We, the undersigned, call upon our government:

1. to recognise that Christians around the world currently face unprecedented levels of persecution and are one of the most persecuted groups in the world;

2. to put the plight of persecuted Christians, both individually and as communities, at the forefront of their relations with the countries concerned;

3. to promote freedom of religion for all, using diplomatic relations, bi-lateral ties, aid, and agreed international obligations on core human rights;

4. to promote justice for all and specifically to ensure that those who incite hatred or act violently against Christians are held accountable for their crimes.

Try filling this in for a week.

Introduction

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

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

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

Outline

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

Questions for reflection

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

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

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

Study questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Questions for reflection

i. What is “assurance of salvation”?

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

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

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

Study questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s look at the Arminian view first.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Outline of Calvin, Institutes, III.xxi-xxiv

III.xxi Introduction to the doctrine of election

III.xxi.1             Introduction

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

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

III.xxi.5-7         Definitions

III.xxii Biblical evidence for the doctrine of election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for reflection

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

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

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

Study questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outline of Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin

Chapter 1

Section I: Syntax of Romans 5:12-21

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

(1) The Pelagian interpretation

(2) The Roman Catholic interpretation

(3) Calvin’s interpretation

(4) The Classical Protestant interpretation

Chapter 2

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

(1) The Realist view

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

Chapter 3

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

(1) Mediate imputation

(2) Immediate imputation

Chapter 4

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

Study Questions on Murray, Imputation, chs 3-4

Chapter 3 (section IV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 4 (section V)

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

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

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

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

Study Questions on Calvin, Institutes, II.i

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

Section 4 is a description of the sin of Adam.

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1

Section I: Syntax of Romans 5:12-21

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

(1) The Pelagian interpretation

(2) The Roman Catholic interpretation

(3) Calvin’s interpretation

(4) The Classical Protestant interpretation

Chapter 2

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

(1) The Realist view

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

Questions for reflection

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

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

Study questions

Chapter 1 (Introduction; sections I and II)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. What is the Pelagian view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2 (section III)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Questions for reflection

i. What is the “New Covenant”?

ii. Is the New Covenant breakable?

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

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

Study questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so.

According to Judges 20:28, the ark of God was at that time attended by a guy called Phinehas, the son of Eleazar. This is almost certainly the same Phinehas named in Numbers 25 – the one who put a stop to the plague caused by the Israelites’ idolatry with Midian during their wilderness wanderings. This Phinehas was apparently born after the exodus from Egypt, otherwise he’d have died in the wilderness like all of the generation that left Egypt apart from Joshua and Caleb. This means that he must have been somewhere between about 20 and 40 years old start of the conquest (no older, otherwise he’d have died in the wilderness with all the rest of that generation except Joshua and Caleb; not much younger, otherwise it’s hard to imagine him picking up a spear and skewering Zimri and his Midianite mistress with it). Assuming he lived no more than 120 years (Gen 6:3), the events described in Judges 17-21 must have taken place in the first 100 or so years (at most) after the start of the conquest.

Consequently, Judges 17-21 does not describe the result of the Judges’ rule, but its cause. They describe the kind of ungodliness within Israel that precipitated the decline during the first couple of generations after the conquest. When you read in the early chapters that “the Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of the LORD” (e.g. Judges 3:12; 4:1) this is what they were getting up to.

Here’s one particularly striking extract:

“We must not equate courage with success, or even youth with success … I have spent too much time in places like Japan, or in parts of the Muslim world, where courage is not measured on the world stage, where a single convert is reckoned a mighty trophy of grace. I am grateful beyond words for the multiplication of churches in Acts 29, but I am no less grateful for Baptist ministers like my Dad, men who labored very hard and saw very little fruit for decades in French Canada, many of whom went to prison … Just as the widow who gave her mite may be reckoned to have given more than many multi-millionaires, so, I suspect, some ministers in Japan, or Yorkshire, will receive greater praise on that last day than those who served faithfully in a corner of the world where there was more fruit.”

What should the government do?

Romans 13:1-7 1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed.

Questions

1. Who must “be subject to the governing authorities” (v. 1)?

2. Where does the government’s authority come from (v. 1)?

3. The government is “the servant of God” to do… what (v. 4)?

4. How should the government’s work be paid for (v. 6)?

Answers

1. Everyone must obey the government, because…

2. … the government’s authority comes from God.

3. The government must serve God – it can’t do whatever it wants; rather, it exists to carry out God’s wrath against wrongdoers.

• Internal wrongdoers (criminals within the country)
• External wrongdoers (military invaders from outside the country)

4. Everyone must pay for the government’s work through taxation.

A (partial) list of UK government departments

Draw a circle around any of these departments which might conceivably be necessary for the government to carry out its God-given task of carrying out “God’s wrath against evildoers” (i.e. punishing criminals, defending the nation).

• Her Majesty’s Treasury
• The Charity Commission
• The Crown Prosecution Service
• The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
• The Department for Culture, Media and Sport
• The Department for Education
• The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
• The Department for International Development
• The Department for Transport
• The Department for Work and Pensions
• The Department of Energy and Climate Change
• The Department of Health
• The Food Standards Agency
• The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
• The Forestry Commission
• The Government Equalities Office
• The Home Office
• The Ministry of Defence
• The Ministry of Justice
• The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills
• The Office of Fair Trading
• The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
• The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation
• The Office of Rail Regulation
• The Ordnance Survey
• The Serious Fraud Office
• The Water Services Regulation Authority

At times this comic figure will make you laugh. And of course it’s a caricature – there’s no one in the world quite like this. But in most of us we’ll find some of these traits, if we look hard enough. And look we must, because the Sluggard is, in the end, a figure of tragedy. He’s pitiful, sad, pathetic.

Four characteristics of the Sluggard from Proverbs 26:13-16:

1. Sluggards make excuses (v. 13)
2. Sluggards rarely start a job (v. 14)
3. Sluggards never finish a job (v. 15)
4. Sluggards won’t listen (v. 16)

Listen here.

v17 Whoever speaks the truth ['emunah] gives honest evidence, but a false [shekar] witness utters deceit.

v22  Lying [shekar] lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully ['emunah] are his delight.

v23 A prudent ['arum] man conceals [koseh] knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly ['ewil].

The word order of ‘arum and koseh is reversed in the Hebrew text of v. 16, so that the chiasm looks like this:

fool ['ewil]

ignores [koseh]

prudent ['arum]

truth ['emunah]

false [shekar]

Lying [shekar]

faithfully ['emunah]

prudent ['arum]

conceals [koseh]

folly ['ewil]

With thanks to Bruce Waltke, Proverbs (NICOT), p. 533.

• “Purity of Worship,” in Hold Fast Your Confession: Studies in Church Principles, ed. Donald Macleod (Edinburgh, Knox Press)
• The Free Church of Scotland
• Brian Schwertley,”A Brief Examination of Exclusive Psalmody”
• G. I. Williamson, “The Singing of Psalms in the Worship of God”
• John Murray, “Minority Report of the Committee on Song in the Public Worship of God Submitted to the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church”
• exclusivepsalmody.com
• W. I. Wishart, The Psalms the Divinely Authorized and Exclusive Manual of Praise
• Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion

This is not a view I hold. But I know some folks who do, and it’s as well to know what they’re likely to have been reading.

Here’s an outline of the topics and speakers:

Adam in the OT (David Green)

Adam in the NT (Lane Tipton)

Adam in systematic theology (Lane Tipton)

Adam in covenant theology (Garry Williams)

Adam and original sin (Steve Jeffery)

Preaching Adam to Adam’s race (Michael McClenahan)

Exodus 1:15-21 The Israelite midwives lied to Pharaoh

Joshua 2; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25 Rahab hid the spies and lied to the Jericho troops

Judges 4:18 Jael deceived Sisera

1 Samuel 16:1-5 Samuel deceived Saul about the purpose of his mission

1 Samuel 19:12-17 Michal deceived and lied to Saul’s messengers, saying that David was ill

1 Samuel 20:6 David tells Jonathan to lie to Saul

1 Samuel 21:13 David deceived Achich King of Gath into believing he is mad

1 Samuel 27:10 David lied to Achish about his raids

2 Samuel 5:22-25 David and his troops deceived the Philistines in battle

2 Samuel 14:34 David urged Hushai the Archite to deceive Absalom

2 Samuel 17:19-20 A woman deceived and lied to Absalom’s men

1 Kings 22:19-23 God sent a lying spirit to Ahab

2 Kings 6:14-20 Elijah misled the Syrian troops

Jeremiah 38:24-28 Jeremiah lied to the officials

Luke 24:28 Jesus misled his disciples by acting as if he was going farther

2 Thessalonians 2:11 God sends a powerful delusion so that his enemies will believe a lie

Read the review, view sample chapters and buy the book here.

• The M’Cheyne Bible-in-a-year plan
• YouVersion
• David Field’s online audio Bible, now also online at Believers Resource

“The Lord’s Day is for visiting the sick. It is for welcoming strangers, especially internationals. It is for helping people worship in the nursing home. It is for hosting the homeless to dinner. It is for giving fatherly care to orphans. It is for taking time to counsel friends who need encouragement. It is a day for giving all the service to God that we are unable to give the rest of the week. In addition to giving us a good day for rest and worship, the Lord has also given us a great day for the gospel – not just for preaching it, but also practicing it through loving deeds of mercy.” (Luke, p. 252)

“What determines that a husband or wife who is not a believer is made holy is ‘the willingness of the unbeliever to continue the relationship’ which ‘has had a decisive influence on his or her behaviour.’” In such a case, “The lifestyle of the Christian partner cannot but affect the ethos and to some extent the values and lifestyle of the home, whether this be the husband or the wife. The spouse’s example, witness, prayer, and living out the world make the spouse (and the children) in this sense holy.”

Thiselton thereby gives the appropriate weight to the potentially compelling witness of a Christian spouse, without making nonsense of the need for the unbelieving spouse to come to personal faith in Jesus (cf. v. 16).

More could be said, I think, on the subject of the children mentioned later in v. 14. But insofar as it goes, this much is helpful.

“We who are strong have an obligation to bear with [bastazein] the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbour for his good, to build him up. 3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.’ 4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”

• “It is unlikely that bastazein means ‘endure’ here.” Presumably is doesn’t mean “bear with” either. For “Paul is requiring from the strong something much more positive than that they should tolerate the weaknesses of the weak,” which by itself might “involve putting a certain pressure upon the weak” or even harbouring “an attitude of superiority and condescension” toward them.
• Rather, bastazein means “carry,” as it does in the vast majority of other NT occurrences. This certainly fits the present context. For (and here Cranfield is superb) “What is required is that the strong should actually help the weak by taking something of the weight of the burden which they have to carry off their shoulders on to their own.” The strong are “to help to carry the infirmities, disabilities, embarrassments and encumbrances of their brothers who are having to live without that inner freedom which they themselves enjoy. Their response to this obligation will be a test of the reality of their faith.”
• “This helping to carry the burden of the infirmities which weigh the weak down will involve not pleasing oneself.”
• On the phrase “for his good, to build him up” [eis to agathos pros oikodomen], Cranfield writes, “The neighbour is very likely to be ready to be pleased by flattery and by the condonement of his wrong-doing,” which will hardly tend to his good. Instead, therefore, “the pleasing of the neighbour which is here commanded … has regard to his true good, to his salvation … which is directed owards his edification … no mere man-pleasing but [with] regard to God.”
• “Paul appeals to the example of Christ” in the phrase “for Christ did not please himself” – a statement which “sums up with eloquent reticence both the character of the incarnation and the meaning of Christ’s earthly life.”
• A surprise in v. 3 – Paul appeals not to the life of Christ but to the OT, quoting from Ps 69:9, where the righteous sufferer (Christ, in Rom 15) addresses God, declaring that men’s hostility towards their Maker has now been directed at their Saviour. Christ suffered this intense hostility from men voluntarily; how much more should we be ready to undergo willingly the comparatively trivial trial of “renouncing our self-gratification” in such matters as food, drink and special days “for the sake of our brothers for whom He suffered so much.”

Jesus apparently thought things should be the other way round.

This uncertainty could easily have been resolve had Luke wished. I suggest therefore that the ambiguity is deliberate. It serves to underscore the precariousness of the Pharisees’ alienation from Jesus by compounding their predicament with uncertainty. And if there’s one thing worse than alienation in a relationship, it’s alienation compounded with uncertainty.

Charles Cranfield: “Paul is enjoining … a friendly and unselfconscious association both with ordinary unimportant people and with the outcasts of society that is free from any suggestion of patronizing or condescension … it is always a sign of the worldliness of the church then its ‘leaders’ no longer associate as readily and freely with humble people both inside and outside the church as with those who feel socially superior.” (Romans, ICC, p. 644.)

Epictetus: “If I were a nightingale, I would do what is proper for a nightingale; If I were a swan, I would do what is proper for a swan. In fact I am logicos, so I must praise God.”

Cranfield, Romans (ICC), p. 602.

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

We begin with the creation of man. Here’s the plan:

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

Questions for reflection

i. What do you think it means to say that man was created “in the image of God”?

ii. Does fallen man bear the image of God?

iii. What is the human soul?

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

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

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

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

For reflection: How would Calvin respond to the statement, “I’m homosexual – and that’s just the way that God made me”?

