Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Gospel of Peace: Making It Real - Lesson 21 - “Going to the Law” - 1 Corinthians 6.1-11

Lesson 21 - “Going to the Law” - 1 Corinthians 6.1-11
ID: Inductive Questions (Asking the text questions like who, what, where, when, why, & how?”) 
CR: Cross References (Comparing Scripture to Scripture, understanding the vague by the clear.) 
WS: Word Study (Understanding definition, theological meaning, and usages in other passages.)
The WORD: What does the Bible say?
 Context:   Chapter five deals with a situation of sexual immorality in the church.  What are some principles in chapter five that can apply to the situation described in 6:1-11?  Also, review the verses that follow (6:12-20) and think about principles there that are connected with this text. 
1.      WS:  What did Paul mean by “going to law (krinō) before the unrighteous”?
2.      (1) Think of three or four words that could describe Paul’s initial reaction to the Corinthians taking each other to court (“going to law before the unrighteous”)?  Why did Paul feel that way about how the Corinthians were handling their legal disputes?
3.      ID:  (1-8) What are the different terms Paul uses to refer to the Christians and non-Christians in verses 6:1-8?   What is he seeking to reinforce by using these particular terms?
4.      ID:  Paul gives several reasons that believers “going to law before the unrighteous” or suing believers is bad.  List them.
5.      ID:  What did Paul point to in order to show that believers should be competent to judge matters of this life?
6.      CR: Can you think of examples (like Gen. 13:6-9) where Bible characters worked out disputes without going to court?  What can we learn from their examples (good or bad)?
7.      ID: (7-8) What words in these verses indicate of what kind of “lawsuits” are being discussed?
8.      ID: (9-11) How do the final verses support Paul’s position on lawsuits?

The WALK: What should I do?
1.      What should a Christian’s first priority be in disputes with a brother?
2.      What does it tell non-Christians about us if we can't resolve our differences between each other?
3.      Where do modern Christians go to resolve their “legal” disputes?
4.      What are some advantages and disadvantages of settling a “lawsuit” between brothers in a church setting or with Christian mediation instead using of the courts?
5.      Does this mean that Christian’s should never use the government courts?

Page 2 -----------------------------------

Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics with commentary by Norman L. Geisler

Article XXI

WE AFFIRM  the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature.
WE DENY  that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.
This article continues the discussion of the previous article by noting the harmony of God's general revelation (outside Scripture) and His special revelation in Scripture. It is acknowledged by all that certain interpretations of Scripture and some opinions of scientists will contradict each other. However, it is insisted here that the truth of Scripture and the facts of science never contradict each other.
"Genuine" science will always be in accord with Scripture. Science, however, based on naturalistic presuppositions will inevitably come in conflict with the supernatural truths of Scripture.
Far from denying a healthy interchange between scientific theory and biblical interpretation, the framers of this statement welcome such. Indeed, it is acknowledged (in article XX) that the exegete can learn from the scientist. What is denied is that we should accept scientific views that contradict Scripture or that they should be given an authority above Scripture.

Article XXII

WE AFFIRM  that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
WE DENY  that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
Since the historicity and the scientific accuracy of the early chapters of the Bible have come under severe attack it is important to apply the "literal" hermeneutic espoused (Article XV) to this question. The result was a recognition of the factual nature of the account of the creation of the universe, all living things, the special creation of man, the Fall, and the Flood. These accounts are all factual, that is, they are about space-time events which actually happened as reported in the book of Genesis (see Article XIV).
The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference. There was, however, complete agreement on denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical. Likewise, the use of the term "creation" was meant to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties.

Article XXIII

WE AFFIRM  the clarity of Scripture and specifically of its message about salvation from sin.
WE DENY  that all passages of Scripture are equally clear or have equal bearing on the message of redemption.
Traditionally this teaching is called the "perspicuity" of Scripture. By this is meant that the central message of Scripture is clear, especially what the Bible says about salvation from sin.
The Denial disassociates this claim from the belief that everything in Scripture is clear or that all teachings are equally clear or equally relevant to the Bible's central saving message. It is obvious to any honest interpreter that the meaning of some passages of Scripture is obscure. It is equally evident that the truth of some passages is not directly relevant to the overall plan of salvation.

Article XXIV

WE AFFIRM  that a person is not dependent for understanding of Scripture on the expertise of biblical scholars.
WE DENY  that a person should ignore the fruits of the technical study of Scripture by biblical scholars.
This article attempts to avoid two extremes. First, it affirms that one is not dependent on biblical "experts" for his understanding of the basic truths of Scripture. Were this not true, then a significant aspect of the priesthood of all believers would be destroyed. For if the understanding of the laity is contingent on the teaching of experts, then Protestant interpretive experts will have replaced the teaching magisterium of Catholic priests with a kind of teaching magisterium of Protestant scholars.
On the other hand, biblical scholars do play a significant role in the lay understanding of Scripture. Even the very tools (Bible dictionaries, concordances, etc.) used by laypersons to interpret Scripture were produced by scholars. And when it comes to more technical and precise understanding of specific Scripture the work of experts is more than helpful. Hence the implied exhortation in the denial to avail oneself of the fruit of scholarship is well taken.


No comments:

Post a Comment