Minister's Blog |
|
« Previous Entries Next Entries »
16. Providence - 22 February 2012
 |
 |
Introduction
Having concluded our study of the doctrine of sin and its effects, we turn now in session 16 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course to the doctrine of providence. We’ve already encountered this doctrine in passing, as we’ve reflected on the relationship between human sin and divine sovereignty. Now we consider it in more detail.
We’ll be looking at Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, pp. 165-178 and Calvin’s Institutes, I.xvi-xviii (1:197-237). This is slightly more material than we’d usually try to cover, but you’ll be able to move quite quickly through the early sections of Calvin, as much of the material will have been covered in Berkhof. As ever, if you’re short of time, omit the questions marked with a *.
A word of caution from Calvin before we begin: “We must so cherish moderation that we do not try to make God render account to us, but so reverence his secret judgments as to consider his will the truly just cause of all things” (Institutes, I.xvii.1).
Questions for reflection
i. Are you comfortable with the thought that God is sovereign over everything in creation?
ii. Why might God deliberately conceal from us the reasons for some of the things he does?
iii. How would you feel if you discovered today that according to the Bible God is not in sovereign control of everything in creation?
Study questions on Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 165-178
Section A discusses providence in general, in preparation for sections B to D (covering each of the “three elements in providence” and section E (covering miracles).
1. How does Berkhof define providence (p. 166)? Can you explain what is meant by each of the “three elements in providence” (p. 166)? Why might these distinctions be useful?
2. “While we distinguish three elements in providence, we should remember that these are never separated in the work of God” (p. 167). What does this mean?
3. What theological arguments (as distinct from arguments drawn from explicit biblical texts) could be used to oppose the three misconceptions Berkhof describes on pp. 167-168?
- prescience (i.e. foreknowledge) or prescience plus foreordination;
- the deistic view;
- the pantheistic view.
Section B discusses preservation, the first element in providence.
4. How is the doctrine of preservation related to the doctrines of God and creation (p. 170)?
5. How does Berkhof describe the doctrine of “continuous creation” (p. 171)? What, in his view, is wrong with this position? Can you think of any other problems with it?
Section C discusses concurrence, the second element in providence.
6. What is wrong with illustrating the concurrence of divine and secondary causes as “a team of horses pulling together” (p. 172)?
7. How does Berkhof reply to the claim that his view of divine concurrence “makes God the responsible author of sin” (p. 174; cf. also p. 175)? Is his defence adequate?
Section D discusses government, the third element in providence.
8. What perspective upon providence does divine government emphasise? (p. 175)
Section E discusses miracles.
9. How might the “distinction … between providentia ordinaria and providentia extraordinaria [ordinary providence and extraordinary providence]” (p. 176) be useful in conversation with an atheist who believes miracles are impossible?
Study questions on Calvin, Institutes, I.xvi-xviii
I suggest that you move quite quickly through chapter xvi, since much of this material is covered well in Berkhof.
*10. As you read through I.xvi, where in particular do you find themes which are echoed in Berkhof?
Chapter xvii is predominantly pastoral in character, being concerned with how we may apply the doctrine of divine providence to our greatest benefit. Accordingly, the intention of question 11 in particular is to encourage you to reflect in the pastoral implications of God’s providence.
11. What pastoral implications follow from the following observations? Can you think of practical situations in which these lessons might be particularly important?
- “However hidden and fugitive from our point of view the causes may be, we must hold that they are surely laid up with him” (I.xvii.1).
- “We must so cherish moderation that we do not try to make God render account to us” (I.xvii.1).
- “He who has set the limits to our life has at the same time entrusted to us its care; he has provided means and helps to preserve it” (I.xvii.4).
- “Then the heart will not doubt that God’s singular providence keeps watch to preserve it, and will not suffer anything to happen but what may turn out to its good and salvation” (I.xvii.6).
12. How does Calvin address the issue of God’s “repentance” (I.xvi.12-14)?
Chapter xviii addresses the vexed issue of God’s sovereignty over sinful actions. Here Calvin explains how God remains holy even when sovereignly upholding the sinful actions of the wicked.
13. Why, according to Calvin, do some adopt a “distinction … between doing and permitting”? What does Calvin think of this distinction? What biblical data does he cite to support his view (I.xviii.1)?
14. How does Calvin believe God’s will is related to human actions (I.xviii.2)?
15. “But even though [God’s] will is one and simple in him, it appears manifold to us” (I.xviii.3). Why does Calvin feel it necessary to make this clarification? What does he mean by it?
*16. What point does Augustine make in the lengthy quote with which Calvin believes “all godly and modest folk agree” (I.xviii.3)?
*17. What point is proved by the example of “the choice of king Jeroboam” (I.xviii.4)?
*18. What advice does Calvin have for “those for whom this seems harsh” (I.xviii.4)? Do you agree?
Hi-tech stuff - 20 February 2012
We’ve just finished a short mini-series of sermons at Emmanuel on the subject of technology – what does God think of iPads, mobile phones, Xbox360s and Facebook. You can find all four sermons here.
Fishers of men - 20 February 2012
Perhaps Jesus’ call to Simon and Andrew to be “fishers of men” (Mk 1:17) has something to do with the LORD’s plan to send “many fishermen” (Jer 16:16) to bring back his people from exile, and indeed to draw in “the nations” (Jer 16:19) alongside them.
The LORD creates evil - 16 February 2012
It was Isaiah who said that, not me.
