Guided Reading Course |
|
« Previous Entries
Slow and steady - 18 March 2010
These are some of the questions for week 19 of the Guided Reading Course. We’re looking this week at the second half of chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Thomas G. Weinandy’s outstanding Does God Change? The Word’s becoming in the incarnation (Still River: St Bede’s, 1985).
This stuff is hard. But don’t worry. Take it slowly – it’s not a race. And give thanks to God that men like Athanasius trod this path before us.
Chapter 1
1. The Trinitarian question having been addressed (see the first half of chapter 1), what question(s) now faced Arius and the Orthodox (p. 16)?
2. What additional assumption (besides those previously noted) lay behind the Arian doctrine of the incarnation? Why did this present a greater challenge to the Orthodox than those aspects of Arianism discussed previously? (p. 17)
3. What conclusion did the Arians draw from the human experiences of the incarnate Logos (pp. 17-18)?
4. What, according to Weinandy, is “at the heart of the Arian Christology” (p. 18)? What is this “an extreme form of” (p. 19)? Can you explain what this means?
5. Why does the Arian understanding of the union between the Logos and Christ’s human nature entail that “human predicates attributed to the Logos refer to his very nature as God” (p. 19)?
6. Explain Athanasius’ reply to the question, “Does not the very concept of ‘becoming’ imply that the Logos was in some way changed?” (pp. 20-21).
7. What, according to Weinandy, was Athanasius unable to do? Why (pp. 21-22)?
8. According to Kelly, what is “the central problem of [Athanasius’s] Christology” (p. 24)? What problems does this create for Athanasius (pp. 24-25)?
Baked noodles - 12 March 2010
These are the questions for week 18 of the Guided Reading Course. We’re looking this week at the introduction and the first half of chapter 1 of Thomas G. Weinandy, Does God Change? The Word’s becoming in the incarnation (Still River: St Bede’s, 1985).
As the Oracle might say, this one will really bake your noodle. Eat slowly, and chew carefully.
Introduction
1. God is “present as the wholly other” (p. xx). What does Weinandy mean by this?
2. What three questions are raised by John’s statement that “the word became flesh” (John 1:14, p. xxi)?
3. Why did Docetists feel themselves forced to deny the real humanity of Christ? How did Docetists view God’s relationship to the world? (p. xxii)
4. Weinandy believes that “it is indeed surprising that at such an early date one finds the full divinity and full humanity predicated of the one person of Christ almost in Chalcedonian rigor” (p. xxiii). Do you agree?
5. What were the different forms of Monarchianism? Why were the adherents of these positions trying to preserve? (pp. xxiii-xxiv)
6. What problems with Modalistic Monarchianism does Weinandy highlight? (pp. xxv-xxvi)
7. What principle, shared by Tertullian and Origen, expressed the relationship between the Father, on the one hand, and the Son and the Spirit, on the other? What were the consequences of this view? (pp. xxvi-xxvii)
8. What did Origen have in common with the Docetists? (p. xxviii)
9. How did Origen explain the incarnation while preserving divine impassibility? Why doesn’t his view work? (pp. xxx-xxxi)
Chapter 1
10. What question did Arius ask about the Logos? What two presuppositions lay behind his answer? What was his answer? (pp. 4-5)
11. From where did Arius derive his notion of divine transcendence? Why was this important in shaping his view of the Logos? (pp. 5-6)
12. How did Arius understand begetting and creating? Why did he take this view? What implications did this have for his view of the nature of the Son? (pp. 6-9)
13. What two questions did the church need to answer in order to meet “the challenge of Arius”? (p. 10)
14. What did the Council of Nicea (325) say in response to these questions? What further questions did their response raise? Did Nicea address adequately these further questions? (pp. 11-12)
15. How did Athanasius address the questions left unanswered by Nicea? (p. 16)
16. What criticism did the semi-Arians level at Athanasius? How did Athanasius respond? (pp. 15-16)
Diagrams of Jesus - 12 March 2010
We’ve reached the topic of the incarnation in the Guided Reading Course, and after letting ourselves in gently last time with a few chapters of Calvin’s Institutes, we’re going to sink our teeth into something really meaty in the shape of Tom Weinandy, Does God Change?
