Guided Reading Course

« Previous Entries

36. Justification and the Christian Life - 16 May 2012

Introduction

We’re continuing in session 36 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course with the doctrine of justification, looking now at the relationship between justification and good works. We’ll be looking at Calvin, Institutes, III.xiv (1:768-788) and an extract from Jonathan Edwards’s Justification by Faith Alone. As we noted previously, the subject of justification was hotly debated during the Reformation, and Calvin deals with it extensively. It was also a hot topic in New England in Edwards’s time, and he returned to it repeatedly throughout his ministry as the doctrine of justification by faith alone came under attack from his theological opponents.

Edwards’s work is available online at edwards.yale.edu. Hard copies will be supplied to students formally enrolled on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

Outline of Edwards’s Justification by Faith Alone

Edwards’s work was written to argue the following proposition: “We are justified only by faith in Christ, and not by any manner of virtue or goodness of our own.” The work is divided into five sections, as follows:

I. The meaning of the proposition.

II. Evidence for the truth of the proposition.

III. Explanation of the place of obedience in justification.

IV. Answers to objections.

V. Consideration of the importance of the doctrine.

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

Questions for reflection

i. What might be meant by “progress in justification”?

ii. Are all your righteous deeds like a polluted garment (Isaiah 64:6)? Or is God pleased with your good and faithful service (Matthew 25:21, 23)? Or both?

iii. What might be meant by the term “nominal Christian”? Would you treat such a person differently from a Buddhist or an atheist?

iv. How would you seek to persuade someone that we cannot justify ourselves in God’s sight?

Study questions on Calvin, Institutes, III.xiv (1:768-788)

In III.xiv, Calvin is concerned to “examine what kind of righteousness is possible to man through the whole course of his life.” He begins by dividing people into four categories.

1. What are the four categories into which Calvin believes all humanity may be divided (III.xiv.1)?

For reflection: How do the people in group 1 differ from those in group 2? How do the people in group 2 differ from those in group 3?

2. What would be God’s verdict on men if they were “judged according to their natural gifts” (III.xiv.1)? What biblical evidence does Calvin cite? What does Calvin say about those who excel in “that decency of morals which has some appearance of holiness among men” (III.xiv.1)? Do you agree?

3. What does Calvin say about “all the notable endowments that manifest themselves among unbelievers” (III.xiv.2)?

4. What, then, is wrong with the “good works” of those “who are estranged from the religion of the one God” (III.xiv.3)?

5. How, according to Calvin (citing Augustine), does “our religion [distinguish] the just from the unjust” (III.xiv.4)? What biblical evidence does Calvin cite?

For reflection: How is this related to Calvin’s earlier teaching about the centrality of union with Christ?

6. What further biblical texts and theological arguments does Calvin outline in III.xiv.5-6 to support his insistence that we contribute nothing to our own justification in God’s sight?

Calvin turns in III.xiv.7-8 to consider “hypocrites and nominal Christians,” that is, “the second and third classes in the above-mentioned division” (III.xiv.7; cf. question 1, III.xiv.1).

7. Why, according to Calvin, are “all ungodly men, and especially all hypocrites … puffed up with … stupid assurance” (III.xiv.7)?

For reflection: Have you ever encountered the attitude Calvin describes? Do you have any ideas about how to address it?

*8. What point does Calvin seek to make from Genesis 4:4 at the end of III.xiv.8?

In III.xiv.9-11 Calvin considers “what righteousness is possessed by those … in the fourth class” (III.xiv.9), that is, those who are “regenerated by God’s Spirit” and “make holiness their true concern” (III.xiv.1; cf. question 1).

9. How does Calvin describe the way(s) in which righteousness is displayed by true believers (III.xiv.9)? What further point does he add in III.xiv.10?

In III.xiv.11, Calvin concludes his discussion of the righteousness displayed by true believers by highlighting “the pivotal point” of his “disputation” with the “Schoolmen,” i.e. the medieval Catholic Scholastic theologians (III.xiv.11).

10. How do the Schoolmen “describe the righteousness of the regenerated man” (III.xiv.11)? In what respect(s) does Calvin disagree? What evidence does he provide to support his view?

In the rest of this chapter (III.xiv.12-21), Calvin discusses and critiques the medieval Catholic doctrine of “supererogatory works”. This is worth reading, and contains some great one-liners summarises some of what he’s said already, but we won’t look at this in detail in the tutorial.

Instead, we’ll move on to an extract from Jonathan Edwards’s treatise Justification by Faith Alone, where he discusses the place that obedience may be said to have in justification.

Study questions on Edwards, Justification by Faith Alone

The page references below refer to the published version, which are reproduced in the printed handout in the form — xxx –. These numbers appear at the top of the pages to which they refer.

11. What has Edwards established “from what has been said already” (p. 201)? What else “has been shown, out of the Scripture” (p. 201)? In view of this, what place remains for “the acts of a Christian life” (p. 201) in justification?

12. Edwards thinks that the place of works in justification can be determined only “the resolving of another point” (p. 201)? What is this point, and why do you think Edwards regards it as important?