Here are some biblical texts where the LORD God is said to create, bring forth, cause, bring, decree, form or speak evil (ra’, sometimes translated “disaster”) against people:
- The LORD creates ra’: Isaiah 45:7
- The LORD brings forth ra’: Lamentations 3:38
- The LORD causes ra’: Amos 3:6
- The LORD brings ra’: Job 42:11; Jeremiah 4:6; 6:19; 11:11; 19:3; 23:12; 32:23; 32:42; 42:17; 44:2; 45:5; 49:37; 51:64
- The LORD decrees ra’: Jeremiah 11:1
- The LORD forms ra’: Jeremiah 18:11
- The LORD speaks ra’: Jeremiah 19:15
Of course, God does not bring about evil in the same way that sinful human brings do. The LORD does not sin in bringing about evil, for example. But a defence of the unchanging goodness of God in the face of moral evil cannot rely of a diminution of God’s sovereign control over the actions performed. A heftly dose of Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin and Francis Turretin is probably a better place to start.
15. The corruption of human nature - 16 February 2012
|
|
Introduction
We continue our study of the doctrine of sin and its effects in session 14 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, looking this week at Calvin, Institutes, II.iii-v (1:289-340). Here’s an outline of these three chapters:
II.iii The capacity of the fallen human will, and how God works in us to draw us to him.
II.iv How is God involved in evil human actions.
II.v Answers to objections.
These three chapters are quite long, so don’t worry if you don’t have time to finish them all. As ever, if you’re short of time, omit the questions marked with a *.
Questions for reflection
i. If our inherited corruption makes sin inevitable, how can God hold us responsible for it?
ii. If God is sovereign over our sins, why is he not morally responsible for them?
iii. When Christ draws someone to him, does that person come to him willingly or unwillingly?
Study questions
1. What, according to Calvin, is meant by the Scriptural description of fallen man as “flesh” (II.iii.1)?
2. What biblical texts does Calvin cite in II.iii.1-2 to support his view of the depravity of human nature? In your view, do these texts adequately support Calvin’s point?
3. “Almost the same question that was previously answered now confronts us anew” (II.iii.3). What is this question, and how does Calvin answer it?
4. Calvin argues that fallen man sins “willingly, not unwillingly or by compulsion” (II.iii.5)? What does he mean by this? Why is it important?
5. Can you summarise how, according to Calvin, “divine grace corrects and cures the corruption of our nature” (II.iii.6)?
6. How does Lombard misrepresent Augustine’s statement that “grace precedes every good work” (II.iii.7)? What “two things” does Calvin emphasise in order to prevent this misunderstanding?
7. What biblical texts and other arguments does Calvin adduce in II.iii.8-9 to support his view that all good in us “takes its origin from God alone” (II.iii.8)?
8. What does Calvin believe Chrysostom means when he said, “Whom he draws he draws willingly” (II.iii.10)? Why does Calvin object to this notion (II.iii.10)? How does Calvin’s position differ from Chrysostom’s (II.iii.10)?
9. What “most wicked error” does Calvin describe in II.iii.11? How does he respond?
10. According to Calvin, what contrast does Augustine draw between Adam’s unfallen will and our redeemed will (II.iii.13)?
In II.iv, Calvin addresses “the question whether we ought to ascribe to God any part of the evil works in which Scripture signifies that some action of his intervenes” (II.iv.1).
11. Can you explain the illustration Calvin cites from Augustine in II.iv.1? Does this strike you as a biblical way of thinking?
12. In what sense(s) are God, Satan and man all active participants in the same events (II.iii.2)? How do Calvin’s scriptural examples serve his point here (II.iv.4-5)?
In II.v, Calvin considers a number of objections against his understanding of the human will.
*13. Summarise (a) the objections set out in the following sections; and (b) Calvin’s response to them. Do you find Calvin’s responses persuasive?
- II.v.1
- II.v.2
- II.v.3
- II.v.4-5
*14. Some of Calvin’s critics claim that “God’s precepts [are] so accommodated to our capacities that we are of necessity able to fulfil their demonstrable requirements” (II.v.6). What does this mean, and how does is serve as an argument against Calvin’s view? How does Calvin respond (II.v.6-11)?
*15. Calvin considers a number of other arguments against his position in II.v.12-19. Try to outline these arguments and Calvin’s responses to them. Which position do you find most persuasive?
30. The Offices of Christ - 16 February 2012
|
|
Introduction
In previous sessions we have laid the groundwork for the construction of a Christian doctrine of salvation by studying God’s work in history (Bible overview; Covenant Theology), God’s decrees in eternity (the doctrine of election), and the intersection of God’s decrees and human history (covenant and election). We now turn our attention specifically to Christ, the author of our salvation, the one about whom all Scripture testifies, in whom all God’s covenant promises are fulfilled – God’s chosen one par excellence.
In particular, we’re looking this week at the three so-called “Offices of Christ” – Prophet, Priest and King – with the help of Calvin, Institutes, II.xv-xvii (1:494-534). This study of Christ’s work for his people paves the way for future sessions in which we’ll be considering the application of Christ’s work to his people.
Questions for reflection
i. How did Christ accomplish salvation for us?
ii. According to your answer to the previous question, did Christ need to be a King? Did he need to be a prophet?
Study questions
In II.xv, Calvin describes in outline Christ’s three offices of Prophet, Priest and King
1. Why does Calvin believe that “the title ‘Christ’ pertain to [all] three offices,” namely, Prophet, Priest and King (II.xv.1)?
For reflection: Can you think of any biblical texts that support Calvin’s claim here?
2. With what was Jesus anointed?
For reflection: What might the previous answer imply about the imagery of “oil” in the Bible? (You might find it helpful to glance ahead briefly to II.xv.5.)
