1

From this link:

Christians have said Scripture is infallible because they have believed that God’s Word is incapable of erring and thus contains no errors

The above sentences maybe to everyone else is easy to be understood by the Calvinist, but not for me (especially I'm not a Christian).

To me, God's Word is absolutely the truth. So to me it doesn't need to be believed. It's just like there is an ice cube in the fridge, then it doesn't make sense if I say "I believe that ice cube is cold".

To me, the chronological order is like this :
Christians have believed that "X" writing is God's Words.
So, Christians believe that "X" writing is Scripture.
Since God's Words is infallible, then Christians believe that "X" writing is infallible.

So to me, the "believe" is not on the God's Words, but that "X" writing which is believed God's Words. The chronological order is : IF there is a writing which is believed God's Words THEN that writing is infallible. Later on : Because this writing is believed God's Words then this writing is infallible

Another quote from the same link:

If God never lies, His Word never lies either. We can therefore trust it to be free from all error

The same, it's confusing to me as the IF is on "God never lies", while my own chronological order the IF is on "the writing" ---> IF this X writing is God's Words THEN there is no lie in this X writing. (Why the "THEN" is like that ? because God never lies).

Because to me the IF is : IF the writing is believed God's Words then the writing does not endorse anything untrue in the point of view whoever believe that writing is God's Words then it raise a question: *how "God never lies" is the IF ?*

"The Christians have believed that God’s Word is incapable of erring"

So my question is:
how "God's Words is incapable of erring" is a believe ?

Please ignore the question if the sentence in the quote is just a circular sentence like this :
1. Christians have said Scripture is infallible because they have believed that Scripture is incapable of erring and thus contains no errors
2. If Scripture never lies, Scripture never lies either. We can therefore trust it to be free from all error

| improve this question | |
  • 3
    There is a difference between 1) my reading words in the bible that state that Christ died for sinners and accepting the fact of that, and 2) my believing on Jesus Christ for the salvation of my own soul such that I enter into a relationship with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, by faith. Your question seems not to be aware of the difference between these two states. – Nigel J Dec 8 '19 at 20:28
  • 2
    I think you got the grouping confused (which is understandable from the grammar): Scripture is infallible because God's word is incapable of erring is the argument. Christians say it because they believe it. So the statement had 2 if-thens smashed into 1 that made it confusing. As I think you would agree, believing something does not make it true. – Alex Strasser Dec 8 '19 at 23:15
  • @AlexStrasser, thank you for the explanation. Yes, if the sentence like as you wrote : "Scripture is infallible because God's word is incapable of erring is the argument", I can quickly understand it. So maybe it's the type of English grammar which I don't understand as the article write : "Scripture is infallible because they have believed that God’s Word is incapable of erring" .... then to me the "because they have believed that God's Word is incapable of erring" is the argument. (continue) – karma Dec 9 '19 at 15:30
  • The other thing is the IF, I still don't understand why the IF is on "IF God never lies" not "IF this writing is God's Words" – karma Dec 9 '19 at 15:30
  • A different representation would be "Christians have said x because they believe y," where y implies x. The way to group it would be "Christians [have said Scripture is infallible] because [they have believed God's word is incapable of erring.] NOT "Christians have said [Scripture is infallible because they have believed God's word is incapable of erroring]." So they say it because they believe it. The grammar makes it ambigous but I know that is their argument. Hope that helps – Alex Strasser Dec 9 '19 at 19:38
2

You can only be as confident about something as you are confident about the basis for that something. So just as you say, the Christians who believe in the infallibility of scripture believe it, they don't know it like they know that 2 + 2 = 4 or that gravity is real. It's not possible to prove the infallibility of scripture. There's no science that we can do to prove the infallibility of scripture. There's no sound deductive argument to prove the infallibility of scripture. Neither can we prove that the scriptures are inspired by God or are God's word. The best we have is many lines of inductive reasoning that lead us believe that it is most likely that the scriptures are infallible.

If you see Christians saying that they "know" the scriptures are inspired or infallible, don't see that as a scientific or rigid deductive philosophical kind of knowledge, but instead the kind of relational knowledge you have when you say you know your parents or your spouse loves you. This kind of knowledge and belief is grown on the basis of years of experience of reliability.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thank you for the answer, curiousdannii. To be honest, I have difficulties to put it in English language. What I don't understand is not "this X writing is believed God's Word" , or "this X writing is believed infallible" , but "God's Word is believed infallible". Since to me "God's Words is infallible" = "ice is cold", that's why I don't understand : "God's Word is believed infallible". I can understand to a sentence like this : "Pope's Word is believed infallible". – karma Dec 12 '19 at 6:12
  • @karma Why do you find that hard to understand? – curiousdannii♦ Dec 12 '19 at 6:41
  • Because to me, God is different than Pope, curiousdannii. – karma Dec 12 '19 at 7:05
  • @karma What about God is different that makes "God's word is infallible" hard for you to understand? – curiousdannii♦ Dec 12 '19 at 7:07
  • It's not that "God's word is infallible" hard for me to understand, but "[God's Word is infallible] is a believe" which made me can't understand. On the other hand, "[Pope's Word is infallible] is a believe" I can understand. While "[God's Word is infallible] is a believe" to me is like "[ice is cold] is a believe", I can't understand. – karma Dec 12 '19 at 7:15
2

