The Early Church Was the Catholic Church : The Catholic Witness of the Fathers in Christianity's First Two Centuries

by Joe Heschmeyer

When it comes to the history of Christianity, the Catholic Church makes a pretty bold claim: that the earliest Christians were Catholics—and that their beliefs and practices have continued unbroken all the way to the present-day Church.

But the Last Supper was a long time ago, and for hundreds of years Protestants have been attacking Catholic claims about Christianity’s historic origins, traditions, and practices. They prefer to believe that the earliest, “purest” Church had much more in common with their own congregations and doctrines.

So, how can you be sure the Catholic Church has it right?

You’ll get your answer from Joe Heschmeyer (Pope Peter, A Man Called Joseph), who deftly joins the Catholic past and present in The Early Church Was the Catholic Church. Focusing on the first two centuries (before any Roman “apostasy” is said to have taken place) and on bedrock principles of Christian belief, authority, and worship, Heschmeyer digs deep into the words and actions of those who lived right after the apostles to refute anti-Catholic claims of how the Faith was practiced “back then.”

Early Christianity is not some mist-enshrouded island of the distant past that was waiting for the Protestant Reformers to rediscover it. No, it’s recognizable and familiar: the beginning of a Spirit-guided line of faith leading directly to today’s Catholic Church. If you want to learn to defend that Church at its roots—or if you’re just curious about what our eldest Christian brothers and sisters believed—you can expect in these pages to be richly rewarded.

Genres: Catholic, Religion, Theology, Christian, History, Nonfiction, Faith

214 pages, Kindle Edition

Published December 7, 2021

About the author

Kansas City native Joe Heschmeyer is a staff apologist for Catholic Answers. A popular author, speaker, blogger, and podcaster, he joined the apostolate in March 2021 after three years as an instructor at Holy Family School of Faith in Overland Park, Kan.

While at School of Faith, Joe focused primarily on formation for the Kansas City Archdiocese’s elementary and high school teachers. He also spent a year helping to manage the Catholic Spiritual Mentorship program.

Prior to his work at School of Faith, he discerned the priesthood from 2012-17 for the Archdiocese of Kansas City. During that time, he earned both a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Kenrick-Glennon Seminary in St. Louis and a baccalaureate degree in sacred theology (S.T.B.) from Rome’s Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum).

A regular contributor to Catholic Answers Live, Catholic Answers Focus, and Catholic Answers Magazine (print and online) even before joining the apostolate, Joe has blogged at his own “Shameless Popery” website and co-hosted a weekly show called “The Catholic Podcast.”

To date, he has authored three books, including Pope Peter for Catholic Answers Press.

A former practicing attorney in Washington, D.C., Joe received his Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown University in 2010 after earning a bachelor’s degree in history from Topeka’s Washburn University.

Joe and his wife, Anna, along with their daughter Stella (and a yet-unnamed unborn baby on the way!) reside in the Kansas City area. In his free time, Joe enjoys reading, listening to podcasts, and tormenting his loved ones with terrible puns.

If you are interested in booking Joe Heschmeyer for an upcoming event, please contact Catholic Answers at (619) 387-7200 x323 or click here for more information.

Reviews

[Christopher Goins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Classic. I read this as a Protestant last year.

I am a Catholic now.

I immediately read Trent Horn’s “The Case for Catholicism” after this book, but there was no point.

After reading this book, I was already convinced that the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus himself established. All of the other individual doctrines that Protestants have trouble with naturally follow once the truth of Catholicism is established (h/t Timothy Gordon for that point). Point blank: You can’t look to the early church and find them advocating Protestant doctrine.

As a former political journalist, I know all too well about the mythologies one must believe in order to support an ideology that departs from the truth. And Heschmeyer here shows you what one must believe in if they don’t believe the Early Church was the Catholic Church — and none of those contrived objections can be supported by the historical record.

What’s interesting is that while I was reading this book I was also at my then church of almost 8 years, an Orthodox Presbyterian Church (Reformed Theology), where in Adult Sunday School we were watching a Ligonier Ministries (the late R.C. Sproul’s organization) lecture series on the New Testament Canon and how it was formed by Reformed Theologian Michael Kruger. So I had about six weeks of side-by-side comparison of Heschmeyer’s book and Reformed Theological Seminary’s own Kruger. Krueger is no slouch in the Reformed world. He is the go to guy on the New Testament Canon’s formation.

Heschmeyer really broke down Kruger’s “self-authenticating nature” of scripture argument and showed it to be illogical.

