Why Do Protestants Reject the Notion of “One True Church”?

Why Do Protestants Reject the Notion of “One True Church”? May 24, 2017

Leipzig New Town Hall. The tower is a remnant of the old Pleissenburg building: where the Leipzig Disputation took place in 1519: arguably the historical origin of the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. Photograph by Johannes Kazah (5-23-10). [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license]


Recently, two Protestants (originally on my Facebook page) vigorously and vociferously condemned this doctrine (or more specifically, particularly objected to any Christian saying that their own church was the one true Church: as if this is fundamentally different from what Catholics and Orthodox believe about ecclesiology). In fairness to them, this is not bigotry or sheer anti-Catholicism (at least not necessarily). I would contend that it flows logically from Protestant first principles. They are simply consistently and sincerely following their own system, which does not allow this belief to be included, period. I shall explain how and why I think that is.
Sola Scriptura is the belief that there is one and only one final, infallible authority in Christianity: Holy Scripture. It follows by necessary logical exclusion that sacred tradition and the Church are not infallible; therefore, neither the Catholic Church, nor Orthodoxy, nor any Protestant sect can be considered “the one true Church.” Such a category is ultimately meaningless in Protestant ecclesiology.

It all came about historically through Luther’s rebellion. Once he was determined to dissent from many (not all) Catholic teachings (I have documented at least 50 of those: all part of his belief-system before he was excommunicated), he had no choice but to arbitrarily adopt sola Scriptura, since by definition, the Church and councils (one form of tradition) could not err on basic Christian doctrines. Therefore, he had to reject the infallible authority of the Catholic Church; otherwise, he would have no case for his so-called “Reformation” of said Church, constructed on a vastly different rule of faith. Previously, the rule of faith in Christianity had been the “three-legged stool”: Bible-Tradition-Church.

It came to a head in 1519 in the Leipzig Disputation between Luther and Johann Eck. I have written about this (specifically in relation to papal infallibility). Protestant Luther biographer Roland Bainton described the climactic scene of the debate:


“Let me talk German,” demanded Luther. “I am being misunderstood by the people. I assert that a council has sometimes erred and may sometimes err. Nor has a council authority to establish new articles of faith. A council cannot make divine right out of that which by nature is not divine right. Councils have contradicted each other, for the recent Lateran Council has reversed the claim of the councils of Constance and Basel that a council is above a pope. A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it. As for the pope’s decretal on indulgences I say that neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject pope and councils.”

“But this,” said Eck, “is the Bohemian virus, to attach more weight to one’s own interpretation of Scripture than to that of the popes and councils, the doctors and the universities. When Brother Luther says that this is the true meaning of the text, the pope and councils say, ‘No, the brother has not understood it correctly.’ Then I will take the council and let the brother go. Otherwise all the heresies will be renewed. They have all appealed to Scripture and have believed their interpretation to be correct, and have claimed that the popes and the councils were mistaken, as Luther now does. It is rancid to say that those gathered in a council, being men, are able to err. This is horrible, that the Reverend Father against the holy Council of Constance and the consensus of all Christians does not fear to call certain articles of Hus and Wyclif most Christian and evangelical. I tell you, Reverend Father, if you reject the Council of Constance, if you say a council, legitimately called, errs and has erred, be then to me as a Gentile and a publican.” (Here I Stand, New York: Mentor, 1950, 90)


It was the contra-Catholic mentality (some things never change) that compelled Luther to dissent against the received rule of faith. By logical and/or practical necessity, in order to advance his agenda, and backed into a corner in this debate, he had to reject ecclesial infallibility. Once that was ejected from ecclesiology, then the default or fall-back position was sola Sciptura: a thing that is neither taught in the Bible anywhere, nor by any major Church father. The three-legged stool, on the other hand, is all over Scripture. For example:

1. In the prerogatives of Peter: the leader of the apostles, commissioned by Jesus to head the Church.

2. In apostolic succession (particularly, the election of Matthias to succeed Judas).

3. In episcopal government (bishops and hierarchy).

4. In frequent and solemn biblical condemnations of denominations and sects and assertions of one Church, one faith, one truth, etc.