3. “Then this anointing was diffused from the Head to the members” (II.xv.2). What does Calvin mean by this? Why is it important?
Calvin turns in II.xv.3-5 to Christ’s kingly office in particular.
4. Calvin says that Christ’s kingship is “spiritual in nature” (II.xv.3). What does he mean by this, and what inferences does he draw? (II.xv.3-5)
5. How does Calvin contrast “this earthly life” and “the heavenly life” (II.xv.4)? Do you agree?
For reflection: What pastoral implications does Calvin draw in II.xv.4 from the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingship?
6. What does Christ do in his priestly office (II.xv.6)?
In II.xvi, Calvin explains how Christ has redeemed and saved us. This involves a discussion of Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension.
7. Can you identify the different ways in which Calvin describes our predicament as sinners (II.xvi.1)?
8. “If God was angry with us because of our sin, how could he have loved us enough to send his son to redeem us?” How would Calvin reply, according to II.xvi.2-4?
9. Consider these two quotations: “Because the Lord wills not to lose what is his in us, out of his kindness he still finds something to love” (II.xvi.3); God “knew how, at the same time, to hate in each one of us what we had made, and to love what he had made” (II.xvi.4, quoting Augustine). What does Calvin mean? Why is it important?
10. How, precisely, does Calvin believe Christ has abolished sin, reconciled us to God and “acquired righteousness” for us (II.xvi.5)?
11. What does Calvin mean when he says, “the cross was accursed” (II.xvi.6)?
In II.xvi.8-12, Calvin discusses the controversial phrase, “He descended into hell,” which is found in the Apostles’ Creed.
12. What does Calvin think is meant by the statement in the Creed, “He descended into hell” (II.xvi.8-12)? Do you agree?
For reflection: Should we say “Christ descended into hell” when we say the Creed at church?
13. What, according to Calvin, did Christ’s resurrection accomplish (II.xvi.13)? Would you want to add anything here?
14. What did Christ achieve in his ascension (II.xvi.14-16)? Why is this significant?
*15. Why is it significant that our Judge is our Redeemer (II.xvi.18)?
In II.xvii, Calvin discusses the idea of “merit,” a term which has historically been used by some theologians in their discussion of the work of Christ.
*16. Why do some people dislike the word “merit” (II.xvii.1)? Do you think their concern is legitimate? How does Calvin respond (II.xvii.2)?
*17. What does Calvin seek to demonstrate by his citation of Galatians 3 and Isaiah 53 in II.xvii.4?
The very practical doctrine of the Trinity - 15 February 2012
Earlier this month I had the privilege of teaching at Hriscansko Udruzenje Beograd (HUB), a Bible College near Belgrade, Serbia. The students welcomed and encouraged me a great deal, and I wanted to find a way to thank them. As I was sitting in the departure lounge at Belgrade Airport, my mind drifted back to a conversation I had with Teodora, the translator, on Sunday evening on the way back from church. So while I travelled back across Europe, I thought I might write down a few of the things we talked about. If Teodora (or someone else) has time to translate this into Serbian, perhaps these few words will encourage the students at HUB, just as they encouraged me.
If you want to read a pdf version of this article, you can do so here.
A very practical doctrine
For many Christians, the doctrine of the Trinity does not seem very practical. It seems strange and obscure. Perhaps it even seems contradictory – how can God be both one and three at the same time? The doctrine of the Trinity seems like the theological equivalent of Mount Everest: very beautiful and mysterious, but for experts only – far too difficult for ordinary believers.
This view is understandable, but I believe it is mistaken. It’s true that the doctrine of the Trinity contains some mysterious depths, but the same could be said about any biblical doctrine. Perhaps it’s a little trickier to think specifically about God himself than to think about other aspects of the Bible’s teaching, for God’s ways are above our ways. But God wants us to know and understand him more, so by his grace we should be able to make some progress if we are willing to think carefully.
If we do this, we will also discover that the doctrine of the Trinity is a wonderfully practical doctrine. Its implications touch many different aspects of our lives. In particular, understanding a little about the Trinity will encourage and help us to grow more like Jesus and to love one another.
This little essay is not a full and detailed explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity. If that’s what you’re looking for, I encourage you to read the relevant sections of Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, and Augustine’s On the Trinity. But if you’ve never thought much about the Trinity before, hopefully this essay will be a start. I hope especially that it will help and encourage you in practical ways to live the Christian life, for that is the purpose of all Christian doctrine.
We’ll start with a brief introduction to the basics of the Trinity. To save space I won’t quote all the relevant biblical texts; you’ll find them in the books mentioned above (especially Berkhof). Then we’ll look in turn at two different practical implications: (1) human differences and human dignity, and (2) self-giving love and service.
The basics of the Trinity
The Bible teaches that there is one God. Through Moses, God taught Israel this fundamental profession of faith, “Hear O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Everywhere in Scripture this is either declared or assumed. The world has only one Creator; we have only one Redeemer; no one and nothing else is worthy of our worship. The LORD alone is God, and there is no other.
In technical terms, belief in one God is called “monotheism,” from mono (meaning “one”) and theos (meaning “God”). There is no need to be worried about such technical terms; they are intended as labels to help us understand as clearly as possible what we are talking about, so that we don’t get confused. Another helpful technical term is “divine essence.” The divine essence is just the thing that God is, so we say that there is only one divine essence because there is only one God.
