Which Church is THE Church? A Protestant Response...

Post by **Denise** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:21 am

by: John Martignoni

Introduction

Last week's newsletter had a quiz, of sorts, on "Which Church is THE Church." Apparently a lot of you really liked the simplicity of that one, as I received a whole lot of responses to it. Well, I'm glad you liked it. I had one person email a few days later with a response he had received from a Protestant friend of his, named Jeff, to whom he had mailed the newsletter. So, this week, I am going to first reprint the quiz, give you Jeff the Protestant's response to the quiz, and then I will answer that response, paragraph by paragraph.

One thing, though, before we jump into it, after you read through Jeff the Protestant's response, but before you read my answer to it, take a moment to think about what is missing in what this particular Protestant had to say, to see if you can put your finger on the one big glaring problem with his response...

Challenge/Response/Strategy

The quiz: Which Church is THE Church?

Q) Did Jesus found a church? A) Yes; Matt 16:18

Q) How many churches did Jesus found? A) One; the church is the Body of Christ and there is only one body of Christ - Rom 12:5, Eph 4:4, Col 1:18

Q) So, if Jesus founded a church, then when was it founded? A) 2000 years ago

Q) Was that church guided by the Holy Spirit? A) Yes; John 14:26, John 16:13; Acts 2:3-4

Q) If the church was founded by Jesus Christ and was guided by the Holy Spirit, could it teach doctrinal error? A) No; 1 Tim 3:15

Q) So, could we say that the church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, taught doctrinal truth infallibly - without error - to the 1st century Christians? A) Yes; Luke 10:16, John 14:16-17, 1 Ptr 1:12

Q) Did the church of the New Testament teach different doctrinal truths to different people in different areas? A) No; 2 Tim 1:12-14, Eph 4:14, Titus 1:9

Q) Are there any denominations in the church of the New Testament? A) No. The church in the New Testament is one, just as the Body of Christ is one - 1 Cor 1:10, 1 Cor 11:18-19, Jude 19

Q) Would a church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit still be in existence today? A) Yes; Matt 16:18, Matt 28:20, Eph 3:21

Q) How old would that church be? A) 2000 years old

Q) Would that church still be guided by the Holy Spirit? A) Yes; Matt 28:20, John 14:16

Q) Could that church founded by Jesus and still guided by the Holy Spirit teach doctrinal error? A) No; 1 Tim 3:15, 1 Cor 12:28

Q) So we could say that the church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit would still teach doctrinal truth infallibly? A) Yes; Luke 10:16, John 14:16-17, 1 Ptr 1:12

Q) Would that church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit teach different doctrinal truths to different people in different areas? A) No; Malachi 3:6, Heb 13:8, 1 Tim 4:6

Q) Would there be any denominations in that church? A) No; 1 Cor 1:13

Q) Can the Lutheran denomination be the church founded by Jesus in Israel 2000 years ago? A) No; It was founded by Martin Luther in Germany in the 1500's.

Q) Can the Anglican/Episcopalian denomination, or any of its offshoots, be the church founded by Jesus in Israel 2000 years ago? A) No; It was founded by King Henry the VIII in the 1500's because he wanted to divorce his wife.

Q) Are there any Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Fundamentalist, or Non-Denominational denominations that were founded by Jesus in Israel 2000 years ago? A) No.

Q) So is there any Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Fundamentalist, or Non-Denominational denomination that could be the church founded by Jesus Christ in Israel 2000 years ago? A) No.

Q) So if Jesus founded a Church - one Church - in Israel 2000 years ago that was guided by the Holy Spirit and that Church is still in existence today and is still guided by the Holy Spirit, which means it teaches doctrinal truth infallibly, and there are no denominations of that Church now, just as there were no denominations of that Church 2000 years ago, then shouldn’t all Christians be in that one Church founded by Jesus? A) Yes

Q) Does it make sense to be in a church that was not founded by Jesus Christ in Israel 2000 years ago? A) No.

Q) How can we identify which Church - of the thousands upon thousands - is THE Church founded by Jesus? A) The Church founded by Jesus, should at least claim to be THE Church founded by Jesus; it should be able to trace its leadership back 2000 years to the Apostles; and it should claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and to thus teach doctrinal truth infallibly with the authority of Jesus Christ, its Founder.

