‍Dialogue on the Creation of the Visible Church

‍If Jesus didn’t create the visible church, who did?

  Gary Hoge

‍A dialogue with a Protestant friend. My words are in black, and my friend’s are in blue.

‍Regarding the Church elite/hierarchy, humanly speaking you’re right. As Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But we’re not speaking of a human institution.

‍Wrong.

‍The visible Church is a human institution? Established by whom? When?

‍If you mean the church Jesus established by my definition (the body of all actual Christians), you’re right. If you mean the Catholic Church, you’re wrong. See every previous argument I’ve ever made.

‍Which brings me back to my original question. If Jesus didn’t establish the Catholic Church, who did?

‍I’m not the expert there at all. Since I don’t recall Jesus using the words “Catholic Church,” maybe we need to look to the first time that name was adopted, and figure then or shortly before is about when the Catholic Church started.

‍First of all, I don’t recall Jesus using the words “Baptist Church” either. :-) The word “catholic” means “universal,” and it was first used to describe the Christian Church by Ignatius of Antioch in about the year A.D. 110. Ignatius is thought by many to have been a disciple of John, and he wrote about ten years after John’s death, so figure the Catholic Church started “shortly before” that, which would mean it started with John and the others sometime during the apostolic era. Perhaps we agree after all! :-)

‍No danger of that. :-)

‍Seriously though, the name is irrelevant. It’s the doctrines that define the Church, not its name. The doctrines that define the Catholic Church originated with the apostles, and are present in the New Testament (as I’d be happy to demonstrate), as well as the written testimony of their earliest followers (as I’d also be happy to demonstrate). The same cannot be said for the distinctively Protestant doctrines (sola Scriptura, sola fide, etc.), which essentially did not exist before they were invented in the sixteenth century. (By the way, the Baptist Church was founded in Amsterdam by John Smyth in 1607).

‍The visible Church is divinely instituted, by Jesus himself, and protected by him.

‍To the extent you mean, as in the institutionalized hierarchical organization that runs the Catholic Church, wrong.

‍The hierarchical Catholic Church was not instituted by Jesus? Again, by whom was it instituted, and when?

‍You seem to be the expert on the names and dates of the early Catholic Church members much more than me. Just go with your list, but first lop off Jesus and the human authors of the New Testament, for the reasons already given.

‍I’m afraid I can’t do that, for the reasons I’ve already given. The immediate successors of the apostles (Polycarp, Ignatius, etc.) received the faith from the apostles themselves. They did not invent it. Do you really believe that the Catholic Church (as distinct from the “Christian” church) began with Polycarp, Clement, Linus, Epaphras, Ignatius, et al.? On what basis?

‍On the basis that they apparently promulgate the doctrines you’ve been defending (Oral Tradition, etc.) while I contend they’re not found in the Bible, and hence not part of true Christianity. Therefore, I’d say they’ve respectively been added by Polycarp, Clement, Linus, etc., respectively. Somewhere in the course of adding/establishing/formalizing/memorializing/repeating (take your pick as to whichever word is least offensive to you, or choose your own word) these doctrines, they established the Catholic Church.

‍I think you’re proceeding from a faulty assumption, and therefore drawing a faulty conclusion. You said that anything not found in the Bible is automatically not part of true Christianity. Where do you get that idea from? The Bible itself nowhere says that it contains a complete record of all Christian doctrines, or a complete definition of “true Christianity.” The idea that the Bible alone defines the doctrinal content of Christianity is not itself found in the Bible, and is “hence not part of true Christianity,” by your own standards. :-) You’ve got to admit, I’ve got you there. If anything not found in the Bible is not part of true Christianity, then the “Bible alone” doctrine is not part of true Christianity, because it is not found in the Bible.