Here’s an extra challenge as we work our way through this one. You can’t draw a diagram representing the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation, just as you can’t draw an orthodox diagram of the Trinity. However, you can draw a diagram of most of the heretical versions. If you’re feeling brave, have a go as we make our way through Weinandy in the next few weeks.
And if you’re feeling really brave, try to work out why it’s impossible to draw these diagrams.
Diversity without division, unity without confusion - 11 March 2010
These are the questions for week 17 of the Guided Reading Course. We’ll focus on Calvin, Institutes, II.xii-xiv, and refer occasionally to Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 321-330.
Calvin, Institutes, II.xii-xiv
II.xii
1. Why, according to Calvin, did our Mediator need to be true God and true man? (II.xii.1-3)
2. In Calvin’s view, would the incarnation have been necessary if man had not sinned? Why or why not? (II.xii.1-2, 4) Do you agree?
3. What does Calvin think of question 2, above? Why? (II.xii.5)
II.xiii
4. What evidence does Calvin adduce to prove Christ’s true humanity? (II.xiii.1)
5. What objection does Calvin address in II.xiii.4? How does he respond?
II.xiv
6. What misunderstanding of Christ’s human and divine natures does Calvin address in II.xiv.1? How does he correct this erroneous view? What analogy does he offer?
7. What does Calvin mean by “the communicating of properties” (II.xiv.1)? How do the scriptural texts cited in II.xiv.2 fit with this doctrine? How does Calvin’s view differ from the Lutheran doctrine (cf. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 324ff.)?
8. What, in Calvin’s view, is demonstrated by the texts cited in II.xiv.3? Do you agree?
9. What were the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches? How does Calvin reply? (II.xiv.4)
That in his death all might die - 1 March 2010
These are the questions for week 16 of the Guided Reading Course.
Athanasius, On the Incarnation
Chapter I
1. What does Athanasius believe would have happened to Adam and Eve if they had not sinned (section 3)? Do you agree?
2. How does Athanasius argue that humanity was returning “to non-existence” as a result of Adam’s sin (sections 4-5)? What explicit biblical support could Athanasius have adduced for this teaching?
Chapter II
3. What was “the divine dilemma” (section 6)?
4. Why would repentance have been an inadequate remedy (section 7)?
5. How did the incarnation solve “the divine dilemma” (section 8-9)?
Chapter III
6. What further reason for the incarnation does Athanasius identify in sections 11-16?
7. What “paradox” does Athanasius discuss in sections 17-18?
Chapter IV
8. How has the experience of death been transformed for those “who believe in Christ” (section 21)? What are the pastoral implications of this transformation?
9. Why, according to Athanasius, did Jesus die a public rather than a private death (section 21)?
10. Do you agree with Athanasius that Christ’s body “did not see corruption” (section 21)? Why? What implications, if any, does this have for Jesus’ human nature?
11. On what basis does Athanasius conclude that there is “no excuse … for those who would divide the church” (section 24)? What significance does Athanasius perceive in the outstretched arms of the crucified Christ, and in the fact that Jesus was “lifted up” on a cross (section 25)? What does the structure of this argument tell us about Athanasius’ exegetical method? How do you react to Athanasius’ approach?
Tread carefully - 24 February 2010
These are the questions for week 15 of the Guided Reading Course.
Please tread carefully this week. Listen to Calvin: “We must so cherish moderation that we do not try to make God render account to us, but so reverence his secret judgments as to consider his will the truly just cause of all things” (Institutes, I.xvii.1).
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 165-178
1. How does Berkhof define providence? What are the three elements of it? How do they relate? (pp. 166-167)
2. Why might it be useful to distinguish between these three elements of divine providence? Can you give any examples to illustrate the relationship between them?
