Lesson 15 - “New and Renewed” - Colossians 3:8-15
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?
1. Context: Read Colossians 3. Think about how you would divide the chapter into sections.
2. ID: (8-9) What characteristics did Paul say to put away? What do they have in common? (Also note the difference between the meaning of anger orgē and wrath thymos).
3. ID: (9-10) Do the verb tenses of “put off” and “have put on” reveal anything?
4. CR: (10) How is the new man renewed? (Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 4:23-24)
5. ID: (11) What erases the distinction between Jew and Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised, slave and free? What are similar distinctions in our culture?
6. ID: (12) What are the three descriptions of the believer? What does Paul say to put on? Is there a relationship between who the verse says we are and what we are to put on?
7. WS: (13) How are bearing with (anechō) and forgiving (charizomai) similar and different?
8. ID: (14) How (why) does love bind all these things together?
9. ID: (15) What does it mean to be called* (in one body) to let the peace of God rule in your heart? *(Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 7:15; Galatians 5:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:7; 1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 2:9; 1 Peter 2:9; 1 Peter 5:10)
The WALK: What should I do?
1. Of the characteristics related to the earthly nature, which have been a problem for you in the past more than now? Which ones is Christ helping you work on at present?
2. Of the characteristics of the new man, which do you feel best about? Which ones are more of a challenge for you?
3. Discuss Ken Sande’s Four Promises of Forgiveness and strategies for implementing them. (“Ken Sande on Radical Forgiveness” is a webinar that features Ken Sande teaching on forgiveness.)
4. Can two believer’s really forgive each other and still not be reconciled and at peace with each other?
Going Beyond:
· Mayo Clinic has a secular article, “Forgiveness: Letting Go of Grudges and Bitterness.” How does it compare to what the Bible teaches about forgiveness?
· What do you think about Psychology Today’s comment on forgiveness?
Page 2---------------------------------
Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics with commentary by Norman L. Geisler
Article VII
WE AFFIRM that the meaning expressed in each biblical text is single, definite and fixed.
WE DENY that the recognition of this single meaning eliminates the variety of its application.
The Affirmation here is directed at those who claim a "double" or "deeper" meaning to Scripture than that expressed by the authors. It stresses the unity and fixity of meaning as opposed to those who find multiple and pliable meanings. What a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to change by readers. This does not imply that further revelation on the subject cannot help one come to a fuller understanding, but simply that the meaning given in a text is not changed because additional truth is revealed subsequently.
Meaning is also definite in that there are defined limits by virtue of the author's expressed meaning in the given linguistic form and cultural context. Meaning is determined by an author; it is discovered by the readers.
The Denial adds the clarification that simply because Scripture has one meaning does not imply that its messages cannot be applied to a variety of individuals or situations. While the interpretation is one, the applications can be many.
Article VIII
WE AFFIRM that the Bible contains teachings and mandates which apply to all cultural and situational contexts and other mandates which the Bible itself shows apply only to particular situations.
WE DENY that the distinctions between the universal and particular mandates of Scripture can be determined by cultural and situational factors. We further deny that universal mandates may ever be treated as culturally or situationally relative.
In view of the tendency of many to relativize the message of the Bible by accommodating it to changing cultural situations, this Affirmation proclaims the universality of biblical teachings. There are commands which transcend all cultural barriers and are binding on all men everywhere. To be sure, some biblical injunctions are directed to specific situations, but even these are normative to the particular situation(s) to which they speak. However, there are commands in Scripture which speak universally to the human situation and are not bound to particular cultures or situations.
The Denial addresses the basis of the distinction between universal and particular situations. It denies that the grounds of this distinction are relative or purely cultural. It further denies the legitimacy of relativizing biblical absolutes by reducing them to purely cultural mandates.
The meaning of this article is that whatever the biblical text means is binding. And what is meant to be universally binding should not be relegated to particular situations any more than what is meant to apply only to particular circumstances should be promulgated as universally applicable.
There is an attempt here to strike a balance between command and culture by recognizing that a command transcends culture, even though it speaks to and is expressed in a particular culture. Thus while the situation (or circumstances) may help us to discover the right course of action, the situation never determines what is right. God's laws are not situationally determined.
Article IX
WE AFFIRM that the term hermeneutics, which historically signified the rules of exegesis, may properly be extended to cover all that is involved in the process of perceiving what the biblical revelation means and how it bears on our lives.
WE DENY that the message of Scripture derives from, or is dictated by, the interpreter's understanding. Thus we deny that the "horizons" of the biblical writer and the interpreter may rightly "fuse" in such a way that what the text communicates to the interpreter is not ultimately controlled by the expressed meaning of the Scripture.
The primary thrust of this Affirmation is definitional. It desires to clarify the meaning of the term hermeneutics by indicating that it includes not only perception of the declared meaning of a text but also an understanding of the implications that text has for one's life. Thus, hermeneutics is more than biblical exegesis. It is not only the science that leads forth the meaning of a passage but also that which enables one (by the Holy Spirit) to understand the spiritual implications the truth(s) of this passage has for Christian living.
The Denial notes that the meaning of a passage is not derived from or dictated by the interpreter. Rather, meaning comes from the author who wrote it. Thus the reader's understanding has no hermeneutically definitive role…
No comments:
Post a Comment