The Alleged Protestantism of the

Early Church

Was the early church Protestant, or did it espouse distinctly Catholic doctrines? 

Gary Hoge

 Introduction

Some Christians believe that the Catholic Church (as distinct from the “Christian” church) originated with the Roman emperor Constantine, and his Edict of Milan in the year 313, in which he legalized Christianity and made it the official religion of the empire. These Christians believe that all of the distinctively “Catholic” (and distinctly erroneous) doctrines that the Church believes today originated after that date, and that they are a corruption of the pure (essentially Protestant) faith that had existed for the previous two hundred and fifty years. That view is found in such books as Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism, in which Boettner explains:

Thousands of people who still were pagans pressed into the church in order to gain special advantages and favors that went with such membership. They came in in far greater numbers than could be instructed or assimilated. Having been used to the more elaborate pagan rituals, they were not satisfied with the simple Christian worship but began to introduce their heathen beliefs and practices. Gradually, through the neglect of the Bible and the ignorance of the people, more and more heathen ideas were introduced until the church became more heathen than Christian.¹

A major problem with this theory is that the canon of the New Testament was not settled until two generations after the Edict of Milan. That means that it was not the pure Christian church, which no longer existed at that time, but the corrupt Catholic Church that decided which books belong in the New Testament. In fact, it was the Catholic Church that gave us the New Testament, as even Protestantism’s founder, Martin Luther, admitted:

We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all.²

Luther was quite right, without the Catholic Church we would not have the New Testament we have today. Loraine Boettner seems to have forgotten that fact when he says that the Church became corrupt through “the neglect of the Bible.” The Church of the early fourth century had no Bible, as such. Of course, all of the books that are now in the New Testament existed at that time, and many of them were universally accepted as Scripture. But other, uninspired books were also accepted by many Christians, and some of the New Testament books were rejected. 

The content of “Scripture” varied among the different churches. Many Christians rejected books like Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation, and accepted books like The Shepherd, The Didache, and the Gospel of Peter. The New Testament, as we now know it, did not exist for more than a half-century after the Edict of Milan. I’m sure you can see the problem that presents for us today. If the true Christian Church essentially did not exist between the Edict of Milan and the Reformation, and if the Catholic Church was “more heathen than Christian,” as Boettner put it, then why should we accept the Catholic Church’s definition of the New Testament? How can we be sure that such a corrupt church selected the right books?

Perhaps this is why some other Protestants say that the Catholic Church actually began a few generations after the Edict of Milan. Author Fritz Ridenour explains this second version of Church history:

In the middle of the fifth century, Leo, bishop of Rome, commanded, through an edict from the emperor, that all should obey the Bishop of Rome because he held the “Primacy of St. Peter.” Through the Pope, as Peter’s successor, Peter would continue to minister as one who held the “keys to the Kingdom.” Leo’s claim was widely disputed, particularly by the eastern wing of the church (centered around Constantinople) . . . As the Western church grew, it began to add certain doctrines that were not in the Bible. Not everyone agreed with these new teachings primarily because they were not supported by Scripture.³

So in this version of history, the Christian church was basically okay until the reign of Pope Leo I (or Leo the Great, as he is known to history), and all Catholic “corruptions” occurred during or after his reign. It is ironic that Leo is blamed for corrupting the Faith, when in fact it was he who successfully defended it against the Monophysite heresy:

Leo acted strongly against all heresies, but the dogmatic crisis of his pontificate arose when the Constantinople monk Eutyches and the patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, began to teach that in Christ there is only one nature. This Monophysite (one-nature) heresy made such progress in the East that St. Flavian, the patriarch of Constantinople, called on the Pope to do something about it. Leo did. In a famous letter to Flavian, the Pope so clearly and forcefully exposed and condemned the Monophysite error that this letter has been venerated as a creed.