3. How does Calvin describe “the soul” (I.xv.2)? What two reasons does Calvin give for thinking that there is in man something “separate from the body” (I.xv.2)?

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

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

6. What is “the delusion of the Manichees” concerning the soul (I.xv.5)? What is wrong with the Manichean view?

For reflection: Can you think of any biblical text(s) that might at first glace seem to support the Manichees’s view?

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

8. What kind of freedom does Calvin believe Adam had before the fall (I.xv.8)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for reflection

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

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

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

iv. To whom should baptism be administered? Why?

Study questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Bahnsen’s position:

The author insists that the whole Old Testament civil law, including the penalty structure (execution for adultery and so on) is binding up­on present-day civil governments.

The “ceremonial law” (e.g. an­imal sacrifices) is no longer literally binding.

Church and state were dis­tinct even during the Old Testament period (this is the distinction be­tween priestly and kingly offices).

This position does not require that the state enforce religious conver­sion, nor does it give civil officials power over the Church.

The civil government must, how­ever, carry out its distinctive func­tions under the authority of Bibli­cal law.

Positive points:

On the whole the book is well organized and easy to read; it is easy to skip cer­tain sections for future reference and to pick up the train of argu­ment later on.

His is the most thorough and cogent defense of [this] position so far pub­lished.

This book performs a great ser­vice. It takes the whole controversy out of the “shouting” stage and pre­sents solid arguments which must be soberly discussed. The work shows impressive exegetical and logical skill. Bahnsen here has established himself as one of the very best younger theologians of our time.

For those who disagree with Bahn­sen’s position—well, the ball is in their court; they must come up with an answer.

Criticisms:

The book is somewhat wordy; Bahnsen sometimes engages in overkill by multiplying references and arguments. At times he lapses into language unintelligible to those not trained in philosophy.

I would suggest that Bahnsen con­front more directly the reason why many people consistently resist the continuing use of these civil laws distinctive to the Mosaic covenant, namely that the Mosaic covenant, in contrast with previous covenants and with the New Covenant, identifies the kingdom of God with a specific earthly political unit. The unique­ness of that Old Testament theoc­racy needs closer examination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• “Puritans were ‘the hotter sort of Protestants’” (p. 51). Now that’s the right kind of heat.
• “The Puritans, conservative or radical, followed a different faith to the Quakers, and this difference resulted from opposing views on Word and Spirit” (p. 53). “Both Puritans and Quakers” recognised these “deep theological differences” (p. 53).
• Archbishop Ussher (the hitherto-unknown standup comic): “Nothing is so familiar nowadays … as to father upon Antichrist whatsoever in church matters we do not find to sort with our own humours” (p. 53).
• “Many Quakers came from a Puritan background” (p. 55).
• The fundamental disagreement: “The Puritans believed that God spoke through the Bible, and the Quakers believed that God spoke immediately, and not through the Bible” (p. 55).
• “The use [by Quakers] of biblical words and phrases … concealed the wide gap between Puritan faith and Quaker experience … the Quaker message was a radical departure from Puritan faith” (p. 58).
• Luther (another secret comedian) would not believe the Zwickau prophets even if “they had swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all” (p. 59).
• Section 3 – the worrying consequences of Quaker teaching.
• The puritan/Quaker differences may have originated in differences among the Reformers, exemplified by the differences between Zwingli and Luther (p. 84):
  • Zwingli: the Bible is a sign of the truth that God communicates by his Spirit;
  • Luther: the Bible is the means God uses to communicate his truth.
• “Zwingli wants to refute an ex opere operato view of preaching but in doing so runs the danger of failing to recognise that the Bible is God’s words ‘intrinsically as well as instrumentally,’ in the useful phrase of J. I. Packer” (p. 85).
• “Calvin asserts both the efficacy of the external Spirit-inspired Word and the necessity for the internal word and testimony of the Spirit. In this he honours the ‘means’ which God uses, Bible and preacher, as well as pointing to our own powerlessness and our dependence on God’s work in our hearts, minds, and lives” (p. 85).
• A final thought: It’s one thing to ask the question, “Which words can we trust?” It’s another thing to ask the question, “Which words have the power to change us?” I’m inclined to think that the second question is at least as important, perhaps sometimes more important, as the first.

28 And leaving everything and rising, he followed him.

29 And Levi made a great banquet for him in his house, and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and others who were with them, sitting at the table.

30 And the Pharisees and their Scribes grumbled to his disciples, saying, “Why with tax collectors and sinners does he eat and drink?”

31 And answering Jesus said to them, “The healthy have no need for a doctor, but the sick.

32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Anyone who’s read much by James B. Jordan will be unlikely to find much new here. But Hamilton does the painstaking (and very helpful) work of crossing i’s and dotting t’s that Jordan deliberately leaves out in his outstanding book Through New Eyes. The two approaches therefore compliment each other very well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has released the results of new research, regarded as “the most comprehensive and systematic review to date into the link between abortion and mental health problems.” This research ” has confirmed that women who have an unplanned pregnancy are at an increased risk of experiencing mental health problems after an abortion” (source: Christian Concern).

In other words, far from improving the mental health of the mother, an abortion is likely to worsen it.

These results imply, furthermore, that the “mental health” grounds for abortion can no longer be justified in law, since they are not supported by the best medical evidence. For doctors to authorise abortions on this basis, according to Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship, would be illegal.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Outline

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

Questions for reflection

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

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

Study questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

We’re building on the material from Berkhof and Calvin from the previous session, exploring in more detail some of the exegetical basis (especially from the Old Testament), historical background, and theological and philosophical nuances of this doctrine.

You almost certainly won’t have time to study the whole chapter in detail, so don’t try to. Indeed, I’ve not even set any questions on the second half of the chapter. As always, let the questions be your guide as to where your attention should be directed. The questions focus on pp. 261-264, 280-290 and 298-299.

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

Questions for reflection

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

Study Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. What judgment(s) did the church make at the Council of Nicaea about previous trinitarian reflection (p. 285)?

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

6. What, according to Bavinck, was Augustine’s “starting point” (p. 287)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I think UK Christians ought to dedicate themselves with solemn oaths and vows to be as culturally inappropriate as they can possibly be. Their nation is in peril – it might be past the point of no return – and dithering isn’t going to help anything.”

And there’s more. Get it here.

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

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

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

(3) Denying the distinction between the divine persons.

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s a reminder of the text itself:

“I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” (Philippians 4:2-3)

And here are some thoughts from Peter O’Brien’s commentary:

1. What does Paul want, and how badly does he want it?

“In a direct personal appeal for unity Paul names the two women and begs them to reach a common mind … The apostle’s urging another of his coworkers to Help Euodia and Syntyche come to a common mind shows the necessity and urgency of the exhortation” (O’Brien, pp. 477-8).

2. How does Paul approach the disagreement?

“Paul refuses to take sides but makes the same appeal to both” (O’Brien, pp. 477-478).

3. Why is it so important that the dispute should be resolved?

“Their discord, whatever its precise nature, was a threat to the unity of the church as a whole. Otherwise it is difficult to explain why their names were mentioned in a letter to be read publicly in church” (O’Brien, p. 478).

4. What kind of resolution is Paul looking for?

“The expression to auto phroneiv, which means literally ‘to think the same thing’, is an appeal to Euodia and Syntyche to be at one in their mental attitude and so in the basic aim, direction, and orientation or their behaviour. Undoubtedly this would involve their having right attitudes towards each other and thus an ability to work together in harmony” (O’Brien, p. 478).

5. What do we know about the two women?

“They had contended at Paul’s side in the cause of the gospel … [and] their names … find a place in God’s record, the roll of the heavenly commonwealth … Euodia and Syntyche participated in Paul’s own struggle for the advance of the gospel … All their names are written in the book of life … including Euodia and Syntyche … This figurative language is employed several times in the book of Revelation to describe believers … who have been predestined from the foundation of the world … and who will enter the presence of God after the last assize” (O’Brien, pp. 479, 481-483).

6. Why does Paul ask his “true companion” to help them?

“It may be difficult for Euodia and Syntyche to come to a common mind on their own, so Paul requests his trusted colleague to help them. … He was probably some prominent and influential member of the congregation, perhaps a person of tact as well as influence” (O’Brien, pp. 480-481).

1. Isaiah 40:31. They who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary;
they shall walk and not faint.

2. Isaiah 7:14. Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

3. Isaiah 11:1-2. There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.

4. Jeremiah 23:5-6. “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’”

5. Isaiah 9:6. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

6. Micah 5:2. But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

7. Micah 5:4-5a. And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. And he shall be their peace.

8. Numbers 24:17. I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near:
a star shall come out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel;
it shall crush the forehead of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth.

9. Zechariah 9:9-10. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

10. Isaiah 9:2. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.

11. John 1:1-5. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

12. 1 John 5:20. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

13. Galatians 4:4-5. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

14. Luke 1:13, 16-17. The angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son …  And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.”

15. Luke 1:30-33. The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

16. Luke 1:35. The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy – the Son of God.

17. Luke 1:42-44. “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.”

18. Matthew 1:20-21. An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

19. Luke 2:7. And Mary gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

20. Luke 2:10-11. The angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.”

21. Luke 2:20. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.

22. Matthew 2:1-6. Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

23. Matthew 2:11. Going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother and they fell down and worshipped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

24. John 1:14. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

25. Revelation 19:6, 16. Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out, “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

I’m not sure how nice the paper is, whether the text is Anglicised, or whether the “editorial amendments” (ahem…) added since the first edition are included. But at this price I don’t think I have the right to be too fussy. Click the image to buy.

“Benjamin is identified as a future king in Genesis 35 without any preparation or training, while Judah was proclaimed the royal tribe only after he had offered himself as a substitute for Benjamin (Gen. 44:18-34). Similarly, Saul [the Benjaminite] became king without ever accepting the cross, while David, the king from Judah, rose to the throne only after a death and resurrection.” (Leithart, A Son to Me, p. 72)

Introduction

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

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

Outline

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

Questions for reflection

i. How would you define a “covenant”?

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

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

Study questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 6: Definition of important words.

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

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

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

Sections 21-29: Refutation of trinitarian heresies.

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

Questions for reflection

i. How would you explain the doctrine of the Trinity?

ii. Which biblical texts would you turn to if you were challenged to prove

• the deity of Christ?
• the deity of the Holy Spirit?
• the one-ness of God?
• the three-ness of God?

iii. Have you ever heard any illustrations or analogies for the Trinity? What do you think of them?

Study questions on Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 87-89

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

If you do have some spare time, you might find it helpful to look also at pp. 91-97. But don’t let this stop you getting on to the reading from Calvin’s Institutes.

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

Study questions on Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii (1:120-159)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Clearly the Biblical authors did not believe that there was a moral need to compensate someone for the use of their words. Bits of Chronicles are cribbed wholesale from Kings, for example – sometimes with (pseudonymous) attribution, sometimes without. But pretty certainly without fee or royalty.”

And here’s a reminder of a previous post on the related subject of intellectual property.

“The diseased person had to live alone outside the camp. A solitary existence was viewed as a calamity in itself … Biblical man knew he was meant to live in society, to be a member of God’s people. Living outside the camp would, therefore, have occasioned great distress … it was the place farthest removed from God, the place to which the sinner and the impure were banished … the place where wrongdoers were executed … To live outside the camp was to be cut off from the blessings of the covenant. It was little wonder that when a man was diagnosed as unclean he had to go into mourning. He experienced a living death … As Adam and Eve experienced a living death when they were expelled from Eden, so every man who was diagnosed suffered a similar fate.” (G. J. Wenham, Leviticus, pp. 200-201)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“By performing this healing, Jesus shows that the OT code of holiness points to him. His life and death fulfill it and abrogate it. But that abrogation is not complete until his sacrificial death. Until then, there is still a need for Israel to conform to the purity laws of the OT, which require the newly cleansed leper to show himself to the priest and make an offering” (Arthur Just, Luke, pp. 214-215).

This contrasts with other readings of Luke 5, in which Jesus’ healing of the leper is seen precisely as a manifestation of the sacrificial quality of his ministry, on the premise that for the cleansing of a leper in the OT a sacrifice was required. However, Just’s reading fits better, I think, because according to Lev 13-14 the sacrifice was required after the healing, not as a means to it, and furthermore Jesus tells the man to “make an offering” (v. 14) in the temple.

The emphasis, then, perhaps does not fall on the sacrificial quality of Jesus ministry, but rather somewhere else. One possibility is that healing itself (and thus restoration to a condition of cleanness) was one thing that the OT law couldn’t do. A leper just needed to hang around and wait for the disease to go away. If it did, all well and good – the priest could then certify him as clean, offer the appropriate sacrifices, and so on. But if the disease remained, that was just too bad. The man would have been condemned to a life of exclusion and ostracism by the incurable character of his condition. This incurability is the thing that Jesus overturns. Healing and cleanness flows out from him, as a sign of the holiness within him and the greater glory of the New Covenant, by which God does not remain at a distance but comes close to us in Christ.

