Does Anyone Have the Whole Truth?
A common phrase among Protestants is, “Well, all the denominations have something wrong in their doctrines, but God is working through all of them.” But this seems to be at odds with Jesus’ promise to send the Holy Spirit, which will lead the early Christians into “all truth.” Jesus said,
12 “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
John 16:12-13
This means that one of the marks of the true Church would be that it has “all the truth” necessary to identify all that Christianity teaches. If our protestant friend is correct, that all denominations have an error somewhere in their doctrinal commitments, then this would leave us with three possible interpretations of this passage:
That the Holy Spirit would only lead the apostles into all truth, and after they died, the promise ceased.
That the Holy Spirit would lead individuals into all truth, since denominations are in error.
That the Holy Spirit failed to fulfill its nature as the “Spirit of Truth,” and allowed the Church to err.
Either that, or the Holy Spirit has never failed, and he continues to guide the Church, which St. Paul calls the “foundation and the pillar of the truth.”
Does this passage only apply to the apostles?
This fails for a major reason, and that is, you have to pinpoint when the Church stopped following the Holy Spirit’s guidance. In other words, at what point did they stop listening to the Holy Spirit, or at what point did the Holy Spirit stop guiding them?
For example, all Christians agree that the Old and New Testament writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But not all Christians agree on what books are or are not inspired. Protestants have 66, Catholics have 73, and depending on how you define it, the Orthodox have 76-78.
Unfortunately, we don’t have a definitive declaration from one of the apostles that these are the books you should have in the Old or New Testament, and these are the books you should not. There are plenty of Catholic/Protestant debates on this topic. A good debate on this is Trent Horn vs Gavin Ortlund on Sola Scriptura.
But what about doctrines like the Trinity and the Incarnation?
Are these doctrines and their formulation optional? Meaning, can we say two churches teach sound doctrine if one says that the Trinity is defined as three persons, one God, while another says that it’s defined as God operating in three different modes? What about a Church that says the Trinity has three parts, but one essence? If they all use the word Trinity, is that enough to say they have the truth?
Another question is baptism. If you get sprinkled with water, have you been baptized? Does baptism have any spiritual effect? Some denominations say that baptism cleanses us from original sin; others say you’re only getting wet. Which of these doctrines has the Holy Spirit as its guide?
Some will say, “But we can derive it from scripture.” Which is true, but this is highly unlikely even with our modern Biblical study methods and tools. Furthermore, it’s not enough for someone who knows the doctrine of the Trinity to go back through and derive the teaching. There was a point in history when the doctrine had not been defined, and competing theological theories were being put forward.
This is really the important question. It’s not merely a question of “can you derive this from scripture,” but can you successfully define, define, and establish it as a doctrine for all Christians for the next 1600 years? That is a much bigger task. One that you could not accomplish without the Holy Spirit.
The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were established and developed, not by the apostles, but by Church fathers like Athanasius. The doctrine of the Trinity was not solidified until 325 A.D., and the development of the Incarnation, Christ having a human and a divine nature, would not be established until the year 451 A.D. at the Council of Chalcedon.
Is this the beginning of the error? It’s unlikely, since even many Anti-Catholic apologists will condemn liberal and relativistic Protestants who claim that these doctrines are optional. Furthermore, if you think that these doctrines are not essential to the Christian faith, then even groups like Mormons must be considered to be legitimate Christians in some sense.
So it seems unlikely that the Holy Spirit was only promised to guide the apostles, and not necessarily to guide the Church.
Does the Holy Spirit only lead individuals?
Maybe it’s the case that the Holy Spirit continues to lead a few elect individuals into all truth. This seems extremely unlikely. If true, two questions immediately arise:
Who are these people?
How do we know they actually have the truth?
Obviously, God leads people into truth. Protestants that are “Catholic-friendly” but theologically relativistic, will tend to emphasize that the Holy Spirit is leading the individuals, not any single institution. They want to presume that “God is leading all the churches into truth” because they “see God moving in those communities.”
This is more of a bottom-up approach. Since God is leading the individual or individuals within a group, especially those Christians who are laymen and not public representatives of the denomination, this means that God is “leading that church” into all truth.
In one sense, we can say that God is leading the individuals into all truth since that is the individual is the origin of submission to any institution. As a former Protestant, I can assure you that God is moving outside the walls of the Church. However, one does not have to accept that just because God is working in the midst of these communities, it does not mean they are all equally valid in their teachings.
There is an Old Testament story that highlights this idea.