3. How (apart from by direct appeal to explicit biblical texts) would you argue against the thhree misconceptions Berkhof describe, namely (i) prescience / prescience plus foreordination; (ii) the deistic view; (iii) the pantheistic view? (pp. 167-168)
4. How is the doctrine of preservation related to the doctrines of God and creation? (p. 170)
5. How is concurrence distinct from preservation? (p. 171-172)
6. What is wrong with illustrating the concurrence of divine and secondary causes as “a team of horses pulling together” (p. 172)?
7. How does Berkhof reply to the claim that his view of divine concurrence “makes God the responsible author of sin” (p. 174)? Is his defence adequate?
8. What perspective upon providence does divine government emphasise? (p. 175)
Calvin, Institutes, I.xvi-xviii
9. Why, according to Calvin, do some adopt a “distinction … between doing and permitting”? What does Calvin think of this distinction? What biblical data does he adduce to support his view? (I.xviii.1)
10. How does Calvin believe God’s will is related to human actions? (I.xviii.2)
11. “But even though [God’s] will is one and simple in him, it appears manifold to us” (I.xviii.3). Why does Calvin feel it necessary to make this clarification? What does he mean by it?
12. What point does Augustine make in the lengthy quote with which Calvin believes “all godly and modest folk agree” (I.xviii.3)?
13. What point is proved by the example of “the choice of king Jeroboam”? (I.xviii.4)
14. How, if at all, do you think Calvin would advise preachers and teachers to approach the subject of divine providence? (I.xviii.4) Do you agree?
The triumph of grace - 16 February 2010
These are the questions for week 14 of the Guided Reading Course.
Before you begin, consider the following question: If our inherited corruption makes sin inevitable, how can God hold us responsible for it?
Calvin, Institutes, II.iii-v
1. What biblical texts does Calvin cite to support his view of the depravity of human nature? (II.iii.1-4) Do they adequately support the case he seeks to make?
2. How does Calvin argue that fallen man sins “willingly, not unwillingly or by compulsion” (II.iii.5)? Do you understand this distinction?
3. What does God do in us when he “corrects and cures the corruption of our nature” (II.iii.6)?
4. How does Lombard misrepresent Augustine’s teaching on this subject (II.iii.7)?
5. What scriptural testimonies does Calvin adduce to support his position (II.iii.8-9)?
6. What does Calvin believe Chrysostom means when he said, “Whom he draws he draws willingly?” Why does Calvin object to this statement? How does Calvin’s position differ from Chrysostom’s? (II.iii.10)
7. What “most wicked error” does Calvin describe in section II.iii.11? How does he respond?
8. What contrast does Augustine draw between Adam’s unfallen will and our redeemed will? What conclusions follow from this? (II.iii.13)
9. What cluster of questions is Calvin seeking to address in this chapter? (II.iv.1)
10. How are God, Satan and man all active participants in the same events? How is their participation distinguished? (II.iv.2) How do Calvin’s scriptural examples serve his point here (II.iv.4-5)?
11. Consider the objections addressed by Calvin in II.v. What do you make of his answers?
To conclude, a gem from Augustine via Calvin:
The human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but freedom by grace; when the feeling of delight has been imparted through the same grace, the human will is formed to endure; it is strengthened with inconquerable fortitude; controlled by grace, it will never perish … there is left to man no such free will … that except through grace the will can neither be converted to God nor abide in God; and whatever it can do it is able to do only through grace. (Calvin, Institutes, II.iii.14; summarising Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace)
Written on whose heart? - 5 February 2010
These are the questions for week 13 of the Guided Reading Course.
Before you start, think for a few minutes about this question:
1. Can unbelievers do good? If so, how? And in what sense(s)?
Calvin, Institutes, II.ii
2. What do ‘the philosophers’ and some of the Fathers believe about human capacity for good and evil (II.ii.3-4)?
3. Why, according to Calvin, did the Fathers adopt such a position (II.ii.4)?
4. What do you make of the different definitions of ‘free will’ cited by Calvin in section II.ii.4? What does Calvin think of them (II.ii.9)?
