WHERE ARE ALL THE PRIESTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?

We all know that there was a ministerial priesthood in the Old Testament, that is, a priesthood where special men were needed to mediate between God and man.  That was God’s design for the nation of Israel for that time period.  But what about the New Testament period?  Was this same type of priesthood intended for today?  There are certain groups today (with Christian roots) who do indeed claim to have a priesthood, like Catholics, Orthodox, and even certain Protestants (e.g., Anglicans / Episcopalians and some Lutherans).  This article applies to all of these groups, but here we intend to focus on Catholicism, since it is the largest and most popular group to have priests.

To answer the question of whether a priesthood should exist today, we will go on a short journey through the New Testament to determine if there is indeed a ministerial priesthood therein.

The Search

Ok, what about the gospels?  Do we find priests mentioned in these accounts?  Well, we find Jewish priests in Matthew (e.g., 8:4; 12:4), Mark (e.g., 1:44; 2:26), Luke (e.g., 1:5; 5:14), and John (e.g., 1:9).  But no Christian priests are mentioned.

How about in the book of Acts?  Again, we find only Jewish priests (e.g., Acts 6:7), and one pagan priest (Acts 14:13).

Ok, let’s look at the epistles.  

Romans 15:16 mentions the apostle Paul’s “ministering the gospel of God” (KJV).  The Greek term for this phrase basically means “to minister in the manner of a priest.”  But the apostle never takes to himself this title.  This verse is simply speaking of his work of sharing the gospel with the gentiles, not being or becoming a priest.

And then there is the book of Hebrews, which only mentions Jewish priests and a Jewish priesthood (e.g., 7:5; 7:12), including Jesus’ High priesthood (2:17; 8:1), and Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:21) who was an Old Testament priest.

That brings us to the book of 1 Peter, which only mentions the universal priesthood of all believers (e.g., 2:5: 2:9).

And finally, in the book of Revelation, we again see only the universal priesthood of believers (e.g., 1:6; 5:10).

Nowhere in Sight

These are the only types of priests mentioned in the whole New Testament.  So again, we find a pagan priest, Jewish priests, and the universal priesthood of all believers, but absolutely no Christian ministerial priests.  But why would this be if a modern-day priesthood is so important (according to Catholics) and has such a vital role in the church?  The silence is very telling.

Ok, so there is no one called a Christian priest in the New Testament.  Could it be that there is another term that is used for “priest” today?  According to Catholics, yes there is.  Protestants will rightly say that the Greek word “hiereus” is the word for priest and that this Greek word nowhere appears to describe a ministerial priest in the New Testament.  But Catholics believe that the word for “elder” (Greek “presbuteros”) is now the proper New Testament term for priest (e.g., Acts 14:23; James 5:14).

The Etymology Argument

But what is their reasoning for calling elders priests?  They will tell us that the English word priest also comes from the Greek “presbuteros.”  In other words, it is derived from presbuteros and has eventually evolved over the years into the word priest.  And etymology (the study of word origins and how they evolve and develop) confirms this.  So, according to them, since the word “priest” is derived from “presbuteros,” then those elders in the early church were actually priests.  But is that good logic?  It is certainly not good Bible exegesis (i.e., critical explanation / interpretation of a text without reading something into it).  

Sadly, Catholics are more dependent on etymology here than they are on Scripture.  But if etymology is that important, then we can also call biblical elders Presbyterians, since this word is also derived from “presbuteros.”  But we don’t think we’ll see Catholics rushing to say that.  So, this etymology argument doesn’t work.

The Similar Functions Argument

Another argument from Catholics is that they believe that modern ministerial priests are the same as the biblical elders because today’s priests perform the same functions as biblical elders, like receiving tithes, laying hands on the brethren, preaching and teaching, shepherding the flock, administering ordinances like communion and baptism, praying for their people, etc.  But we would say that this is exactly what many Protestants do, also.  According to that logic, wouldn’t that make the biblical elders “Protestants,” as well, since they perform similar functions?  Again, we don’t think that Catholics would be in a hurry to say that, either.

Catholics attribute to themselves a particular title (priests) and mimic some of the basic things that the biblical elders did, and then they try to force that title (i.e., priests) back onto those biblical elders where it doesn’t belong.  That’s not how you determine the definition of something, and again, neither is it proper exegesis.

