This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled
Cold Case Christianity: Do Denominational Disagreements Falsify Christianity?
Posted: 11 Feb 2021 08:00 AM PST
A common objection to Christianity focuses on the denominational differences existing between the numerous Christian sects we see across the globe. If there is one Christian God, why are there so many different denominations of Christians?
The bible clearly requires Christians to be in doctrinal agreement (1st Cor. 1:10, Phil. 2:2), and Paul made clear how sinful it was to disagree with his version of the gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), so the fact that so many Christian denominations today disagree on "Lordship Salvation" and the doctrines of grace (i.e., Calvinism v. Arminianism), means skeptics are reasonable to first demand that God give clear answers on these questions before they do what the fundies demand, and become completely devoted to never questioning but always agreeing with whatever the NT "teaches".
You can hardly foist an intellectual obligation upon a skeptic to resolve in 2 weeks of research the doctrinal differences that the Christian scholars of these respective denominations have been disagreeing on for decades. And yet if you tell the skeptic that it is good for him to research such things, that is also committing yourself to the premise that the sketpic can safely delay the day of his repentance for perhaps years. Can he?
Don't you believe that the atheist is always one heart-beat away from hell? If so, then why do you think the skeptic can "safely" delay the day of their repentance?
Finally, there is no law of hermeneutics, historiography or common sense that says the skeptic is required to justify this basis for skepticism in an absolute way.
Does the existence of numerous (and contradictory) versions of Christianity prove Christianity is false?
No, their existence justifies the skeptic to put off the possibility of repenting and "getting save" until he or she has done enough research to satisfy themselves that a) NT authors give us correct theology, and b) that church over there in the modern world is the "right" one. Since smart Christian scholars battle each other in these denominations, the time necessary to figure out which view of the NT is "right" is going to be a lifetime, since that's how long smart Christian scholars disagree about essential doctrines like Lordship salvation and the doctrine of grace. So that the argument from extensive research time ends up justifying the skeptic who decides that the NT doesn't make a prima facie case in the first place, and therefore, the only people that should bother with it are those who personally find it fun to argue theology.
If Christians can’t even agree on what they believe, why should anyone else believe Christianity is true?
Good point, but remember, the skeptic is completely outside Christianity. He will not agree with you that "true" Christianity agrees about the Trinity and salvation by Grace, etc. He will insist that the Jehovah's Witnesses and other "cults" disagree with mainline protestantism, and their views on NT theology deserve research no less than does the Trinitarian neo-evangelical view.
Truth, by its very nature, is often elusive and difficult to ascertain.
And according to Ezra 1:1, God can cause a person to believe whatever he wants them to believe with a mere wave of his magic wand.
The more hidden or complex the truth claim, the more difficult it is to determine, given our limited capacity as humans.
And your god's apparently unwillingness to make the required theology clear justifies the skeptic to say that they will start getting serious with God when god starts getting serious with them. Until then, God is free to pretend that his fortune cookie answers in the bible are sufficient to keep sinners accountable. He is also free to believe that Japan is located in Germany.
To make matters worse, our innate, fallen qualities of pride and rebellion cause us to disagree and separate from one another along the way.
Which only proves you are now preaching the choir. Skeptics do not agree that it is humanity's sinful fallen limited nature that is to be blamed for their spiritual disagreements. We rather say those disagreements arise because the bible is fatally ambiguous on those points. otherwise you'd have to say that if you seriously believe your denomination is the "right religion", then you are a better person than Christians in other denominations, since you were able to figure it out, or you did something more than they did to attract god's enlightening grace. But if you cannot charge Christians who disagree with your theology with being more sinful or stupid than you, then you are admitting that they can be just as saved and smart as you, and yet still misunderstand the bible. Why you think this mess of conflicting views foists the least bit of intellectual obligation on any skeptic to jump in the fray, is anyone's guess.
Christians are not alone in their struggle to understand the truth. We aren’t the only people who struggle with disagreement and separation:
But skeptics who disagree with each other are in a better position than you: they aren't claiming that it is the same god that is guiding all of them.
So, Wallace, do you say God is guiding any denomination that you happen to disagree with?
Human Disagreement is Common to Every Field of Study
The differences is that the non-Christians who disagree with each other aren't claiming they are being guided by any god. The only way you can recover from that rebuttal is to allege, like a good Calvinist, that maybe god wants Christians to disagree on theology because he has a higher mysterious purpose. But then such appeal to mystery provides skeptics even further reason to disregard Christanity.
So, you can't really say whether God will direct me to the right religion no matter how sincere I am in asking him to? Then why the fuck would I bother with such a god?
Very few fields of study are characterized by uniform agreement. As an example, secular scientists who study the origin of the universe have divided into a number of theoretical camps, including “Big Bang” Cosmologists, “Steady State” Cosmologists, “Conformal Cyclic” Cosmologists, “Ekpyrotic” Cosmologists, “Multiverse” Cosmologists, “Pre-Big Bang Theory” Cosmologists, “Quantum Theory” Cosmologists and many more. These careful thinkers are examining the same set of facts, yet have separated in disagreement with one another, even though they agree on many essential issues.
Same answer.
