. May a Christian go to court? Under what circumstances? With what motives (IV.xx.17-21)?

14. Must Christians obey unjust rulers? Why (IV.xx.22-29)?

15. What should a magistrate do is a King becomes tyrannical (IV.xx.30-31)?

16. What should a citizen do if a civil ruler commands something sinful (IV.xx.32)?

Chapter vii

1. According to Calvin, what implications follow from the biblical declaration that we “are not our own [Cf. 1 Cor. 6:19] but the Lord’s” (III.vii.1)? Why might make it difficult for us to live out these implications?

2. How does Calvin define “denial of self” (III.vii.2, cf. III.vii.8-10)? How is this related to the answer to question 1? How does Calvin’s definition differ from some contemporary understandings of “self-denial”? Why is this difference important?

3. What three aspects of Christian living are identified in Titus 2 (III.vii.3)?

4. Why does Paul “[recall] us to the hope of blessed immortality” (III.vii.3)?

5. What do you think of Calvin’s assessment of our natural sinful instincts as he describes them in III.vii.4?

6. How should we regard “our faults,” and the faults of others (III.vii.4)?

7. On what “condition” has God granted “benefits” to us? How, then, should we use them? Why is the “body” imagery important here (III.vii.5)?

8. How does Calvin encourage us to do good to those who are “most unworthy” (III.vii.6)?

9. How does Calvin help us learn to “fulfil the duties of love … from a sincere feeling of love”? What consequences will follow from such an approach, according to Calvin (III.vii.7)?

10. What sort of blessing should we seek (III.vii.8)?

11. How is receiving “divine blessing” related to obeying God’s word? Why (III.vii.9)?

12. How does self-denial help us bear adversity (III.vii.10)?

Chapter viii

13. Why must every believer “bear his own cross”? What, according to Calvin, can “soften all the bitterness of the cross” (III.viii.1)?

14. “There are any reasons why we must pass our lives under a continual cross” (III.viii.2). What are these reasons? Do you agree with Calvin’s reasoning here?

15. How does suffering change our character (III.viii.3)?

16. What does Calvin mean when he says that God tests his people’s patience? How exactly does suffering do this (III.viii.4)?

17. How does suffering restrain us? Why, according to Calvin, to different people suffer to different degrees? Do you agree? Why or why not (III.viii.5)?

18. Why does Calvin believe that “whenever we are afflicted, remembrance of our past life ought immediately to come to mind”? Do you agree (III.viii.6)?

19. How should we respond “when we recognize the Father’s rod” (III.viii.6)?

20. Why is it “a singular comfort” when we “suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake” (III.viii.7)?

21. What kind of cheerfulness in suffering should we display? And what kind of sorrow (III.viii.8-10)?

22. Would it be possible for a believer who did not suffer to remain faithful to Christ? Why or why not?

23. How close are you to displaying the approach to suffering that Calvin commends?

Here are the questions for session 43 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

In our final session on the sacraments we turn this week to the chapter on the Lord’s Supper in Calvin, Institutes, IV.xvii (1:1360-1428). This is a tricky chapter, both because it depends on what Calvin has said about the sacraments, the Spirit and union with Christ in earlier sections of the Institutes, and also because it addresses sixteenth-century misunderstandings of the Lord’s Supper with which Calvin assumes his readers are familiar.

You may therefore find it helpful to re-read sections IV.xiv.3-4, 7 on the relationship between sacraments, the Word, God’s promises and faith. Readers unfamiliar with the contours of the sixteenth-century debates would do well to consult pages 331-338 of Matthew Mason’s article “A Spiritual Banquet: John Calvin on the Lord’s Supper,” Churchman 117.4 (2003), pp. 329-346, in which he describes the four main views of the Lord’s Supper prevalent in Calvin’s day (Rome, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli). This article is available online here.

“In his Sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine … This mystery, like others, is performed by men, but divinely; on earth, but in a heavenly way” (Institutes, IV.xvii.32)

“We cannot love Christ without loving him in the brethren” (Institutes, IV.xvii.38)

1. Why, according to Calvin, can “godly souls … gather great delight and assurance from this sacrament” (IV.xvii.2)? Does this reflect your experience?

2. What bearing does Calvin believe that participation in the Lord’s Supper has upon our assurance of salvation (IV.xvii.2)? Does this surprise you?

Jesus’ discourse on the Bread of Life in John 6 lies in the background of sections 4 to 7 of this chapter of Calvin’s work. You may find it helpful to re-read this passage of John before proceeding.

3. How would Calvin respond to the claim that to eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood (cf. for example John 6:51-54) means simply to believe in him (IV.xvii.5; cf. John 6:29)?

4. How does Calvin reach the conclusion “that communion of Christ’s flesh and blood is necessary for all who aspire to heavenly life” (IV.xvii.9; cf. also section 8)?

5. “The godly ought by all means to keep this rule: whenever they see symbols appointed by the Lord, to think and be persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is surely present there” (IV.xvii.10)? What does this mean? How does Calvin reach this conclusion?

6. How do “the craftsmen of the Roman court” understand Christ’s presence (IV.xvii.12; cf. sections 13-14).

7. Why did this Roman doctrine incline its adherents to be “little concerned about true faith” (IV.xvii.13)?

8. What point does Calvin seek to establish by his brief discussion of Exodus 17 in IV.xvii.15?

9. In IV.xvii.16-31 Calvin focuses his attention on the Lutheran doctrine of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Can you work out (1) what the Lutheran doctrine was (especially sections 16, 20); (2) how the Lutherans supported their position (especially section 30); and (3) how Calvin opposed them (especially sections 16, 18, 19, 26 and 29)?

This portion of Calvin’s work is complex. You may find it helpful simply to read through these sections, highlighting parts that fall under one of these three headings. Then try to assemble the pieces in your mind. Don’t worry if you get lost – that’s what the tutorial is for!

10. “Greatly mistaken are those who conceive no presence of flesh in the Supper unless it lies in the bread” (IV.xvii.31). Why?

11. What, in Calvin’s view, happens when unbelievers eat the bread and drink the wine of the Lord’s Supper (IV.xvii.33-34)?

12. Bearing in mind what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:18-20; 11:27-30, do you agree with Calvin’s claim that, “We nowhere read that men bring death upon themselves by receiving Christ unworthily, but rather by despising him” (IV.xvii.33). How do Calvin’s comments here compare with what he says in IV.xvii.40?

In section 35 to 37 Calvin criticises some superstitious practices which had arisen during the Middle Ages, before moving on to consider some practical and pastoral matters in sections 38 to 46.

13. How does the Lord’s Supper serve as “a kind of exhortation … to purity and holiness of life, and to love, peace and concord” (IV.xvii.38)?

14. “The right administering of the sacrament requires the Word” (IV.xvii.39). Why?

15. “I’m not worthy to receive the Lord’s Supper.” How would Calvin respond to a believer who said this (sections 41-42)?

16. How often should the Lord’s Supper be celebrated (IV.xvii.43-44, 46)? Why?

That’s a good question. Here’s a stab at an answer:

The “threat of force” fallacy is the illegitimate and illogical attempt to argue for a position by alleging (truthfully or untruthfully) that unpleasant consequences will follow from rejecting it. “Vote for me or I’ll break your legs,” or “Don’t defend your wife if she’s attacked, you might get hurt,” would be obvious examples. A less obvious example (though one you’d be more likely to hear in some circles), might be: “Don’t read books by theologian X at theological college – you’ll never get a job in a British evangelical church.”

In both cases, the crucial point is that the unpleasant consequences of the actions in question cannot be morally justified, either by the person imposing them or by the person issuing the warning. It is unjust to break someone’s legs just because they don’t vote for you. And why should the mere fact that a person reads any book exclude them from consideration for a Ministerial position? The consideration of these unpleasant consequences therefore provides a morally insufficient reason for adopting the position proposed, and the threat of those consequences is a logically insufficient argument.

