3

One argument in favor of Catholicism that I see as particularly convincing is that Catholics have done the best job of fulfilling the great commission. This is born out in the fact that Catholics have over a billion members worldwide, larger than any other Christian group.

Matthew 28:19-20:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (NIV)

Since Catholic's have done the best job fulfilling Christ's command, doesn't this mean they are closest to Christ's teaching and thusly the true Church?

10
  • I think this question would benefit from getting a bit more specific and giving a few more details. What exactly is the link between having more (nominal) members, and being closest to Christ's teachings in general? Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 18:14
  • The argument seems problematic. So Oriental Orthodoxy (65 M) is significantly further from Christ's teaching than Eastern Orthodoxy (220 M)? But Protestantism (1 B) is significantly closer to Christ's teaching than Orthodoxy? We can just read off current membership numbers and infer how close to Christ's teaching a denomination is? Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 18:17
  • 1
    @OneGodtheFather I would firstly point out that "Protestantism" is not one Church like the Catholics, but rather a heavily divided tradition with significant splits and a great number of different churches. Secondly, I should clarify that this is a very heavy evidential chip (not necessarily proof).
    – Luke Hill
    Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 18:36
  • Maybe your argument can be made even stronger by asserting how the Catholic church is the majority denomination in every generation for the past 2000 years. Of course we need to check the numbers whether it is still true after the Eastern orthodox split. Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 19:08
  • @GratefulDisciple It would make it stronger, but even just the fact of it's truth today (or maybe from say 1600 AD) makes it still a strong argument.
    – Luke Hill
    Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 19:14

3 Answers 3

2

Since Catholic's have done the best job fulfilling Christ's command, doesn't this mean they are closest to Christ's teaching and thusly the true Church?

More formally, the argument in the OP can be reworded as follows:

  • P1: Catholics have done the best job fulfilling Christ's command
  • C1: Therefore, Catholics are closest to Christ's teaching (from P1)
  • C2: Therefore, Catholics are the true Church (from P1 and C1)

I see at least two ways to defeat this argument.

Option 1: defeat P1

You could argue that there is no compelling reason to accept premise 1. For example, high quantity of conversions does not guarantee high quality of conversions. Even demons believe and tremble. Getting lots of people to accept religious beliefs does not logically entail getting lots of people to become true disciples of Christ. In order to accept premise 1, you would need to show that Catholicism produces more true disciples of Christ (not just mere believers) than other denominations. Since the OP didn't offer compelling arguments to make this case, I see no reason to accept P1.

Option 2: show that C1 and C2 do not follow from P1

If we concede premise 1, it doesn't follow that true disciples of Christ are not being produced by other denominations as well. Perhaps other denominations are producing true disciples of Christ too, albeit in smaller numbers. Those true disciples of Christ would be part of the true Church, and therefore, this would contradict the conclusion that Catholics are the true Church (if we interpret are as denoting identity (A = B)).

A more defensible conclusion that could be drawn from P1 would be that Catholics are statistically more likely to be part of the true Church, leaving room for the possibility that other true disciples of Christ can be found outside of Catholicism.

Now, in order to show that Catholics are the true Church (in the sense of identity), you need to show that a person is part of the true Church if and only if they are a Catholic, but then I fail to see how this conclusion could possibly follow from P1. You would need a stronger set of premises (and stronger arguments for said premises) to derive this conclusion.

10
  • I like the philosophical perspective this takes. I’m not sure if I totally agree with the way you converted my argument to a syllogism, but its a good argument none the less.
    – Luke Hill
    Commented Aug 24, 2022 at 0:04
  • @LukeHill - it would probably help if you presented the argument in a more formal way. Are you making a deductive, inductive or abductive argument?
    – user50422
    Commented Aug 24, 2022 at 0:31
  • it’s a probabilistic argument, so more inductive
    – Luke Hill
    Commented Aug 24, 2022 at 1:06
  • @LukeHill - Oh, but then an inductive argument can be defeated by showing that at least one counter-example exists. Concretely, in order to show that the Catholic Church is not the true Church, it would suffice to find at least one true disciple of Christ who is not a Catholic. Do you believe that there is at least one true disciple of Christ outside the Catholic Church? Do you believe that genuine Eastern Orthodox saints have existed, for example?
    – user50422
    Commented Aug 24, 2022 at 2:47
  • 2
    @SRI - Quality, not quantity is one important point you make +1. Of greater importance is what does it mean to be a disciple of Christ? Is it sufficient to be baptised as an infant, to go to church now and again, and self-identify as a Christian? How many Christians obey Christ and follow His commandments, sacrificing self to serve Him? How many Christians share the gospel message with family, friends, neighbours and in the work-place? How many can say they were instrumental in bringing someone else to saving faith in Christ Jesus? Or do they just sit in church and expect the priest to do it?
    – Lesley
    Commented Aug 24, 2022 at 10:17
1

