Practical Applications

All doctrine is practical and has specific ramifications to life. This is no less true of the Triunity of the Godhead which draws our attention to the concept of the tri-fold personality of God. This communicates all the elements of personality—moral agency, intelligence, will, emotion, and communion that exists within the three Persons of the Godhead.  This has profound ramifications for not only theology, but for Christian experience and practice.

As in the case of God’s sovereignty and man’s volition (or the God-man mystery), there are three basic practical responses a person can make concerning the Biblical concept of the Trinity. Historically, men have either ignored or rejected it as illogical and incompatible with human reason. Finding it incompatible with human reason, men have sought to solve the problem by reducing it to their own reason; in process, they typically gravitated toward one extreme or another maintaining that God is one or God is three, but insisting He can’t be both. The church, for the most past, has accepted triunity completely by holding both truths (God is three in one, triune) in a proper balance. Based on all the data of the Bible, the church has accepted this doctrine by faith though often admitting it is incomprehensible to our finite minds.

Any time man elevates his own reason above the clear revelation of Scripture, he will be faced with those truths in Scripture that defy his human logic. He usually goes in one of two extremes. For instance, when faced with two truths which seem to contradict each other (e.g., God’s sovereignty and man’s volition, or Christ’s undiminished deity and true humanity in one Person, or God is One and Three), one of two things happens. In attempting to harmonize Biblical truth with his reason, the intellectually vaulted thinker will inevitably move to one extreme or the other. He will accept one (truth A, God is one) either to the neglect of the other or reject it completely (truth B, God a tri-personality), or he will swing to the other side and either minimize or reject truth A and emphasize truth B.

Kenneth Boa has some excellent comments on this issue:

“In an effort to water down the doctrine of the triune God many have fallen into error. One such error is unitarianism. This view regards God as only one Person. Since, for most this Person is God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are stripped of their genuine deity. Jesus is reduced to a mere man (“the humble teacher from Nazareth”), and the Holy Spirit is turned into an impersonal force or fluid that emanates from God. The Unitarian-Universalist Church is an example of this extreme.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are essentially unitarian because they deny the deity of Jesus Christ and view the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force (Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1965, p. 47). This new Arianism repudiates the Trinity because it holds it to be unreasonable.

The second extreme is tritheism. This is a variation of polytheism because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are regarded as three separate Gods. Sometimes this is carried a step further into the idea that there are many different gods, some perhaps associated with other worlds or realms. Mormonism is an example of tritheism, for it speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three distinct Gods (Ibid., p. 178). Mormonism is actually polytheistic since it indicates that there are other gods besides these three.

The only way to avoid these extremes is to accept all the biblical facts in a balanced way. The Trinity cannot be comprehended by the human mind because it is super-rational. Nevertheless, when anyone places his faith in God and the truth of His Word, he finds a satisfaction in this and other difficult areas of revealed truth. There is no need for a continual struggle.  (Boa, pp. 50-51).

The doctrine of the trinity is truly beyond human comprehension due to the limits of our finite minds; nevertheless it is a vital truth of the Bible, closely connected to other key doctrines like the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Our salvation is rooted in the mysterious nature of the Godhead Who coexists as three distinct Persons all of Whom are involved in our salvation in all its aspects, past, present, and future. It encompasses everything we know and practice as Christians—our sanctification, our fellowship, our prayer life, our Bible study, and our corporate worship. The precious nature of this truth is evident in Paul’s closing benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14 and in Peter’s salutation and doxology in 1 Peter 1:1-5.

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” (2 Cor. 13:14)

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” (1 Peter 1:1-5)

At one point, some of those following Jesus turned away and returned to their former lives because they didn’t understand what it was that He was teaching. They objected to the (supposed) implications. Jesus asked His apostles why they remained and the answer was “Well, where would we go, since You (implied “alone”) have the words of life.”  The Bible contains the words of life. You can find philosophies in all sorts of places, from university libraries, to eastern mystical religious books, to Internet ramblings, but you will find the “words of Life” only in Jesus’ communication to the human race – the Bible. May the Lord bless you in your study of His precious Word and in your walk with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Some Objects of Trinity

Of course, there are always objections to Christian doctrine and this one has many who mount their arguments at one point or another.

