Good thing my arguments are for Scripture, then!
I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, not with the Scripture itself. That being said, while I agree with the fourth century anti-Arian St. Hilary of Poitiers that Scripture is in the interpretation and not the reading, I do not believe that disagreements over the correct interpretation of Scripture are disagreements with God, because epistemologically, we cannot know for sure when it comes to close issues, for example, a dispute dating back to the early Church which continues until the present, albeit which has been largely set aside through ecumenical dialogue, although there are still hardcore Ethiopians and Copts, and various Eastern Orthodox laity and clergy, especially Old Calendarists, and one high profile canonical bishop, Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, who continue the dispute, over whether or not our Lord, God and Savior, the Only Begotten Son and Incarnate Word of God Jesus Christ, exists in a state of hypostatic union of two natures, one human and one divine, which are united in one hypostasis without change, confusion, separation or division, or whether He exists in a state of hypostatic and natural union from two natures, one human and one divine, which were united in the Incarnation in one nature and one hypostasis without change, confusion, separation or division.
The former is Chalcedonian Christology, based on the Tome of Pope Leo I, and accepted at the Council of Chalcedon, and the latter is Miaphysite Christology, adhered to by the Oriental Orthodox churches (Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac and Indian Orthodox), based on the writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria and accepted at the earlier Council of Ephesus, both of which are accepted as Ecumenical by Chalcedonians, although Chalcedon is obviously not accepted as Ecumenical by the Oriental Orthodox.
Who is right? The supporters of Chalcedon, like St. Leo I, St. Gelasius, Emperor Justinian, St. Gregory the Great, and St. John of Damascus, or St. Dioscorus, St. Severus of Antioch, St. Jacob of Sarugh, St. Theodora (the wife of Emperor Emperor Justinian, St. Jacob Baradaeus, and St. Gregorios bar Hebraeus? Scripture does not provide a clear answer. Perhaps both are wrong and Nestorius was right, or perhaps Theodore of Mopsuestia, or the Assyrian Church of the East with its semi-Chalcedonian Christology of Mar Babai the Great, Mar Narsai, and St. Isaac the Syrian? Again, it is a historical dispute where all of the interpretations are equally sound, so it comes down to Christological analysis, logic, reason, and politics.
And indeed, the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was in charge of it determined all three Christologies (Assyrian, Miaphysite, and Chalcedonian) were compatible, and the Miaphysite Syriac Orthodox Church and the Chalcedonian Antiochian Orthodox Church have become extremely closely tied through ecumenical agreements, which extend to allowing laity to communicate in either church and banning conversions from one to the other. A looser, but still intimate, relationship exists between the His Beatitude Greek Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, Theodore II, and His Holiness the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria. These close relationships, which in the case of the Syriac and Antiochian church is about as close as possible without full communion, are unprecedented among the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions, and no other churches enjoy the privilege of such close relations with them.*
Another, more recent dispute with some Patristic antecedents, but which never led to a schism in the early church, is the Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist dispute, which was prefaced by the disagreements between Calvin and Luther, but these had more to do with the Eucharist than predestination, but which exploded in full force when the Remonstrants, led by Jacob Arminius, launched the Arminian movement, and everyone picked a side, except for the Anglicans; this issue cannot be decided from Scripture, but it appears that the consensus patrum (a Calvinist term) of the Early Church would have been against Calvinism, believing innfree will with some possible exceptions, like St. Augustine of Hippo. Certainly the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental), the Assyrians and the Roman Catholics, which collectively are the only churches with roots in antiquity, the Waldensians, contrary to rumor, not having emerged until the dawn of the Renaissance in the 14th century, and incidentally, being sufficiently inclined towards Calvinism so as to adopt Calvinist theology when those not slaughtered in the dreadful Piedmont massacre took refuge in Switzerland; in an odd twist, the Waldensians are now the main Protestant church in Italy and the presumably Arminian** Methodists joined them.
Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism (Arminianism, broadly defined**) cannot be proven, despite the attempts of many, on the Bible, although some doctrines of John Calvin and some doctrines of Calvinist movements like the Puritans, such as Iconoclasm and A Capella Exclusive Psalmody, or the non-celebration of Christmas and other feasts, are difficult to reconcile with scripture, which is why the majority of Calvinist churches as well as the largest and most important Calvinist churches, such as the PCUSA, the United Reformed Church of Great Britain, the Church of Scotland, the UCC and many other Congregational churches, and Calvinist non-denominational churches, and the Reformed Church in America, and the Calvinist chapters of the SBC, reject some or all of them.
* With the exception of the Malankara Independent Syrian Church in India, a Syriac Orthodox jurisdiction which exists outside of the canonical Oriental Orthodox communion, and is not in communion with the Syriac Orthodox or Indian Orthodox churches in India, but which is in full communion with the Protestant Mar Thoma Syrian Church, which is part of the Anglican Communion.
** Non-Calvinism is commonly called Arminianism, and Calvinism is commonly called Reformed Theology. I find these labels misleading, because the Protestant Reformation was not exclusively Calvinist, and I have seen the term Reformed used in Zwinglian contexts fairly frequently, and indeed in other contexts, but they are alas thoroughly entrenched. Arminianism narrowly defined, which is to say, the actual Remonstrant Brotherhood, still exists and has 5,000 members in 40 Dutch parishes and 1 German parish, but sadly has become non-creedal, with some members being “Gronigers” who reject the doctrine of the Trinity and divine justice expiatory, and other members being Unitarians, and still others having arbitrary beliefs; it is very common for Remonstrants to write their own personal Statement of Faith, and the Remonstrants were also the first Protestant church to bless same-sex unions, in 1986. So, needless to say, we can positively disprove the doctrines of the modern day Remonstrants with ease. Perhaps its best that the term Arminianism does not apply to them, and I was mistaken in advocating for its use as such; perhaps Arminianism would best apply specifically to the early Remonstrants, who would certainly not have embraced gay marriage or Unitarianism, but were rather very close to the Reformed Church doctrinally, except in their rejection of Five Point Calvinism in favor of free will.