13. Edwards believes that “justification is by the first act of faith” (p. 201), and yet “the perseverance of faith is not excluded” (p. 202). How, according to Edwards, do John 15, Romans 8, Philippians 3, 1 John 2 and Revelation 14 support this conclusion (pp. 202)? Do you agree?

For reflection: Would you tell a new convert, “Your salvation is completely secure?” Why or why not?

For reflection: Would you tell a new convert, “You are secure in Christ?” Why or why not?

14. Can you explain how “the perseverance of faith … comes into consideration” even though justification is by “the first act of faith” (p. 203)? Does this make sense to you?

*15. Edwards believes that his argument is further supported by the fact that a new convert is justified not only “of all past sins, but also of all future infirmities and acts of sin” (p. 203). Can you explain Edwards’s argument here? Do you find it persuasive?

16. How, according to Edwards, does the Lord’s Prayer support his argument (p. 204)?

17. How do Hebrews 3 and Romans 11 support Edwards’s view (p. 206)?

18. How, then, are “the acts of an evangelical, child-like believing obedience” (p. 207) connected with our justification?

22. Bible overview (3) - 16 May 2012

Introduction

We’re continuing our study of the doctrine of salvation in session 22 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?

21. Bible Overview (2) - 9 May 2012

Introduction

We’re continuing in session 21 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:

Bible 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 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?

20. Bible overview (1) - 9 May 2012

Introduction

Session 20 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course marks the beginning of a new area of study. Having completed our consideration of the doctrine of the incarnation, we’re beginning our next major subject: the doctrine of salvation, or soteriology.

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:

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 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.

There’s a lot of material here, and though it’s pretty easy to read, you probably won’t have time to reflect in detail on everything in these chapters. I therefore 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.

I’ve helped you a bit by providing a summary of the introduction (pp. 17-42), so though it’s very worthwhile you can safe a bit of time by leaving that for another day.

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 material. 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.

Outline

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

Questions for reflection

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?

Study questions on the 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.

Study questions on 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?

Study questions on 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?

Study questions on 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?

35. Justification by faith - 20 April 2012

Introduction

We turn in session 35 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course to the doctrine of justification by faith, and to Calvin, Institutes, III.xi-xiii (1:725-768). This subject was hotly debated during the Reformation, and Calvin has an extensive section on the topic (and related issues such as the place of good works and Christian freedom) running from III.xi-ixx – a total of 125 pages. In this session we’re covering a shorter section, III.xi-xiii, and within this we’ll focus our attention in the tutorial just on III.xi. Questions related to III.xii-xiii are included below, but they’re marked with a *, meaning that you should omit them if you’re pressed for time.

Questions for reflection

i. What is “justification”? What does “justified by faith” mean? What does “justified by works” mean?

ii. Does the Bible teach that we are justified by faith alone, and not by works? If so, where?

iii. Does the Bible teach that we are justified by works, and not by faith alone? If so, where?

iv. Would you affirm the Reformation maxim sola fide – “by faith alone”? If so, what do you think it means?

Study questions

1. How does Calvin define justification in III.xi.2? How does he distinguish justification by faith from justification by works (III.xi.2)?

2. What texts does Calvin cite in support of his definition of justification? Do they support the point he is seeking to make?

3. What other words does Calvin believe are also used in Scripture to refer to justification (III.xi.4)?

For reflection: What do you think about Calvin’s use of these different terms? Would you want to maintain sharp distinctions between them, or do you agree with Calvin that their meanings overlap or even coincide?

In III.xi.5-12, Calvin examines and critiques the doctrine of justification held by Osiander, a German Lutheran theologian who occasionally finds himself on the sharp end of Calvin’s pen.

4. Can you work out from Calvin’s critique what Osiander actually thought (III.xi.5-6)? How does Calvin respond to Osiander’s doctrine of justification in III.xi.5-6?

For reflection: I once heard an evangelical Minister declare than in justification “we receive God’s own righteousness.” What might Calvin have said over coffee after the service?

5. How does Calvin respond to Osiander’s objection that faith does not justify in itself? (III.xi.7)

6. How, according to Calvin, does justification relate to union with Christ (III.xi.10)?

Osiander believed that “justification” cannot be “a legal term,” since (as Calvin explains) Osiander insisted that to be justified “we must actually be righteous” (III.xi.11, italics added). It wouldn’t be right, in Osiander’s view, for God to justify people who remain wicked in themselves. Calvin responds in section 11.

7. How does Calvin respond to Osiander’s claim that “it would be insulting to God, and contrary to his nature, to justify those who still remain wicked” (III.xi.11)?

In III.xi.13-20, Calvin addresses another set of misunderstandings centred around the medieval scholastic view that we can be justified by good works.

8. What, according to Calvin, does “the greater part of mankind imagine” (III.xi.13)? How does Calvin respond (III.xi.13)?

9. What is the “subtle evasion” do “the Sophists” employ to get around Calvin’s argument (III.xi.14)? How does Calvin respond?

10. In III.xi.15 Calvin explains the medieval Catholic Lombard’s view that “justification is given to us through Christ in two ways.” Can you explain what Lombard means by these “two ways”?

For reflection: What implications would Lombard’s view be likely to have for our assurance of salvation? Why?

