Guided Reading Course |
|
« Previous Entries Next Entries »
Ups and downs - 10 May 2010
The reading for week 23 of the Guided Reading Course is Leithart, A House for My Name, pp. 129-188.
Fish for dinner - 26 April 2010
Here are a few other questions to guide you through the reading for week 22 of the Guided Reading Course (Leithart, A House for My Name, pp. 13-128):
1. What is the “historical-grammatical method” of reading Scripture? What is good about it? What is bad? (p. 27)
2. What does Leithart mean by “typology”? Why is it significant for biblical interpretation? (pp. 27-40)
3. Describe the structural similarity between Israel, Sinai, the Tabernacle, the earth and the universe (pp. 82-86).
4. Qorban means literally “something brought near.” What light does this shed on the significance of the OT sacrifices (pp. 87-88)?
5. Why is it significant that Jesus ate so much seafood (p. 88)?
Building God’s house - 23 April 2010
So far in the Guided Reading Course we have looked at some introductory matters (how to read and how to think); prayer; revelation (general and special); God (classical theism and trinitarian theology); humanity (created and fallen); and the incarnation.
We turn now to the doctrine of redemption. This is obviously a very large topic, and we’ll be spending a number of weeks on it. We’ll seek first to get a biblical overview of the work of God in redemption, so that our approach is directed as much as possible by the shape of the Bible itself. Then we’ll look at covenant theology, and consider how Reformed theologians have traditionally gone about the task of bringing together the biblical material. Finally, we’ll move on to some more systematic texts, returning to Calvin as well as some other writers.
The reading for session 22 of the Guided Reading Course is Peter Leithart, A House for My Name, pp. 13-128. Questions for reflection are found at the end of most sections.
All you need - 18 April 2010
The title for the first essay for students on the Guided Reading Course is as follows:
“The Bible is all we need.” Discuss with reference to the canon of Scripture, the interpretation of Scripture and the authority of Scripture.
No more than 2000 words.
Primary reading:
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.vi-ix
Douglas Wilson, “Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesiastical Authority,” pp. 255–286 in Keith A. Mathison (ed.), When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed response to hyper-preterism (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2004)
Mother of God? - 9 April 2010
These are the remaining questions for week 19 of the Guided Reading Course, when we’ll be considering the second half of chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Thomas G. Weinandy’s Does God Change? The Word’s becoming in the incarnation (Still River: St Bede’s, 1985).
Before you begin, ask yourself this question: Should we describe Mary as “Mother of God”?
Chapter 1
9. How did Apollinarius understand the incarnation? What did his position have in common with Arius? (pp. 25-26)
10. Explain the problems with Apollinarius’s Christology (pp. 27-29).
11. What implication of Nicea does Weinandy believe that Arius, Athanasius and Apollinarius failed to grasp (pp. 30-31)?
12. How did Theodore of Mopsuestia understand “human nature” (pp. 34-35)? How did this reflect his philosophical background (pp. 32-33)?
13. What, according to Theodore of Mopsuestia, does it mean to say “God became man” (pp. 35-37)?
14. How does Nestorius’s refusal to call Mary theotokos (Mother of God) illustrate his Christology (p. 38)?
15. How does Nestorius understand the relationship between the two prosopa of Christ’s human and divine natures (p. 43)? Does he succeed in articulating “a true substantial union” between them (p. 44)?
16. What does Kelly mean when he says that Nestorius “does not fully see the metaphysical structure of the word ‘Christ’” (p. 45)?
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?
« Previous Entries Next Entries »