The Secular Web has its own version of the public restroom wall, a place where anyone and everyone secular can express personal views on whatever itches them. One recent participant, a certain "Thomas Doubting" (hereafter "Tom" for convenience), had a few beefs about religious diversity within Christendom.

Now on the surface, this is rather like someone completely color-blind complaining about riotous wallpaper. But it does have more depth than that in one sense. Obviously we expect less diversity in secularism in terms of religiosity than we would in a religious setting, for it is easier to believe in nothing, and harder to get diversity and multiplicity of opinions from nothing, than to believe in somethings and get diversity out of that. But at the core is the major complaint Tom has, which is that when he read the Bible "trying to figure out how one is 'saved'" it confused the tar out of him. "Logic would dictate that obtaining this salvation would be fairly straightforward and laid out in one easy-to-understand book; especially if said creator of this book wanted to make sure His followers were indeed 'saved.' Of course," Tom mourns, "upon investigation I found that this is not the case. One Christian denomination tells us the 'saved' were predestined. One tells us that baptism is required. Another says baptism is a ritual and that salvation comes through belief in Christ's sacrifice. Others say Christ's sacrifice alone is enough. Yet another stresses good works or the grace of God. In fact, depending on which denomination of Christianity one subscribes to, any combination of the following bible verses can be used to justify how one is saved..."

As with James Buckner before this, though, I am compelled to ask why Tom had so much trouble whereas I did not. The answer, for example, to the "baptism" question was easy. It took only a little research to know the answer and to know where various groups went wrong.

Tom throws together a set of verses which he found confusing, which seems to set belief (John 5:24) against baptism (John 3:5 -- actually, not a reference to baptism, and it isn't hard to find out that it isn't; same with Titus 3:5), against faith (Eph. 2:8-9 -- the word "faith" means persuasion or conviction and is functionally synonymous with hearing and belief!), against works (James 2:17, Matthew 9:17 -- under the Semitic Totality concept, works are so intertwined with faith and belief that they are inseparable!), and on it goes. This wasn't hard to figure out and was the result of what amounts to only 4 hours of reading and research. In all honesty: Is that too much for Tom to be asked to do?

Tom says next, "I'm sure some critics will say I'm taking those verses 'out of context.' Well, to those critics I ask that a 'context' be clearly defined and followed among Christians before you criticize my observations." Well, Tom, if you're reading this, follow the link above and seek ye the context requested. I can't compel others to follow, but if you have any rebuttal, let's hear it. And on those other topics, like the Trinity, we have plenty more homework for you. (No, it did not start at Nicea -- Tom is buying into the usual soft-sell on that one.)

Thereafter as well, we have the standard shift of blame to God for the present confusion, an issue I have covered here -- there is no historical or biblical basis for Tom's "rule of faith," constant-guidance idea. Then we have a series of charts comparing denominational beliefs. Quite informative, but is including Mormonism and Christian Science really sensible? Shall I class Tom with skeptics like Acharya S who believe in space aliens and Atlantis? And in many cases, disagreement may be on details, but in general principles, there is no conflict at all. For example, is there really a qualitative difference between Southern Baptists' belief that heaven is "viewed as a paradise with Christ and God for all eternity, often depicted as being filled with mansions and golden streets," the Eastern Orthodox view that heaven is "a paradise with Christ and God for all eternity," the Lutheran view that it is "unending joy of being with God in Heaven," and the Church of England's "viewed as a spiritual state of being in the presence of God"? These are differences that make no difference, and citing them as differences is at best merely nitpicking.

In a summary statement, Tom adds, "If the Trinitarian concept and the ritual of baptism were clearly defined in the Bible, there would not be denominations throughout history that keep disagreeing on them." Actually, they are clearly defined -- what has happened is that prideful and arrogant humans have lost the contextual markers for interpretation, preferring instead their own views which they baptize with the Scripture, made to read as they would have it. By way of illustration, let's consider that Trinity monster the skeptics so adore.

The big beef between groups over the Trinity is the ontological relationship of the three members -- are they three separate beings (i.e., Mormonism) and are they all eternal or not (JWs)? Are they one being with three faces (i.e., Oneness Pentecostals?)? Or, are they one being but three persons, two of them emanations from the first (Trinitarianism)? The latter is correct, and as we show in the article linked above, is the only option that respects the data. But what happened that we now have differences of opinion? The Mormons are not far off in principle: apostasy happened, though in a way they do not think. And why did that happen? Because the essential background data (the Jewish Wisdom connection, the "Rosetta Stone" for Triniatrian theology and explication in the NT) was lost. And why did that happen? Human sin -- the church's disconnect from its Hebrew ideological forebears. That's a simplified summary, painted in broad strokes, but essentially correct. Believers may justifiably thank God that Nicea came up with the correct view in spite of the disconnect.

Today we are recovering some of those connections, but in the meantime, we have trinitarian mutations like modalism, now so ingrained that few are convinced by defenses and end up rather trying to twist the evidence to their own view (as do Buzzard and Hunting on unitarianism; see here). And now a point of personal opinion: Writers like Tom are part of the problem. It's always much easier to sit back and throw our hands in the air than it is to actually get down to tacks, and try to solve the problem. For many people this means living an insulated life in their own belief system -- whether it be in a church or being a skeptic -- redefining the evidence to suit the comfortable paradigm. Years of experience have brought us this lesson, and I don't foresee a paradigm shift anytime soon.

Our challenge to Tom, as to others, is this: Follow the links and explain why what is in them is wrong -- and if you ever want to go beyond writing graffiti and get down to tacks, drop us a line.