The Gospel of Peace: Making It Real - Lesson 17 - “The Duty to Forgive” - Luke 17.1-10

Lesson 17 - “The Duty to Forgive” - Luke 17.1-10

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:   As you read today’s passage make note of the story of “Lazarus and the Rich Man” that comes before and the “Healing of the Ten Lepers” that comes after it.  How do those stories color the tone and point of this passage?

2.      CR: (1-2) What does it mean to offend (skandalizo) (or cause someone “to stumble”nasb or “to sin”esv)? (compare with Romans 14:15-16, 21; 1 Corinthians 8:13)  Who are the “little ones” referred to in verse two?

3.      ID: What is the relationship between verse 1-2 and verses 3-4?

4.      WS: (3) When we take heed to (prosecho) (be on guard, pay attention to, or watch) ourselves, what are we taking heed of or watching for? 

5.      ID: (3) List the four steps in this verse? What does each one mean? 

• _____________________________________________________________________________
• _____________________________________________________________________________
• _____________________________________________________________________________
• _____________________________________________________________________________

(Compare with Leviticus 19:16-18; Matthew 18:15-17; Ephesians 4:15, 32; Galatians 6:1; Matt. 5:43–48)

6.      ID: (5-6) Why did the disciples ask the Lord to increase their faith?  What were they asking Him to do?    

7.      ID: (6) What was the main point of this parable or illustration of the mustard seed and mulberry tree?   (Matthew 17:20; Matthew 21:21; Mark 9:23; Mark 11:23)

8.      ID: What are we commanded to do in this passage (1-6)?  What should we expect from God in return (7-10)?

9.      CR: Are there things we do that the Bible does say are exceptional?  (example 1 Peter 2:20)

The WALK: What should I do?

1.      What makes it difficult to forgive a person that has wronged you? How do you feel about forgiving a person again and again?

2.      Can you recall a time that someone sinned against you repeatedly in the same day or week?

3.      What can you do to increase your faith?

4.      Why do we sometimes feel the things we have done for the Lord are so extraordinary or heroic? 

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

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

---

Article XIII

WE AFFIRM  that awareness of the literary categories, formal and stylistic, of the various parts of Scripture is essential for proper exegesis, and hence we value genre criticism as one of the many disciplines of biblical study.

WE DENY  that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.

The awareness of what kind of literature one is interpreting is essential to a correct understanding of the text. A correct genre judgment should be made to ensure correct understanding. A parable, for example, should not be treated like a chronicle, nor should poetry be interpreted as though it were a straightforward narrative. Each passage has its own genre, and the interpreter should be cognizant of the specific kind of literature it is as he attempts to interpret it. Without genre recognition an interpreter can be misled in his understanding of the passage. For example, when the prophet speaks of "trees clapping their hands" (Isa. 55:12) one could assume a kind of animism unless he recognized that this is poetry and not prose.

The Denial is directed at an illegitimate use of genre criticism by some who deny the truth of passages which are presented as factual. Some, for instance, take Adam to be a myth, whereas in Scripture he is presented as a real person. Others take Jonah to be an allegory when he is presented as a historical person and so referred to by Christ (Mat. 12:40-42). This Denial is an appropriate and timely warning not to use genre criticism as a cloak for rejecting the truth of Scripture.

Article XIV

WE AFFIRM  that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact.

WE DENY  that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.

This article combines the emphases of Articles VI and XIII. While acknowledging the legitimacy of literary forms, this article insists that any record of events presented in Scripture must correspond to historical fact. That is, no reported event, discourse, or saying should be considered imaginary.

The Denial is even more clear than the Affirmation. It stresses that any discourse, saying, or event reported in Scripture must actually have occurred. This means that any hermeneutic or form of biblical criticism which claims that something was invented by the author must be rejected. This does not mean that a parable must be understood to represent historical facts, since a parable does not (by its very genre) purport to report an event or saying but simply to illustrate a point.

Article XV

WE AFFIRM  the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.

WE DENY  the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.

The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed.