• “Christ’s kingdom is all about life overcoming death. Christ has come to overthrow and exorcise all sorts of death … Christ’s holiness has come to restore dying bodies” (p. 83).
• “These purity laws all seem to connect and make sense as symbolic expressions of that central distinction between life and death” (p. 85). OK, possibly. Probably, even. But there’s probably more to say too. Wholeness and one-ness as opposed to divided-ness and mixed-ness, for example. And observing created distinctions. Though there’s no need for either-or here.
• “Jesus shows up in Galilee reversing all [these manifestations of death found under the Old Covenant]. He’s not afraid of death. He rules death. Death is afraid of him … Death flees from this new Adam. He is holiness incarnate, and he removes the curse of death. He brings the life of God, and death can’t bear it. He is the High Priest purifying the people of God. His holiness is contagious. It overcomes death” (pp. 85-86)

This whole subject strikes me as a very good example of how what Cornelius van Til called “borrowed capital” combines with what Peter Leithart called “middle grace”.

“Borrowed capital,” in van Til’s writing, refers to the ideas which non-Christian pick up from the Christian world(view) and treat as their own, without acknowledging their source. In apologetic terms, this leaves unbelievers vulnerable, for in simultaneously denying the Christian faith while affirming some of the things for which only the Christian faith can provide a basis, they are in effect cutting off the branch they’re sitting on. But as long as you don’t scratch too deeply, a Christian can learn quite a lot of interesting and useful stuff.

“Middle Grace,” in Leithart’s work, refers to (one of) the process(es) by which unbelievers receive the insights described above. Not special grace, for they don’t read the Bible; not (strictly speaking) common grace (for these insights don’t come through “the light of nature” as such). Rather, they are gained by unbelievers through their contact with the church, where these truths are taught and believed.

Add all this together, and what we find are a whole host of books on “leadership” written from a perspective that is not (at least explicitly) Christian, coming out of countries where the gospel of Christ has historically had a significant impact on the culture. And these books often have a great deal to commend them, for, despite the fact that they don’t mention Christ by name, their authors have somehow managed to pick up on quite a lot of things which, in Christian terms, make for good leadership.

If you want proof, take a look at Peter Scholten’s summary of Maxwell’s 360 Degree Leader. And ask yourself, isn’t this an uncannily accurate portrait (of just a few aspects of the character) of  Jesus?

Maxwell carries on by explaining where our influence lies, specifically in these 5 areas:

1. Position – Influence because of your role.
2. Permission – Influence because of your character.
3. Production – Influence because of your production.
4. People Development – Influence because of who you’ve mentored.
5. Personhood – Influence because of your personality.

John Maxwell also focuses on direction of leadership – up, across, and down.

When leading up well, we must help our leaders by anticipating what our leaders need and then shouldering some of their load. It is also important to anticipate and use the time we have well, getting to know them and how to work with them.

When leading across well, we need to complete rather than compete, being a friend rather than a competitor.

When leading down, place people where they will thrive, modeling the behaviours you wish to see. In the end, you are most effective as a leader when your vision is clear and you reward the behaviours you want to see.

It’s that time of year again. 1 December 2011 is Not Ashamed Day. Click the logo for more information.

Jeremiah 23:1–6

“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. 2 Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD. 3 Then I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. 4 I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, declares the LORD.

5 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’”

Here Jeremiah condemns those who ruled Israel in his day – the “shepherds” (v. 2) of Israel – who cared nothing for the people of God, but were concerned only for themselves. The LORD promises to punish them “for their evil deeds” (v. 2), and to provide a shepherd “who will care for them” (v. 4). This promise is fulfilled with the coming of “a righteous Branch” who will “reign as king and deal wisely” (v. 5), in whom the LORD himself will be present, for his name will be, “the LORD is our righteousness” (v. 6).

Micah 5:1-5a

1 Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek. 2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. 3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel. 4 And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. 5 And he shall be their peace.

Like Jeremiah, Micah also looks forward to One will ” be ruler in Israel” (v. 2). This great King shall come from a surprising place: “Bethlehem Ephrathah” (v. 2), an insignificant little town which would nonetheless be the birthplace of Israel’s Messiah, the one who will bring “peace” (v. 5).

Zephaniah 3:14-20

14 Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem! 15 The LORD has taken away the judgments against you; he has cleared away your enemies. The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst; you shall never again fear evil. 16 On that day it shall be said to Jerusalem: “Fear not, O Zion; let not your hands grow weak. 17 The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing. 18 I will gather those of you who mourn for the festival, so that you will no longer suffer reproach. 19 Behold, at that time I will deal with all your oppressors. And I will save the lame and gather the outcast, and I will change their shame into praise and renown in all the earth. 20 At that time I will bring you in, at the time when I gather you together; for I will make you renowned and praised among all the peoples of the earth, when I restore your fortunes before your eyes,” says the LORD.

Zephaniah looks forward with great joy to the coming of the King: “Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem!” (v. 14). The LORD is coming in the person of Christ as “a mighty one who will save” (v. 17), who will gather the mourners, the lame, and the outcast (vv. 18-19), and will punish those who oppress the weak (v. 19). When the promised King comes, all the world will see how he has restored his people (v. 20).

Haggai 2:1-9

1 In the seventh month, on the twenty-first day of the month, the word of the LORD came by the hand of Haggai the prophet, 2 “Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to all the remnant of the people, and say, 3 ‘Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? How do you see it now? Is it not as nothing in your eyes? 4 Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, declares the LORD. Be strong, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of the land, declares the LORD. Work, for I am with you, declares the LORD of hosts, 5 according to the covenant that I made with you when you came out of Egypt. My Spirit remains in your midst. Fear not. 6 For thus says the LORD of hosts: Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land.  7 And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory, says the LORD of hosts.  8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the LORD of hosts. 9 The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the LORD of hosts.’”

Haggai prophesied during the construction of the Temple after Israel’s return from exile – a task that was delayed because the people of God allowed themselves to become pre-occupied with their own houses rather than the house of God. Even when the Temple was finally constructed, it wasn’t very impressive – it was “as nothing in [the] eyes” of those “who saw … its former glory” (v. 3). Yet “in a little while” (v. 6), the LORD promises to “shake the heavens and the earth” and fill his house with greater glory than the earth has ever seen. And then, when the glory of the LORD has been seen in the Son, the world will know “peace” (v. 9).

First, in 5:1, “the crowd was pressing in on Jesus to hear the word of God.”

Second, in 23:23, the crowd “insistently demanded that he be crucified.”

Thus with this one word Luke tells the story of the fickleness of humanity.

Don’t end your story end in Luke 23:23.

Here are a few of the salient highlights:

• The standard depictions of “the New England Puritans” included “killjoy and prude.” But “New England’s Puritans were by no means allergic to fun.”
• On drinking, “While hard alcohol was frowned upon, beer and wine were celebrated as gifts from above.”
• On the other alleged Puritan taboo, “Another gift from above was sex, which New England Puritans liked just about as much as the rest of us (or more). They sought to channel sexual desire into the institution of marriage, but inside marriage they let their lusts run free.”
• This high view of sex combined with their high view of church authority to produce some interesting moments around the Lord’s Table: “New England’s Puritans disciplined church members who refused to have sex with their wives, including one James Mattock, excommunicated from his church in Boston in 1640 because he ‘denied conjugal fellowship unto his wife’ for two years.”
• In summary, “After the eating and drinking was done, plenty of Puritans thanked God for saving them from celibacy.”

HT: Joel Garver

10 I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.

11 Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.

13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.

17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit. 18 I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.

19 And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

“Explain and evaluate the following arguments against copyright: 1. Copying is not theft because it does not deprive the original owner of his property. 2. Laws against copying are illegitimate because they wrongly presuppose that a vendor may restrict all future owners.”

I’m looking forward to hearing the answer, especially because I think these are the anti-copyright arguments which are both (a) most central to the anti-copyright case (cf. Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property); and (b) most likely to be susceptible to a biblical critique, especially when you take the OT case laws seriously (cf. Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, J. B. Jordan).

On the subject of who pays how much tax, “Some 60% of households are net recipients from the Treasury … The top 10% of households contribute, on average, five times more than they get back … The top 1% of earners – just 300,000 people – pay 27% of all income tax.”

On the subject of what we pay for, “In 2010-11, we spent more paying interest on our national debt than we did defending the realm.” That’s alarming, since defending the realm is one of the few activities of our government that the Bible actually says they should be doing.

On the subject of debt and deficits, “Deficits have been a feature of British political life for decades. In the early 1990s, for instance, John Major’s Conservative government ran up a deficit of more than £50bn, or £77bn in today’s money. The deficit which the coalition inherited is much bigger.” What – we owe money? Who knew?

On the subject of who’s to blame for the mess, “For much of the last 30 years, our politicians have promised higher spending, and lower taxes – and we’ve encouraged them.” Correct. The reason our rulers have spent years telling us lies about their ability to create wealth ex nihilo is that we have elected precisely those rulers misguided enough to do so.

But now those lies are finally coming home to roost in a big way – in the form of massive public debt. And the Great British Public is turning its ire on… you guessed it… the government. It’s a bit like Israel blaming a famine on Baal.

Here’s the heart of the problem: our rulers are only people, just like us. They’re not God. So they can print fivers, but they can’t produce real wealth out of thin air. By insisting that they attempt the impossible, we have turned the ordinary men and women who rule us into idols, and now we’re surprised that they can’t save us. Whenever you turn a created thing into an idol, you ruin it.

God has given us the rulers we deserve. We have sown the wind, and now we will reap the whirlwind.

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

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

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

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

• “The passage is about overwhelming wealth … too many fish [for the nets to contain] … [Thus] the text provides us with something of an unspoken economic test for the fishermen. Satan has just tested Jesus with the temptation of instant and immense wealth – all the kingdoms of the world, food, and safety. But Jesus resisted instant wealth, Then Jesus actually creates instant wealth in front of these very poor fishermen … This poses a subtle dilemma the fishermen have to respond to.” The astonishing thing, then, is that they “leave everything” (v.11) and follow him.
• Douglas Jones thinks that the sin lying behind Peter’s confession “I am a sinful man” (v. 8) was his (previous, and now abandoned) thirst for mammon, manifested in his endless pursuit of wealth – “we toiled all night” (v. 5). Possible, I guess, but I’m not convinced. Toiling all night isn’t a problem, especially if you’ve caught nothing.

1. Jesus could come back at any time.
2. Thought Jesus could not come at any time, nonetheless when he does come his coming will be unexpected.

Unfortunately, these statements are often conflated in people’s minds, resulting in considerable confusion. Note, however, that the Bible’s imagery of a thief in the night, and Jesus’ warnings to be ready, and so on, do not necessarily imply (1). They only require (2).

HT: MF.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

494-6; v1-2

The end of the temple announced

disciple’s enthusiasm, cf. J: ‘T=doomed!’

v1 significant: ‘As Jesus was leaving the Temple’! Cf. Ezekiel, glory of God leaving!

emphatic ou me + 2x aorist subjunctive

497-505

Ctxt in Mk: climax of growing hostility to J (cf. 495)

Importance of OT refs, missed by many modern ppl

Not ‘apocalyptic’

NTW (not RTF): all of Mk 13 wrt AD 70

SoM coming from God to receive authority

‘change of gov’t’

v30 comprehensible!

RTF: v32f – parousia

change of subject: ‘that day’ (singular, cf. prev plural)

uncertain time ref (cf prev certainty)

cf. Mt, parousia explicit

Traditional view: all about parousia. Reasons:

v24-27, cosmic imagery

‘SoM’ / ‘coming with clouds’ = coming to earth, not heaven.

But in 14:26, ppl increasingly accept Dan / heavenly vindication idea. Why not in Mk 13 too?!

505-8; v3-4

Subject = destruction of temple (v3 tauta; sitting opp temple)

v4: 2 parts of question about same subject (unlike Mt 24:3)

thus disciples concerned over (a) time of destruction; and (b) what sign will allow us to prepare for it

Ans (i): v14, 26, 27, esp 30: ‘this generation’

Ans (ii): hint in v28-9: fig tree, buds

v3: mt of olives: messianic connections (11:1)? Ex 11:23, God abandoning the temple

v4. synteilesthai (to be completed) ds not imply parousia reference, contra Mt. Rather, tauta x2 => same referent

in Mt, the vb appears in a specific (eschat.) phrase, unlike here

508-13; v5-8

Josephus: many false semeia in AD30-70

resulting confrontations = foretaste of AD 70 confrontation with Rome

also wars and natural disasters

telos here ds not imply parousia, but completion

è  focus here: disciples mst not be misled by these signs

v6: ‘I Am’ (ego eimi) wrt Messiah, not YHWH (Cf. Mt, ‘messiah’)

many historical examples

Qu: Does throeomai // 2 Th 2:2 hint at parousia reference? (511)

v8: gar, implies further amplification Re: wars etc.

‘birth-pains’ in NT period was a general ref to suffering, not technical term wrt coming of messiah

513-9; v9-13

Interim period: time of proclamation, not passivity

blepete – begins imperatival focus of section. Exhortation.

series of slightly distinct exhortations

v9: direct object of blepete (eautous) personalises and focuses warning

poss progress from Jewish thru Roman persecution?

proclamation concerning Jesus both the cause and the consequence (‘witness to them’) of the opposition

v10: preaching to gentiles b4 temple destroyed

v11: recalls v9 trial scene.

519-30; v14-23

‘When you see’ – introduces more direct answer to question of v4.

‘abomination of desolation’ – reintroduces temple via ctxt of Dan

v17-20 <=> situation leading up to AD 70

Specific historical referent of these events?

(1) profanation of temple; (2) clearly discernible as sign; (3) shortly before Roman seige

v14-16: general 3^rd-person refs: therefore warnings directed toward all Judeans, not jst disciples. (cf. also 17-20)

è potential confusion and debate, but not over main flow of discourse

v14: ‘abomination of desolation’ – Dan.

masc. ptcp => ‘(male) god Zeus?

