We Have Some Questions for Protestants

Seriously, how do you explain this?

By Joel S. Peters

Over the centuries, Catholics and Protestants have defended their claim that their own belief system is the one Jesus founded. One side is necessarily mistaken, given that the systems teach contradictory things on important doctrines such as the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, the nature of the Church, whether you can lose your salvation, and justification by faith, to name a few. Both sides agree that these are “essential” doctrines, and therefore we must be sure whose version of them is correct.

We don’t need profound theological discussions, beneficial as they are, to establish important points based on the plain words of Scripture or a working understanding of how unity and connection are maintained. Can Protestants justify their positions on some critical issues?

The Visible Nature of the Church

We know that Jesus founded a Church. He explicitly says so in Matthew 16:18. The Greek word ekklesia, translated as “church,” is used only here and in Matthew 18:17 (twice). It means “assembly” or “those called out,” and in either case, the meaning involves something visible, because it refers to a group of people.

In Matthew 18:17, Jesus tells his disciples that when they encounter a “brother who sins [against you],” appeal to his sense of decency, one on one. If that doesn’t work, bring another person or two into the loop. Finally, if that doesn’t work, Jesus says to “tell the church.” It is necessarily something visible; otherwise, Jesus’ directive makes no sense.

For many centuries, “church” was defined as a visible entity whose members held the same doctrines under central leadership. And for good reason. Jesus wanted the whole world to belong to it: “Make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). To do that, you need to identify it. He further says you become a member via baptism, and he affirms the unity of doctrine when he speaks of “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (v. 20).

But Protestants changed the meaning of “church” to a non-visible entity—all believers who are connected spiritually through faith in Christ—and in the process also changed its constitution. Ever since Martin Luther advanced his own teachings, Protestantism has repeatedly morphed into a hodgepodge of beliefs. Although Protestants tout expressions like “unity in essentials,” they don’t agree on what those essential teachings are or what they mean.

So what drove the change? To justify their break from Jesus’ Church, Protestants redefined church. Now they don’t have to show any connection to a visible, historical organization with central leadership. For them, problem solved, and existence justified.

But imagine another kind of expansive organization, like the AAA Motor Club. The Protestant version would have local offices connected under the general idea of roadside assistance, but if you visited several of them, you would discover that their membership rules differ and the assistance provided varies. To find clarity about policies and benefits, you search out the central office, only to be told there isn’t one, because each branch set itself up. And yet each branch asserts itself as the best representation of what AAA stands for. Not surprisingly, you would walk out of any local office confused and frustrated.

Can Protestants justify why they made a dramatic change in the meaning and constitution of “church” so long after Jesus founded it, and on whose authority the change was made?

Break in Historical Continuity / Ecclesial Lineage

In breaking from Jesus’ Church, Protestants ruptured their historical continuity to it via a new set of doctrines, one not tied to “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). Or, in the words of St. Paul, “another” gospel (Gal. 1:6-8).

I recently had an online discussion with someone, and I pointed out that the Catholic Church has an unbroken chain of succession through twenty centuries back to Jesus and the apostles. His response was essentially, “So what?” The reply blithely misses the crucial nature of this aspect of the Church. It is how one identifies which twenty-first-century Church is the direct descendant of the one Jesus established, and since he has only one bride and only one mystical body to which he is connected (Col. 1:18, Rev. 21:9), this is a sure way to identify it.

Imagine going online to an ancestry website, inputting your information or supplying your DNA, and the website uncovers your biological ancestors back through multiple generations. If there was any uncertainty about your ancestors’ identity, such research puts it to rest. The biological lines of connection are proof positive of continuity and relationship between you and your ancestors. Of course it matters.

Can Protestants justify why they ruptured continuity with the historical Church, creating an alternate, “illegitimate” family line in the process?

The Biblical Canon

Luther asserted that the Bible contains sixty-six books, not the seventy-three found in Catholic Bibles. His reasons are beyond the scope of this article; here, all we need to be concerned with is that a seventy-three-book canon became settled at the turn of the fourth century. Five times the canon was defined by the Catholic Church, and in each case, it was the same list of seventy-three books.

Luther failed to see the inherent contradiction between his position on the canon and the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, whereby Scripture is the sole, infallible rule of faith for Christians. If his smaller canon is correct, and if he did not “restore” it until the sixteenth century, then for an astounding 1,100-plus years, the Church was guided by an erroneous standard. Christians may have believed something inaccurate or neglected to believe something that was true. Based on Protestants’ own rule, this is an enormous problem.

Can Protestants justify how the Church gave doctrinal guidance for 1,100-plus years based on a faulty standard? Did the Holy Spirit allow it to lead all believers into spiritual darkness?

Jesus’ Promise to Be With His Church

Here, we take Jesus’ words at face value. We don’t need deep exegesis of the original Greek, because we are not dealing with complex theology. We are dealing with Jesus telling the apostles, “I will not leave you orphans” (John 14:18) and “I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). Jesus assured them he would never abandon them or leave them without his guidance. And since his Church is his mystical body, whom he equates with himself—“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9:4)—it is inconceivable that Jesus could ever back out of his promises or fail to protect his bride.

Again, we have a significant problem. Protestants say the Church became doctrinally corrupted and “lost” the true gospel, and Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli came along to restore it. In other words, Jesus allowed his mystical body (1 Cor. 12:27) to become separated from him as the head (Col. 1:18), and he relied on humans who were never invested with his authority to fix the problem.

Imagine you owned a family business with a proprietary product. The business has existed for a long time, and your family has faithfully passed down this product from one generation to the next. Along comes a family member who decides to rebel, leaves home and breaks all ties, disparages everything the family product represented, and sets up shop elsewhere, claiming that the original family product was faulty, so he had to create his own version of it.

Can Protestants justify how they “restored” the gospel, meaning Jesus promised something he couldn’t deliver when he said he would always be with his Church?

Can Protestants justify their spiritual authority, meaning Jesus allowed a break in the chain of command so clearly shown in Scripture and went contrary to it?

The Guidance of the Holy Spirit

Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit after his ascension (John 14:16). He assured the apostles that “the Holy Spirit . . . will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you” (v. 26). The integrity of doctrine is again affirmed by Jesus as being characteristic of his Church.

Some say the apostasy mentioned in Scripture (2 Thess. 2:3) is evidence that the Church would indeed fall off the rails. However, our understanding of the apostasy must square with Jesus’ promises and the Holy Spirit’s guidance. The only way to do this is to affirm that the apostasy refers to people who fall away from Christ or his Church—perhaps even in large numbers—not the Church falling away from Christ. The former can happen in light of Jesus’ promises; the latter cannot.

Can Protestants justify how the Holy Spirit needed men to “restore the gospel” because he failed in his task and allowed Jesus’ Church to lapse into error?

Without convincing answers to these questions, how can Protestants be sure that they themselves are not following a distorted belief system?

---

Joel Peters has over forty years’ experience in Church ministry and has been a Catholic high school educator (in the theology department) for over twenty-five years.

---