The Denial warns against attributing to Scripture any meaning not based in a literal understanding, such as mythological or allegorical interpretations. This should not be understood as eliminating typology or designated allegory or other literary forms which include figures of speech (see Articles X, XIII, and XIV).

The Gospel of Peace: Making It Real - Lesson 16 - “Those Who Hate You” - Luke 6:27-38

Lesson 16 - “Those Who Hate You” - Luke 6:27-38

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 Luke 6:20-49 and think about how it compares with Matthew.  What does he include and leave out (especially verses Luke 6:27-36 with Matthew 5:39-46)?

2.      ID: (27-28) What are the four types of people in these verses?  What responses should we have to these four types of people? (What are other Scriptures that reinforce these statements? Also, think about how each response fits its particular offence?  Are other pairs not mentioned?).

3.      ID: (29) Does smiting the cheek refer primary to an attack or an insult? (Check the commentaries for help.)

4.      ID: (30) What should we do if someone takes something from us?  Why might this statement make us so uncomfortable? Does this mean we should never attempt to recover stolen property?

5.      CR: (30) Who should we give to?  (Job 31:16-23; Proverbs 21:25-26; Matthew 5: 40-42; Ephesians 4:28; 1 John 3:16-17)  How do we reconcile or synthesize this verse with 2 Thessalonians 3:10 and the verses from Proverbs condemning slothfulness.

6.      ID (35-36) What reasons are given for loving and loaning (giving) to your enemies?

7.      WS: (36) What does it mean to be merciful (oiktirmon)?  (Romans 9:15; James 5:11)  (Tip: Compare this word with other Greek words translated mercy).

8.      ID: (37-38) What general kind of disposition or spirit does the statements in verses 37-38 describe?

The WALK: What should I do?

1.      Can you think of anyone who is your enemy, who dislikes you, who curses you, or who spitefully uses you?

2.      Can you remember a time you have done something “nice” or good to/for someone who dislikes you, curses you, or spitefully uses you?

3.      If loving those who love us doesn’t count for much, how much “love credit” are you building up by loving difficult people in your life?

4.      In verses 32-36 we find the phrase “what credit is that to you” three times before saying in verse 35 that if we will love like this our reward will be great.  Why the focus on credit and reward?

Ponder this:  “The important thing is not that we are vindicated before our enemies but that we become more like God in our character (Luke 6:35).”  ---Warren Wiersbe in The Bible Exposition Commnetary 

Page 3-----------------------------

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

---

Article X

WE AFFIRM  that Scripture communicates God's truth to us verbally through a wide variety of literary forms.

WE DENY  that any of the limits of human language render Scripture inadequate to convey God's message.

This Affirmation is a logical literary extension of Article II which acknowledges the humanity of Scripture. The Bible is God's Word, but it is written in human words; thus, revelation is "verbal." Revelation is "propositional" (Article VI) because it expresses certain propositional truth. Some prefer to call it "sentential" because the truth is expressed in sentences. Whatever the term--verbal, propositional, or sentential--the Bible is a human book which uses normal literary forms. These include parables, satire, irony, hyperbole, metaphor, simile, poetry, and even allegory (e.g., Ezek. 16-17).

As an expression in finite, human language, the Bible has certain limitations in a similar way that Christ as a man had certain limitations. This means that God adapted Himself through human language so that His eternal truth could be understood by man in a temporal world.

Despite the obvious fact of the limitations of any finite linguistic expression, the Denial is quick to point out that these limits do not render Scripture an inadequate means of communicating God's truth. For while there is a divine adaptation (via language) to human finitude there is no accommodation to human error. Error is not essential to human nature. Christ was human and yet He did not err. Adam was human before he erred. So simply because the Bible is written in human language does not mean it must err. In fact, when God uses human language there is a supernatural guarantee that it will not be in error.

Article XI

WE AFFIRM  that translations of the text of Scripture can communicate knowledge of God across all temporal and cultural boundaries.

WE DENY  that the meaning of biblical texts is so tied to the culture out of which they came that understanding of the same meaning in other cultures is impossible.

Simply because the truth of Scripture was conveyed by God in the original writings does not mean that it cannot be translated into another language. This article affirms the translatability of God's truth into other cultures. It affirms that since truth is transcendent (see Article XX) it is not culture-bound. Hence the truth of God expressed in a first-century culture is not limited to that culture. For the nature of truth is not limited to any particular medium through which it is expressed.

The Denial notes that since meaning is not inextricably tied to a given culture it can be adequately expressed in another culture. Thus the message of Scripture need not be relativized by translation. What is expressed can be the same even though how it is expressed differs.

Article XII

WE AFFIRM  that in the task of translating the Bible and teaching it in the context of each culture, only those functional equivalents which are faithful to the content of biblical teaching should be employed.

WE DENY  the legitimacy of methods which either are insensitive to the demands of cross-cultural communication or distort biblical meaning in the process.

Whereas the previous article treated the matter of the translatability of divine truth, this article speaks to the adequacy of translations. Obviously not every expression in another language will appropriately convey the meaning of Scripture. In view of this, caution is urged that the translators remain faithful to the truth of the Scripture being translated by the proper choice of the words used to translate it.

This article treats the matter of "functional" equivalence. Often there is no actual or literal equivalence between expressions in one language and a word-for-word translation into another language. What is expressed (meaning) is the same but how it is expressed (the words) is different…

The Denial urges sensitivity to cultural matters so that the same truth may be conveyed, even though different terms are being used. Without this awareness missionary activity can be severely hampered.

The Gospel of Peace: Making It Real - Lesson 15 - “New and Renewed” - Colossians 3:8-15

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…

The Gospel of Peace: Making It Real - Lesson 14 - “Things that Make for Peace” - Romans 14:14-23

Lesson 14 - “Things that Make for Peace” - Romans 14:14-23

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:   Review Romans 14:1-12, see how 14:13-15:3 develop those thoughts, and continue reading to the application in verses 15:5-6.  Keep verse seven in the back of your mind as you finish this lesson.

2.      CR: (13, 21) What is a stumbling block?  (Leviticus 19:14; Isaiah 57:14; Ezekiel 3: 20; 7:19; Romans 11:9; 14:13; 1 Corinthians 1:23; 8:9)

3.      ID: (15) What does this verse teach us about what it means to “walk in love?” (compare with Ephesians 5:2) (Paul also dealt with a similar problem in 1 Corinthians 8-9.)

4.      WS: (17) What does righteousness (dikaiosune), peace (eirene), and the joy (chara) in the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:52; 1 Thessalonians 1:6) refer to in verse 17?  How is that different from eating and drinking?

5.      ID: Under what circumstances should we choose not to exercise our freedom?  What should be the guiding principle in decisions of this kind?

6.      (19) What does verse 19 say we should pursue?  (v.17)  What do we do (and not do) when we pursue them?

7.      (20) How can food, wine, etc. tear down the work of God?  (Is it possible to tear down the work of God with righteousness, peace, or joy mentioned in v. 17)

8.      CR: (21) What does it mean to "cause your brother to stumble"? (v. 21; see 1 Corinthians 8:9-13)

The WALK: What should I do?

1.      Can you think of rules your family had when you were growing up that you do not follow?

2.      What are some examples of disputable matters to which the principles of this passage could be applied today? How should the convictions of others affect our behavior? Why?

3.      If you are not sure whether something is right or wrong, should you do it? Why?

4.      Are there any circumstances in which we should continue to exercise our freedom, even if it offends others? (see Gal. 4:8-11; 5:1; Col. 2:16-23)

5.      Having sin be “relative” leaves much responsibility for sound judgment with each Christian.  Will this make us more or less dependent on an active relationship with God?  Explain.

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

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

---

Article IV

WE AFFIRM  that the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture acts through it today to work faith in its message.

WE DENY  that the Holy Spirit ever teaches to any one anything which is contrary to the teaching of Scripture.

