oakleys.org.uk

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)

The United Nations was set up in the aftermath of the World War II “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind” (Preamble to the UN Charter, 1945).

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.

Speaker: Steve Jeffery

Some highlights from The hospitality of God, a sermon on Mark 2 preached on 7 March at Emmanuel by Steve Hayhow.

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.

Preacher: Steve Hayhow

If you’re free and somewhere near Gunnersbury Baptist Church, West London, at 3pm on Sunday 21 March, then you might want to drop in on this highly-acclaimed production telling the story of the missionary Hudson Taylor.

Some audience comments: “Riveting,” “moving,” “outstanding,” “challenging.”

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?

“I used to be a Christian, but then I kind of drifted away from God. I thought I still believed in him, but I didn’t go to church for years, really. But then this happened. I tried to pray again, and I really wanted to get back in touch with God. Went to church and everything. Trouble is, I realised that I no longer believed in God at all.”

What you need is to start rebuilding from the ground up. When you’ve neglected something for so long, the best way forward is to start from scratch. Actually, you’ve forgotten most of what you used to know, and what you can remember is probably wrong anyway.

I call it rusty bike syndrome.

Imagine: you used to have a bike, when you were a kid. Used to ride it all the time. But then one winter you put it away in the shed, and the following spring you never got it out again. There it lay, gathering dust and accumulating rust for years on end. If people asked you whether you had a bike, you’d say, “Yeah, sure I do.” You just never rode it.

Then, one day, you really needed a bike for something, so you went to the shed to fetch the old two-wheeler. But when you finally managed to haul it out, the tyres were flat, the chain was broken, and the handlebars were so rusted that you could hardly turn them. Besides this, it was about 15 inches too small for you.

What are you going to do? A drop of oil here, lick of paint there? Hardly. Get off down to the shop and get one that’s more your size.

Or: open up a Bible and start at the beginning.

Hebrews 2:1-3 says, “Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?”

With great privilege comes great responsibility. God’s Old Covenant people had heard his voice and received the Law that was given to Moses through angels, and they were required to humble themselves before him.

We have received a far greater revelation – the gospel of Christ. We have far greater privileges  – access to the holy places through our great High Priest, the Lord Jesus, whose one sacrifice covers all our sins. How much more, then, must we take care to confess our sins and repent before him.

Preacher: Steve Jeffery

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 time is coming – indeed, in some quarters it has already come – when evangelicals, especially evangelical leaders, will need to take a stand against unbiblical attitudes in the public square. This will require courage, since proclaiming the gospel to people who don’t want to hear it seldom results in increased popularity, and no one enjoys being despised.

At the same time, we should remember that the true test of Christian integrity comes not when we need to stand against those who hate us, but when we need to challenge our friends. It’s one thing to confront the unbelieving world, whose opinion of us we have rightly learned to disregard. It’s another matter to expose deceit and ungodliness among those close to us, whose good opinion we may be tempted to covet just a little too much.

After all, generations of wicked Israelites managed to summon up contempt for the Pagan nations of the world. But Phinehas received a covenant of eternal priesthood when he slayed the fornicator within the camp (Numbers 25), and the Levites were set apart for Temple service because they put to death their idolatrous brothers (Exodus 32).

The true test of character for an evangelical leader is not public, but private. Frankly, if doesn’t take much to stand up to the predictable and yawn-inducing hostility of the mainstream press, since at this point his Christian friends (his real audience?) can be relied upon to cheer from the sidelines. But will he have the courage to expose the hidden deceit of behind-the-scenes church politics, when to do so may cost him friends (and preferment) he really values?

Preacher: Steve Jeffery

People keep asking for a copy of the questionnaire that we use at Emmanuel when we do open-air and door-to-door evangelism. Maybe this has got something to do with it. Well, here goes.

It’s not rocket science, nor is it original to us, nor do we necessarily follow it very closely in practice. It’s also constantly evolving as we find new and better ways of engaging with people in our community.

We try to keep remembering that we’re primarily interested in people, not demographic data. After all, it’s people that God cares about. These questions are designed to help us overcome our nerves and get talking to them. We try to treat each question as a conversation-starter, a way to get to know the person we’re talking to.

With those caveats and qualifications in place, here goes:

1. What do you do during the week?
2. What things are most important to you? Why?
3. What do you think is wrong with the world?
4. What do you think is the root cause of the problems in the world?
5. Would you describe yourself as religious?
6. What do you know about Jesus Christ?
7. If you could ask God one question, what would it be?
8. If it were possible to know God personally, would you want to?

One American Pastor (John Piper) talks to another (Douglas Wilson) about how the latter got on in a recent friendly head-to-head with atheist Christopher Hitchens.

Click here and scroll down for the video. Scroll down a bit further for a clip of Wilson vs. Hitchens.

In the next few weeks, someone will probably ask you, “What are you giving up for Lent?” I want to offer a couple of thoughts on this subject.

