Four dimensions of alienation

From Krish Kandiah's personal reflection on Lesslie's Newbigin's influence on him:

In “Sin and Salvation”, (Newbigin 1956) a book Newbigin wrote on the boat journey as he travelled out to India, he explained how sin amounts to four dimensions of alienation. In a chapter entitled “What is Salvation?” he outlines this four-dimensional schema as follows:

• Man is in a state of contradiction against the natural world
• Man is in a state of contradiction against his fellow man
• Man is in a state of inner self-contradiction
• Man is in a state of contradiction against God

Union with Christ

I think union with Christ is in the first instance:

• Marriage - a new relationship with the Son

Married couples share what they have and give their whole selves to each other, so this union means:

• Adoption - sharing Christ's relationship with the Father (...which leads to...)
• Inheritance - sharing Christ's relationship with the Spirit (...which leads to...)
• Baptism, Mortification->Vivification etc - sharing Christ's story of his relationship to his own humanity - killing the old cursed humanity in us to experience the new blessed humanity by the Spirit (...which leads to...)
• Giving - sharing Christ's story of his relationship to the world - self-sacrifice to bring others life

... or something like that. Any thoughts? I'm not sure that I've got it quite right.

A friend asked what would be a good book on the doctrine of Union with Christ. I can think of good books emphasising one or the other aspect I've listed, but not one that has the broad scope I think covers all of what it means to be in union with Christ. Any suggestions?

The greedy grave spewing up life

Listening to: Regina Spektor

Scripture often personifies the grave as exceedingly greedy; here is an all devouring foe with a ravenous appetite... Proverbs 30:15-16 declares that just as the "leach as two daughters" who constantly cry "Give," so Sheol is never content; it never cries, "Enough."

But Jesus defeats this all-consuming foe by way of gift, that is, by pouring out his soul into death (Isa. 53:12). By sending his Son to die, God fills to overflowing even the depths of death itself with the uncontainable fullness of his own infinite life. Only God could do this. The gift of God alone satisfies that which is "never satisfied." Withinin the miracle of Jesus' deep descent, the grave is forced to cry out "Enough!" It cannot hold God.

Here we notice the extreme irony of this picture: the grave itself becomes a giver, yielding before Jesus' infinite life. After the three days, the gave spews forth the life-giving One, the Son, just as teh great fist "vomited Jonah out upon the dry land" (Jonah 2:10; cf. Matt. 12:38-42; Luke 11:29-32)

(pp. 177-178, Kelly M. Kapic, with Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity)

After spewing forth bucket loads of quotations from this book, you will be pleased to know I have finished it so there will be no more. I think it is an excellent book though. Highly recommended!

A confession

I love mankind, but I am amazed at myself: the more I love mankind in general, the less I love people in particular.

(Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov)

Surging forward with a shout

we are like the armies of Israel who, after the giant Goliath fell dead before David, "surged forward with a shout" (1 Sam. 17:52, NIV). We do not defeat the giant for ourselves, nor do we establish God's kingdom in our power. But having already witnessed the victory, we are called to "surge forward" and join the fight.

(p. 129, Kelly M. Kapic, with Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity)

Three aspects of repentance

"When Peter calls his listeners to 'repent', he is calling them to change

• their whole orientation toward God, as well as
• how they view themselves and
• [how they view] the world...

Peter, the close companion of Jesus, has been transformed in his own understanding of God, himself, and the world.

• He, who first confessed Jesus as Messiah and believed this man would conquer as the new King, has recently witnessed his leader die a brutal death.
• He, who once envisioned himself as loyal and righteous, is now painfully aware of his own sin and weakness through his denial and fear.
• He, who had assumed Yahweh's concern and love was exclusively for the nation of Israel, now discovers with ever-growing clarity that God is concerned with the renewal of the entire world...

that necessarily entails a kind of disorientation and reorientation that simultaneously shakes up and revitalizes every area of his life."

(formatting mine, pp. 122-123, Kelly M. Kapic, with Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity)

Firstfruits

As good a summary as you will read on firstfruits in the Bible:

In the Old Testament the firstfruits offering was not only the beginning but also the best part of the whole harvest. As a gift that represented the totality, it was both the first and the finest portion of everything the Promised Land produced. Accordingly, when Paul tells us that God has given us the firstfruits of the Spirit, he is saying that we have received not only the beginning, but also a taste of the best part of the fullness God has planned for the future.