Naaman’s story is found in the second Book of Kings. His story demonstrates that God will even do miracles and blessings for those outside the Israelite covenant. Naaman is described as a Syrian commander in the Old Testament who is “Highly esteemed and respected by his master…”
Naaman, the army commander of the king of Aram, was highly esteemed and respected by his master, for through him the Lord had brought victory to Aram. But valiant as he was, the man was a leper.
2 Kgs. 5:1 (NABRE)
But notice that the reason for this high esteem is that the “Lord had brought victory to Aram…” These victories include victories over Israel. We know this because in the next few verses, we learn that Naaman has captured a young Israelite girl and made her his wife’s servant.
Now the Arameans had captured from the land of Israel in a raid a little girl, who became the servant of Naaman’s wife. 3 She said to her mistress, “If only my master would present himself to the prophet in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.”
2 Kgs. 5:2-3
Are we supposed to presume that Israel and the pagans of Aram/Syria are both valid religions because God is blessing individuals in both of them? Or should we presume that even though the Syrians are further away from the truth than the Israelites, they are still, “basically” on the same page? No.
Even Naaman recognizes that his own people’s religion is no longer an option when he acknowledges that he must go back to Syria and live as a believer in the God of Israel, but do so among his pagan people and their practices.
The text tells us that Naaman promises no longer to make burnt offerings to his false gods, but he tells Elisha that he, Naaman, will be required to accompany the King in their nation’s pagan religious practices.
“Now I know that there is no God in all the earth, except in Israel. Please accept a gift from your servant…your servant will no longer make burnt offerings or sacrifices to any other god except the Lord. 18 But may the Lord forgive your servant this: when my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down there, as he leans upon my arm, I too must bow down in the temple of Rimmon. When I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord please forgive your servant this.” Elisha said to him, “Go in peace.”
2 Kgs. 5:15, 17-19
Naaman comes to realize, through Elisha, that Israel’s God is the one true God, but we must recognize that Naaman was already being blessed prior to ever meeting Elisha. Does this mean that, in some sense, the Syrian religion has some validity to it, even if it is not as valid as Israel’s religion? No.
God’s blessing falls on both the godly and the ungodly. This means that God’s blessing is not sufficient by itself to determine how valid or invalid a religion is. It also doesn’t mean that there are no Godly people in other religions. How much better would the world look if modern American Christians, regardless of tradition, took the scriptures as seriously as Muslims take the call to prayer?
While it’s true that we can learn from each other in terms of virtue or piety, this fact does not mean that we can learn from each other in terms of dogmas and morals. These must come from the Holy Spirit.
The fact that God is working in both Protestant and Catholic communities is irrelevant to the question of who the Holy Spirit is leading into all truth.
If a community has all the truth about Christianity, then it simply follows that other groups could have some of the truth, but not all of the truth. But if we act like everyone gets a slice of the “doctrinal pie”, some get big slices, others small ones, but in the end, no one has the whole pie, then Christianity will become sterile. As one Cardinal said, “People die for the truth, not for ambiguity.”
Did the Holy Spirit fail to lead the Church into all truth?
Since the Holy Spirit is God, and God cannot fail, then it follows that this last statement is obviously false. That leaves us with the question, “Who or what is God leading into all truth?”
When Jesus was walking around the earth, the Old Testament prophet Isaiah foretold that the Messiah would be a normal-looking man.
He had no majestic bearing to catch our eye,
no beauty to draw us to him.
He was spurned and avoided by men,
a man of suffering, knowing pain,
Like one from whom you turn your face,
spurned, and we held him in no esteem.Isa. 53:2-3
Sometimes Christians read the Gospels with a bit of “chronological snobbery” — the idea that you’re smarter than previous generations by virtue of the time in which you live. We take for granted that we probably would not have been followers of Christ during those 33 years of his life on earth.
“How did these guys not accept Jesus as the Messiah? I mean, look at all that he was doing!”, we say. “I mean, he healed a blind man, dude!”
Who needs humility when you have pride like that!
In fact, Jesus was often selective about whom he revealed himself to. Yes, sometimes this would happen in the form of miracles. After his resurrection, he made some appearances to people in extraordinary ways. For example, after His Resurrection, he appears to a few hundred people.
This is hardly an undeniable display of divinity when you consider 99% of the world was going to come to believe in Christ through his disciples’ witness and teachings, not Christ’s appearances.
When you compare Christ’s appearances to post-apostolic Marian apparitions and many Protestants still refuse to be Catholic, it becomes very clear that most of us would have downplayed Jesus’ miracles the same way Protestants downplay the miraculous uniqueness of Catholic teachings. You might say, “Daniel, what are you talking about?”