Once in place, ppl mst leave immediately!

Precise identification of AoD uncertain.

v15-19: wrt horrific war in Judea.

v20: siege of Jer lasted only 5 mths

v21-22: period of war and siege offers more opp’s for false messiahs

historical examples

v23: emphatic hymeis => ‘be warned’!

530-40; v24-31

Key verses for RTF’s distinctive view

So far, a full answer to v4 question has not been given

Outline:

v5-8: false ‘signs’

v9-13: digression: difficulties for disciples during intervening period

v14-22: specific sign: AoD, requiring specific response.

v24: contrastive alla highlights new focus of answer, beyond prev. ‘affliction’

24b-27: heavy dependence on OT prophets

24b-25: cosmic language => climactic changes to existing world order

v26-27: SoM comes: arrival of new world order; SoM sends out angels to gather in elect from all nations.

v28-31: answer to second half of v4 question: signs of approaching fulfilment

v28: fig tree parable – ‘be ready!’

v30: Actual time of events: within ‘this generation’

v32f: peri de – another subject

Key to RTF’s view: understand imagery in light of OT prophecy, not later Xn ‘coming of SoM’ = parousia ideas

v24-5: alla not imply change of subject, just contrast in scale of events

‘in those days’ => explicitly the same era of time as prev events: AD 70

cosmic language // in OT prophets: political changes within world history, wrt divine judgment

Shock: applied here to Jerusalem + temple!

v26: With v27, portrays +ve side of new world – the new thing that will come (cf. -ve in v24-25)

Echo Dan 7:13-14: ‘coming of SoM’ to be enthroned before God. A new king!

SoM = Jesus; in dan, SoM represents ‘saints of most high’; thus J receiving power on behalf of his ppl

How is SoM ‘seen’? What ‘evidence’? Ctxt suggests either 1. destruction of temple; or 2. gathering of ppl of God

-ve and +ve sides of same coin: powerful growth of church / SoM now the supreme authority

v27: sovereignty of SoM shown in gathering the elect

‘angels’? either (a) = ‘messengers’, => Xn missionaries, or (b) angels involved somehow in gathering the elect

v28-29: Back to v4 qu: fig tree illn that abomination of desolation / events of v14-22 are sign SoM’s coming

‘Fig tree’ – common nr Jerusalem, also symbol of Temple’s failure in Mk11

‘it’ (v29) = destruction of temple; ‘these things’ mst be before AD70 to serve as signs of its nearness

v30: ‘this generation’ = only a problem for ppl who get text wrong!

temporal sense required by construction of sentence and by v4 question (‘when?’).

alternative readings of ‘this generation’ don’t work

(a) ‘this gen’ = Jew (Jerome). actually argues in favour of RTF!

(b) ‘this gen’ = ‘that gen’, ie those alive at time of v29, understood as future age

Wrong:   (i) interpretation of v29 argues against it;

(ii) even if RTF wrong on v29, this interpretation would require ‘that gen’, not ‘this gen’!

(b’) ‘this gen’ = human race in general. It never means this; it would be a misleading way to say it!

(c) ‘all these things’ not refer to events described up to v27.

But ‘these things’ refers to v4 qu, hence destruction of temple. This view requires entirely bad interpretation.

v31: Emphasises truth of J’s pronouncement

541-6; v32-7

Peri de => change of subject. ‘That day’ (singular), contrast ‘those days’ (pl) up to v31

Contra NTW, who argues for same subject

Meaning of ‘that day or hour’:

v33-37 themes are parousia-related.

// themes in Mt, where parousia mentioned

But why change the subject here?

theological connection between judgment on Jer and on world (cf. Mt)

Blepete (v33, cf 5, 9,23) – look for true Christ (cf. prev false christs)

v32: Contrast: time of parousia unknown to J; destruction of Temple entirely predictable

v33: Blepete – summons to vigilance, unlike prev ‘cooling of expectation’ (5, 23) and call to prepare for suffering (9)

v37: Broadens perspective to ‘everyone’ – all must ‘watch!’

Further evidence the parousia is in view – relevant beyond immediate hearers

“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

“Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.’” (John 6:35)

No, I’m not joking. Yes, that Wall Street Journal.

Aaron Belz’s article on the charitable work of Pacific Crossroads Church in California contains the following quotation from John Calvin’s commentary on 2 Corinthians, explaining why the Calvinist (and biblical) belief in God’s sovereignty sets us free to be generous to the poor:

“What makes us more close-handed than we ought to be is when we look too carefully, and too far forward, in contemplating the dangers that may occur—when we are excessively cautious and careful—when we calculate too narrowly what we will require during our whole life, or, in fine, how much we lose when the smallest portion is taken away. The man that depends upon the blessing of the Lord has his mind set free from these trammels and has, at the same time, his hands opened for beneficence.”

HT: SJ

• “Jesus, like a priest, ‘laid his hands on every one of them’ and healed them” (p. 78).
• “Jesus’ royal priesthood is grounded in creation, and His goal is to bring about a restoration of creation, a new Eden. … It’s a bit of Eden breaking through. Jesus restores creation person by person” (p. 78).
• “All this kingdom work, all this liberation and restoration, creates a community attaching itself to Jesus” (p. 78). Note v. 42, “the people sought him and came to him and would have kept him from leaving them” – multiple verbal clauses intensifying and emphasising their attachment to their Messiah.
• This is potentially rather significant. The point of Jesus’ redefinition of Israel is that he’s now saying, “If you want to be an Israelite, you need to be attached to me.” The reaction of the people of Capernaum reflects exactly this (correct) instinct. Yet to be attached to Jesus they didn’t need to have him in the body. They needed only to be living within the sphere of his Kingdom. Since they are now living there, Jesus can safely go on to the other towns and preach the good news of the Kingdom there too.
• Jesus’ calling of the first disciples (Simon Peter, James and John, 5:10) at the start of Lk 5 is occasioned by the size of the task that obviously confronts him at the end of Lk 4. “He is only one Son of Man, and the world is a big place. For the kingdom to grow, he needs other royal priests to join him” (p. 79).

False testimony, refusal to worship God, dishonouring your parents, joylessness, idolatry, murder, false accusations, adultery, lust, fear, anger, anxiety, being ashamed of Christ, violence, robbery, stealing, bitterness, astrology, blasphemy, wilfully distorting the teaching of Scripture, failure to bless those who curse you, failure to pray for your enemies, boasting, leading little children into sin, causing another Christian to stumble, neglecting to welcome other Christians, slander, failure to help orphans and widows in their distress, becoming polluted by the world, discord, sowing dissention, divisiveness, giving or receiving bribes, worldliness, refusal to discipline your children, despising the discipline of your parents, provoking your children to anger, not going to church, going to an idolatrous church, dressing indecently, dressing immodestly, lack of compassion, complaining, conceit, pride, lack of meekness, lack of contentedness, lovelessness, being double-tongued, engaging in foolish conversation, craftiness, speaking evil about God’s word, being quick to speak, corruption, tax evasion, despising correction, lack of courtesy, covetousness, cursing, taking on bad debts, arguing, unedifying debate and discussion, fraud, despising divinely-ordained authorities, failure to repay debts, impartiality to the poor, impartiality to the rich, lack of zeal for reading and studying and meditating upon God’s word, lack of commitment to the Church, seeking to please men rather than God, despising your neighbour, not resisting the devil, drunkenness, elevating to laws of men above the law of God, marital unfaithfulness, ingratitude, envy, making excuses for your sins, not hating evil, failure to abstain from the appearance of evil, rewarding evil with good, rewarding good with evil, wilfully misunderstanding God’s word, praying in order to impress people, fearing men, not fearing God, fighting, taking a brother to court, flattery for gain, not crucifying the flesh, not forgiving others, irresponsible gambling, giving to the poor in order to be seen by others, giving grudgingly, gluttony, denying that Jesus is the Christ, failing to give to a brother or sister in need, denying that God has come in the flesh, hardening your heart, seeking glory due to God alone, speaking evil, not seeking first the Kingdom of God, wilful failure to understand the will of God, using gifts for our glory rather than the benefit of others, pointless arguments, lukewarmness, preaching a false gospel, thinking that godliness is a means to financial gain, testing God, not tithing, hatred, greed, gossip, refusing instruction, stirring up mischief for others, setting your heart on things below rather than on things above, heartlessness, homosexual conduct, dishonesty, lack of hospitality, idleness, jealousy, impudence, coarse joking, unkindness, kidnapping, profaning the Lord’s Day, trusting in man rather than God, laziness, malice, grumbling, bad manners, teaching that marriage is bad, calling evil good, calling good evil, loving money, obstinacy, observing days and months and seasons and years, not keeping your word, oppressing widows or orphans, believing or teaching un-Christian ideas, denying that Jesus is the only way of salvation, loving pleasure rather than God, despising the poor, being a bad example to younger Christians, not honouring older Christians, withholding wages, prayerlessness, seeking preachers who teach false doctrine, seeking preachers who don’t challenge sin, preaching unbiblical doctrines or flattering words or human traditions, speaking the truth without love, doing anything good without love, leaving your toys all over your floor when your mum has told you to tidy them away, loving to be called “Rabbi”, rage, rape, not providing for your own family,  exalting yourself, trusting in wealth, not taking up your cross, wanting to be rich, rioting, selfishness, thinking you know what will happen tomorrow, divination, prostitution, fornication, allowing even a hint of sexual immorality, not being ashamed of your sin, refusing to confess your sin, slandering your neighbour in secret, claiming that you have not sinned, arson, stubbornness, wanton extravagance, pornography, evil thoughts, unbelief, witchcraft, contradicting the Bible, treachery, forgetting God’s commandments, twisting the truth, trying to earn favour with God, letting the sun go down while you are still angry, obeying your parents reluctantly or slowly or resentfully, refusing to suffer for Christ, suffering for Christ resentfully or grumpily or proudly, being ashamed of the testimony of Jesus, lack of enthusiasm for worship, excessive concern about your appearance, excessive lack of concern about your appearance, lying in bed when you should be praying, harbouring grudges, self-pity.

The Downhill Slide of Temptation

I’m in a situation where I realise I could sin if I wanted

I’m leaving open the possibility of sinning

Sin is starting to seem attractive and compelling

Sin is starting to seem increasingly attractive and compelling

Sin seems more attractive and compelling than godliness

I’ve finally done what I was being tempted to do

Four Scenarios

Read the following stories, and try to work out (1) What the person is being tempted to do; and (2) where they are on the downhill slide of temptation as the story progresses.

1. Late-night YouTube

I got home later than I’d expected on Saturday night, and I was pretty tired. I was about to go upstairs to bed, but I just checked my email, and a friend had sent me a link to a YouTube clip – he said it was really funny. It was. Really funny. Before I knew what had happened, I’d watched several more, and almost an hour had passed. I finally stumbled into bed, completely exhausted. When the alarm went off the next morning I slept right through it. My mum yelled up the stairs that it was time for church, but I just grunted back. There’s no point in going to church when you can’t keep your eyes open. And I’d probably be late anyway. Never mind – I’ll go next week.

2. Tax return temptation

I really need to finish that tax return. I’ve been putting it off for weeks, but John reminded me again today. He filled his in last week, and he was bragging as usual, all about how he never mentions all the cash-in-hand jobs he does at the weekends. The tax man never checks, John says. He’s probably right. They’ll never find out, especially if I don’t mouth off about it like John…

3. Keeping up with glamourous Jane

Jane was back at work again today. She looks very glamorous – all suntan and new hairstyle, fresh back from holiday. She’s actually not as pretty as everyone says she is – at least, not under all that make-up. Her hair does look nice, but you can do anything if you spend enough time and pay enough money. I’ll try out that new salon on Saturday – that’s where Jane goes, and they’ve got loads of new products in the window. My sister says I spend too long in the bathroom already, but who cares what she thinks…?

4. Kid chaos

It has been a very busy day, but I’ve finally got the kids back home. Time to get dinner ready. But all I can hear is the three of them shrieking and shouting in the lounge. That new game is certainly a big hit, but I wish they’d calm down. The noise is starting to make my head ache. I can feel myself getting more frustrated – none of them has offered to set the table, and none of them have taken their muddy shoes off, so all of them have trampled mud all over the floor again. Oh, I’ll just set the table myself. Hold on – what’s that smell? Oh no – now the baked beans have burned! Another shriek from the lounge, followed by a crash and more shouting. Right that’s it, I’ve had enough…

My first reaction is an obvious one: there are problems with trying to imagine historical counterfactuals. I think historians have a technical name for this difficulty, but I can’t remember what it is. The bottom line, though, is that everything is so interconnected that it makes little sense to imagine changing just one historical fact while keeping everything else the same.

However, the question is an interesting one, because it prompts us to think about what factors actually were instrumental in the Reformation. Clearly there was a growing frustration with the medieval Catholic church, both at street level and among theologians and Ministers. The pressure for change had been building for a long time before Luther as a result of many different factors, including the work of Wycliffe, the corruption of the papacy, the tyranny of indulgences, the rise of humanism and the growing awareness that the Bible didn’t actually say all the stuff the Church said it did. If Luther hadn’t lit the blue touch-paper, someone else eventually would have done.

