I have found throughout Christianity, ideologies that are in head-on collision with each other. This is not to say that the doctrine itself is self-contradictory. Rather, it is to say that what one church practices, another might speak against. One mans' interpretation of the doctrine might conflict with anothers'.
There are some doctrine worth making a fuss over; some things that should give us cause to find a new church, which I will examine shortly. However, there are other practices and interpretations of the doctrine that are so arbitrary, petty, and almost irrelevant, and yet, we condemn each other for them.
I do not think our salvation is dependent on maintaining perfect theology in every little thing. In fact, I think our knowledge of the Bible will expand only if we are open to the possibility that we are wrong in some areas. Being a Christian is about growth and inching closer to perfection, but not necessarily living in perfection. So I strongly dislike seeing separation over the follow three interpretations.
1 - Creation Days
Genesis 1 has been analyzed since ancient Judaism, and the only concrete answer that theologians has offered is: In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.
But the six days permit all manners of interpretation, and one is not necessarily committed to the literal 24 hour creationism. I examined Genesis 1 in my Bible Study section. The only conclusion that I have reached is that there is absolutely nothing that allows us to reach any conclusion.
However, if somebody choses to maintain that Genesis 1 offers a only a literal understanding of days, or if they choose to maintain that it offers only a figurative understanding of the days, that is their perogative. But this is not a separation issue because it is so open, and I think to condemn another person for it makes little sense.
Further, I think it is important to remain open in issues like the age of the earth, lest we face an uphill battle while we discuss these issues with our atheist friends. As an outsider, they look in at us taking opposition to the Big Bang, evolution, and everything in modern science, and that just does not look attractive to them.
But if instead of taking opposition to modern science, we remain open to theological interpretation that permit the Big Bang and evolution, we can instead say "These are evidences for the existence of God." (See my Evidence section. The Cosmological Argument From Contingency and The Argument From Evolution.)
2 - The Nature Of Hell
This is an issue that I examined in my article titled Hell. I maintain that Hell is not a place of literal fire, burning, sulfer, and physical pain. Instead, Hell is a place of internal torment. I base this on the gathering of a few verses that can be taken literally or figuratively, and I am perfectly open to defending this position.
But that is not to say that I am closed to the idea of Hell being a place of literal fire. I think my interpretation is accurate, but I do not think it is a necessary component of Christian belief. I just regard Hell as a place of separation from God, but I do not think that, if I am wrong, that belief will send me there.
3 - The Celebration Of Christmas And Holidays
The pettiness of this separation has been amply outlined in Romans 14. Paul wrote that if one man wants to celebrate a holiday, and another does not, we should not condemn him, or call him weak in faith. To exemplify this point he offered an analogy. Some men might not feel morally able to eat meat, while others think it is perfectly alright. Paul wrote that we ought not take opposition to each other for these differences.
One might reply that we are not supposed to keep Pagan holiday's or maintain their practices. To this I can only reply that these are no longer Pagan holidays. I think an analogy will clarify this. Imagine that Native Americans expressed their right to build gambling casinos wherever they please, because this was once their land. Obviously we would not allow it, because it is no longer their land.
Similarly, Christmas is no longer a Pagan holiday. In fact, Christmas was never a Pagan holiday. Winter solstice was. It was very popular in the first century, so Christians wanted it, and to that end, the Pope declared that Jesus' birthday was in the center of winter solstice; on December 25th.
So while celebration during that particular time of the year was a Pagan tradition before it was Christian tradition, that is not to say that we are maintaining it for Pagan purposes. In fact, Pagans do not even celebrate what we typically call Christmas. They celebrate Yule. So that should be a clear indicator of the distance between our celebration and theirs.
The Christmas tree, I am fairly certain, is directly derivative of a Yule custom of decorating and (I think) worshipping a tree as though it were God. But that is not what we do. We are not worshipping a tree. I feel as though it would be rather elementary if I had to explain the difference between keeping a tree and worshipping a tree.
I would go as far as to say that there is nothing sinful of anti-biblical of the classical Christmas tradition (excessive marketing and financial profitting aside). The only objection that can possibly be raised is the indication of the origins of Christmas. But this is just inaccurate. We are not maintaining a Pagan holiday. We instead replaced a Pagan holiday.
I am not saying that every Christian ought to celebrate Christmas. Instead I am saying that some may celebrate Christmas, and some may not. But both are completely within biblical perimeter.
_______________________________________________________________
These were a few doctrines that I think it is perfectly alright to agree to disagree. But there are some that are not. There are some that if you hear them preached, you should find a new church.
1 - Salvation By Works
If we are capable of working to receive salvation, we necessarily annihilate our need for a Savior. For if we could do it on our own, Jesus would have never had to come. So this practice is really just detrimental to Christian doctrine.
Ephesians 2:8-9 It is by grace that we are saved, through faith. Salvation is not a reward for our good deeds.
This practice is not consistent with Christian belief. So if a church leader ever tells you that to redeem yourself of your sins, you need to work, run for the hills. The Bible teaches that there are only two things that we need to do.
Trust in the Savior.
Repent of our sins.
2 - Baptism/The Trinity
The trinity is an issue that I was on the fence about. I believe that God is one being who has manifested himself in three different forms. But in preparation of this writing, I confronted myself with the question: Is this a necessarily component of Christian belief?
I concluded that the answer is yes, because of the baptismal differences that believing Christianity is polytheistic will lead to.
Jesus commanded the disciples to baptise in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. What oneness proponents will indicate is that the name of The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit is Jesus. So when he said that phrase, underlying in each component was "Jesus".
So if somebody is baptized by another who does not believe in the oneness doctrine, they will be baptized falsely. For they will say, "I baptize you in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit." But 'Jesus' will not be underlying in every component, which is in contrast with what the great Messiah commanded. So I do not think that those who undergo a trinity baptism are baptised in alignment with Christian doctrine.
However, as a side-note, I do not think that baptism in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit is always wrong. I think it is a correct baptism if underlying in each component, is the name 'Jesus'. That is to say that if the baptizer believes in the oneness of God, he believes that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each named Jesus. If that is the case, when he baptizes in the name of the three, he is baptizing in Jesus' name.
To summarize, baptism is completely dependent on the doctrine that it is based on. If baptism in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is based on the oneness doctrine, then I do not see any reason to condemn it. But if it is based on a polythestic trinity, then it should be condemned.
3 - The Existence Of Hell.
I have encountered Jehovas' Witnesses who assure me that Hell does not exist and that God despises the concept of eternal damnation. Rather than refuting this using biblical principles, I prefer to take a philosophical approach.
God must be wholly righteous. If he were not wholly righteous, we would be able to conceive of a being that was wholly righteous, and therefore a being that is greater than God. Righteousness entails justice. God must be just; he cannot turn a blind eye to evil. But if God must be just, then he must punish evil-doers.
Hundreds of thousands of people get away with horrific crimes and are never punished, so God would not leave punishment to us. To believe in an omnibenevolent being entails belief in Hell.
It seems to me that when we alter God to fit our beliefs, we render a graven image with our mind. We create a new version of God, and therefore necessarily limit his majesty, for any alteration that we make to God does limit him. This is a crucial issue because it changes and therefore limits God, and this is a violation of the second commandment.
To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here