 

The Monophysites, however, gained the ear of the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II, and succeeded in holding a packed synod at Ephesus. There they so maltreated the saintly Flavian that he died, and they proclaimed the Monophysite error to be true Christian doctrine. Leo came to the rescue. In stinging words he characterized the Ephesus affair as a robbery, and the name has lived. To this day it is known as the robber synod. To counteract Monophysite influence on Theodosius, Leo got Valentinian III, the Western Emperor, to wake up his cousin to the danger of fostering heresy. Though Theodosius died, his successor Marcion heeded the Pope. To settle the matter a great council, the fourth ecumenical, was called to meet at Chalcedon in 451. There the fathers condemned Eutyches and accepted Leo’s letter as the symbol of orthodox belief.⁴

Nevertheless, Ridenour and others credit Leo I with corrupting the Christian faith, or at least beginning the process. According to this version of history, it was during or after the reign of Leo I (440-461) that the Church became corrupt and began to add lots of “new teachings” to the faith. This account of the rise of Catholicism at least has the advantage that it avoids the problem of having to explain how the corrupt Catholic Church was able to discern correctly the books of the New Testament.

According to this version of history, none of the distinctively “Catholic” teachings existed prior to the year 440, and according to the earlier version, those teachings did not exist prior to the Edict of Milan in 313. Therefore, if we could travel back in time to the primitive Christian church of the first three centuries, we would see that its beliefs were essentially the same as modern Protestant beliefs. Protestants, by basing their doctrines only on the Bible, claim to have restored in their churches the pure doctrines that were embraced in the first three centuries of Christianity.

Unfortunately, Protestants generally don’t check to see if this is true. They believe the Bible clearly teaches a certain set of doctrines (which varies from denomination to denomination), and therefore they just assume that the early church must have believed those doctrines too. However, as you will see, the writings of the people who were actually in the early church (including some who knew the apostles personally), people like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Augustine, etc., show that they firmly held such “Catholic” doctrines as regenerational baptism, infant baptism, an ordained priesthood, episcopal church government, the teaching authority of the Church, prayer to saints, prayer for the dead, apostolic succession, the authority of the pope, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, and many other beliefs that were later rejected by the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers. What’s more, these ancient Christians claim to have received these beliefs directly from the apostles.

In the rest of this paper I will present quotations from the writings of the ancient Christians, those who were in the Church centuries before the Edict of Milan, in order to demonstrate what their doctrines really were. I won’t be quoting the Bible here because my point in presenting these quotations is not to try to prove the truth of these doctrines. My only point here is to show that, contrary to the contemporary Protestant mythology, what are now regarded as distinctly “Catholic” doctrines were in fact the accepted doctrines of the Christian church from the very beginning, centuries before either Constantine or Leo I were born. 

Therefore, any attempt to set a date (other than Pentecost) for the foundation of the Catholic Church, is both artificial and unhistorical. For the sake of brevity, I’ve limited the quotations supporting each doctrine to about five or six. It was difficult to narrow it down to such a small number, and for every quote you read, there are many others that I did not include. For your convenience, I’ve arranged them chronologically, and shown where the Edict of Milan fits into the chronology. All quotations are prior to the reign of Pope Leo I.

The Name “Catholic”

So when did the Christian church become the “Catholic” Church? Apparently right from the beginning. The word “Catholic” comes from a Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), which simply means “universal.” It was used to designate the Christian Church as early as the beginning of the second century. Because the word is used in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, many Protestants still use it, but they claim that it refers to the invisible brotherhood of all believers, not to a specific, visible church. I remember reciting the creed at a Methodist church and thinking that it was amusing that we all claimed to believe in the “holy catholic church.” However, the use of the term “catholic” to designate an invisible brotherhood of all believers is unhistorical and ignores the actual use of the term at the time the creeds were written.

Early Church historian J.N.D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes:

As regards “Catholic” . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church.⁵

The earliest written record we have of the Christian church being called “Catholic” is in a letter from Ignatius of Antioch:

Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a priest]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

Ignatius is thought by many to have been a disciple of John, the apostle “whom Jesus loved,” and he was ordained Bishop of Antioch by Simon Peter himself. Ignatius wrote the above letter just a few years after John’s death, while in chains and on his way to Rome to face martyrdom. I doubt Ignatius himself invented the word “Catholic" as a designator, which means it was probably used even during the apostolic era. Here’s how other early Christians used the term “Catholic”:

And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled. (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).

 

It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from there, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. … Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known that this is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance and which takes a health-promoting care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4:30:11-13 [A.D. 307]).