As a Reformed guy, I have a little insight on this. It seems Kruger is borrowing the late Reformed Theologian Cornelius Van Til’s “presuppositionalist” philosophy (later championed by the late OPC Minister Greg Bahnsen in the 90s and currently by Douglas Wilson, the guy who led me to Reformed Theology) and applying it to the New Testament Canon formation. It’s interesting how quickly advocates of this view fall into “self-refuting” contradictions.

What brought this experience full circle with my 15 years of religious studies was the author’s use of famous and not-so-famous Protestant authors I’ve read since the start of my adult Christian life. A good portion of these authors were there with me at the beginning of my adult (Protestant) Christian journey.

The author quotes protestant theologians, apologists, and writers like Charles Scoville, Larry Hurtado, Charles Spurgeon, Tim Challies, Frank Viola, George Barna, Karl Barth, John V. Fesko, Gregg R. Allison, Thomas Schreiner, John MacArthur, James White, R.C. Sproul, Bruce Metzger, Matt Slick, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Alister McGrath, A.T. Robinson, D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, Jaroslav Pelikan, F.F. Bruce, Karen Swallow Prior, John Piper, William Lane Craig, Keith Mathison, Michael Horton, Craig Keener, Herman, Bavinck, Joel Beeke, Scot McKnight, C.S. Lewis and skeptics Bart Erhman, Richard Carrier, and Dan Brown — all of whom I’ve read or heard of in books, footnotes, YouTube, debates, and blogs, at every stage of my adult Protestant Christian journey.

For the intellectually honest, there is no more need for digging. Just be honest with the conclusions in this book. Become a Catholic. You’ll be in the One True Faith.

[Purple Vendetta · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Early Church Was the Catholic Church is an excellent written book, with lots and lots of references to the early Christians and to the works of current and not-so-current Protestants. It's very readable and scores valid points. However, it did not entirely convince me of the claim in the title and it didn't convince me to become a Catholic. That's why I'm hesitating between 3 and 4 stars.

A little bit about my background. I'm born and raised in a strict Protestant (Calvinist) community in The Netherlands. Almost every Sunday we read the Heidelberg Catechism, which, as this books correctly tells us, views the Eucharist as a "damnable idolatry". So this is a die-hard Protestant church. I got interested in the early Christians after I read a few books of Augustine, which were at odds with the teaching I was familiar with (mainly the Creation). Then this book came along and I was wondering if I could overcome my obstacles in believing what the Catholic Church teaches. This is to tell you I'm familiar with a lot of the subjects, and I'm not trying to shred it to pieces.

It starts out with "Creeping Heresy". This essentially said that Protestants believe that over time the Catholic Church was corrupted, and not by a very specific introduction of a heresy, but subtle, slowly. Heschmeyer criticizes this view adequately as being vague and not very falsifiable. Which is true! He also states the first Christians were very theological conservative and the timeline is too short for heresy to creep in before the third century. These I find less convincing, as Paul and John both fight against heresy in their churches, suggesting that heresies can arise very quickly. Lack of existing documentation about heresies of that time suggest the victor determined what was copied. For example, we mostly know about the Gnostics, because the victor in that debate kept copying rebuttals against the Gnostics. And we know there wasn't a full consensus amongst the early Christians about the Eucharist and teachings about Mary. My arguments aren't exceptionally strong, but they show Heschmeyers' arguments aren't fully foolproof.

Next up is Baptismal Rebirth. Heschmeyer argues his point very well, with lots of sources both in Scripture and in the writings of the early Christians. Tertullian gets mentioned, which I found surprising, as the Catholic thinks him a heretic and apostate.

After that it's the Eucharist. Here it gets interesting, since Tertullian wrote about the Eucharist that it's "the symbol of My body", which is used by many Protestants to claim the early Church did not unanimously believe in the Real Presence. Tertullian doesn't get a mention in this chapter, which is a shame. Heschmeyer does show, though, that Church Fathers saying it's a symbol, doesn't necessarily tell us the Real Presence is false. Since something real can also be a symbol at the same time, of course.

The chapter about the organization of the church wasn't that applicable to me, other than teaching me about the views of other Protestants. Our church has three layers (preacher, elders, deacons), so they don't differ that much from the view proposed by Heschmeyer. Halfway through the chapter I thought: "he's going to find someone who asked guidance from the church in Rome and then interpret it as a proof the bishop in Rome should be pope", and was laughing when this obviously happened as well. He himself says it's controversial, though. I hoped he would elaborate on this, since there is nothing about the pope in the writings he quotes. Tertullian is mentioned again.

Then there's a chapter about the four gospels, which was absolutely interesting. It asks us if we don't trust the teachings of early Christians, then how can we trust their compilation of canonical Bible books? Several Protestants have formulated answers to this, but they're admittedly vague and not satisfying.