‍The New Testament consists of four short biographies of Jesus, a travelogue, some private letters written to individuals, and some open letters written to various communities to address the specific needs of those communities. It also contains one book of prophecy. Most of the New Testament (i.e., Paul’s letters) was written to address specific needs as those needs arose. For example, Paul discussed the Eucharist because the Corinthians were desecrating it; he discussed the difference between “faith” and “works of the law” because the Galatians were reverting to the Mosaic Law; he discussed the charismatic gifts because the Corinthians were abusing them; he discussed the Second Coming because someone had told the Thessalonians that the Lord had already come; and he discussed marriage because the Corinthians specifically asked him about it (1 Corinthians 7:1). If a doctrine was properly understood and practiced, Paul would have had no reason to explain it, and there is no guarantee that he would have done so. Therefore, we simply cannot argue from the Bible’s silence that a particular doctrine was not being taught, and is automatically “not part of true Christianity.”

‍The visible Church is Christ’s bride, “a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish” (Ephesians 5:27). It is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, and they haven’t. If the visible Church were merely a human institution, it would have collapsed a long time ago (especially considering the caliber of some of its leaders at different times in its history). Yet it persists century after century, sometimes in spite of, not because of, its leadership.

‍Amen, with regard to my definition of “it.”

‍I assume you define it as an invisible assembly of “true believers” that is not manifested visibly in any one organization. I certainly don’t deny the existence of the mystical body of Christ, which is composed of all true believers everywhere, but I also know that Jesus founded a visible church, complete with bishops, elders (priests), and deacons. The New Testament specifically discusses the qualifications of the leaders of this visible church. Not every member of the visible church is a member of the mystical body (“wheat and tares,” etc.), and not every member of the mystical body is a member of the visible church. But to deny that Christ founded a visible church that is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” (the Apostle’s Creed) is to deny both Scripture and history.

‍This whole subject is tied up in Catholic teaching that I’m not particularly familiar with. The church is the church. I’m not familiar with the supposed differences, or even the definitions, of the “mystical body” v. the “visible church.”

‍My original point was simply that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus, and that its longevity testifies to its divine protection. Empires come and go, but the Church remains. It is the oldest institution in the world. By far. This simply cannot be accounted for by human ingenuity, since, as you pointed out, the quality of leadership in the Church has sometimes been less than stellar.

‍Huzzahs for the Catholic Church. It’s nothing, if not interminable. :-)

‍Now, have some in the Church succumbed to human failings and corruptions? You bet. But does that mean that the Church’s doctrines have been corrupted? Not necessarily.

‍Absolutely correct.

‍Yay! We agree on something! :-) If God is involved, truth can be proclaimed even from the mouth of the unrighteous. Remember the prophecy of Caiaphas, recorded in John 11:49-51:

‍Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

‍Caiaphas was certainly an evil, unrighteous man. He condemned the Messiah. But he also had a charism from God by virtue of his office (thus, “he did not say this on his own, but as high priest …”) If God provided the high priest under the Old Covenant with such a charism (by virtue of his office, and without regard to his personal righteousness), why should it be thought strange that he would provide similarly for his Church under the New Covenant?

‍You’re right, such a charism(?) could come from anybody every now and then, as God wills, no matter what Church they’re part of.

‍The ultimate issue is doctrinal truth, not personal righteousness. If the Reformers (again, take your pick) taught the truth, then the Church was in error from its inception, and flagrantly so.

‍No, for the last time (hopefully), not “the Church”, but just the self-appointed leadership of the church.

‍The Church’s leadership was not “self-appointed.” Having self-appointed leaders who succeed from no one is a Protestant innovation; it has never been a characteristic of the Catholic Church. Ever since the apostolic era, the bishops of the Catholic Church have succeeded linearly and continuously from the apostles:

‍The Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, . . . Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way. (Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 69:3 [A.D. 253]).

‍For a member of a Protestant church, whose authority is entirely “self-appointed,” to accuse the Catholic Church of having “self-appointed” leaders is truly astounding. :-)

‍Firstly, I should have said something like “hierarchy-appointed,” in reference to a kind of “self” (the hierarchy) perpetuating process. I also meant as in taking upon one’s self all authority in matters that I understand to be extra-Biblical, as in all of my preceding arguments re: the Bible v. the Bible plus Oral Tradition, and in positions other than deacons and bishop (preacher) of a given congregation.

‍By “hierarchy-appointed,” do you mean like Titus (who was appointed by Paul) appointing elders in every town (Titus 1:5)? Do you mean like Jesus appointing John, and John appointing Polycarp, and Polycarp appointing Ireneaus? As a Protestant you have “taken upon yourself all authority” in every matter, ecclesiastical, Biblical, and otherwise. If that’s not “self-appointed,” I don’t know what is.