Here stress is laid on the fact that the Holy Spirit not only is the source of Scripture, but also works to produce faith in Scripture He has inspired. Without this ministry of the Holy Spirit, belief in the truth of Scripture would not occur.

The Denial is directed at those alleged "revelations" which some claim to have but which are contrary to Scripture. No matter how sincere or genuinely felt, no dream, vision, or supposed revelation which contradicts Scripture ever comes from the Holy Spirit. For the utterances of the Holy Spirit are all harmonious and noncontradictory (see Article XX).

Article V

WE AFFIRM  that the Holy Spirit enables believers to appropriate and apply Scripture to their lives.

WE DENY  that the natural man is able to discern spiritually the biblical message apart from the Holy Spirit.

The design of this article is to indicate that the ministry of the Holy Spirit extends beyond the inspiration of Scripture to its very application to the lives of the believer. Just as no one calls Jesus Lord except by the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 12:3), so no one can appropriate the message of Scripture to his life apart from the gracious work of the Holy Spirit.

The Denial stresses the truth that the natural man does not receive the spiritual message of Scripture. Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit there is no welcome for its truth in an unregenerate heart.

This does not imply that a non-Christian is unable to understand the meaning of any Scripture. It means that whatever he may perceive of the message of Scripture, that without the Holy Spirit's work he will not welcome the message in his heart.

Article VI

WE AFFIRM  that the Bible expresses God's truth in propositional statements, and we declare that biblical truth is both objective and absolute. We further affirm that a statement is true if it represents matters as they actually are, but is an error if it misrepresents the facts.

WE DENY  that, while Scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation, biblical truth should be defined in terms of this function. We further deny that error should be defined as that which willfully deceives.

Since hermeneutics is concerned with understanding the truth of Scripture, attention is directed here to the nature of truth. Several significant affirmations are made about the nature of truth.

First, in contrast to contemporary relativism it is declared that truth is absolute. Second, as opposed to subjectivism it is acknowledged that truth is objective. Finally, in opposition to existential and pragmatic views of truth, this article affirms that truth is what corresponds to reality. This same point was made in the "Chicago Statement on Inerrancy" (1978) in Article XIII and the commentary on it.

The Denial makes it evident that views which redefine an error to mean what "misleads," rather than what is a mistake, must be rejected. This redefinition of the word "error" is both contrary to Scripture and to common sense. In Scripture the word error is used of unintentional acts (Lev. 4:2) as well as intentional ones. Also, in common parlance a statement is in error if it is a factual mistake, even if there was no intention to mislead anyone by it. So to suggest that the Bible contains mistakes, but that these are not errors so long as they do not mislead, is contrary to both Scripture and ordinary usage.

By this subtle redefinition of error to mean only what misleads but not what misrepresents, some have tried to maintain that the Bible is wholly true (in that it never misleads) and yet that it may have some mistakes in it. This position is emphatically rejected by the confessors of this document.

The Gospel of Peace: Making It Real - Lesson 13 - “Another’s Servant” - Romans 14:1-13

Lesson 13 - “Another’s Servant” - Romans 14:1-13

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 Romans 13:8-13, this lesson’s passage, Romans 14:1-13, and  Romans 14:14-15:7. 

2.      ID:  (3) In this passage, who does the expression “weak” refer to? (Notice that the text says weak “in the faith” and not weak “in faith.”  How is that important?)

3.      ID:  (1, 5) What were the two big issues or controversies mentioned in this passage?

4.      ID:  (1, 3) What wrong attitudes were evident among “the weak” and among the strong (free)?

5.      WS:  v. 5 “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.” Why would we be satisfied to be convinced (plerophoreo) of different practices? Shouldn’t everybody agree on these issues? (v. 23)

6.      ID:  (5b-6) What should the people with different convictions about a doubtful (disputable) things both do?

7.      ID:  (3, 10, 13) What obligation(s) do the strong (free) have to the weak?

8.      ID:  (3-4, 10-13) What obligation(s) do the weak have to the stong (free)?

9.      CR:  (10) Why should Christians stop judging and showing contempt for one another?  (Romans 14:11 and Philippians 2:10 both quote or allude to Isaiah 45:23.)