Q) How many churches fit that description? A) 1

Q) Which Church is that? A) The Catholic Church

------------------------------------------------------

A Protestant Responds

I am pleased that you are so eager to share what you believe to be true, and I commend you for it. Here are some thoughts of mine about the subject of this email:

1) The idea that the Roman Catholic Church (or any other Christian body) as a group, or any pope as its leader is actually infallible is just simply not true. Jesus has never and would never have condoned the many, many errors committed by the Roman Catholic Church -- much evil and human cruelty and doctrinal (and scientific) errors that Jesus and his apostles never taught -- or by any other group claiming to be Christian throughout the centuries. For example, Jesus, nor any of the apostles ever taught that Aramaic, Greek, Latin or Hebrew were the only languages allowed to represent scripture. In fact, it was celebrated in Acts that on Pentecost each person gathered there heard the Good News in his own language. That's a good thing for a devoted student of the Word, such as yourself, too, because were it not for the "dreaded" Martin Luther and other Protestants like him, you and I would not be reading the Bible. Like it or not, the Roman Catholic Church (among others) strictly taught and brutally enforced un-Biblical doctrine against translations of the Bible for the common man to read, despite the fact that the original New Testament languages were very much languages of the common man. A person used to be put to death by the Roman Catholic Church, for example, just by possessing an English translation of the Lord's Prayer. This is a glaring example of doctrinal error -- or perhaps you would prefer to call it a misunderstanding of true doctrine -- if there ever was one. There is only One who is infallible, and that is God, and that is what the Bible teaches and what the first century congregations taught. His supreme sacrifice covers our sins, and that is the only way God can see us as perfect. Jesus, the God man, is the only human who ever truly had infallibility in any way.

2) Jesus and his disciples didn't found the "Roman Catholic Church" or even the "Catholic Church." He also didn't found the "Southern Baptist Church" or the "African Methodist Episcopal Church" or the "Presbyterian Church" or the "Assemblies of God", etc ... They didn't call it that back then. They called each separate congregation by names like The Church at Ephesus or The Church at Rome, etc ... Many of the early Christians called the Church simply, The Way. The Way would be a perfectly acceptable name today for the Church.

3) Those early congregations didn't see themselves as separate churches from Christ's Church. And they didn't all agree on everything -- they did indeed have doctrinal differences and errors, for which men like Paul wrote letters to help them gain a better understanding. Even Peter had Paul had doctrinal differences on occasion! I am grateful that we are not required to have a perfect understanding of true doctrine or perfect behavior to be part of Christ's Church. The early congregations weren't perfect, and certainly today's congregations aren't perfect. I agree that many claim to be Christian who really aren't, but that's another matter. The point is that Baptists, Presbyterians, etc ... all believe their congregations to be part of Christ's one Church. They don't see themselves as all being separate when it comes to the ownership of the Church, namely Jesus Christ. Said another way, these denominations would all agree with the statement in the email that Christ has only one Church. The word, denomination, doesn't mean that it's a distinctly different Church as is the implication of the email below. Any group that doesn't see Christ as their sole head isn't merely a different denomination, it's not part of Christ's Church at all.

4) The Bible does not teach that a congregation can't be part of Christ's Church without a "pedigree", meaning that it can trace it's lineage through human beings back to the original disciples. If a group of people who never had heard the Gospel were to come into possession of a Bible in a language they could read, they could of course come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ without the pedigree and would then become part of the Church. In fact, if instead of a group, there were only one individual from this group who read the Bible and turned to Christ for his salvation, he would become part of the one Church without a pedigree. This, I understand, is contradictory to Roman Catholic teaching.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff the Protestant

I am pleased that you are so eager to share what you believe to be true, and I commend you for it. Here are some thoughts of mine about the subject of this email:

1) The idea that the Roman Catholic Church (or any other Christian body) as a group, or any pope as its leader is actually infallible is just simply not true. Jesus has never and would never have condoned the many, many errors committed by the Roman Catholic Church -- much evil and human cruelty and doctrinal (and scientific) errors that Jesus and his apostles never taught -- or by any other group claiming to be Christian throughout the centuries. For example, Jesus, nor any of the apostles ever taught that Aramaic, Greek, Latin or Hebrew were the only languages allowed to represent scripture. In fact, it was celebrated in Acts that on Pentecost each person gathered there heard the Good News in his own language. That's a good thing for a devoted student of the Word, such as yourself, too, because were it not for the "dreaded" Martin Luther and other Protestants like him, you and I would not be reading the Bible. Like it or not, the Roman Catholic Church (among others) strictly taught and brutally enforced un-Biblical doctrine against translations of the Bible for the common man to read, despite the fact that the original New Testament languages were very much languages of the common man. A person used to be put to death by the Roman Catholic Church, for example, just by possessing an English translation of the Lord's Prayer. This is a glaring example of doctrinal error -- or perhaps you would prefer to call it a misunderstanding of true doctrine -- if there ever was one. There is only One who is infallible, and that is God, and that is what the Bible teaches and what the first century congregations taught. His supreme sacrifice covers our sins, and that is the only way God can see us as perfect. Jesus, the God man, is the only human who ever truly had infallibility in any way.

