You obviously misread Calvin. Scripture is no more open to proof than God is. God isn’t mathematics. God isn’t someone we dissect. God, if he exists at all, is too big for our minds.
Therefore, you believe or you do not. But reason cannot be an infallible guide, because your reason is inadequate for the task.
Please understand! I’m not even TRYING to prove Scripture is God’s Word to you. I assume it, and go from there. It is part of my belief that NOTHING I do or say will ‘prove’ God or Scripture.
Now, once one assumes Scripture is God’s Word, and infallible, then those who agree can use it for rational discussion about their beliefs.
But I have never tried to prove God or Scripture to you. That is above my pay grade. You cannot know God by reason. It takes revelation, and I’m not divine, so I can’t give it.
Excuse me, I thought God was an objective truth (or so it is claimed by the believers). Only fantasy, fairy tales and delusions are not subject to proof. Objective phenomena are verifiable, certifiable reality.
How do you put all your eggs in that unprovable basket and say you are "at peace?" That's like sticking your head under the pillow and pretending the sun doesn't shine.
Therefore, you believe or you do not. But reason cannot be an infallible guide, because your reason is inadequate for the task
Reason is inadequate, but blind faith is adequate? How revealing.
Please understand! I’m not even TRYING to prove Scripture is God’s Word to you
Well, you should because you keep asserting that they are.
I assume it, and go from there.
You assume that they are and then go around stating they are as if it were a fact? I find that somewhat misleading.
It is part of my belief that NOTHING I do or say will ‘prove’ God or Scripture
How convenient. First you assume something is God's word, then you peddle it as if it were a fact knowing that you can't prove it (because it is your own creation) but you will nevertheless continue to offer it as absolute truth and a matter of fact?
Now, once one assumes Scripture is God’s Word, and infallible, then those who agree can use it for rational discussion about their beliefs.
Sure, you can start a Pink Unicorn on Jupiter Believers Club too. You may even call it a "church" because it will be a gathering of those who believe (on an a priori assumption) that pink unicorns really live on Jupiter! And you can advertise the club as a place where people can have rational [sic] discussions about their belief in pink unicorns on Jupiter.
But I have never tried to prove God or Scripture to you. That is above my pay grade. You cannot know God by reason. It takes revelation, and I’m not divine, so I can’t give it.
I never asked you to. I simply asked you how do you know it's God you believe in (and yet none of us knows what God really is or even if he is) and how do you know scriptures are God's words. Obviously you don't know, but you believe that some entity you assume to be God is real, and that some collection of writings is this imaginary and assumed God's own infallible words. You then proceed to state this presumptive belief as something factual, real and even 'right.'
Let me say, for the sake of posterity, that I have no intention of attacking your beliefs. I have no problem with what you believe as long as you do not confuse and claim and present and state your beliefs as absolute truth and fact while knowing that you don't know that for a fact and that it is all based on an a priori assumption.
I do have a problem with the inherently deceptive way the faith is presented as something factually sound, including your last statement, namely that it takes revelation when you admit that it takes an a priori assumption.