Next up is a chapter about the trustworthiness of the early Christians. I think this should be more to the start of the book, but I recognize the trouble of wanting to use the arguments made in earlier chapters in this chapter.

Although this book didn't convert me to Catholicism, it was a very interesting read. There are also a few flaws, of course. Quite a few times Heschmeyer uses wordings like a Protestant writer "admits" or "is forced to say". Maybe I'm an idealist, but I assume everyone is searching for the truth, both Catholics and Protestants, and even atheists. So using wording which insinuate that they are somehow hostile against, or refusing to believe the Catholic Church because it is the Catholic Church, felt very unnecessary to me.

And while the subjects of the chapters are very interesting, there should also be chapters about the teachings about Mary. If Heschmeyer is correct in saying that the Church will never accept teachings that aren't teached by the Apostles, then I'm very interested in what they teached about the perpetual virginity of Mary (at least Tertullian didn't believe that), the immaculate conception or the assumption of Mary. The last two even relying on Papal infallibility, which also isn't found in the early Christians.

Because of the last two paragraphs I can't give it five stars and even considered giving it three stars. It was very interesting, full of sources and well written, so I'll compromise and give it four stars.

Disclaimer: English isn't my native language, so there are probably a few awkward sentences and errors. I hope you'll not mind.

Edit on February 8, 2023: I was wrong, this book did convert me.

[John Weathers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book! Very well-written and sourced. It was a pleasure to read it. As a former Protestant looking into the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches in relationship to the early Church, I found it a valuable resource.

[Sullivan Black · Rating 2 out of 5]

First, I should include a disclaimer: this is a very Reformed reviewer critiquing a very Catholic book.

Now that’s out of the way, I’ll say this: if Christianity were only about the physical (e.g., the historical record, traditions, practices, etc.), I think I could easily be Catholic. The historical basis that Joe Heschmeyer relies on in The Early Church Was Catholic is phenomenal. From a purely historical perspective, it’s hard not to appreciate the wealth of primary sources he uses to argue that the early Church and the Catholic Church are one and the same. Yet Christianity is more than just a historical narrative—it is a faith. And because of that, Heschmeyer’s arguments fall flat for me. Despite his frequent use of Scripture, his reliance on Tradition makes this a dense and sometimes frustrating read. To truly understand and appreciate his thesis, I think you need to be Catholic. For Protestants—and even non-believers—his credibility often seems to crumble.

Heschmeyer organizes his book into five sections: Heresy, Baptism, the Eucharist and Mass, Bishops and Church hierarchy, and the four Gospels.

In the first section—arguably his strongest—Heschmeyer addresses the weak Protestant critique that the early Church was poisoned by heresy. He highlights how Protestants often accuse the early Church of corruption but fail to name specific heresies or provide evidence. When writing about the early Church, most Protestant authors make vague accusations and move on. Heschmeyer rightly calls this out, arguing that if you want to make such a claim, you need to back it up with evidence.

In the section on Baptism, Heschmeyer defends its role as a means of salvation. His argument for Baptismal Regeneration is compelling. For instance, he directly critiques Baptist theology, which views baptism as an ordinance rather than a sacrament. He challenges the individualistic (and distinctly American) view of baptism as merely a public declaration of faith, arguing instead for its spiritual significance. I think Protestants have trivialized baptism in many ways and could benefit from a deeper appreciation of its importance.

The chapter on the Eucharist and the Mass is a long one. Heschmeyer’s belief in transubstantiation and its historical significance to the early Church is clear, but the argument feels repetitive. While he relies heavily on the writings of Church Fathers like Irenaeus, quoting them repeatedly doesn’t do much to convince a Protestant reader that Jesus’ words about His Body and Blood weren’t metaphorical. (It’s important to note that this book isn’t about converting Protestants but about arguing that the early Church held the same beliefs as modern Catholics.)

In the chapter on Church leadership, Heschmeyer defends Apostolic Succession. This is another strong section. His reliance on early Church leaders to argue for the importance of hierarchy is effective, and his discussion of Peter and James’ roles in Jerusalem is enlightening. This chapter helped me better understand the structure and expansion of the early Church.

Lastly, Heschmeyer tackles the authenticity of the four Gospels. His most striking argument here is this: If Protestants reject the early Church and its Tradition, claiming it was polluted by heresy, why do they accept the four Gospels? The Gospels came out of the same context as the early Church, so rejecting one while embracing the other seems inconsistent. Heschmeyer argues that accepting the four Gospels as authentic means accepting the early Church and its practices as orthodox—undermining Protestant claims.

