Download DOC - Tulsa Bible Church

Lessons for Leaders
Lesson 13
“What the Grace of God Teaches”
Titus 2:1-15
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?
Context: Read Titus 1:15-3:3 to pick up the context. Read the passage again in a more literal or more
dynamic translation than you usually use.
1. Before you start studying the specific admonitions in verses 1-10, make a list of the typical
negative stereotypes for old men, old women, young women, young men, and servants.
2. WS/ID: (1:13; 2:1; 2:2) What is meant by “sound” teaching? (Note the meaning of the word
“sound” and the context.)
3. ID: (2:2-10) What are the big ideas for each set of the admonitions to each of the five groups
(older men, older women, younger women, young men, bondservants) in these verses? How do
they correspond to the negative stereotypes you identified for these groups?
4. ID; (2:5, 8, 10) What are the reasons giving for good works in this chapter?
5. ID: (2:11-12) What do these verses teach us about grace? What does “this grace” teach us?
Does this passage give us any hints about when this grace appeared?
6. ID: (16:7-12) What do these verses teach us about Jesus Christ? About His purpose for believers?
The WALK: What should I do?
1. Are you part of a “Titus 2” mentoring/discipleship relationship? If you are, how did it get started?
If not, how can we help you establish one?
2. Think about how you would advise a young person starting his first job based on Titus 2:9-10?
What advice would you add? Which of these admonitions is most challenging for you?
3. What does it mean to “look for” the blessed hope? How should looking for the glorious appearing
of the Lord Jesus Christ affect our thoughts and behavior? (Cross references will be helpful.)
4. CSBI: Is there an important difference between infallible and inerrant? Why do you think
“infallible” has sometimes been substituted for “inerrant” to articulate a lower view of Scripture
than that indicated by the word inerrant?
Going Beyond: What areas of systematic theology are touched on in this passage?
5.  The Bible (Bibliology)  God (Theology Proper)  The Father (Paterology)
6.  The Lord Jesus Christ (Christology)  The Holy Spirit (Pneumatology)  Man (Anthropology)
7.  Salvation (Soteriology)  The Church (Ecclesiology)  Angels & Satan (Angelology)
8.  Future Things (eschatology)
Men’s Bible study
TULSA BIBLE CHURCH MEN’S MINISTRIES
Fall 2013/Spring 2014
Lessons for Leaders
Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary on the
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy by Dr. R.C.Sprouls (1980)
THE WORD OF GOD AND INERRANCY
Articles IX through XII deal with the matter of greatest present concern: inerrancy. They seek to define terms and answer
the chief questions that have been raised: If the Bible has come to us through human authors, which the earlier articles
acknowledge, and if it is natural for human beings to err, which all confess, isn’t the Bible necessarily errant? Doesn’t it
cease to be authentically human if it does not have errors? Again, if inerrancy applies properly only to the original
manuscript, called autographs, and if we do not possess these, as we do not, isn’t the argument for inerrancy
meaningless? Or doesn’t it stand only by appealing to documents that do not exist and whose inerrant state cannot be
verified? Why can’t inerrancy be applied to those parts of the Bible that deal with salvation and not to those parts that
deal with history, science and other “unimportant” and “non-essential” matters?
ARTICLE XI: INFALLIBILITY
We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from
misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions.
Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.
The central affirmation of Article XI is the infallibility of Scripture. Infallibility is defined in this context in
positive terms as implying the truthfulness and reliability of all matters that Scripture addresses. Negatively,
infallibility is defined as the quality of that which does not mislead.
The denial of Article XI touches a very important point of controversy, particularly in the modern era. There are
those who maintain that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant. Thus, infallibility is separated from inerrancy.
The denial argues that it is not possible to maintain with consistency that something is at the same time
infallible and errant in its assertions. To maintain such a disjunction between infallibility and inerrancy would
involve a glaring contradiction.
Though the words infallible and inerrant have often been used interchangeably and virtually as synonyms in
our language, nevertheless there remains a historic, technical distinction between the two words.
Infallibility has to do with the question of ability or potential. That which is infallible is said to be unable to
make mistakes or to err. The distinction here between that definition of infallible and the definition of
inerrant is the distinction between the potential and the actual, the hypothetical and the real. That which is
inerrant is that which in fact does not err. Again, theoretically, something may be fallible and at the same
time inerrant. That is, it would be possible for someone to err who in fact does not err. However, the
reverse is not true. If someone is infallible, that means he cannot err and if he cannot err, then he does not
err. To assert that something is infallible yet at the same time errant is either to distort the meaning of
“infallible” and/or “errant,” or else to be in a state of confusion. Thus, infallibility and inerrancy in this sense
cannot be separated though they may indeed be distinguished in terms of meaning. But anything that is
infallible, that is, is incapable of erring, cannot at the same time err. For if it errs, it proves that it is capable of
erring and therefore is not infallible.
In situations where infallibility has been substituted for inerrancy it has usually been designed to articulate a
lower view of Scripture than that indicated by the word inerrant. In fact, however, the term infallibility in its
original and technical meaning is a higher term than the term inerrant. Again, it is important to see that
something which is fallible could theoretically be inerrant. But that which is infallible could not theoretically be
at the same time errant.
Men’s Bible study
TULSA BIBLE CHURCH MEN’S MINISTRIES
Fall 2013/Spring 2014