The nature and unity of the Church
For the Roman Catholic, the Church consists in relationship with the Apostolic See (the Papacy). The Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism identifies " the successors of the bishops with Peter's successor at their head" as "this one and only Church of God" The document seeks to avoid charging those who were born into those communions with what they call "the sin of separation" but the implication certainly is that those who originally separated were guilty of sin. We read,
"In this one and only Church of God from its very beginning there arose certain rifts which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communions became separated from the full communion with the Catholic Church."
So were the Reformers guilty of sin? Were they separating from the one true church? At a time when some in mainline Protestant denominations are beginning to suggest that the Reformation was a mistake we are brought face to face with the question about what the Church is and in what way it's unity should be promoted. The fact is that if the Church is to defined as being in relationship to the See of Rome then the Reformers left the true church and did commit sin. So did they leave the one true Church?
In order to answer this question we must ask what a true Church is. Thoelogians have listed four attributes of the Church which are the things that characterise the true Church. We want to see if those characteristics are seen in the Church of Rome and if they are fouund in the Churches of the Reformation.
(a) The Church is One
(b) The Church is holy
(c) The Church is Apostolic
(d) The Church is Catholic.

I The Unity of the Church
In each of these attributes there are differences in the Roman Catholic and Protestant conceptions of the nature of the Church which help to explain how the reformers justified their position.
The first attribute of the Church, as defined by most theologians is it's unity. Louis Berkhof says of the Roman Catholic view of the unity of the Church.

"Roman Catholics ordinarily recognise only the hierarchically organised ecclesia as the church. The unity of the Church manifests itself in its imposing world-wide organisation, which aims at including the Church of all nations. "
This to the Roman Catholic constitutes the one and only Church. Even today that is still the position. In their "Pastoral Statement for Catholics on Biblical Fundamentalism" issued, 25 March 1987, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Ad Hoc Committee on Biblical Fundamentalism in the United States criticised evangelical Christianity (which it called" biblical fundamentalism") primarily because it took people away from the one true Church:
Protestants on the other hand assert that the unity of the Church is not primarily of an external, but an internal and spiritual character. It is the unity of the mystical body of Jesus Christ of which all believers are members. This body is controlled by one Head, Jesus Christ, who is also the King of the Church, and is animated by one Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. A.A. Hodge writing on the Westminster Confession's teaching says that the Confession teaches,
That there is a collective body, comprising all the elect of God of all nations and generations, called the Church invisible
The invisible Church consists of all the elect of God in all ages. It is the Church of the Redeemed in all ages and places. The Church is not some great external organisation but it is the people of God He goes on to give two reasons why the Church is called invisible. Firstly because the manifestations of it at any time or place are immeasurably small compared with the full complement of saints in all nations and generations and secondly because even in the sections of it which are visible the outlines are very uncertain. Many who appear to be parts of it do not really belong, and many really do belong to it but their union with it is not manifest
Both Luther and Calvin were eager to affirm the invisible aspect of the Church over against the Roman Catholic teaching that the Church was one visible organisation that had descended from the apostles in an unbroken line of succession. They said that the outward organisation of the Roman Catholic Church was just a shell. Calvin argued that just as Ciaphas (the high priest at the time of Christ) was descended from Aaron but was no true priest, so the Roman Catholic bishops had descended from the apostles in a line of succession but they were not true bishops in Christ's Church. Because they had departed from the true preaching of the gospel their Church was not the true Church. Calvin said

