I just got the chance to check out this thread, and I am very upset at your tone and attitude toward a brother. You know that I have always enjoyed dialogue with you, but you have always been able to maintain a reasonable and charitable demeanor, even when disagreeing. That is not what you are doing at this thread.
We try to maintain a degree of civility in our dialogues here, which you may not find in some other forums. I have visited Calvinist forums only two or three times, and the ones I have visited have had such a foreign spirit about them that I could not even endure more than half a dozen posts. The arrogance and self-righteousness of the participants was so overwhelming that I felt spiritually dirty after having spent a few moments reading their comments. This is not intended as a broad-brush statement of all Calvinists, just what I have found at certain forums.
Your turn to Calvinism has been relatively recent, and now you judge everyone by whether they agree with those novel ideas or not. Have you been hanging out at the Calvinist forums, and picked up something of their attitude? If so, please leave it at those forums and don't bring it here. We have never banned anyone from this forum on the basis of their radical disagreement with my views or anyone else's, but we have banned a few (including at least one whose views were like my own) because of this foul spirit. This forum is, first and foremost, a fellowship of Christians. Those who are found poisoning the communion wine will not be welcome for long.
As for Paidion's "denial of the scriptures," I will say that there have been times where he almost seemed to me to be doing just that—or at least he was denying my concept of the authority of the scriptures. But where does the Bible itself say that acceptance of the recognized canon, or a particular view of inspiration, is to be a test of Christian fellowship (which view of the canon and of inspiration does the Bible itself teach)? When the canonical councils were hashing out their differences of opinion as to which books belonged in the Bible, did any group pushing a certain list excommunicate another group that advocated a different list? When the majority of the bishops still were having trouble accepting Jude and Second Peter, were these people "denying the scriptures"?
You object to Paidion's statement: "Some make the Bible their authority. I make Christ my authority." I do think that he creates a broader dichotomy than is justified, but it is clear that he gets his understanding of who Christ is from his reading of the Bible, so he is not outright rejecting the Bible in favor of Christ. What he seems to be saying is that normative Christianity is a relationship with Christ Himself, and not necessarily a relationship with a book. Many of the patriarchs had no written scriptures at all, and the early church had no New Testament canon. They managed to get by spiritually, often better than we do, in many ways.
Many years ago, a Christian friend, of a somewhat mystical bent, challenged me with the following dilemma: "Would you rather have the Bible and no Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit and no Bible?" This made me very uncomfortable, because I knew it was not merely an academic question, but a set of two very real possibilities. There have been Spirit-filled Christians who had no Bibles, and there have been Bible scholars who have not had the Holy Spirit (i.e., Spirit of Christ). While I cherish the Bible, and make more use of it in my daily life than many people do, I realized that a Christian without a Bible is still a child of God, and thus "led by the Spirit," while a man with a Bible, but without the Spirit, is no Christian at all.
So what could you possibly find objectionable in a man saying, "Some follow the Bible; I follow Christ"? Perhaps, if a man said that, but his personal behavior and morality were so contrary to the laws of God, then you would know that he really is not a follower of Christ, despite his claims to the contrary. But this objection cannot be raised against Paidion. The worst you can say against him is that he has a very different understanding about the Bible in many areas from your own. Is this forbidden somewhere? When you were not yet a Calvinist, debating with Atheists and Universalists on the internet, were you "denying the scripture" because you were not a Calvinist? Wake up, Jim! Becoming a Calvinist has not made you more Christ-like. Check your fruit, because others (including God) certainly will do so.
Darin wrote:
I do respect some things about some of the groups you might call a cult, I suspect. That doesn't mean I respect their doctrines or practices.
To which, you replied:
Well that about says it all.
I can hardly imagine that you wouldn't find some sympathy with Darin's statement, since, apart from their doctrines, there often are very commendable things in the lives of some cult members (e.g., commitment to their families, commitment to the financial support of their "brethren," zeal for evangelism). Why should we be coy about acknowledging this? Where is our simple ability to acknowledge things that are true? Has our "orthodoxy" rendered us too duplicitous to state plain facts? Are we afraid that someone in the ultra-orthodox camp may hear us and hold us as guilty-by-association? Did Jesus ever fear that people would think such things about Him?
You wrote:
"And I don't have much patience with those who deny scripture, and neither should you."
Now you give us the choice to believe you or to believe Paul! Paul wrote (2 Timothy 2:24-26):
As for your claim that the Bible tells us that all Atheists at one time knew God, I cannot find the passage where this is affirmed. Could you point it out? Thanks.And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to [do] his will.
