But YOU do not accept the scriptures. I am not a Calvinist, but I recognize that Calvinism is sound biblical theology. You, however, have no biblical theology.
For the record: I believe that scriptures represent a revelation of God, but not literal truth, encyclopedia, or textbook.
Taken together as a whole, it is a parable mixed with historical facts and myths; with actual quotes and paraphrased statements, influenced by, and reflecting the culture, the age and the beliefs of the times.
It is also filled with human additions and deletions.
I have no proof that the Bible is a revelation of God. I believe that it is, but the basis of my belief is completely irrational , as all beliefs are. The bible itself serves as no proof of its own veracity.
We have no way of knowing what the original looked like or whether even there was an a "original."
Almost all of the books are anonymous. Their authorship is dubious and often assigned for convenience. Books such as Isaiah, Daniel, etc., are by all accounts compilations of various authors over an extended period of time, stitched together into a single story around 5th century BC.
We have no way of authenticating any of the verses in the bible as genuine, even if their message, their moral teaching, their spiritual revelation appear true to us.
We know that verses, sometimes as many as a dozen, sometimes whole paragraphs have been added or deleted. We don't know which verse is "closer" to the "original" because all the copies we have are copies of copies, even the oldest ones, even the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I am a great supporter of textual criticism, but I completely reject any notion that—just because this method may show us deliberate or accidental errors and human fingerprints in the bible—it automatically attests to the veracity of the scripture as "literal truth."
I do not 'interpret' the bible. I defer the spiritual meaning (i.e. interpretation) of the scriptures to the combined wisdom and knowledge of the Church, which has remained steadfastly unchanged in 2000 years.
I cannot accept the Christian canon, a product of the Church, as scripture AND reject the authority and knowledge of the Church, as the Protestants/Baptists and other denominations do.
I cannot, on the one hand, acknowledge the knowledge of the Church to select—without error—which of the books are truly inspired, AND, on the other hand, deny its ability to interpret without error!
Charges that the Church at some point became "disqualified" to interpret without error are without any substance. One's skills are independent of character or behavior.
You are denying my faith because I don't buy into the run-of-the-mill acceptance of the bible as some literal word of God which, to me, is childish and silly, given what we know about the bible.
To suggest that one's own faith is an absolute "proof" that the bible is exactly as God "wrote" it is founded on flawed reasoning. Our own faith in something is no proof that it is absolutely true.
But you are suggesting that because I do not accept the bible as you do I have no foundation of faith and no theology, or—to quote you—"you have nothin' Kosta."
I hope you recognize the flaw in your own convictions, and if you don't I hope that you will one day before it's too late.
Sin is not in the act of doing or thinking or believing something wrong, but in the intention .