— Edict of Milan, A.D. 313 —

[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called “Catholic,” when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house. (Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation,” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

Apostolic Succession

Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18). He exercised that authority in many ways, for example by teaching with authority, and forgiving sins. But Jesus knew that he would not remain on earth for long. He also knew that the Church he would establish would grow old before his return. So, according to the Bible, Jesus delegated his authority to his apostles, and he made it clear that obedience to them was the same as obedience to him (Luke 10:16, John 15:20). The apostles exercised the authority the Lord gave them as they evangelized their world and built the Church (2 Corinthians 10:8, 13:10, 1 Thessalonians 4:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:14). The doctrine of apostolic succession teaches that the apostles delegated their authority to their successors, who delegated it to their successors, and so on, down through the ages. Thus, in every age the Church continues to wield the same authority as the apostles did.

Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. (Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).

 

Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore--and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, 2:1-3 [A.D. 110]).

 

In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, 3:1-2 [A.D. 110]).

 

[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4:26:2 [A.D. 189]).

— Edict of Milan, A.D. 313 —

Authority of the Pope

The Catholic Church believes that Jesus appointed Peter (and his successors) to be the visible foundation of the Church on earth (Matthew 16:17-19). This is in a secondary, derivative sense, of course, because the primary foundation of the Church is Jesus himself. Peter was the first bishop of Rome, so his successors, the bishops of Rome, are believed to be the visible center of the Church. What did the early Christians believe about the authority of the bishop of Rome?

Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved, and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed. … Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. … If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. … You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy. (Pope Clement I, Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1, 63:2 [A.D. 80]).

Clement was the fourth bishop of Rome. According to Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, he is the Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3, a disciple of Paul (although there is some debate about that). What is significant here is that although Clement was the bishop of Rome, he exercised authority over the Corinthian Church, way over in Greece (apparently in response to a petition from them). This happened in the year A.D. 80, which was during the apostolic age. Some of the New Testament hadn’t even been written yet. It would appear, then, that the authority of the bishop of Rome over the other churches existed from the very beginning.

Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

 

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

 

On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

— Edict of Milan, A.D. 313 —

In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head--that is why he is also called Cephas [“Rock”]--of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church. (Optatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Confession

All Christians believe that we should confess our sins directly to God. But Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans also believe that Jesus intended for us to confess our sins through a priest. Here’s what the early Christians believed:

Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).

 

[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness. (Tertullian, Repentance, 10:1 [A.D. 203]).

 

[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who says, “I said, ‘To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity.’” (Origen, Homilies in Leviticus, 2:4 [A.D. 248]).

 

Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord. (Cyprian of Carthage, The Lapsed, 28 [A.D. 251]).

— Edict of Milan, A.D. 313 —

You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious Physician, you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us. (Aphraahat the Persian Sage, Treatises, 7:3 [A.D. 340]).

Forgiveness of Sins Through Baptism

Did the early Christians believe that baptism was merely a symbolic act, a testimony before men, as some Protestants believe? Or did they believe that baptism was the usual means by which God cleanses a person from sin, as Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and others believe?

Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead. (Letter of Barnabas, 11:1 [A.D. 74]).

 

“I have heard, sir,” said I [to the Shepherd], “from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.” He said to me, “You have heard rightly, for so it is.” (Hermas, The Shepherd, 4:3:1-2 [A.D. 80]).

 

When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal . . . “and sons of the Most High” [Ps. 81:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation. (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children, 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 191]).

 

Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins. (Tertullian, Baptism, 7:2 [A.D. 203]).

— Edict of Milan, A.D. 313 —

We believe . . . in one baptism for the remission of sins. (Council of Constantinople I, Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]).

 

Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted. (Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 3:3:5 [A.D. 420]).

Infant Baptism

Some Protestants, such as Presbyterians, believe that infants should be baptized, but others do not. Here’s what the early Christians believed:

He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

 

Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

 

Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin . . . In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous. (Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

 

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit. (Origen, Commentaries on Romans, 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

— Edict of Milan, A.D. 313 —

Mortal Sin

Some Christians, those called Calvinists, believe that it is impossible for a true Christian to forfeit his salvation through grave sin. Here’s what the early Christians believed about this subject:

Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. But you shall assemble together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you be not made complete in the last time. (Didache ,16 [A.D. 70]).

 

And as many of them . . . as have repented, shall have their dwelling in the tower [i.e., the Church]. And those of them who have been slower in repenting shall dwell within the walls. And as many as do not repent at all, but abide in their deeds, shall utterly perish. . . . But if any one relapse into strife, he will be cast out of the tower, and will lose his life. Life is the possession of all who keep the commandments of the Lord. (Hermas, The Shepherd, 3:8:7 [A.D. 80]).