Put another way, the danger of injury ought not to deter you from defending your wife, because defending your wife is right. You should ignore the “threat of force” and just pile in regardless.

The threat of properly-applied church discipline is quite different, for here the unpleasant consequences (e.g. private rebuke, public rebuke, excommunication) are morally justifiable. Moreover, it would be right to issue warnings of these consequences in certain circumstances in order to deter the ungodliness or unorthodoxy that would ultimately bring them about.

Of course, such warnings do not themselves constitute logically sufficient arguments for godliness or orthodoxy, but that is not their purpose. Wise and responsible elders would use other arguments (biblical, theological, etc) to do this.

One final thought: In instances where church discipline is unwarranted, the threat of discipline would be an example of the “threat of force” fallacy. It wouldn’t be legitimate for the Elders at Emmanuel to excommunicate (or threaten to excommunicate) someone because they’re an Amyraldian or an amillenialist, even though we believe those positions to be mistaken. They’re not significant enough to warrant church discipline. Since the unpleasant consequences are morally unjustifiable, the threat of them ought ultimately to be disregarded by the person to whom they are given.

The first year of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course kicks off again today. We began in September 2009 with one student – he’s now half-way through the second year. We begin again today with three students, and with great gratitude to God for the opportunity to explore the writings of some of his greatest servants.

Here are some biblical texts that are worth meditating on at the start of a course of theological study:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7)

Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. (Proverbs 6:6)

Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. (Philippians 2:3 )

If I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:2)

Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31)

“I was brought up in a godly Christian home, and I always thought I was a Christian. But I’m realising more and more what a sinner I am, and now I’m not even sure whether I’m a Christian at all.” Outline the theological principles that would inform your reply.

No more than 2500 words.

You’d be surprised how often questions like this arise in pastoral ministry. This is not a question from the library or the study; it’s straight from the front line.

One factor that makes this question tricky is the large amount of material that needs to be covered. Almost all of the topics we have covered so far could have some bearing on how you would reply in this situation. A significant part of the challenge is to work out which issues are relevant (and how they are relevant), and then to organise the material clearly and logically. You will also need to be concise and precise, or you will quickly run out of space.

Notice that you are not being asked to outline what your response would be, but rather to outline the theological principles that would inform your response. There are many theological issues that you would probably not mention explicitly, but which would nonetheless have some bearing on what you might say.

The good news is that the title asks you to “outline,” not to “discuss” or “explain”. To “discuss” would necessitate more detail than an outline, and to “explain” would require a more thorough justification for the particular topics discussed. By contrast, you need simply to outline the theological principles that would inform your reply: what are these issues, why (briefly) are they relevant, what bearing they would have on your response, and so on.

Here are the questions for session 42 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

In this week’s session we’re looking at the chapter on infant baptism in Calvin, Institutes, IV.xvi (2:1323-1359). This will give us an opportunity to examine further what baptism is, and also to reflect on some of the common objections to infant baptism.

A few words from Calvin before we begin about God’s grace to our children: “Unless we wish spitefully to obscure God’s goodness, let us offer our infants to him, for he gives them a place among those of his family and household, that is, the members of the church” (IV.xvi.32)

1. What factors inclined Calvin to include this “appendix” on infant baptism (IV.xvi.1)?

2. How should “the value of baptism, its object, and indeed its entire nature” be determined (IV.xvi.2)?

3. In what respect are circumcision and baptism similar (IV.xvi.3) and different (IVxvi.4)? What conclusion does Calvin draw from this (IV.xvi.4)?

4. How do Calvin’s views of (a) the significance of baptism, and (b) its relationship to circumcision combine to produce an argument for infant baptism in IV.xvi.5-6?

In sections 7 to 9 Calvin considers Jesus’ attitude to children, and find further support for his argument in favour of infant baptism. You might find it helpful to read Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16 and Luke 18:15-17 before proceeding.

5. “Jesus welcomed children, but he didn’t baptize them!” How would Calvin respond (IV.xvi.7)?

6. “The children were already old enough to ‘come’ to Jesus, so they obviously weren’t infants.” How would Calvin respond (IV.xvi.7)?

7. “Scripture doesn’t record any instances of infant baptism.” How would Calvin respond (IV.xvi.8)?

8. “Infant baptism was unknown in the early church.” How would Calvin respond (IV.xvi.8)?

9. “What’s the point in baptizing an infant – they’ve not got a clue what’s going on!” How would Calvin respond (IV.xvi.9)?

10. “I believe that God promises to bless my children; the word of God is enough for me, I don’t need baptism.” How would Calvin respond (IV.xvi.9)?

11. Summarise in a couple of sentences the Anabaptist arguments against infant baptism in IV.xvi.10-16. How does Calvin respond?

12. “Infants shouldn’t be baptised because they can’t experience the spiritual regeneration that baptism signifies.” How would Calvin respond (IV.xvi.17)?

13. How can infants, whose understanding is so minimal, be regenerated (IV.xvi.17-19)?

14. “Infants can’t repent or believe.” How would Calvin respond (IV.xvi.20)? What might be added to Calvin’s argument in view of Psalm 8:2; 22:9-10; 71:5-6?

15. “In Scripture, baptism follows either repentance or profession of faith or both. Children can’t do this, therefore they should not be baptised.” How would Calvin respond (IV.xvi.23-24)?

16. “If infants should be baptized, they should receive the Lord’s Supper too.” How would Calvin respond (IV.xvi.30)? How would you respond?

Here are the questions for session 41 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

Having considered the sacraments in generation in the previous session, we’re turning now to baptism in particular, and to Calvin, Institutes, IV.xv (1:1303-1323) and Peter J. Leithart, “The Sociology of Infant Baptism,” pp. 113-136 in The Baptized Body (Moscow: ID; Canon Press, 2007).

Calvin, Institutes, IV.xv

In reading sections 1 to 6, it may help to note that the “three things” that baptism “brings … to our faith” (section 1) are not explicitly enumerated, but are expounded in sections 1-4, 5 and 6.

1. What is “the first thing that the Lord sets out for us” (IV.xv.1) concerning baptism (see also IV.xv.10)? What misunderstandings is Calvin concerned to guard against in sections 1-4?

2. What “benefit” of baptism is identified in IV.xv.5?

3. “Lastly,” what does “our faith [receive] from baptism,” according to IV.xv.6? Why, according to Calvin, is Galatians 3:26-27 significant in this connection?

4. How does “baptism [serve] as our confession before men” (IV.xv.13)?

5. Baptism “is to be received as from the hand of the author himself” (IV.xv.14). What does this mean, and what implications does Calvin draw out (IV.xv.14-15)?

6. Would Calvin re-baptize a Roman Catholic who renounced the errors of Roman Catholicism and joined an evangelical church? Why or why not (IV.xv.16-18)?

7. Why does Calvin oppose so-called “emergency baptism” (IV.xv.20, 22)?

Leithart, “The Sociology of Infant Baptism”

8. “Among modern Christians … the Baptist position seems obvious” (p. 113). Why? How does Leithart intend to address this (p. 113)?

9. What, according to Leithart, do the baptist and paedobaptist positions imply about the relationship between Christian nurture and other aspects of the upbringing of a child in a Christian home (pp. 114-116)?

10. How, in Leithart’s view, does the paedobaptist position cohere with the Reformed doctrine of redemption (p. 116-117)?

You may find it helpful to note in the following questions that the four “features of paedobaptist nurture” identified on p. 118 are fleshed out in turn on pp. 118-121, 121-124, 124-126 and 126-129.