Just because you copied them doesn’t mean that you are one of them, or that they are the same as you.  You can’t assign your own claimed title to someone to whom the Bible doesn’t recognize as such!  Even if the work one does somehow ties in to the work of a priest, so what?  It doesn’t make one a priest.  It simply links to a priestly type of work / function.  

And furthermore, what spiritual work DOESN’T tie in to a priestly type of work?  Apparently, every true spiritual work seems to relate somehow to priests.  So, does this make EVERYONE who does any kind of spiritual work a ministerial priest?  Of course not.  This Catholic argument seems to prove too much, and thus, also falls by the wayside.

Not on the List

But why would we think that ministerial priests exist in the New Testament anyway?  The apostle Paul mentions the offices and functions of the church in 1 Timothy chapters 3 and 5, and in Titus chapter 1.  He gives specific instructions for ministry, church order, gifts and service in 1 Corinthians chapters 11-14 and in Ephesians chapter 4.  But according to Paul, there is no office of “priest.”  Wouldn’t you think that this would have been a great opportunity to mention a priesthood if God intended one for the church?  If ministerial priests are absolutely critical for the church age, where are they in the new covenant?

No More Sacrifice

For a ministerial priesthood to exist, there has to be a sacrifice for sin.  A priest is a special mediator between man and God (1 Timothy 2:5).  In God’s economy, the Old Testament used priests for this purpose.  One of their main jobs was to offer sacrifice for the people to be saved from their sins.  In those days, the debt of sin was not yet paid for mankind.  But today, there is NO MORE SACRIFICE to offer for sin (Hebrews 10:18).  The one and only, the ONCE FOR ALL (Hebrews 7:27; 10:10) and Ultimate Sacrifice has been offered (John 19:30), terminating the need for any more sacrifices which atone for sin.  The types of sacrifices that are to be offered today are spiritual sacrifices, for example, your praise and thanksgiving to God (Hebrews 13:15), your own selves (Romans 12:1), etc. 

In a desperate attempt to salvage a priesthood, Catholics use two main passages trying to prove that Jesus established a ministerial priesthood.  The first one is the Last Supper discourse where Jesus breaks bread and pours out wine, and says, “This do in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19-20).  They will insist that Jesus really meant, “Offer this sacrifice in remembrance of Me.”  But we have no biblical reason to believe that the apostles saw this ritual as an actual sacrifice, or would have thought that in the Last Supper that a priesthood was being established.  See these links:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/10/eucharist-part-1.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/11/eucharist-part-2.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-catholic-time-machine.html

The other passage they use is John 20:21-23 where Jesus sends His apostles on the Great Commission, breathes on them and tells them whoever’s sins you remit / retain are remitted / retained.  But there is absolutely no mention of a priesthood here, nor any kind of precedent to cause anyone to think that a priesthood was beginning here, either.  See this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/08/hi-jacking-of-john-2023.html

The fact that Scripture denies a New Testament priesthood should, in itself, settle the matter, but even history is against the concept, as we will now show.

The Church Says…

According to the Catholic Church, “…the sacred Scriptures show, and the tradition of the Catholic Church HAS ALWAYS TAUGHT, that this priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Saviour, and that to the apostles, and their successors in the priesthood, was the power delivered of consecrating, offering, and administering His Body and Blood, as also of forgiving and of retaining sins.” [Emphasis added] Council of Trent, 23^rd Session, Doctrine and Canons, Chapter 1

Please note first of all that they are claiming that Scripture teaches that the priesthood was instituted, or established, at the Last Supper.  But this cannot be proven by Scripture at all.  There is nothing about a priesthood there.  It is read into the text.  Secondly, notice that they are also claiming that the church has always taught, from the beginning, that this priesthood was believed and accepted by the early church.  But this is not true.  Ministerial priests can only start to be found in the church in the second or third century A.D.

Even many Catholic apologists admit that calling an elder a “priest” was a development over time.  And if it developed, then they are admitting that this concept is not apostolic in nature, since it was not taught by the apostles.  Something is not “apostolic” if the apostles didn’t believe it, teach it, or do it. 

Here are some sources to demonstrate this fact.

