Theology beacon dictionary of theology
Download 6.66 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- MISTAKES, LEGAL SIN (ETHICAL SIN), SIN, GROW (GROWTH). For Further Reading: Baldwin, Holiness and the Hu- man Element; Taylor
- PREDESTINATION, FOREKNOWLEDGE, CALVINISM, ARMINIANISM. For Further Reading: Toon, Hyper-Calvinism, 3-31, 104-19; Wiley, CT
- HEIR, EARNEST, ETERNAL LIFE. For Further Reading: Bennett, "Heir," and Martin, "Inheritance," HDB; Bakers DT
- SIN, DECALOGUE.
- INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE.
- The error springs from a failure to distinguish between revelation as the varying quantity, and
- BIBLE, BIBLICAL AUTHORITY, BIBLICAL INERRANCY BIBLICAL REALISM, PROPOSITIONAL THEOLOGY. For Further Reading: Wiley, CT, 1:166-84; Thomas
- Henry, Revelation and the Bible, 105-52.
- For Further Reading: Purkiser
INFIRMITIES. The NT word astheneia is translated "weakness," "infirmity," and "sickness." In Rom. 15:1 infirmities refer to errors arising from weakness of mind or judgment. Scriptures refer to infirmities in a non-judgmental way and assure us of God's gracious INFRALAPSARIANISM—INHERITANCE 283
enabling in the face of infirmity (see Rom. 6:19; 8:26; 2 Cor. 12:5, 10; Heb. 4:15). There is no scriptural warrant for regarding either physical infirmities or mental weaknesses and any of their proper consequences as culpable sins, though they are part of the human condition resulting from the Fall. Theologically, infirmities may be defined as involuntary faults and weaknesses in mental, emotional, and physical dimensions. They fall short of Adamic and divine perfection in ways other than by wilful transgression. So-called sins of ignorance, for instance, are violations of God's perfect law due to the infirmity of ignorance. While theologians differ in assigning culpability to such violations of perfection, all agree that there is no one so perfect in this life as to be free from these natural imperfections of impaired human finiteness. Wesleyan theology carefully distinguishes mistakes (involuntary shortcomings) from sins (wilful transgressions); and infirmity from carnality. While the complete remedy of infirmities awaits the resurrection and glorification, redemption from perversity and carnality is possible now. Infirmities require compassion and healing, whereas sin provokes God's displeasure and needs forgiveness and cleansing. Infirmities of various kinds, are, therefore, not inconsistent with entire sanctification, as John Wesley clearly enunciated in his Plain Account of Christian Perfection. Some infirmities—such as deficiencies of knowledge, immaturity, forgetfulness, prejudice, emotional impairment, weaknesses of temperament—are capable of improvement in this life. Others, such as certain birth defects, are not. A catalogue of infirmities would include such diverse defects as poor judgment, dullness, errors of discernment, faulty reasoning, inferiority complexes, misconceptions, clumsy communication, etc. It is evident that infirmities bring much pain and inconvenience to others. They are, however, quite different in kind to sin, which requires God's forgiveness. An infirmity which is capable of correction may become sin, if, after detecting our fault, we choose to continue in it. See MISTAKES, LEGAL SIN (ETHICAL SIN), SIN, GROW (GROWTH).
The assertion that God decreed salvation or damnation prior to creation is termed supralapsarianism ("before the Fall"). This view holds that before the foundations of the world were laid, God issued His eternal decrees. Thus the fall of Adam becomes a part of God's plan. In a sense, God is responsible for the Fall (lapsus means "Fall"), making election necessary. Placement of election subsequent to creation and the Fall is known as infralapsarianism ("after the Fall"). According to this position, God issued His decrees of election after the Fall, so as to redeem a part of His creation. The respective positions are of theological consequence only for those subscribing to some type of Reformed or Calvinistic theology. John Calvin found it repugnant to speculate about the thought processes of God, but contrary to his pupil, Theodore Beza, Calvin's theology in his 7nsff-tutes of the Christian Religion (esp. Book 3) is generally infralapsarian. Wesleyan-Arminian theologians are not confronted with the dilemma within the boundaries of Wesleyan dogmatics. The question does not arise, for the nature of election is defined in different terms. Rather than referring to the election of certain individuals, Wesleyans define election in terms of class, namely believers. The gracious purpose of God is to save mankind, as many as believe. This plan includes provisionally all men and is conditioned solely on faith in Jesus Christ. See PREDESTINATION, FOREKNOWLEDGE, CALVINISM, ARMINIANISM.