11. Why does Leithart find it so “striking” that “baptism is an external application of water” (p. 118, italics original; cf. pp. 119-121)?

12. Why is it a strength, not a weakness, of the paedobaptist position that it “imposes a religious identity that the infant has not chosen” (p. 121, italics original; cf. pp. 122-124)?

13. “The question, ‘Why baptize infants?’ is similar to the question, ‘Why speak to infants?’” (p. 127). Why?

14. Why does Leithart find it necessary to mention paedocommunion (p. 129)?

15. “Baptist theology and practice perpetuates and exaggerates cultural currents that produced the secular world beginning in the late medieval period” (p. 131). How does Leithart illustrate and justify this claim on pp. 131-136? Do you agree?

This week we turn to the topic of the sacraments. Calvin devotes four chapters to this subject – one to sacraments in general, two to baptism, and one to the Lord’s Supper. We’ll begin with the chapter on sacraments in general (Institutes, IV.xiv [1:1276-1303]). In the tutorial we’ll also cover the material from chapter 3 of Peter Leithart’s Against Christianity.

Before you start reading, ask yourself this question: How do you think your Christian life would be affected if you had never been baptised and you never again received the Lord’s Supper?

1. How does Calvin define a sacrament (IV.xiv.1)? Where did the term originate (IV.xiv.2)?

2. How are sacraments related to God’s word? Why does God deal with us in this way (IV.xiv.3-4)

3. How might what Calvin has said thus far be misunderstood to support what Peter Leithart calls “the heresy of heresies” (Against Christianity, p. 13)?

4. What illustrations does Calvin set out in IV.xiv.5-6, and how do they support his argument?

5. What objections does Calvin address in IV.xiv.7-8, and how does he respond? Why do you think he feels it necessary to address these objections? Might the objections have been avoided in some other way?

6. How is the ministry of the sacraments connected with the work of the Holy Spirit (IV.xiv.9-12)?

7. What was the error of “the schools of the Sophists” (IV.xiv.14)? How does this differ from the position Calvin himself taught? How does Calvin respond in IV.xiv.15-16?

8. How does Calvin’s comparison of the sacraments and the word of God illuminate his position (IV.xiv.17)?

9. What does Calvin say about other “sacraments” in IV.xiv.18, and how does this illuminate his discussion of the sacraments in the previous sections?

10. What were the sacraments of the Old Covenant? How are they related to the New Covenant sacraments (IV.xiv.20-23)?

11. If the sacraments of the Old Covenant were so wonderful, why does the New Testament disparage them (IV.xiv.24-25)

Against Christianity is a book for grown-ups. If you tend to get stroppy when someone challenges your long-held pious illusions, then perhaps you’d better come back to this one in a few years’ time. But if, on the other hand, you really believe that “Faithful are the wounds of a friend” (Prov 27:6), then this book could well be the right hook that leaves you flat on the canvas seeing the world in a whole new kaleidoscope of colours.

Against Christianity repays careful study, and you probably won’t be able in the time available to give every section the reflection it deserves. Allow the study questions (below) to shape the amount of time you spend on each chapter. References in the form A.n refer to chapter A, section n.

Chapter 1: Against Christianity

1. What is the “basso continuo” that runs through Against Christianity (preface; cf. I.23)?

2. “Christianity is the heresy of heresies” (p. 13). What does Leithart mean by this (cf. I.1-3)? What biblical support does he adduce (I.3)?

3. “Christianity is institutionalised worldliness” (p. 17, I.4)? What does Leithart mean by this?

4. Why does Barnus conclude that he is unable to help Peter, John and Paul (I.7)?

5. What does it mean to describe the church as a “city,” and how does Leithart support this idea (I.9-14)?

6. What, according to Leithart, do “old-fashioned Roman Catholics” have in common with some evangelicals (I.15)?

7. What’s wrong with the United Nations? Why don’t churches run into conflict with the United Nations more often (I.16-17)?

8. How, if at all, should Christians be engaged in “political” activity (I.18-19)?

Chapter 2: Against Theology

9. Why, and in what sense(s), is Leithart “against theology” (II.2-3, 7-10)?

Chapter 3: Against Sacraments

10. What are the “six overlapping tendencies that make it difficult for evangelicals to grasp baptism and the Lord’s Supper” (III.6)? How are they related to “the heresy of Christianity” (III.7-8)?

11. How was Calvin “both profoundly right and profoundly mistaken” in his critique of late medieval Catholicism (III.10)?

12. Why would it be a mistake for a congregation to always remain seated throughout a worship service (iii.14-15)?

13. “Are baptism and the Lord’s Supper symbols or realities?” (III.18).

14. What does our conduct at meals say about our membership of our community (20-24, 27-31)?

Chapter 4: Against Ethics

15. “Transformation of life, including social and political life, is not an ‘implication’ of the gospel” (IV.1). Why not? How does 2 Corinthians support Leithart’s argument (IV.2)? How is this claim related to Leithart’s earlier discussion of “Christianity”?

16. “The church will find herself in a healthier … condition when pastoral candidates begin again to appear for their ordination exams wearing chains” (IV.23). Why?

17. Why are “schismatic churches … trinitarian heretics” (IV.27)?

Chapter 5: For Constantine

18. What does Leithart mean when he says, “The mission of the church can be described as a double movement” (V.1)?

19. What do Hauerwas, Yoder and Harvey claim about the relationship between “Christianity” and Christendom (V.3)? What does Leithart think?

20. How does “the hypothetical ‘faithful Constantine’” challenge Yoder’s “case against Constantinianism” (V.11; cf. V.14-15)?

21. Why is “infant baptism … the nub of the issue” (V.21; cf. V.19)?

22. Why is it relevant for Leithart to point out that “God … is the God of the living, of the living again” (V.24; cf. V.25-27)?

As we will see, Calvin’s exposition and development of this topic guards us against the common temptation to view it as an entirely discrete and separate area of Christian theology. Throughout this portion of the course, we’ll notice strong connections between Calvin’s doctrine of the church and his doctrine of the application of redemption by the Holy Spirit.

IV.i

1. Why, according to IV.i.1, has God instituted the church? Would Calvin have agreed with Cyprian’s claim that “You cannot have God for your Father unless you have the church for your Mother” (p. 1012, n. 3; cf. IV.i.4)? Do you agree?

2. “The saints are gathered into the society of Christ on the principle that whatever benefits God confers upon them, they should in turn share with one another” (III.i.3). What does this tell us about Calvin’s view of the relationship between Christ and his church? How do Calvin’s citations of Acts 4:32 and Ephesians 4:4 support this position?

3. “It is very important for us to know what benefit we shall gain from this” (IV.i.3). What is this “benefit,” and how does it arise?

4. How does God work through preachers (IV.i.5-6)? How does this relate to Calvin’s view of the relationship between Christ and the church?

5. “Holy Scripture speaks of the church in two ways” (IV.i.7). What does Calvin mean by this?

6. What are the “marks and tokens” by which we may identify the church and its members (IV.i.8-9)?

7. “Separation from the church is the denial of God and Christ” (IV.i.10). Why? (cf. IV.i.10-16)

8. What counsel does Calvin have for dealing with doctrinal disagreements (IV.i.12)?

9. What do you make of Calvin’s sustained emphasis on the forgiveness of sins within the church (IV.i.17-29)?

IV.ii

10. Did Calvin believe that the Roman church in his day was a true church? What reasons does he give for his judgment? (IV.ii)

In a break from our study of Calvin’s Institutes, we’re looking this week at Derek Olliff’s short article, “When the Fullness of Time Had Come: Paul’s Gospel to the Galatians,” described in the opening paragraph as a “mini-commentary” on Galatians. This article is available online here.

