As I study the history of theological controversies, cults, and denominationalism, I am coming to the conclusion that most if not all of the divisions inside and outside of Christian orthodoxy are a result of the incipient inability of men to deal with the incomprehensible mysteries and apparent paradoxes of determinism-free will, faith-works, unity-particularity, heart-hands, and the individual-corporate relationship with God. Pride inevitably presses men to say too much and over-systematize in their theologies. For example, when pride gets way out of hand, and somebody rejects the tension of the the unity and particularity in the Trinity, we get the extremely wayward Arians.
Those holding the paradoxes in proper tension, humbly acknowledging the mysteries will be first in the kingdom. I guess what I'm trying to say is the last shall be first. He that humbleth himself (in the epistemological sense) shall be exalted.
Meanwhile, the humanist philosophers have never answered the problem of the unity and particular or the determinism/indeterminism conundrum. They answer the impossibilities with incoherencies. We explain impossibilities with incomprehensibilities. You can be proud and self-contradictory on the one hand, if you want to be a humanist and abandon Christian orthodoxy. Otherwise, you can humble yourself and acknowledge the incomprehensibilities.