The Early Church Was Catholic is an interesting and dense read. While I disagree with Heschmeyer’s conclusions, his arguments are thought-provoking. This isn’t a book designed to explain Catholic doctrine or convert Protestants; it’s about showing that the early Church was Catholic.

Still, Heschmeyer leaves many questions unanswered. For instance, if the early Church is the Catholic Church, how did so many nonsensical doctrines—like purgatory—become widely accepted? He critiques Protestant doctrines like predestination as heretical and unsupported by the early Church, but it seems just as valid to argue that purgatory is a corrupted or invented belief. He ties the ancient Church and modern Catholicism together but dismisses Protestantism too easily. Protestantism arose in response to a Church that many—Catholics included—saw as corrupt. Even if Catholicism can trace its heritage back to Peter, it’s fair to argue that the Church was polluted over time.

In the end, Heschmeyer’s focus on Tradition and early Church writings makes a strong case for Catholicism’s historical roots. Despite my disagreements, this book is a valuable resource for understanding the Catholic perspective on the early Church.

[Manny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Four and a half stars to be precise. An excellent summation of the Catholicity of the Church in the first two centuries. A full review to come in the future.

[Clara Freese · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book did not convince me to become Catholic. That said, it did make many good points, and it did make me want to throw it across the room. Many times.

Good things first. I really liked the chapter about how we ended up with the four Gospels. None of the other books I've read on how we know that Christianity is the real deal have discussed a lot of these early passages that discussed the Gospels. I'm also glad to know why Catholics believe some of the things they do, even if I don't think it's the only correct way to interpret those passages of Scripture.

And tradition clearly has its merits, since they kept us from spiraling off in completely the wrong direction from what Jesus taught and intended. However, I still believe that some traditions arose AFTER the 200-year period this book discusses that are not in alignment with Scripture or what Jesus intended.

This book did successfully convince me that the teachings of the church did not change in its first two centuries of existence. However, it did not persuade me that those teachings did not change after that time period, nor that the modern Catholic church has never changed its interpretation of any of those teachings.

Now. What really got me about this book is the way Heschmeyer makes all Protestants sound like babbling fools. We're not idiots. We believe what we were raised to believe, just like Catholics were. And no doctrine that I'm aware of in the churches I've been do contradicts Scripture. So you'd have a hard time convincing me that we're wrong in everything we do, just because we're Protestant.

This book did not address several of what I think are the most problematic aspects of Catholicism: namely, Mary and the saints. If Marian doctrine and sainthood were not firmly written into Catholic doctrine by 200 AD, then, by the logic of this book, they should be done away with. I could go on about my issues here, but I will refrain. (Yes, I have heard some very educated and well thought-out reasons for why Mary and the saints are Biblical concepts. I understand why and I respect that Catholics believe what they do about Mary and the saints, but I cannot be convinced to adhere to those beliefs.)

I also was not persuaded that Mass in the first two centuries looked exactly like it does nowadays. All these subtle little things I've seen and heard of - the sign of the cross, holy water, the rosary, hymns as the only type of worship song, etc. - while none are inherently wrong (except perhaps aspects of the rosary), you can't convince me they were exactly that way in the first couple centuries. And all these other rules I've heard of - no eating meat on Fridays during Lent, no saying alleluia during Lent, honestly just Lent as a whole, confirmation, other things I'm forgetting - no mention of them in this book. If these things aren't in the Bible OR part of early tradition, why are they treated as if they're laws of the church?

Obviously, I'm not Catholic. My identity is in Christ and not in which church I belong to. I don't think I will ever be persuaded to become Catholic, but I am open to learning more and having interfaith dialogue. If anything I have said is egregiously incorrect, please correct me, because I want to understand the Catholic perspective.

[Leslie Moellering · Rating 5 out of 5]

I liked Pope Peter a bit better, but this was good, too. Some overlap. I wish my protestant family members would at least engage with the evidence in this book and start a conversation, but they'd never pick up a book like this.

[Riley Pearson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great read!

[Dawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an academic book that was hard to read on my own, which is what I was doing. (Maybe because I was reading this at night after a long day of work) This would be a great book to read with others as a study group. I would probably give it a four if I had a study partner!
I do like the way the author presented what early Christians ( first 200 years) thought about baptism and then presented Protestant objections and the flaws be with those objections.
He repeated that presentation for Eucharistic teaching, church hierarchy, and gospel writings .

[Max Barranco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book was great and very informative. Portions of the book were a bit slow and a burden to read. Some information that was added could’ve been omitted.