According to the Calvinist, why “believe” if something is known absolutely true?

Philosophically speaking it is wise to live in agreement with truth. 2 + 2 = 4 is known to be true, so one would be a fool to live life believing that 2 + 2 = 29. Secondly, our values and behaviors are shaped by what we believe whether it's true or not.

To me, God's Word is absolutely the truth. So to me it doesn't need to be believed.

I would argue that this is why it should be believed. Think of all of the negative consequences in life that people experience for not believing what is true. Furthermore God's word being absolutely true is independent of our belief. Believing it's true doesn't make it true.

| improve this answer | |
  • Your last sentence contains a powerful point that really does answer the question. It made me think of C.S. Lewis's words; "A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell." And then, the Bible verse, "Let God be true, though every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). Believing in the utter integrity and truth of God is what every Christian needs to do. It follows that if God is true, then so is his word! – Anne Dec 11 '19 at 17:45
  • Thank you for the answer, Lionsden. You wrote : "I would argue that this is why it should be believed". But to me, in order it fits with my question, I think your sentence should be : "I would argue that [God's Word is the truth] is a believe". As I mentioned before, because to me "God's Word is infallible" = "ice is cold", that's why I don't understand that [God's Word is infallible] is a believe. Different story if the sentence [Pope's Word is infallible], so then to me [Pope's Word is infallible] is a believe. – karma Dec 12 '19 at 6:25
  • I guess I'm getting a little lost in trying to understand what you are saying. Let me try to clarify: The Bible is God's word and is true AND I also believe that the Bible is God's words and is true. There are many that believe that the Bible is not true. The validity of the Bible is not found in the belief or lack of belief of the individual. To me it sounds like you are saying, "It's common sense to believe that ice is cold" I agree. However there will be those that believe the contrary despite the evidence. – Lionsden Dec 12 '19 at 17:03
  • @Lionsden, you wrote : To me it sounds like you are saying, "It's common sense to believe that ice is cold". I'm sorry, that's not what I mean. To me, "ice is cold" is not a believe, but is a knowledge which weird if put to a question like this : is it true or not that "ice is cold ?" The same with "God's Word is infallible". The problem is "which one is the God's Word ?". Now if the answer is : "All the text in the Bible is God's Word" ---> then this is a believe. So to me, "God's Word is infallible" is not the same with "The Bible is infallible". (continue) – karma May 7 at 18:37
  • Put in a question : "Why the Bible is infallible ?". The answer is not "Because God's word is infallible", but "Because people believe that the Bible is God's Word". That's why I don't understand why "God's word is infallible" is a believe, while I do understand that "The Bible is infallible" is a believe. – karma May 7 at 18:37
0

Its a matter of simple English. If anything is true we believe it. If its not true we don't believe it.

Unfortunately the idea has got around that "believing" something is when you decide you want that something to be true but do not have sufficient evidence to know it is true. In fact, in Biblical language, "believing" is sometimes more than just "knowing", not less. The Devil knows that Jesus is the Son of God, but the Devil does not believe in or on the Son of God, meaning the Devil does not have a loving trust of the Son of God but rather hates the Son of God.

However, we believe many things because we have sufficient evidence to believe them to be true, even though we cannot absolutely prove them to be true. For instance:

  1. I believe the sun will come up tomorrow morning, even though I cannot absolutely prove it; but, I am confident enough it will so that I live on the assumption that it will;

  2. I believe this chair is reliable to sit on (I do not absolutely know it, but I am confident enough to sit on it, which means I have a very strong confidence in it);

"Believing" and "knowing" can often be considered to have the same meaning. To say you believe something to be true is virtually the same as to say you know something to be true.

| improve this answer | |
  • I'm sorry as it still difficult to me to understand it, Andrew. Suppose when I see the rain is pouring, I can't understand if I say "I believe the rain is pouring". The same thing like I say "I believe ice is cold" or "I believe God's Word is infallible"... but "I believe Pope's Word is infallible" or "I believe the Bible is infallible" I can understand it :). – karma May 7 at 18:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.