Mathers Systematic Theology. Norman W. Mathers

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ He proceeded from the known to the unknown. He has been called the father of modern thought. His philosophy influenced Spinoza, Hegel, and Kant (ibid:131). Harris (1998:98) argues that there is a connection between Scottish Common Sense Philosophy and the thought of evangelicals. Allan (1993:150) argues that Descartes consideration of the principles of human knowledge was the opening that later Scottish historians welcomed to advance their own discipline. Grant’s The Origin of the Gael argued that historical truth was attained by facts and experiments (ibid:150). Reid argued that we perceive objects rather than the ideas of these objects. In effect, he was presenting the concept of direct realism rather than the doctrine of ideas (Harris 1998:98). Memory and the testimony to past events can be relied on to be completely trustworthy. Evangelicals need to embrace this theory of knowledge over Kant’s theory of knowledge. He denied that man has any apparatus in himself to know spiritual things. This is very similar to the truth of 1 Corinthians 2:14. Kant’s view is similar to the Arminian philosophy of truth that we take a step of faith in order to understand. This is contrasted by Calvin’s philosophy of truth that men are dead in trespasses and sins. They are unable in and of themselves to take a step of faith (Eph. 2:1). Evangelicals found it easier to identify with Thomas Reid’s realistic thought on language, testimony, and events. This served as a guide to be able to determine the subjectivity of modern efforts to destroy the biblical record (ibid:99). Those who believe in the errancy of the bible have been taken captive by modern ideological thought (Col. 2:8). Those who believe the Word of God to be inerrant have a solid theory of knowledge in Scottish Common Sense Philosophy. The testimony to the facts of the Bible and their self evident truths are completely trustworthy. Broadie (2003:6 in Broadie (ed.) 2003) discloses that the Scottish Enlightenment was transported to America in the mid eighteenth century. Scots educated by Thomas Reid and his school of thought went to America. Students of these Scottish immigrants came to American colleges to learn the ideas of the Scottish thinkers of that period. This resulted in the spread of Scottish philosophy spread throughout American education. The Scottish Common Sense Philosophy prevailed until the middle of the nineteenth century (ibid:6). The poison of German idealism had been cured (Harris 1998:116). Reid used Newton’s hypothesis that thought contrary to common sense was to be repudiated. John Witherspoon (1723-94) brought the Scottish Common Sense Philosophy to America in the 18^th century as did J. McCosh (1811-94) in the 19^th century. Leaders in America, following the Revolution, welcomed the fact that humanity had a theory of knowledge (epistemology) which became the basis for public morality of a new world order (Harris 1998:126). It was argued that the Bible was a factual book (ibid:127). The Bible and Bacon’s inductive method were brought to America. The Bible, a factual book, was the necessary resource to understand one’s world. Any philosophy which ignored the Bible blasphemed. Evangelicals and those who hold to biblical errancy have committed apostasy and blasphemed against the God of heaven. That evangelicals do teach that the Bible has errors should not surprise us. The current age of grace is predicted in the Scriptures to be characterized by denials of the faith and departures from the truth (1 Tim. 4:1). The scriptures could now be studied and expounded based on the inductive method (Harris 1998:127). The Princeton theology- biblical and theological study – was based on the scientific method of Bacon’s inductive method. James W. Alexander, son of Archibald Alexander was a proponent of this new method. Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology of the Scriptures was based on this method (ibid: 127-128). The Bible uses the scientific method. It is no longer a valid argument to fault the Bible on this basis. As a historian trained in historiography, the Bible is a historically reliable supernatural book. The testimony of past events on the part of eyewitnesses is completely trustworthy (2 Pet. 1:16-19).