 

[T]o Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” [Phil. 2:10-11] to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all. . . . [T]he ungodly and unrighteous and wicked and profane among men [shall go] into everlasting fire; but [he] may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian life], and others from [the date of] their penance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

— Edict of Milan, A.D. 313 —

Stinginess is remedied by generosity, insult by apology, perversity by honesty, and for whatever else, amends can be made by practice of the opposite. But what can he do who is contemptuous of God? There are venial sins and there are mortal sins. It is one thing to owe ten thousand talents, another to owe but a farthing. We shall have to give an accounting for an idle word no less than for adultery. But to be made to blush and to be tortured are not the same thing; not the same thing to grow red in the face and to be in agony for a long time. . . . If we entreat for lesser sins we are granted pardon, but for greater sins, it is difficult to obtain our request. There is a great difference between one sin and another. (Jerome, Against Jovinian, 2:30 [A.D. 393]).

Praying to the Saints

I suspect that people who object to praying to the saints do so mainly because they don’t understand what it means. I can’t blame them, really, because in contemporary usage the word “pray” has come to refer only to that form of worship by which we praise God and humbly petition him. To direct such prayer to a person would be blasphemous. However, the word “pray” has an older, now archaic, meaning. It used to mean simply “ask,” whether the object of the request was God or a person. We see this, for example, in the English word “prithee,” which is a contraction of the phrase, “I pray thee.” It is only in this broader sense that the term is applied to saints.

We Christians on earth constantly ask (pray) one another to intercede with God on our behalf. This is a good thing, and in fact we are commanded to do so. The doctrine of prayer to saints simply expands the scope of such intercession to include our brothers and sisters who are in heaven. 

We’re all part of the same Body of Christ, after all, and that Body is not divided by death. In fact, the saints in heaven are more alive than we are, and much more righteous. From the beginning of the Church, it was understood that God intended the whole Body of Christ, both in heaven and on earth, to intercede before him. All Christians everywhere are to pray for one another (and this includes the holy angels, by the way). Today, all Christians everywhere ask their living brothers and sisters to pray for them, but did you know that Protestants are the only Christians who don’t ask their brothers and sisters in heaven to pray for them too?

Here’s what the early Christians said about prayer to saints:

[The Shepherd said,] “But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask Him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from Him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from Him?” (Hermas, The Shepherd, 3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).

 

In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]. (Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 7:12 [A.D. 208]).

 

But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep. (Origen, Prayer 11, [A.D. 233]).

 

Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy. (Cyprian of Carthage, Letters, 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).

 

And you also, O honored and venerable Simeon, you earliest host of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the faithful, do be our patron and advocate with that Savior God, whom you were deemed worthy to receive into your arms. We, together with thee, sing our praises to Christ, who has the power of life and death, saying, Thou art the true Light, proceeding from the true Light; the true God, begotten of the true God. (Methodius, Oration on Simeon and Anna, 14 [A.D. 305]).

— Edict of Milan, A.D. 313 —

Yes, I am well assured that [my father’s] intercession is of more avail now than was his instruction in former days, since he is closer to God, now that he has shaken off his bodily fetters, and freed his mind from the clay that obscured it, and holds conversation naked with the nakedness of the prime and purest mind. (Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 18:4 [A.D. 380]).

Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead

A word of explanation is in order here, because so many people misunderstand what Purgatory is. First of all, the name does not refer to a place, but to a process. Think of Purgatory as the final sanctification of the elect. I’m sure we all agree that while we are in this life we are not perfectly pure. Theoretically, and hopefully, we are becoming more and more pure as time goes by and as the Lord sanctifies us, but there will always be some (perhaps much) impurity remaining in us. Yet the Bible says of the “New Jerusalem,” “Nothing impure will ever enter it.” (Rev. 21:27). Most Protestants I’ve talked to believe that when we die we will be instantaneously cleansed of whatever vestiges of sin remain, and then our sanctification will be complete. Compare this idea to the official Catholic teaching on Purgatory:

All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.⁶

Again, please note that the Church gives the name “Purgatory” to the purification itself, not to the place where it occurs. This final purification may or may not occur in some separate place, and it may or may not be instantaneous (at least from the point of view of the person experiencing it). It is merely the final sanctification of the elect, and the understanding of some Protestants that it is an instantaneous cleansing is completely within the bounds of orthodox Catholic teaching on this subject.

