Why is God's church and bible in its current condition?

[SNReed]

I often wonder why God allows division to exist in the Church, and why all the controversies of what the Bible is really saying. Don't get me wrong I'm not questioning God, I just just don't understand it and would have a hard time explaining to an unbeliever, especially a well informed atheist how a true, perfect God would creat 1) His Church, that from the begining had divsion and strife slowly creep in till we are here today with hundreds of different denominations and 2) His Bible, the communication of God's message to his Church; instead of being perfectly clear in all that it says, it apparently can be found in every book of the bible, translational controversies, some leading to polar opposites in conclusion.

Why does God choose to have an "imperfect in unity" Church? Why does God choose to present His Bible, His message, in a way that instead of being unequivocable in its meaning, is subject to multiple interpertations and therefore multiple translations of the Bible? Now these questions may just be one of the Mysteries of God and His creation the we must blindly accept as I currently do, but if there is a reasonable explaination for it I would love to hear it.

Thanks all,

Steve

[Murf]

I think you may need to re-examine your definition of "His church". Just claiming to be Christian doesn't make one so. (Matt 12:33, Luke 6:44, John 12: 44 come to mind)

Also realize that Christianity wasn't initially spread by the Bible. There wasn't a Bible as we know it until I think the 3rd century (Someone please help me with the exact date/council).

But to address what I think is your real concern is that "Why does God choose to have an 'imperfect in unity' Church". I think man's free will is a factor, however, I fundamentally think it gives God's people the opportunity to love the un-lovable, just as He does. I think 1st Cor 12 speaks to this.

tim

[mikew]

I have some subjective ideas on this issue since scripture is scant on the issue of divisions in the modern times as contrasted to the first century -- when the churches in general could be addressed as a single group in a city (though its hard to see exactly how these early churches allowed fellowship of more than 30 people at a time).

The divisions actually can be seen as a safe guard in the Church. No individual man or woman can take control of doctrine. With the diversity, one group could go off the deep end while another remains useful. Another benefit is that some groups are better at protecting tradition whereas others are better in seeing the needs of the community (for outreach and growth). The divisions in the Church can be seen as similar to having diversified members of the body where each member has a special function. God didn't design us as clones.

With respect to scripture and doctrine itself, God has seen fit to have us dig deeply for truth. Its probably a situation similar to the chick being hatched out of the egg. If the chick didn't peck through the egg shell, the chick wouldn't survive. We too are required to take certain actions for our own spiritual health.

[Paidion]

Why does God choose to present His Bible, His message, in a way that instead of being unequivocable in its meaning, is subject to multiple interpertations and therefore multiple translations of the Bible?

Which Bible? Thoughout the early centuries of Christendom, there was disagreement as to which writings were authoritative --- to be read in the churches.

Finally, Athanasius list in 367 was accepted in 393 by a synod in Hippo. His list of 27 books for the New Testament are identical to the list used today by both Catholics and Protestants. But in the Old Testament, Athanasius included Baruch, and the letter of Jeremiah.

According to Wikipedia, he "placed the Book of Esther among the 7 books not in the canon but to be read. along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas."

As we know, Catholics currently accept OT books as part of their canon which Protestants reject. So, I ask again, Which Bible is "God's message"? Indeed, no Bible appears to be God's message to mankind at all. Various parts are meant for various readers. I know of no one today who practises the detailed laws of Leviticus, not even Orthodox Jews.

[Danny]

Why does God choose to have an "imperfect in unity" Church?

It's that free will thing. Also, God seems to love variety. And, maybe God is interested in us learning how to deal with the imperfection and strife in a loving and patient and mature way. Maybe that's part of what the processes of discipleship and sanctification are about.

Why does God choose to present His Bible, His message, in a way that instead of being unequivocable in its meaning, is subject to multiple interpertations and therefore multiple translations of the Bible?

Here's a radical thought: Maybe God's intent was that instead of trying to follow a book, we follow Him. Maybe the scriptures are intended to aid us, but not take the place of God's own voice in our lives. God's message isn't the Bible. God's message is Jesus.

[SNReed]

Very helpful input guys, thanks a bunch!

[Jason]

Paidion wrote:

Which Bible? Thoughout the early centuries of Christendom, there was disagreement as to which writings were authoritative --- to be read in the churches.

I was under the impression that the gospels were pretty much accepted from the time they were circulated. Is that not accurate? You seem to have a good grasp on the early traditions. I know that Hebrews, Jude, James and 2 Peter were accepted late but I remember reading that the gospels were universally received by the church without too much dispute. If that's the case then the early Christians may have considered those four letters as their "New Testament" while the epistles were teaching aids. Do you have any insight on this?

[Jim]

I often wonder why God allows division to exist in the Church, and why all the controversies of what the Bible is really saying. Don't get me wrong I'm not questioning God, I just just don't understand it and would have a hard time explaining to an unbeliever, especially a well informed atheist how a true, perfect God would creat 1) His Church, that from the begining had divsion and strife slowly creep in till we are here today with hundreds of different denominations and 2) His Bible, the communication of God's message to his Church; instead of being perfectly clear in all that it says, it apparently can be found in every book of the bible, translational controversies, some leading to polar opposites in conclusion.

Why does God choose to have an "imperfect in unity" Church? Why does God choose to present His Bible, His message, in a way that instead of being unequivocable in its meaning, is subject to multiple interpertations and therefore multiple translations of the Bible? Now these questions may just be one of the Mysteries of God and His creation the we must blindly accept as I currently do, but if there is a reasonable explaination for it I would love to hear it.

Thanks all,

Steve

I believe that many who take on the title christian are not in the Church, its that simple. A spirit of division seems to be running the show in western christiandom, not the unity of the church lead by the Spirit spoken of in scriptures.

Here is how the church has been run for 2000 years in the east under persecution that the west has yet to see.


The head of the Orthodox Church is Jesus Christ. The spiritual heads on earth are the four ancient Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) together with the Autocephalous (self-governing) Churches such as Moscow, Serbia, Romania, Greece, and so on.

The Orthodox Church has a collegial system of government, similar to a democratic government. It does not have one world leader like the Pope in Rome. The supreme authority in the Orthodox Church rests with an Ecumenical Council or Synod, with representatives from the Orthodox Churches around the world, similar to a Congress of bishops or Parliament.

The Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople is regarded as the 'first patriarch among equals' but he cannot interfere in the jurisdiction of another Patriarchate or Autocephalous Church, without the authority of a world-wide church Council or Synod.

The reason for this is to safeguard against any one person taking control of the Church and leading it astray, and also to provide a system of 'checks and balances' in case the spiritual head of one church makes an incorrect theological statement or preaches a heretical belief. In this way, the other spiritual heads from Orthodox Churches (usually Archbishops or Patriarchs) will censure or correct the false beliefs of that individual.

That is how the structure of the Orthodox Church has remained intact for over 2,000 years.

The rejection of Holy Tradition has lead to the rampant splintering of western christianity.

[Danny]

I'm just curious... If Christ is the head of the Orthodox Church, why does it need a "collegial system of government"? Is Christ not able to rule His followers directly, without a hierarchy of men between He and them?

[kaufmannphillips]

I'm just curious... If Christ is the head of the Orthodox Church, why does it need a "collegial system of government"? Is Christ not able to rule His followers directly, without a hierarchy of men between He and them?

If the bible is the word of G-d, why do churches need pastors to sermonize it? Why put a preacher between the word and the people?