11. How does Calvin respond to Lombard’s view in III.xi.16?

12. What does Calvin believe is “the distinction between law and gospel” (III.xi.17)?

For reflection: Bearing in mind Romans 4:1–8, what do you think of Calvin’s distinction between law and gospel? (Hint: how was Abraham justified?)

13. How, in Calvin’s view, is justification related to the forgiveness of sins (III.xi.22) and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (III.xi.23)?

The following questions focus on III.xii-xiii, which we probably won’t have time to cover in detail during the tutorial.

*14. Why is it so important to contemplate the judgment and perfect righteousness of God (see especially III.xii.1, 4, 8)

In III.xiii, Calvin explores two themes undergirded by the doctrine of justification by faith: (1) the glory of God; and (2) peace for our consciences.

*15. How, according to Calvin, does the doctrine of justification by faith secure the glory of God (III.xiii.1-2)?

*16. How, according to Calvin, does the doctrine of justification by faith secure peace for our consciences (III.xiii.3-5)?

34. Repentance - 20 March 2012

Introduction

We’re continuing our study of what is sometimes called “the application of redemption” in session 34 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course. We began with union with Christ by faith, the foundation of every blessing we receive from God; we turn now to repentance, and to Calvin’s Institutes, III.iii-iv.

We’ll focus the bulk of our attention on III.iii, Calvin’s positive statement on the subject. Don’t be daunted by the length of the following chapter (III.iv). It’s well worth reading, for here Calvin addresses some medieval Catholic misunderstandings of repentance, but we won’t have time to discuss it in detail during the tutorial.

If you’re short of time, omit the questions marked with a *.

Questions for reflection

i. “If God will forgive me, what motivation remains for godliness?” How would you respond?

ii. What is “repentance”?

iii. What is the sin that “will not be forgiven” (Matthew 12:31-32; cf. Mark 3:28-30; Luke 12:10)?

iv. What sort of people is Hebrews 6:4-6 taking about?

v. When, if at all, would you ever feel it appropriate to confess specific sins to another person?

Study questions

1. Calvin believes that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith, and yet he insists that “actual holiness of life … is not separated from free imputation of righteousness” (III.iii.1). What does he mean by this?

For reflection: What practical pastoral implications follow from what Calvin says here?

In III.iii.2-4, Calvin addresses some wrong and incomplete understandings of repentance, before defining repentance in III.iii.5 and expanding on this definition in III.iii.6-9.

2. How does Calvin define repentance in III.iii.5?

3. Calvin expands on his definition of repentance by making three points in III.iii.6-9. What are these three points?

III.iii.6
III.iii.7
III.iii.8-9

Let’s look in a little more detail at some aspects of this expanded definition of repentance.

4. Do you agree with Calvin’s statement that “before the mind of the sinner inclines to repentance, it must be aroused by thinking upon divine judgment” (III.iii.7)? Why or why not?

5. According to Calvin, “Both [mortification and vivification] happen to us by participation in Christ” (III.iii.9). What does Calvin mean by this? Do you find this surprising?

For reflection: “We are sanctified in the same way that we are justified – by faith alone.” Discuss.

6. “I interpret repentance as regeneration, whose sole end is to restore in us the image of God” (III.iii.9). What does Calvin mean by this? Is this use of the terms “repentance” and “regeneration” familiar to you?

In III.iii.10-15, Calvin explores how we make progress in repentance (sometimes called “sanctification,” as in the text in parentheses just before III.iii.10) throughout the Christian life.

7. “There remains in a regenerate man a smouldering cinder of evil, from which desires continually leap forth to allure and spur him to commit sin” (III.iii.10). What does Calvin mean by this?

8. What “difference of opinion” (III.iii.10) exists between Calvin and Augustine on this matter? Who is correct?

10. “Sin ceases only to reign; it does not cease to dwell in them” (III.iii.11). What does this mean?

*11. “Certain Anabaptists of our day conjure up some sort of frenzied excess instead of spiritual regeneration” (III.iii.14). After Calvin has calmed down a little, how does he explain the error of those he criticises here?

*For reflection: Have you encountered similar views anywhere in the contemporary Christian world?

*12. In III.iii.16, Calvin mentions “certain outward exercises” including “squalor, groaning, and tears.” What place should such exercises have in the Christian life (III.iii.16)? Does Calvin foresee any potential problems here (III.iii.16-17)?

13. How does Augustine define “the unpardonable sin” (III.iii.22)? What does Calvin think of Augustine’s view (III.iii.22)? What alternative definition does Calvin offer (III.iii.22)?

14. According to Calvin, what sort of people is Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-29 taking about (III.iii.23)?

*15. What apparent problem is presented by the example of Ahab in 1 Kings 21:27-29 (III.iii.25)? How does Calvin interpret this passage (III.iii.25)? How, and to whom, should this lesson “be applied as an example” (III.iii.25)?

Calvin now turns in III.iv to some misunderstandings of repentance found among some of his medieval Catholic contemporaries.

*16. What definitions of repentance were offered by “the Scholastic Sophists” (III.iv.1)? What problems does Calvin find with them?

*17. What pastoral problems arise from the doctrine of repentance Calvin criticises here (III.iv.2)?