The Witness of History

“A priesthood developed gradually in the early Christian church as first bishops and then elders, or ‘presbyters,’ began to exercise certain priestly functions, mainly in connection with the celebration of the Eucharist.  By the end of the 2^nd century, the church’s bishops were called priests (Latin: sacerdos)… The development of eucharistic theology resulted in a further emphasis of the priest’s supernatural powers and qualities…” Encyclopaedia Britannica, online (under “Priest – Christianity”)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/priest-Christianity

“Although the term ‘priest’ (Greek hiereus) refers to the entire Christian people, it is given to no church officer in the New Testament.  First appearing in the 2^nd century, the office is associated with the establishment of the eucharistic sacrifice, over which the priest was called to preside.  No doubt the development of the monarchical episcopate also contributed to the emergence of the priesthood…” Encyclopaedia Brittanica, online (under Roman Catholicism, Structure of the Church, The Priesthood)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-Catholicism/Structure-of-the-church

[Speaking of the Epistle to the Hebrews] “This argument leaves no room for a special priesthood in the Christian Church, and in fact nothing of the kind is found in the oldest organization of the new communities of faith.  The idea that presbyters and bishops are priests and the successors of the Old Testament priesthood first appears in full force in the writings of Cyprian… [245-258 A.D.]” The Encyclopaedia Brittanica (Handy Volume Issue), Volume XXII, p. 321, Eleventh Edition, copyright 1911, (under “Priest”)

“Even Hebrews does not associate Christ’s priesthood with the Last Supper or the Eucharist, however.  This required a further development: the emergence, at the end of the first century, of the explicit teaching that the Eucharist was a sacrifice, presided over by a Christian priest… From the beginning of the second century, Christian writers increasingly applied cultic, sacerdotal terminology to the church’s ministers.” The Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume XI, p. 528, copyright 1987 (under “Priesthood”)

Historian Philip Schaff writes:

“The idea and institution of a special priesthood, distinct from the body of the people, with the accompanying notion of sacrifice and altar, passed imperceptibly from Jewish and heathen reminiscences and analogies into the Christian church… Whether we regard the change as an apostasy from a higher position attained, or as a reaction of old ideas never fully abandoned, the change is undeniable, and can be traced to the second century… The New Testament knows no spiritual aristocracy or nobility, but calls all believers “saints”… Nor does it recognize a special priesthood in distinction from the people, as mediating between God and the laity… During the third century it became customary to apply the term “priest” directly and exclusively to the Christian ministers, especially the bishops.” History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325, chapter IV: Organization and Discipline of the Church, paragraph 42, Clergy and Laity, pp. 78-80, online.

https://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/history_of_the_christian_church_02.pdf

Conclusion

It is absolutely amazing that a respected and important office such as the ministerial priest, one who is considered to be another Christ (“Alter Christus”), being so critical to the life of the church, would be absent from the God-breathed Scriptures.  Strange indeed.  And the reason that it is not there is because it is not something that God ordained.  Where are all the ministerial priests in the New Testament?  There aren’t any.  And as we said before, this does not only apply to Catholics, but to the Orthodox and Protestant “priests,” as well.

See also this link on the priesthood:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/03/priesthood.html

ABUSING THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH

Acts 8:

30) And when Philip had run up, he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

31) And he [the Ethiopian eunuch] said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

This is the story of God using Philip, who was sent by an angel to a lonely desert area to providentially share the gospel with an Ethiopian man (Acts 8:26-40). 

Catholics will often use this passage to try to prove that we need an “infallible magisterium” in order to understand Scripture.  They don’t believe that Scripture, by iself, is sufficient as a Rule of Faith because there is not enough perspicuity in the Bible (i.e., it is not always clear enough), and they’ll point to Protestants and their divisions as “proof” that Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) “doesn’t work.”  According to Catholics, it takes more to understand the Bible than just reading it.  It demands an “independent visible teaching authority that is guided by the Holy Spirit.”  In other words, the Catholic Magisterium.

The Catholic View

An official Catholic document presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission to Pope John Paul II (April 23, 1993), The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, uses this same Bible passage in an attempt to point out the difficulty of Scripture interpretation:

“According to the Acts of the Apostles, an Ethiopian of the first century found himself in the same situation with respect to a passage from the Book of Isaiah (Is. 53:7-8) and recognized that he had need of an interpreter (Acts 8:30-35).”