Yet Scripture also reveals God as three “persons” (another helpful technical term): the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Bible makes clear that these persons are distinct from each other, because they have relationships with each other, and it’s impossible for one person to have a relationship with himself. These relationships are seen very clearly when the persons do things to each other or for each other. For example, the Father loves the Son, sends the Son, speaks to the Son, and gives the kingdom to the Son. The Son does the Father’s will, prays to the Father, and glorifies the Father. Both the Father and the Son send the Spirit, and the Spirit in turn obeys the Father and glorifies the Son. So although God is one, it is equally clear that God is also three – Father, Son, and Spirit. The technical term for this is “triune,” from tri (meaning “three”) and unus (meaning “one”).
This is where people sometimes get a little confused, because it sounds strange to say that God is one and three at the same time. But there’s no need to worry; if we take one step at a time we should be fine.
Let’s start by thinking about one of the persons: the Father. The Bible teaches that the Father is worthy of worship, because he is God. But suppose we ask, What is it about the Father that makes him worthy of worship? What is it about the Father that makes him God? The answer must be that he possesses the divine essence, for the divine essence is God, and only God is worthy of worship. This also means that the Father is holy and all-powerful and all-knowing and so on, because the divine essence is holy and all-powerful and all-knowing. These characteristics of God (along with all the other descriptions of God in the Bible) are sometimes called “divine attributes” (another helpful technical term). We say that God the Father possesses all the divine attributes because he fully possesses the divine essence, which means that everything about God that sets God apart as God belongs to the Father.
Now, think for a moment about what it means for someone to be a father. If a friend said to you, “I am a father,” you would know immediately that he must have a son. The very fact that someone is a father necessarily means that there must be a son somewhere as well (or a daughter, but let’s not complicate things unnecessarily!). You can’t be a father without having a son, because having a son is how a father becomes a father. Moreover, sons tend to resemble their fathers. My son looks very similar to me – he has the same eyes, the same hair, the same nose. The existence of a father necessarily implies the existence of a son who will in many ways be like him.
The situation is similar with God. As soon as we think about God the Father, we will start to think about God the Son. If God the Father exists, then God the Son must exist too. Moreover, since sons tend to resemble their fathers, we would expect God the Son to resemble God the Father. So, since God the Father possesses the divine essence, the Son must also possess the divine essence too. Like the Father, the Son must be holy and all-powerful and all-knowing and so on because the divine essence is holy and all-powerful and all-knowing. Since there is a divine Father, there must also be a divine Son.
This highlights an important difference between us and God. Human sons are like their fathers in some ways, but not all. My son’s hair and eyes are similar in colour to mine, but they are not exactly the same. He is also a good deal shorter then me, with smaller hands, fewer teeth, and so on. By contrast, God the Father and God the Son are identical in every respect. This must be so, because the thing that makes the Father and the Son alike is the divine essence, and there is only one divine essence. The divine essence cannot be chopped up into pieces – one piece for each person – because then there would be more than one God, and we know that this can’t be true because it would contradict the biblical doctrine of monotheism. So God the Father and God the Son must be identical in the sense that they both fully possess the divine essence and (therefore) all the divine attributes.
But this raises a question: if the Father and Son both possess all the divine attributes, what is the difference between them? The answer is simple: they are distinguished by the relationship between them. The Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son. This is a real distinction, but not a difference in essence (there’s that useful word again). There is no distinction in God-ness between the Father and the Son; there is only a relational distinction.
In order to keep things simple, we have not mentioned the Holy Spirit for a while. If we did, exactly the same logic would apply. The Bible describes the Son as the Word of God, and the Spirit as the Breath of God. If there is a Word (God the Son), then there must be a Speaker (God the Father), and vice versa. There must also be a Breath (God the Holy Spirit), who carries the Words that the Speaker says. So if we start thinking about any one of the divine persons, we immediately realise that the other two persons must exist as well.
It’s important to understand that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three “parts” of God. This would mean that God is divided into three pieces, which would destroy the one-ness of God (divine monotheism). Equally, the three persons are not merely three “faces” of God, as if God had three “masks” which he used in turn. This would undermine the genuine three-ness of God. Rather, the very thing that God is – the divine essence – is three persons, Father-Son-and-Holy-Spirit, in an eternal communion in which each person shares with the others all that they have and are.
Now that we’ve thought a little about the relationships between the persons of the Trinity, we’re ready to explore some practical implications for our lives.
Human differences and human dignity
We are all different from each other. We all have different gifts, different characters, different lives and different opportunities. No two people anywhere in the world are exactly alike.
These differences sometimes cause difficulties for us. For example, in a church where clear, insightful biblical teaching is valued greatly, a believer who found it hard to understand the Bible might easily feel inadequate. He might find it hard to follow the sermons that everyone else gets so excited about, and he probably wouldn’t think he could ever teach anything useful to anyone else. Or again, single Christians sometimes look longingly at those who are married, and wish their circumstances were different. Christians who are mentally or physically handicapped may have many reasons to ask why they could not be like someone else. At one time or another, all of us have probably envied the gifts, lives or opportunities of others. “Why can’t I preach like him? Why can’t I sing like her?” All of us sometimes wish we could be like someone else.
This way of thinking is wrong, and the doctrine of the Trinity helps us to see why. If we think about God, we realise that there is more than one way to be infinitely, eternally glorious. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all different, yet they are all equal. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Yet all three persons are equal in majesty, power and glory, for they each fully possess the divine essence. The doctrine of the Trinity shows us that there is more than one way to be perfect.
