I Disagree

There has always been division in the Church. Always. Much of what Paul wrote that is now Scripture was written to resolve already-present error -- licentiousness in Corinth, legalism in Galatia, gnosticism in Colossae ... that sort of thing. Correction was needed then and still is today. There have been long debates over key issues. You might think of the Trinity or the Atonement. You might recall the debates over the very content of what makes up God's Word, the Bible.

Many of the things "settled" at one point surface again and again in Church history. Arius assured us that Jesus was not God, but simply a created being. The Church gathered around, examined the facts, and rejected the Arian heresy. And, yet, the Jehovah's Witnesses and others still bring it up. Marcion put together his own "Bible" and the Church met and determined "this is God's Word and that is not" and the subject was ended ... except it wasn't. Today the Roman Catholic church uses additional books and modern Christianity denies the reliability of Scripture entirely. They range from "It contains the Word of God" to "It's a nice book, but don't rely too heavily on it; it's purely man-made." Paul laid "saved by works" to rest forcefully in several of his letters. No question. And still today a large number of self-professed Christians argue that we are saved by works -- at least faith plus works. David declared unequivocally, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5). Pelagius assured them that everyone is capable of being good enough to get to heaven ... that sin did not affect all mankind. The Church shot down that heresy, but it continued. Charles Finney made his mark on the same position. Pelagianism in a variety of forms exists to this day. (Think, for instance, the Latter Day Saints.) There have been many heresies that have arisen throughout Church history, been addressed and ended, only to find them coming up again.

Beyond the heresies, there have been disagreements among genuine believers about various points. Real, Bible-believing, serious Christians still disagree about whether baptism is necessary for salvation or is a symbol. They disagree about infant baptism versus believers baptism. Does God choose us or do we choose God? Does God provide faith or is faith something we muster up? Is salvation certain or contingent? On and on.

It's not surprising. Some of it comes from preconceptions, some worldly and biblically and otherwise. Some of it comes from translation or interpretation difficulties. "What exactly did this author mean when he wrote ...?" Peter, for instance, wrote, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you ..." (1 Peter 3:21) So, does baptism save or did he intend something else? (Feel free to debate that among yourselves.) Paul wrote, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." (Rom 5:18) There are those who argue that this clearly declares universal salvation. Serious Christians taking the Bible seriously disagree. John MacArthur disagrees with his good friend, R.C. Sproul, who disagrees with his good friend, John Piper, who disagrees ... well, you get the idea. It isn't all "skeptical atheists" and "progressive Christianity" problems.

And, yet ... given all the disagreements and heresies of all of Christendom and given that it has always been so and that we would expect it to be so, it still amazes me that today we have self-identifying Christians who are declaring with absolute certainty that the Church has always been on the "wrong side of history" on matters in which the Church has never disagreed. They have debated the nature of the Trinity and the importance of baptism. They have argued about the content of Scripture. They have disagreed on modes and methods of baptism and the existence of Original Sin. They have argued about a lot. But never in the entire history of the Church did anyone disagree that marriage was the lifelong union of a man and a woman for purposes of procreation and mutual support as an image of Christ and the Church. Today they do. Never did anyone in the Church suggest that when Scripture said God made them "male and female" and that male and female are supplied different strengths and weaknesses with which to complement and support different roles God assigned, He actually meant "Gender is fluid and there is no substantive difference between the genders." At no point in Church history did one voice take the Church to task in favor of rewriting biblical sexual morality to include same-sex sexual relationships (or any other sexual immorality). At no point until our time.

There have always been things on which we disagreed. There always will. You would think, though, that on some points or another there would actually be agreement among believers. There always has been on some, but it looks like Satan is going to dig into all of them. And it looks like the tares are going to help. Today the argument is that God Himself is on "the wrong side of history". You go with that. Just don't call it "Christian".