Closely linked to the idea of Purgatory is the idea of prayer for the dead. Such prayer obviously implies the existence of Purgatory because prayer can’t help those in hell, and it is not needed by those in heaven. But the Church teaches that our prayers can help those who are undergoing their final purification, just as our prayers for our fellow Christians who are still on earth can help them. Frankly, the whole subject of intercessory prayer is a mystery to me. I have no idea how my prayers for someone else here on Earth can possibly help them (as if God wouldn’t help them without my prayers), but I know that they do help because the Bible says so. In the same way, I have no idea how my prayers could possibly help someone who is undergoing their final purification, but I have no more philosophical objection to praying for them than I do to praying for anyone else.

As you will see, the early Christians prayed for their dead. There’s even an example (arguably) of it in the New Testament (2 Timothy 1:18). Here’s what some of the early Christians wrote about Purgatory and prayer for the dead:

The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting-place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed; truly I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius. (Abercius, Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190]).

 

A woman, after the death of her husband ... prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice. (Tertullian, Monogamy, 10:1-2 [A.D. 216]).

— Edict of Milan, A.D. 313 —

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them. (John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).

 

That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire. (Augustine, Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity, 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

The doctrine of the “Real Presence,” also known as “transubstantiation” was explained, for example, by the sixteenth century Council of Trent:

Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.⁷

Here’s what the early Christians had to say about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2-7:1, [A.D. 110]).

 

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that Incarnated Jesus. (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66, [A.D. 151]).

 

Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (Origin, Homilies on Numbers, 7:2, [A.D. 248]).

— Edict of Milan, A.D. 313 —

Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22:6, 9, [A.D. 350]).

 

When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, “This is the symbol of my body,” but, “This is my body.” In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, “This is the symbol of my blood,” but, “This is my blood”; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit. (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Catechetical Homilies, 5:1, [A.D. 405]).

 

I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. . . . What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice is the Blood of Christ. (Augustine, Sermons, 227, 272, [A.D. 411]).

Regeneration through Baptism

Many Protestants do not believe that baptism is the means by which God usually affects regeneration, though some do. Here’s what the early Christians believed:

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 [A.D. 151]).

 

Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God. (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 12:16 [A.D. 181]).

 

“And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan” [2 Kings. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment, 34 [A.D. 190]).

— Edict of Milan, A.D. 313 —

From baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the waters, and those who are baptized are clothed in him. The Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of rebirth, and then they receive the Holy Spirit. . . . [I]n the second birth, that through baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit. (Aphraahat the Persian Sage, Treatises, 6:14:4 [inter A.D. 340]).

Reliance on Tradition As Well As Scripture

Did the early Church practice sola Scriptura like modern Protestants, or did they rely on both Scripture and Tradition, like modern Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox)? It’s important to bear in mind that in this context, the word “Tradition,” refers to the teachings of the apostles that they did not commit to writing. It does not refer to man-made traditions like certain devotional practices, or styles of priestly dress, etc. The apostles committed some of their teachings to writing, and others they handed down orally (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2). It is important to keep in mind this distinction between unwritten apostolic teaching (“Tradition” with a capital “T”) and mere customs and practices (“tradition” with a lower-case “t”).

Here’s what some of the early Christians said about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition:

That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the Tradition of truth. . . . What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of Tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches? (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3:4:1 [A.D. 189]).

 

Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and Apostolic Tradition (Origen, The Fundamental Doctrines, 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

— Edict of Milan, A.D. 313 —

Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the Tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term. (Basil the Great, The Holy Spirit, 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

 

It is needful also to make use of Tradition, for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition. (Epiphanius of Salamis, Medicine Chest Against All Heresies, 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

 

[Paul commands:] “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the Traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter” [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the Tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a Tradition? Seek no further. (John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

Sacrifice of the Mass

Again, some explanation is required. When the Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is an actual sacrifice, not merely a memorial, it does not mean that Catholics think Christ dies again, or is crucified again, as some people misunderstand the teaching. For example, the late Keith Green wrote,

Have you ever wondered why in every Catholic church they still have Jesus up on the cross? Every crucifix with Jesus portrayed as nailed to it tells the whole Catholic story--Jesus is still dying for the sins of the world! But that’s a lie! We need only look to the Scriptures to see the truth. The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the “once for all” sacrifice of Christ on the cross, not a daily sacrifice on altars. The Bible repeatedly affirms in the clearest and most positive terms that Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary was complete in that one offering. And that it was never to be repeated is set forth explicitly in Hebrews, chapters 7, 9, and 10.⁸

Mr. Green was right, the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary was “complete in that one offering” and it was never to be repeated. The Catholic Church agrees with this; it teaches that Jesus does not die again in the Mass, nor is he re-sacrificed. Rather, the Mass is a re-presentation and perpetuation of the original sacrifice that Christ made once-for-all on the cross. 