Having said that, the Reformation could not have been kicked off by just anyone. There was a reason why Luther was the man who started the ball rolling, and why many others who shared Luther’s distaste for the medieval church had much less of an impact. It boils down to one thing: Courage.

Put simply, Luther changed the world because he had guts. He was not the only man to be shocked by the corruption among the clergy in early 16th-century Rome. He was, however, one of very few who resolved to put his life on the line do something about it. When he saw the oppression and manipulation of the poor under the Roman system of indulgences, he didn’t just shrug his shoulders and say, “Not my parish; not my problem.” He nailed his theses to the door and got to work.

Of course, he couldn’t have imagined what that late-night trip to Wittenberg would lead to, but that’s exactly the point. He just kept on going, relentlessly pursuing reform, not knowing where the road would go, simply because it was the right thing to do.

So I’m sure that in God’s providence there would have been a Reformation if Luther had never lived. But I’m equally sure it wouldn’t have “just happened”. It would have needed men willing to put their lives and livelihoods on the line. The truly great men – the men we remember – are those who fought for the faith: Athanasius, Edwards, Bonhoeffer, Calvin, and, of course, Luther. Such men are so few and far between that what we now call the Reformation could have been delayed for many years if history had never seen Luther. For men of courage are rare, and no one who lacked courage ever changed anything.

Teaching with authority
32 and they were astonished at his teaching, for his word possessed authority.

The man is possessed by the demon
33 And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon,

The demon cried out
and he cried out with a loud voice,  34 “Ha! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?

I know who you are – the Holy One of God.”

The demon is silenced
35 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent and come out of him!”

The man is freed from the demon
And when the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm.

Teaching with authority
36 And they were all amazed and said to one another, “What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out!”

Reports about Jesus are taken to the outlying regions
37 And reports about him went out into every place in the surrounding region.

Here’s the conclusion of the article:

It must be emphasised that old-style Old Testament studies have never caught up with today’s transformed state of information on the Hebrew Bible in its Near-Eastern context; they still carry outdated 19th-century theoretical ‘excess baggage’. Modern agendas of post-modernist type are wholly irrelevant. Careful systematic study of original source-materials in their proper phases and settings and comparing results critically with the existing Old Testament text indicates increasingly that the biblical writers knew what they were talking about – and left us reliable information. Our modern ideas often stand in more need of correction than their text!

• God’s Messiah, King David, is looking for someone to show kindness (hesed, v. 1), and he learns about Ziba, a servant of the house of Saul (v. 2). Ziba immediately identifies himself as David’s servant. The neely-annoined Messiah has now been given everything that previously belonged to the usurper Saul, and Ziba has the good sense to know that the best job in the world is a servant of the King.
• Ziba identifies Mephibosheth, Saul’s grandson, who appears before David and describes himself as David’s servant (v. 6, cf. v. 8). The Messiah immediately welcomes him to his table.
• When Ziba reappears, he is described (significantly) not as Saul’s “servant,” but as Saul’s “lad” (‘na’ar, v. 9, though English translations often obscure this difference). The fallen pretender Saul has finally lost authority even over his own household.
• Ziba himself will work for Mephibosheth, and at this point we learn that he has many servants (v. 10) who will join him. The one who served the King is himself given the right to rule.
• Finally, Ziba declares that as the King’s servant (v. 11) he will do all his master asks, and he and all who serve him will thereafter serve Mephibosheth, the one to whom the Messiah decided to show hesed. For the Messiah will always ensure that his own are served.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Outline

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

Questions for reflection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. What consequences would follow if we were to insist that it is impossible to speak of God using human language?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personally, I think it’s unlikely, for several reasons. Here’s the argument that intrigues me the most (I think it was David Field who first mentioned it to me):

Is it really possible that Paul would have spoken of the message that “was attested to us by those who heard” (Heb 2:3), having placed such great emphasis in Gal 1:16-17 the fact that he did not consult with the other apostles before (or even immediately after) his personal encounter with the risen Christ? Hebrews 2:3 could surely only have been written by someone who heard the Gospel second-hand, not from Jesus personally.

Here they are:

1. ‘The eschaton is not the restoration of the proton. In the eschaton there is an abundance, a richness in intimacy with God and in human transformation that the proton did not know. In Christ we gain more than we lost in Adam … The richness of the eschaton … is not contingent upon sin. And since Christ is the embodiment of the abundance of eschatological life, neither is the incarnation contingent upon sin.’ (pp. 150–151)

2. “… if the eschatological goal of humanity is to enjoy God in the beatific vision, this vision should not be understood purely in terms of intellectual cognition but should also imply sensory perception. However, this can only take place if God makes Godself present in bodily form.’ (p. 156)

3. God’s ultimate goal is to be a friend of his creatures and friendship involves making oneself available to another. ‘This friendship is not based on the divine desire to reconcile estranged humanity; it is the other way around—the divine desire to reconcile estranged humanity is based on, and therefore logically follows, divine friendship. Therefore, if the incarnation is the fullest expression of this divine friendship, the incarnation also logically does not follow human estrangement and divine reconciliation, but precedes it …’ (p. 162)

Thompson himself is somewhat sceptical of van Driel’s view. He is uncomfortable with the view that “the incarnation has a more important focus than the salvation of men and women,” suggesting that such a claim “raises other questions, not least among them why such a focus on salvation is considered insufficient.”

I’d be inclined to suggest that Thompson’s criticism is a little unfair. The Incarnation Anyway view doesn’t entail a downgrading of “salvation”; rather, it invites us to consider again what salvation actually is. Salvation is more that the forgiveness of sins (though it most certainly includes forgiveness, praise God). If van Driel is right (and I think he is) that “salvation” includes the restoration of an abundance of life not known in Eden, our sensory delight in the presence of God, and the closest possible experience of friendship with God, then the central importance of “salvation” serves as an argument in support of the Incarnation Anyway position, not against it.

The glory of Christ is that the death of The King, The Righteous One, is Good News.

So, here’s a question: why the digression? What is the connection between a list of children and a record of warfare? The answer is found in Psalm 127:4-5:

Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

The curious task of theology is to demonstrate to men how little they really control of what they imagine they can dictate.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Outline

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

Questions for reflection

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

Study questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Outline

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

Questions for reflection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m going to be speaking this week, addressing the question, Has Science made Christianity out of date? Food from 1:00 pm; talks starts at 1:15 pm; finish at 1:50 pm.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Well, at least it has the virtue of honesty.

Quoted in John C. Lennox’s outstanding book God’s Undertaker (pp. 34-35).

4 <=> the whole world (four corners);

40 days / 40 years <=> transition period from old world to new world (Moses on the mountain, Israel in the desert, Jesus in the wilderness);

new world => new covenant.

• “In the Old Testament, the Spirit is often connected with the new and the future (e.g. Ezek 36). To see so much of the Spirit here shows that the new age is upon us.” (p. 64)
• Jesus “is going to reverse Adam’s failure.” (Note the connection with the end of the genealogy in Lk 3.) His kingdom will not just raise the poor and humble the rich; it will restore the entire created order. (p 64)
• Note the OT prophetic connection between justice and restoration of creation (Isa 31:15-16; Ps 72).
• Satan’s three temptations of Jesus are not just “random shots”; they’re interconnected, and Ezekiel’s oracles against the King of Tyre (Ezek 26-28) highlight the connection. All the features of the King of Tyre – “self-interest, independence, unsacrificial wealth, violent domination, and self-exaltation” – also characterise Satan. “It is no surprise, then when Satan uses these very things to tempt Jesus.” (pp. 66-68).
  • Temptation 1: think of yourself; forget the needs of others.
  • Temptation 2: the seductions of wealth and power.
  • Temptation 3: self-interest, the right to boast in how God has served you.

• “This brief scene [3:21-22] does not focus on Jesus’ baptism, which is mentioned only in a participle, but on the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus and the voice from heaven to him.” (Tannehill, p. 56).
• Unlike Mt and Mk, Lk notes that the voice and the Spirit came while Jesus was praying. Prayer is often a moment of divine encounter in Lk/Ac (cf. Zechariah, Anna, Cornelius, Peter, Paul). (Tannehill, p. 56)
• The descent of the Spirit upon Jesus prepares for the Spirit’s key role in the following sections: full of the Spirit and led by the Spirit into the wilderness (4:1); returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee (4:14); Spirit of the Lord upon J (4:18). Just as in Acts: the Spirit descends on Jesus (Lk) / the church (Ac) in preparation for the respective parties’ participation in the mission of God. (Tannehill, p. 57).

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

Answer: Sins receive their aggravations,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’re right that the Bible contains many examples of people believing before being baptised. But the Bible teaches that infants, and not just adults, can have a close relationship with God. Indeed, the Bible teaches that infants can even believe - they can have faith – even though they would doubtless express their faith differently from adults.

For example, consider Psalm 22:9-10.

9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
10 On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

David says here that he trusted God (v. 9) from a very young age. We find similar teaching about the faith of young children, and about infants and even unborn children having a relationship with God, depending on God, praising God, and so on, in many other places. For example, Psalm 71:5-6; Psalm 139:14; Matthew 21:16 (see also Psalm 8:2).

This makes sense alongside the reaction of John the Baptist, who leaped in his Mother’s womb at the voice of Jesus (Luke 1:41). Clearly the unborn baby John had some sense that there was something special about the Lord Jesus.

Elsewhere we find Jesus welcoming little children warmly (Matthew 19:13-15). Indeed, he points to children as an example for adults to follow. We tend to get this backwards: we think that children must grow up and become like adults, which in some respects is correct. But Jesus says that adults must become like children – perhaps in the childlike trust and dependence that seems to come so naturally to babies and infants (see Matthew 18:2-3).

So it’s clear that children, infants, and even unborn can have a relationship with God, and are capable of a kind of faith. But does the Bible say that they should therefore be baptised? I think it does.

Again, let me emphasise that there are many other texts that we should look at. But here’s just one example. At the end of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, the people asked, “What should we do?” (Acts 2:37). Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). So baptism is clearly part of the right response to hearing the gospel.

But then Peter says something very interesting. He clearly wants to encourage the people to come to Jesus (see v. 40), so he encourages them by reassuring them that this promise is for all of them. Here’s what he says: “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (v. 39). Do you notice that he includes the children here? He doesn’t restrict his exhortation to just the adults; he explicitly includes the children when he’s talking about being baptised and forgiven and receiving the Holy Spirit.

As I said, this is just a small glimpse of the Bible’s teaching on this subject. But hopefully it’s a helpful pointer in the right direction.

All of this is very confused and confusing.

First, there is not the slightest tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, or between the bondage of the fallen human will and human responsibility. Human responsibility requires liberty of sponteneity (consent to the action performed) not liberty of indifference (the power of contrary choice). Liberty of sponteneity is not remotely compromised by either the bondage of the will or the sovereignty of God.

Second, the wave/particle analogy doesn’t work at all. The wave/particle thing amounts to two different ways of looking at the same thing, at least one of which (the particle theory) is a pretty hopeless approximation which makes no sense of almost anything. By contrast, the sovereignty of God, the bondage of the will and human moral responsibility are different things which are all completely true all of the time.

Further reading: Jonathan Edwards, The Freedom of the Will.

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

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

a. Helping an old lady across the road.

b. Preaching a sermon.

c. Getting married.

d. Remaining single.

e. Going to church.

f. Reading a book on Christian ethics.

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

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

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

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

A few days ago saw the unfolding of the latest episode in this strange saga. Dr Peter Leithart, whom some have criticised for his “Federal Vision” views, was on trial before the Pacific Northwest Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America, charged with holding views that contravened the teaching of the Westminster Standards.

Dr Leithart was unanimously acquitted on all charges.

Both the 33-page judgment of the Presbytery and the 406-page (!) transcript of the proceedings are available online, along with a pile of other material for those who have the time and inclination to read it.

• The focus is on neither Jesus nor John, but “on the testimony of the Spirit and the Father that Jesus is the Messiah for whom the infancy narratives and John’s preaching and baptism prepared” (Just, Luke, p. 158).
• Luther (Works, 22:77): Jesus “was ordained into ministry by his heavenly Father, and was anointed as the Teacher and King of all Christendom. He received a genuine doctor’s cap and royal crown, namely, the Holy Spirit, and was installed as a real King and Priest with these words from heaven” (Just, Luke, p. 158, n. 1).
• Jesus pours out what he first receives. As God, he always and eternally possesses the Spirit. But as a man the Spirit of poured out on him in time and space in his baptism. This Spirit them overflows from Jesus to all who are one with him.
• The story of John’s ministry ends with Herod locking him up in prison. By the time we get to Lk 9:9, John has already been executed by Herod. But the Spirit of God is not bound, chained, locked up. He’s released into the world through the Messiah at the death of the messenger. All the prophet needs to do is to die, and the Spirit will be unleashed.
• Jesus “begins his substitutionary atonement by condescending to take his place among sinners submitting to a baptism of repentance … Jesus now takes humanity’s place to receive the wrath of God against sin … From this moment, Jesus stands in solidarity with sinful humanity” (Just, Luke, p. 161).

Click the image for more information

On the other hand, the Bible also teaches that the blessing of God is poured out from above. The Spirit of God, in particular, is “poured out” from above. “The Spirit is poured upon us from on high” says Isaiah 32:15, and Jesus tells his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they are “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49) – a promise fulfilled with pouring out (Acts 2:17) of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The Spirit’s blessing is associated with baptism in Scripture (e.g. 1 Cor 12:13), and in Titus 3:5-6 this spiritual washing of regeneration and renewal is said to be “poured out”.

