What exactly is self authentication?

[jubalsqaud]

People like to say the bible is self authenticating and they say this in a context "I don't need anything to validate God's words because his words are the final authority"

Its not apparent to me what exactly people are saying.

I can see 3 options for what is meant:

option 1: god sense
A person with god sense is a person claiming he has a special faculty that tells him when God is speaking and when he is not.

If he really has this power then the following should be possible.


A person with God sense does not need to figure out if the long ending of mark is valid by looking at history, he just reads it and if his god sense doesn't tingle he knows its fake.

So If I make a false story about a guy called Amos that sounds like a bible story but is not and then print off those pages and then take a copy of the real Amos and threw both sets of pages up into air so that they mixed and scattered when they landed the person with god sense could assemble the real book of Amos WITHOUT APPEALING TO HIS MEMORY OF AMOS.

He could have 0 memory of what Amos is about and assemble it from just his God sense.

Option 2:
Self authentication is equivalent to text having some trait that is unique but is detected with your everyday cognitive powers.

For example you read the bible and observe its coherence and thus realize its authoritative.

Option 3: The God whispers to me model.
Here a person reads the bible with his normal mind, at first he doesn't think its divine and then God speaks to him inside his head and says "That book you just read is my word"
Unlike the man with God Sense the man with God whispers can only reconstruct the bible from memory if we did the page test.

Here are some of the issues I see with each option



Number 1: The same people who claim the God sense tend to be the same people who appeal to history to deny the long ending of mark.

Moreover I lack this power and the God sense theory seems to imply all true believers have it.


Number 2: This option isnt really different than classical apologetics and makes the human mind the final authority. The human decides what seems coherent and thus isn't immune from the authorship concerns that normal historical documents have.

Not only that most people who invoke this don't seem to have the ability to justify metaphysical assumptions that are not actually stated in the text but are part of there coherence schemes.

For example "The trinity is needed for God to be essentially loving cuz a unitarian God would need to create to love"

The above argument assumes content externalism about love, yet the people making these claims don't seem to have the ability to defeat content internalism.

Number 3: God whispering to you doesn't seem to be attested in history. It seems to be the height of arrogance to decree that you alone have been whispered to in such a way but the church fathers had not.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

The heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

 

[JH]

It is the doctrine set forth in the Westminster that the sheep of Christ hear the voice of Christ, and therefore we need not any to give it authority; the doctrine is contra Rome, who claims that since the Bible part of the Apostolic Deposit of the church, it has no authority/interpretation other than what the church gives it, including what is the canon of the Scriptures. Owen wrote extensively about this:

"We say then that it may be known which books are canonical, and which are not, otherwise than by the church; for the church herself knows them otherwise than by herself, or her own authority. When she declares them to be canonical, she believes them to be canonical; and her believing them to be canonical is antecedent to her declaring them to be so. She must learn herself, before she can teach others: she believes them therefore to be canonical, because she sees the stamp of God upon them, and that they are such as can be of none but God. (The same way likewise private believers may know them.) And when the church sees this stamp of God upon a book, she thence concludes it to be divine, and then declares it to be so.

Can God make "the heavens declare his glory," and cannot he make the scripture do it? (Psalm xix. 1.) Can he make himself "known by the judgments which he executes," and not by the statutes [which] he establisheth? (Psalm ix. 16.) Can he show forth his wisdom, power, and goodness by the things [which] he doeth, and not by the things [which] he speaks; and so make his works praise him, but not his word? (Psalm cxlv. 10.) Nay, can men so write, so speak, as thereby to discover themselves, and what wisdom, or knowledge, or skill they have; and cannot God do as much! Is God less wise and able than they are; or is he wise in some things, and not in others?

This doctrine of the Romanists greatly derogates from God's sovereignty — It degrades his authority, and lifts up the church into his place: it doth worse than make princes go on foot, and servants ride on horses. (Eccles. x. 7.)"

 

[Apologia Christou]

Basically it means that the Scriptures prove themselves to be the word of God. You don't need to appeal to any other authority to make you believe the Scripture to be from God, ye that would be a sin. Scripture demands to be believed on it's own, and not because of anyone else. Divine faith closes with God, not with men.

There are other supportive arguments which may cherish faith indirectly (apologetics), and they show you that you're not crazy, but they can never be the ultimate and foundational reason why you believe in the first place. This belongs to God alone.