My Answer

(I am going to answer as if I were responding directly to him, but before I do that, did you guys notice what you did not see anywhere, at all, in any part of his response? It's all Jeff speaking...not a single quote from, or citation of, the Bible! Not one! Nor did he attempt to refute the logic or the scriptural verses of the questions and answers in the quiz. He doesn't bother saying how the quiz is wrong or where it is wrong or which Scripture verses are improperly interpreted or anything of that nature. He essentially ignores the quiz - the logic of it and the fact that most of the answers cite one or more Scripture verses. All he responded with was, as he says, "just some thoughts of mine." Well, why should I care about his thoughts? Why should anyone care about his thoughts? Does he have the authority to say something about the quiz was wrong? Nope, he has no authority whatsoever. He is just giving his fallible, man-made, non-authoritative, non-binding, personal opinion. Also, it is fairly obvious that he is exceedingly deficient in his understanding of Catholic teaching, not to mention church history, as I will show.)

Jeff, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, but you didn't really answer the questions in the quiz, nor did you dispute any of the many Bible verses cited by the answers in the quiz. You didn't give a single verse from Scripture to show how the quiz was wrong in any way, shape, or form. It was just "some thoughts" of yours. Well, my question to you is this: Could your "thoughts" be wrong? After all, you believe no one to be infallible, so could you, just possibly, be wrong in what you think? Let me know about that. Also, I would be very interested in how you would answer the questions in the quiz and what biblical support you would give for your answers?

There are some real problems with the things you said. For example, you stated: " Jesus, the God man, is the only human who ever truly had infallibility in any way." But there is a problem with that - a BIG problem. If Jesus was the only human who was "infallible in any way," then you are basically saying that the writers of the various books of the Bible were not infallible when they were writing their particular books of Scripture. Was not Paul infallible when he wrote his epistles? Were the gospel writers not infallible when they wrote the gospels? If they weren't, then you are essentially saying there could be errors in the Bible...that the Bible is not infallible. So, do you believe the writers of Scripture were infallible or not?

By the way, you seem to be confused as to what the word infallible means in this instance. It doesn't mean that someone is without sin. That is what the word "impeccability" means - without sin. To be infallible, in the theological context, means that one cannot teach doctrinal error. Do you believe the Church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit can teach doctrinal error? Where does the Bible ever say such a thing?

Quick question: What, for a Christian, is the pillar and ground of the truth, Jeff? Is it the Bible? Is the Bible the upholder (pillar) and foundation (ground) of the truth for Christians? Did you say, "Yes, the Bible is the pillar and ground of the truth for Christians?" If you did, you would be wrong. The Bible itself tells us that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Well, if the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, then do you think the church could ever teach doctrinal error?

You say that the Book of Acts records the people all hearing the Good News in their various languages. That is true, but that is in no way an analogy for different denominations teaching and believing different doctrines. Yes, the people heard Peter's preaching (and note that it was Peter) in their own languages, but they did not hear different doctrines for each language, did they?

Regarding the language issue you speak about, I believe you may have been influenced by some of the many misperceptions and misunderstandings about the Catholic Church and its teachings that are floating around out there. Can you cite one Church document that states the Catholic Church taught that "Aramaic, Greek, Latin or Hebrew were the only languages allowed to represent scripture?" The preface to the King James Bible - which you can find here: https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm - tells us that the Bible was translated very early on into the various languages of the peoples to whom the Gospel was taken. Well, who do you think was translating it into those languages? It wasn't the Baptists or the Evangelicals or the Anglicans or the Lutherans or the Methodists or the Assemblies of God or any other such group - none of them existed in the early centuries of Christianity. It was the Catholic Church making these translations, and that same preface to the King James Bible essentially admits as much.

So, the King James Bible proves that this thing about Martin Luther bringing the Bible to the common folk in their common tongue is a myth. There were even translations of the Bible in German before Luther was even born. Also, you're surely aware that the printing press was invented before Luther was born? One of the first books printed with this new invention was the Bible. Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, was a Catholic. In other words, there were no "doctrinal errors" committed by the Catholic Church in regard to printing the Bible in various languages.

I would love to know what other "doctrinal" errors you think the Church has taught. I maintain that the Catholic Church has never taught error in doctrine. Oh, sure, there are Catholics - including priests, bishops, and even popes - who have committed horrible sins, but committing sin is not the same as teaching doctrinal error.