"This pretence of succession is vain if posterity do not retain the truth of Christ which was handed down to them by their fathers, safe and uncorrupted, and continue in it."
Calvin compared what he called the "external masks" of Roman Catholicism with the way the Jews in the time of Jeremiah proudly spoke of the temple ceremonies, Jeremiah said to them,
"Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, [are] these."
In other words he was telling them not to trust in the externals. . The Church does not simply consist in the externals of organisation. Therefore, when the reformers were separated from the external organisation they were not being separated from the Church of Christ.
But while we assert the invisible church, there can also be no doubt about the fact that the Bible asserts the unity not only of the invisible but of the visible Church, the Church as we see it on earth. There ought to be a unity among God's people. Those who are saved by the grace of God ought to have a love and a concern for one another. The figure of the body as it is found in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, implies this unity. The Church is pictured as the body and the members are different parts of the body. To work properlly all the members should function together.
We also see that where Paul stresses the unity of the Church in Ephesians 4: 4-16 .4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism,One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. When the Reformers broke with Rome, they did not deny the unity of the visible Church but maintained it. However they did not find the bond of union in the ecclesiastical organisation of the Church but in the true preaching of the Word. The true Church is not found in some outward organisation no matter how old it is. The true Church is found among the people of God and while they are commanded to band themselves together in an outward Church and while they should belong to the outward body of the Church yet the Church consists of the elect. Membership on the Church roll does not make you a Christian. Even in the best Churches where they seek to maintain a born again Communicant membership, like our own there may be those who will profess to be saved and admitted in as members and not really be regenerated by the power of God. Being a member of an outward organisation even the Church guarantees you nothing you need the washing of regeneration in the Blood of Jesus.

We must say, therefore that as God sees it the visible Church of God as well as the invisible consists of those who are united to the Head in vital union by virtue of the redemption of Christ. The Church is not any earthly organisation, the element of organisation is involved as part of the command of God but it is the elect of God who are the body of Christ. So neither the Roman Catholic Church nor any Church can identify itself exclusively as being the Church of Christ. But the point we are trying to make about the Reformers is this. They did not leave the true Church of God when they left the external organsation of Rome. Which at that time had become an organisation of corruption

II The Church is holy
The second attribute which Theologains list as belonging to the Church is that of purity, or holiness. Once again the Romanist conception of the holiness of the Church is primarily of an external character. It is not the inner holiness of the members of the Church through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, but the outer ceremonial holiness that is placed in the foreground.
Protestants however maintain that the Church is absolutely holy in an objective sense. In other words she is holy as she is considered in Jesus Christ and on account of His mediatorial righteousness. But Protestants also view the Church as being holy in the relative sense in the inner principle of her life and the fact that she is destined for perfect holiness. Thus the Church is truly a communion of saints. This holiness is first of all a holiness of the inner man but this also finds expression in the outer life. Because of that, holiness is something that should be true in the visible church. The Church should show it's purity in the sense firstly of being separated from the world and separated to God but also in the ethical sense of aiming at and achieving a principle of holy conversation. We admit that the holiness of the Church will not be perfect on this earth. Calvin said,
:.. its holiness is not yet perfect. Such then, is the holiness of the Church: it makes daily progress, but is not yet perfect"
There will always be faults, to a greater or lesser extent, so that we will have to make a judgement about how much impurity disqualifies a Church from being true. It was the contention of the Reformers however, that the history of papacy with it's immorality and vileness was such that it showed Roman Catholicism to be no true Church. Lorraine Boettner says,

The admonition of Scripture is: 'By their fruits ye shall know them.' Surely the fruits of Romanism as they have been manifested throughout history and in various parts of the world are sufficient to disprove its arrogant claim that it is 'the only true church.'
The Papacy does not exhibit the purity which would make it a true Church. Lorraine Boettner sums it up when he says,

She applies to herself the term 'holy', but the fact is that through the ages and in her official capacity the Roman Church has been guilty of the most atrocious crimes practised in the name of religion,
We think of the martyr fires. We think of the inquisition and how hundreds of people were tortured for their faith. There is no holiness in that. Rome calls herself the holy apostolic Catholic Church but when the reformers left there certainly was not very much holy about it. Some of the Popes have been among the most heinous monsters that ever lived

III The Church is Apostolic
The third attribute of the Church is that the Church is Apostolic. Once again we will compare the Roman Catholic conception of this with the Protestant conception. In Roman Catholicism affirmations of apostolicity are intertwined with notions of apostolic succession. In the official Irish Roman Catholic "A Catechism of Catholic doctrine" question 146 it asks "How is the Catholic Church apostolic?" and the answer is given,

