Will the True Church Please Stand up?

There are so many Christian denominations. Which one is the right one?

Duomo di Milano; Photo by Léa V on Unsplash

Recently I read a couple of Medium articles arguing about the place of Mormonism (LDS Church) in Christianity. One piece (Oct. 13, 2022), written by TJ Seaney, unequivocally condemns it to be outside of Christianity. Then a Latter-day Saint Ronald Kimmons wrote an essay (Nov. 3, 2022) responding to it, pointing out the many flaws of that author’s reasoning.

Both claim to be following the true God, yet they cannot agree with each other on the nature and deeds of this God.

A few of my articles touch on the topic of ‘hell’. It’s always interesting to see that some self-proclaimed Christians assert that non-believers choose to go to hell (so it’s their own fault).

‘Existing eter[n]ally s[e]perated from the one who created us and is the source of goodness is Hell’. Tor Nielsen, Oct. 24, 2022

On the other hand, some Universalists, who also see themselves as Christians, claim that there is no eternal torment, and all souls will be with God eventually.

‘The idea that the Bible teaches eternal damnation … is probably not correct. There are many Christians who affirm universal salvation through Christ.’ RW "Robbie" Walker, Nov. 5, 2022

Again, both sides claim to be following the true God, but they cannot agree with each other.

Why is that?

If God is omnipotent and is delighted to reveal Himself to the humble seekers, why does He communicate so poorly that His believers often argue with each other on doctrinal matters?

A few more examples of historical doctrinal disputes

The phenomenon of believers holding irreconcilably different theological viewpoints is as old as church history itself. When one side ‘wins’ the debate, the other is usually sidelined by being condemned as heretical.

Arianism and the doctrine of Christ

Arius is known for rejecting the doctrine of Trinity and promoting the idea that the Son of God was created. One of his most famous sayings is: ‘There was a time when the Son was not.’

Contrary to what many Christians believed, Arianism was quite popular at the time. Even though emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325, and by the end of the Council, Arianism was condemned and Arius himself exiled, Constantine later changed his heart and let Arius return. And Athanasius, in turn, was exiled. One can quickly see how politically charged this whole theological debate was.

Interestingly, modern Jehovah’s Witnesses revived Arianism. Their Christology is similar to that of Arius.

Jehovah’s Witnesses preaching on the street. Photo by Hubert Buratynski on Unsplash

To be clear, I am not defending the theological position of Arianism, but I am sympathetic to their belief because there is some biblical support for it. For example, there are biblical passages that, at first glance, show Jesus’ status as inferior to God the Father.

‘… for the Father is greater than I.’ (John 14:28)

‘When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him [God the Father] who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.’ (1 Corinthians 15:28)

‘[Y]et for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.’ (1 Corinthians 8:6)

A verse in its natural reading describes Jesus as the first one to be created:

‘These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God’ (Revelation 3:14, KJV)

Apart from meaning ‘ruler’, the Greek word αρχη usually means ‘the beginning’ of something, which itself is part of that ‘something’. Matthew 24:8 is a good example of this semantic structure: ‘All these are the beginning (αρχη) of birth pains.’ No one would interpret this verse to be: ‘All these are the Ruler over birth pains.’

I can discuss many more passages that can be interpreted to support Arianism’s reading, but I need to stop here. The point is, the Bible can be interpreted in a variety of ways. It’s very difficult to set up an objective standard of interpretation (hermeneutics) that everyone agrees to in order to determine the correct doctrines that no one would dispute.

The issue does not end here. The more fundamental problem is that there is not even an agreement on what books constitute the Bible.

LDS Church and the biblical canon

The Washington DC Temple of the LDS Church; Photo by Joshua Hoehne on Unsplash

One of the main criticisms that Christians raise against the LDS Church is that Latter-day Saints expanded the biblical canon. But as Ronald Kimmons points out in the essay referenced above, New Testament authors never said that revelation had been completed by them. In fact, there is a reference to future prophets in Rev. 11. The idea of a closed canon is not in the Bible itself.

Since the church played a pivotal role in determining what books are in the Bible, it’s worthwhile to examine the process of canonization.

When people read the history of the biblical canon, it does not take long for them to get confused. In first-century Palestine, Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Hebrew Scripture), while Pharisees accepted more books. If it wasn’t that Pharisee tradition became dominant, we might see a much shorter Old Testament today.

Across the three major faith traditions, we see three different sets of biblical canon: Catholicism, 73 books, Orthodox, 81 books, and Protestants, 66 books. Which faith tradition has the correct biblical canon? Personally, I would go for the Orthodox version because … the more the merrier.

St. Andrew’s Orthodox Church in Kyiv; Photo by Julia Tsukurova on Unsplash

If even Christians cannot agree among themselves on this important topic, what basis do they have to point fingers at LDS Church?

Interestingly, Catholic Church never dogmatically affirmed the biblical canon until the Council of Trent in the 16th century, when Protestants were arguing that deuterocanonical books did not belong in the Bible.

Apparently, Reformers thought it was OK to edit the biblical canon!

Imagine that!

Most Christians today would fight tooth and nail against those who suggest that we drop a book or two from the biblical canon, calling them heretics, but Reformers thought it was ok to use their own judgment to assess what books should go in or be left out in the Bible. And it’s not just the deuterocanonical books, but also a few other books in the Old Testament. For example:

‘I am so an enemy to the book of Esther, that I would it did not exist; for it Judaizes too much, and hath in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness. — Martin Luther

So was Martin Luther a heretic?

Other kinds of disputes

Calvinists claim Arminians are wrong; Arminians claim Calvinists are wrong. There is no resolution in the foreseeable future because they can both pull biblical texts to support their positions.
Most Christians today envision heaven to be a spiritual dimension, but some theologians like N. T. Wright strongly advocate for the heaven-on-earth theory, which states that believers will be resurrected and live on the renewed Earth with God forever.
Most Christian denominations teach that some people will end up in hell, being tormented forever, but others suggest that hell might not exist in the first place, and even if it does, it’s not everlasting. Many early church fathers believed in Universalism, the idea that every single person will be saved eventually.
The doctrine of original sin is taken very seriously by lots of Christian denominations today, including Catholicism, but it is most likely built on a faulty translation of Romans 5:12. On top of that, the idea of ‘the Fall of Adam and Eve’ is absent in the Jewish worldview.

I can go on and on. It’s such a mess.

Conclusion

So which church is the right one? By now, you should have arrived at the obvious answer: we don’t know.

Almost all Christians have confidence that their theologies are correct. One author called Natasha Crain even lists 12 false Jesuses commonly preached today. Then whose version of Jesus is the correct one? Hers, of course.

But if you ask such people, why are they correct and others incorrect, they would inevitably have to appeal to their (or their church’s) understanding of who God is, and their subjective interpretation of the Bible. There is no objective standard. People either believe what they want to believe or believe what they were told to believe.

This is the reason why there are thousands of denominations out there, and the number continues to grow, with no hope of unity in sight.

If God of the Bible exists, why does He allow this chaos to happen and to keep going? Why doesn’t He make His teachings clearer so anybody genuinely seeking Him will get the same answer?

Some Christians say that the Holy Spirit guides believers to the truth. Well, in that case, there must be many Holy Spirits, because almost all denominations believe in the Holy Spirit and ask for His guidance, and they almost always get confirmation that their own faith tradition is the right one. (If you say, ‘My way of seeking the Holy Spirit is the right one,’ think again.)

Or there is no Holy Spirit, no Christian God, and all the different versions of the Scripture, dogma, and theologies are just man-made.