Before we begin, though, I need to stress that what follows is certainly not everything that needs to be said on this subject. The significance of Lent is related to many other issues such as the place of fasting in the Christian life, the significance of the church year, and so on. These are too complicated to discuss here, and nothing that follows should be understood as a definitive statement on these subjects.

You’ll also notice that I’m not even saying whether or not I think we should observe Lent. That’s deliberate. How and why we do what we do is at least as important here as what we do. With that in mind, let me make three comments about observing (or not observing) Lent that some may find helpful.

First, the way that the above question is phrased (What are you giving up) gets us off on precisely the wrong foot. It focuses on abstinence rather than activity, and on us rather than Christ. If you’re going to “do something” for Lent, make sure the focus is not on self-deprivation or inactivity. Instead, focus on devoting yourself positively on someting spiritually beneficial (30 minutes a day reading your Bible or some other Christian book, a few minutes praying or reading through the Psalms, or whatever). Pursue abstinence or self-deprivation only if it helps you pursue these positive goals: missing a meal or getting up a bit earlier, for example, so that you have more time to read or pray.

Second, remember that Sunday is still Resurrection Day, even during the period of Lent. Strictly speaking, of course, the Sundays between Ash Wednesday and Easter aren’t part of Lent at all. Do the sums: Ash Wednesday (17 Feb) to Holy Saturday (3 April) is 46 days; take away the 6 Sundays and you’re left with the 40 days of Lent. Sunday is still a day of celebration, so let’s keep it that way. Don’t let Lent leak into Sundays.

Finally, don’t judge others who do things different from you. Of course it’s possible to observe Lent in a spirit of more-pious-than-thou self-righteousness. It’s also possible that not observing Lent may reflect an attitude of indifference and laziness. I’m not sure which is worse, and, thankfully, these are not the only options. But we all need to beware of assuming that we know why people are doing things differently from ourselves. Paul’s comments in Romans 14:3, though not written with Lent in mind, are certainly relevant here: “Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.”

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)

Another flash of inspiration from Mark Horne’s wonderful little commentary on Mark’s Gospel, this time concerning Mark 4:35-5:20. Jesus rescues his disciples from a stormy sea, before driving out “Legion” from a demon-possessed man.

There’s a fairly obvious link between the calming of the storm and Moses leading the Israelites across the Red Sea (4:35-41). But Horne takes it further by highlighting the connection to the next passage. “Legion,” says Horne, is “a military term for a great number of soldiers.”And lots of strange things happen in this (extended) exorcism account. Like the demons (soldiers?) get drowned in the sea.

Ringing any bells yet? Over to Mr Horne again:

Jesus has just brought [His disciples] through the sea by a miracle and now He drives a demonic horde into that same sea to drown them. Like Moses at the Red Sea, the enemy army is destroyed by the very means God uses to transport His people across the water. (pp. 94-95)

I’ll leave you to chew over why Mark bothers to mention that before being liberated the demon-possessed man was always “bruising himself with stones” (5:5). (Genesis 3:15; Judges 5:26; 9:53; etc).

There’s a good deal about food and drink in the book of Micah. Sometimes it’s connected with positive themes of prosperity and blessing; sometimes it carries much more negative overtones.

For an example of the latter, consider Micah 6:14-15.

14 You shall eat, but not be satisfied, and there shall be hunger within you; you shall put away, but not preserve, and what you preserve I will give to the sword. 15You shall sow, but not reap; you shall tread olives, but not anoint yourselves with oil; you shall tread grapes, but not drink wine.

This is the kind of eating that produces no satisfaction; the kind of drinking that leaves a ravaging thirst. Like eating stale bread and drinking salt water.

Or perhaps it’s like drinking sour wine (Mark 15:36), or drinking the cup of the wrath of the LORD (Mark 13:36), as Jesus did as he suffered on the cross for our sins.

In the hand of the LORD is a cup full of foaming wine mixed with spices; he pours it out, and all the wicked of the earth drink it down to its very dregs. (Ps. 75:8)

Awake, awake! Rise up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of the LORD the cup of his wrath, you who have drained to its dregs the goblet that makes men stagger. (Isa. 51:17)

This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: ‘Take from my hand this cup filled with the wine of my wrath and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they drink it, they will stagger and go mad because of the sword I will send among them.’ (Jer. 25:15-16)

This is what the Sovereign Lord says: ‘You will drink your sister’s cup, a cup large and deep; it will bring scorn and derision, for it holds so much. You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, the cup of ruin and desolation, the cup of your sister Samaria. You will drink it and drain it dry; you will dash it to pieces and tear your breasts.’ I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. (Ezek. 23:32-34)

You will be filled with shame instead of glory. Now it is your turn! Drink and be exposed! The cup from the LORD’s right hand is coming round to you, and disgrace will cover your glory. (Hab. 2:16)

It is because Jesus drank like this that we may enjoy the other kind of eating and drinking pictured by the prophet Micah:

They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks … they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken. (Micah 3:3-4)

Preacher: Steve Jeffery