But not just any interpreter.  This document goes on to say that “responsibility for authentically interpreting the word of God… has been entrusted solely to the living magisterium of the church…”

And there are many Catholic apologists who use this passage in the same way.

Speaking Like a Pope

Now, every Scripture passage has a purpose for being there.  And it almost seems that Catholics believe that this particular passage mentioned above (Acts 8:26-40) exists solely to demonstrate a “need” for an infallible magisterium and no other reason.  One would think that the eunuch’s question, “How could I, unless someone guides me?” was some sort of infallible “ex-cathedra” papal pronouncement, seeing the way Catholics tend to interpret this! 

 

Pope Philip?

But first of all, is Philip even considered part of the magisterium?  According to the Catholic Church, the infallible magisterium is confined to the popes and / or bishops of the Church, to which Philip did not belong.  Philip wasn’t an apostle or bishop and therefore not part of the “apostolic succession of bishops.”  He was simply a deacon (Acts 6:5).  So what was Philip doing interpreting Scripture for the eunuch?  Apparently, it didn’t take the magisterium to interpret here.  So this passage has nothing to do with a magisterium.  

Again, in this story, the eunuch didn’t appeal to a magisterium, and Philip never told him that one was needed, nor did the author of the book of Acts suggest that he needed an “official interpreter.”  Yet Catholics tend to focus more on, and give more weight to, the eunuch’s question rather than Philip’s message of the gospel.

The purpose of this passage was certainly not to prove that we need an “infallible magisterium” with special authority to decode the Bible for us.  That is simply reading a Catholic idea back into the text.

“But It’s Hard!”

At this point, the Catholic may say, “Well, maybe so, but it still shows that Scripture is hard to understand.” 

No, the eunuch was simply asking about the person to whom Isaiah was referring, that’s all (v. 34).  The eunuch’s question came up, not because the text itself was hard to understand, but because he simply was not yet aware of the fulfillment of the prophecy he was reading.  He had not yet been fully presented with the facts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah.  Anyone who was not from this region (like the eunuch) had no idea yet of Isaiah’s recently fulfilled prophecy (Isaiah 53:7-8).  So of course, unfulfilled prophecy that focuses on a particular person can sometimes be an issue, but this doesn’t demand an infallible interpreter, because even an infallible interpreter could not have identified the Messiah until He actually arrived.  It is also like the antichrist – we can understand many of the prophecies about him, but no one will know his actual identity until he arrives.

Limited Access

Furthermore, what the eunuch had available to him was limited.  The book of Isaiah may have been the only Bible book he had in his possession.  He didn’t have the luxury of the gospels and epistles of the New Testament which we have today.  So, this Catholic argument stressing the Ethiopian eunuch’s question cannot be used against the clarity / perspicuity of the Scriptures as a whole.

We agree that some passages are harder to understand than others.  We all need help sometimes in Bible interpretation.  We don’t deny that.  But what about the difficult passages?  Do we just give up our study of them because it’s easier to rely on a supposed infallible magisterium?  Of course not.  We continue studying, because the Bible never speaks of an infallible, independent, human teaching authority in the post-apostolic church.  It just doesn’t exist. 

Is It Even a Good Idea?

But perhaps we should question whether a single human authority / institution / magisterium to answer all questions is even a healthy idea to start with.  Not only is it not scriptural, but it is a bad idea, in general.  Why?  Because knowing the nature of man and the propensity for such a group to become proud and corrupt when given such absolute power over all questions, it may not be such a great idea, after all.  Compounding that problem would be the tendency of those asking the questions to idolize the “magisterium,” practically guaranteeing the latter’s corruption.  Furthermore, the dependence of “the laity” on this magisterium would certainly cause the laity to be less responsible in their studies, with far too much dependence on the magisterium.  That’s just the nature of man.

So, it is better to have some divisions within the church of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:19) than to have a corrupt “magisterium” with a weak and dependent “laity.”  

In Time

So, how do we handle hard Bible passages?  Remember, a necessary component of Scripture reading and understanding is our relationship with our spiritual Father.  Growth in this relationship is usually gradual and the child must be ever learning.  But it is indeed a growth process.  He won’t learn everything overnight – not even the most important lessons.  It takes time to piece it all together.  God does not demand that we know the answers to all the hard questions immediately.