Besides giving a helpful perspective on the topic of justification from one of the major New Testament letters on the subject, this article also serves as a good example of careful contextual exegesis, and connects with our previous discussion of the progression of God’s covenants through salvation-history. It’s a fairly short article, so I encourage you to read it carefully and also to take the opportunity to dig deeper into Galatians itself.

Page numbers refer to the pdf version of the article, and unless otherwise stated all biblical references are to Galatians.

1. What is “the common Protestant view” of Galatians? What does Olliff think of this position? How does he summarise Paul’s argument in Galatians? (p. 1)

2. How is Olliff’s understanding of Paul’s chastisement in 1:6-9 related to his understanding of the gospel? How does this differ from what he might call the “traditional” understanding of these verses? (pp. 1-2)

3. How might Paul’s mention of Jesus’ resurrection (1:1) and “the present evil age” (1:4) support Olliff’s understanding of 1:6-9?

4. How does Olliff’s mention of Peter’s dissociation from Gentiles fit into this stage of the argument? (p. 2)

5. What, according to Olliff, were the Judaizers teaching? What were they not teaching? How does Olliff support his argument here? (pp. 2-4)

6. How did Paul respond to Peter’s separation from Gentiles? How does this support Olliff’s claim that Paul was not addressing legalism? (p. 4)

7. How does 2:14–16 fit into Paul’s argument?

8. How do the following verses fit with Olliff’s argument? You may find it helpful to paraphrase Paul’s logic in these sections.

3:2–6

3:7–9 (Note especially the function of the quote from Genesis 12:3)

3:16

3:17–18

3:19–25

9. How does Olliff articulate the “traditional Protestant understanding” of 3:10–14? How does he respond, and what place does Deuteronomy 27:26 have in his argument? (pp. 5–6)

10. What does Olliff think is meant by “the law is not of faith” (3:12)? (p. 7)

11. How does Olliff answer Paul’s question, “What, then, was the point of the law?” (p. 8; 3:19) Try to work through the logic of 3:19-25, addressing the following questions along the way:

What does “faith” mean in 3:23?

What does Paul mean by describing the law as a “guardian” in 3:24?

12. What two features of Paul’s conclusion in 3:26–29 does Olliff highlight on p. 9?

13. What were those “who desire[d] to be under the law” (4:21) seeking to do? How does Paul respond in 4:22-31? (pp. 10-11)

14. How does 5:1–6 pick up and develop the themes of slavery and bondage from the previous section? (p. 12)

Edwards’s work can be found online here and probably in other places too.

Calvin, Institutes

Chapter xi

1. How does Calvin define justification? How does he distinguish justification by faith from justification by works? (III.xi.2-3)

2. What do you think of the texts Calvin cites in support of his definition?

3. What would Calvin say if he heard an evangelist say, “We need to have our sins forgiven, and we need to have Christ’s righteousness counted to us”? (III.xi.iv)?

4. How does Osiander define justification (III.xi.5)?

5. How does Calvin respond to Osiander’s objection that faith does not justify in itself? (III.xi.7)

6. How does justification relate to union with Christ (III.xi.10)?

7. “It would be insulting to God and contrary to his nature that he should justify those who actually remain wicked” (III.xi.11). How does Calvin respond?

8. What misunderstanding of the relationship between faith and works does Calvin discuss in III.xi.14? How does he address it?

9. How do the “rank and file of the papists or Schoolmen” misunderstand justification, according to III.xi.15? What decisive difference between this notion and his own teaching does Calvin highlight in III.xi.16?

10. How does Calvin understand “the distinction between Law and Gospel” (III.xi.17)? Bearing in mind Romans 4:1–8, what do you think of this distinction?

11. What do “the Sophists” think of the phrase “justification by faith alone”? What does Calvin understand by this phrase? (III.xi.19) Do you agree?

12. What value, according to Calvin, do works have (III.xi.20)?

13. How, in Calvin’s view, is justification related to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (III.xi.23)?

Section xii

14. Why is it so important to contemplate the judgment and perfect righteousness of God (see especially III.xii.1, 4, 8)

Section xiii

15. What two things are secured by the doctrine of gratuitous justification (III.xiii, especially sections 1, 4, 5)

Section xiv

16. In what sense(s), and on what grounds, does Calvin say that the good works of believers are pleasing in the sight of God (III.xiv.9-13, 20)? Do you agree?

Chapter xv

17. What does Calvin think of the term “merit”? Why?

18. Why, and in what sense, do our good works please God?

Chapter xvi

19. What allegation does Calvin address in III.xvi? How does he respond?

Edwards, Justification by Faith Alone

Section I

1. What conclusions does Edwards infer from Rom 4.5?

2. What thesis does Edwards seek to defend in this work?

3. How does Edwards define justification? Does his definition differ significantly from Calvin’s? If so, how? How does this difference impact his later exposition of the doctrine?

4. Why, according to Edwards, is it inadequate to describe faith as a condition of justification?

4. Why, according to Edwards, is it improper to describe faith as an instrument of justification?

5. How can we be said to be justified by faith alone, and not by good works, when faith is itself a good work?

6. What is the distinction between moral fitness and natural fitness, and why is it important?

Section II

7. Outline (briefly!) Edwards’s arguments in favour of his thesis. Are there any you find particularly striking? Why?

8. What does Edwards mean by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness?

Section III

9. How (briefly!) does Edwards relate obedience to justification in this section?

Section IV

10. Outline the 6th objection in this section, and Edwards’s response to it.

Calvin, Institutes, III.iii-iv (pp. 592-669)

Calvin on King Ahab: “It meant little for him to rend his garments while his heart remained obstinate and swollen with malice” (Calvin, Institutes, III.iii.25).

“Since [Christ] alone is the Lamb of God, he also is the sole offering for sins, the sole expiation, the sole satisfaction … Taking upon himself the penalty we owe, he has wiped out our guilt before God’s judgment.” (Calvin, Institutes, III.iv.26)

1. What is significant about the order in which Calvin discusses faith, repentance and forgiveness / justification? (III.iii.1)

2. How does Calvin define repentance? (III.iii.5, cf. sections 6-8)

3. “Before the mind of the sinner inclines to repentance, it must be aroused by thinking upon divine judgment” (III.iii.7). Do you agree? Why or why not?

4. “Both things [i.e. mortification and vivification] happen to us by participation in Christ” (III.iii.9). What does Calvin mean by this? Do you find this surprising?

5. “I interpret repentance as regeneration, whose sole end is to restore in us the image of God that had been disfigured and all but obliterated through Adam’s transgression” (III.iii.7). What does Calvin mean by this? Do you find this surprising?

6. What “difference of opinion” exists between Calvin and Augustine, according to III.iii.10? Who is correct?

7. “Sin ceases only to reign; it does not cease to dwell in them” (III.iii.11). What does this mean?

8. What does Calvin think of the “outward exercises” of “squalor, groaning, and tears” and so on that he mentions in III.iii.16? (See also section 17)

9. What does Calvin understand by “the unpardonable sin”? What is Augustine’s view? (III.iii.22) What do you think?

10. To whom, in Calvin’s view, does Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-29 refer? (III.iii.23)

11. Is your repentance sincere? (III.iii.25)

12. How does Calvin summarise “the Scholastic Sophists’” doctrine of repentance? What faults does Calvin find with its origin and content? (III.iv.1)

13. What pastoral problems arise from this mistaken doctrine? (III.iv.2)

14. What is the decisive difference between Calvin’s doctrine of repentance and that which he opposes here? (III.iv.3)

15. How does Calvin oppose the Scholastic doctrine of auricular confession? (III.iv.4-8)

16. What kind of confession does Scripture require? Why? (III.iv.9)

17. Under what circumstances should we confess our sins to another person? (III.iv.10-13) Does any of this surprise you? Are you comfortable with it?

