I believe that understanding something as complicated and deep as God’s
plan, redemption, salvation, sanctification, human relations, emotions, etc.
is a difficult task. Our understanding is colored by what we have accepted
as true. To a Calvinist, the word is filtered through the sovereignty of
God. To a preterist, God’s word is filtered through the requirement that the
prophets spoke of things that are already past. To an MDRer, it is filtered
through a need to avoid fornicators. These things illustrate basic
assumptions that guide our understanding. For me, I read with the
requirement that a passage must not be understood to violate free will. It
must also be read literally, if possible. Others do not share that
philosophy, and as a result, they will NOT come down in the same place as I
do. I believe that God recognizes that in the absence of a hotline to God
where we could ask questions, that men cannot infallably interpret
scripture. We are not going to agree on what the Bible says if we do not
share the same starting assumptions. Our paradigmn will prevent agreement
because of the different requirements of our basic assumptions.
The strange thing is that even though Christians hold different views on how
the Bible should be understood, they share common values such as the DBR of
Christ, Jesus is Lord, God is King, the Bible is God’s word, you have to
live right to please God, there is a judgment, etc. The devil is in the
details of how these things are implemented. The only possible solution to
the diverse views that men who purport to be Christians is in an honest
heart and God’s grace. Two honest men who start off with different
assumptions will likely not agree on the interpretation of a scripture
unless they can resolve the differences in the underlying assumptions. That
may be a very difficult thing to do, even for two very honest men. These
basic assumptions are deeply rooted, strongly held, and not easily moved.
As long as men hold these differing fundamental views, they will attempt to
harmonize the Bible with these underlying assumptions. The result will be
that they will simply skip passages that do not harmonize and place them in
the category of “not understandable”. These verses will simply not be
noticed since no meaning is attached to them. Other verses will be read
accommodatively or even figuratively in an effort to harmonize the
scriptures with the underlying strongly held philosophy.
Because men honestly hold different philosophies/hermeneutics/assumptions,
they will not agree on specific verses because most of the time the
underlying assumptions are not dealt with. Since the root cause is not
addressed in the discussion, there can be no reconciliation of views. Such
often results in religious division. I do not believe that it can be
avoided. The solution is to be tolerant as much as we can of others in view
of our own limitations. We should find a local group with whom we can be
satisfied. We should teach what we believe to be the truth, and let God
decide who He justifies, and who He does not.
The bottom line is that each person will decide for himself where he draws
lines of fellowship and what he can tolerate. With some, that line seems to
be himself and a few others. With others, it seems to be most everybody.
You will have to decide for yourself what is tolerable. God will be the one
who sorts them out on the ground . (There is an old joke about the Navy
air defense, that they shot first, and sorted them out on the ground–only
funny if you are an aviator).
There are really not that many things in the scriptures that it claims will
separate one from God. If you deny the Lord, He will deny you. If you
don’t confess that Jesus is come in the flesh, you are none of His. If you
are immoral or lazy, you have denied the faith. Hypocricy identifies you as
a son of the devil. As far as doctrinal differences, it is harder to
identify those that damn a man’s soul. Baptism is a hotly contested topic,
but, even at that, most Christians practice some form of baptism, and the
Mormons and several others even baptize “for remission of sins”. We know
what the Bible teaches on baptism, but it is much more difficult question as
to what God might accept from someone whose basic assumptions preclude
arriving at the truth on baptism. Will he be eternally lost because he
honestly believed he didn’t have to be baptized “for remission of sins”?
Only God knows the answer for sure. The blood of Christ enables Him, if God
wishes, to justly grant that man eternal life. The man was, for sure, wrong
about baptism, honestly wrong, but the man attempted to serve God to the
best he understood.
In the final analysis, we can’t determine who God accepts, because so much
depends upon his heart that we can’t see. Even the apostles made a mistake
once when they forbade a man who was casting out demons because he did not
hang out with their crowd (Mk 9:38-39). We ought to show as much kindness
as we can muster, and try to help those that oppose themselves in the hope
that we might be able to show the way of truth more perfectly or maybe come
to a more complete understanding ourselves. We will find those whom we
judge to be self-seeking, dishonest, or worldly, for sure, but we ought to
give the man the benefit of the doubt until we are convinced of his
motivation. A good dose of charity is always in order, because the way you
treat others is frequently how they will treat you.
Should we ignore error? No. We should oppose it. However, we ought to
consider ourselves, as we oppose error lest we be found treating others as
we ourselves would not like to be treated. Be careful of accusing others of
being a son of the Devil. It might, just maybe, be your brother that you
are calling a name.
