That's nice, but how do I know that? If I say there are pink unicorns on Jupiter, will you assume that I believe or know that as a matter of fact? I would say the latter, because of the way I presented it matter-of-factly, and I should be prepared to offer some proof.
The idea that God is provable is contrary to faith
Agree, but scholasticism, the backbone of the Catholic theology, rests on the premise that God is provable even though he is not conceivable.
[Hebrews ii]:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”
The author is simply telling Hellenized Jews a neat amalgam of Jewish mythology mixed with Greek philosophy, is he not? God created the world with his word ("Let there be light"), and the world was made of atoms (uncuttable, indivisible, and invisible particles) the Greek philosophers were postulating since the 5th century BC (Indians philosophers actually beat them by a century and it's possible that this may have trickled to Greece from India).
This mixing of Hellenic and Jewish beliefs was a necessary requisite for pagan Greeks and Hellenized Jews to accept Pauline Christianity, as the Church in Israel was dying.
The word translated faith means...conviction of truth of anything...
Agreed. It is a very humble definition and anything but a matter-of-fact about it. But when I read
or
there is nothing humble or not matter of fact about these statements. I call that spiritual arrogance, especially since, as you argue correctly, God is not subject to proof, because assumptions cannot be proven.
In addition to that, with God, proof is made that much more impossible because we cannot define God. If we cannot define God, if God is "beyond everything," how can we know what is God? With another assumption?
Again, I am not interested in challenging or downplaying people's beliefs. People believe all sorts of things. I can't and won't argue over beliefs. But when stated as a matter of fact and not faith, I ask for proof because I am curious.
The wise fathers who composed the Nicene-Constantinopolean Creed (the Symnbol of Faith) made sure it started humbly with the words "We believe in one God..." and not "There is but one God..." (as the Muslims do). Where is that same humility in the quotes above regarding inerrancy of the Bible?
“Where is that same humility in the quotes above regarding inerrancy of the Bible?”
I can’t speak for Catholic doctrine. For Protestants, the truth of scripture is something that must be revealed to you. The individual chooses to believe it or not.
During the debate about canon, Catholics claim their church gave the Bible as true. bdeaner posted an article some time back where they claim the scriptures belong to them, to do with as they wish.
Along with most Protestants, I say the councils were RATIFYING what their individual churches and church members believed. Almost all of the Christians of the time accepted the gospels and pauline letters, and 1 Peter and some others, as scripture equal to the Old Testament - although there was debate on whether to accept the Jewish Canon or add some to it.
Other books, like 2 Peter and Hebrews, took longer. They had not been as well circulated, and the churches - individuals and individual congregations - hadn’t completely accepted them by consensus. With greater exposure to them, they did.
Calvin argued YOU determine Scripture. If you accept Catholic doctrine, then you must accept their list. If not, then you have to determine on your own what books are God-breathed. The vast majority of Christians today accept what the churches decided 1600-1900 years ago.
In discussions here between Protestants and Catholics, you’ve seen the difference. A Catholic will quote from the Apocrypha and 8 Church Fathers, and the Protestant will reply, “So what?” When I debated Mormons years ago, we could debate based on the Bible, which they SORT OF accepted, or we could not debate, since I didn’t recognize the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price etc as scripture.
“If I say there are pink unicorns on Jupiter, will you assume that I believe or know that as a matter of fact? I would say the latter, because of the way I presented it matter-of-factly, and I should be prepared to offer some proof.”
Depends on what you mean by proof. Proof in a mathematical sense, no. Proof in the sense of ‘Is it probable or plausible?’, yes. Proof means different things in mathematics, biology, criminal court and civil court.
How are you using it?