This inheritance was promised to Abram on the basis of obedience: "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house ... And I will make of you a great nation" (Gen. 12:1-2, rsv). The inheritance was to be "for ever" 284 INHERITED SIN—INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE (13:15), yet was contingent upon continued faithfulness to Jehovah. "The patriarchs and people certainly looked to the possession of the land ... but the light in which they regarded it, was that of a settled place of abode with God, where he would be fully present, and where they would find repose in his fellowship" (HDB, 2:472). In a similar vein David sings, "The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance" (Ps. 16:5). The NT counterpart is the new covenant given to God's people—"the promise of eternal inheritance" (Heb. 9:15). "God ... hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things" (1:1-2). Paul reasons that if we are children of God, we are heirs of the Father. To make that concept fully Christian, he relates it to Christ, the Son and Heir. In Him we become joint-heirs of all the blessings from a Heavenly Father. Here the NT also indicates obedience as the condition for enjoying our inheritance. If we walk with our Lord in His obedience to suffering, we shall "be also glorified together" (Rom. 8:16-17). In Christ we have "an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith" (1 Pet. 1:4-5). See HEIR, EARNEST, ETERNAL LIFE. For Further Reading: Bennett, "Heir," and Martin, "Inheritance," HDB; Baker's DT, 266; Easton, "Heir," and Hirsch, "Inheritance," ISBE. A. F. HARPER INHERITED SIN. See original sin. INIQUITY. Iniquity describes man's violation of God's character. When a person denies God's holy sovereignty, by whatever attitude or act, he commits iniquity. As first demonstrated by - Adam, iniquity primarily consists of disobedience to God (Gen. 2:17; 3:12). This has caused a breach between man and God. And only God can bridge that rift. The biblical usage of iniquity teaches four key concepts. First, man is personally accountable for iniquity (Num. 5:31). Second, the ensuing punishment is only just (Amos 3:2; Isa. 26:21). Third, man stands helpless when faced with the enormity of his iniquity: "For my iniquities are gone over my head; as a heavy burden they weigh too much for me" (Ps. 38:4, nasb). Finally, the Bible teaches a sole solution. God alone can provide the forgiveness required to cancel man's guilt (Isa. 40:2; Ps. 51:2; Jer. 31:34). The principal Hebrew (OT) terms translated "iniquity" depict futile deviation from true virtue (avert, avon). Comparison of several related terms further clarifies the meaning: sin—failure before a declared standard; rebellion—deliberate revolt; straying—ignorant wandering; godlessness— willful ignorance; guilt—inner conviction of chargeable offense. The Greek (NT) terms for iniquity suggest injustice and unlawful activity (adikia, anomia). The following concepts also are related: trespass, or transgression—a specific violation; wickedness—a state of failure; impiety —a blatant offense against God. Today the concept of iniquity has been severely undermined by vacillating values and humanistic philosophy. Certain theological camps have minimized the extent and influence of maris depravity and sinfulness. A weakened view of iniquity leads at once to a weakened view of the Savior, and a false gospel results. Iniquity does indeed inflict deep stains. But they are not indelible. The blood of Christ is able to cleanse us (Titus 2:14). See SIN, DECALOGUE. For Further Reading: Unger's Bible Dictionary, 526;
Initial but incomplete sanctification is implied in such passages as 2 Cor. 7:1 and Eph. 4:13. One of the clearest examples is in 1 Cor. 6:9-11. The Corinthians who were once stained by sin have been "washed ... sanctified ... justified." "Here indeed are both real and relative changes" (GMS, 458). See ACQUIRED DEPRAVITY, NEW BIRTH, SANCTIFICATION, ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION, FIRST WORK OF GRACE.
INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE (cont.) 285
production of the Bible. The activity of the Spirit is such that the Bible can properly be called the Word of God. This inspiration is unique in the sense that, as the term is used theologically, it applies to the Bible in a way and to a degree not true of any other collection of writings. The doctrine is violated when the assumption is made that the inspiration which produced the Bible is no different from the inspiration which prompts great hymns or great sermons. Jesus and the NT writers saw in the Scriptures an immediate impulse of the Spirit so pervasive that they could ascribe the words to the Holy Spirit as well as to the human authors. In a general way this is implied by the formula, "It is written," used approximately 74 times, always as the final court of appeal (e.g., 1 Pet. 1:16). The Scriptures are not only called "holy" (Rom. 1:2; 2 Tim. 3:15), but universally treated as holy with a deference amounting to complete faith and submission. The belief of Jesus and the apostles that "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35) and that the prophetic elements must be fulfilled (e.g., Mark 14:49; Luke 24:44) are further testimony to the divine origin and hence the inviolable authority of the OT. But the direct ascribing of the words of the OT to the Holy Spirit, noted above, is unmistakable. Jesus said that David "in the Spirit" called the coming Messiah "Lord" (Matt. 22:43, nasb). Our Lord responded to Satan in the wilderness by quoting Deut. 8:3: "Man shall.. . live ... on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4, nasb). That Jesus equated these words not just with some original oral pronouncement by God but with their preservation in the Bible is clear from "It is written" and subsequent frequent references to the OT. It is equally clear that Jesus did not confine the Word of God to specific instances of "Thus saith the Lord" which were recorded in the Bible, but to the Scriptures themselves. There is no "God said" prefacing Gen. 2:24—"For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife" (nasb); on the surface this is the writing of Moses. But Jesus ascribed Moses' word here to God: "Haven't you read .. . that. .. the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason .. . ?"' (Matt. 19:4-5, Niv). Moses was the penman, but the words were God's—hence the authority. This was Zacharias' understanding too. God's action in raising up Christ was the fulfillment of what "He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old" (Luke 1:70, nasb). This view of Scripture is echoed by Peter: "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David" (Acts 1:16, niv). If this view of Scripture was overly primitive and simplistic, the Holy Spirit did not correct them! For on the Day of Pentecost Peter speaks in the same manner: "This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'In the last days, God says, ... '"(Acts 2:16-17, niv; 28:25). Paul's conception of Scripture was exactly the same: "The gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son" (Rom. 1:2-3, niv; cf. Heb. 3:7; 4:3-4; 9:8; 10:15). It is apparent that the Early Church accepted without question the OT Scriptures as literally the Word of God. In its words God is speaking; since this is true, the words are valid for the Church. The most direct affirmation of an apostolic doctrine of inspiration is in 2 Tim. 3:16—"All Scripture is God-breathed" (niv). "All Scripture" would to first-century readers mean the canon of the OT, corresponding to the 39 books with which we are familiar. The KJV phrase "given by inspiration of God" is better rendered "God-breathed," since it translates a single word, the-opneustos: theo, "God," and pneustos, "breathe" (from pned, "to breathe"). Inspiration is inbreathing. That the Third Person of the Trinity is the active Agent in this inspiring is affirmed by Peter: "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet. 1:21, niv). This is the written word, not merely the spoken, as the context shows. As Bishop Westcott observes: "The book is thus rightly said to be inspired no less than the Prophet" (quoted by Thomas, The Holy Spirit of God, 155). The Bible does not explain how the Spirit "carried along" the speaking and writing prophets. The Church has almost been unanimous—at least in modern times—in rejecting the theory of dictation, i.e., that the human writers were completely passive instruments. The evidences of very human individuality in style and method, including active research (Luke 1:1-4), are too overwhelming to permit any theory which reduces the writers to mere puppets. They doubtless were aware of divine aid and impulse, and as a consequence often sensed that they were writing beyond their understanding (1 Pet. 1:10-12); yet they were equally aware of intense intellectual activity which resulted in stylistic peculiarities which would have been theirs without inspiration. As Thomas says: "No theory of inspiration can satisfy the conditions which allows