Consider the fact that some Marian Apparitions have over 70,000 witnesses to Mary’s miracles and miraculous appearances. In the Apparition of Fatima, there were many non-Catholics and non-Christians present who later converted. Even the Newspapers covered the story. Its evidence is so extraordinary that atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman will deploy the evidence for apparitions to reveal the bias of Protestants who claim to “follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
One prominent scholar received this tactic in a debate on the Resurrection of Jesus, and when the evidence for Marian Apparitions was deployed, the Protestant said something to the effect of, “My Protestant theological framework does not permit me to accept such things.”
The reality is that most of us would probably have looked at Jesus the same way many of us look at the founders of Islam and Mormonism, or the way Protestants look at Eucharistic miracles or Marian Apparitions.
We would be skeptical, even with the miracles. Then, the moment Jesus said to eat his body and drink his blood, we would exclaim, “See, he is crazy! Did you hear what he said? He told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood!”
For others, we might see a miracle, and it still might not be enough to convince us. We might echo the prayer of the unbeliever, “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.” The reality is that reason alone can’t get you the doctrines of Christianity. As we have seen, the Holy Spirit is a necessary factor in determining what is or is not doctrine. This is most starkly seen in Jesus exhortation to Peter in the Gospel of Matthew,
[Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
Mt. 16:16-17
It is clear that, while God may move within our various denominations, it does not mean that he is moving within our doctrines. Case in point, God frequently blesses pagans precisely because he wants them to leave their communities in order that they might be united to the true community (e.g., Rahab). This is why the Church that is being guided into all truth must be visible.
If we say, “Well, the invisible church is really what we are all a part of,” we run into the question, “How do I know that I’m a part of the invisible Church?”
Presume for a moment that it is no longer debatable that Jesus really meant what he said in John 6:53, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.” Grant, for the sake of argument, that this means it is undeniably true that you must receive the body and blood of Jesus sacramentally in the Eucharist to be raised on the last day.
What would this mean for churches that deny this teaching? What would it mean for churches that not only deny the teaching but preach actively against it and claim that those practicing such things are committing grave sins? Can one say that such institutions are still united to the invisible Church in the way that the members of the Trinity are united to each other? Can we even say that these churches are part of the invisible church, or would we have to admit that they are actually opposed to the invisible Church by virtue of their opposition to the teachings of the visible one?
Recap
The leading of the Holy Spirit into all truth does not only apply to the apostles. If it did, then we would have to grant that our post-apostolic doctrines, like the Trinity and Incarnation, should always be questioned. Instead of following the Church, we would just follow the smartest theologian. In fact, this is precisely what the prominent Protestant philosopher and theologian, William L. Craig, has done on the issue of whether Christ had one will or two. He suggests that we must reject the councils on this matter because he thinks his interpretation is more sound than the last 1400 years of Christian councils and theologians.
The issue is that scripture says the church is the foundation of the truth, not individual academics. Just as Israel had been the medium through which God would save the world, so the Church is the New Israel that will bring men to the fullness of truth. If the Church is going to accomplish its mission as the foundation of truth, especially with fallible men, it will be necessary for it to have the Holy Spirit as its guide into all truth.
We also addressed the idea that the Holy Spirit leads individuals. This is true, but it doesn’t mean that individuals are “led into all truth” while the institutions are left to flounder in error. If this were the case, then only the most brilliant would have confidence in the truth. But just as Christ is an advocate to the Father for our salvation, so the Church is an advocate to Christ on behalf of our understanding. There were plenty of people in Israel who were not part of the priestly class, and definitely didn’t understand everything about the Covenant. But by virtue of their obedience to the covenant, they were beneficiaries of it.
Finally, we addressed the question: Did the Holy Spirit fail to lead any of the churches into all truth? This is wrong philosophically because God cannot fail something that he sets out to do, especially when that “something” is to make the truth known. But it’s also just wrong theologically.
If no church has “all the truth,” then it would follow that the Holy Spirit failed, and the gates of hell would have prevailed against the church. This would also implicate Jesus’ promise that the church would not fail. But no serious Christian is willing to accept this conclusion.
But if one remains in their belief that there is no single church that has the fullness of Christianity, or the authority to teach as Christ taught, then it would follow that Christianity is nothing more than a kind of theistic agnosticism. We feel pretty confident about some of the things we believe, but the only thing we’re really sure about is that we can’t know what is and is not Christianity. Again, John 6:53 is a great example of this.
In short, someone has to have the Keys to the Kingdom. Those keys were either lost in the early years of the church, those keys were duplicated among a very select few individuals, or God actually entrusted those keys to fallible men, and when their grip began to slip, the Holy Spirit would reinforce their grip upon them.