This language shifts the picture from God as recipient to God as giver. Israel's understanding of firstfruits was always as something given to God. Yet now it is God who gives to us the firstfruits...the God of the universe gives offerings to the likes of us and that choice offering is himself...

God's new creation began with Jesus' resurrection - which explains why he is called the 'firstfruits' from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20, 23) - and continues with his Spirit... those who are in Christ and have received the Spirit are now themselves called 'the firstfruits,' having been saved and sanctified by the Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13; James 1:18; Rev. 14:4).

(p. 102, Kelly M. Kapic, with Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity)

Random underlined bits

A few random quotes from chapter 4 of God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity by Kelly M. Kapic, with Justin L. Borger.

"God takes everything back by giving everything away... God reclaims ownership by paying an exorbitant price for what was already his." (p.70)

"He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place... Though the people did not tremble, the earth trembled. though the people were not afraid, the heavens were afraid" (Melito of Sardis, p.71)

"Once redeemed by God we are no longer described as slaves to sin, but surprisingly we are still described as 'slaves.' Paul concludes that 'having been set free from sin, [we] have become slaves of righteousness' (Rom. 6:18-19). Later he describes believers as 'slaves of God' (6:22). By itself, the illustration of slavery is an inadequate representation of what it means to belong to God. In fact, Paul himself seems to recognise this when he admits that he put this 'in human terms' (6:19)... While slavery is a good image in the sense that it suggests God's full lordship and our complete submission, it is also undesirable and problematic because of the hardship it suggests." (p.75)

Kelly Kapic

Kelly Kapic is a guy I think you would all love. I am reading and loving God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity. As you can see there is a lot of love going around, and it is Trinitarian love, Evangelical love, Historically-rooted love, and spreading love.

His background is in the study of John Owen (particularly the Trinitarian classic, Communion with God). He reminds me quite a bit of another former student of Colin Gunton; a certain Mike Reeves (in his theology at least).

Here is a taste of some stuff of his on the internet. But you should read his books (as this rather varied group of luminaries agree).

MP3 lecture: "Evangelical Holiness: Assumptions in John Owen’s Theology of Christian Spirituality" (WSC 2010)

Video of the same lecture:

"Evangelical Holiness" by Dr. Kelly Kapic from Westminster Seminary California on Vimeo.

MP3 lecture: Walking with God: John Owen's Vision of the Christian Life (Life in the Spirit: Spiritual Formation in Theological Perspective, 18th Annual Wheaton College Theology Conference, April 16-18, 2009)

MP3 sermon: "John 3:16-18: God So Loved He Gave" (New City Fellowship Church (PCA), March 30, 2008)

Article: "Are We There Yet: An Exploration of Romans 8," Modern Reformation, Vol. 15, Num. 4, (July/Aug 2006)

Article: "Simul Iustus et Peccator" (Tabletalk magazine)

Render to God the things that are God's

'Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."' (Matt 22:20-21)

'the language Jesus used here for "image" is eikon, from which we get the English word "icon." In a word, Jesus was able to take us back to the garden, back to the beginning, back to Adam and Eve. The denarius coin might have been made in the emperor's image. But Adam and Eve were "minted" in God's image and likeness - all human beings (including Caesar) have been made as icons of God, imaging the Creator and serving as his representatives in the world...

'Jesus makes it clear that God is not merely interested in our wallets, he wants all of us because he is the Creator of all. Since we are made in God's image - since we are imprinted with the image of God - we should render everything we have, our very selves, to him.

'But who has given everything to God? Who has lived a life poured out for others with a pure heart, upheld justice and righteousness, avoided sin completely, both publicly and privately? Who has loved God with their whole heart, soul, strength, and mind? Who has consistently loved neighbor as oneself? We owe what we cannot pay, discarding what we should love and diminishing what we should exalt. Thus, we find ourselves left with the age-old question posed by Jesus himself when he asked, "What shall a man give in return for his soul?" (Matt. 16:26)...

'Here we encounter the unspoken paradox of Jesus' encounter with the Pharisees. For only Jesus is able "to render to God the things that are God's." Only he can give what is required in exchange for our lives. Thus as he offers himself, he offers himself as a substitute for us, in our place. The paradox of Jesus' response here is that we owe everything to God but we cannot give it, so God himself will give what he demands. This will be God's great gift to the world: himself.'