The Catholic Church is apostolic because it traces back its origin to the apostles, is governed by their successors and teaches their doctrine.
They say that the Church is Apostolic because the Pope is a successor of Peter and because the church can trace it's origin to the apostles.
For the Reformers apostolicity consisted in continuity with the doctrines and principles of the apostolic Church. Indeed in Jude 4 it was this doctrine that had been delivered to them by the apostles that they were told to contend for,
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Ed. Clowney said " The church is apostolic because it is founded on apostolic teaching" Indeed the apostle Paul himself said,
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
It is obvious then that the doctrine and not the office is the paramount thing. Even if one of the original apostles was to preach error they were to be accursed. The Westminster Confession of Faith mentions as the only thing that is indispensable to the being of the Church as being the profession of true religion.
At the Reformation a crucial question came up: how can we recognise a true Church? Is the Roman Catholic Church a true Church or not? In order to answer that question people had to decide what were the marks of a true Church."
Berkhof summarises the marks of a true Church as being three. True preaching of the Word, right administration of the sacraments and faithfulness in exercising discipline. If the mark of an apostolic Church is showing the marks of apostolic teaching and practice then the Roman Catholic Church falls down in at least the first two marks of a true Church.
The first mark of a Church is the true preaching of the Word. This is what Berkhof calls "the most important mark of the Church" That this is one of the characteristics of a true Church is evident from such Scriptures as John 8: 31, 32, 47; 14:23: 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 9. He says that,
"Ascribing this mark to the Church does not mean that the preaching of the Word in a Church must be perfect before it can be regarded as a true Church. Such an ideal is unattainable on earth; only relative purity of doctrine can be ascribed to any Church on earth."
In some cases then we might have difficulty determining how much wrong doctrine can be tolerated before a Church can no longer considered a true Church. How far from apostolic doctrine must it go before it is no longer apostolic? Calvin after saying that "trivial errors in the ministry ought not to make us regard it as illegitimate" says this,
"But as soon as falsehood has forced it's way into the citadel of religion, as soon as the sum of necessary doctrine is inverted, and the use of the sacraments is destroyed, the death of the Church undoubtedly ensues."
He goes on,
"..it is certain there is no Church where lying and falsehood have usurped the ascendancy. Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives. ."
Space would not allow us prove the lying and falsehood that Calvin alleges here. Suffice it to say that if you agree with Calvin's assessment, then Roman Catholicism has left apostolic doctrine and is no longer a true Church.
The second mark of a true Church as listed by Berkhof and one which follows apostolic doctrine is the mark of right administration of the sacraments.
H. M. Carson summarises Rome's sacramental approach. He says
"In other words it (the sacrament)is not simply a sign which declares a spiritual message, it actually affects something in the person to whom it is administered.
Thus sacraments are said to work ex opere operato; that is by virtue of the performance of the act."
Thus what matters is that the sacrament is validly performed not the belief of the recipient. Grace is conveyed simply because the sacrament is made. He goes on,

"But this surely is to reduce the sacraments - even the sacraments of the gospel which Protestants believe are the only ones entitled to that status, namely, Baptism and the Lord's supper- to the level of magical incantation"
Berkhof agrees and says that the sacraments should never be divorced from the Word. Then he says,

A denial of the central truths of the gospel will naturally affect the proper administration of the sacraments; and the Church of Rome certainly departs from the right mode , when it divorces the sacraments from the Word, ascribing to them a sort of magical efficacy
On both counts of the pure preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments according to Christ's institution the Church of Rome falls down. It has thus departed from apostolic teaching and by Paul's criterion in Galatians 1: 8 cannot be described as apostolic. Lorraine Boettner says,

