Is it normal for Christians to have opposing views?

Our media, advertising, church experience and societal stereotypes give us meanings we attach to scripture. Two people with different cultures are bound to have differing understanding particularly in regard to what is more sinful. It’s important we aren’t defending our cultural experience we have created around our biblical understanding as being more “Christian”

Example, Christian A is an Australian and the word hell is not offensive used in any way culturally or at church and because of the culture he lives in does not se an issue in the Bible.

Christian B a very conservative Christian from Bible Belt American society has been taught not to use that word and replace it with something less “offensive”. Christian B sees bible verses taught to him that validate his cultural normal.

Both Christian A & B realise they live under grace are both filled with the spirit but Christian B carries a bigger burden of potential guilt from his culture he is taught around the word hell. Both will read scripture differently because of the societal norms they are used to. In this situation there isn’t consensus across all churches and cultures how this word should be used in conversations in regard to a biblical truth. Maybe we should consider how culture affects decision making in the less straightforward topics before deciding if our own experience is more correct than someone else’s.

JohnB445 said:

Here I will give a scenario.

Christian A, and Christian B.

Christian A, and Christian B both agree with Jesus divinity, how to be saved, and the Trinity.

But Christian A and Christian B disagree on certain doctrines.

Is this a case whether or not Christian A or Christian B has the Holy Spirit living inside of them?

Why would the Holy Spirit lead Christians into contradictory views?

Click to expand...

There was the preaching of Noah when almost all of his brethren were "certain" that his much-predicted world wide flood would never happen.

There was the birth of the Christian Church - when Christian Jews found doctrinal error and rejection of the OT Messiah being promoted by the established Jewish magesterium.

There was a Protestant Reformation where Catholics began to "protest" what they found as doctrinal errors in the RCC as compared to scripture.

Opposing views "are nothing new".

You shall "know the Truth and the truth shall set you free" is a wonderful Bible fact - but so also is it a Bible fact that Satan opposes Truth.

Beyond that - there are things like "should you wear a suit and tie to church every time you attend" that are simply differences in preference, in custom, in practice.

As for "testing" we find that even among non-Christians they were capable of "studying the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11.

And Paul said in Gal 1:6-9 "if WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should come to you bringing a different gospel other than that which has been given... let him be accursed". And how could you know if it compared well to what "had already been given" if you did not read the Word of God?

Acts 20 "from among your own selves" men will arise speaking perverse doctrines.
29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

bekkilyn said:

I suppose John 3:16 would be a good choice for a scripture verse that consolidates much of everything, however, the actual foundation of my belief is in the person of Jesus Christ and the event of his resurrection. It is true that only by the grace of God we are saved through faith.

I don't really see God approving or disapproving of denominations or any organizations of human beings working together for a common goal, including spiritual ones intended for God's glory and worship. Denominations can be very useful in helping bring people together in corporate worship vs. everyone trying to figure out everything on their own.

What I strongly disagree with concerning denominations is when a denomination decides that they are the one true church and that all others are false or apostate. The one true church is the body of all believers in Christ, wherever they happen to come from, and no denomination has ownership of it.

Click to expand...

You are correct, no denomination owns anything. Christ established HIS church; He gave His blood for it and He owns it. We are told multiple times that if we love Him we will keep His commandments. Obedience is just as important as faith.
In Him

JohnB445 said:

Christian A, and Christian B both agree with Jesus divinity, how to be saved, and the Trinity.

But Christian A and Christian B disagree on certain doctrines.

Is this a case whether or not Christian A or Christian B has the Holy Spirit living inside of them?

Why would the Holy Spirit lead Christians into contradictory views?

Click to expand...

Why do you assume it is the Spirit leading them to contradictory views?

JohnB445 said:

Here I will give a scenario.

Christian A, and Christian B.

Christian A, and Christian B both agree with Jesus divinity, how to be saved, and the Trinity.

But Christian A and Christian B disagree on certain doctrines.