18. What is the decisive difference between Calvin’s doctrine of repentance and the one he opposes here (III.iv.3)?

*19. What objections does Calvin raise against the Scholastic doctrine of auricular confession (III.iv.4-8)?

*20. What kind of confession does Scripture require (III.iv.9)?

*21. Under what circumstances should we confess our sins to another person (III.iv.10-13)?

For reflection: Does any of this surprise you? Would you be comfortable with confessing your sins in this way?

Calvin continues this chapter with a more detailed discussion of the medieval Catholic doctrine of confession and related themes. These are worth reading, though we probably won’t have time to discuss them in detail during the tutorial.

19. The incarnation (3) - 20 March 2012

Introduction

In session 19 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we conclude our three-part study of the doctrine of the incarnation. We began by thinking about the purpose of the incarnation with the help of Athanasius, On the Incarnation. We then considered the historical development of the doctrine of the incarnation from the apostles to the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 by reading a summary of the relevant portions of Does God Change? by Tom Weinandy. In this final session, we return to the familiar territory of Calvin, Institutes, II.xii-xiv and Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 321-330.

Berkhof provides a helpful overview of the subject, much of which will be familiar after last week’s reading and tutorial. Calvin covers the basic theological groundwork from within a different historical context. They both address misunderstandings of the incarnation, and their responses to these will help us to sharpen further our understanding of the Bible’s teaching on this subject.

Here’s an outline of what we’re looking at this week.

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

Questions for reflection

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”?

Study questions on 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.

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

Questions on 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)?

Questions on 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?

Questions on 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?

33. Faith and emotion - 14 March 2012

Introduction

In session 33 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’re continuing our study of faith and union with Christ. Having begun last week with the first two sections of Calvin’s Institutes, book III, we’ll take a brief detour this week into one of the best-known works of the great eighteenth-century theologian Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections.

Edwards is seeking to address the nature of genuine saving faith, and in particular to identify “the distinguishing qualifications of those that are in favor with God” (introduction). The work falls into three parts, as follows:

Part I       The nature of the affections and their importance in religion
Part II      Signs that do not identify genuine affections
Part III     The character of genuine affections

We’ll be focussing our attention on the introduction and on part I, where Edwards first explains what he means by the key term “affections,” then demonstrates by a series of ten arguments that the affections are important in “true religion,” before finally drawing some practical conclusions.

Edwards’s work has relevance for our understanding of the nature of faith, as well as for a range of practical issues such as assurance, prayer and worship. It is available free online as a pdf. Hard copies will be provided for students enrolled formally on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course. Page numbers in the questions below refer to this pdf version.

If you’re short of time, omit some of the ten arguments covered in question 7.

Questions for reflection

i. Should Christian worship be emotional? Why or why not?

ii. Is it appropriate for a preacher to seek to stir the emotions of his hearers? If so, how should he seek to do this?

iii. What would you say a friend who doubted his salvation because he didn’t share the emotional experiences of others at church?

Study questions

1. What question is Edwards setting out to resolve in this treatise (p. 2)? How important does he think it is?

2. Commenting on 1 Peter 1:8, Edwards remarks that “trials are of threefold benefit to true religion” (p. 7). What are these three benefits of trials (p. 2)?

3. Edwards observes “two kinds of operation, or exercise of true religion” (p. 8) in the Christians to whom the apostle Peter wrote. What are these (p. 8)?

4. What are “the two things which the apostle takes notice of … concerning this joy” (p. 8)? How does he expand on the second of these two things (p. 8)?

5. What is “the proposition or doctrine” (p. 8) which Edwards sets forth on the basis of what he has discussed so far (p. 9)?

For reflection: As you look back over the last four questions, can you follow the line of argument that Edwards has been seeking to follow?

6. What, according to Edwards, are “the affections of the mind” (pp. 9-10)?

For reflection: How might you explain in contemporary language what Edwards means by “the affections”?

Having stated his thesis (that “true religion, in great part, consists in holy affections”), and explained what “the affections” are, Edwards now gives ten numbered arguments to support his thesis (pp. 11-26).

7. For each of these arguments, please do the following:

Outline the argument briefly in your own words;
Identify any significant biblical texts or theological reasoning underlying the argument;
Evaluate the argument.

For reflection: Are you persuaded?

Having established his thesis (at least to his own satisfaction), Edwards now proceeds to three (numbered) implications of his conclusions (pp. 27-31).

8. What is the first inference drawn by Edwards (p. 27)?

For reflection: Have you encountered personally the position Edwards criticises here? If so, where?

9. What might happen, according to Edwards, if we minimise the significance of religious affections (p. 28)?

10. What is the second inference drawn by Edwards (p. 29)?

For reflection: What would Edwards say about the various preachers and books you have been influenced by?

11. What is the third inference drawn by Edwards (p. 29)?

For reflection: What practical changes do you think Edwards would encourage you to make to your own life? Would you be likely to do what he says?