5. What effect, according to Calvin, has the fall had on humanity’s ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ gifts (II.ii.12-13; see also II.iii.1-2)? Do you agree with this distinction? What effect did the fall have on the will (II.ii.12)?
6. How does Calvin account for the competence of unbelievers in fields such as art and science (II.ii.14-16)? Do you agree? You might find it helpful to look also at section II.iii.3.
7. What does Calvin believe fallen human reason is able (and unable) to discern concerning what he calls ‘God’s Kingdom’ and ‘spiritual insight’ (II.ii.18-25)? Do you agree?
8. What does Calvin think Romans 2 means when it says, ‘When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do the works of the law, they are a law to themselves … and show that the work of the law is written on their hearts’? Do you agree with this interpretation?
Like a tree with many branches - 4 February 2010
These are the questions for week 12 of the Guided Reading Course.
John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, ch 3-4
Section IV
1. What is the question under discussion in this section? How does it follow logically from the flow of the argument so far?
2. What is ‘mediate imputation’?
3. What was Samuel Hopkins’s position? What attraction might it hold? What is wrong with it?
4. What underlying thread to Nathanael Emmons and Timothy Dwight have in common?
5. What did Charles Hodge and William Cunningham think Jonathan Edwards believed? What did B. B. Warfield think?
6. How did Edwards’s position differ from mediate imputation? How did it differ from immediate imputation?
7. How might Edwards rebut the claim that the imputation of Adam’s sin to his descendants is unjust?
8. What biblical evidence does Murray adduce in favour of the doctrine of immediate imputation?
9. Does the fourth of Murray’s arguments in favour of immediate imputation challenge Jonathan Edwards’s position?
Section V
10. What is the question under discussion in this section? How does it follow logically from the flow of the argument so far?
11. What did Charles Hodge believe is imputed to Adam’s descendants? What is the problem with this view?
12. What do you make of Murray’s attempts to answer the question posed in this section?
Jonathan Edwards: ‘both guilt, or exposedness to punishment, and also depravity of heart, came upon Adam’s posterity just as they came upon him, like a tree with many branches.’
One sin - 25 January 2010
These are the questions for week 11 of the Guided Reading Course.
John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, ch 1-2
Introduction; sections I and II
1. What ‘ancient conception’ underlies Paul’s argument in Romans 5?
2. What biblical data does the first part of Murray’s argument address? What does he regard as ‘the crux of the question’?
3. What is the Pelagian view? What is wrong with it? Which of Murray’s counter-arguments do you find most compelling?
4. According to the Council of Trent, what is transmitted to Adam’s descendants? What is not transmitted? What is wrong with this view?
5. What biblical evidence could be adduced to support or disprove the Roman Catholic view that concupiscence is ‘not itself truly and properly sin’?
6. How does Calvin’s view differ from that of Rome? In what respect(s) are the two positions similar?
7. What features of Paul’s argument are accounted for in what Murray calls the ‘Classical Protestant interpretation’? Do you agree with Murray’s exegetical reasoning here?
8. What conclusion does Murray draw from these features of Paul’s argument?
Section III
9. What question does Murray address in this section? How does it arise from the argument at the end of the previous section?
10. How does Murray summarise the ‘Realistic’ view of the imputation of Adam’s sin? What objection does Shedd raise against the ‘Representative’ view?
11. What, according to Murray, is the crux of the debate between realism and representation?
12. How would Murray respond if a realist claimed support from Calvin?
13. What support could a realist claim from Augustine?
14. According to Murray, what are the problems with realism? Are you convinced?
15. What aspects of the realist view does the representative view not deny?
16. What biblical data, unaccounted for by realism, does the representative view attempt to explain?
Additional reading: Calvin, Institutes, II.i
Here’s the bottom line:
« Previous EntriesGod’s relations to men and the relations of men to one another are not exclusively individualistic; God deals with men in terms of these corporate relationships and men must reckon with their corporate relations and responsibilities. (John Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, section III)