OP: "Since Catholic's have done the best job fulfilling Christ's command, doesn't this mean they are closest to Christ's teaching and thusly the true Church?"

The problem to be solved is proving that today's Catholic Church is identical, in faith and practice, with the church in Rome, or Ephesus, or Acts. It is very simple to say its doctrines have changed over the centuries. For example, the Marian dogmas are defined very late, yet are considered de fide, which is something the church at Rome that tried to "teach the same" per Jude wouldn't recognize.

In other words, the question or assertion is a non-starter.

Besides, if majority means right, why did Elijah solely come against the 450 prophets of Baal?

So, "the Catholic's" whoever that might be over the last 2,000 years have no claim per se in fulfilling the great commission or are closest to Christ's teaching or are the true Church. Prove that for 2,000 years nothing has been added to or subtracted from that faith once delivered.

Having said that, who has contended for said faith over 2,000 years?

3
  • "Besides, if majority means right, why did Elijah solely come against the 450 prophets of Baal?" This is a straw man. I never said that majority necessarily makes right, only that Catholics have (objectively) fulfilled the great commission to a greater extent than any other Christian group.
    – Luke Hill
    Commented Aug 26, 2022 at 0:33
  • @LukeHill You closed with this: "Since Catholic's have done the best job fulfilling Christ's command, doesn't this mean they are closest to Christ's teaching and thusly the true Church?" It's a question to which Elijah would answer nope. And again, you have to show that today's Catholic Church is identical to the church at Rome when for example Sixtus I was in charge. And again, size isn't a proof of anything. But you did pose it as a question. The answer is no.
    – SLM
    Commented Aug 27, 2022 at 22:35
  • size is proof that they fulfilled the great commission, no?
    – Luke Hill
    Commented Aug 28, 2022 at 17:45
0

Most translations of Matthew 28:19 begin with

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them …

What "of" means here is ambiguous:

  • all people from all nations should be baptized. (Proselytize)
  • a few people from each nation should be baptized. (Evangelize)

It is often assumed to have the first meaning, a mission to convert the entire world.

But if that is the case, why has the commission failed so badly? After 2000 years, most of the world still rejects Jesus's message.

Instead, Matthew 28:19 could mean to spread the word as far as possible, accepting those few converts that God calls to serve as examples throughout the world, even though the vast majority of the world will remain unconverted.

Consider the parallel passages:

And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
— Mark 16:15

… repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
— Luke 24:47

“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
— Acts 1:8

They say "preach the gospel to every creature", "preached in His name to all nations", "be witnesses to Me … to the end of the earth".

These all confirm the idea of bearing witness and preaching the gospel throughout the world. But they do not state, or even imply, that the whole world will believe and become converted Christians.

The idea of "the Great Commission" to convert the world to Christianity is an extra-biblical concept.

The Bible instead teaches that until Jesus returns, the number of true Christian converts will be very small; it is Satan's false version of Christianity that will dominate.

Jesus predicted that at the time of the end, just before his return, Christians would be a persecuted minority:

… they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. — Matthew 24:9

But before it is silenced, the true Church will spread the message to the world:

… this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Consider the "two witnesses":

Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.
— Revelation 11:9–10

It is only with the advent of radio that a massive blanketing of the world with the Gospel has become possible. And only with the advent of the internet that the whole world can observe the events happening in the streets of Jerusalem.

If there is a "Great Commission", it is to make the world aware of the gospel, so that when the end arrives people will recognize that what they had heard wasn't simply nonsense, and they will turn to God.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .