Mathers Systematic Theology. Norman W. Mathers

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ of the Holy Spirit in the past. “Kai kathos edidaxen humas” translated means “and just as He has taught you” [author’s translation] (1 John 2:27) (Aland & Black 1968:817) (Aorist Active Indicative – 3^rd person singular – constative – without reference to the time of the action but just that He has taught the believers). The particular truth taught by the Holy Spirit to the believers was “abide in Him” (Aland & Black 1968:817) [author’s translation]. Abide is a present active indicative, 2^nd person plural (Han 1974:429). It would be better translated as a present active imperative which denotes action already begun and continuing. It should be translated: “keep on abiding in Him” [author’s translation] (1 John 2:27). To abide in Christ is to obey Him. Those believers referred to as little children (teknia – share the like nature of the Father) are admonished to abide in Him (2:28). They will have boldness or shame at Christ’s appearing (the rapture) depending on whether they have continued to abide in Christ. We will have boldness at the appearing of Christ if we have continued to abide in Christ as a life style. We will experience shame at His appearing if we have not lived a life of abiding in Christ. The believer is responsible to His Savior and Lord for this truth from the point at which he learned of it.

      2.5 The Inerrancy of the Word of God

      2.5.1 The Word of God is completely without error.

      Shedd (1948:1:76-77) argues that it is highly improbable that God would not guarantee the accuracy of the recording of the revelation that He gave. Further, he argues that even if there were difficulties it would not change any scripture or doctrine. A verbal plenary inspired bible is an error free bible. It is a direct contradiction to have an inspired but not an inerrant bible. The idea that the bible can only be trusted in matters of salvation but not in other subjects came out of Germany as early as 1650 by Calixtus (ibid:1:74). This idea of limited inerrancy was restated by Baumgarten in 1725. The Scriptures on the subject of salvation are so interrelated to what Shedd calls secondary matters that discrediting one discredits the others (ibid:1:74-75). The epistle of Jude verse 3 tells us that we are “to contend for the faith” (the body of truth) “once for all delivered to the saints” [author’s translation] (Aland & Black 1968:832). Chafer commenting on the many variant readings in the critical text reminds us that we need not be alarmed. We have a great wealth of manuscripts (1971:1:87). This author adds that the science of textual criticism helps us to determine the textual reading that is in question. The external and internal evidence clears up these difficulties. The original autographs can be arrived at in the sparse number of variant readings because of science of textual criticism. Those who claim an errant bible argue from trivial matters relating to numbers or dates (Hodge 1975:1:169). It becomes apparent that these are superficial. These alleged errors when submitted to careful examination are cleared up. Many of these so called errors in scripture are the result of transcribers (ibid:1:169). Those who argue that the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs are begging the question. An inspired Bible is an inerrant Bible. The miracle is that the Bible written by many different authors from different cultures, over a period of 1600 years agrees under the Holy Spirit’s guidance (Chafer 1971:1:29). The unity of the Bible argues for the oversight and control of the Holy Spirit in the writing of the scriptures (Chafer 1971:1:29, 94). The gospels, for example, do not have to agree in every instance because each writer had a particular purpose and theme in writing his gospel. Hodge (1975:1:170) argued that it is not necessary to agree perfectly in everything but only on one hypothesis that the writers of scripture wrote under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Historical and scientific objectors must realize the truth of John 10:35. Distinction must be made between the theories of men and the facts of God. The Bible contradicts the theories of men but not the facts of God (ibid:1:171). The Bible has answered all the great questions of the ages concerning God, man, life after physical death, and the future (ibid:1:171). It might be added that the Bible answers the question of salvation and assurance of the believer. The Bible has a unique view of God when compared to other religions and philosophers. Hodge (ibid:1:171) points out that God to the eastern world is unconscious ground of being. God is all nature to the Greeks. To the philosopher Fichte, man’s subjective ego is God. To Schelling, God is the “One.” It is the union of the subject with the object the One that is the divine God experience (ibid:1:171). To the Christian, it is receiving Jesus Christ as their personal Savior (John 1:12, 14:6).

      2.5.2 Errancy is a philosophical faith and belief.

      The scholar who does not believe in the inerrant Word of God comes with presuppositions and pre-understandings. He is a self-fulfilled prophecy. Trembath (1987:89) argues that the roots of religious certainty extend to the theory of knowledge which is called foundationalism by philosophers. Post-Enlightenment knowledge theories rest upon facts. These theories are a solid empirical foundation (ibid:89). Certainty was based on fact. The Bible is fact to fundamental evangelicals and evangelicals. The words of scripture give certainty to those who are believers in Christ. Trembath points to the authorial intention, the nuance of the words understood by biblical audiences, and usage established by lexicons as the basis for this certainty (ibid:89). Fundamental evangelicals and evangelicals argue for the verbal plenary inspiration of the scriptures or the verbal inspiration of the scriptures. The subjectivity of human authority sitting in judgment on the Word of God must be discarded. The verbal plenary inspiration of the scriptures extends to all parts of scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). The inspiration of the Word of God extends equally to both the Old and New Testaments (1 Tim. 5:18). It extends as well to the choice of the very words of scripture by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13). The Word of God is inspired even to the very choice of letters (Matt. 5:18). The solid foundation of divine words which became the basis for facts argues for the certainty of the inerrancy of the scriptures.

      2.5.3 Errancy is an illogical belief system.

      The belief in the errancy of the bible is a philosophical question. Errancy argues that the bible is filled with errors. Common Sense Philosophy established the fact that through induction (inductive study) facts and self-evident truths are arrived at. This is accomplished by observations and experiments. Induction supports the verbal plenary inspiration of the scriptures. Errancy which is a philosophical position contrary to common sense must be rejected. Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was an English philosopher. He has been called the father of philosophical empiricism. Bacon popularized the scientific method. He used the inductive method for his scientific inquiry. His Novum Organum was a departure from the deductive approach of Aristotle’s Organon. His method of inquiry required the searcher for truth to set aside all of his biases and prejudices. Bacon observed nature. His observations were recorded. He formulated a principle from the data. The final step in his method was to test the experiment (Gillett 1966:130-131). Scottish Common sense philosophy is traced to Thomas Reid (Rescher 2005:16). He was the head of the Scottish school (ibid:16). The status of this school was expanded by those who succeeded him: J. Beattie (1735-1803), Dugald Steward (1753-1828), T. Brown (1778-1820), and James McCosh (1811-1894) (Rescher 2005:16). Scottish Common Sense Philosophy attacked Locke’s idea theory which they attributed to Aristotle (Harris 1998:97). Locke argued that objects perceived are not realities externally so but merely ideas in our minds representing these objects (ibid:97). Hume was another philosopher that the Scottish school attacked (ibid:97). Hume is known for his skepticism. This is historically true (Hurlbutt III 1965:178). Kant said that Hume awakened him from his dogmatic slumbers (Geisler 1988:164). Locke treated objects as ideas in one’s mind. Our perceptions are not knowledge at all but an idea in our mind (Harris 1998:97). Berry (1997:24) states Reid’s thought concisely that his empiricism accepted facts rather than the conjecture of the rational school of philosophy. Locke relied heavily on Descartes (Harris 1998:97). Rene Descartes rejected all certainty. He is known for his doubt. He deemed knowledge to be the result of the perceptions of the thinker. Those who disbelieve the inerrant Word of God may well have been influenced by Descartes. His work Discourse on the Method of rightly conducting the Reason and seeking Truth in the Sciences argued that truth was found by skepticism. Truth was arrived at by not accepting the obscure and uncertain. His perception based on self would be faulted today because of СКАЧАТЬ