Why do we then do apologetics? Well, pretty simply, because God tells you to. And so he makes use of it when you confront unbelievers, and hardens and saves whom he wills. But, as I said, this also cherishes faith indirectly, by putting aside any objections that come from the outside, so that they may not paralyze your work in the Lord, and so the church becomes established and can go on boldly and faithfully.

Apologetics is about showing, belief in God is about knowing. They are not mutually exclusive, and sweetly comply one another.

I like this:

 

[arapahoepark]

Canon Revisted by Michael Kruger is great on this subject!

 

[jwright82]

People like to say the bible is self authenticating and they say this in a context "I don't need anything to validate God's words because his words are the final authority"

Its not apparent to me what exactly people are saying.

I can see 3 options for what is meant:

option 1: god sense
A person with god sense is a person claiming he has a special faculty that tells him when God is speaking and when he is not.

If he really has this power then the following should be possible.


A person with God sense does not need to figure out if the long ending of mark is valid by looking at history, he just reads it and if his god sense doesn't tingle he knows its fake.

So If I make a false story about a guy called Amos that sounds like a bible story but is not and then print off those pages and then take a copy of the real Amos and threw both sets of pages up into air so that they mixed and scattered when they landed the person with god sense could assemble the real book of Amos WITHOUT APPEALING TO HIS MEMORY OF AMOS.

He could have 0 memory of what Amos is about and assemble it from just his God sense.

Option 2:
Self authentication is equivalent to text having some trait that is unique but is detected with your everyday cognitive powers.

For example you read the bible and observe its coherence and thus realize its authoritative.

Option 3: The God whispers to me model.
Here a person reads the bible with his normal mind, at first he doesn't think its divine and then God speaks to him inside his head and says "That book you just read is my word"
Unlike the man with God Sense the man with God whispers can only reconstruct the bible from memory if we did the page test.

Here are some of the issues I see with each option



Number 1: The same people who claim the God sense tend to be the same people who appeal to history to deny the long ending of mark.

Moreover I lack this power and the God sense theory seems to imply all true believers have it.


Number 2: This option isnt really different than classical apologetics and makes the human mind the final authority. The human decides what seems coherent and thus isn't immune from the authorship concerns that normal historical documents have.

Not only that most people who invoke this don't seem to have the ability to justify metaphysical assumptions that are not actually stated in the text but are part of there coherence schemes.

For example "The trinity is needed for God to be essentially loving cuz a unitarian God would need to create to love"

The above argument assumes content externalism about love, yet the people making these claims don't seem to have the ability to defeat content internalism.

Number 3: God whispering to you doesn't seem to be attested in history. It seems to be the height of arrogance to decree that you alone have been whispered to in such a way but the church fathers had not.

Yeah you need read Kruger on this. Also I reject your bifurcation of options as those are the traditional views, Reformed and Lutheran I might add.

 

[jubalsqaud]

Yeah you need read Kruger on this. Also I reject your bifurcation of options as those are the traditional views, Reformed and Lutheran I might add.

Your remark confuses me.

Do you reject my options because they are the traditional views or do you deny that they are the traditional views?

 

[Zach]

Canon Revisted by Michael Kruger is great on this subject!

While it's been awhile since I read it, I can think of only a few books that I recommend more highly. It's thorough but accessible from what I remember and, despite being about the canon, really helpfully addresses a number of key areas of our Doctrine of Scripture, like self-authentication. I think it might be my favorite book that I had to read during seminary, at least from cover to cover.

 

[MyCrows]

People like to say the bible is self authenticating and they say this in a context "I don't need anything to validate God's words because his words are the final authority"

Its not apparent to me what exactly people are saying.

I think that they are saying that once they come to the persuasion that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, that's it. That seals the deal.

Although proofs can be offered for the bible's validity as the Word of God, once someone is convinced of that truth there is no external proof needed, even though it may (and does) exist.

 

[Ed Walsh]

People like to say the bible is self authenticating and they say this in a context "I don't need anything to validate God's words because his words are the final authority"

Hi Roger,
I read over your three points and they all seem to be pretty much the same. "I can tell it's the word of God because I can tell it's the word of God."

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter 1 Of the Holy Scriptures​

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverend esteem of the holy scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.

My apologies to Neil, @Scottish Presbyterian, but it seemed worth quoting twice.