286 INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY the human to exclude the Divine at any point, or the Divine to supersede the human" (ibid., 156). A so-called dynamic theory has often been understood to imply that the Holy Spirit impressed the mind with thoughts but left writers entirely uninfluenced in their choice of words. In this case we are compelled to speak of inspired men, but can hardly speak of an inspired Bible. If in no sense did the inspiration extend to the words, then it did not reach the concrete volume which we hold in our hands and read. How do we know that the words accurately express the Spirit-given thoughts? Or even perhaps distort them? The thoughts died with the writers. On the other hand the theory of verbal inspiration has been often misunderstood to imply simple dictation. But the best adherents of verbal inspiration (e.g., Carl F. H. Henry, Clark Pinnock, R. Laird Harris) unanimously disavow an implied dictation. By verbal inspiration is meant that the influencing and superintending of the Spirit was sufficiently dynamic and dominant to assure that what the Spirit wanted said was said, without distortion or error. The degree of Spirit impression could have ranged all the way from occasional dictation, to heightened insight, to general overruling in the selection of materials. Stylistic differences, in and of themselves, do not necessarily constitute a stumbling block to belief in verbal inspiration, as long as we steer clear of the idea of dictation. The words are freely chosen by the writer and are peculiar to him; but they express accurately and adequately the truth God intended. To extract this truth, these are the words we must deal with, and no others. If we believe the Holy Spirit led in the writer's free choice of words, then belief in verbal inspiration means that we do not try to correct the words or wish they had been different. To say, for example, "I wish Paul hadn't said that," is to do violence to a proper concept of inspiration. Wiley defines inspiration as "the actuating energy of the Holy Spirit by which holy men were qualified to receive religious truth and to communicate it to others without error" (CT, 1:168). The fact of inspiration is uniform throughout the 66 books; the relative importance of the parts is not uniform, for they differ in level of revelation. Wiley sees that inspiration permits degrees of divine activity: superintendence, elevation, and suggestion, but he refuses to regard them as "degrees of inspiration," since to hold such a view is to "weaken the authority of the Bible as a whole" (ibid., 170). He continues:
The Church gradually came to perceive in the documents of the NT the same unique inspiration which had been universally ascribed to the OT. The documents themselves are replete with evidences of awareness of divine authority, and 2 Pet. 3:15-18 places Paul's Epistles on a par with "the other Scriptures" (Niv), so divinely authoritative that to distort and twist them is to cause spiritual destruction. See BIBLE, BIBLICAL AUTHORITY, BIBLICAL INERRANCY BIBLICAL REALISM, PROPOSITIONAL THEOLOGY.
INTEGRITY—INTEGRITY THERAPY 287
however, it is Christianity, through its Scriptures, which provides adequate information concerning the divine origin even of these institutions. From Scripture we understand their nature and purpose—and what constitutes a Christian attitude and relationship to them. The church is the organization in which God's people relate to each other. Its roots are found in the OT people of God, but it came into its present form as the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-30). It is the embodiment and instrument of our Lord who said, "I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18). The universal Church is composed of all spiritually regenerate persons. The term "church" is also used for a local body of believers. One is included in Christ's Church by becoming a Christian, but he finds adequate fellowship and ministry only as he lives and serves Christ through some local congregation. In the church we identify ourselves with the purposes of Jesus Christ who came "to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). We join in His ministry: "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" (John 10:10). These Christian institutions are not only basic to Christianity but also to society and civilization. It is not surprising, therefore, if they should be the objects of satanic attack in every generation, and also the objects of the antiauthoritar-ian hostility of the carnal heart of man. Paradoxically the sinfulness of man may take the form, not of opposition to these institutions per se, but of perverting them to selfish ends. Christians must ever be on guard against allowing legitimate and necessary institutions to become masters instead of servants. See state (the), family, church. For Further Reading: Purkiser, ed., Exploring Our Christian Faith, 393-408; Wiley, CI, 3:103-37. A. F. Harper
Directory: sites -> default -> files -> publications publications -> Table of Content forward introduction publications -> Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies Georgia Institute of Technology publications -> Housing Counseling Research in Chicago publications -> Communicating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Audiences publications -> New Brunswick Info Sheet on First Nations Child Welfare publications -> Paap’s Electronic Newsletter 14 November 2008 Volume 11 Number 22 towards ‘smart’ subsidies in agriculture: lessons from recent experience in malawi publications -> Information support of pedagogical process for the children experiencing difficulties with acquisition of preschool educational programs publications -> Asus’ ZenFone ar has Google’s augmentted and virtual reality baked in — but not combined publications -> School Readiness and Early Grade Success Consultation Memo Atlanta, ga Download 6.66 Mb. Share with your friends:
|