This is difficult to understand, but we must remember that our perspective is not the same as God’s. From our perspective, the crucifixion occurred at a point in the distant past, like the assassination of Lincoln, or the sinking of the Titanic. But Christ is eternal; he lives in the past, and the present, and the future at the same time. In a sense, the crucifixion is a part of His present experience, and always has been, and always will be. That is why the Bible describes him as “the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world” (Rev. 13:8).

We were not present at the crucifixion, but Christ makes it present to us through the Eucharist, and thus he perpetuates his one sacrifice throughout the ages. The Catholic apologetics organization Catholic Answers explains it this way:

The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross occurred “once for all”; it cannot be repeated (Heb. 9:28). Christ does not “die again” during Mass, but the very same sacrifice that occurred on Calvary is made present on the altar. That’s why the Mass is not “another” sacrifice, but a participation in the same, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross.⁹

Christ’s one sacrifice is made present to us as often as we partake of the Eucharist. That’s why Paul says, “we all partake of the one loaf” (1 Corinthians 10:17). No matter how many times the Eucharist has been offered throughout the centuries, there is still only one loaf. Put another way, we drink continuously from the well he dug once for all.

The Mass was prefigured in the Old Testament by Melchizedek, as Catholic apologist Karl Keating explains,

The Old Testament predicted that Christ would offer a true sacrifice to God in bread and wine--that he would use those elements. Melchizedek, the king of Salem and a priest, offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine (Genesis 14:18). Psalm 110 predicted Christ would be a priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,” that is, offering sacrifice in bread and wine. We must, then, look for some sacrifice other than Calvary, since it was not under the form of bread and wine. The Mass fits the bill.¹⁰

The Mass is also the fulfillment of a prophecy given by Malachi:

One should keep in mind that, after foretelling the rejection of the Jewish priesthood, the prophet Malachi predicted a new sacrifice would be offered in every place. “From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is a sacrifice and there is offered to my name a clean oblation” (Malachi 1:10-11). Note that he speaks of one sacrifice, not many sacrifices, but one that is offered everywhere. The sacrifice of Calvary took place in one place only. We must look for a sacrifice apart from Calvary, one that is given under the form of bread and wine. Only the Mass meets the requirements.¹¹

Here’s what the early Christians said about the sacrifice of the Mass:

Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until they have been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23-24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, “Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations” [Mal. 1:11, 14]. (Didache, 14 [A.D. 70]).

 

Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice--even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, 4 [A.D. 110]).

 

God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you [Jews]: “I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles …” [Mal. 1:10-11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 41 [A.D. 155]).

 

He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, “This is my body.” The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: “You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord Almighty” [Mal. 1:10-11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

— Edict of Milan, A.D. 313 —

What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice. (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews, 17:3(6) [A.D. 403]).

Conclusion

Whether you define the Catholic Church by its name, or by the content of its doctrines, it existed long before Constantine, and long before Leo I. In every case, it’s easy to show from the writings of the earliest Christians that the doctrines now regarded as distinctly “Catholic” were in fact the definition of orthodoxy in the ancient church. Therefore it is impossible to set any date for the Catholic Church’s foundation other than Pentecost, and it is impossible to identify any founder of it other than Jesus.

On the other hand, there is not a trace of any of the distinctively “Protestant” doctrines in the early church. Such doctrines as justification by faith alone (sola fide), reliance on the Bible alone (sola Scriptura), congregational church government, symbolic baptism, forensic justification, symbolic Eucharist, adult-only baptism, etc., essentially did not exist before the sixteenth-century Reformation. Therefore, it seems to me that the “Reformation” actually represents a radical break with historic Christianity, not a return to its original purity. Even Protestants sometimes admit this (in a backhand way). Writing about the Reformation doctrine of forensic justification, Protestant apologist Norman Geisler freely admitted,

[T]hese valuable insights into the doctrine of justification had been largely lost throughout much of Christian history, and it was the Reformers who recovered this biblical truth … During the patristic, and especially the later medieval periods, forensic justification was largely lost. … one can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period!¹²

If forensic justification didn’t exist “between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation,” that’s a pretty good indication that it never existed, and that Luther was reading something into the Bible that was not intended by its Author. And this newly “rediscovered” doctrine of his became the foundation of his new religion. 