Even the fact that first-century baptisms sometimes took place in rivers doesn’t necessarily mean that the believers were immersed – it’s perfectly possible to stand in a river up to your waist and have water poured over your head.

With all this in mind, I can easily see how some Bible-believing Christians feel that the proper mode of baptism is immersion, while others (like myself) would say that pouring or sprinkling reflects the Bible’s teaching at least as well, if not better.

Perhaps the most important point to remember is that differences of opinion on this issue shouldn’t be a source of division among Bible-believing Christians. I certainly work closely in lots of contexts with Christians who believe in baptism by immersion, and I’m glad that they are happy to work with me.

Part 3 of some highlights from today’s Study Day on the Doctrine of Scripture at London Theological Seminary’s John Owen Centre with Garry Williams:

Implications of the covenantal view of Scripture

1. Canon

• GW: If Scripture is covenantal, then it must be canonical and the canon must be closed.
• The clauses in the covenant document that prohibit its alteration (Dt 4:2; Rev 22:18-20; etc.) show that the covenant may not be altered except by the Suzerain. The “covenant” concept therefore places these texts within a framework that highlights their applicability more widely that one might previously have thought.
• This doesn’t tell you which books form the canon. It does, however, establish that the idea of a canon is inherent in what the Bible is.

2. The relationship between the Bible and the church

• The covenantal view of Scripture precludes Roman Catholic ideas of the Scripture depending on the church.
• GW: “If the victorious King builds his house by means of the words of the covenant, then the house cannot precede the covenant.”
• Meredith Kline: “Inasmuch, then, as canonical Scripture is God’s house-building word, the community rule for his covenant people, the Reformation insistence is confirmed that the Scriptures form the church, and not vice versa.”

3. Ontology

4. Epistemology

• We always presuppose a certain view of reality before we set about investigating it. We all too easily capitulate to the view of the Human Being as the knowing subject in pursuit of truth and certainty.
• Get the ontology right: we are in covenant, and indeed covenant-breakers by nature and covenant-keepers in Christ by grace, before we begin thinking about anything. “A covenantal ontology requires a covenantal epistemology.”
• In other words, Scripture is first and foremost the covenant treaty for needy sinners.
• John Webster: “What Christian theology has to say about revelation is not simply deployed as a means of dealing with epistemological questions, or primarily as an answer to questions of the sources and norms of church and theological discourse. It may address these concerns, but it does so as an application or extension of its material content, which is the sovereign goodness of Father, Son, and Spirit in willing, realising and perfecting saving fellowship.^”
• Michael Horton: “Here, there are no ‘objects’ and ‘subjects’ in the post-Enlightenment sense, but a covenant Lord and covenant servants along with their shared environment of created reality.”

5. Preserving the objective and the subjective in our view of the Bible

• Error 1. Exclusive objectivism, of focusing on the objective inspiration of the text to the exclusion of the subjective encounter with it. The error of a dead conservatism.
• This way of thinking about the Bible has a marked effect on preaching. The sermon ceases to be a sermon and becomes a lecture on a text ‘out there’. The preacher who views the Bible this way simply talks about the book. He will be more interested in God’s book than in God’s people.
• Error 2: the error of exclusive subjectivism, of focusing on the subjective illumination of the believer to the exclusion of the objectively inspired text. In different forms, Bultmann, Barth. Obsession with “the moment” of encounter, unction, etc.
• Barth “collapses inspiration, the identification of the Bible as the word of God, into the moment of illumination” (GW).
• Solution: The covenantal concept holds together the objective and the subjective by identifying both as parts of the treaty-form. The objective is secured by the existence of the treaty itself as a stable, external reality established by the covenant Lord. The subjective is secured by the presence of the stipulations in the treaty-form as well as the blessings and curses: these elements make clear the work of the treaty in the life of the vassal.
• Michael Horton: “The static picture of dissecting a text as one might a laboratory specimen is exchanged for a richer, dynamic image of being euphorically grasped by the text’s hand and escorted into its storied world.”
• GW: the gathering of the LORD’s people is a covenant renewal. And this flows not simply from the observation of the covenantal structure of individual texts or OT ceremonies, but also from the character of Scripture as a whole.
• John Webster against mere grammatico-historical exegesis: “It is just the assumption that biblical writings are instances of the natural class of texts which is to be resisted. Hermeneutically, it is a ruinous, even ludicrous assumption, because it leads to the absurdity of developing a sophisticated critical apparatus to read biblical texts, not as they are (texts which address the hearer in the name of God) but simply as textual clues in the business of reconstructing the matrices from which they emerged. Dogmatically, the assumption is to be controverted because of its claim that a “natural” understanding of the text is more basic than an understanding of the text as “scripture”. In sum: the biblical text is Scripture; its being is defined, not simply by its membership of the class of texts, but by the fact that it is this text – sanctified, that is, Spirit-generated and preserved – in this field of action – the communicative economy of God’s merciful friendship with his lost creatures.”

6. Inerrancy

• The errantist infers the errors of Scripture from its humanity, but the Psalmist explicitly contrasts the words of God with erring human words.

• The doctrine is at once capable of detail and subtlety, and yet also very simple statement: ‘The Bible contains no errors’.
• Against “Religious infallibility not historical inerrancy”; Rogers and McKim; etc. The problem here is the attempted separation of theology and history. Bavinck: “The split between ‘that which is needed for salvation’ and the ‘incidentally historical’ is impossible, since in Scripture doctrine and history are completely intertwined.”
• Bavinck: “The historical books are commentary on the facts of God’s covenant with Israel. They are not history in our sense of the word but prophecy; they are meant to be judged by another standard than the history books of other peoples. It is not their aim that we should acquire accurate knowledge of Israel’s history but that in the history of Israel we should gain understanding of the revelation of God.”
• A problematic assumption operating in many errantist arguments is that the humanity of Scripture or Christ requires error. But a single successful example of infallible communication through a human being would show that fallibility is not a necessary feature of humanity.
• How to handle apparently insoluble exegetical and theological problems: Bavinck: “Those who do not want to eat before they understand the entire process by which food arrives at their table will starve to death.”

• “John’s baptism water is not where is should be. Why is water coming out of the desert” rather than the temple, as in Ezekiel 47 (p. 53).
• “He’s providing life outside the temple system (p. 54), in keeping with his end-of-Old-Israel message. Also, the LORD has now left his people and gone into the wilderness.
• Recall the “glory of the LORD departing from Israel” (Ezek) theme in 2:9? The glory had departed (Ezekiel); and had now returned (2:9), but to the shepherds in the fields, not in the temple. John should be heard as “a threat to the first-century temple” (p. 54).
• Valleys lifted up and mountains brought down (3:5) echoes “rising and falling of many in Israel” (2:34). The mountains are the haunts of the old rulers (Jerusalem? Zion? Temple?); the valleys are the places of the downtrodden. The mountains are the homes of those mentioned in 3:1-2a. But John preaches a gospel of lifting up the weak.
• “John isn’t very missional or seeker-friendly in his preaching” (p. 55).
• John fights power-politics with repentance and faith.
• Don’t quit your job, you soldiers and tax collectors, but “seek the peace of the city” (Jer 29:7). At least for the time being, maybe?
• Imitation of Amos, who also castigated the rich, and also said, “Woe to you who desire the Day of the Lord!” (p. 57).
• According to Ezekiel 18:5, a righteous man who does what is just and right is one who habitually and normally does what John tells his hearers to do (pp. 57-58).

1. “There is not, as far as I am aware, one single piece of incontrovertible, undeniable, cast-iron evidence for God’s existence. And if, as believers will no doubt maintain, there is, why is it not as clear as daylight to us all?” (H. M. Keegan, Published letter)

• What kind of “evidence” could in principle exist which would compel belief in the existence of a Supreme Being without at the same time relegating that Being to a lesser status – dependent upon, and subject to, Something Else (namely “evidence”) for its own epistemic verification? The demand for such evidence is itself a demand that the Supreme Being should not exist, and therefore closes the discussion even in the very act of opening it.
• Truth apparent to all, but suppressed by all (Ps 19; Rom 1 etc.)

2. “We don’t need God to give.” Atheists do good things (like giving to charity, though unlike Christians they don’t tend to make a song and dance about their atheist convictions in the process); and Theists do bad things (like persecuting heretics and waging unjust wars).

• So, Christians sometimes do bad things, and atheists sometimes do good things. Yup. And vice versa. So we’re unlikely to move towards religious certainty merely by comparing levels of charitable giving within different sections of the community. We’re going to need to think about some arguments.
• At some point, both the Christian and the unbeliever is going to need to find grounds for the category “good” on which this evaluation implicitly relies. That could be an interesting discussion.

3. Powys, The Pathetic Fallacy, ch. 1: “The Origin of all religions.”

• We need to “bear in mind the ultimate origin of such psychic manifestations” as Christianity, which have all “sprung from the shuddering of the living human spirit in the face of the Infinite” (p. 1). Says who? Powys brings to the very first sentence of his book a preconceived and unargued view of the nature, not merely of Christianity, but of all religions.
• In so-doing, Powys misses perhaps the most obvious feature of the Christian Scriptures: they are not (merely, or even at all) a philosophy, but an interpreted history. Events, my dear boy, events, as Harold Macmillan would probably have said.

4. Powys, The Pathetic Fallacy, ch. 2: “The Hebrew root of Christianity.”

• The Jews “converted the Yahweh of Sinai into a universal ruler” (p. 4). Under pressure of political oppression, the OT messianic expectations were misunderstood and (often) politicised.
• Standard history-of-religions stuff, and subject to all the usual criticisms.
• What’s wrong with political liberation? And even if the OT had been misunderstood by some, does it follow that there’s no truth in it. 1000 years ago people misunderstood headaches, but paracetamol still works for me.

5. Powys, The Pathetic Fallacy, ch. 3: “Jesus of Nazareth.”

• Powys seems to know a great deal about Jesus (pp. 10ff.). A pretty imaginative re-telling of the life of a C1 Palestinian carpenter with a thoughtful bent. And such detail – where’s he getting this stuff from? Don’t know – Powys doesn’t say.
• “From the beginning Christianity has been perverted” (p. 22). Yup. So?
• Some extraordinary claims: Jesus “had no wide vision of life”; “He interpreted the human situation from within the narrow confines of Palestine”; Ordinary values … never influenced him” (p. 19). What kind of evidence would Powys need to adduce to substantiate all this? Perhaps he thinks it’s just all obvious because it seems reasonable to him, and because (unlike the Gospel accounts) no miracles are involved. Unvarnished modernism read back into the biblical histories.

6. Powys, The Pathetic Fallacy, ch. 4: “The legend of the resurrection.”

• “With the knowledge we have won in recent years we are safe in asserting that no man has ever rised out of the grave” (p. 27). Assertion, not argument. Begs the question at the outset, without the slightest attempt to ask the obvious questions. Of course the claim that Jesus rose from the dead is extraordinary. And obviously if we approach the resurrection accounts with materialism firmly embedded, we will be compelled to deny them. But such a denial is already contained within the assumptions; we have not, strictly speaking, thought at all.
• “The accounts we have of [the resurrection] were written down long after the event” (p. 27). No discussion of oral traditions, other comparable historical data, etc. Shame.
• “After the crucifixion … his disciples were scattered” (pp. 28-29). Yup, true enough. What can explain their survival as a distinct religious community? Powys tells us: they imagined that they had seen him (on the Emmaus Road, or by the lake, or in the locked room), and “as the years passed, these simple imaginings becamme more and more circumstantial” (pp. 30-31). Finally, “as demands for a valid evidence increased, these half-forgotted impressions were written down as facts” (p. 31). Right. And in the meantime, a few weeks and months after the crucifixion, numerous hard-headed yet despondent men had been so transformed that they were willing to take a beating and see their friends and families arrested, imprisoned and scattered from their homes for proclaiming what were, at that time, “simple imaginings”.

7. Powys, The Pathetic Fallacy, ch. 5: “Saint Paul.”

• Paul “took the religion of the early Christians with their simple faith in the Messiah and lifted it into the realm of high mystical import” (p. 38). Little evidence here, unfortunately, that the author has grasped the relationship between Jesus proclamation of the Kingdom of God (and that He, Jesus, is the anointed King) and Paul’s proclamation of the Gospel (God’s declaration that Jesus is the King). that might help to iron out some of his confusion.
• “There early Christians were taught to believe in the speedy coming of Jesus” (p. 41). No they weren’t. The “coming soon” texts refer to Jesus “coming” in judgment on apostate Jerusalem in AD 70.

8. Other thoughts.

• More post-biblical stuff. That can wait for another time. Nothing earth-shattering.

Introduction

Three introductory points before we get started:

1. Distinguish valid / invalid arguments from correct / incorrect conclusions.

2. Specific fallacious arguments often exhibit several categories of fallacy. For example, appeals to authority and ad misericordiam arguments are both types of ad hominem argument.

3. Do not attempt to infer anything from the following examples about what I personally think about the issues addressed. For the purposes of this exercise, my personal views are irrelevant, for the following examples are intended merely to illustrate logical fallacies, not to serve as arguments for or against any substantive positions.