      2.6 The inerrancy debate requires historical analysis and explanation.

      2.6.1 The fundamentalist – modernist controversies did not end in the 1920’s and 1930’s.

      This is an ongoing controversy. The 1920s saw division at Princeton Theological Seminary. In 1929, Doctors J.G. Machen, R.D. Wilson, O.T. Allis, C. VanTil, and N. Stonehouse left Princeton Seminary. These Princeton Doctors and scholars founded Westminster Theological Seminary. The National Association of Evangelicals was founded in 1942 because of the rejection of the authority of the scriptures in many main line denominations (Ockenga 1976 Foreword in Lindsell 1976). The power of the Word of God can be seen in the part that Bible translations played in the making of the American republic. The revision of the King James Version of the Bible was completed on May 20, 1881 in the United States. This was the revision of the New Testament. The revision of the Old Testament was not completed until May 19, 1885. The American Standard Bible had a number of obsolete English words. The clamor came for a continuation of the revision of this Bible. The American Revised Version was published in 1898 (Simms 1936:276). It was a revision rather than a translation (Grant 1961:82). The fundamentalist- modern controversy was seen to be continuing in the battle over bible translations. Thuesen (1999:59) points out that a lawyer, Philip Mauro, attacked the Revised Version. Mauro thought the Greek text upon which the New Testament of the Revised Version was based to be defective. His suspicions were focused on the Greek manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Mauro did not accept the argument that older manuscripts were to be preferred. He had greater distrust for the Vaticanus manuscript. He questioned the origin of the Vaticanus manuscript. He questioned why the Vatican would revise and store these manuscripts unless it supported the Roman Catholic position and the practices of Rome. Mauro thought it contained textual errors and was advantageous to Roman Catholicism. W. Burgon, an English scholar argued that the Revised Version had created uncertainty and doubt in the minds of millions of Christians (ibid:60). Allegiance to the King James Bible was reaffirmed (ibid:111). The translators of the Revised Version could not answer in the affirmative that the Bible was trustworthy in all its teachings (ibid:112). Earlier, the Reformed institutions in Calvin’s Europe in the 17^th century had created a definitive statement on the autographa. This question on the autographs (the originals) of scripture became the center of debates in 19^th and 20^th century America (ibid:114). The Preface of the Revised Standard Version admitted that some phrases and words were unclear and had lost their meaning (ibid:112). J. Oliver Buswell Jr. called for a new translation of the Scriptures by scholars who believed in the infallible Word of God and the deity of the eternal Son of God, Jesus Christ (ibid:124). The first revision of the King James Version was 1881-1895. This revision took place in England. The American Standard Bible [this translation is also called the American Revised Version] was published in 1898 (Simms 1936:276). Grant (1961:97) confirms that it was poorly received in America. The American Revised Standard Version was carried out in America from 1945 to 65 (ibid:4). Thuesen (1999:4) argues that since the Reformation and the Enlightenment these two events shaped the world of English speaking Christians. The Revised Standard Version was published in the United States in 1952 (Bridges & Weigle 1960:v-vi). M.F. Unger objected to the translator’s view that translation was a matter of linguistics not theology. Dr. Unger’s counter argument was that this view disregarded the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The National Association of Evangelicals wanted a new translation of the scriptures. This would eventuate in the New International Version (Thuesen 1999:13). The nineteen fifties in the United States centered around the Bible’s authority (ibid: 4). On this question, English bible translations had not come to a conclusion in 600 years. The Bible testifies to its own authority (2 Tim. 3:16-17 and 2 Pet. 1:20-21) (ibid:124-125). C. I. Scofield argued that fulfilled prophecy was proof of an inspired and inerrant Bible (ibid:125). Luther Weigle claimed that the Revised Standard Version translators were without bias (ibid:128). Fuller Seminary was founded in 1947. It became a neo-evangelical center. G. E. Ladd argued that the Revised Standard Version was not an adequate translation (ibid:129). It translated Isaiah 7:14 as a young woman rather than virgin. This Protestant translation, the Revised Standard Version, claimed to have used the latest scholarly information available (Rosenberg 1961:25). The Revised Standard Bible had become a catalyst and created a great deal of confusion in the area of biblical hermeneutics (Thuesen 1999:129). In 1953, Evangelical Theological Society requested revisions in the Revised Standard Version. They appointed J. R. Mantey to see if cooperation was possible with the Revised Standard Version translators. Negotiations failed. In 1969, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Christian Reformed Church met at Trinity College in Illinois. It was decided a new translation of the scriptures was needed. СКАЧАТЬ