In a similar way, there are many different ways for a human being to please God. When God gave us different gifts, he didn’t make us different in value or dignity. Just as the divine persons are relationally different yet equal in divine glory, so also despite our differences we are all able to be a delight to God. Of course change is often good for us too – it’s great for a student to work at his reading, and it’s fine for a single person to seek marriage. Yet the doctrine of the Trinity teaches us to be content with how we are in the meantime. For it’s perfectly possible to please God as a married man or as a single woman, as a Minister with three theological degrees or as a two-year-old child who has just learned to say, “I love Jesus.” These human differences are designed by the triune God himself to reflect his majesty, for in him diversity is glorious.
Self-giving love and service
God commands us in Scripture to love and serve one another. Jesus showed us this when he famously said, “Now that I have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet” (John 13:14). Similarly, the apostle John urges us to “Love one another, for love comes from God” (1 John 4:7). The Christian life is a life of cross-carrying, sacrificial love for one another.
Such loving service rarely seems attractive. No one apart from Jesus volunteered for the foot-washing during the last supper, and similarly today the least glamorous tasks in the church are often the least popular. Who wants to get up early on a cold Sunday morning to prepare the church for worship, or stay late at night to clear up after everyone else has gone home? Who wants to visit the sick, or care for the elderly, or make soup for the homeless? Ministries like these are exhausting, and though we all know that God commands such service, it’s sometimes hard to find the motivation to take part.
The doctrine of the Trinity can help us here, for it teaches us the vital lesson that giving is receiving. Think of it this way: God the Father gives himself to God the Son. He doesn’t hold back, but shares everything with him. Everything that the Father has and is – the entire, undivided divine essence – he shares with the Son. The Father quite literally gives himself away. The Son therefore lacks nothing that the Father has. All the Father’s divine glory and majesty belongs to the Son as well, because the Father pours himself out to the Son.
But does this mean that the Father loses anything? As the Father gives himself to the Son, does he lose out? Not at all! On the contrary, only by giving himself to the Son can the Father exist as the Father. If the Father were to stop giving himself to the Son, then of course the Son would cease to exist; but if the Son did not exist then the Father could not exist either! For as we have seen, there cannot be a Father unless there is also a Son. Picture the Father crying out in a loud voice, “You are my Son!” The louder he cries, the more he pours himself out for the Son. Yet at the same time, the louder he cries, the more clearly we hear the Father’s own voice. It is by giving himself to the Son that the Father receives his own existence as the Father.
The same lesson applies in human relationships. All genuine service involves giving something of ourselves. We know this from experience – we expend mental, physical, and emotional energy when we care for the sick or clean the church toilets. Yet giving ourselves in this way does not diminish us. On the contrary, it increases us. We were created to reflect the life of the Trinity, and when the persons of the Trinity give, they also receive. This is one reason why “it is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). It is not just that we should be more concerned about the good of others than our own comfort (though of course this is true). But more than this – it is precisely by serving others that we ourselves find blessing, for in the very action of giving to others we receive as well.
Only by faith in the triune God of the Bible – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – can we live like this. For only by such faith can we be confident that giving is receiving. Genuine living faith will therefore always lead us along the path of self-giving love and service. Wonderfully, the reverse is also true. As we give ourselves to serve one another, our faith will be strengthened, for we will experience the blessing that comes from serving others – and this can only come from the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Good God - 15 February 2012
I’m looking forward to getting hold of a copy of Mike Reeves’ new book, The Good God: Enjoying Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Here’s an extract from the blurb:
“In a very accessible way Michael Reeves writes about God as Trinity in order for both our understanding and faith to grow. In The Good God, Michael Reeves writes about growing in our enjoyment of God and seeing how God’s triune being makes all his ways beautiful. He sees it as a chance to taste and see that the Lord is good, to have our hearts won and ourselves refreshed.”
 |
46 more questions on Judges - 14 February 2012
I had the privilege earlier this month to teach on the book of Judges to the students at HUB (Hriscansko Udruzenje Beograd; the Christian Trust of Belgrade, Serbia).
Click here to download the lecture notes, and see below for a list of additional questions (not in the exam) to encourage further reflection on this part of God’s word:
- Why was Israel supposed to conquer the land of Canaan (1:2)?
- What would you say to someone who claimed that the conquest of Canaan was barbaric and unjustified?
- What did the tribe of Judah do that was particularly good in 1:3-5?
- What tribe did Jesus come from? In the light of 1:3-5, why might this be significant?
- What did the tribe of Judah do that was particularly bad in 1:6-7?
- Why was Kiriath-Sepher a significant place to conquer (1:11-15)?
- What is special about “the three sons of Anak” (1:20)?
- Compare and contrast the story of the man from Luz (1:22-26) with the story of Rahab in Joshua 2. What is significant about the contrasts?
- What repeated phrase summarises Israel’s failure in 1:27-34?
- What decisive event happens in 1:34?
- Explain the two underlying reasons for Israel’s failure (2:1-10).
- Why, according to 2:6-10, might it be a bad idea to send your kids out of the church service and place them in Sunday school?
- If you decided to keep your kids in the church service, what kinds of liturgy and preaching would help you to do so?
- Outline the so-called “cycle of the Judges” exemplified by Othniel (3:7-11).
- Why is it significant that Ehud is a left-handed Benjaminite (3:15)?
- What do the people of Israel (3:15) have in common with King Ahaz (2 Kings 16:8)?
- What really happened in 3:21-25?
- How long did Shamgar take to kill the 600 Philistines (3:31)?
- What advice would Shamgar have for the contemporary church?
- What do Deborah’s first words tell us about her (4:6)?
- What do Barak’s first words tell us about him (4:8)?
- How do you think Deborah might have reacted when she first met Jesus?
- What advice would Jael give to a newly-converted Christian woman married to an unbeliever who tried to stop her from going to church (4:16-24)?