18. How are God’s penal judgments to be distinguished from his corrective chastisements? (III.iv.31-34)

You might find it helpful to be aware of the following rough outline of chapter ii:

Sections 1-7 Introduction to the material, culminating in the definition of faith in section 7.

Sections 8-13 Various misunderstandings and errors

Sections 14-43 More detail probing the definition found in section 7

And when you get a bit lost in the middle, here’s the key thing to cling to:

The … word is the basis by which faith is supported and sustained; if it turns away from the Word, it falls. Therefore, take away the Word and no faith will then remain. (Calvin, Institutes, III.ii.6)

Calvin, Institutes, III.i-ii, pp. 537-592

1. What question does Calvin ask at the start at the start of section III.i.1? How does he answer it?

2. How do the various titles ascribed in Scripture to the Holy Spirit relate to his work? (III.i.3)

3. Why does Scripture ascribe so many blessings to faith? (III.i.4)

4. Can you work out what “the Schoolmen” mean by “implicit faith”? (III.ii.2-5)

5. How does Calvin define faith? How is it related to the knowledge of God, and to the word of God? (III.ii.6-7)

6. How does Calvin address the distinction between “formed” and “unformed” faith? (III.ii.8-9)

7. Can the reprobate have faith? (III.ii.11-12)

8. How does faith relate to knowledge? (III.ii.14)

9. What kind of certainty does Calvin think faith entails? (III.ii.15-16) What do you think of his argument in these sections?

10. What objection does Calvin anticipate in III.ii.17? How does he respond? Is his response adequate? What biblical texts might be relevant to this discussion?

11. How does Calvin seek in section 18 to explain the tension highlighted in the previous sections?

12. What kind of “fear and trembling” serves to establish the assurance of faith more securely? (III.ii.22-23)

13. Why, according to Calvin, is God’s promise “the foundation of faith” (III.ii.29, cf. also section 30)?

14. “Without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the Word can do nothing” (III.ii.33). What does Calvin mean by this? How does it relate to faith? (cf. also III.ii.34-35)

15. What conclusion does Calvin infer in III.ii.40 from Romans 8:38-39? Do you agree?

16. How is faith related to love? And to hope? (III.ii.41-43)

And a little something from Augustine as a taste of things to come: God “knew how, at the same time, to hate in each one of us what we had made, and to love what he had made” (Augustine, quoted in Calvin, Institutes, II.xvi.4).

Calvin, Institutes, II.xv-xvii

II.xv

1. Why, in Calvin’s view, does the title “Christ” pertain to all three offices of Prophet, Priest and King (II.xv.1)?

2. What biblical passages does Calvin cite to flesh out the meaning of Christ’s prophetic office (II.xv.2)? How is Christ’s prophetic office related to the unfolding story of God’s covenants in redemptive history?

3. “This anointing was diffused from the head to the members … Outside Christ there is nothing worth knowing, and all who by faith perceive who he is have grasped the whole immensity of heavenly benefits” (II.xv.2). What does this mean, and why is it important?

4. Calvin says that Christ’s kingship is “spiritual in nature” (II.xv.3). What does he mean by this, and what inferences does he draw? (II.xv.3-5)

5. How does Calvin contrast “this earthly life” and “the heavenly life” (II.xv.4)? Do you agree?

6. What does Christ do in his priestly office (II.xv.6)?

II.xvi

7. How does Calvin describe the problem that Christ’s redemptive work must overcome (II.xvi.1)

8. “If God was angry with us because of our sin, how could he have loved us enough to send his son to redeem us?” How would Calvin reply? (II.xvi.2-4)

9. How, precisely, does Calvin believe Christ has abolished sin, reconciled us to God and “acquired righteousness” for us (II.xvi.5)?

10. How would Calvin wish to nuance the statement, “Christ fell under a curse on the cross” (II.xvi.6)?

11. What does Calvin think is meant by the creedal statement, “He descended into hell” (II.xvi.8-12)? Do you agree?

12. What, according to Calvin, did Christ’s resurrection accomplish (II.xvi.13)? Would you want to add anything here?

13. What did Christ achieve in his ascension (II.xvi.14, 16)? Why is this significant?

14. Why is it significant that our Judge is our Redeemer (II.xvi.18)?

II.xvii

15. Why do some people dislike the word “merit” (II.xvii.1)? Do you think their concern is legitimate? How does Calvin respond (II.xvii.2)?

16. “I admit, if anyone would simply set Christ by himself over against God’s judgment, there will be no place for merit. For no worthiness will be found in man to deserve God’s favor” (II.xvii.1). What does this mean? Why is it important?

17. What does Calvin seek to demonstrate by his citation of Galatians 3 and Isaiah 53 in II.xvii.4?

How does Hebrews 2:5-9 develop themes found in Genesis 1:26-28, Psalm 8 and Galatians 3:19?

No more than 2000 words.

You may find it helpful to consult O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants; Peter J. Leithart, A House For My Name: A survey of the Old Testament; good commentaries on Genesis and Hebrews; and the chapter on angels in J. B. Jordan’s Through New Eyes.

But most of all, you’ll need to think hard about how the themes found in Hebrews 2:5-9 are developed throughout the Bible. Other biblical texts besides those mentioned in the title will be significant in helping you piece together the various strands of biblical material.

[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)

Here’s a clip to give you a flavour:

We are not better theologians than God. We must learn from Scripture … how to address God’s people … and call our congregations ‘God’s chosen people’ and assure them, as Peter and Paul and all the rest do, that Jesus died for them, that they are God’s temple, the temple of the Holy Spirit.” (John Barach, “Covenant and Election,” p. 34)

1. What echoes of Calvin’s approach to the doctrine of election do you find in Barach’s introduction to the subject (pp. 15-17; cf. also pp. 25, 37)?

2. What does Barach believe about the doctrine of predestination? On what bases does he argue his case? (pp. 17-19)

3. Why, according to Barach, do “perhaps twenty out of seven hundred” people receive the Lord’s Supper in some Reformed churches (p. 19)? What erroneous logic leads to this practice?

4. What, according to Barach, is the Arminian position on election (pp. 19-20)? Would you be inclined to nuance this claim in any way (cf. Turretin, Institutes, IV.xi.7; 1:356-357)?

5. What is the “[other] view more popular in our circles” (p. 20)? What pastoral problems does this view tend to produce (pp. 20-21)?

6. What point does Barach seek to make from Hebrews 10 and John 15? Why is this important to his argument (p. 22-23)?

7. What historic pedigree does Barach claim for his view (p. 23; cf. pp. 39-41)? What does this tell us about “Reformed theology”?

8. In what ways is the language of God’s “chosen ones” and “elect ones” used in Scripture (pp. 24-25)? What texts does Barach mention in this context?

9. How would Barach respond to the claim that NT talks about an entirely different kind of election from the OT (p. 27)? Are you persuaded? What other texts might helpfully be cited in this context?

10. What “three things” must be held “together as we think about the relationship between covenant and election” (p. 31; cf. pp. 31-32)? How do the texts discussed in the preceding pages (pp. 27-31) support these conclusions?

11. What happens if we ignore or marginalise the significance of God’s covenant in our reading and application of Scripture (pp. 32-33)?

12. How does Barach flesh out the relationship between salvation-history and God’s decree (p. 36)?

13. Are you uncomfortable with any of the terminology Barach discusses on p. 37?

14. “If apostasy is a real danger, can we ever have assurance?” (p. 39; cf. 35-36)?

15. Does Calvin think we can be sure of our election? If so, how? (III.xxiv.1-5) Do you find any problems with Calvin’s argument here?

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

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

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

Here are most of the questions; the rest will follow soon.