[Erin Entringer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good information - I just didn’t really care for how the book was organized. Definitely had to force myself to read this one.

[cellomerl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Densely written book filled with information on the theology of the various early church fathers, presented in a conversational, musing style. The end notes are in the smallest font I’ve ever seen and they include so much information that they would make a second book, if you had the patience to go through and cross reference them to the main text. In any case it’s best to be Catholic.

[Grace · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great resource for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The author provides just enough detail to make his case, while ensuring the reader is left curious enough to search for and read the writings of the early Church fathers on their own. I look forward to using this in a high school Church History class setting.

[Robbie Deacon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Joe Heschmeyer’s argument in this book is that in 4 important areas the early church (~100-200AD) closely resembles the Catholic Church. These 4 areas are communion, baptism, church structure, and the canonical gospels. He is convincing in his arguments without being dogmatic; any reader can go access any of the patristic documents he references online and verify his sources. Heschmeyer doesn’t make claims to his own authority or the authority of the current Roman catholic magisterium, which is comforting.

Heschmeyer is honest with his sources and provides thorough footnotes for those who want to verify his claims. He also does a great job of engaging with Protestant and atheist objections to his arguments. Each chapter has a similar format where he lays out his argument, explains any common objections to his argument, then rebuts those objections.

Unfortunately this book falls a bit short on its premise. It does a great job of explaining how there was a consensus among the 2nd and 3rd generations of Christians on a few doctrinal points, but it doesn’t go all the way to show that the pre-nicean church was Roman Catholic. Many of the Catholic doctrines which Protestants find repellent, such as the Marian Dogmas, the intercession of saints, purgatory, and the treasury of merit aren’t present in the first 200 years of the church. That leaves this reader a bit confused: the earliest Christians appear to have believed in baptismal regeneration, some real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and in a mono-episcopal church structure. Only Catholic, Orthodox, and some Anglican Christians believe in those things today. But there isn’t evidence that early Christians believed in many other distinct Catholic/orthodox doctrines. Ultimately, Heschmeyer makes convincing and thoughtful arguments but fails to prove in a holistic sense that the first 200 years of Christianity resembled Roman Catholicism.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A DEFENSE OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE EARLY CHURCH AS BEING ‘CATHOLIC’

Joe Heschmeyer (a staff apologist for Catholic Answers) wrote in the Introduction to this 2021 book, “Any critique of Catholic teaching falls into one of two categories: either Catholics are getting blamed for believing what Jesus taught, or they’re getting blamed for straying from what Jesus taught. If you’re looking for ways to answer the first kind of argument.. there are a lot of good books for you, but this one isn’t it. My goal is to reach those who believe that Jesus’ original teachings were good---but that the Church lost her way over time.” (Pg. 7)

He continues, “If you say Jesus’ teachings were good, but the Catholic Church got them wrong, you’ve got to say either that (1) nobody [until you?] understood his teachings, or (2) these teachings were originally understood but were eventually MISunderstood. The problem … is that Scripture shows that the earliest followers of Jesus DID understand the gospel, at least eventually… the truth of the faith was well known, and widely held, and that the task of the next generation of Christians was to remain firm in this faith.” (Pg. 8-10)

He states, “The problem facing any kind of ‘creeping heresy’ theory is that the timeline doesn’t work… we can find clear articulations of the Catholic view quickly after the time of the apostles, at which point these Catholic teachings are already being treated as the universal view of Christians… there’s just not enough time for heresy to creep in.” (Pg. 25)

He explains, “the ‘born again’ language comes from John 3:3, when Jesus says… ‘Unless one is born anew [‘born again’ in the KJV translation] he cannot see the Kingdom of God.’ Jesus explains that ‘unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants (including Lutherans and Anglicans)… believe… in what’s called ‘regenerative baptism’ (‘regenerated’ just means ‘born again’). It’s the idea that baptism saves you by cleansing you of your sins.” (Pg. 33-34)

He summarizes, “we find a wealth of Old and New Testament passages that seem to say baptism is regenerative and imparts certain spiritual benefits… We find Paul… of the belief that the early Christians understood baptism and are united on this point. And we find the Christians of the first 200… years of Christianity unanimously believing in regenerative baptism and basing their beliefs on Scripture, the testimony of the apostles, apostolic Tradition. And the practice of the Church.” (Pg. 55)

He quotes John 6:52-56, and comments, “How literally should we take Jesus? Does he really mean that the bread and wine have become his body and blood?... There are plenty of reasons within the biblical texts themselves to conclude that the answers to these questions are yes. But for now, I want to make a simpler point: that whether this literal interpretation is true or false, it IS how the earliest Christians understood Jesus’ words.” (Pg. 72)

