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

Question

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

Answer 1

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.

Answer 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.

Answer 3

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.