- Compare and contrast the Song of Deborah and Barak (5:2-31) with your favourite Christian songs.
- How are you likely to feel if you never sing any war songs?
- Why is it significant that the Israelites were forced by the Midianites to hide in caves in the ground (6:2)?
- What is surprising about the LORD’s response when Israel “cried out” to him in 6:7-8?
- What does 6:1-10 tell us about the real reason for the economic and cultural development of nations?
- Why was Gideon beating out wheat in a wine-press (6:11)?
- How would Gideon’s friends have reacted when he offered to the LORD “unleavened cakes made from an ephah of flour” (6:19)?
- Who made the cake of barley bread that destroyed the Midianite tent in the Midianite man’s dream (7:13)? Where did the chef find all that flour?
- What would the Midianites have seen and heard on the night when they were defeated by Gideon’s army (7:19-22)? Where in the Bible have we seen something like this before?
- Should Israel have had a king during the days of the Judges? Why or why not?
- Why is it significant that the women said in Ruth 4:17, “a son has been born to Naomi”?
- What is significant about the Israelites’ request in 8:22 that Gideon and his sons should rule over them?
- Roughly how much gold did Gideon collect (8:26)? What would have been a wise thing to do when he realised how much he had received?
- Where else in the Bible do we read about a collection of gold ear-rings (8:24-26)?
- Is it a problem for Gideon to have “many wives” (8:30)? Why?
- What is significant about the name “Abimelech,” which Gideon gave to his son (8:31)?
- How does Abimelech initially seek to persuade the people of Shechem to support him (9:2)?
- According to Jotham’s fable, where will the fire come from (9:15)? What does this tell us about the way God deals with his people when they reject him as their king?
- How did Abimelech die (9:53-54)? Does this remind you of anyone?
- What is missing in 13:1-2? Why might this be?
- Where in the Bible have you seen a story like 13:2 before?
- Which character from the New Testament is most similar to Samson as he is depicted in 13:1-7? What do we learn from how these two characters died?
- Samson would only “begin to save Israel” from the Philistines; who would finish the job? What light does this shed on the other character mentioned in the previous question?
Christ our Head is above water - 14 February 2012
A great paragraph from Peter Martyr Vermigli via LG and SJ (thx both):
“Since he is risen and is our head, we are also risen in him. Tell me, I pray you, when one holds his head above the deep and deadly waters of a fast flowing stream, do we not say that he has escaped death even though his other bodily members are yet below the surface? The same holds true for us, who are all one body in Christ. Our head is risen from the depths of death. Even though we may appear to be overwhelmed in the mortal stream, yet we are risen in him. We must either deny that he is our head or acknowledge that we are members of his body – in which case we are compelled to affirm that our resurrection has begun in his.”
Search Church just got even better - 14 February 2012
All the features on www.searchchurch.co.uk are now free.
Penal substitutionary ping-pong - 14 February 2012
Back in 2007, I and a couple of other people wrote a book on the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement entitled Pierced for Our Transgressions. We devoted one chapter to a historical overview, attempting to demonstrate that this doctrine is no modern evangelical novelty, but has a pedigree stretching right back to the earliest years of the church. A number of the earliest historical examples were drawn from a doctoral thesis by Dr Garry Williams, now at London Theological Seminary.
Then, in 2010, a chap called Derek Flood wrote an article in the Evangelical Quarterly, in which he alleged that we had misunderstood many of these historical texts, and in particular that “the dominant pattern found in these patristic writers is substitutionary atonement understood within the conceptual framework of restorative justice.”
Enter Dr Garry Williams. In a response to Derek Flood, also published in EQ, he says, “it is unfortunate that [Flood] in his article does not engage directly with my own material, especially since I was able to devote more space to close exegesis of the patristic texts than was available to the authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions.”
He continues, “My aim here is to show by still closer exegesis that the passages in question do teach penal substitutionary atonement.”
Finally, lest anyone should wish to try their luck again, Garry explains that there he stilll has more in the bag: “I say ‘closer’ because the constraints of space still restrict the level of attention that can be given here [in the EQ article responding to Flood] to the passages. In due course I hope to publish a full-length treatment of the patristic evidence for penal substitutionary atonement that will offer more sustained exegesis of these passages and of a considerable number of further examples.”
Garry Williams’ article is available online here.
Jesus was unreasonable - 14 February 2012
A friend (thx GB) recently pointed me to this quotation from (of all people) George Bernard Shaw:
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
On this definition, it would seem that Jesus was the least reasonable man of all.
Or rather, he is, for of course he’s still at it.
You’re a lot like Saul - 7 February 2012
In Luke 6:1-5, Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees doesn’t at first glance appear to address the objection raised by the Pharisees. They complain that he’s acting unlawfully on the Sabbath, and he recalls an event in the life of David in 1 Sam 21 which, even if it did take place on the Sabbath (the text doesn’t say; it’s a possibility that some infer from Lev 24:8) isn’t really much to do with the Sabbath. It’s certainly not the focus of either 1 Sam 21 or Jesus’ reply.
So then, how does Jesus’ reply address the Pharisees’ objection? Try this set of parallels:
David and his disciples are being chased around, oppressed by the ungodly ruler, Saul.
Jesus and his disciples are being followed around, hassled by the ungodly leaders, the Pharisees.
David is seeking to establish the Kingdom of God in Israel, with himself enthroned as Israel’s true king.
Jesus is preaching the Kingdom of God in Israel, declaring that he is Israel’s true king.
David’s men are holy warriors, risking their lives to serve their king.
Jesus’ disciples are holy warriors, giving their lives to serve their king.