He asserts, “eating the Passover lamb didn’t ‘re-sacrifice’ the lamb slain on Preparation Day. It was rather the way in which a believer participated in the sacrifice and applied it to himself. And if a person ate the peace offering over the span of two days, he wasn’t ‘re-sacrificing’ the peace offering, but continuing to participate in it. And so when Jesus says at his Passover, ‘Do this in remembrance of me,’ he’s not telling them to crucify him repeatedly, but … to repeatedly participate in the sacrificial meal.” (Pg. 89) He continues, “Christians always understood the Eucharist in this sacrificial way until the Reformation, a fact that even the Reformers were forced to concede.” (Pg. 90-91)

He argues, “you can find Protestants claiming that the biblical model of ordained Christian ministry consists of one order; or two; or two, but with two distinct types of elders; or two, plus bishops and superintendents with unique ministries; or three; or four. How could such an astonishing diversity of views (even among… ‘Bible Christians’) exist if the New Testament evidence is as explicit as is sometimes pretended?” (Pg. 113)

He suggests, “If you believe that the apostles taught that the Lord’s Supper was merely symbolic, or that baptism DOESN’T save, or that bishops and elders are the same office, you should be able to show whom they taught these things to… and if none of their followers remembers them teaching any such thing … that’s a strong indication that your belief is unfounded.” (Pg. 135)

He states, “So yes, if you’re prepared to dismiss 1 Peter, the Gospel of John, and the earliest Christian witnesses, you can deny Peter’s connection to Rome… from the beginning, everyone knew that Peter ministered and died at Rome, and nobody claimed otherwise. What this reveals is not a deficiency in the evidence; it’s plenty clear that Peter was martyred in Rome by Nero sometime after … A.D. 64. Instead, it reveals a problem with much of ‘critical’ scholarship, which blithely dismisses the early Christians’ testimony about their own time and place while uncritically accepting novel theories without any serious historical support… the evidence all points to the Catholic position, and they’re DISMISSING the evidence in favor of theories that are often totally unsupported and appear to be simply inventions.” (Pg. 142-143)

He asks, “So how big of a problem is it that we don’t get all four evangelists identified clearly until Irenaeus?... how much should we trust these second-century authors? In this area, Protestants tend to rally to the defense of 2nd century Christians… reject the reliability of the Christians of the late 2nd century, and what are you left with? Not much… instead of listening to the unanimous witness of the early Christians, many scholars try to solve the problem from Scripture alone.” (Pg. 162-163)

He adds, “the whole case for the four Gospels ends up turning on a single question: Can we trust that the beliefs and practices of the Church in the latter part of the second century faithfully reflect the beliefs and practices of the Church at the time of the apostles?... Saying we CAN trust the early Christians gives us good grounds for accepting the Gospels, but it also means they are trustworthy on baptism, the Eucharist, and the Church.” (Pg. 183)

He concludes, “Christians living and writing before the year 200… believed the following: *We are born again in the saving waters of baptism, in which we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and become part of the Church. *The Eucharist is the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ… *Each true church had a bishop at its head. *There were four inspired Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John… In each of the above cases, these early Christians report that they’re teaching what the apostles taught them.” (Pg. 191)

He states, “I’d like to close this book by proposing another trilemma of sorts. We’ve seen that the early Christians were Catholics… There are three ways to respond to all of this. First, we could conclude that the early Christians were DUPED… Second, we could conclude that they themselves were DECEIVERS... That leaves us with a third option: that the early Christians, for all of their individual faults, are faithful disciples… And … to live out what the apostles taught is simply the Catholic Church.” (Pg. 211-212)

This will be of keen interest to those studying Catholic apologetics.

[Dylan Schweitzer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I decided to call an ask a question on 'Catholic Answers' live, and after my question was addressed, they were very kind to send me this book and ship it to me for free. What a kind gesture!

As someone who is currently a protestant, this gave me a ton of things to look at and consider. On one hand it makes me question a ton of beliefs and ideas I hold, but it also makes me want to ask more questions and investigate the matter in more depth. This book seems to be a giant stepping stone to trying to uncover more information about the early church.

One thing that is for certain, is that a lot of protestant ideas, and beliefs held today, were NOT held by the early christians. And it appears protestant theologians pick and choose what is true, based on their own presuppositions, looking at things through the lense of John Calvin and Martin Luther, and other reformers in the 16th-17th century. (Which in contrast of the previous 1500 years of church history, is a little bizarre after examining some of the historical evidence.)

