This is another post in my dialogue with Brandon E.
Brandon keeps asking me why I am challenging Christian doctrine as if all Christians agreed on that doctrine. For example, here is a statement he has made to me (and here is its original context):
By objections are repetitive, Mike, because you keep missing the point of them, and coming up with increasingly illogical or unfair responses in response to them. For example, saying that you are on God’s side and I am on Satan’s side is not an argument. Also, Stephen or the apostles standing against the Sanhedrin over the new testament revelation that Jesus is Lord is not a fair parallel to you standing over and against all the believers in Christ who confess Jesus as Lord and are interpreting the same body of completed Scriptures but with whose interpretations you disagree.
Note that Brandon says that I am “standing over and against all the believers in Christ” as if they all believe the same thing and I am the only one who differs. Christians believe all sorts of things about, for example, the Second Coming of Christ. There are preterists and futurists – and there are those who either don’t think about the subject or else consider it unimportant. There are pre-millennialists and post-millennialists. There are folks who are pre-trib, folks who are mid-trib, and folks who are post-trib (“trib” being short for tribulation). And this is just the beginning of the breakdowns. And this is just one of the doctrines about which Brandon complains that I don’t “agree.” How do you agree with people who don’t agree with each other?
Brandon, which of these views do you think is the truth?