Who errs?
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
They erred, not knowing the scriptures. Apparently the ability to not err comes from knowing the scripture. Which would mean that the scriptures are without err wouldn't it?
posted by Looking Upward @ 4/08/2008 09:13:00 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Err - to wander, to stray, to depart from rectitude, to blunder
Adam erred.
Eve erred.
Cain erred.
Abram erred.
Moses erred.
David erred.
Solomon erred.
Isaiah erred.
Peter erred.
Judas erred.
Paul erred.
James erred.
I err!
Since Moses and Isaiah erred, does that mean the Pharisees & Sadducees of Matt. 22, who erred, are in good company? Not according to Jesus (John 5:45.)
I take no comfort whatsoever in the fact that Adam or anyone else erred. Adam represents the totality of my personal "error" (1 Cor. 15:22.)
Study Heb. 4:11-13 - The deal is that we should be striving not to fall by the same sort of disobedience. The Word of God, according to this passage, is the only means capable of informing our conscience and rending confession in our heart so that we can enter the peace ("rest") provided by our great High Priest. If Scripture, therefore, contains any error whatsoever, we absolutely cannot approach His throne in confidence ("boldly").
Jesus, our great High Priest, according to Scripture, did not err (2 Cor. 5:21.) Jesus is the emboidment, of all that the Word is (John 1.) (For example: the Word is a lamp, Jesus is the Light; the Word is bread, Jesus is the Bread of Life.) Therefore, like Jesus Christ, the Word does not and cannot err.
The inerrant scripture points me to a Savior who is without error (1 Pet. 1:19) so that I can be glorified with Him one day without any more error (1 Cor. 15:53; Eph. 5:27; 2 Pet. 3:14.)
So, the answer to the question is, "Yes, the scriptures are without error." I would like to add that Scripture is without error on its own merit, however, and not on the merit of any logical conclusion by man.
Dave, you'll notice that 'inerrant' means 'without wandering' and not 'without error' as you define it. Maybe it's an exercise in semantics, but it seems to me that there is a significant difference. Does this difference mean I believe the written scripture to possess error? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Not only do they not possess error, but they also are not fluid, or wandering! The scripture is stable! The scripture is fixed! The scripture is true! The scripture is complete in its presentation of fact and teaching!
Adam blundered.
Eve strayed.
Cain departed from uprightness.
Abram wandered (literally, but also in his faithfulness).
Moses wasn't honest.
David compromised his integrity.
and on...
and on...
and on...
The scripture, however, hasn't, won't, don't and never will change, or move, or misguide.
The scripture is inerrant! It is without err! It is also without error! Whereas I am both errant and in error! So, as that upward looking guy says, it is apparent that the ability to not err comes from knowing the scriptures. Let's get to know (in a scriptural sense) the scriptures. Let's ingest them. Let's consume them. Let's become intimately acquainted with them to the point of becoming 'one' with them!
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm
That is the definition of inerrancy.
Further, all truth is God's truth, so any logical conclusion that is true is God's not mine. So, if it is a valid conclusion that is reached, it is God's.
The more logical we become, the closer to God we become... (paraphased from Ravi Zacharias)
That is not say that logic is somehow removed from experience, or the Holy Spirit working by revelation and illumination. But, that is another topic for another day.
The word inerrant means "free from error"; it does not mean "without wandering".
Along with that, Proverbs 30:5 (Heb: "tsaraph") conveys the view that the Word is "unwavering" (or does not wander.) And Psalm 119:160 uses the Hebrew emeth meaning "truth".
My point was that the Bible is not without error because we say so, hope so, or logically conclude to be so. It is without error because the Bible says so, and inherently on the basis that it is God's Word.
The more logical we become, the closer to God we become.
Isn't it the other way 'round? I would assert that we become closer to God only through His Word. The more of His Word we hide in our hearts, the more "logical" we will become, our logic becoming generally reliable, to extent of our spiritual maturity.
Ken Ham's teaching is a prime example of how logic is based first and foremost on the Word. Being drawn closer to God through His Word is necessary to make our crooked paths straight so that all other thinking can be properly logical.
Maybe you have read Isaac Watts' treatise on logic which he wrote in 1724. The inerrancy of scripture is predicated on the basis of inspiration. Watts conluded that inspiration is a "sort of evidence distinct from all the former [the logic of sense, consciousness, intelligence, reason and faith]; and, that is, when such an overpowering impression of any proposition is made upon the mind of God himself, that gives a convincing and indubitable evidence of the truth and divinity of it; so were the prophets and the apostles inspired."
Here is an
interesting post today by Al Mohler on biblical authority. This article shows Dr. John Buchanan to be logical - and wrong, moving away from God.
I think I found Ravi Zacharias' quote you were referring to:
The more logical secular man is, the closer he moves to the pronouncements of God, and proves what God has already said.
The more illogical man is, the farther he runs away from establishing that corroboration. The more logical he is, the more he sustains what God has said."
It's in this presentation at time-mark 11:19:
What Happened
After Gods Funeral (Part 1)
For the full context, the remaining parts are here: Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.
The Bible is the inerrant word of God.
How do you know that?
Because the Bible says so.
Logical fallacy: Begging the question.
Several statements can stand as premises in the same syllogism -God cannot lie, God exists, etc...
Further, the existence of God, can be reasoned to extra-biblically... can't it?
If so, then it forces us to find his method and means of communication to see what he says about himself and his realm.
This is not to say that I disagree with what has been said or that I believe that the Word is unecessary...
just digging...
*shaking head*
I can't believe you found that Ravi quote - your research dedication is amazing
The Buchanan quote didn't appear logical to me... it appeared cowardly. Or, if it was logical, it was definitely fallen man's logic...
I think that it is logical to trust God that his Word is inerrant.
...observe one more logical fallacy:
"I AM"
That kind of thing is what makes discovering God so compelling and 'general revelation' so convicting.
Who in the world refers to himself as "I am"...?
Post a Comment
<< Home