Jeff the Protestant

2) Jesus and his disciples didn't found the "Roman Catholic Church" or even the "Catholic Church." He also didn't found the "Southern Baptist Church" or the "African Methodist Episcopal Church" or the "Presbyterian Church" or the "Assemblies of God", etc ... They didn't call it that back then. They called each separate congregation by names like The Church at Ephesus or The Church at Rome, etc ... Many of the early Christians called the Church simply, The Way. The Way would be a perfectly acceptable name today for the Church.

My Answer

Well, of course Jesus didn't found the "'Southern Baptist Church' or the 'African Methodist Episcopal Church' or the 'Presbyterian Church' or the 'Assemblies of God', etc." - none of those denominations existed until quite recently in the history of Christianity - that's the whole point of that quiz about "Which Church is THE Church?" And, yes, the Christian church may not have been called the "Catholic Church" from the outset, but Christians weren't even called "Christians" in the beginning of the Church, so that proves nothing. However, as early as 110 A.D., we have a reference from St. Ignatius of Antioch who referred to the Christian church as the "Catholic Church" in a letter he wrote as he was on his way to Rome to be martyred.

Yes, the churches were called the Church at Rome or the Church at Ephesus and so on, but all of these churches were founded by the Apostles or their disciples who had been sent by the one Church founded by Jesus Christ. And all of these churches were taught the same doctrine. Does not the Bible say that there is one faith?

Jeff the Protestant

3) Those early congregations didn't see themselves as separate churches from Christ's Church. And they didn't all agree on everything -- they did indeed have doctrinal differences and errors, for which men like Paul wrote letters to help them gain a better understanding. Even Peter had Paul had doctrinal differences on occasion! I am grateful that we are not required to have a perfect understanding of true doctrine or perfect behavior to be part of Christ's Church. The early congregations weren't perfect, and certainly today's congregations aren't perfect. I agree that many claim to be Christian who really aren't, but that's another matter. The point is that Baptists, Presbyterians, etc ... all believe their congregations to be part of Christ's one Church. They don't see themselves as all being separate when it comes to the ownership of the Church, namely Jesus Christ. Said another way, these denominations would all agree with the statement in the email that Christ has only one Church. The word, denomination, doesn't mean that it's a distinctly different Church as is the implication of the email below. Any group that doesn't see Christ as their sole head isn't merely a different denomination, it's not part of Christ's Church at all.

My Answer

Thank you for making the point for me. Those early congregations all thought that they were one and the same Church. I disagree, though, when you say they didn't all agree on everything. There were no "doctrinal differences" between the churches in the various cities, but there were doctrinal errors. The church taught the truth, but sometimes the people didn't quite understand it, or they disagreed with it and dissented from it. The fact that there were doctrinal errors as you point out, points to the fact that there was a set body of doctrine that was to be believed by all Christians. And, if they didn't believe it, they were in doctrinal error. Which is why, as you point out, Paul had to write to this congregation or that congregation to bring them back in line with the true doctrine they were taught. Do you think Paul taught different doctrine to the different churches he founded? Where in the Bible does it say that? Did Paul teach different doctrine than Peter? Not at all. Yes, they had a dispute over Peter's actions at one point, but no dispute over doctrine. If you claim that Peter and Paul believed and taught different doctrines, then you would have to claim that one or the other of them taught doctrinal error. Do you really want to claim that?

And I want to point out that you made a straw man argument when you spoke about being "required" to have "perfect understanding of true doctrine" or "perfect behavior" to be part of Christ's Church. Nowhere is that even hinted at in that quiz. All the quiz stated was that Jesus would not have founded a church that teaches error. Or, do you believe that He did? Furthermore, the quiz makes the point that if the church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and since the Holy Spirit doesn't teach error, then any church guided by the Holy Spirit would not teach error. Do you think the Holy Spirit teaches doctrinal error? Do you think the church guided by the Holy Spirit would teach doctrinal error? Where does the Bible say such a thing? Or, do you believe the Church is no longer guided by the Holy Spirit?

Regarding the word "denomination," I agree that members of any given denomination would not think the word "denomination" means that they were in a distinctly different church than the Church of Christ. However, the problem is, they don't really think about what it does mean. A denomination is a division within Christianity. A denomination is characterized by a different set of doctrines or a different line of authority that is separate from the other denominations. Where does the Bible mention the word "denomination"? Where does the Bible say that it is okay to have different and contradictory doctrines all within the one church founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit? Where does the Bible say that it is okay to have divisions within the Church? Again, does the Holy Spirit teach doctrinal error? Does He teach different and contradictory doctrines to different denominations? All of these different denominations cannot all be guided by the Holy Spirit, can they? If one denomination believes in infant baptism and another does not - do they both have Christ as their head? If one denomination believes in once saved always saved and another does not - do they both have Christ as their head?

