Recently, two Protestants (originally on my Facebook page) vigorously and vociferously
condemned this doctrine (or more specifically,
particularly objected to any Christian saying that their
own church was the one true Church: as if this is fundamentally different from what Catholics and Orthodox believe about ecclesiology). In fairness to them, this is not bigotry or sheer anti-Catholicism (at least not
necessarily). I would contend that it flows logically from Protestant first principles. They are simply consistently and sincerely following their own system, which does not allow this belief to be included, period. I shall explain how and why I think that is.
Sola Scriptura is the belief that there is one and only one final, infallible authority in Christianity: Holy Scripture. It follows by necessary logical exclusion that sacred tradition and the Church are
not infallible; therefore, neither the Catholic Church, nor Orthodoxy, nor any Protestant sect can be considered “the one true Church.”
Such a category is ultimately meaningless in Protestant ecclesiology.
It was the contra-Catholic mentality (some things never change) that compelled Luther to dissent against the received rule of faith. By logical and/or practical necessity, in order to advance his agenda, and backed into a corner in this debate
, he had to reject ecclesial infallibility. Once that was ejected from ecclesiology, then the default or fall-back position was sola Sciptura: a thing that is neither taught in the Bible anywhere, nor by any major Church father. The three-legged stool, on the other hand, is all over Scripture. For example:
All of this (and its strongly biblical and patristic basis) must be rejected (or minimized or ignored, as the case may be) by the Protestant in order to adopt the
self-defeating, relentlessly incoherent slop of
sola Scriptura, which is never taught in the Bible (as I have demonstrated I think, in
a book critiquing it and a second
critiquing the two leading historical defenders of the doctrine).
Once
sola Scriptura is firmly in place, any final or authoritative notion of a visible, institutional Church bolstered by apostolic succession, whose teachings are authoritative and binding, has to go. And we see that in a document like
The Westminster Confession...
Thus, we see that Protestants today consistently follow these unbiblical and arbitrary traditions of men. They’re perfectly sincere and well-intentioned. The problem lies not in character or some supposed serious moral defect. Rather,
it is in the adoption of false premises, and lack of understanding as to how they began, and how hostile they were to all of previous Christian history and to the Bible.
This is why Protestants not infrequently say that it is “condescending” or unecumenical (most “intolerant”!) for anyone to believe in one true Church. It’s because the arbitrary category restrictions that they have accepted, do not
allow these categories and this opinion at all.
In fact, Catholics are (as we see it) simply following biblical, apostolic, and patristic teaching in a consistent fashion, whereas it is our considered opinion that the Protestant view on this score
is contrary to the Bible, the apostles, the fathers, and is logically self-defeating.
They’re making their points out of love and concern for the Catholic to adopt the “truth” (i.e., their principles). Our motive is precisely the same. If one believes in an identifiable, demonstrable one true Church, it is their duty to proclaim this with others, so that they can share in the fullness and joy and contentment of such a view (i.e., so they can join such a Church and partake of its unique benefits). The message and messenger are too often scorned for doing so. It’s a very unfashionable belief: especially in these crazy times where there are less and less absolute truths believed in, all the time.
But if even the gospel itself was widely rejected; if Jesus and Paul and the early Christians were hated and rejected and martyred, we should fully expect our Catholic message to be hated, misrepresented, and rejected as well. This is, nevertheless, no reason to not proclaim it. We (especially apologists / evangelist like myself) will do so, and let the gratuitous insults fly if they must. I haven’t judged anyone’s character; quite the opposite. I’ve merely asserted that Protestantism contains some serious falsehoods, and I back up my contentions with massive argumentation at every turn (in my
2000+ articles and
48 apologetics books).
For an excellent treatment of this question of the “true Church,” see Joe Heschmeyer’s article,
“What Are the Marks of the True Church?” (
Shameless Popery, 10-27-11)
source