Also props to Joe for making history a fun adventure, and constantly bringing in the opposing parties arguments and doing a Good job at being genuine and considerate along the way. Bonus points for a healthy amount of humour and a touch of sassiness when appropriate. 😅

[James Hamilton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Joe Heschmeyer's style is distinct. While it doesn't read quite like some other popular modern Catholic theological/apologetic/patristic works, it still gave a clear and convincing case for the Catholic position and leaves you really wanting to hear the actual retort Protestants would give, since that is who this is refuting. Covering important issues like baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, the role of Bishops, and the authenticity of the 4 Gospels, this goes to the very Early Church fathers, explains their meaning and implications and show how many modern and some past Protestant voices on these issues don't make sense. I wouldn't recommend this to someone who isn't open to hearing this view but it just provides more defense for the unity of the Church in the Catholic Church.

[Darlene · Rating 5 out of 5]

What I appreciated about this book is the way it is organized. At least for me, it put pieces of a puzzle together, and I love when that happens. It is satisfying to have questions answered in the order they arise in my head as I read. There were also humorous statements which he made and I sometimes drew or wrote my reaction in the margin which was really fun. But my favorite was the last chapter. If you have ever been involved in debate you will know what I mean when I say that it is the same satisfaction as when you are “bringing it home and know that there is no way your opponent can respond.” The last chapter was such that when I was finished all I could write at the end was “BOOM!”

[Laura Roscoe-Griffin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Life-changing!

This writer has a simply brilliant way of defending and explaining our Catholic faith. For years, I've harbored doubts regarding the continuity and truth of Catholic belief, having been repeatedly exposed to so many false, but well-explained Protestant ideas, especially those regarding the first two centuries after the death of Jesus.. I'm very thankful for having stumbled upon this book; for the first time in my life, I feel settled and strong in our beautiful, authentic faith tradition.

[Mike Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thoroughly researched and well-argued.

[Janelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thank you to Catholic Answers for sending me this book for free! (I called in on their live show with a question and they sent it to me—highly recommend). I’ve appreciated Joe Heschmeyer’s work for a couple of years now, with Catholic Answers and his Shameless Popery podcast. I find his YouTube videos to be very thorough and well-argued. This book was the first of his that I have read so far.

I am a lifelong Catholic, but I was raised somewhat lukewarm and never thought deeply about my faith, what it meant, or having a personal relationship with Jesus. I had a conversion experience as a teenager and decided that I would find the truth, even if it led me away from the Church. I am open to leaving if that’s where the truth leads me, but the more I study the Bible, history, science and theology, and the more I study arguments from opposing views, I just become more convinced that Jesus Christ is real, he died for my sins, he rose on the third day, and he left us with the Catholic Church! Intellectualism is one of my favorite parts of being Catholic—if you have a question, the Church has an answer! Questions are welcomed by the Church and not feared. I figured, if the Church is really true, then it can handle my questions. (And the scientifically approved miracles, like Eucharistic miracles or the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe, are undeniable and just plain awesome). Sorry for my tangent 😅

Anyways, I read this book wanting to learn more about what the early Christians believed to see if the Catholic Church lines up with it. Heschmeyer does a great job trying to be as objective as possible. He admits he is naturally going to be biased because he is a devout Catholic, but I found that he did a good job leaving his presumptions behind and clearly looking at historical records and the writings of the early Church Fathers. I hardly found any of his opinions in this book; he simply laid out historical facts and drew logical conclusions from them.

Heschmeyer limits himself to the year 200 AD and prior, to keep all written accounts within living memory of the Apostles and their first generation of students. This made the book more convincing to me because I knew I was reading accounts from people who knew Jesus himself when he walked on this earth. Heschmeyer’s arguments are very thorough and well-researched. He is fair to respectfully and accurately express opposing arguments against Catholicism, and he answers basically any objection one could think of to his claims. I like that he treats opposing arguments as valid and counters them strongly with solid evidence.

My only criticism is that, at times, it was hard to follow. Heschmeyer is clear and well-organized, but sometimes he goes so in depth with every point he makes that I would forget where I was in the book. It does also take some prior knowledge about the basics of Christianity. For that, I have half a star less. So while I did get lost at times, he ends each section tying it into his bigger thesis: that the early church was indeed the Catholic Church.

Contrary to popular misconception, the Church IS where we foster a personal relationship with Jesus, not a distraction or barrier from him. Jesus did not abandon us, he left us his Holy Spirit to guide the Church through Sacred Scripture and apostolic Tradition! 💗 There’s so much more I want to say, but I’ll let Joe Heschmeyer speak for himself. This book answered many of my questions and I 100% recommend it to anyone wanting to learn more about the Church, even if they’re not interested in converting.