18. The incarnation (2) – The historical development of the doctrine of the incarnation - 14 March 2012

Introduction

We’re continuing with the doctrine of the incarnation in session 18 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course. This week we’ll be looking at the historical development of the doctrine of the incarnation from the apostles to the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. Tom Weinandy’s outstanding book Does God Change? (Still River: Massachusetts, 1985) deals with this question superbly, but previous experience suggests that it is too long and complex for our purposes. I have therefore attempted to condense the relevant parts of Weinandy’s book into a short article, entitled “Christology for Amateurs,” designed to make Weinandy’s longer work a little more manageable in the time available to us. The study questions are interspersed throughout the text itself, and during the tutorial we will go through these in the normal way, attempting to clarify the historical development of this important doctrine.

You will notice quickly that the development of the doctrine of the incarnation is closely related to the development of Trinitarian theology. This is unsurprising, of course, since the question of how God the Son could become man obviously entails a consideration of the person of the Son himself, and therefore his relationship with the Father and the Spirit in the Godhead. At times, therefore, we will find ourselves calling to mind some of the material we covered in earlier sessions on the doctrine of the Trinity.

The article becomes somewhat more complex towards the end, reflecting the fact that the development of the doctrine itself became more technical towards the beginning of the fifth century. Don’t worry if you find some sections hard to follow; just get as far as you can, and we’ll cover any remaining questions in the tutorial.

The article is available online here. Hard copies will be provided for students formally enrolled on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

17. The incarnation (1) The purpose of the incarnation - 29 February 2012

Introduction

In this session of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course we’re moving from the doctrine of sin to the doctrine of Christ with the first of two sessions on the incarnation. We’ll be reading Athanasius, On the Incarnation, which discusses the purpose of the incarnation by considering the de-creative effects of sin and our consequent need for renewal in the image of the Creator. In the following session we’ll reflect on the nature of the incarnation, the two natures of Christ and so on.

Athanasius was 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 – there are fewer words, but 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 C. S. Lewis’s introduction to the St Vladimir’s Seminary Press edition. This is also available free online here. It’s well worth reading – if only to hear Lewis’s reminder of the immense value of reading old books – though we probably won’t have time to discuss it at length during the tutorial.

The questions focus on just chapters I-IV (sections 1-25), though you may find it helpful to read chapter V also. If you’re pressed for time, omit the questions marked with a *.

Questions for reflection

i. If Adam had not sinned, would God the Son have become incarnate? Why or why not?

ii. Has Jesus achieved anything since his incarnation that is not directly related to dealing with the consequences of sin? (You might like to take a look at Genesis 1:26-28; Psalm 8; Hebrews 1:1-2; 2:5-8.)

iii. “Jesus died with his arms outstretched, showing his desire to draw all men to himself.” What do you think of this kind of exegesis?

Study questions

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. What does Athanasius mean when he says that fallen man was “[turning] back again according to their nature” (section 4)? Can you think of any biblical evidence to support what Athanasius says here?

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)?

For reflection: How do you feel about exegesis like this?

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

32. The Spirit and faith - 29 February 2012

Introduction

In session 32 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, we reach the transition point between what is sometimes called the accomplishment of redemption (the work of Christ for us) and the application of redemption (the work of God’s Spirit in us bringing the benefits of Christ’s work to us). Calvin embarks on this topic at the beginning of book III of his Institutes, which is appropriately subtitled “The way in which we receive the grace of Christ, what benefits come to us from it, and what effects follow.”

These chapters lie at the heart of Calvin’s doctrine of salvation, for here he expounds the doctrine of Spirit-worked union with Christ by faith. It is through this union that everything Christ has accomplished becomes ours.

We’ll be looking at Calvin’s Institutes, III.i-ii (1:537-592), although the second of these chapters is rather long, so we’ll not be covering all of it. The questions take us up to III.ii.20 (1:537-566); you may find it helpful to read the remaining sections too, though we won’t discuss them in detail during the tutorial.

You might find it helpful to have in mind the following outline of chapter ii:

III.ii.1-7         Introduction to the subject, culminating in the definition of faith in section 7.
III.ii.8-13       Various misunderstandings and errors
III.ii.14-43     More detailed exploration of the definition of faith given in III.ii.7

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

Questions for reflection

i. What does the Holy Spirit do?

ii. Can the non-elect believe in Christ?

iii. How much does someone need to understand in order to be saved?

iv. Can someone be saved while lacking assurance of salvation?

Study questions

This first chapter of book III is a brief introduction to the work of the Spirit – the subject that will dominate the following chapters of the Institutes.

1. Calvin begins III.i.1 with a question, “How do we receive those benefits which the Father bestowed on his only-begotten Son?” What is his answer? Try to explain in as much detail as you can.

2. How many scriptural titles for the Holy Spirit does Calvin identify in III.i.3? How do these titles relate to the work of the Spirit?

3. What, according to Calvin, is “the principal work of the Spirit” (III.i.4)?

For reflection: Does this help you to understand why Scripture places so much emphasis on faith?

Having raised the subject of faith in the previous chapter, Calvin now discusses the subject in more detail in III.ii. Here, to remind you, is a rough outline of the chapter:

In III.ii.1 Calvin explains that the object of Christian faith must be Christ himself. This leads him to address the idea of “implicit faith,” which was popular in some circles during the medieval period.

*4. Calvin doesn’t spell out explicitly what “implicit faith” is, but can you work it out from what he does say in III.ii.2-5 (especially section 2)?