Is this a case whether or not Christian A or Christian B has the Holy Spirit living inside of them?

Why would the Holy Spirit lead Christians into contradictory views?

Click to expand...

You will only find Christian unity during the duration of an inquisition. Outside of an inquisition the blasphemers and heretics come out to play.

David Cabrera said:

That would imply the "gates of hell" prevailed even though Jesus said they wouldn't do that.

Click to expand...

The phrase "I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail..." is actually not a defensive term, it's an offensive term. The gates of hell are not assailing the church. The church is assailing the gates of hell; and it's the gates of hell that will not withstand.

Albion said:

If that is so, then every unaffiliated Christian--every believer who refuses to be part of the worshipping community--is himself a denomination of one.

Click to expand...

I should have also pointed out the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch. The eunuch was "saved" and continued on his journey. He either through evangelism converted others to worship with or found a group of like minded Christians to associate/worship with.
In Him

JohnB445 said:

Here I will give a scenario.

Christian A, and Christian B.

Christian A, and Christian B both agree with Jesus divinity, how to be saved, and the Trinity.

But Christian A and Christian B disagree on certain doctrines.

Is this a case whether or not Christian A or Christian B has the Holy Spirit living inside of them?

Why would the Holy Spirit lead Christians into contradictory views?

Click to expand...

It can be seen from I Corinthians that before a certain level of maturity in the faith Christians tend to disagree...where they hang on to false doctrine it is not a matter of the Spirit leading them in opposing views...this is a spirit of darkness. We must remain hopeful that Christians being led into false teachings will overcome. If we take a sense of humility when we pick up our Bibles to read, remembering that we will be taught by God it will be that much easier to read through the darkness.

Some Scriptures showing immaturity in the faith existing in the early church:
I Corinthians 1:10-17:
Brothers, I am making an appeal to you using the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I ask that you all express the same view and not have any divisions among you, but that you be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For the news I heard about you, my brothers, from members of Chloe’s household, is that there are rivalries among you. 12 What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one can say that I baptized you into my own name. 16 (I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides them, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel—not with the wisdom used in speeches, so that the cross of Christ would not be emptied of its power. --EHV

Here is Apostle Paul's Response to this situation (under inspiration of God)...

I Corinthians 3:1-4:
Brothers, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but as people who are led by the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, because you were not yet ready. Why, even now you are still not ready, 3 because you are still people who are following the flesh. Indeed, insofar as jealousy, strife, and factions have a place among you, are you not people who are following the flesh? Are you not behaving in a merely human way? 4 When one says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not being merely human?

One can look to other passages as well, but here is another situation...
I Corinthians 11:17-19:
Now in giving you this next command, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For in the first place, I hear that when you come together in an assembly, there are divisions among you. And to some extent I believe it, 19 for there also have to be factions among you so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

The example above illustrates to us that the Spirit at times does work through these factions.

Just_a_Christian said:

The Holy Spirit led the inspired writers while they penned the New Testament. Jesus speaks to us today through the New Testament. Doctrine is anything that can effect salvation. Seperate from the "all knowing man" and sinful pride, there would be no contention regarding doctrine. The Bible teaches we have liberty to decide for ourselves regarding any topic that outside of doctrine but we're not at liberty to try to bind our opinions on others. Simple enough, right?

Click to expand...

I think fundamentally you are correct. We might question what does "doctrine" consist of regarding "affecting salvation"?

On top of this though, we might think to add keeping in mind that we may encounter those who have yet to be exposed to "complete doctrine"; as well as those who may not be capable of grasping certain things that would be "doctrinally fundamental".

I've worked with developmentally disabled adults and I've encountered several who would not be able to articulate (or maybe even understand) "proper doctrine"; but they certainly believed. Same could be said for believing children. A 3 year old's brain is just not developed enough to grasp certain things.

So determining some of this requires wisdom; because ultimately we are not saved by what we intellectually understand. Yet I do acknowledge that intellectual understanding and "knowing" "doctrine" of the Spirit are two different things. And maybe that's the real answer!