4. In the course of considering these examples, you may discover that you currently hold certain views on the basis of logically fallacious arguments. This does not necessarily mean that those views are wrong, for a correct conclusion can be drawn from an illogical argument (see 1 above, and “The fallacy fallacy,” no. 31). However, it is possible that you may be wrong, and at the very least, you will need to think again about why you believe what you do. And that won’t do you any harm, will it?

5. Don’t worry about trying to remember all the specific types of logical fallacy listed below. The aim is to start thinking more generally about how to think straight and how to avoid thinking illogically, rather than to learn a load of new Latin terms.

Logical fallacies

1. Lack of argument. Dismissing a conclusion with no argument whatsoever. Probably the most common logical fallacy: just listen to Radio 4’s Today programme for countless examples. Normally it’s done by simply failing (or refusing) to address objections or questions raised against one’s own position, allowing them to be ‘lost’ in the cut and thrust of conversation.

For reflection: Might such an approach ever be appropriate?

• When might it be legitimate to assume, rather than to re-state, an argument articulated elsewhere?
• Calvin makes numerous comments along the lines of, “Such men are not worthy of refutation.”
• Consider Proverbs 26:5, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

2. Ad hominem (lit. ‘to the man’). Arguing for or against a conclusion on the basis of the identity, character or circumstances of the person who espouses it.

John is a great bloke, so maybe Baptist / Arminian / Roman Catholic theology isn’t so bad.

Richard’s a really godly man – you should really listen to his preaching.

Be careful about what Dave says – I could tell you a few things about him…

I’m tired of arguing with him – he always thinks he’s right.

For reflection: are there any contexts in which it might be legitimate to appeal to the identity or character of the person making an argument? Consider the following texts:

• 2 Timothy 2:15-18 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.  But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.
• Titus 1:7-8 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.
• Acts 20:33-34 I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me
• 2 Corinthians 7:2 Make room in your hearts for us. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.
• 2 Corinthians 11:9 And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way.
• 2 Corinthians 12:17 Did I take advantage of you through any of those whom I sent to you?

3. Ad misericordiam (lit. ‘to pity’). Drawing attention to the plight of a person holding a position in order to invoke the sympathy of the audience and induce them to support that position.

I know he’s a practicing homosexual, but just remember how badly he was treated at his previous church. You can’t excommunicate a guy like that.

Now would not be a good time to preach against Christians marrying non-Christians – Jane is due to marry Bob next Saturday, and he’s not a believer.

Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), p. 3, paragraph 2.

For reflection: What impact (if any) should a person’s circumstances have upon the way we treat them?

4. Appeal to authority. Claiming that a view must be true because of the (perceived) authority or status of the person holding it.

Steve is the Minister, so he must be right.

Many respectable scholars have serious problems believing in a literal hell.

For reflection: Is there such a thing as a legitimate appeal to authority? Can you think of any biblical examples?

5. Ad populum (lit. ‘to the people’?). Basing an argument upon an appeal to (legitimate or illegitimate) attitudes and prejudices held by the hearers.

You can’t trust him, he’s a politician.

6. Fallacy of accident. Arguing from an inadequately-defined general rule to a particular case.

Men are capable of seeing, therefore blind men are capable of seeing.

The church needs more Ministers, so you really ought to be in full-time Christian ministry.

Evangelism is really important, so you should be doing evangelism.

Abortion is killing babies, therefore abortion is murder.

7. Converse fallacy of accident. Arguing from a particular case to a general rule.

A bang on the head helped him, so…

Paul wore sandals, so we should do the same.

Little Johnny was baptised and brought up by Christian parents, but he fell away, so it seems to me that baptism and Christian parenting don’t influence whether a child grows up as a believer.

Paul expected to suffer during his ministry, so we should expect the same.

Paul’s priority was evangelism, and ours should be too.

For reflection: Is it ever legitimate to argue from a particular case to a general rule?

8. Slippery slope fallacy. Arguing against a position simply by alleging that it will lead to a chain of other undesirable views.

If you deny young-earth 6-day creation, you’ll end up a liberal.

If you affirm young-earth 6-day creation, you’ll end up a fundamentalist.

If you start holding your hands up when you sing, you’ll end up believing that we’ve all to go speak in tongues.

For reflection: Is there any truth behind the idea of a “slippery slope”? Why or why not?

9. Threat of force / negative consequences. Arguing against a position by alleging (truthfully or untruthfully) that further unpleasant consequences will follow from accepting it.

Vote for me, or I’ll break your legs.

Don’t preach about hell – you’ll only irritate people.

Don’t go reading all that Reformed theology – you’ll never get a job in the Church of England.

For reflection: Are all “threat of force” arguments wrong? Consider the following examples:

• If you don’t believe in Jesus, you’ll go to hell.
• If you deny the doctrine of the Trinity, you’ll be excommunicated.
• If you deny supralapsarianism, you’ll be excommmunicated.

10. Non sequitur (lit. ‘it does not follow’?). The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Nicole’s a great cook, therefore you should go to Sweden on holiday.

Spurgeon was great preacher, so Baptist theology must be right.

Human beings are responsible for their actions, therefore God is not sovereign.

The Bible says we should care for the poor, therefore Christians should vote for a political party that advocates free education, free healthcare and third-world debt relief.

11. Appeal to emotion. The attempt to discredit or support a view on the sole basis of emotional language or arguments.

“God is creative, sacrificial and empowering, not coercive, and his glory consists in sharing life with, not dominating, others. God [...] makes his presence felt – actively, responsively, relationally, dynamically, and reciprocally. [....] Conventional theology did not leave enough room for relationality in God’s essence [...] Thus it is hard for conventional theism to deal with a relational and personal God, with a God really involved in the world, in short, with the God of the Bible.” (Clark H. Pinnock, Most Moved Mover [Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001], p. 6).

12. Fallacy of complex or many questions. Presupposing answers to questions not asked.

Have you stopped beating your husband yet?

Have you always been a liar or are you just starting now?

When are you going to stop talking such rubbish?

For reflection: What answers are presupposed here, to what questions?

13. False dilemma (false dichotomy). Framing a question or statement so as to exclude implicitly one or more legitimate positions.

Are you a pacifist or a warmonger?

The Psalms teach us about Jesus, Israel’s Promised Messiah; they weren’t written to teach Christians how to pray.

Is your church a liturgical church or an evangelical church?

For reflection: Which other (potentially legitimate) positions have been implicitly excluded in the above examples?

14. Fallacy of multiple causation. The failure to realise that other (unacknowledged) factors may have caused the phenomenon observed.

It’s not my fault that the church was burgled – after all, I shut the windows.

Everyone I read the Bible with falls away, therefore…

I smack my children whenever they do anything wrong, but they’ve grown up to be unbelievers, so smacking is not helpful in Christian parenting.

15. Humour and ridicule. Deploying humour or ridicule inappropriately, or to avoid the issue, or to cast unwarranted aspersions, or in the absence of a reasoned argument.

You can never take Liberals seriously – they never know what to say if someone asks, ‘What must I do to be saved?’

For reflection: Is humour or ridicule ever appropriate in theological discussion? Why? Can you think of any biblical examples? (How about Exodus 1; Judges 3; Isaiah 44; Matthew 7:3-5; Matthew 23; etc.)

16. Oversimplification. Simplifying a situation or argument to an inaccurate or absurd degree.

Catholics believe in the sacraments, whereas Protestants believe in the word.

Keeping the Sabbath is legalism.

The New Perspective denies the doctrine of justification by faith.

The use of extra-biblical information to help us interpret the Bible undermines the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture.

For reflection: How can we avoid oversimplification in theological discussion?

17. Fallacy of composition. Affirming a proposition about the whole of an entity on the basis of a property of the parts, or vice versa (the latter is sometimes called the fallacy of division).

Parts to whole:

Each sentence of the book is well-constructed, therefore the book is well-constructed.

Rowan is a heretic, and Rowan is an Anglican, therefore all Anglicans are heretics.

Whole to parts:

The book is red, therefore all of its pages are red.

The Roman Catholic Church is apostate, therefore Clare (a Roman Catholic) is apostate.

It’s a prayerful church and she’s a member, so she’s a prayerful woman.

18. Straw man fallacy. Misrepresenting an opponent’s position (intentionally or unintentionally) in order to defeat weak version of the argument.

Evolution?! How can you possibly believe that all this came about by chance?!

6-day creation?! Don’t you think that science can tell us anything about the world?

Doctrinal preaching is a bad idea. We need expository preaching – we must let the Bible speak on its own terms.

19. Fallacy of alleged irrelevance. Claiming that an argument is irrelevant on the grounds that you cannot see its significance.

Disagreements about infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism can’t be that important!

Why are you doing the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course? you wait – before long they’ll have you discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

20. Unrepresentative sample. A conclusion is drawn about a large set of data on the basis of an unrepresentative subset of that data.

Everyone I’ve spoken to loves my preaching.

Everyone I’ve spoken to wants the prayer meeting to be on Monday.

All the charismatic churches I’ve experienced have appalling preaching.

21. False Analogy. Arguing for one proposition on the basis of an analogy that is dissimilar in a relevant respect.

Preaching a sermon is like baking a cake: just throw it all in and it’ll come out fine.

You don’t need to go to church in order to be a Christian any more than you need to go to Old Trafford in order to support Manchester United.

For reflection: What are the relevant differences that render these analogies invalid?

22. Fallacy of Exclusion. Ignoring or excluding evidence that would alter the conclusion of an argument.

Lying is always wrong because that’s what the 9^th commandment says.

Women should never teach adult men because that’s what 1 Timothy 2 says.

Christians shouldn’t go to court, because that’s what 1 Corinthians 6 says.

For reflection: What relevant data have been excluded in these examples?

23. Fallacy of complex cause. One part of a cause is treated as if it were the sufficient cause.

What you need to sail around the world is determination.

What a healthy church needs is a focus on evangelism.

24. Fallacy of insignificant cause. An insignificant part of a cause is treated as if it were the sufficient cause.

What you need to sail around the world is a hat.

What a healthy church needs is smart notice-sheets.

25. Fallacy of reversed causality. The relationship between cause and effect is reversed.

There’s not much point in doing evangelism until some unbelievers show up at church.

26. Fallacy of unrelated cause. Locating the cause of a phenomenon in an entirely unrelated factor.

As soon as we started providing decaffeinated tea and coffee after church, the stock market collapsed, therefore…

27. Fallacy of weak correlation. Locating the cause of a phenomenon in an effect which is related, but not strongly.

As soon as we started providing proper filter coffee after our services, the congregation began to grow rapidly in maturity.

For reflection: How do you determine (a) which other causes may be involved, and (b) the importance of their respective contributions?

28. Fallacy of equivocation. Ignoring the fact that a word or phrase is being used in two different senses.

Modern theologians deny the authority of Scripture, theologian X is a modern theologian, therefore…

For reflection: 1 Peter 1:1 describes the visible church, to whom the letter is written, as “elect.” It’s clear from 2 Peter 2:1 that it’s possible for some such people to fall away. Can you imagine how this might create confusion?

29. Affirming the consequent. Affirming a proposition on the basis that a consequence of that proposition is true. Formally: (1) if p then q; (2) q; (3) therefore p. Like this: (1) If it rains (p) the picnic will be cancelled (q); (2) the picnic is cancelled (q); (3) therefore it’s raining (p). The reason this fails is that the consequence q may have other sufficient causes.

If Jesus could return at any moment (p), then we’d need to be really serious about evangelism (q). Since we know that we should be really serious about evangelism (q), it must therefore be true that Jesus could return at any moment (p).

30. Denying the antecedent. Denying a proposition on the basis that a cause (antecedent) of that proposition is false. Formally: (1) if p then q; (2) not-p; (3) therefore not-q. Like this: (1) If it rains (p) the picnic will be cancelled (q); (2) it’s not raining (not-p); (3) therefore the picnic will not be cancelled (not-q). Again, this reason fails because the consequence q may have other sufficient causes.

If Jesus could return at any moment (p), then we’d need to be really serious about evangelism (q). So if you didn’t believe that Jesus could return at any moment (not-p), then you’d just give up on evangelism (not-q).

You’d be more likely to hear this fallacy in a form like this: ‘People who don’t think that Jesus is coming back soon will tend to give up on evangelism.’

31. The fallacy fallacy. Maintaining a position on the grounds that you have heard the opposite position maintained on the basis of flawed logic.

That’s the worst argument for Calvinism I’ve ever heard. You make me glad to be an Open Theist.

That’s the worst argument for Open Theism I’ve ever heard. You make me glad to be an Calvinist.

32. Guilt by association. Attempting to discredit a conclusion by suggesting (not proving) a connection with other people or ideas that everyone agrees (or, according to the speaker, ought to agree) are bad in some way.

I don’t like the idea that the Gospels were composed from pre-existing fragments of oral and written tradition – that’s the sort of thing Liberals believe.

Well, that do you expect – he’s an Anglican.

For reflection: Is there ever any justification for a “guilt by association” argument? Consider for example the following texts:

• 1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler – not even to eat with such a one.
• Ephesians 5:6-7 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them;
• Proverbs 20:19 Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets; therefore do not associate with a simple babbler.

33. Genetic fallacy. Attacking an idea on the grounds that its source or supposed motivation is unworthy in some way.

He would believe that – he’s a liberal.

Of course she believes in remarriage after divorce – she’s a divorcee.

Tom Weinandy? But he’s a Roman Catholic!