1. How does the doctrine of predestination lead to “the three benefits” (p. 922) discussed in section III.xxi.1?

2. What “two kinds of men” (p. 922) does Calvin mention? What are their mistakes? (sections III.xxi.2-4)

3. How does Calvin define foreknowledge and predestination (III.xxi.5)?

4. What two “degrees” of election does Calvin discuss? How do they relate to each other? (III.xxi.5-7)

5. What misunderstanding does Calvin tackle in sections III.xxii.1-6? Why do you think people might be attracted to the view Calvin rejects?

6. What texts does Calvin cite in support of his position (III.xxii.1-6)? What do you think of his argument here?

7. Calvin notes that the apostle Paul does not use a certain argument in Rom 9 (section III.xxii.8; cf. III.xxii.11). What is this argument, and what conclusion does Calvin draw from its omission?

8. What is “the subtlety of Thomas” (III.xxii.9)? How does Calvin respond?

9. How does the logic of Romans 9 support Calvin’s argument in section III.xxiii.1?

10. What objection does Calvin address in sections III.xxiii.2-5? How does he respond?

11. “If God has predestined my sin, he can’t blame me for it.” How would Calvin not respond (III.xxiii.6-8)? What would he say (III.xxiii.9)? Do you think this is adequate?

12. What objection does Calvin address in sections III.xxiii.10-11? How does he respond?

3. What objection does Calvin address in sections III.xxiii.12? How does he respond?

14. What objection does Calvin address in sections III.xxiii.13? How does he respond?

And a cracking one-liner from Augustine:

“God’s grace does not find but makes us fit to be chosen” (Augustine, quoted in Calvin, Institutes, III.xxii.8)

1. Bearing in mind the distinctions outlined on pp. 229-230, and remembering the importance of both corporate and individual aspects, is covenant of grace conditional or unconditional? (cf. pp. 229-234; Gen 22)

2. How does Johannes Cocceius’ understanding of the covenant of redemption reflect the unity and plurality within the Godhead (p. 235)?

3. How do Thomas Boston’s and Herman Bavinck’s understandings of the covenant of redemption support their view of the unconditionality of the covenant of grace (pp. 237-238)? Do you find this reasoning compelling?

4. What considerations led some Reformed theologians to distinguish “between the internal essence and the external administration” of the covenant (pp. 238-239)? What do you make of Murray’s treatment of this subject?

5. “As signs and seals they [the sacraments] possessed no virtue in themselves but derived all their efficacy from the spiritual realities signified by them” (p. 239). Discuss.

6. How does Murray’s case for paedobaptism derive from his theology of the covenants (pp. 239-240)?

Ch 11. Excursus: Which structures Scripture – Covenants or Dispensations?

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

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

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

4. What crucial passage does dispensationalism misunderstand in its elaboration of “the dispensation of conscience”? With what effects? (pp. 206-208)

5. “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?

6. 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)?

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

8. 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)?

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

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

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

Ch 12. David: The covenant of the kingdom

12. Bearing in mind Gen 3:15, Ex 3:17 and Josh 15:63, why might it be significant that “David took Jerusalem from the Jebusites” (p. 230)?

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

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

15. Was the Davidic covenant conditional or unconditional (pp. 243-249)?

16. How does Robertson resolve the difficulty that (in apparent contradiction of 2 Sam 7) “the descendants of David ceased to occupy the throne of Israel” (p. 249)?

Ch 13. Christ: The covenant of consummation

17. What aspects of the New Covenant does Robertson identify on pp. 274-277? Do you have any reflections on these?

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

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

20. How does Robertson relieve “the tension between individuality and corporateness in the new covenant” (pp. 287-288, cf. 289-290)?

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

1. “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 evidence does Robertson adduce in this chapter to support this conclusion? Why is this claim important?

2. Who, according to Robertson, is Satan’s “seed” (p. 98)? What biblical data does Robertson adduce to support his conclusion (pp. 99-103)? Can you think of any other relevant biblical texts?

3. What light does Genesis 3:15 shed on “the cherem-warfare of Joshua’s day”? (p. 102; cf. pp. 93-101)

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

5. How does Robertson defend his contention that the Noahic covenant is a “bond-in-blood” (p. 124)? What implications might follow if he is mistaken at this point (recall our previous discussion of Robertson’s definition of a covenant; session 25, questions 1-3)?

6. What does Jeremiah 34 tell us about the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and the events of Jeremiah’s day (pp. 131-137)?

7. How is the imagery of “birds of the air / heavens” employed in Mark 4:32 (cf. Ezek 17:23; 31:6, 13)? What light does this shed on the discussion on p. 135-137?

8. How are “death” and “covenant” related (p. 139)? How does this illuminate Hebrews 9:15-20 (pp. 139-141, 144)?

9. “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?

10. “The circumcision symbol of the old covenant has no value whatsoever unless it be joined with the true righteousness which it represents … 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” (pp. 160-161). Does this make you a little uneasy? If so, why?

11. According to Robertson, what bearing do the ancient Hittite treaties have on the dating of Deuteronomy (pp. 168-169)? What do you think of this argument?

12. “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? Do you agree? Why does it matter?

13. Robertson believes that Dt 9:9, 11 emphasize “the externalized character of the Mosaic law-administration,” whose “stone-engraven character” can be described as “stark” and “cold” (p. 173). Do you agree? Why or why not?

This is a great book. It’s terse, easy to read, thoroughly biblical, and full of sane, nuanced judgments about issues that have become strangely controversial in more recent times. This is one of the benefits of reading older stuff – it enables us to look at contemporary issues from a perspective removed from the heat (and confusion) of controversy.

I have one or two quibbbles; for example, I’m not sure I accept Robertson’s objection to the idea of an eternal covenant between the Father and the Son. But you can make up your own mind about those. All in all, this is a very good book indeed.

1. What do you make of Robertson’s definition of a covenant as “a bond in blood sovereignly administered” (p. 4; cf. pp. 4-15)?

2. How does Robertson deploy his definition of a covenant is his discussion of the “pre-creation covenantal bond between the persons of the Trinity” (p. 53; cf. p. 54)?

3. 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?

4. Why might someone reject the idea that God established a covenant with Adam? How does Robertson reply? (ch. 2) What do you think? Why does this matter?

5. How, according to Robertson, are the creation, Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants related? In what sorts of ways does Robertson make his case here? (ch. 3) What do you think of this argument? Why is Robertson’s conclusion important?

6. What is significant about Ezekiel 37:24-26 (p. 42)? And Revelation 21:3 (p. 50)?

7. What is meant by “covenant of works” and “covenant of grace”? Why, in Robertson’s view, is this terminology problematic? (pp. 54-57)

8. How does Paul contrast what Robertson calls the “Old Covenant” and the “New Covenant” in the letter to the Galatians (pp. 58-61)?

9. What is the “covenant of creation”? What does Robertson mean by its “general” and “focal” aspects (cf. pp. 68-86)?

10. What could be the consequences of an exclusive emphasis on the “focal” aspects of the covenant of creation? (pp. 67-68, 81-83)

1. What is the “historical-grammatical method” of reading Scripture? What is good about it? What is bad? (p. 27)

2. What does Leithart mean by “typology”? Why is it significant for biblical interpretation? (pp. 27-40)

3. Describe the structural similarity between Israel, Sinai, the Tabernacle, the earth and the universe (pp. 82-86).

4. Qorban means literally “something brought near.” What light does this shed on the significance of the OT sacrifices (pp. 87-88)?