5. How does Calvin define faith in III.ii.6-7? How is it related to the knowledge of God, and to the word of God?

For reflection: Do you agree with Calvin’s position here? If so, would you wish to nuance it when discussing the salvation of mentally handicapped people or young children?

In III.ii.8-13, Calvin discusses what he regards as a series of misunderstandings about faith, including the distinction between “formed” and “unformed” faith, and “temporary faith”.

Let’s begin in III.ii.8-9, where Calvin addresses the distinction, common among medieval Catholic theologians, between “formed” and “unformed” faith.

6. Can you work out from III.ii.8 what is meant by “unformed faith”?

7. How many arguments against the idea of “unformed faith” can you find in III.ii.8-9?

In III.ii.11-12, Calvin considers whether the reprobate (those who will not finally be saved) can ever have faith.

For reflection: Calvin considers Hebrews 6:4-6 and Luke 8:13 in III.ii.11. What bearing do these passages have on the question of whether the reprobate can have faith?

8. How does Calvin explain Hebrews 6:4-6 and Luke 8:13 in III.ii.11-12?

For reflection: Are you persuaded by Calvin’s explanation of these passages? If you think he is wrong, what alternatives can you think of?

In III.ii.14-43 (the rest of the chapter), Calvin explores in more detail the definition of faith set out previously in III.ii.7. He begins in III.ii.14-16 by talking about the kind of knowledge and certainty that faith entails.

9. According to Calvin, what kind of “knowledge” does faith entail (III.ii.14)?

10. According to Calvin, what kind of “certainty” is experienced by those whose faith is genuine (III.ii.15-16)?

For reflection: What do you think of what Calvin says in III.ii.14-16? Do you have any pastoral concerns about what he might be implying?

11. In III.ii.17, Calvin anticipates the objection that “believers experience something far different” from what he has been describing. What do they experience?

12. How does Calvin respond to this objection in III.ii.17? In particular, what points does Calvin make from the following biblical texts?

Psalm 42:5, 11; 43:5
Psalm 31:22
Psalm 77:7-10
Psalm 92:12
Psalm 27:14

For reflection: Do you think these texts adequately support Calvin’s response to the objection? Can you think of any other biblical texts that might be relevant to the discussion? (Mark 9:24; Romans 4:19-20?)

13. How does Calvin seek in III.ii.18-20 to resolve the tensions highlighted in the previous sections?

31. Penal substitutionary atonement - 22 February 2012

Introduction

Session 31 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course brings us to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, an aspect of the atoning work of Christ. This follows from the previous session’s introduction to the work of Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, and has in recent decades become somewhat controversial in evangelical circles. With this in mind, we’ll address the issue by looking at some sections from Jeffery et al, Pierced for Our Transgressions, a recent work on this subject. Here’s an outline of what we’ll be reading:

Introductory material (pp. 21-32)
Some biblical data (pp. 67-73)
Some objections and responses (pp. 240-249, 265-278)
Some thoughts about illustrations used by preachers (pp. 329-336)

As we reflect on this material, we’ll have the opportunity to consider other aspects of Christ’s atoning work as well.

Questions for reflection

i. “It’s unjust for Christ – an innocent man – to be punished for the sins of others.” How would you respond?

ii. What problems might arise from the claim, “Christ bore the sins of all people”?

iii. Is it helpful when preachers tell stories and use illustration in their sermons? Why or why not?

Study questions

We’ll start with a brief look at the introduction to the book (pp. 21-32), which sets the scene for the work.

1. What is “the doctrine of penal substitution” (p. 21)? How many different significant parts of this definition can you identify? Why is each part significant?

2. What is “the more disturbing thing” (p. 25)?

For reflection: Why do you think the authors found this “more disturbing”? Do you agree with them? Why or why not?

*3. How would you describe the overall structure of the book (pp. 31-32)? Is this a helpful way to divide up the subject? Can you think of any particular strengths and weaknesses?

We turn next to a short section in the “Biblical foundations” chapter, on the Gospel of Mark (pp. 67-73), where the authors consider two passages, Mark 10:33-45 and Mark 15:33-34.

4. What is significant about “Jesus’ passing reference to ‘the cup I drink’” (p. 68) in Mark 10:38 (pp. 68-70)? How do the authors understand the imagery of the “cup” (pp. 69-70)? Do you agree with them?

5. How is the authors’ understanding of Jesus’ death informed by the biblical symbolism of “darkness” (pp. 71-72)

We turn now to the second part of the book, in which the authors answer a number of objections to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement.

The authors begin this section on pp. 205-207 by explaining what they are seeking to do, and why.

6. Why did the authors feel it was important to engage in detail with specific objections to their position (pp. 205-207)?

For reflection: Does this approach make you feel uncomfortable? If so, can you identify why?

Next we’ll look at some of the specific objections, and the authors’ responses, in detail. Feel free, of course, to read other sections of the book that catch your eye, and to bring any questions with you to the tutorial.

Section 10.1 (pp. 240-249)

7. Summarise the objection outlined on pp. 240-242.

For reflection: Do you find this objection compelling? Before you read on, consider how you might respond to it.

8. The authors “begin by noting…” what (p. 242)?

9. Why is “the willingness of Christ’s suffering” (p. 242) an insufficient response?

10. How does the doctrine of union with Christ address the objection in this section (pp. 242-245). How does Luther’s analogy help (p. 244)?

*11. The authors claim that “the theme of corporate moral responsibility is far more pervasive in Scripture than is commonly realized” (p. 245). What do you think of the examples of this on pp. 245-248?

12. The authors conclude this section by highlighting three further “consequences of denying that our guilt could be imputed to Christ” (p. 248). What are these consequences (pp. 248-249)? Are you persuaded?

Section 10.4 (pp. 265-267)

13. Summarise the objection outlined on pp. 265-266.

14. How do the authors respond (pp. 266-267)?

For reflection: Have you heard this explanation before? Are you persuaded?

Section 10.5 (pp. 268-278)

15. Summarise the objection outlined on pp. 268.

16. Eleonore Stump rejects “premise (a),” the belief that Christ “pays the debt of those for whom he died” (p. 268). What alternative approach do the authors take (pp. 268-269)? How does this address Stump’s objection?

17. According to Roger Nicole, what is the doctrine of “particular redemption” (sometimes called “limited atonement”)?

18. What five arguments in favour of particular redemption do the authors outline on pp. 271-275?

For reflection: Is it possible to consistently believe in penal substitutionary atonement while also denying the doctrine of particular redemption?

Finally, we’ll turn to the appendix, entitled, “A Personal Note to Preachers” (pp. 329-336).

19. What problem do the authors identify on pp. 329-331 with some contemporary illustration of penal substitutionary atonement?

For reflection: Have you ever heard the illustrations mentioned here before? What do you think about them?

20. What “seven questions” (p. 334) do the authors encourage preachers to ask themselves before using a particular illustration of penal substitution (pp. 334-335)? Does an illustration need to be perfect in every way in order to be useful (p. 336)?

16. Providence - 22 February 2012

Introduction

Having concluded our study of the doctrine of sin and its effects, we turn now in session 16 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course to the doctrine of providence. We’ve already encountered this doctrine in passing, as we’ve reflected on the relationship between human sin and divine sovereignty. Now we consider it in more detail.

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

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).

Questions for reflection

i. Are you comfortable with the thought that God is sovereign over everything in creation?

ii. Why might God deliberately conceal from us the reasons for some of the things he does?

iii. How would you feel if you discovered today that according to the Bible God is not in sovereign control of everything in creation?

Study questions on 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?

Study questions on 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.

*10. 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 11 in particular is to encourage you to reflect in the pastoral implications of God’s providence.

11. 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).

12. 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.

13. 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 cite to support his view (I.xviii.1)?

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

15. “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?

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

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

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

15. The corruption of human nature - 16 February 2012

Introduction

We continue our study of the doctrine of sin and its effects in session 14 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, looking this week at Calvin, Institutes, II.iii-v (1:289-340). Here’s an outline of these three chapters:

II.iii The capacity of the fallen human will, and how God works in us to draw us to him.

II.iv How is God involved in evil human actions.

II.v Answers to objections.

These three chapters are quite long, so don’t worry if you don’t have time to finish them all. As ever, if you’re short of time, omit the questions marked with a *.

Questions for reflection

i. If our inherited corruption makes sin inevitable, how can God hold us responsible for it?

ii. If God is sovereign over our sins, why is he not morally responsible for them?

iii. When Christ draws someone to him, does that person come to him willingly or unwillingly?

Study questions

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)?

In II.iv, 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)?

In II.v, Calvin considers a number of objections against his understanding of the human will.

*13. 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?

30. The Offices of Christ - 16 February 2012

Introduction

In previous sessions we have laid the groundwork for the construction of a Christian doctrine of salvation by studying God’s work in history (Bible overview; Covenant Theology), God’s decrees in eternity (the doctrine of election), and the intersection of God’s decrees and human history (covenant and election). We now turn our attention specifically to Christ, the author of our salvation, the one about whom all Scripture testifies, in whom all God’s covenant promises are fulfilled – God’s chosen one par excellence.

In particular, we’re looking this week at the three so-called “Offices of Christ” – Prophet, Priest and King – with the help of Calvin, Institutes, II.xv-xvii (1:494-534). This study of Christ’s work for his people paves the way for future sessions in which we’ll be considering the application of Christ’s work to his people.

Questions for reflection

i. How did Christ accomplish salvation for us?

ii. According to your answer to the previous question, did Christ need to be a King? Did he need to be a prophet?

Study questions

In II.xv, Calvin describes in outline Christ’s three offices of Prophet, Priest and King

1. Why does Calvin believe that “the title ‘Christ’ pertain to [all] three offices,” namely, Prophet, Priest and King (II.xv.1)?

For reflection: Can you think of any biblical texts that support Calvin’s claim here?

2. With what was Jesus anointed?

For reflection: What might the previous answer imply about the imagery of “oil” in the Bible? (You might find it helpful to glance ahead briefly to II.xv.5.)

3. “Then this anointing was diffused from the Head to the members” (II.xv.2). What does Calvin mean by this? Why is it important?