JohnB445 said:

Here I will give a scenario.

Christian A, and Christian B.

Christian A, and Christian B both agree with Jesus divinity, how to be saved, and the Trinity.

But Christian A and Christian B disagree on certain doctrines.

Is this a case whether or not Christian A or Christian B has the Holy Spirit living inside of them?

Why would the Holy Spirit lead Christians into contradictory views?

Click to expand...

From many conversations with believers, many of them delving deep into interesting things, and me mostly listening, I can say out of dozens for whom I got to better know their exact thoughts, and in several different churches/denominations, including Catholics also, there have not been two that agreed generally about everything, and more -- each really does have unique viewpoints that are very unlikely anyone else has ever had or anyone else ever will. That said, I've learned to hear the deeper agreement that happens, even better often than people themselves realize, noticing how they agree in ways that matter, though they don't yet realize it. Often I can hear the same thoughts in very radically different wordings and with differing understandings and ideas used to express them.

And that last is very encouraging to exactly what you ask -- we often agree better than we know about deeper things without realizing it.

The Righterzpen said:

I think fundamentally you are correct. We might question what does "doctrine" consist of regarding "affecting salvation"?

On top of this though, we might think to add keeping in mind that we may encounter those who have yet to be exposed to "complete doctrine"; as well as those who may not be capable of grasping certain things that would be "doctrinally fundamental".

I've worked with developmentally disabled adults and I've encountered several who would not be able to articulate (or maybe even understand) "proper doctrine"; but they certainly believed. Same could be said for believing children. A 3 year old's brain is just not developed enough to grasp certain things.

So determining some of this requires wisdom; because ultimately we are not saved by what we intellectually understand. Yet I do acknowledge that intellectual understanding and "knowing" "doctrine" of the Spirit are two different things. And maybe that's the real answer!

Click to expand...

I can agree with what you are saying here. I believe those who through intellectual deficiencies are unable to understand are as children, blameless. I see a "normal" individual reaching a point of "accountability" at which time they are responsible for their own souls and should become "infant" Chtistians.
In Him

Albion said:

That is to speak of "triumphing over" as extinguishing the truth. But it can also refer to the success or failure of Christianity in the world that Christ sent his disciples out to convert. So how is that going? Internal disagreements over some doctrines aside, Christianity is the largest religion on Earth, has been the most influential, and it is the most widespread. Satan has obviously not hushed up the Good News.

Click to expand...

While I agree with your statement here, I do not know all that preceded this point and what I have to say may have been referenced already and you are perhaps disputing this...forgive the interruption if so.
Jesus says in Matthew 24:10-14:
10 Then many will fall away from faith. They will betray each other and hate each other. 11 Many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because lawlessness will increase, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But whoever endures to the end will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. --EHV

According to NIV1984, here is vs 12:
Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,

KJV:
2 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

Jesus says in Luke 18:7-8:
Will not God give justice to his chosen ones, who are crying out to him day and night? Will he put off helping them? 8 I tell you that he will give them justice quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” --EHV

NIV84 begins to look more true in Matthew 24:12 in its use of the word most.

There are other passages which seem to indicate that faith on the earth wanes.

Just_a_Christian said:

I can agree with what you are saying here. I believe those who through intellectual deficiencies are unable to understand are as children, blameless. I see a "normal" individual reaching a point of "accountability" at which time they are responsible for their own souls and should become "infant" Chtistians.
In Him

Click to expand...

How would you define "doctrine essential to salvation"? I know that probably sounds like an antagonistic question; but you start to get into questions of "Calvinist" verses "Arminian" and "Trinitarians", "Modalist" etc. Of which those in the other camp usually think their opponents are heretics.

The Righterzpen said:

The phrase "I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail..." is actually not a defensive term, it's an offensive term. The gates of hell are not assailing the church. The church is assailing the gates of hell; and it's the gates of hell that will not withstand.