David’s men are tired and hungry, so God provides holy bread to sustain them.
Jesus’ disciples are hungry, so Jesus provides food to sustain them.
This also makes sense of another couple of details.
(1) Why would the Pharisees react with such hostility at the end of this section of the Gospel (Luke 6:11)? In part, perhaps, because of the implied parallel between them and Saul. The typology “You’re-a-bit-like-Saul” has never been very popular.
(2) Where does the food come from? In 1 Samuel 21, it comes from the holy place – the sanctuary. In Luke 6, it comes from the fields. But this is not a replacement of holy food with unholy food. It’s a new kind of holiness. Previously, the holy things were confined to the sanctuary; now the holiness of God has overflowed from the sanctuary into the land on its way out into the world. Now that Christ has come, holiness is found wherever he is found.
Sniggering teenage boys - 7 February 2012
Bible translators tend to be rather coy with Judges 3:22.. The anglicised ESV does a pretty good job: “And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the excrement came out.”
Other versions of the ESV (yes, there are other versions of the English “Standard” Version – lots of them, with more following in the third (!) edition) replace “excrement” with “dung”.
Well, OK, fair enough. At least it’s better than the NIV’s lame attempt to render the final phrase: “the fat closed in over it.” Right, whatever. After all that effort, Ehud, that’s how the NIV translators think your exploits should be remembered. And to think that you had to put up with that revolting smell…
Ideally, we want a word that conveys the biological details while raising the appropriate giggles from the church’s younger members. “Pooh” would probably do it. Almost. The Hebrew parshedon is not an expletive, but neither is it the kind of description you’d get from a coroner. It’s the word we all use for the stuff we all know he’s talking about, except that we don’t use it in polite company.
Ironically, that’s exactly what the translators are trying to avoid: generations of teenage boys gathering around Bibles after church to snigger at all the naughty bits, and then to insist that the same linguistic conventions should apply at Sunday lunch when Great Aunt Mabel comes to visit. (Lads: For the sake of clarity and the avoidance of all doubt, the fact that a particular word is found in the Bible does not by itself mean that the same word is appropriate in other contexts. You’ll need a better argument than that.)
It’s a shame, really, because one important reason what Judges 3:22 says what it says is precisely to give teenage boys something to laugh at – the stinking mess in the throne-room of a Pagan King.
Let’s try that again… - 3 February 2012
Apologies for the glitch in the recent Forum talk on The State – the wrong talk somehow got uploaded to the server. The problem has now been fixed, and you can listen to the whole thing right here. (HT: BP)
Proclaim Freedom - 3 February 2012
If you think the following demands are reasonable, you can say so online at the Barnabas Fund.
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.
A humbling and enlightening exercise - 3 February 2012
Do you want to learn a little more about yourself?
Try filling this in for a week.
14. Free Will - 3 February 2012
|
|
Introduction
We remain on the doctrine of sin and its effects in week 14 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course, as we consider the effects of sin on the human will. After a brief detour into John Murray’s Imputation of Adam’s Sin, we’re back with Calvin’s Institutes, II.ii (1:255-289). Murray led us through a consideration of the imputation of Adam’s sin, guilt and corrupt nature to his posterity; Calvin now explores the effect of this inherited corruption on our capacity for good and evil, and in particular the tricky subject of Free Will.
We’ll try to achieve two things in this tutorial. First, as usual, we’ll work through the reading to seek to grasp what Calvin is saying. Second, we’ll step back slightly and try to get a fuller picture of what the Bible teaches about the relationship between human freedom, human sin, human moral responsibility, and God’s sovereignty. This will take us into the work of Jonathan Edwards, though you won’t need to read anything from his writings before the tutorial.
If you’re pressed for time, skip fairly quickly over sections 2-9 of Calvin, and omit the questions marked with a *.
Outline
- Discussion of Calvin, Institutes, II.ii.
- Broader discussion of human freedom, moral responsibility, divine sovereignty, etc.
Questions for reflection
i. “If God is sovereign, he can’t blame me for my sin.” Discuss.
ii. Can unbelievers do good? Explain your answer, with examples if possible.
iii. Can believers do good? Explain your answer, with examples if possible.
Study questions
1. What question does Calvin set out “to investigate more closely” (II.ii.1)?
2. What are “the perils that threaten man on both sides” (II.ii.1)? How does Calvin urge us to avoid them?
In II.ii.2-9 Calvin expounds the views of various philosophers and theologians on the subject of the human will. He discusses “the philosophers” such as Cicero, Plato and Aristotle (sections 2-3); the church fathers (section 4); Lombard (sections 5-7); Augustine (section 8); before summarising his view of them in section 9.
*3. What do “the philosophers” believe about human capacity for good and evil (II.ii.2-3)?
*4. What does Calvin think about the doctrine of the freedom of the will espoused by the Church Fathers (II.ii.4)?
*5. Lombard declares at the end of II.ii.6 that “we have free will, not in that we are equally capable of doing or thinking good and evil, but merely that we are freed from compulsion.” What does Calvin think of this statement (II.ii.7)? Do you share Calvin’s reservation here?
After a brief introduction to this part of the chapter at the start of II.ii.12, Calvin discusses in turn the effect of the fall on man’s “understanding” (II.ii.12-17) and spiritual discernment” (II.ii.18-21).
6. What effect, according to Calvin, has the fall had on humanity’s “natural gifts” and “supernatural gifts” (II.ii.12)? Do you agree with this distinction? What effect did the fall have on the will (II.ii.12)?