5. Why is it significant that Jesus ate so much seafood (p. 88)?

We turn now to the doctrine of redemption. This is obviously a very large topic, and we’ll be spending a number of weeks on it. We’ll seek first to get a biblical overview of the work of God in redemption, so that our approach is directed as much as possible by the shape of the Bible itself. Then we’ll look at covenant theology, and consider how Reformed theologians have traditionally gone about the task of bringing together the biblical material. Finally, we’ll move on to some more systematic texts, returning to Calvin as well as some other writers.

The reading for session 22 of the Guided Reading Course is Peter Leithart, A House for My Name, pp. 13-128. Questions for reflection are found at the end of most sections.

“The Bible is all we need.” Discuss with reference to the canon of Scripture, the interpretation of Scripture and the authority of Scripture.

No more than 2000 words.

Primary reading:

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.vi-ix

Douglas Wilson, “Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesiastical Authority,” pp. 255–286 in Keith A. Mathison (ed.), When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed response to hyper-preterism (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2004)

Before you begin, ask yourself this question: Should we describe Mary as “Mother of God”?

Chapter 1

9. How did Apollinarius understand the incarnation? What did his position have in common with Arius? (pp. 25-26)

10. Explain the problems with Apollinarius’s Christology (pp. 27-29).

11. What implication of Nicea does Weinandy believe that Arius, Athanasius and Apollinarius failed to grasp (pp. 30-31)?

12. How did Theodore of Mopsuestia understand “human nature” (pp. 34-35)? How did this reflect his philosophical background (pp. 32-33)?

13. What, according to Theodore of Mopsuestia, does it mean to say “God became man” (pp. 35-37)?

14. How does Nestorius’s refusal to call Mary theotokos (Mother of God) illustrate his Christology (p. 38)?

15. How does Nestorius understand the relationship between the two prosopa of Christ’s human and divine natures (p. 43)? Does he succeed in articulating “a true substantial union” between them (p. 44)?

16. What does Kelly mean when he says that Nestorius “does not fully see the metaphysical structure of the word ‘Christ’” (p. 45)?

This stuff is hard. But don’t worry. Take it slowly – it’s not a race. And give thanks to God that men like Athanasius trod this path before us.

Chapter 1

1. The Trinitarian question having been addressed (see the first half of chapter 1), what question(s) now faced Arius and the Orthodox (p. 16)?

2. What additional assumption (besides those previously noted) lay behind the Arian doctrine of the incarnation? Why did this present a greater challenge to the Orthodox than those aspects of Arianism discussed previously? (p. 17)

3. What conclusion did the Arians draw from the human experiences of the incarnate Logos (pp. 17-18)?

4. What, according to Weinandy, is “at the heart of the Arian Christology” (p. 18)? What is this “an extreme form of” (p. 19)? Can you explain what this means?

5. Why does the Arian understanding of the union between the Logos and Christ’s human nature entail that “human predicates attributed to the Logos refer to his very nature as God” (p. 19)?

6. Explain Athanasius’ reply to the question, “Does not the very concept of ‘becoming’ imply that the Logos was in some way changed?” (pp. 20-21).

7. What, according to Weinandy, was Athanasius unable to do? Why (pp. 21-22)?

8. According to Kelly, what is “the central problem of [Athanasius’s] Christology” (p. 24)? What problems does this create for Athanasius (pp. 24-25)?

As the Oracle might say, this one will really bake your noodle. Eat slowly, and chew carefully.

Introduction

1. God is “present as the wholly other” (p. xx). What does Weinandy mean by this?

2. What three questions are raised by John’s statement that “the word became flesh” (John 1:14, p. xxi)?

3. Why did Docetists feel themselves forced to deny the real humanity of Christ? How did Docetists view God’s relationship to the world? (p. xxii)

4. Weinandy believes that “it is indeed surprising that at such an early date one finds the full divinity and full humanity predicated of the one person of Christ almost in Chalcedonian rigor” (p. xxiii). Do you agree?

5. What were the different forms of Monarchianism? Why were the adherents of these positions trying to preserve? (pp. xxiii-xxiv)

6. What problems with Modalistic Monarchianism does Weinandy highlight? (pp. xxv-xxvi)

7. What principle, shared by Tertullian and Origen, expressed the relationship between the Father, on the one hand, and the Son and the Spirit, on the other? What were the consequences of this view? (pp. xxvi-xxvii)

8. What did Origen have in common with the Docetists? (p. xxviii)

9. How did Origen explain the incarnation while preserving divine impassibility? Why doesn’t his view work? (pp. xxx-xxxi)

Chapter 1

10. What question did Arius ask about the Logos? What two presuppositions lay behind his answer? What was his answer? (pp. 4-5)

11. From where did Arius derive his notion of divine transcendence? Why was this important in shaping his view of the Logos? (pp. 5-6)

12. How did Arius understand begetting and creating? Why did he take this view? What implications did this have for his view of the nature of the Son? (pp. 6-9)

13. What two questions did the church need to answer in order to meet “the challenge of Arius”? (p. 10)

14. What did the Council of Nicea (325) say in response to these questions? What further questions did their response raise? Did Nicea address adequately these further questions? (pp. 11-12)

15. How did Athanasius address the questions left unanswered by Nicea? (p. 16)

16. What criticism did the semi-Arians level at Athanasius? How did Athanasius respond? (pp. 15-16)

Here’s an extra challenge as we work our way through this one. You can’t draw a diagram representing the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation, just as you can’t draw an orthodox diagram of the Trinity. However, you can draw a diagram of most of the heretical versions. If you’re feeling brave, have a go as we make our way through Weinandy in the next few weeks.

And if you’re feeling really brave, try to work out why it’s impossible to draw these diagrams.

Calvin, Institutes, II.xii-xiv

II.xii

1. Why, according to Calvin, did our Mediator need to be true God and true man? (II.xii.1-3)

2. In Calvin’s view, would the incarnation have been necessary if man had not sinned? Why or why not? (II.xii.1-2, 4) Do you agree?

3. What does Calvin think of question 2, above? Why? (II.xii.5)

II.xiii

4. What evidence does Calvin adduce to prove Christ’s true humanity? (II.xiii.1)

5. What objection does Calvin address in II.xiii.4? How does he respond?

II.xiv

6. What misunderstanding of Christ’s human and divine natures does Calvin address in II.xiv.1? How does he correct this erroneous view? What analogy does he offer?

7. What does Calvin mean by “the communicating of properties” (II.xiv.1)? How do the scriptural texts cited in II.xiv.2 fit with this doctrine? How does Calvin’s view differ from the Lutheran doctrine (cf. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 324ff.)?

8. What, in Calvin’s view, is demonstrated by the texts cited in II.xiv.3? Do you agree?

9. What were the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches? How does Calvin reply? (II.xiv.4)

Athanasius, On the Incarnation

Chapter I

1. What does Athanasius believe would have happened to Adam and Eve if they had not sinned (section 3)? Do you agree?

2. How does Athanasius argue that humanity was returning “to non-existence” as a result of Adam’s sin (sections 4-5)? What explicit biblical support could Athanasius have adduced for this teaching?

Chapter II

3. What was “the divine dilemma” (section 6)?

4. Why would repentance have been an inadequate remedy (section 7)?

5. How did the incarnation solve “the divine dilemma” (section 8-9)?

Chapter III

6. What further reason for the incarnation does Athanasius identify in sections 11-16?

7. What “paradox” does Athanasius discuss in sections 17-18?

Chapter IV

8. How has the experience of death been transformed for those “who believe in Christ” (section 21)? What are the pastoral implications of this transformation?

9. Why, according to Athanasius, did Jesus die a public rather than a private death (section 21)?

10. Do you agree with Athanasius that Christ’s body “did not see corruption” (section 21)? Why? What implications, if any, does this have for Jesus’ human nature?

