Philosophy of Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter valueperson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

valueperson

Guest
Are there philosophical/rationalist arguments for the authority of Scripture?

This is an entirely separate question from the existence of God. Let’s assume for a moment that one or another of the rational arguments for God’s existence is definitely true.

To then say, “God exists, therefore the authors of The Bible were divinely inspired,” doesn’t make any sense to me. God could be up there saying, “Hey, Paul wrote that. I didn’t.”

Even assuming that The Bible’s historicity could be verified, how do we know that Paul’s letters were divinely inspired? Is there a philosophical/logical/rationalist argument?
 
Since we’ve already assumed the existence of God, we could say the Bible’s authority is confirmed by miracles, by fulfilled prophecies, by the Resurrection, by the lives of saints, by the personal experience of Christians, and so on.
 
Thanks for the response.

Can you expand on it by going step by step? Like, A is true, therefore B is true, therefore C is true, type thing, like the proofs of God do?
 
To expand on my own response, your answer seems teleological; that is, you’re saying that the good things we see around us are proof of the authority of sources that talk about them, or even just imply them. That isn’t sound, in a logical sense. Circumstantial confirmation is not the same thing as proof.
 
valueperson said:
Are there philosophical/rationalist arguments for the authority of Scripture?

This is an entirely separate question from the existence of God. Let’s assume for a moment that one or another of the rational arguments for God’s existence is definitely true.

To then say, “God exists, therefore the authors of The Bible were divinely inspired,” doesn’t make any sense to me. God could be up there saying, “Hey, Paul wrote that. I didn’t.”

Even assuming that The Bible’s historicity could be verified, how do we know that Paul’s letters were divinely inspired? Is there a philosophical/logical/rationalist argument?
Click to expand...
1.) 4,500 - 5,000 years before Jesus, people write about and talk about various aspects of His coming, in and from all corners of the known world and predominantly without commingling; these prophecies are codified in written form (and subsequently included) in a book called the Bible, without commingling;

2.) Jesus arrives just as was foretold for the previous 4,500 - 5,000 years;

3.) God, the triune, does send Jesus to earth;

4.) Jesus becomes man and instantiates and establishes his Church by giving Peter the commission to do so, and, by giving him the powers to bind and loosen;

5.) Jesus says he will be with the Church for all time (never leave it), thus, he disallows it to err;

6.) Peter is the first “pontificate”;

7.) Subsequent pontificates succeed Peter’s pontificate; Jesus keeps his word and hasn’t left them to err.

8.) The “historicity” of Jesus (or the Bible) has not been an issue for millennia.

(It’s been a while; I hope I got that right.)

jd
 
valueperson said:
Can you expand on it by going step by step? Like, A is true, therefore B is true, therefore C is true, type thing, like the proofs of God do?
Click to expand...
Okay. 🙂

Hypothesis: God created the universe. Since time is a construct of the universe, God created time. Therefore, God exists outside of time. He sees all things at once - He knows the end from the beginning. In the Bible, the future is accurately foretold. Therefore, God is the author of the Bible.

Now all you have to do is see if the Bible really is as prophetic as we claim. I’ll give you a head start - Isaiah 53.
 
JDaniel said:
1.) 4,500 - 5,000 years before Jesus, people write about and talk about various aspects of His coming, in and from all corners of the known world and predominantly without commingling; these prophecies are codified in written form (and subsequently included) in a book called the Bible, without commingling;

2.) Jesus arrives just as was foretold for the previous 4,500 - 5,000 years;

3.) God, the triune, does send Jesus to earth;

4.) Jesus becomes man and instantiates and establishes his Church by giving Peter the commission to do so, and, by giving him the powers to bind and loosen;

5.) Jesus says he will be with the Church for all time (never leave it), thus, he disallows it to err;

6.) Peter is the first “pontificate”;

7.) Subsequent pontificates succeed Peter’s pontificate; Jesus keeps his word and hasn’t left them to err.