[Mads Doss · Rating 4 out of 5]

I always have a hard time rating a book that’s not strictly read for entertainment value.

Heschmeyer is incredibly knowledgeable in his understanding of church history and delivers many clear and convincing arguments. I read this book as a primer for a deeper study of the Church Fathers, and it certainly made me want to read more of their writings outside of the snippets Heschmeyer chooses. As a general note for anyone considering this book, it’s not an easy read; much of it is complex and takes effort to work through.

The only issue I take with this book is Heschmeyer’s bluntness in his direct and pointed critiques of Protestantism. Personally, I think it would be impossible to convince a Protestant to seriously consider his argument, mainly due to his general dismissal of some of the icons of the Reformation. Perhaps a softer approach would be better. For the Catholic reader, however, his tone probably won’t feel off-base.

I do wish there was more to this book, however. The addition of Marion dogmas, purgatory, and intercession of the saints might better support concerns coming from the Protestant perspective.

[Tanja Walker · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book presents solid arguments as to how the earliest church fathers retained what are now considered Catholic beliefs—that one is born again through baptism, worship is through the sacrifice of the Mass, that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Definitely something to think about. I already learned in seminary 20 years ago about the councils that canonized the New Testament as we know it, rendering the concept of sola scriptura suspect. Maybe some other “reforms” of the Protestant era are suspect as well. Definitely need to think.

I do wish Joe Heschmeyer had mentioned more serious modern Protestants than the likes of John McArthur and James White, whose sole goal in life seem to be to undermine the Catholic Church, rather than give someone a positive reason to be Protestant.

[Ribbqah · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book to read slowly and carefully. Well documented and deeply organized. It was an excellent argument for the past - a strong foundation for religious belief. Although I was a United Methodist for twenty years, then an Anabaptist for another twenty, my search led me to RCIA in the 1990’s and I joined the Catholic Church. Still content after almost thirty years and no longer looking for answers. Their treatment of women is wrong and the stupid behavior of the Catholic Church hierarchy when dealing with sexual abuse by its leaders is despicable. A crime is a crime no matter who does the crime.

[Annette · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book read like a PhD thesis. It is a hard read if you do not already have some knowledge of the history of the early Christian Church. That being said, I did learn a lot about the foundation of Christianity and in particular the Catholic Church. The author makes very convincing arguments in regard to the Catholic Church staying true to the apostolic teachings, as opposed to the different Protestant sects of Christianity. It is well worth the read if you have the requisite background to understand all the references. Otherwise, it is a bit of a slog but if you are persistent you will definitely learn more about the basis of the Catholic faith.

[Tony Piazza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear View of the Catholic Church

Joe Heschmeyer does an excellent job drawing the distinctions between Catholic and Protestant teachings. Through clear and concise explanations he takes the reader through Christian history to prove that the apostles and early church fathers were the original source from which the Catholic Church grew. He also lays to rest many misconceptions about the Catholic Church as viewed by Protestants by using early teachings of the church which are easy to follow. Great book for apologetic leaning instructors or those just curious about how Protestants view the Catholic teachings and how the Catholic Church can counter these claims. Five stars!

[Derek Barber · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating and compelling book that essentially does exactly what the title promises. It shows clearly and convincingly from the original sources that the early church in it's core doctrines is identical to the Catholic Church. This is a devastating critique of Protestantism which was an innovation 1500 years after the start of the church and deviated from many of these essential beliefs of the early church. Highly recommended for Catholics who want to learn more about the early church and for Protestants who are curious about the claims of the Catholic church.

[Logan Bruce · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book clearly lists some stumbling blocks for Protestants in terms of Catholic theology. Joe provides fair analysis of the Protestant objections and follows up with adequate rebuttals from the first 200 years of Christianity. At times this book was hard to continue, the writing was quite dry at times, but piece by piece I finished it and am very glad I did. I’d recommend to any Catholic, or Protestant, interested in learning more about what the early church practiced in terms of modern points of theological debate.

[kelly b sanborn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exceptionally clear look at the Church Father

One of the best books I’ve read in a while. Exceptionally clear look into the thinking of the early Church Fathers and the impact they had on Church doctrine - and how that is so often misunderstood and distorted today. Highly recommended!

[Audra · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really did enjoy this book. Reading the beliefs and writings of the early Church Fathers gave me a clearer depiction of the apostolic teachings in the first two centuries before the biblical canon was formed. I do think, at times Heschmeyer brought about a couple of unfair biases. I would have loved to see a little more devil's advocate given on the opposing sides. Overall, I learned a lot.