The WALK: What should I do?

1.      How do we distinguish between doubtful things like food and holidays and sins that are wrong for everyone?  (Should we even try to?)

2.      Can you think of areas where your personal convictions in an area would classify you as a “weaker?”  Have you ever felt that people have “looked down” on you because of those personal convictions?  Do you ever find yourself “judging” others in doubtful matters? 

3.      Are there currently situations where you need to curtail your freedom in order to avoid putting a stumbling block (1 Corinthians 8:9) in the way of a brother?

4.      What do you think are some root causes to disagreements about things like music, drinking, and child raising practices, etc.?

After writing the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy went on to produce another significant statement: The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics” in 1982 for the purposes of clarifying hermeneutical principles and practices.  Page two of our lessons will feature parts of that statement.

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

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

---

Article I

WE AFFIRM  that the normative authority of Holy Scripture is the authority of God Himself, and is attested by Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church.

WE DENY  the legitimacy of separating the authority of Christ from the authority of Scripture, or of opposing the one to the other.

This first article affirms that the authority of Scripture cannot be separated from the authority of God. Whatever the Bible affirms, God affirms. And what the Bible affirms (or denies), it affirms (or denies) with the very authority of God. Such authority is normative for all believers; it is the canon or rule of God.

This divine authority of Old Testament Scripture was confirmed by Christ Himself on numerous occasions (cf. Matt. 5:17-18; Luke 24:44; John 10:34-35). And what our Lord confirmed as to the divine authority of the Old Testament, He promised also for the New Testament (John 14:16; 16:13).

The Denial points out that one cannot reject the divine authority of Scripture without thereby impugning the authority of Christ, who attested Scripture's divine authority. Thus it is wrong to claim one can accept the full authority of Christ without acknowledging the complete authority of Scripture.

Article II

WE AFFIRM  that as Christ is God and Man in One Person, so Scripture is, indivisibly, God's Word in human language.

WE DENY  that the humble, human form of Scripture entails errancy any more than the humanity of Christ, even in His humiliation, entails sin.

Here an analogy is drawn between Christ and Scripture. Both Christ and Scripture have dual aspects of divinity and humanity, indivisibly united in one expression. Both Christ and Scripture were conceived by an act of the Holy Spirit. Both involve the use of fallible human agents. But both produced a the anthropic result; one a sinless person and the other an errorless book. However, like all analogies, there is a difference. Christ is one person uniting two natures whereas Scripture is one written expression uniting two authors (God and man). This difference notwithstanding, the strength of the likeness in the analogy points to the inseparable unity between divine and human dimensions of Scripture so that one aspect cannot be in error while the other is not.

The Denial is directed at a contemporary tendency to separate the human aspects of Scripture from the divine and allow for error in the former. By contrast the framers of this article believe that the human form of Scripture can no more be found in error than Christ could be found in sin. That is to say, the Word of God (i.e., the Bible) is as necessarily perfect in its human manifestation as was the Son of God in His human form.

Article III

WE AFFIRM  that the Person and work of Jesus Christ are the central focus of the entire Bible.

WE DENY  that any method of interpretation which rejects or obscures the Christ-centeredness of Scripture is correct.

This Affirmation follows the teaching of Christ that He is the central theme of Scripture (Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Heb. 10:7). This is to say that focus on the person and work of Christ runs throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. To be sure there are other and tangential topics, but the person and work of Jesus Christ are central.

In view of the focus of Scripture on Christ, the Denial stresses a hermeneutical obligation to make this Christocentric message clear in the expounding of Scripture. As other articles (cf. Article XV) emphasize the "literal" interpretation of Scripture, this article is no license for allegorization and unwarranted typology which see Christ portrayed in every detail of Old Testament proclamation. The article simply points to the centrality of Christ's mission in the unfolding of God's revelation to man.

Neither is there any thought in this article of making the role of Christ more ultimate than that of the Father. What is in view here is the focus of Scripture and not the ultimate source or object of the whole plan of redemption.