34. Inconsistency. Arguing for a conclusion whilst simultaneously maintaining another position that is logically incompatible with it.

God is sovereign, but he doesn’t constrain our choices.

I do believe in penal substitutionary atonement; I just don’t believe that God is personally angry at sin.

35. Stolen concept fallacy. Arguing for a conclusion whilst simultaneously attacking another position on which it logically depends. Unbelievers do this all the time!

I don’t believe in God; we should all just respect each other.

36. Nothing but objections. Continually raising objections, or merely hinting at their existence, as a means of avoiding the issue.

Penal substitutionary atonement raises all kinds of problematic implications for the doctrine of the Trinity.

37. Red herring. Attempting to avoid engaging with an argument by raising an unrelated subject.

[Example overheard during a conversation about why one should not attend a Roman Catholic Mass:] Well, plenty of stuff that goes on in some evangelical churches is pretty unhelpful too!

38. Tu quoque (lit. ‘you too’). Arguing against someone on the grounds that their position, like yours, is also problematic.

I know my reading of v. 1 doesn’t square with v. 2, but your reading doesn’t square with v. 3.

39. Occam’s razor fallacy. Arguing in favour of a conclusion on the grounds of its (alleged) simplicity.

The interpretation of Revelation 13 / Revelation 17 / Daniel 7–12 has been clouded by endless discussions of the identity of the kingdoms or individuals to whom the different beasts correspond. It becomes much simpler, however, once we realise that they all refer in a general sense to ungodly human political power.

40. Fallacy of the beard. Rejecting a concept or argument because of borderline cases that are difficult to adjudicate.

How many hairs do you need before you’ve got a beard? One? Two? Ten? Seventy-three? Well, if you can’t tell me, then I’m afraid the notion of ‘a beard’ ceases to have much relevance.

How many packets of crisps per day counts as ‘greedy’? One? Two? Ten? Seventy-three? Well, if you can’t tell me, then I’m afraid the notion of ‘greed’ ceases to have much relevance.

You run into all sorts of problems if you think the OT law teaches us about the Christian life – remember all that stuff about boiling goats in their mother’s milk?

41. Paradigm or cultural fallacy. Taking one’s own system of thought or culture as the standard by which all others must be judged.

One ought to wear a tie to church; anything less is a gesture of disrespect to the Almighty.

But that contravenes the Westminster Standards!

But that’s not what Pastor Jim always told me!

42. Fallacy of the undistributed middle (‘All that glitters is not gold’).

Gold glitters, John’s eyes glitter, therefore John’s eyes are gold.

Evangelicals really believe in preaching, and John believes in preaching, so John’s an evangelical.

43. Ad antiquitatem (lit. ‘from oldness’?). Assuming that something must be right because it has been believed for a long time, or because it was believed a long time ago.

None of the Church Fathers denied a literal 6-day creation.

For reflection: does the fact that an idea has a good historical pedigree have any relevance? Why / why not?

44. Ad Novitatem (lit. ‘from newness’). Opposite of 43: Assuming that something must be right because it is a recent idea.

No serious modern scientists believe in a literal 6-day creation.

Further resources

There are many textbooks on logic, some of which are quite useful (though usually very dull). Also well worth consulting (and much more exciting) are:

David Field, ‘Thinking about Ethics’, in Introduction to Christian Ethics (Lecture course, Oak Hill Theological College; online http://davidpfield.com/oak-hill-notes/005-think.pdf). An outstanding resource, from which much of the above is taken.

John M. Frame, Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), pp. 242–301.

HT: SJ

An extract from the blurb: “How does the Holy Spirit of God relate to the Bible, the written word of God, and to the eternal Word of God, the second person of the Trinity.”

Introduction

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

Session 1: Approaching theological study

Session 2: Godliness and theological study

Session 3: Prayer

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

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

Outline

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

Questions for reflection

Before you begin reading, consider the following questions:

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

ii. How and when do you pray?

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

Study questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theological / metaphysical basis of the covenantal character of Scripture

• Another Klinean error: “The Old Testament is not the canon of the Christian church.” “A distinction thus arises for the Christian church between canon and Scripture.”
• GW: “I think this is to confuse the old covenant qua covenant and the text of the Old Testament.” It is better “to argue that the canonicity of the whole OT remains even if its role within the covenant changes.”
• GW: Take the sacrificial laws. They change from being directly binding for the present as covenant stipulation of life-form, to being binding as the promise and prophecy that describes the work of the covenant mediator. The commandments relating to the sacrifices were canonical as prescriptions for the OT people of God. For us they are canonical not as stipulations (in which sense they are indeed obsolete) but as historical prologue, as part of the description of what Christ has already done. They retain their place in the covenant treaty with the church, but their role within that treaty has shifted.
• It’s amazing what the Klineans get away with given the accusations they level at others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Something more conversational in style, or perhaps akin to a blog post, is fine. If you find it easier to write brief notes rather than continuous prose, that’s fine too. Aim to spend around 4 hours in total, and spread your time reasonably evenly across the different questions.

Baptism and gospel-proclamation
3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 5 Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall become straight, and the rough places shall become level ways, 6 and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’”

Call to repentance
7 He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. 9 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

Call to repentance
10 And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” 11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” 12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” 13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” 14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

Baptism and gospel-proclamation
15 As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, 16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” 18 So with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people.

Oppression from the powers
19 But Herod the tetrarch, who had been reproved by him for Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for all the evil things that Herod had done, 20 added this to them all, that he locked up John in prison.

He never asked, “What will happen to me?”

And he never asked, “What will other people think?

“When bush fires surface in the desert, snakes often come out of the ground to flee … are they ready to run from their holes in recognition that destructive fire draws near?” (Bock, Luke, p. 303)

Certainly possible. It ties together vipers, fire, and the desert-setting of John’s preaching.

But it makes more sense, I think, to say that the journey begins in the wilderness, back in 3:1.

• This is where John the Baptist begins;
• This is also where Jesus begins in 4:1;
• This makes more sense of the anti-parellel with the journey in Acts (Jerusalem – Judea – Samaria – ends of the earth, 1:8).

This also highlights the obvious themes about return from wilderness-exile suggested in 3:4-6 and so on.

41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom.

43 And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it,

44 but supposing him to be in the group they went a day’s journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, 45 and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him.

46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.

48 And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.”

49 And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” 50 And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them.

51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favour with God and man.

• The “BRIE” (Bible, Reason, Institution, Experience) taxonomy, which says “Bible=evangelical; Reason=Liberal; Institution=Catholic; Experience=Charismatic” is flawed in that it concedes “reason” to Liberal theology, whereas in fact any particular “Liberal theology” is simply the reflection of culture of the Protestantism that produces it.
• GW: “Scripture presents itself as God’s covenantal word, his covenant treaty with his people.”
• Michael Horton: “the scriptures do not simply contain a covenant or covenants, but as a whole can be said to constitute the covenant document itself.”
• The other ancient near-eastern cultures which also made covenants got the idea from God via Adam, Noah, Abraham and so on, with whom God made (guess what?) covenants.
• Kevin Vanhoozer: “The logos of Scripture is thoroughly covenantal. The Bible is the God-ordained means of communicating the terms and the reality of the covenant whose content is Jesus Christ.”
• Prisca theologica – distorted echoes of biblical truth in non-Christian religions, which arose as God’s special revelation influenced the idolatrous religions of the world.
• Timothy Ward: “Every literary genre and form within Scripture is linked directly to Scripture’s basic covenantal form and function.”
• Meredith Kline: “Our contention is not, of course, that the Pentateuch as such is a treaty form.” GW: Distinguish the literary character (covenantal) of the elements from their arrangement (which in Scripture does not follow the pattern of a S-V covenant).
• Demonstrating the covenantal character of the NT may seem to be more difficult. Indeed, critics of covenant theology point out the comparatively few instances of explicit covenant terminology in the NT. Is not covenant replaced by kingdom? Nope.
  • Kline: “The passion of Christ … is presented as the inauguration of the new covenant.”
  • Gospels as covenant inauguration texts.
  • Meredith Kline: “Underlying and unifying factor in the portrayal of Jesus’ mission in the gospels is his role as the mediator of the new covenant and that the controlling and cohesive motif of the passion narratives is the ratification of the new covenant.”
  • Because kingdom language is held by some to replace covenant, it is worth pausing to note how the two are related in Luke 22:29: “I assign to you, as my Father assigned (diatithemai) to me, a kingdom.” Cf. v. 20 “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant (diatheke) in my blood.” GW: “The kingship of Jesus is given him in covenant by the Father.”
  • GW: There is no contradiction between covenant theology and the kingdom theme in the Gospels.
  • GW: Why then the change to a predominance of kingdom language in the Gospels? Surely the answer is obvious: because the Gospels describe the arrival of the king.
• Kline’s curious conclusion, that the Gospels are witness documents, not to the world but to the church: “It is not a kerygmatic but a legal witness, not kerygmatic-evangelistic proclamation of Jesus Christ but legal attestation to God’s covenant.” GW: But it must also be possible for a covenant treaty to stand as an invitation/command that summons people from outside into the covenant.
• There is a connection between (a) the way in which analogical predication works and (b) the Protestant principle of comparing Scripture with Scripture. The latter tells us, for example, not to interpret the analogical statement “God is a rock” to mean that God is dead, but rather that God is stable, strong, our foundation, and so on.

Having killed Goliath, David the man of war (16:18; cf. his first words in 17:26) put the giant’s armour in his tent (17:54). Maybe the man of war will be needing stuff like that (cf. 18:5, 7).

Jonathan gives David his robe, armour, sword, bow and belt when he makes a covenant with him (18:4). Perhaps that’ll do him more good than Goliath’s armour.

Perhaps Saul comes to his senses momentarily when the Spirit of God came upon him in Ramah, and “he stripped off his clothes” (19:24).

David “cut off a corner of Saul’s robe ” (24:4), then immediately feels pretty bad about it. Imagine that – stealing/disfiguring the king’s garb? On the other hand, Saul’s loss of a bit of clothing seems to bring him (momentarily, at least) to his senses once more (24:16ff).

Saul dressed in “other garments” in 28:8, but not, sadly, with the best of intentions.

And finally, after his suicide, his enemies “stripped off his armour” (31:9).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: I’m not looking for detailed essays here. Something more conversational in style, or perhaps akin to a blog post, is fine. If you find it easier to write brief notes rather than continuous prose, that’s fine too. Aim to spend around 4 hours in total, and spread your time reasonably evenly across the different questions.

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

Session 1: Approaching theological study

Session 2: Godliness and theological study

Session 3: Prayer

Our reading this week is John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.vii-viii. This portion of Calvin’s work is theologically very rich, being embedded firmly in the doctrine of union with Christ by the Spirit that lies right at the heart of Calvin’s thought. At the same time, it is a challenging exhortation to Christian godliness. It’s well worth reading it carefully and prayerfully as we embark on the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course.

References to Calvin’s Institutes take the following form: “Book.Chapter.Section”. So, for example, III.vii-viii means book 3, chapters 7 and 8; III.vii.1 means book 3, chapter 7, section 1. The numbers in brackets refer to the volume and page numbers. So 1:689-712 means volume 1, pages 689 to 712. These page references are often omitted for the same of brevity.

Outline

• Introduction
• Calvin, Institutes, III.vii-viii

Questions for reflection

Before you begin reading, consider the following questions:

i. What thoughts enter your mind when you hear the phrase “self-denial”?

ii. How might a course of theological study inadvertently encourage ungodliness?

Study questions

1. According to Calvin, what implications follow from the biblical declaration that we “are not our own [Cf. 1 Cor. 6:19] but the Lord’s” (III.vii.1)?

For reflection: What might make it difficult for us to live out these implications?

2. How does Calvin define “denial of self” (III.vii.2, cf. III.vii.8-10)? How is this related to the answer to question 1? How does Calvin’s definition differ from some contemporary understandings of “self-denial”? Why is this difference important?

3. Titus 2 “limits all actions of life to three parts” (III.vii.3). What are these?

4. Why does Paul “[recall] us to the hope of blessed immortality” (III.vii.3)?

5. What do you think of Calvin’s assessment of our natural sinful instincts as he describes them in III.vii.4?

6. How should we regard “our faults,” and the faults of others (III.vii.4)?

For reflection: Why is this difficult?

7. “Whatever benefits we receive from the Lord have been entrusted to us on this condition” (III.vii.5). What condition? How, then, should we use these benefits? Why is the imagery of the “members of the human body” important here (III.vii.5)?

8. How does Calvin encourage us to do good to those who are “most unworthy” (III.vii.6)?

9. How does Calvin help us learn to “fulfil the duties of love … from a sincere feeling of love” (III.vii.7)? According to Calvin, what consequences will follow from such an approach?

10. How is receiving “divine blessing” related to obeying God’s word? Why (III.vii.9)?

11. How does self-denial help us bear adversity (III.vii.10)?

12. Why must every believer “bear his own cross”? What, according to Calvin, can “soften all the bitterness of the cross” (III.viii.1)?

13. “There are many reasons why we must pass our lives under a continual cross” (III.viii.2). What are these reasons? Do you agree with Calvin’s reasoning here?

14. How, according to Calvin, do “Tribulations produce patience, and patience [produce] tried character” (III.viii.3)?

15. What does Calvin mean when he says that God afflicts his people “to test their patience” (III.viii.4)?