‍Yeah, I’m still not doing a very good job on this one. No, like some far-removed from the rank-and-file believers oligarchy assuming more spiritual authority over me than the Bible authorizes, including the authority to interpret scripture in some “infallible” fashion for me, as we’ve gone back and forth on before, so please spare me the same verses like “2 Tim 2:2” or whatever. There, now shoot that one full of holes, and I’ll see if I can’t tap dance into another position.

‍Okay. If the Church is so flawed doctrinally, how then can it be called the “pillar and foundation of the truth”? Please, I want you to explain to me the meaning of that phrase in a way that is consistent with the Protestant understanding of the corrupt history of the church. It must mean something; what does it mean?

‍Perhaps it means the Elect, the Saved, the Christians of this world (again, not those who call themselves Christian, but those who actually are Christian) will continue to teach the Truth, regardless of who tries to pervert it or crush it. In Old Testament Israel, God always preserved a remnant of followers amongst an idolatrous nation. I think in like manner, there will always be a remnant of Christians amongst an idolatrous world (at least until the Rapture--oops, let’s not get started on that one now!)

‍Very well then, please tell me who represents the “remnant of Christians” who continue to teach “the Truth” in the modern world, so that I may seek them out and learn from them. Are they Lutheran? Methodist? Anglican? Presbyterian? Church of Christ? Plymouth Brethren? Southern Baptist? Primitive Baptist? Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptist? Eastern Orthodox? Episcopal? African Methodist Episcopal Zion? Pentecostal Holiness? Assemblies of God? Free will Baptist? Disciples of Christ? Church of God? Church of God in Christ? Church of the Brethren? Evangelical Free Church? Evangelical Presbyterian? Mennonite? Nazarene? United Pentecostal? Wesleyan? or one of the hundreds of others whose names don’t spring to mind? Which of these churches is the “pillar and foundation of the truth,” from which all the others have apostatized into error?

‍Yes. No. Maybe. All of the above. Some of the above. (None of the above?) THE NAME OF THE DENOMINATION IS IRRELAVENT!!!

‍True, their name is irrelevant, but what they teach is not. What good is it to claim that there is some hypothetical remnant teaching the truth, if we don’t know who they are? Finally, if the Reformers taught the truth, why did no one believe what they believed before the sixteenth century? And if anyone did, who were they? When did they live, and what did they teach?

‍I guess they were the Apostles, and some of their followers. :-)

‍Which of the apostles or their followers taught symbolic baptism or Eucharist? Which of them taught autonomous, congregational church government? Which of them taught forensic justification (the philosophical cornerstone of the whole Reformation)? Which of them taught that it was okay to ordain women? Which of them taught that Scripture alone is the source of all Christian doctrine and practice?

‍Wrong question. The proper question would be: Which taught that anything other than Scripture is the source of all Christian “doctrine and practice”--and the answer would be none that we know of, for the reasons already given.

‍The answer to your question would be, Paul. “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” (1 Corinthians 11:2). “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” (2 Thesselonians 2:15).

‍Now that I’ve answered your question, perhaps you can answer mine, because my question was not the “wrong question,” it was entirely proper. With all due respect, by reversing my question, you have improperly shifted the burden of proof. Instead of using the Bible to establish your doctrine, you draw the doctrine out of thin air, then look to see if the Bible refutes it. That is the wrong approach. By your own standards everything has to be taught in the Bible. Therefore, unless the Bible specifically says that it is the only source of Christian doctrine and practice, you can’t just assume that it is. The Bible cannot possibly anticipate and refute every false teaching that man might come up with (especially given that man has shown himself to be very creative in that area). Therefore, it is logically fallacious to make a supposition, then conclude that the supposition is true if the Bible does not clearly and explicitly refute it. I’ve shown you where the Bible explicitly teaches that the source of Christian doctrine and practice is the teaching of the apostles, “whether by word of mouth or by letter.” The burden of proof is on you to show otherwise. If you can’t, then you should at least admit that the “Bible only” doctrine has no biblical support.