Jeff the Protestant

4) The Bible does not teach that a congregation can't be part of Christ's Church without a "pedigree", meaning that it can trace it's lineage through human beings back to the original disciples. If a group of people who never had heard the Gospel were to come into possession of a Bible in a language they could read, they could of course come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ without the pedigree and would then become part of the Church. In fact, if instead of a group, there were only one individual from this group who read the Bible and turned to Christ for his salvation, he would become part of the one Church without a pedigree. This, I understand, is contradictory to Roman Catholic teaching.

My Answer

Actually, the Bible does teach about the people of God being able to know and trust in the "pedigree" of their leaders. Doesn't Jesus tell the Apostles and the crowd as a whole in Matthew 23 that the scribes and Pharisees sit on the "seat of Moses"? And that the people are to do whatever the religious leaders tell them to do? Isn't that a pedigree tracing authority back to Moses? Just so, the Pope sits on the "seat of Peter." Of course any church that cannot historically trace its leadership back to Peter and the Apostles is going to say, "No big deal," as you have here. But it is a big deal. How is authority given to the leaders of any given congregation? Through the laying on of hands. Well, the laying on of hands originated with the Apostles and those whom they ordained. Those people went out and laid hands on others, thus ordaining them, and so on through the centuries. The authority in the Church is the authority of God the Father, which was given to the Son, Who gave it to His Apostles who passed it on to their successors. If you cannot trace your leadership line back to the Apostles, then your pastors have no real authority. The only authority they have is human authority that they have given to themselves. Who gave your pastor authority? Who laid hands on him? Who laid hands on that person? And who laid hands on him? How far back can you trace the line of authority in your denomination? 100 years? 200 years? I'll bet you can't even trace it back more than fifty years.

Now, you stated that the Bible doesn't say one needs a pedigree for their church (although I have shown otherwise) and you bring up the example of someone who could simply pick up a Bible and come to a "saving knowledge of Jesus Christ" all on their own. Well, where does the Bible say that? How would that person be baptized? You do realize that the Bible states that one is saved by baptism and that one must be baptized to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, don't you?

Just to wrap up, I know I've asked a lot of questions, so I'll collect them all here so you don't have to go searching for them. I would be genuinely curious and interested in your answers:

1) Could any part, or all of, what you wrote to me be wrong, since you are not infallible?

2) How would you answer the questions on that quiz, and could you give biblical support for your answers?

3) Were the writers of the various books of the Bible infallible in what they wrote?

4) What is the pillar and ground of the truth for a Christian? Is it the Bible?

5) Can you cite one Church document that states the Catholic Church taught that "Aramaic, Greek, Latin or Hebrew were the only languages allowed to represent scripture?"

6) Can the church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit teach doctrinal error?

7) What other "doctrinal" errors do you believe the Catholic Church has taught?

8) Does the Bible not say there is one faith?

9) Do you think Paul taught different doctrine to the different churches he founded?

10) Did Paul teach different doctrine than Peter?

11) Could any church guided by the Holy Spirit teach doctrinal error?

12) Where does the Bible say that it is okay to have different and contradictory doctrines all within the one church founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit?

13) Where does the Bible say that it is okay to have divisions within the Church?

14) If two different denominations believe contradictory doctrines, do they both have Jesus as their head?

15) What authority does your pastor have and who gave him that authority? How far back can he trace his line of authority?

Strategy

Normally, folks, I wouldn't go into this much detail right off the bat and ask so many questions, because that can cause the conversation to go off in a whole lot of directions which can be difficult to manage. But I thought I would throw out a number of questions in the hope that Jeff (once his Catholic friend sends him my reply) might make an attempt to answer at least two or three of them. There is no way he will tackle all of them. My prediction is that, if he responds, he will simply ignore the questions, or only touch on them indirectly, as he did in his first response. But, if he does answer several of the questions, then I have the choice of simply focusing on them one or two at a time in any future responses I would make.

Plus, by asking a lot of questions, even if he doesn't respond directly to the questions, I am giving him the opportunity to write a long response. Long responses can be tedious to go through, but it also means that there is more material I can use from his own hand to show the contradictions in his theology. And, again, if he gives a long answer, I can pick and choose which parts to focus on and reply to, which could bring the conversation back to a manageable dialogue.

Finally, even if he doesn't answer all of the questions - or any of the questions - odds are he will at least read them. And upon reading them, hopefully a seed will be planted.

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com