The Apostolic Logic of One True Church
By: Intellectual Conservatism
Tags: Bible, Protestant, Theology, Catholic, Philosophy

Steven Nemes (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) has recently written a brief blog critiquing the position of there being only one true church on apostolic grounds. Simply put, Nemes argues that just as being Jewish or Gentile during the apostolic age was unnecessary for salvation (Acts 10:44; 15:7–9), our ecclesial affiliations or group identities are not necessary for salvation. We can observe today people of various denominations and traditions who love Christ and have received the Spirit. It is therefore unnecessary that anyone be a member of a particular church.

Although much can be said in response, I wish to write a blog-length reply out of fairness. I recognize that I will not exhaust every objection.

My central contention is that Steven’s observations are not strictly incompatible with the thesis of there being only one true Church. Consider Catholicism for example. The Catholic Church also accepts that being Jewish or Gentile is unnecessary for salvation — that particular group identifier is irrelevant.

This is why Steven’s second observation is vital: people of various denominations and traditions love Christ and have received the Spirit. This observation sustains Steven’s analogy that both ethnicity and specific ecclesial affiliation bear no relevance to salvation.

First, the Catholic Church has held that even those outside of visible communion with the Church can benefit from the graces that only she, the Church, receives from Christ, the head of her body (CCC 846). This is on the condition that those outside of visible communion are in a state of invincible as opposed to “vincible” ignorance (Lumen Gentium Ch. 2 Par. 16; Luke 23:34). This is an act of mercy on God’s part.

But, the Catholic Church also teaches that if someone were to come to the knowledge that the Catholic Church was established by Christ as the one true Church and refused to enter into communion, then such a person would be condemned or lose their salvation (Ibid. par. 14).

This flows from the Church’s teaching that man must cooperate with God’s grace so that He might persist until the end (Matthew 24:13)— not by his own natural power but by the supernatural empowerment of God (CCC 1993).

Indeed, fundamental to any true Christian confession is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah or the Christ (Matthew 16:16; Romans 10:9). He is our Lord. Belief in Him without obedience is dead (James 2:26). And disobedience counts as unbelief (John 3:36).*

So, if the Messiah created a single Church by which He has willed that humanity be united to Him, then persistent disobedience and willful rebellion against that Church will indeed endanger one’s soul.

For Jesus said, “If you love me, then you will do as I command” (John 14:15) and, as He said to His disciples, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; but the one who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me” (Luke 10:16). If these words of Christ can be applied to not only the first apostles but also their historical successors, then Christ’s words carry into our day and age with acute specificity. Of course, Steven’s blog post does not substantively deal with the question of what kind of Church Jesus established.

The defender of the “one true Church” thesis has ample grounds for not only accommodating Steven’s observations but also, as I have argued in my published work (and more to come), showing that Christ did in fact build One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

It is, I believe, the responsibility of every mature Christian to examine their beliefs and convictions, and with an honest heart pursue Christ no matter where He truly is. Although these claims might be tough to swallow, to dismiss them out of hand is reckless. Rather, the substantive debate must be had on whether the Messiah built a single Church for His flock. We should do this out of love for Christ and the desire to follow Him with perfect obedience.

There is of course more that can be said, and more Biblical arguments deployed, but I think it appropriate to stop here as this post provides the gist of my position.

*Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, pg. 219–220: “In typical Johannine fashion the positive is followed by the negative. We might have expected ‘whoever does not believe’… It seems that ‘does not obey’ is the meaning, but this is not so markedly different, for those who believe do in fact obey the Son, and those who do not believe do not in fact obey him.”