(pp. 66-67, Kelly M. Kapic, with Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity)

As I read this I marvelled. This is the old, old story of substitutionary atonement. Yet it never fails to move my heart that God the Father would give his Son to pay the debt I owe. I've heard it thousands of times, but it never looses it's shine. There is nothing like it!

Man curved in on himself

I've been wondering about the origin of this definition of sin for a while. Kelly Kapic unpacks it.

First Augustine identified that we stop loving God and start loving his material gifts:

"St Augustine spoke of sin as that which bends or curves us to the ground, making us more like the beasts and less like the God whom we were to image. He speculated that we were created to have our heads and hearts raised toward Yahweh, and that sin is that which turns our gaze from him."

Then

Martin Luther picked up this imagery in the Reformation, arguing that sin actually bends or curves us upon ourselves (homo incurvatus in se). We were disigned to embrace God and others, but instead we are now consumed with ourselves.

(p. 37, Kelly M. Kapic, With Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity)

So we stop loving God and start loving ourselves. Finally, Melanchthon made the further step of locating that work in the heart.

Choice is not freedom

Christian proclamation should have criticized the Western ideology of freedom by telling the public that having choices doesn't mean freedom. The alcohol-addicted person or the drug-addicted person is also making choices. The problem is that he or she always makes the same choice - to take the drug or drink the bottle - again and again. Having choices doesn't yet guarantee freedom.

(Wolfhart Pannenberg cited in p.37, Kelly M. Kapic, With Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity)

Everything bears the stamp of the hidden God

"What can be seen on earth indicates neither total absence, nor the manifest presence of divinity, but the presence of a hidden God. Everything bears this stamp."

(Blaise Pascal, Pensees, cited in p.35, Kelly M. Kapic, With Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity)

I don't think that Pascal intended it, but that chimes with a Lutheran approach to natural theology (esp. if you understand the Lutheran concept of "the Hidden God".

Prohibition and provision in paradise

As Bruce Waltke describes it, Satan distorts the perspective of our first parents by emphasizing God's one prohibition, not his provision:

Adam and Eve are surrounded by wonderful trees and provisions in the garden, including the tree of life, but all Eve can see is the one tree of which they cannot partake. Once Satan can get our eyes on what we cannot do, we are sure to do it.

The garden is Paradise: if humanity fails in this ideal setting, then there is no hope for humanity to keep faith anywhere else... In contrast to much sociological thinking, namely, that the way to improve humans is to improve their environment, humanity at its best rebels in the perfect environment. Sodom and Gomorrah, where humanity sunk to the lowest levels of violence and sex, was at the time like the "garden of the LORD" (Gen. 13:10). Our modern world is no better.

(pp. 31-32, Kelly M. Kapic, With Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity, citing p102, 101, Bruce Waltke with Cathi Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary)

Rich in giving

Romans 11:36:

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

These simple words of praise give an all-encompassing view of the world and its purpose. All things come from God, are sustained through him, and will eventually flow back to him as the ultimate Owner of everything...

God did not create to satisfy any inadequacy or need of his own, but out of the fullness of his delight and love, this delight and love flow to the creatures as generosity and back to God as thanksgiving and praise...Our good has by his hand become a means of God's ultimate glory, intrinsically connected (cf. Ezek. 36:22-27)...

As God's giving does not impoverish but enriches him, so we as we offer back to God the fits he has given and sanctified in us, are enriched in his glory and satisfied in and through him.

(pp.24-25, Kelly M. Kapic, With Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity)

Theological prolegomenon

This is all a bit niche interest, although it is pretty sweeping in its scope. It is a useful survey of two different responses to the Enlightenment critique of natural theology:

Prior to the Enlightenment, Lutheran scholastic orthodoxy used the concept of the natural knowledge of God to demonstrate God's existence. The Bible, by way of contrast, was regarded as a supernatural source of supernatural revelation. When this scheme was subjected to the critique of the Enlightenment, the consequence was that language about God became irrelevant to genuine knowledge, and the pathway was cleared for modern secularity. But Luther's theme of the law as the antithesis of the gospel had the potential of escaping the Kantian critique. Thus Lutheran theology would have in the category “law” a prolegomenon to the gospel which could make the transition from pre-modern to modern culture without giving up its essential proclamation. If "law" means whatever calls us into question before God, then we can see it functioning as prolegomenon in theologians as diverse as Theodosius Harnack (d. 1889), Werner Elert (d. 1954), and Paul Tillich (d. 1965), as well as in the work of contemporary Lutheran theologians Gerhard Forde and Robert Jenson.

