Disagreements Are Inevitable; Respond Accordingly But Always Speak The Truth

Word-Of-The-Day: ‘When Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I (Paul) opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.’ (Galatians 2:11)

In your Christian walk, when you are witnessing to others or discussing items of the Bible or of worship, it is likely at some point a disagreement will ensue. In my recollection, there were some disagreements pertaining to Salvation with a co-worker when he brought up his belief that sins could be forgiven for the dead, or post-mortem (with the proper prayers and offerings).

I told him that wasn’t true, as such a philosophy negates the need for Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. Why would Jesus need to die as our sacrificial Lamb to atone for our sins, if one could just live their lives in sin, and then have a friend or a relative pay a sum of money and pray for a post-mortem Salvation?

It ended with a rather disgruntled ‘agree-to-disagree’ on his part, and though we had other discussions, none were as deep as this one. While I did not back down from the Truth, I also knew when to shut down, without compromise, to keep us on speaking terms.

Even within the Baptist circle of theology, we see points of disagreement that are typically minor and not affecting the overall Gospel of Christ. Did dinosaurs make it onto the Ark, or did God create the universe in 6 days (with the day of rest), or did it follow 2 Peter 3:8, ‘With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.’, and Creation was something of years in the making?

In these types of disagreements, we often discuss these with others to gain why they hold these positions, but at the end of it, it is best to say ‘OK’, shake hands and move on. Whether one believes the ‘Leviathan’ or dinosaurs walked with men or not prior to the flood is not critical to the Gospel, and such a position does not negate the legitimacy or inerrancy of Scripture.

But what about my co-worker’s belief of ‘post-mortem’ Salvation, or of one who states it takes a certain amount of works or offerings to gain Salvation? These and other beliefs, such as the modern secular thought that the Bible needs to adapt to societal norms rather than the norms should be set to the Biblical standards, is something that is a ‘Law + Jesus’ doctrine; a doctrine that requires more (or sometimes less) than the simple Truth of the Gospel.

The Gospel Truth is simple: accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, accept His gift of Sacrifice, repent to Him your sinful nature, and die to self and serve only Him. Yet there are those who seem to try to add more requirements. The best example in the Bible is someone who should have known this was not correct – Peter. Peter in Acts 10 witnessed to Cornelius, an Italian Gentile serving in the Roman Legion and thus uncircumcised. Cornelius and his family and other Gentiles accepted Jesus, given Salvation and received the Holy Spirit. They were then baptized by Peter.

But later, we learn in Galatians 2, that Peter fell back into this legalistic ‘Law + Jesus’ doctrine, requiring Gentiles to be circumcised and conform to Jewish dietary rules and customs before Peter would consider them ‘saved’. Peter placed a requirement on the Gentiles for Salvation that was not part of Jesus’ plan of Redemption.

Paul thus confronted Peter about falling into a false ‘Law + Jesus’ doctrine.  The focus is how Paul confronted Peter; Peter did wrong and made a mistake and Paul confronted him face-to-face.  Paul (at least in the Biblical record) didn’t threaten Peter or try to belittle him, he simply went up and told him, in Galatians 2:11-21, in short paraphrase, ‘You’re wrong’.  Paul also explained why Peter was wrong (‘Peter, you’re adding to the Gospel of ‘Only Jesus Saves’’), and gave him constructive criticism and advice. 

Timothy may have took some notes, as he spoke about confrontation in the 2^nd half of 2 Timothy 4:2 (‘Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.‘).  When you find something that is wrong, you can confront and if necessary rebuke someone’s wrongdoings but do it with patience and show them why it is wrong, and how to do it right.

Before you confront someone for wrongdoing make sure it is ‘they’ and not ‘you’ in doing wrong.  Matthew 7:3-5 discusses this; make sure your ducks are in a row and that your house is in order before confronting someone about their wrongdoing. 

I’m certain Paul prayed and verified his stance on the ‘Jesus-Only’ Gospel before he spoke to Peter; if Paul for example was preaching a different but similar false Gospel (‘You must take a bath and wear a suit or dress before you can ask for Salvation’, for example), Peter probably wouldn’t have taken him seriously or re-shifted the conversation to Paul’s shortcomings.  (Fortunately, Paul had the one true Gospel message down pat.) 

Matthew 7:1-2 precedes this with ‘don’t judge’; sometimes we run into people (like those in other denominations) who would appear to be earnest in their Christian values, and seem to have slightly different viewpoints or dogma than your average Baptist brother or sister.  What we may consider ‘wrong’ (perhaps the rosary in the Catholic tradition, as an example) may be something that draws them closer in their relationship with Jesus.  We have to be careful in what we confront people with, and sometimes we do have to simply ‘agree to disagree’ on some Biblical viewpoints.  (Start discussing ‘pre-trib’ vs. ‘mid-trib’ vs. ‘post-trib’ Rapture in a group sometime, and you’ll experience this firsthand.)

If you do get angry, make sure it is righteous anger and not self-satisfying anger, or anger just to make a spectacle as you would be sinning in your anger.  Mark 11:15-17 (also in the other three Gospels) shows us it is not sinful to respond with righteous anger when absolutely necessary.  Jesus confronted the marketeers in the temple courtyards by chasing them out, using a whip made of ropes or cords and tossing their stuff around. 

Although not written, it is likely Jesus first informed them of their wrongdoing, and when they ignored Him, He responded by opening His can of ‘Whoop’ on them.  In Jesus’ case, he did not sin in his physical altercation with the marketers in the courtyard of the Temple.  Outside the temple, Jesus likely walked past these same vendors on the streets of Jerusalem without word or comment, but he defended the integrity of His Father’s house with vigor as they brought sin into it.

If you caught someone attempting to harm a child, or start berating your wife or husband, it is proper to use appropriate force to counteract the wrongdoing, up to deadly force if you or your loved one’s life is threatened.  Physical or verbally angry confrontation should be in line with the severity of the transgression, and only in those extreme circumstances where civil discourse has run its course and it no longer effective in the given situation. 

Jesus did say ‘turn the other cheek’ for many offenses where it is better to forgive and forget the transgression, but when one needs to act to defend oneself or others, or to remedy a transgression against the Lord and His Plan of Salvation, you can appropriately respond to wrongdoing to the level equal to the task, but the Truth should never be compromised.