The True Church

John Ahern writes in answer to a question posed by a Roman Catholic friend, which he quotes here:

I think it would be fair to say you believe that (and please correct me if I’m wrong or misrepresenting): [Addressing Protestants]

- The Church at the time of the Apostles can be considered the True Church — essentially, what the Church is supposed to be

The Catholic Church, today, at the time of Luther, and probably for long before that, is/was not the True Church

– Your church (i.e. denomination) is the True Church

My question, then: When did the Apostolic Church become apostate, and when did it recover its truth again?

If I were to give a quick answer, I’d have to admit to none of the above claims concerning Protestantism. But that won’t help you in your question, so I’ll answer it head on and come back over these three points while I’m doing that.

This term “true Church” has many different meanings and senses for different people, and I’ll answer what I think Classical Protestantism has to say about these different senses. (I won’t touch on Anabaptism, Baptism, the Great Awakenings, Puritanism, Dispensationalism, or Evangelicalism because those were Post-reformation ideas or events and don’t have much to do with Classical Protestantism.)

I think that the statement, “The Church at the time of the Apostles can be considered the True Church — essentially, what the Church is supposed to be” is somewhat misleading because it implies that the True Church began at the time of the Apostles. This is entirely contrary to what the Reformers were saying. The true Church didn’t begin in 1521 at the Diet of Worms, nor at Pentecost in c. 30 AD. It didn’t begin at Matthew 16:18 and the Confession of St. Peter. We go way back, all the way to Genesis 3:15.

It’s God’s covenant, made right after the Fall: that the seed of the Women will crush the Head of the Serpent. Our heel was, is, and will be bruised by the evil one. We have crushed, are crushing, and will crush his head and defeat him. This was the beginning of the true Church, and this promise made by God in Genesis 3:15 was the inception of the Covenant of Grace.

The members in Covenant of Grace make up this true Church, visible and invisible. The invisible is the Church Triumphant, the celestial “cloud of witnesses”. Visible is the terrestrial Church, constantly being sanctified in its morality, theology, and aesthetics (or, if you prefer, its Goodness, Truth, and Beauty). The Invisible and the Visible aren’t two different Churches; Christ is the Head of only one Church. One could put it that the Invisible Church is what the Visible Church looks like at the finish.[1]

I gather that there’s another element involved when you say “true Church”, and this is why. One could define a true Church as an institution that has the one true, correct, and right theology (a “We’re right and everybody else is wrong” mindset). You mentioned that Protestants believe that the Church at the time of the apostles was what it was supposed to be. Actually, the Church has never been what it’s supposed to be: the spotless Bride of Christ. I have every hope (my faith is in vain otherwise) that it will become that, though.

In an important sense, the notion of a true Church comes from notions about infallibility of theology and inerrancy of dogma. Classical Protestantism, at its root and core, denies any possibility of infallibility and inerrancy in a Church, and this is what we mean when we use the phrase sola Scriptura.

Scripture alone is the infallible and inerrant word of God. Doctrine, regardless of whether it is correct, is fallible. The Church, while it has genuine authority over the believer, can be wrong. Since we have the blessing of the Spirit, it isn’t just a safe bet to place ourselves under the theological jurisdiction of the Church, it’s a duty, necessity, obligation, pleasure. It’s the same submission that’s in marriage (the husband leading and the wife following) or in mother to child submission (the child following, the mother leading).

Ideally the Church has the correct theology, but it is still fallible.

So, true Church? That’d be us, the Bride of Christ. From the evidence at hand (that is, granted, limited), I think that congregation of saints includes all these contributing editors, and Pope Benedict XVI, and Chuck Colson, and Peter Kreeft, and the Patriarch of Moscow. What are the perimeters of this true Church? The congregation of saints, past, present, and future, who have belonged to Israel, belonging to God’s promise or covenant to save them and cause them to defeat the Devil. I refer to Israel in the same way the apostles did: I mean, the Church.

[1] See Douglas Wilson, Mother Kirk (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001).

Posted at 2:16 am EST on the 10th of July 2007 by John R. Ahern.

Under Theology

There are 8 replies.
 
  1. Anonymous says on July 10th, 2007 at 3:24 am

    John, you’re a blockhead.

  2. Nick says on July 10th, 2007 at 10:26 pm

    You make a really excellent case for yourself.

    However, I do see one thing you don’t explain. I’ve never really figured out why Protestants, who are so very uncomfortable about infallibility in the Church, should accept the Bible as entirely infallible and inerrant.

    Why do you think the Bible is infallible and inerrant? Why couldn’t the Bible be like the Church — possessing goodness, truth, and beauty, but still imperfect?

    P.S.

    Karl Barth, who was rather an interesting fellow, and a founder of the neo-orthodox movement in Protestant thought, apparently denied the infallibility of Scripture. Take a look at this link, and lemme know what you think: http://asisaid.com/journal/article/1221.html

  3. Hunter says on July 12th, 2007 at 6:03 am

    Thanks for the detailed response. I can’t write up a detailed counterresopnse right now, but it’s very interesting to hear from another viewpoint (and how far off my assumptions of that viewpoint were ;) ).

  4. John R. Ahern says on July 13th, 2007 at 2:50 am

    Nick, I really am flabbergasted by your response. I’ll have to think about it. Of course, I heard of Carl Barth, though not in particular detail. I remember R. C. Sproul saying that he thought it was “Neo Orthodoxy” without the “e”.

    Hunter, I think that if you wrote out a counter response and you were interested in getting it published here, we could set you up as a guest contributer for this one time and have you write out a response. If you’re interested… It’d have to be in line with the guidelines (the very first post ever done here).

  5. John R. Ahern says on July 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    P. S.

    By “flabbergasted” I mean that I am befuddled by your response. Not that you didn’t make yourself perfectly clear, but your objection is so idiosyncratic that it’s actually quite profound (not to mention original…who would think of that? :P)

    Which is sort of a round-about compliment, but anyway…

  6. Nick says on July 13th, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    One thing to note, though, Hunter, is that John’s a very intelligent sort of Protestant belonging to a very intelligent (in my thinking) sort of Protestantism. While, of course, you’d be wrong in thinking that all (or even most) Protestants believe the points on your list, I’ve known people who *do* believe all of those points.

  7. John Ahern says on July 14th, 2007 at 3:19 am

    Oh, yes. Good point. I’m not sure I’m an intellectual anything simply because of failure not because of apathy…

    But most other Protestants would claim those three points. I happen to be weird enough a Protestant to deny them.

  8. M. Z. Ahern says on July 14th, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    With regard to John’s assumption that “most Protestants would claim those three points”: no way.

    I am certain that “most” Protestants do not think that their very particular denomination is the only True Church, the only way to salvation. There are those who do think that way, but they really are a small minority.

    Of course probably all Protestants do not think that the Roman Catholic Church is the only True Church. Why on earth would they be Protestants if they did believe that?

    The point about “The Church at the time of the Apostles can be considered the True Church — essentially, what the Church is supposed to be”, well, I think that is a misconception more common among the more arminian Bible churches, not among those Protestants who trace their heritage to Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer. Of course to hold such a view denies the work of the Holy Spirit in all of history.

    One last point. While I quite agree with someone who once said that evangelicalism in the US is 3000 miles wide and 2 inches deep, Protestants do have a good share of deep thinkers, scholars, church historians, and theologians — people who love God with their minds.

    By the way, what do you all make of the fact that the Orthodox Church (the church that dominates eastern Christianity) teaches that it is the one True and original Church, the only way to salvation, and that the Roman Catholic Church was the first denomination to separate from the True Orthodox Church?