Karl Barth's response to the critique of the Enlightenment and to the Liberal theology of the 19th Century was to reject the idea of prolegomenon altogether. If grace is revelation and revelation is grace, then the antithesis between law and gospel simply disappears. The revelation of God, whether law or gospel, is gracious.

(pp. 414-415, Walter R Bouman, "The Concept of the 'Law' in the Lutheran Tradition" Word & World 3/4 (1983))

The whole article is fairly good. I think the author is right that there are strengths and weaknesses in both responses.

Wisdom on reading well (part 2): Tom Torrance

Part two of a series about lessons authors have given me on how to read the Bible.

I've recently posted notes of Thomas Torrance's very detailed and carefully thought through principles for learning. They all deserve meditating on. I also recently read this by him:

Normally when one reads an author one understands what he says be looking with him at the 'object' to which he points or which he describes, but early in the nineteenth century there grew up the tendency to study the text of an author in its correlation with the 'subject' or the author himself rather than in its correlation with the objective reality he intended, and so to read it as an expression of his individuality or genius [...] Applied to the New Testament, however, this meant that the focus of attention was not so much upon Jesus Christ himself in his ontological reality as Son of God become man, or even as objective historical figure, but upon the creative spirituality of the early Church"

(pp. 35-36, TF Torrance, Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian)

The terrifying and comforting Triune God who is love!

1. Why the loving community of the Trinity is terrifying

The Father has loved the Son by the Spirit for all eternity. Before we were born the three persons of the Trinity were dancing and conversing together singing the praises of one another. They couldn't love each other more.

...and we killed the Father's only Son.

His wrath will be devastating (Mark 12:1-9).

2. Why the loving community of the Trinity is comforting

The Father has loved the Son by the Spirit for all eternity. Before we were born the three persons of the Trinity were dancing and conversing together singing the praises of one another. They couldn't love each other more.

...and the Father gave us his relationship with his only Son when he sent his Son to die and raised the New Adam from the dead; and the Son gave us his relationship with the Father by calling us brothers as he queued with sinners to be baptised by John and went to die between two robbers; and the Spirit has caught us up into this eternal loving community by breaking into our hearts and opening them to God.

We rejoice, and by his Spirit we intensely and eternally love the Father and Son.

What is the difference?

1. is the Trinity expelling foreign objects and destroying them.
2. is the Trinity including foreign objects in Christ and transforming them.

1. is the Trinity acting understandably.
2. is the Trinity acting incomprehensibly in Christ crucified.

1. is the Trinity acting in the Son's divine nature.
2. is the Trinity acting in the Son's hypostatic union.

1. is the Trinity speaking to us.
2. is the Trinity speaking to us by speaking to the Father in Christ.

1. is God in his eternal being, our act apart from Christ, and his response.
2. is God in his eternal being, his act in Christ on our behalf, and our response.

1. is thinking about the Trinity from the outside - looking in through the windows.
2. is thinking about the Trinity when we've been brought in from the cold.

1. is law.
2. is Gospel.

1. is death to us.
2. is life to us.

The difference is not whether we are talking about the Triune God who is love or some other God.

The loving community of the Trinity is never good news apart from Christ going to the cross for us.

Crayons v. Prayer

We pray to the real Jesus where he is now. We reach children's hearts not by offering them crayons to draw Jesus, but by showing them how to talk to him. He is real, and is not a picture.

(p.32, Edmund Clowney, How Jesus Transforms the Ten Commandments)

A false dichotomy but you get his point.

New edition of Christianity Explored in May

I love Christianity Explored, although I usually tweak bits. But I'm genuinely excited by the changes announced by Barry Cooper:

We’ve made some big changes, based on years of collated feedback. Some of the changes are under the hood, but some are much more conspicuous. For example:

• the DVD has been completely reshot. It retains the best script elements from before, but adds a wealth of new material. Visually and aesthetically, we’re in very different territory.
• each session (Bible study + DVD + discussion) focuses on only one theme, making the course leaner and more logical.
• the session on Grace has been completely rewritten, the session on Resurrection completely reworked, and there is a brand new session based on Jesus’ parable of the Sower.
• we’ve simplified the resources by incorporating the How To Run The Course book into the Leader’s Guide. That means you only need two booklets (one for the leader and one for the guest) plus a DVD to run Christianity Explored.
• up to this point, CE has been a ten week course. Now, it’s a much more streamlined and manageable seven. In addition, there are now only three sessions on the Day Away instead of four.
• unlike the previous edition, every session – including the Day Away – is now grounded in Mark’s Gospel. So although the course is shorter, the walkthrough of Mark is more thorough.