But again she has no right to call herself apostolic, since she bears so little resemblance to that church, more than half of her present doctrines and practices being unknown to the apostolic Church.
IV The Church is Catholic
The fourth attribute of the Church as listed by Theologians is that the Church is Catholic. Although Vatican II has begun to speak of "separated brethren" to Roman Catholics, catholicity is often equated with institutional unity with Rome. Berkhof says that, "The attribute of catholicity is appropriated by the Roman Catholic Church, as if it only has the right to be called Catholic."Roman Catholicism claims the right to be considered as the one really catholic Church, because she is spread over the whole earth and adapts herself to all countries and to all forms of government; because she has existed from the beginning is in possession of the fullness of truth and grace and because she surpasses in number of members all dissenting sects taken together.
Protestants, however once again apply this attribute primarily to the invisible Church. This invisible Church can be called Catholic in a far truer sense than any one of the existing organisations, not even the Church of Rome excepted. Protestants have justly resented the arrogance of Roman Catholics in appropriating this attribute. In his "Protestant Catechism" Dean Richard P. Blakeney asks in question 25 "Should we apply the term" catholic" to the Church of Rome? The answer given is

No; for at no time has that Church ever been more than a part of the professed Christian Church, and latterly a corrupt and apostate part."
All those who believe in Christ as Saviour, regardless of denomination, are in fact members of the Christian catholic church. Lorraine Boettner says,

"Evangelical Protestants are the truest 'Catholics' for they base their faith on the New Testament as did the early Christians. The Roman Church has added many doctrines that are not found in the New Testament, and anyone who accepts those becomes to that extent a Roman Catholic"
Since the Word Catholic means universal the true Christian Catholic Church must include all true believers, all who belong to the mystical and spiritual body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23). The Roman Church is after all, a local Church with headquarters in the Vatican in Rome and is limited to those who acknowledge the authority of the pope. The Roman Church has cut herself with something around half of Christendom. And geographically she fails utterly to prove her claims to universality. Even in nominally Roman Catholic countries such as Italy, France Spain and Latin America, Rome today probably does not have effective control of fifteen per cent of the people. In any event the Roman Church is clearly not universal.
We should say that Protestants do also ascribe the attribute of catholicity to the visible Church.
Charles Hodge speaking of the unity of Protestant Churches said,
These separate Churches remain one: (1) because they continue to be subject to the same Lord, to be animated by the same spirit, and to possess the same faith (2) because they recognise each other as Churches, just as every Christian recognises every other Christian as a fellow believer, and consequently recognise each other's members, ordinances and acts of discipline; (3) they continue one body because they are subject to one common tribunal. The tribunal at first was the apostles, now the Bible and the mind of the church as a whole, expressed sometimes in one way and sometimes in another.
The testimony of Emmett McLoughlin, who was formerly a priest wrote in his best seller book "The People's Padre"
To me the differences among Protestants though doctrinal are superficial and non-essential Their unity is greater than their divergency..."
So although Berkhof would say that "It is not easy to point out with precision where this one catholic visible Church is" yet it is also true that there does exist a remarkable unity among denominations which preach the true gospel.
So we come now to answer the question posed at the beginning. Did the Reformers separate from the one true Church at the Reformation? Well, we looked at the unity of the Church and we saw how the Church does not consist in any external organisation but there is an invisible as well as a visible Church but both properly speaking consist of the elect. The Church is not some earthly organisation and so when the Reformers were separated from the Roman Church they were not separated from the Church of Christ. Secondly we looked at the holiness of the Church. We saw that the Roman Church in latter times has not displayed that purity. We admitted that there are no perfect Churches on earth but that the imperfections of Rome in the past have been so serious as to call her purity into serious question. Thirdly we looked at the apostolic nature of the Church. This has been Rome's great claim to be the true Church. She has called herself the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church but we saw how Paul indicates that doctrine is more important and as we looked at the doctrines of Rome we found that half of her present doctrines were unknown to the apostles. Fourthly, we looked at the Catholicism of the Church and we found that once again Catholicism does not consist in the outward organisation but in belonging to the invisible Church of God. So did the Reformers leave the one true Church? No, they didn't They left what John Calvin graphically called in his day a foul harlot rather than the spouse of Christ. Those who would see the Reformation as a mistake are themselves mistaken.

Go back to homepage

Go Back to Controverisal Issues