8.) The “historicity” of Jesus (or the Bible) has not been an issue for millennia.

(It’s been a while; I hope I got that right.)

jd
Click to expand...
Thank you, jd.

Can you expand it to account for the divine authority of the Epistles?
 
Luke65 said:
Okay. 🙂

Hypothesis: God created the universe. Since time is a construct of the universe, God created time. Therefore, God exists outside of time. He sees all things at once - He knows the end from the beginning. In the Bible, the future is accurately foretold. Therefore, God is the author of the Bible.

Now all you have to do is see if the Bible really is as prophetic as we claim. I’ll give you a head start - Isaiah 53.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response. How does prophesy fulfilled give divine authority to the Epistles?
 
valueperson said:
Thank you, jd.

Can you expand it to account for the divine authority of the Epistles?
Click to expand...
Epistles were “public” letters, as opposed to “private” letters. That means that their form was an “art”, of sorts, which meant, in those days, “intended to be published”. They were intended to be promulgated to general audiences, rather than to limited audiences, such as a letter to a singular, private person.

The epistles were associated with the Apostles, particularly the Apostle Paul, and “apostolic succession”. Most were written to explain or clarify positions and beliefs held by the apostles to their naive congregations. We must remember that there were no other written works directing believers how to believe, what to believe, etc., in those days. No email either.😉

These were included in the Bible because their messages were of a “timeless” nature. In other words, their words and explanations were viewed as being useful into the future.

jd
 
Yet, the Epistles are commonly cited alongside the Gospels and the Old Testament as evidence of God’s will, without regard to literary form and without regard to the respective books being proclamation vs. advice. As far as divine authority goes, they’re clearly considered equal.

So, how do we arrive at God’s authorship of the Epistles?
 
valueperson said:
To expand on my own response, your answer seems teleological; that is, you’re saying that the good things we see around us are proof of the authority of sources that talk about them, or even just imply them. That isn’t sound, in a logical sense. Circumstantial confirmation is not the same thing as proof.
Click to expand...
Actually, I don’t think that is what I said. The Scripture does not simply “talk about” or “imply” the things I mentioned; it “causes” them.

You wanted some sort of inferential argument; okay:

(1) If the Scriptures contain prophecies which come true, a plan of Redemption which saves millions, an account of a resurrected Savior who lives in His Church, and so on, then it is highly probable these Scriptures are inspired by God (Whose existence has already been allowed) and are thus a binding authority.

(2) It is the case that the Scriptures contain, etc.

(3) Therefore, it is highly probable, etc.
 
Regarding the Epistles:

(1) If God lives in and speaks through His Church, the Scriptures and tradition of the Church are binding authorities.

(2) If the Church is a binding authority, its judgment of the Scriptures should be valid and accepted.

(3) If its judgment of the Scriptures is valid and accepted, we should accept its judgment of the Epistles.

(4) If we should accept its judgment of the Epistles, we should accept the Epistles as the Word of God, since such has always been the judgment of the Church.

(5) Therefore, if God lives in and speaks through His Church (premise 1), we should accept the Epistles as the Word of God.
 
valueperson said:
That’s actually really good. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that if you asked this same question on a Mormon website or a Muslim website or a Jewish website or the website for any other religion, you could get someone to give you such an argument to demonstrate the truth of that religion.

Best,
Leela
 
Leela said:
Keep in mind that if you asked this same question on a Mormon website or a Muslim website or a Jewish website or the website for any other religion, you could get someone to give you such an argument to demonstrate the truth of that religion.

Best,
Leela
Click to expand...
True. It all depends upon the truth-value of that first conditional—but that would be another thread. 😉
 
Leela said:
Keep in mind that if you asked this same question on a Mormon website or a Muslim website or a Jewish website or the website for any other religion, you could get someone to give you such an argument to demonstrate the truth of that religion.

Best,
Leela
Click to expand...
Understood. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top