(...more)

Wisdom on reading well (part 1): Michael Reeves

I thought I'd do a little series on advice that has impacted how I read, and in particular how I read the Bible. This is the first piece of advice (not in order of importance by the way!) although it is implicit rather than explicit:

"Luther opened the Bible to find Christ, Zwingli sought more simply to open the Bible." (p.75, Michael Reeves, The Unquenchable Flame: Discovering the Heart of the Reformation)

This one sentence is probably the most important thing to me I read in Mike Reeves's book. It reinforced the video below which I had seen on Dave Bish's blog.

I found that massively personally challenging. Am I reading the Bible with the clear intention to meet Christ and see his glory? If I'm not, I'm perverted in my use of the Bible.

One caveat. It is helps to come to the Bible with questions and a knowledge of Christ beforehand, but we must then allow the Bible to question our questions and our knowledge of Christ so that we don't find exactly the Christ we expected to find. You could argue that Luther did not do that as well as he should have, and that is why he had a bad attitude to James, Revelation etc.

Where is our authority?

Listening to: Mozart: Die Zauberflöte (Klemperer)

The Father's authority: God the Father is the supreme authority, Creator of heaven and earth.

The Son's gifted authority: He has given all authority to his Son (John 17:2). The Father is in him so he carries the Father's authority, but (importantly) he is also in the Father (John 10:38) so while that authority is delegated it is of the very being of the Father that he acts to give authority to the Son whom he loves. It couldn't be any other way.

The Church's gifted authority: By his Spirit the Son abides in his church and we abide in him (John 15:4). It is a mutual indwelling that mirrors the mutual indwelling that the Father and the Son have together (John 17:11). The Son is gifted authority by the Father, the church is gifted authority by the Son. However, Christ is the head of the body because we do not dwell in the Father, and we are one step removed from the Father who is the source of all authority.

The gifted authority of reason and the civil authorities: The authority of the reason and the civil authorities is also derived from the Son. In the New Creation it will merge with the authority of the church as the personel will totally overlap! Even now it cannot be utterly separated because there is some overlap (Christian judges, Christian bosses etc). What distinguishes the two in the present is the word they have been given to speak. The civil authorities are given the word of order (the word of creation - or better 'continuing creation') and church is given the word of the cross (the word of redemption - or 're-creation').

The power and reality of the gift in the word and Spirit: This connection between the Church and Christ is effected by the Spirit which invariably accompanies the words of Christ (John 3:34). The words of Christ, are found for us in the Bible, and secondarily in the Church's word.

The sacramental word of Christ (the Bible): The Son abides in the Bible so that every word is said by him and about him. He fills every corner of the Bible, but he is not the Bible. The Son is the Word of God the Father, but the Bible is the Word of God the Son. It is through the Son's words dwelling in us that he dwells in us (John 15:7).

The sacramental word of the church (the word and sacrament): The Church hears from the Father in the Son. They hear from the Son in the Bible. They also hear from the Son in the word and sacrament, which re-present Christ of the Bible to us in countless fresh ways as he re-engages an ever changing world and individuals in ever changing situations.

The non-sacramental word of the civil authorities: This word creates order in creation but does not bring the Spirit with it. It cannot create from nothing (as the word of the Gospel can) but can only order creation as it is already there.

The difference that the presence of sin makes: We do not find sin present in either the Father's word to us, or in the Son's word to us. However, the church is caught between the ages. It is both Adam and Christ to the world, although constantly in the process of clothing itself with it's new identity in Christ. It dwells in the midst of the world (in the Johannine sense of fallen humanity), but the world also dwells within it, until the new Creation when it will be purged. Therefore the word of the church is fallible. At times it speaks the truth which comes from Christ, and at other times lies which come from the devil. The words of the church need therefore to be tested to see which spirit inspired them (this is true whether the words are prophetic or preached, and also true of sacraments which can be falsely administered). In one sense the Bible is the word of the church, not directly the words of Christ, but because it is untainted by lies of the Devil it has a priority over the church which remains a mixture of truth and lies until the second coming. It is the priority of being a norm by which to judge the words of the church. A prioritising of the church over the Bible is not wholly incorrect because the Bible was written by the church, but reflects a over-realised eschatology.

[I'm less sure about this bit] The difference that the absence of sin will make: The word and sacraments of the church are words of redemption to the fallen, whether in the world without or in world that still dwells in each of our hearts. Therefore when the New Creation is consummated then the church will stop declaring love to a sinful world that finds it difficult to believe because it will be seen and experienced (1 Corinthians 13:9-10). Instead it will experience love (we will no longer be the bride, but the wife) and we will act it out towards the rest of creation. The church will need to continue to speak to the created world as it rules creation as the civil authority, but it will be the word of continual creation not re-creation.

[This is pretty closely argued, and a massively important subject. I'm laying out a whole swathe of my systematic theology here so if you think I'm in error you should say so. This is why I'm not a Catholic, but also why criticism of bibliolatry can be warranted, but doesn't require you to believe in a fallible Bible. I'm sorry that I gave up on the Bible references for lack of time, but think I could give them for most of the sentences if you ask. I'm sorry as well that I didn't have the patience to edit it.]

All the Bs

If you are a geek like me you'll love this little invention from Google labs. They have come up with an application that searches through Google Books to find the frequency of words and phrases in books published over the last 200 years.

Here are the three Bs; Bach, Beethoven and Brahms in English books 1800-2000:

If music isn't your thing and you're a theology geek then you may want to invent another set of Bs; Balthasar, Barth, Bultmann and Brunner in English books 1919-2000 (click on image for a clearer view):

And then compare the difference in German literature:

Of course you can't say too much because you don't really know the sample, and there may be another Barth which everyone is writing about to skew the stats. What conclusions would you tentatively draw though?

Wingren and Calvin on the Sacraments

"The question what the sacraments give over and above the Word often springs from a religion of works. The secret presupposition is: if it cannot be shown that there is some special advantage with the sacraments there is no point in making use of them, we should rather content ourselves with the Word. If, however, we start with the conviction that it is hard to believe and easy to fall as we journey, then the means of grace do bring grace, are gifts: then we receive them all with gladness when they all give us the same thing." (p. 158, Gustaf Wingren, The Living Word)

This is similar to Calvin, but I think it is better. Calvin seems to imply that ideally we wouldn't need the sacraments and the word would be enough, because the Word is more spiritual. He also seems to say that we go beyond the sacrament, so that we can leave it behind.

"the sacraments have the same office as the Word of God: to offer and set forth Christ to us" (Institutes, 4.14.17)

"our faith is slight and feeble unless it be propped on all sides and sustained by every means, it trembles, wavers, totters, and at last fives way. Here our merciful Lord, according to his infinite kindness, so tempers himself to our capacity that, since we are creatures who always creep upon the ground, cleave to the flesh, and, do not think about or even conceive of anything spiritual, he condescends to lead us to himself even by these earthly elements, and to set before us in the flesh a mirror of spiritual blessings" (Institutes, 4.14.3)

TFT's principles of instruction

General Principles - for every field of knowledge

(i) adaptation of our capacities in accordance with the nature of the object, and therefore instruction requires a specific adaptation on the part of the learner, a specific mode of rational activity determined by the nature of what is being taught or communicated"

(ii) an attitude, that "reflects the nature of the subject-matter involved"

(iii) asking "the right questions"

(iv) material to think about

(v) holding "together the realm of the image and the realm of idea"

(vi) having "tools with which to think and shape the thoughts in your mind and form your judgements"

(vii) "the community of others" is required

Particular Principles - for knowing Christ

(i) "Jesus Christ is Himself the Truth"

(ii) Jesus Christ "can be communicated only historically" because "The Truth is a historical Person"

(iii) "True Christian instruction requires on the part of the learner or receiver a response of self-denial and self-criticism"

(iv) "Instruction in Christian Truth involves reconciliation with the Truth.

(v) "Christian instruction involves renewal on the part of the learner."

(vi) It requires "the supernatural operation of the Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son in order to apprehend the Truth"

(vii) It must be reckoned that Truth "may put the learner at variance with the world"

[Italics original quotations and structure from pp. xxiii-xl, TF Torrance, The School of Faith: The Catechisms of the Reformed Church.]