According to well-known Presbyterian evangelist and author D. James Kennedy, forensic justification is “that doctrine which became the very heartbeat of the Protestant Reformation. This is that doctrine without which there would be no Protestantism.”¹³ For the Reformers, forensic justification was the very heart of the gospel, yet apparently no one believed it before Luther. This is taken for granted in Protestant circles. For example, Michael Horton, a Reformed Episcopal minister, wrote,

Someone confronted Martin Luther, upon the Reformer’s rediscovery of the biblical doctrine of justification, with the remark, “If this is true, a person could simply live as he pleased!”¹⁴

Note how casually the author credits Luther with the “rediscovery of the biblical doctrine of justification.” This is reminiscent of the claims of the Mormons that their founder, Joseph Smith Jr., “restored the truth about the plan of God.”¹⁵ Every cult, sect, and splinter-group makes the same claim. It was always their founder that rediscovered the truth, their founder that re-established true Christianity.

The early Christian Church was obviously Catholic, both in name and in doctrine. Therefore, if the Reformers were right and these “Catholic” doctrines are actually corruptions of the true gospel, it would mean that the true Christian church was essentially stillborn, and that its doctrines were corrupted as soon as they were delivered. Catholic author, and former Protestant, Mark Shea illustrates the absurdity of this assumption:

[To believe this] meant believing that everywhere the apostles went they—all of them—appointed successors who perverted their teaching on a dozen subjects as badly as modernism said the apostles had perverted Christ’s. It meant that for sixty years of blood, sweat, and toil, the apostles made thousands of disciples so stupid that they could not grasp the most elementary teachings of their faith. It meant believing that their churches—all of them in north, south, east, and west—paganized Christianity (and paganized it everywhere in the same way) the instant the apostles died. It meant believing that these churches, together with their overseers who had been handpicked by the apostles, were constantly engaged in a schizophrenic campaign of deliberate pagan perversion of the Faith while simultaneously dying in droves for the purity of that Faith. It meant believing that the immediate successors to the apostles (and the flocks they shepherded) were both martyrs against all pagan compromise and punctilious preservers of Scripture, and yet simultaneously secret devotees of Mithra, Isis, and the mystery cults. It meant believing that in some fantastic fashion quite unparalleled in history, this outburst of amnesia, heresy, and schizophrenia (beginning well before the death of the Apostle John and spanning the length and breadth of the Roman Empire) managed to completely pervert the Faith once given to the saints without one of those saints taking any notice at all—the very same saints who were willing to be burned alive for Christ rather than offer a tiny pinch of incense to Caesar.¹⁶

As Mr. Shea pointed out, this premise is absurd even from a common-sense point of view. it also presupposes that Jesus took the trouble to build his Church (Matthew 16:18), then did nothing to preserve it, all the while knowing that it would fail almost immediately. But such a view is contrary to the biblical testimony regarding the Church. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to call the Church (not the Bible) the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), and “a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Ephesians 5:27). Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18), that he would be with it always (Matthew 28:20), and that the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth forever (John 14:16, 16:13).

In light of these promises, I can’t believe that Jesus allowed His church to teach the wrong way to salvation for almost fifteen centuries. That is not to say that the Church in Luther’s day was not in need of reform; by all accounts it certainly was. But Catholics would say the only reform it needed was spiritual and moral (especially moral). They would say its doctrines were just fine, thank you, even though some of its practices needed reform. But whatever kind of change was needed, I don’t think the Holy Spirit would “reform” the Church by smashing it into thousands of pieces, with each group claiming the Spirit’s guidance for itself, yet advocating different doctrines, doctrines that are often diametrically opposed to each other.

Given this evidence, I’m convinced that the sixteenth-century Reformation was not a “restoration” of the true gospel, but a corruption of it. Christ’s promises of divine protection for his Church are his guarantee that all generations, not just those subsequent to the Reformation, could know the truth that sets men free.