Honest Atheism?

[darinhouston]

[note: I meant to say Jim -- I changed Tom to Jim in the prior posts so no one's confused (other than me)]

You can respect a man who denies scripture, I choose not to. I suppose you respect the cults too...

I don't here him denying scripture -- just disagreeing on what it means. 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.

If we go down that road, I would have to say that it is the Calvinist that puts their fallible understanding above divine revelation. You really should know better than this.

Get real Darin, what other false teaching will you accept? Pass on? I don't put my trust in my fallible understanding - I put my trust in Revelation and God's ability to communicate those truths to my mind.

This is one of the most arrogant things I've heard anyone say on this board, which is surprising since you don't strike me the arrogant sort from your calls to both The Narrow Path and The Narrow Mind. What makes you so certain God isn't communicating truths to Paidion's mind in the Revelation and that you're not the one in error?

[seer]

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.

Well that about says it all.

This is one of the most arrogant things I've heard anyone say on this board, which is surprising since you don't strike me the arrogant sort from your calls to both The Narrow Path and The Narrow Mind.

I'm not arrogant, I just trust God and His revelation.

What makes you so certain God isn't communicating truths to Paidion's mind in the Revelation and that you're not the one in error?

I have a choice - believe Paidion or Paul. Paul says that all men know that God exists, they are without excuse because of that knowledge, and that they suppress that knowledge in wickedness. Paidion says that they do have a excuse. Do you believe there are honest atheists Darin? That God's self revelation through nature is not clear enough?

[darinhouston]

What makes you so certain God isn't communicating truths to Paidion's mind in the Revelation and that you're not the one in error?

I have a choice - believe Paidion or Paul. Paul says that all men know that God exists, they are without excuse because of that knowledge, and that they suppress that knowledge in wickedness. Paidion says that they do have a excuse. Do you believe there are honest atheists Darin? That God's self revelation through nature is not clear enough?

You appear to have chosen to believe what you understand Paul to have said instead of what you heard Paidion say. That is not the same thing. Since I agree with you (and Scripture) that there is no excuse, I re-read Paidion's posts because I don't think he said otherwise. As I re-read this topic, it sounds to me that all Paidion said was that they "have made excuses" and hence could be seen as honest in that they have convinced themselves through modern positions that there is no God. Unless I misunderstood Paidion, that is NOT the same as saying that they "had an actual excuse before God." That is the point I believe Paul was making and not the former. If I am correct, then I think you owe Paidion an apology.

This is precisely why it is important not to brush someone aside and disfellowship them (or the equivalent) just because you think they are wrong or don't agree with something in Scripture (even if that were what Paidion had done). That is a very dangerous reaction, and for starters deprives you of the opportunity to disciple them and correct or reprove them rather than judge them. You may even find that it turns on yourself at times (I have so found) and that you realize you were wrong in your reproof and have to humble yourself before your brother with whom you may disagree on some other point.

Calvinists seem to have an arrogance about them that requires some sort of doctrinal purity that perfectly coincides with their view of scripture to be considered Christians. I find this even in the Sprouls and MacArthurs and also individuals I have come into contact with. A dose of doctrinal humility can go a long way without yielding to liberalism.

[seer]

You appear to have chosen to believe what you understand Paul to have said instead of what you heard Paidion say. That is not the same thing. Since I agree with you (and Scripture) that there is no excuse, I re-read Paidion's posts because I don't think he said otherwise. As I re-read this topic, it sounds to me that all Paidion said was that they "have made excuses" and hence could be seen as honest in that they have convinced themselves through modern positions that there is no God. Unless I misunderstood Paidion, that is NOT the same as saying that they "had an actual excuse before God." That is the point I believe Paul was making and not the former. If I am correct, then I think you owe Paidion an apology.

When Paidion says there are "honest atheists" because of our present understanding of the cosmos - well, I don't know how else to take that. Now you are qualifying his statement - but he is not. I took his point at face value. Why shouldn't I?

This is precisely why it is important not to brush someone aside and disfellowship them (or the equivalent) just because you think they are wrong or don't agree with something in Scripture (even if that were what Paidion had done). That is a very dangerous reaction, and for starters deprives you of the opportunity to disciple them and correct or reprove them rather than judge them. You may even find that it turns on yourself at times (I have so found) and that you realize you were wrong in your reproof and have to humble yourself before your brother with whom you may disagree on some other point.

And I don't have much patience with those who deny scripture, and neither should you.


Paidion in fact has denied scripture:

Some make the Bible their authority. I make Christ my authority.

Some appeal entirely to the written word. I appeal entirely to the Living Word.

Some derive their understanding of the character of God from the description of His thoughts and actions recorded in the Old Testament. I derive my understanding of the character of God as revealed by and through Jesus Christ, both by Christ's words and by the life of the One who was the exact expression of the Father's essence.

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... a&start=20


Talk about arrogant Darin, who is Paidion to sit in judgement of God's revealed word in the Old Testament... And did it ever occur to you that what I'm saying to and about Paidion is a kindness to him?

[darinhouston]

And did it ever occur to you that what I'm saying to and about Paidion is a kindness to him?

It did occur to me to consider it, but I do not believe it is (and, particularly, the nature of how you've said it). I don't always agree with Paidion, but I try not to treat any brother with the contempt you appear to treat him with (and all the while calling it kindness, no less).

I would consider it a kindness to gently show him where he is wrong, but not to make assumptions about his motives and go further than what he is saying or at least failing to divide what he has said to determine whether it is what you say before you attack him. Whatever you can say about Paidion, he does not appear to hold Scripture in contempt.

[seer]

And did it ever occur to you that what I'm saying to and about Paidion is a kindness to him?

It did occur to me to consider it, but I do not believe it is (and, particularly, the nature of how you've said it). I don't always agree with Paidion, but I try not to treat any brother with the contempt you appear to treat him with (and all the while calling it kindness, no less).

I would consider it a kindness to gently show him where he is wrong, but not to make assumptions about his motives and go further than what he is saying or at least failing to divide what he has said to determine whether it is what you say before you attack him. Whatever you can say about Paidion, he does not appear to hold Scripture in contempt.

Well people have been gentle with him, and you are completely wrong, when a man denies the veracity of the Old Testament, and the God therein, he is showing contempt for said scripture and for God Himself... Stop enabling him, you are doing him no favors...

[RND]

Abraham didn't have a Bible.

[seer]

Abraham didn't have a Bible.

But we do. And we should not minimize it to make God acceptable to us...

[RND]

Abraham didn't have a Bible.

But we do. And we should not minimize it to make God acceptable to us...

I think that says more for us than it does for Abraham in that case. If Abraham could know God and have faith in God without a Bible then anyone can. Joseph didn't have a Bible and yet knew adultery was against the will of God. How could this be?

[darinhouston]

Jim, I don't know much else to say -- forgive the sarcasm, but I have a question for you...

Do you believe that God's will is for only some "elect" to follow Jesus ? If so, do you hold in contempt and deny the Scripture that clearly teaches that God desires for ALL to be saved? God has led me in the understanding of this verse -- who are you to deny this clear revelation from God!?

Another question -- you criticized Paidion for his qualification of his view of Scripture. Do you think it is possible for someone to worship the Scripture, per se? What would that look like?

What if I questioned the Canon with respect to a particular book (say, I have scholarship to suggest Hebrews was a fabrication) -- assuming so, could I not have a problem with the actual words considered by most to be scripture and yet remain faithful to believe the words of Christ and the Apostles and OT prophets? What if I question a particular transmission integrity of a particular passage -- would I not be the one who holds Scripture in higher regard from one who dogmatically asserts a view of the passage in question?