Human Disagreement is Common to Every Worldview
More expansive worldviews are not immune to this kind of disagreement. For example, a quick search on the Internet reveals those who deny the existence of God have categorized themselves in a number of varying ways, including “Implicit” Atheists, “Explicit” Atheists, “Weak” Atheists, “Strong” Atheists, “Iconoclastic” Atheists, “Pragmatic” Atheists, “Mono” Atheists, “Myopic” Atheists, “Realistic” Atheists, “Scientific” Atheists, “Logical” Atheists and many more. Even people who have examined the same set of facts and hold an atheistic worldview have distinguished themselves as distinct from one another, even though they agree on many essential issues.
Once again, we don't claim to be guided by a god, so our disagreements with each other are not problematic. YOU claim that mainline Protestant Christian denominations are guided by God, otherwise you'd have to publicly specify which such churches you think aren't guided by God, and you wouldn't dare pretend to be that smart.
Human Disagreement Does Not Negate the Existence of Truth
But human disagreement can justify an outsider's skepticism that the truth can be successfully found, thus justifying the skeptic to avoid devoting serious effort to discovering that "truth".
While people may disagree about a specific truth claim, this disagreement does not mean a particular truth does not exist or cannot be known.
But Christian disagreement on biblical doctrine has persisted for 2,000 years, strongly implying that either Christians are a special breed of stupid, or else the biblical wording is genuinely fatally ambiguous, the latter of which would justify anybody to avoid wasting their time trying to figure out your god's fortune cookie bullshit.
In every jury trial, two sides oppose one another; one side believes the defendant is guilty, the other side believes the defendant is innocent. There is a truth related to the defendant’s guilt or innocence, in spite of the disagreement. Even though both sides are examining the same set of facts, they’ve come to two separate conclusions. One of them is right and one of them is wrong. Truth is not negated by their disagreement.
But the fact that so many juries become deadlocked suggests that some pursuits of "truth" are exercises in futility.
Worse, apologists conveniently forget that they are dealing with allegeldy "spiritual" truth, so that when they encourage the skeptic to study biblical truth, they are not doing the equal of asking the skeptic to study geographical truth. They are asking the skeptic to get involved in what the apologist views as a realm that is full of spiritual danger. Apologists are fucking idiots to do what they usually do, and encourage skeptics to enter this realm, since by their own opinion, a person's only protection from spiritual deception is their salvation in Christ. Smart skeptics would likely conclude the demonstrable benefits of "getting saved" are outweighed by the alleged "dangers".
Christians of every denomination have examined the same set of facts from the Biblical text and the 1st Century evidence. While we may disagree about a number of peripheral matters, we agree on the essential doctrines of the Christian Worldview.
No, you disagree about the nature of Christ's resurrection, his deity, the trinity, how to get saved, whether "getting saved" is even understood correctly by the fundies, etc.
You will trifle that your disagreements with Jehovah's Witnesses and other legalists or "heretics" don't count beacuse those guys are just "cultists", but it is the skeptic who has to decide whether these groups count in the final analysis. They do. What are you going to do, demand that a spiritually dead skeptic "recognize" that Christians who deny Christ's deity and bodily resurrection aren't "true" Christians? LOL. Why don't you also teach calculus to a dog?
As a result, we can accurately call each other “brothers and sisters in the faith.”
There is nothing in the bible supporting the modern Christian premise that God cares more about "essential" theology. If God inspired the entire bible, then it would appear that the Christians are only inventing the "essential/non-essential theology" distinction because that is the best way they can think of to deal with the doctrinal differences without admitting defeat. But just read Revelation, it certainly seems like the allegedly divinely inspired author expected his readers to know what he was talking about...thus God expected the readers to know what he was talking about...thus when two Christians disagree on their interpretation of Revelation, it MUST be that one of them is not correctly hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.
Unless you charge that Christian with lack of salvation, lack of sincerity or having unconfessed sins (accusations you aren't likely to hurl), then you must live with the logical possibility that God wants that other Christian to misunderstand Revelation. Hopefully you don't need to be told why skeptics would tell any god who toys with people that way to go fuck himself.
These disagreements are a reflection of the fallen nature of humans.
No, they are the result of the biblical wording being genuinely fatally ambiguous.
All of us, regardless of worldview or area of study, are influenced by our pride and rebellion; we often separate from one another over minor issues having no bearing on the overall truth of a matter. Christians are no more immune to this tendency than those who deny the existence of God altogether.
But the bible seems to clearly insist that Christians be immune to that tendency. Philip. 2:2, etc, supra.
While we may disagree about a number of peripheral matters, we agree on the essential doctrines. As a result, we can accurately call each other brothers and sisters in the faith.
Then apparently you didn't write this in an effort to refute skeptics, you were only trying to help Christians feel better about transcending their denominational differences. Which means you failed to support your basic thesis that denominational disagreements don't falsify Christianity.
When a skeptic refuses to enter that allegedly dangerous realm of the spiritual unless god makes the truth equally as clear to her as God made it clear to apostle Paul, as they asking too much of the bible god, yes or no? What use is the bible if you are going to make endless excuses about why God no longer wishes to reveal truth the dramatic way he allegedly did in the bible? Doesn't that teach the skeptic that becoming a Christian requires them to sharpen their skills are picking and choosing?
