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 its extreme subjectivity (Gillett 1966:131). 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