11. On what basis does Athanasius conclude that there is “no excuse … for those who would divide the church” (section 24)? What significance does Athanasius perceive in the outstretched arms of the crucified Christ, and in the fact that Jesus was “lifted up” on a cross (section 25)? What does the structure of this argument tell us about Athanasius’ exegetical method? How do you react to Athanasius’ approach?

Please tread carefully this week. Listen to Calvin: “We must so cherish moderation that we do not try to make God render account to us, but so reverence his secret judgments as to consider his will the truly just cause of all things” (Institutes, I.xvii.1).

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 165-178

1. How does Berkhof define providence? What are the three elements of it? How do they relate? (pp. 166-167)

2. Why might it be useful to distinguish between these three elements of divine providence? Can you give any examples to illustrate the relationship between them?

3. How (apart from by direct appeal to explicit biblical texts) would you argue against the thhree misconceptions Berkhof describe, namely (i) prescience / prescience plus foreordination; (ii) the deistic view; (iii) the pantheistic view? (pp. 167-168)

4. How is the doctrine of preservation related to the doctrines of God and creation? (p. 170)

5. How is concurrence distinct from preservation? (p. 171-172)

6. What is wrong with illustrating the concurrence of divine and secondary causes as “a team of horses pulling together” (p. 172)?

7. How does Berkhof reply to the claim that his view of divine concurrence “makes God the responsible author of sin” (p. 174)? Is his defence adequate?

8. What perspective upon providence does divine government emphasise? (p. 175)

Calvin, Institutes, I.xvi-xviii

9. Why, according to Calvin, do some adopt a “distinction … between doing and permitting”? What does Calvin think of this distinction? What biblical data does he adduce to support his view? (I.xviii.1)

10. How does Calvin believe God’s will is related to human actions? (I.xviii.2)

11. “But even though [God’s] will is one and simple in him, it appears manifold to us” (I.xviii.3). Why does Calvin feel it necessary to make this clarification? What does he mean by it?

12. What point does Augustine make in the lengthy quote with which Calvin believes “all godly and modest folk agree” (I.xviii.3)?

13. What point is proved by the example of “the choice of king Jeroboam”? (I.xviii.4)

14. How, if at all, do you think Calvin would advise preachers and teachers to approach the subject of divine providence? (I.xviii.4) Do you agree?

Before you begin, consider the following question: If our inherited corruption makes sin inevitable, how can God hold us responsible for it?

Calvin, Institutes, II.iii-v

1. What biblical texts does Calvin cite to support his view of the depravity of human nature? (II.iii.1-4) Do they adequately support the case he seeks to make?

2. How does Calvin argue that fallen man sins “willingly, not unwillingly or by compulsion” (II.iii.5)? Do you understand this distinction?

3. What does God do in us when he “corrects and cures the corruption of our nature” (II.iii.6)?

4. How does Lombard misrepresent Augustine’s teaching on this subject (II.iii.7)?

5. What scriptural testimonies does Calvin adduce to support his position (II.iii.8-9)?

6. What does Calvin believe Chrysostom means when he said, “Whom he draws he draws willingly?” Why does Calvin object to this statement? How does Calvin’s position differ from Chrysostom’s? (II.iii.10)

7. What “most wicked error” does Calvin describe in section II.iii.11? How does he respond?

8. What contrast does Augustine draw between Adam’s unfallen will and our redeemed will? What conclusions follow from this? (II.iii.13)

9. What cluster of questions is Calvin seeking to address in this chapter? (II.iv.1)

10. How are God, Satan and man all active participants in the same events? How is their participation distinguished? (II.iv.2) How do Calvin’s scriptural examples serve his point here (II.iv.4-5)?

11. Consider the objections addressed by Calvin in II.v. What do you make of his answers?

To conclude, a gem from Augustine via Calvin:

The human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but freedom by grace; when the feeling of delight has been imparted through the same grace, the human will is formed to endure; it is strengthened with inconquerable fortitude; controlled by grace, it will never perish … there is left to man no such free will … that except through grace the will can neither be converted to God nor abide in God; and whatever it can do it is able to do only through grace. (Calvin, Institutes, II.iii.14; summarising Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace)

Before you start, think for a few minutes about this question:

1. Can unbelievers do good? If so, how? And in what sense(s)?

Calvin, Institutes, II.ii

2. What do ‘the philosophers’ and some of the Fathers believe about human capacity for good and evil (II.ii.3-4)?

3. Why, according to Calvin, did the Fathers adopt such a position (II.ii.4)?

4. What do you make of the different definitions of ‘free will’ cited by Calvin in section II.ii.4? What does Calvin think of them (II.ii.9)?

5. What effect, according to Calvin, has the fall had on humanity’s ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ gifts (II.ii.12-13; see also II.iii.1-2)? Do you agree with this distinction? What effect did the fall have on the will (II.ii.12)?

6. 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.

7. 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?

8. What does Calvin think Romans 2 means when it says, ‘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’? Do you agree with this interpretation?

John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, ch 3-4

Section IV

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

2. What is ‘mediate imputation’?

3. What was Samuel Hopkins’s position? What attraction might it hold? What is wrong with it?

4. What underlying thread to Nathanael Emmons and Timothy Dwight have in common?

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

6. How did Edwards’s position differ from mediate imputation? How did it differ from immediate imputation?

7. How might Edwards rebut the claim that the imputation of Adam’s sin to his descendants is unjust?

8. What biblical evidence does Murray adduce in favour of the doctrine of immediate imputation?

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

Section V

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

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

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

Jonathan Edwards: ‘both guilt, or exposedness to punishment, and also depravity of heart, came upon Adam’s posterity just as they came upon him, like a tree with many branches.’

John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, ch 1-2

Introduction; sections I and II

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

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

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

4. According to the Council of Trent, what is transmitted to Adam’s descendants? What is not transmitted? What is wrong with this view?

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

6. How does Calvin’s view differ from that of Rome? In what respect(s) are the two positions similar?

7. What features of Paul’s argument are accounted for in what Murray calls the ‘Classical Protestant interpretation’? Do you agree with Murray’s exegetical reasoning here?

8. What conclusion does Murray draw from these features of Paul’s argument?

Section III

9. What question does Murray address in this section? How does it arise from the argument at the end of the previous section?

10. How does Murray summarise the ‘Realistic’ view of the imputation of Adam’s sin? What objection does Shedd raise against the ‘Representative’ view?

11. What, according to Murray, is the crux of the debate between realism and representation?

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

13. What support could a realist claim from Augustine?

14. According to Murray, what are the problems with realism? Are you convinced?

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

16. What biblical data, unaccounted for by realism, does the representative view attempt to explain?

Additional reading: Calvin, Institutes, II.i

Here’s the bottom line:

God’s relations to men and the relations of men to one another are not exclusively individualistic; God deals with men in terms of these corporate relationships and men must reckon with their corporate relations and responsibilities. (John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, section III)

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

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

John Calvin, Institutes, I.xv

1. What is Calvin concerned to ‘guard against’ when seeking to understand our ‘originally upright nature’? (Section 1)

2. What does Calvin think ‘the soul’ is? Why? Do you agree? (Section 2)

3. What does Calvin think is meant by ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ in Genesis 1:26-27? How does he avoid the error he has highlighted in section 1? (Sections 3-4)

4. What is ‘the delusion of the Manichees’ concerning the soul? What is wrong with this view? (Section 5)

5. According to Calvin, what ‘faculties’ (i.e. capacities) does the soul possess? (Sections 6-7)

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

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 2, ch 10

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

2. What evidence does Bavinck adduce against the theory of naturalistic evolution, and again the ‘mediating’ position of the Pelagians (pp. 536-539)?

3. What are the key features of ‘Roman Catholic Supernaturalism’(pp. 539-542)? What are its shortcomings (pp. 542-548)?

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

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