5. In the Jerusalem Council, which issued a binding decree, guided by the Holy Spirit, which Paul then proclaimed for observance (Acts 16:4) throughout Asia Minor and elsewhere.

6. In the implications of 1 Timothy 3:15 (Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth).

7. In how the Bible describes the nature of the Church.

8. In Jesus’ expressed opinions on tradition; e.g., concerning Moses’ Seat.

9. In the biblical espousal of positive, apostolic tradition.

10. The “problem” of the determination of the biblical canon: to which Protestants have no coherent solution.

All of this (and its strongly biblical and patristic basis) must be rejected (or minimized or ignored, as the case may be) by the Protestant in order to adopt the self-defeating, relentlessly incoherent slop of sola Scriptura, which is never taught in the Bible (as I have demonstrated I think, in a book critiquing it and a second critiquing the two leading historical defenders of the doctrine).

Once sola Scriptura is firmly in place, any final or authoritative notion of a visible, institutional Church bolstered by apostolic succession, whose teachings are authoritative and binding, has to go. And we see that in a document like The Westminster Confession:

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. . . .

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.

(Chapter XXV: Of the Church)

Thus, we see that Protestants today consistently follow these unbiblical and arbitrary traditions of men. They’re perfectly sincere and well-intentioned. The problem lies not in character or some supposed serious moral defect. Rather, it is in the adoption of false premises, and lack of understanding as to how they began, and how hostile they were to all of previous Christian history and to the Bible.

This is why Protestants not infrequently say that it is “condescending” or unecumenical (most “intolerant”!) for anyone to believe in one true Church. It’s because the arbitrary category restrictions that they have accepted, do not allow these categories and this opinion at all.

In fact, Catholics are (as we see it) simply following biblical, apostolic, and patristic teaching in a consistent fashion, whereas it is our considered opinion that the Protestant view on this score is contrary to the Bible, the apostles, the fathers, and is logically self-defeating. They’re making their points out of love and concern for the Catholic to adopt the “truth” (i.e., their principles). Our motive is precisely the same. If one believes in an identifiable, demonstrable one true Church, it is their duty to proclaim this with others, so that they can share in the fullness and joy and contentment of such a view (i.e., so they can join such a Church and partake of its unique benefits). The message and messenger are too often scorned for doing so. It’s a very unfashionable belief: especially in these crazy times where there are less and less absolute truths believed in, all the time.


But if even the gospel itself was widely rejected; if Jesus and Paul and the early Christians were hated and rejected and martyred, we should fully expect our Catholic message to be hated, misrepresented, and rejected as well. This is, nevertheless, no reason to not proclaim it. We (especially apologists / evangelist like myself) will do so, and let the gratuitous insults fly if they must. I haven’t judged anyone’s character; quite the opposite. I’ve merely asserted that Protestantism contains some serious falsehoods, and I back up my contentions with massive argumentation at every turn (in my 2000+ articles and 48 apologetics books).

For an excellent treatment of this question of the “true Church,” see Joe Heschmeyer’s article, “What Are the Marks of the True Church?” (Shameless Popery, 10-27-11)


"I contacted what I believe must have been herpes in 2017, though I never tested ..."

My Holistic / “Alternative” Medicine & ..."
"You have a better understanding of this theology than many Protestants. :-)"

Absolute Assurance of Salvation?: Debunking “Prooftexts”
"Dave, there's only one person that the Bible says was guaranteed a spot in heaven ..."

Absolute Assurance of Salvation?: Debunking “Prooftexts”
"Because fundamentalist Muslims consider men and women to be unequal before the law."

Abortion Declines Under Trump (Surprise, New ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment