On Jesus getting his hands (sinlessly) dirty in a messed-up world: “Jesus comes down and sits on the floor, in the dirt, and eats with sinners.”

On being friends with non-Christians: “If someone has a problem with you being friends with non-Christians, they have the problem.”

On Jesus’ commitment to people rather than programmes: “Jesus is not the CEO of the world; he’s our elder brother … Jesus didn’t sit down with his twelve board members and say, ‘Right, let’s review our strategy.’”

Really? Why should this be surprising? Doesn’t the Bible itself teach clearly the full deity and full humanity of Christ? Granted that there is in Ignatius “a lack of [the] theological argumentation” (p. xxiii) one finds in later treatments, why should we be surprised to find an early Christian affirming bluntly what the Bible says plainly?

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)

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.

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)

Approximately 16 million people died in World War I, and between 50 and 70 million in World War II. It’s easy to see why the UN was thought necessary.

But between 1945 and 2000, approximately 40 millon more people died in war. That’s around 2000 people per day. The UN has evidently failed in its aim, despite the billions of pounds that have been spent in pursuit of its objectives.

Fortunately, the Bible not only tells us why the UN (and every other human attempt to promote unity without acknowledging the living God) has failed, but also explains where a true and lasting solution to human conflict may be found. In a nutshell, here it is.

The more trouble you’re in, the bigger mess you’re in, the more likely it is you’re being drawn to Jesus.

The gospel is basically hospitality. It’s the hospitality of God.

Everyone with a problem comes to Jesus’ house.

The Kingdom of God is the upside-down kingdom.