7. How does Calvin account for the competence of unbelievers in fields such as art and science (II.ii.14-16)? Do you agree? You might find it helpful to look also at section II.iii.3.
8. What does Calvin believe fallen human reason is able (and unable) to discern concerning what he calls “God’s Kingdom” and “spiritual insight” (II.ii.18-25)? Do you agree?
9. How does Calvin interpret Romans 2:14-15: “When Gentiles, who do not have the law, do the works of the law, they are a law to themselves … and show that the work of the law is written on their hearts” (II.ii.22)? Do you agree with this interpretation?
29. Covenant and Election - 3 February 2012
|
|
Introduction
In recent weeks we’ve looked at the outworking of God’s plan of salvation in history (O. Palmer Robertson on Covenant Theology in The Christ of the Covenants) and the origin of God’s plan of salvation in eternity (John Calvin on the doctrine of election). We now bring these two topics together with an article by American theologian and Pastor John Barach entitled “Covenant and Election” (pp. 15-44 in The Federal Vision, ed. S. Wilkins and D. Garner [Monroe: Athanasius Press, 2004]).
This article helps us to think through the practical and pastoral relevance of the doctrine of election. In particular, it highlights some problems which (according to Barach) can arise from a common Reformed misunderstanding of the doctrine of election, and proposes what he regards as a more biblical alternative which avoids these problems.
It’s important to realise here that Barach is discussing an issue about which there is disagreement within the Reformed tradition. This is helpfully reflected in the gracious and measured tone of Barach’s article – a tone which of course should characterise all such discussions. At the same time, the pastoral issues at stake are potentially quite significant, and Barach’s article therefore rightly poses some challenging questions, which if we are wise we will want to engage with in a clear-headed and robust way.
Questions for reflection
i. What is “assurance of salvation”?
ii. Can assurance of salvation be experienced? If so, how?
iii. Does the doctrine of election have anything to do with assurance?
iv. Should a professing believer ever be excluded from the Lord’s Table? Why or why not?
Study questions
1. How, according to Barach, should we approach the subject of election (pp. 15-17)? What particular mistakes must we take care to avoid (pp. 15-17)?
For reflection: Do you notice here any echoes of Calvin’s approach to the doctrine of election (see Institutes, III.xxi. 1-4)?
2. What does Barach believe about the doctrine of predestination? (pp. 17-18)
3. “There are [Reformed] churches where perhaps twenty out of seven hundred partake of the Lord’s Supper” (p. 19). What flawed logic leads to this practice (p. 19)? What response does Barach make briefly on p. 19?
For reflection: How do you think you would feel if you, as a believer, were refused admission to the Lord’s Table (either at your church or elsewhere)?
Barach now summarises two views on the relationship between election and the covenant: (1) The Arminian view; and (2) What he calls “one Reformed view” which is “more popular in our circles.”
Let’s look at the Arminian view first.
4. How does Barach summarise the Arminian position on election (pp. 19-20)?
*5. Read the following extract from Francis Turretin’s description of the Arminian doctrine of election:
“[The Arminians] attribute a certain causality to faith, so that God is moved by its foresight to choose this rather than that one … Moreover, they make a twofold decree of election: the first general, of saving believers; the second special, of saving individuals by name whom God foresaw would believe” (Turretin, Institutes, IV.xi.7; 1:356-357).
Does Barach agree with Turretin about the Arminian doctrine of election? If not, how do they differ?
Now let’s look at what Barach calls “one Reformed view” which is “more popular in our circles.”
6. What is the other view of election and the covenant which is “more popular in our circles” (p. 20)?
7. “This view presents a number of pastoral problems” (p. 20). What are these problems (pp. 20-21)? What happens “if we hold this view consistently” (p. 21)?
For reflection: Do you agree with Barach that this view of election and the covenant will tend to produce the problems he describes?
Having outlined this second view of the relationship between covenant and election, Barach now proceeds to critique it, and to propose an alternative view.
8. What point does Barach seek to make from Hebrews 10 and John 15?
For reflection: Do you agree with this exegesis of Hebrews 10 and John 15?
9. What alternative view about “the relationship between covenant and election” does Barach propose (p. 23)? Who else (according to Barach) also held this view? (Barach also discusses the historical pedigree of this view on pp. 39-41.)
According to Barach, some who hold this view distinguish sharply between covenant and election (bottom of p. 23). However, he argues, “This isn’t the way Scripture speaks” (p. 24).
10. How, according to Barach, does Scripture use the language of God’s “chosen ones” and “elect ones” (pp. 24-26)? What texts does Barach mention in this context?
11. “The Old Testament election involved the whole body and it involved history. But that was the Old Testament. Election revealed in the New Testament is a different kind of election” (p. 27). How does Barach reply (pp. 27-31)?
For reflection: What do you think of Barach’s response? Do the following New Testament texts add anything to this discussion?
- 1 Corinthians 10
- Jude 5
- Romans 9-11, especially Romans 11:17-21
12. “We need to hold three things together as we think about the relationship between covenant and election” (p. 31). What are these three things (pp. 31-32)?
*13. What will happen “If we try to do our theologizing and our pastoring and our speaking to God’s people from the perspective of God’s eternal predestination” (p. 32) rather than from the perspective of the covenant (pp. 32-33)?
14. Barach discusses several possible descriptions of someone who is a member of God’s covenant people for a time but then falls away (p. 36)? What are these different descriptions? What are their strengths and weaknesses?
15. “If apostasy is a real danger, can we ever have assurance?” (p. 39). If so, how?
For reflection: Has Barach’s article changed the way you think about assurance of salvation? If so, how?
« Previous Entries Next Entries »