Click to expand...

That's not a historical interpretation.

Halbhh said:

From many conversations with believers, many of them delving deep into interesting things, and me mostly listening, I can say out of dozens for whom I got to better know their exact thoughts, and in several different churches/denominations, including Catholics also, there have not been two that agreed generally about everything, and more -- each really does have unique viewpoints that are very unlikely anyone else has ever had or anyone else ever will. That said, I've learned to hear the deeper agreement that happens, even better often than people themselves realize, noticing how they agree in ways that matter, though they don't yet realize it. Often I can hear the same thoughts in very radically different wordings and with differing understandings and ideas used to express them.

And that last is very encouraging to exactly what you ask -- we often agree better than we know about deeper things without realizing it.

Click to expand...

You may be correct about this, but the things that create a Christian are not considered "meaty" subjects. I believe one thing that plagues Christianity is the term "Christian" has been highjacked, if you will. The name Christain was first promised as God's new name for His people in Isaiah 62.
And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. - Isaiah 62:2
The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. - Acts 11:26
The term Christian is used too loosely to describe anyone who simply believes, which is incorrect, a Christian is someone that is saved. Saved the Bible way.
In Him

David Cabrera said:

That's not a historical interpretation.

Click to expand...

The question isn't whether or not it's "historical" it's whether or not it's true?

The Greek "prevail against" is a composite of two other words. "against" and "strength". Go back to "build" (the church) which means to "erect" an "edifice" although it is not a physical "edifice" it is a metaphoric one. To build one entity, requires the other not stand. Which is building and which is not standing. And when you consider the context; there's only two "kingdoms" in this world. Which one is plundering which one?

Now if you take that verse "historically". It really doesn't make much sense. I build the church (this kingdom gets bigger) and the gates of hell can not conquer it? Yet, where's "the church" getting the "material" to make its kingdom bigger? To say that hell will not conquer the church contextually doesn't really make any sense.

See what I'm saying?

The Righterzpen said:

How would you define "doctrine essential to salvation"? I know that probably sounds like an antagonistic question; but you start to get into questions of "Calvinist" verses "Arminian" and "Trinitarians", "Modalist" etc. Of which those in the other camp usually think their opponents are heretics.

Click to expand...

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: - Ephesians 2:8

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 10:32-33

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. - Luke 13:3

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. - Acts 2:38-39

After baptism one a raised a new creature in Christ.
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. - Romans 6:3-4
At this point one is a new "babe" in Christ.

The Righterzpen said:

The question isn't whether or not it's "historical" it's whether or not it's true?

The Greek "prevail against" is a composite of two other words. "against" and "strength". Go back to "build" (the church) which means to "erect" an "edifice" although it is not a physical "edifice" it is a metaphoric one. To build one entity, requires the other not stand. Which is building and which is not standing. And when you consider the context; there's only two "kingdoms" in this world. Which one is plundering which one?

Now if you take that verse "historically". It really doesn't make much sense. I build the church (this kingdom gets bigger) and the gates of hell can not conquer it? Yet, where's "the church" getting the "material" to make its kingdom bigger? To say that hell will not conquer the church contextually doesn't really make any sense.

See what I'm saying?

Click to expand...

It's not metaphoric and it is ridiculous to think of it as material (like a building).

Just_a_Christian said:

You may be correct about this, but the things that create a Christian are not considered "meaty" subjects. I believe one thing that plagues Christianity is the term "Christian" has been highjacked, if you will. The name Christain was first promised as God's new name for His people in Isaiah 62.
And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. - Isaiah 62:2
The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. - Acts 11:26
The term Christian is used too loosely to describe anyone who simply believes, which is incorrect, a Christian is someone that is saved. Saved the Bible way.
In Him

Click to expand...

Except that a Christian can still believe wrong teaching and still be considered a Christian.

David Cabrera said:

Except that a Christian can still believe wrong teaching and still be considered a Christian.

Click to expand...

For intance.....?