Scripture Interprets Scripture

Interestingly, those claiming that Scripture is hard to understand are actually relying on the clarity of certain Scriptures (like Acts 8) to try and prove their point.  But why not use this same principle in a positive way, i.e., use the simpler and clearer teachings of the Bible as a foundation, as a basis to help us understand the more difficult passages.  Surely, God’s Word is consistent with itself, so if studied diligently, it will eventually lead to an understanding of the whole.  

And just as in an earthly parent-child relationship, the parent teaches the child by building on basics, from the simpler things to the more complex, to learn and grow in the principles of life, and then to learn to apply those to the harder things in life.  In the same way, hard-to-understand Bible passages are interpreted in the light of the more easily understood passages on the same topic.  In this way, God gradually helps us to see how the Bible message unfolds.  Remember, Scripture is called divine revelation (Romans 16:25-26) for a reason: because it is something that is intended to be revealed.  Even if it sometimes seems hidden, it is meant to be understood.

Insufficient?

Catholics claim the Bible is an “insufficient” source because some of it is misunderstood, but why is it that no one jumps to the same conclusion when people didn’t understand the things that Jesus Christ, Himself, sometimes spoke when He was here?  Would anyone dare to say that He, too, is an insufficient source?

This is a subtle attack on the role of Scripture as a sufficiently clear Rule of Faith.  It is also an attack on the ability of God to make His will known to men of all walks of life.  Sure, teachers in the church have their place, but the Protestant position has never been (or at least, should never be) that we don’t need teachers in the church.  It is that we don’t need a single infallible magisterium to answer all questions.

The Bottom Line for Catholics

After reading this wonderful story of God’s love and providence (Acts 8:26-40), where He sends a willing vessel (Philip) out of his way to miraculously meet and share the gospel with a hungry soul (the Ethiopian eunuch), opens his heart to prophecy, and gets him saved and baptized, and then sends the eunuch off rejoicing to share this same gospel message with his own people in his own land – and this message is further verified by a miracle that transports Philip away to another city called Azotus (Ashdod), some thirty miles away… and yet, after reading all of this, many Catholics can only seem to summarize this passage with the idea that Scripture is not sufficient. 

 

Really?  Does any sane person think that THAT’S what this story is all about?  This is exactly the type of thing that the scribes and Pharisees (Jesus’ enemies) would have done.  Instead of rejoicing when the man with the withered hand was healed, they got angry that Jesus worked on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11).  They worried about the ritual washing of hands, pots and pans, but rejected the commandments of God (Matthew 15:1-6; Mark 7:1-9).  They would strain out a gnat, yet swallow a camel (Matthew 23:24).  They neglected the important things while focusing on the trivial.  Catholics are doing the same thing with the Ethiopian eunuch story.  Like the Pharisees, Catholics miss the point of the passage in order to focus on something that the passage is not even teaching.  This is twisting the Scriptures.

Although this may not apply to all Catholics, but many of them seem to be more excited about weakening the authority of Scripture than they are about the eternal salvation of the eunuch, or the spread of the gospel to his people.  It’s almost as if they feel like they have an obligation to weaken the role of God-inspired Sacred Scripture at every turn. 

 

There is something seriously wrong with this picture.  It is an abuse of the simple and encouraging story of an Ethiopian eunuch, and it is an attack on Scripture, itself.

See these links for more information on Scripture and its interpretation:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/07/private-interpretation.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html

THE REMNANT PRINCIPLE

Catholics believe that their church is the “one true church” and that it always has been.  Protestants challenge that concept for many good reasons (which we will not go into here).  Catholics may respond, “But if we weren’t always the one true church, then who was the true church since the time of the apostles?  What group was there that could always claim to be following the truth?  Where were these true Christians (who were not Catholic) before the Reformation in the sixteenth century?” 

Someone answered that question this way: “Where was your face before you washed it?”  In other words, your face was there all the time, but it’s just that it got to the point of being unrecognizably dirty.  Or, it is like a ship that was once smooth, sleek, and fast-moving, but where is that ship now?  It is still there - it always remained - but is now weighed down and hopelessly encrusted with barnacles; it is now hidden, and unable to do what it was meant to do. 

 

In the same way, true believers in the early church have always been there, but through no fault of their own, their pure gospel message became gradually distorted until unrecognizable when the false teachings of Catholicism encrusted around it.  The Catholic Church, who was dominating the “church scene” before the Reformation, had, for the most part, lost the ability to recognize the simple truth of the gospel.

