Module review

I would begin by affirming common ground: we both confess one God (Deut 6:4) and love Jesus, and the Trinity is not three gods but one God in three persons, one in being and three in person. His view drops the second biblical truth, that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are distinct persons. Scripture shows a real relationship between the Father and the Son before the incarnation: the Word was 'with God' in the beginning (John 1:1), and the Son shared glory with the Father and was loved by him before the world existed (John 17:5, 24). A human nature cannot have been loved by the Father before the world began, so 'human nature praying to divine nature' cannot explain these texts. Deuteronomy 6:4 says there is one LORD, not that God is one person, and Paul places Jesus within the Shema itself (1 Cor 8:6). Acts 2:38 marks out Christian baptism, done on Jesus' authority, from John's baptism (Acts 19:3-5); it does not cancel Jesus' command to baptise in the one name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). I would avoid analogies, keep a brotherly tone, and keep coming back to the texts.

• Affirms monotheism and denies tritheism (one being, three persons)
• Diagnoses modalism as dropping the truth of three distinct persons
• Uses John 1:1 and John 17:5, 24 to show a relationship before the incarnation
• Answers Deut 6:4 (with 1 Cor 8:6) and Acts 2:38 in context
• Gracious, text-centred tone without relying on analogies

On John 1:1, the absence of the article does not make a noun indefinite; in the same chapter 'God' appears without the article (1:6, 18) and the New World Translation itself renders it 'God'. Translating 'a god' creates two true gods, which Isaiah 44:6-8 rules out, and verse 3 puts the Word outside creation, because all things were made through him. On Colossians 1:15, 'firstborn' means pre-eminent heir, as with David in Psalm 89:27, and the next verse gives the reason: 'by him all things were created', so he is not one of the created things; the NWT must add 'other' to make the passage fit. On John 14:28, 'greater' can describe position rather than nature; the Son took the form of a servant (Phil 2:6-7) and was returning to the glory he had before (John 17:5). The principle is the two-natures doctrine: Jesus is one person, truly God and truly man, so texts about his humanity or humble role do not cancel texts about his deity. This is not special pleading, because the same passages state both (John 1:1, 14; Phil 2:6-7; Heb 1:3; 2:17). I would also point to the pattern of divine names, attributes, deeds and worship given to Jesus (Heb 1:6-12).

• John 1:1: anarthrous theos argument answered; 'a god' yields two gods (Isa 44:6-8); John 1:3
• Col 1:15: firstborn = pre-eminence (Ps 89:27); v. 16 creator; NWT adds 'other'
• John 14:28: greater in position or role, not nature (Phil 2)
• Applies the two-natures principle and rebuts the special-pleading charge
• Uses names, attributes, deeds and worship pattern

I would first agree that Trent (Session 6, chapter 8) says nothing preceding justification merits it, so the disagreement is not grace versus no grace. The difference is what justification is: for Rome it includes the infusion of righteousness, begins in baptism, is increased by good works (Canon 24) and can be lost by mortal sin, and Canon 9 anathematises faith alone in the sense that nothing else need cooperate. Scripture presents justification as a legal verdict, the opposite of condemnation (Deut 25:1; Rom 8:33-34), in which Christ's righteousness is imputed to us (2 Cor 5:21). Luther did add 'allein' to Romans 3:28 in German and defended it in 1530, but the question is the teaching, not the word: Paul says 'apart from works of the law' (Rom 3:28) and 'to the one who does not work but believes' (Rom 4:5; Gal 2:16), so faith is the only instrument left. James 2:24 addresses a dead, merely claimed faith and uses 'justified' to mean shown to be righteous, as with Abraham offering Isaac decades after Genesis 15:6. It matters because if my standing rests even partly on my cooperation I can never have assurance, and Christ's sufficiency is obscured. Justified by faith alone, I have peace with God (Rom 5:1), and the faith that justifies is never alone, because it bears fruit.

• Fair statement of Trent and the CCC (initial grace not merited; infused righteousness; increase and loss)
• Defines justification as a legal verdict and imputation (2 Cor 5:21)
• Answers the Luther 'alone' charge honestly, moving from word to teaching (Rom 3:28; 4:5)
• Explains James 2 in context
• Shows the stakes: assurance and the sufficiency of Christ

The logical problem of evil fails because a good God may permit evil for a morally sufficient reason, which Plantinga showed using libertarian free will. Reformed Christians generally hold compatibilism instead: God ordains all things, yet he is not the author of sin and human choices remain real and responsible, as Genesis 50:20 and Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28 show. So the Reformed answer rests not on free will but on God's wise and good purposes, seen most clearly at the cross, where the worst evil in history was planned by God for the greatest good, and the guilty were truly guilty. The cross does not explain every tragedy, but it proves that God is not indifferent, because he entered suffering himself, and that he can bring good out of the worst evil (Rom 8:28, 32). To the grieving friend I would say little: 'I'm so sorry. I can't imagine how frightening this is. I don't know why God has allowed this, and I won't pretend to. But I know Jesus weeps with you, and I'm here; what can I do this week?' I would avoid clichés and specific explanations (Deut 29:29), because a sufferer needs presence and compassion first (Job 2:13; John 11:35; Rom 12:15), with the hope of the resurrection when they are ready.

• Distinguishes the logical problem and the free will defence from the Reformed (compatibilist) approach
• Uses Gen 50:20 and Acts 4:27-28 / 2:23 for sovereignty with human guilt
• Explains the cross as proof of God's involvement and of good brought from evil
• Pastoral reply avoids clichés and claims to know God's specific reason
• Explains the difference between audiences (philosopher vs sufferer)