Calvin turns in II.xv.3-5 to Christ’s kingly office in particular.

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?

For reflection: What pastoral implications does Calvin draw in II.xv.4 from the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingship?

6. What does Christ do in his priestly office (II.xv.6)?

In II.xvi, Calvin explains how Christ has redeemed and saved us. This involves a discussion of Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension.

7. Can you identify the different ways in which Calvin describes our predicament as sinners (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, according to II.xvi.2-4?

9. Consider these two quotations: “Because the Lord wills not to lose what is his in us, out of his kindness he still finds something to love” (II.xvi.3); 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” (II.xvi.4, quoting Augustine). What does Calvin mean? Why is it important?

10. How, precisely, does Calvin believe Christ has abolished sin, reconciled us to God and “acquired righteousness” for us (II.xvi.5)?

11. What does Calvin mean when he says, “the cross was accursed” (II.xvi.6)?

In II.xvi.8-12, Calvin discusses the controversial phrase, “He descended into hell,” which is found in the Apostles’ Creed.

12. What does Calvin think is meant by the statement in the Creed, “He descended into hell” (II.xvi.8-12)? Do you agree?

For reflection: Should we say “Christ descended into hell” when we say the Creed at church?

13. What, according to Calvin, did Christ’s resurrection accomplish (II.xvi.13)? Would you want to add anything here?

14. What did Christ achieve in his ascension (II.xvi.14-16)? Why is this significant?

*15. Why is it significant that our Judge is our Redeemer (II.xvi.18)?

In II.xvii, Calvin discusses the idea of “merit,” a term which has historically been used by some theologians in their discussion of the work of Christ.

*16. 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)?

*17. What does Calvin seek to demonstrate by his citation of Galatians 3 and Isaiah 53 in II.xvii.4?

14. Free Will - 3 February 2012

Introduction

We remain on the doctrine of sin and its effects in week 14 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, as we consider the effects of sin on the human will. After a brief detour into John Murray’s Imputation of Adam’s Sin, we’re back with Calvin’s Institutes, II.ii (1:255-289). Murray led us through a consideration of the imputation of Adam’s sin, guilt and corrupt nature to his posterity; Calvin now explores the effect of this inherited corruption on our capacity for good and evil, and in particular the tricky subject of Free Will.

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

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

Outline

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

Questions for reflection

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

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

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

Study questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29. Covenant and Election - 3 February 2012

Introduction

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

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

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

Questions for reflection

i. What is “assurance of salvation”?

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

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

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

Study questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s look at the Arminian view first.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28. Election - 3 February 2012

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Outline of Calvin, Institutes, III.xxi-xxiv

III.xxi Introduction to the doctrine of election

III.xxi.1 Introduction

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

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

III.xxi.5-7 Definitions

III.xxii Biblical evidence for the doctrine of election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for reflection

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

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

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

Study questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Original sin (2) - 3 February 2012

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outline of Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin

Chapter 1

Section I: Syntax of Romans 5:12-21

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

(1) The Pelagian interpretation

(2) The Roman Catholic interpretation

(3) Calvin’s interpretation

(4) The Classical Protestant interpretation

Chapter 2

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

(1) The Realist view

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

Chapter 3

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

(1) Mediate imputation

(2) Immediate imputation

Chapter 4

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

Study Questions on Murray, Imputation, chs 3-4

Chapter 3 (section IV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 4 (section V)

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

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

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

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

Study Questions on Calvin, Institutes, II.i

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

Section 4 is a description of the sin of Adam.

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

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

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

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

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

12. Original Sin (1) - 3 February 2012

Introduction

In the previous session we considered the creation of man. In session 12 we move on, following the biblical logic, to consider the fall of man and the doctrine of original sin. In this and the following session, we’ll be looking at John Murray’s book The Imputation of Adam’s Sin.

A couple of portions of Murray’s book are rather complex, so I’ve provided some explanation to help you find your way through them. Some of the questions relate to these sections, and I encourage you to have a crack at if you’re able to. But don’t worry if you run out of time or if you find them too hard to understand – that’s what the tutorial is for.

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1

Section I: Syntax of Romans 5:12-21

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

(1) The Pelagian interpretation

(2) The Roman Catholic interpretation

(3) Calvin’s interpretation

(4) The Classical Protestant interpretation

Chapter 2

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

(1) The Realist view

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

Questions for reflection

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

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

Study questions

Chapter 1 (Introduction; sections I and II)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. What is the Pelagian view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. What, according to Murray, is “the only solution” (final paragraph of the chapter) that can make sense of these exegetical considerations?

Chapter 2 (section III)

Having reached the conclusion at the end of chapter 1 that “there must be some kind of solidarity existing between the ‘one’ [Adam] and the ‘all’ [Adam’s descendants],” Murray proceeds in chapter 2 to consider the nature of this solidarity. He discusses the two options in turn:

(1) The Realist view (which Murray tends to call the “realistic” view);

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

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

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

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

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

OK – can you feel a dull headache coming on? Don’t worry. Murray’s aim here is to identify more clearly the difference between the realistic and representative positions more precisely. Here goes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Previous Entries

Recent Sermons

Recent Blog Posts