Ok, so who exactly were the true believers in the early church?  Catholics claim that there is no record of any group in the early church that had the fullness of truth (other than the Catholic Church, of course).  But Catholics are forgetting the “remnant principle.”  What is the remnant principle?  The following is an example of it:

The time was the ninth century B.C., during the reign of King Ahab in Israel.  The idolatry and other sins of the Jewish people abounded.  The prophet Elijah was disgusted with the Jews and their Baal worship, and he complained to God that he was the only person left who was serving God.  He truly felt all alone.  But the Lord God surprised Elijah when He told him:

“Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him. (1 Kings 19:18)

This is a biblical principle.  Throughout history God has always reserved for Himself a remnant, a group that is dedicated to serving God in the midst of an ungodly majority.  For example, Noah and his family were the remnant in the days of the great flood (Genesis 6).  And Lot and his family were the remnant during the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19).  These remnant groups not only represent the true believers in the Old Testament, but they are also a symbol of the true church in the New Testament (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-30).

 

Someone may object, “But why is there only a remnant saved?  Aren’t most people going to Heaven?”  Unfortunately, that is not the case.  Being part of the biggest church around is not a guarantee that it holds the truth.  It is not always safe being in the majority.  In fact, it can be downright dangerous!  Jesus, Himself, said:

Enter ye in at the strait [narrow] gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.  (Matthew 7:13-14)

A big church does not necessarily produce the truth.  That goes for Protestants and Orthodox, as well.  But Catholicism was never the true expression of the church because of its many false teachings.  Rather, it is something that gradually “morphed” into the monstrosity that it is today (Matthew 13:31-32).  But while this giant grew in influence (both spiritually and politically), the true church was in the background.  God knew those true believers even if the Catholic Church didn’t.

This was similar to Elijah’s situation.  God had a remnant, but they just weren’t well known.  You would think that Elijah would have known about the 7,000 believers.  After all, wasn’t he one of the greatest prophets of God in the Old Testament?  So, if the great prophet, Elijah (who was supernaturally in direct communion with God) was unaware of the existence of the “true church” in his day, it is certainly possible that the Catholic Church was unaware of the existence of true believers back in the early church. 

 

Of course, some will say that Catholics were the true believers.  No, sorry, but the Catholic Church is disqualified from the title of “true church” because of its false teachings.  Nor does it automatically get to have the title because of its size or influence.  And just because there aren’t any records of similar “big” or “influential” churches back then, that does not make the Catholic Church the true church by default.

We have to remember, the term “true church” means those who are truly saved and serving God, and are biblically faithful.  It is made up of individuals whose hearts are right with God.  It is not just referring to a particular denomination, organization, or group. 

Again, God always has a remnant of true believers, whether we know them or not.  The records we have of the early church are certainly not complete.  But it doesn’t matter if you don’t have a record of every single believing group that ever existed over the centuries.  We have a God who promised that the true church would endure (Matthew 16:18).  A lack of records does not override or negate the biblical concept of the remnant principle.  So, to say that a true remnant didn’t exist because we have no record of it is foolish, arrogant, and unbiblical.

Conclusion

Catholic Premise:

“We have always been the ONLY group to have the fullness of truth.”

Catholic Conclusion:

“Therefore, we HAVE to have been the one true church all along.  If we weren’t, then there was NO church, and the gates of Hell have prevailed (Matthew 16:18), but Jesus would not let that happen.”

But if there was always a remnant of true believers, then this Catholic premise is wrong in the first place.  So, since there was a remnant, Jesus was right – we don’t have to worry that the gates of Hell have prevailed – because the true church has always existed, even if only in the form of a remnant, at times. 

 

But Catholics will still insist that they must be the one true church, since their church has been refuting heresies for centuries.  That may be, but what good is refuting all those heresies, while still embracing today the Judaizer heresy of adding to Jesus’ work on the cross (Acts 15:1, 5), directly contradicting the nature of the atonement and the very gospel, itself?

For anyone who still thinks that the Catholic Church should be considered the “one true church,” please feel free to read the articles on this blog, which we believe refute this idea and demonstrate the unbiblical nature of many of the Catholic Church’s teachings.