After all, they will say, the Bible clearly calls Jesus “the Only-begotten” Son of God.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

In John 1:18, the King James Version has huios, “Son,” in place of theos, “God,” and reads, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

Because to our mind the words “only begotten” suggest birth or beginning, some have tried to take the use of this designation of Jesus Christ to mean that Christ had a beginning, that He only became the Son of God. Such an understanding denies His eternality and also the concept of the trinity. So what does John mean by the term “only begotten?”

“Only begotten” is the Greek monogenes, a compound of monos, used as an adjective or adverb meaning “alone, only.” Kittel writes: “In compounds with genes, adverbs describe the nature rather than the source of derivation (emphasis mine). Hence monogenes is used for the only child. More generally it means ‘unique’ or ‘incomparable.’” (Kittel, Gerhard, and Friedrich, Gerhard, Editors, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.)  In the New Testament the term occurs only in Luke, John, and Hebrews, but the instructive use is in Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is referred to as the monogenes of Abraham. Isaac was not the only Son of the Patriarch, but he was the unique son of the promise of God. The emphasis is not on derivation but on his uniqueness and special place in the heart of Abraham.

Vine has an excellent summary of the use of monogenes in John 1:14-18:

“With reference to Christ, the phrase “the only begotten from the Father,” John 1:14, R.V. (see also the marg.), indicates that as the Son of God He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him. In the original the definite article is omitted both before “only begotten” and before “Father,” and its absence in each case serves to lay stress upon the characteristics referred to in the terms used. The Apostle’s object is to demonstrate what sort of glory it was that he and his fellow Apostles had seen. That he is not merely making a comparison with earthly relationships is indicated by para, “from.” The glory was that of a unique relationship and the word “begotten” does not imply a beginning of His Sonship. It suggests relationship indeed, but must be distinguished from generation as applied to man.

We can only rightly understand the term “the only begotten” when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. “The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect He is not ‘after’ the Father” (Moule).

In John 1:18 the clause “The Only Begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,” expresses both His eternal union with the Father in the Godhead and the ineffable intimacy and love between them, the Son sharing all the Father’s counsels and enjoying all His affections. Another reading is monogenes Theos, ‘God only-begotten.’ In John 3:16 the statement, “God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son,” must not be taken to mean that Christ became the Only Begotten Son by Incarnation. The value and the greatness of the gift lay in the Sonship of Him who was given. His Sonship was not the effect of His being given. In John 3:18 the phrase “the Name of the Only Begotten Son of God” lays stress upon the full revelation of God’s character and will, His love and grace, as conveyed in the Name of One who, being in a unique relationship to Him, was provided by Him as the Object of faith. In 1 John 4:9 the statement “God hath sent His Only Begotten Son into the world” does not mean that God sent out into the world one who at His birth in Bethlehem had become His Son. Cp. the parallel statement, “God sent forth the Spirit of His Son,” Gal. 4:6, R.V., which could not mean that God sent forth One who became His Spirit when He sent Him.”  (W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1981, pp. 140-141.)

Another term that has been misinterpreted by some when used of Christ is the term “firstborn.” It is used of Christ in Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, 18; Hebrews 1:6; and Revelation 1:5. Again, because of the thought of birth that this word denotes in our minds, this passage has been used to teach that Christ was not the eternal second Person of the Trinity because He had a beginning as the firstborn of God. “Firstborn” is the Greek prototokos (from protos, first, and tikto, to beget), but this word may mean either first in time or first in priority. The point and focus of the word must be taken from the context in which it is used.

In Colossians 1:15, clarified by verse 16, it refers to Christ’s sovereignty expressing His priority to and pre-eminence over creation, not in the sense of time, the first to be born, but in the sense of being the sovereign Creator, the One in Whom were the plans of creation (“by Him all things were created” can also mean, “in Him …”), by Whom all things were created as the builder (“all things were created by Him”), and for Whom all things were created as the owner (“and for Him”). Colossians 1:15 declares Christ’s sovereignty as the Creator. We can see this meaning of prototokos to express sovereignty or priority in the Septuagint’s use of this word in Psalm 89:27 where the clause that follows explains the meaning of “firstborn” or prototokos. Psalm 89:27 reads, “I also shall make him My first-born, The highest of the kings of the earth.” Who is the firstborn? He is “the highest of the kings of the earth,” the sovereign Lord.

In Colossians 1:18, “and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead,” it means first in time, the first one to rise in an immortal and glorified body. Even here, He is the first-born of the dead so that He might come to be pre-eminent in all things as the head of the body, the church (verse 18). The point is that prototokos can mean either first in time or first in priority and it is the context which determines the meaning. As the second Person of the Trinity, Christ is God and sovereign, but as the God-Man Who died for our sins and was raised from the dead, He is the pre-eminent head of the body of Christ, the church. In Colossians 2:9, Paul confirmed this meaning when he wrote, “For in Him all the fulness of deity dwells in bodily form.”

The word for “Deity” is theotetos, a strong word (used only here in the NT) for Christ’s essence as God. The full deity of Christ is nonetheless in bodily form—a full humanity (Col. 1:22). Both Christ’s deity and humanity were challenged by this early Gnostic-like heresy. Those heretics diminished Christ to an angel whose “body” was only apparent, not real. Paul affirmed here that Christ is both fully God and truly man (1 John 4:1-6).

Now to turn attention to the Biblical evidence for Trinity, which involves the key aspects of oneness and threeness that reveal how God exists.

Jesus and His disciples were monotheistic Jews. One must always keep this in mind when discussing triunity. If there was a most-key verse in the Hebrew Scriptures it was Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”  Though subject to various translations, the statement clearly stresses the uniqueness of Yahweh and well-qualified translators say the verse should be translated, “The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”

There is also a secondary emphasis here—The Lord’s indivisibility, which is apparent in most English translations. This confession clearly prepares the way for the later revelation of the Trinity. How? “God” (Elohim) is a plural word, and the word one (the Hebrew, echad) refers to one in a collective sense. As such, it is used of the union of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:24) to describe two persons in one flesh. Further, it is used in a collective sense, like one cluster of grapes rather than in an absolute sense as in Numbers 13:23 when the spies brought back a single cluster of grapes. Furthermore, the oneness of God is implied in those Old Testament passages that declare that there is no other God beside Yahweh, the God of Israel (Deuteronomy 4:35; Isaiah 46:9; Isaiah 43:10).

The New Testament is even more explicit in its statements of monotheism. This is not surprising, considering that the Jewish Christians were accused of worshipping Jesus as another god. 

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 “Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.”

Ephesians 4:4-6 “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.”

James 2:19 “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.”

A visitor to my blog insists there is no Biblical evidence for tri-unity, but now we get to the meat of the matter, for my visitor is incorrect.

While there is no explicit statement in the Old Testament affirming the Triunity, we can confidently say that the Old Testament not only allows for the Triunity, but also implies that God is a triune Being in a number of ways.  The name Elohim, translated God, is the plural form of El. While some would insist this merely points to the power and majesty of God, it certainly allows for the New Testament revelation of the Triunity of God.  There are many instances where God uses the plural pronoun to describe Himself (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8). In the creation account, both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are seen in the work of creation. It is stated that God created heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1), but that it was the Holy Spirit who moved over the earth to infuse it with life in the sense of protecting and participating in the work of creation (Gen. 1:2).  Writing about the Messiah, Isaiah revealed Him to be equal with God, calling Him the “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father” (Isa. 9:6).

Several passages reveal a distinction of Persons within the Godhead. In Psalm 110:1, David demonstrates there is a distinction of Persons between “LORD,” the one speaking, and the one addressed called by David, “my Lord.” David was indicating the Messiah was no ordinary king, but his own Lord, Adoni (my Lord), one who was God Himself. So God the first Person addresses God the second Person. This is precisely Peter’s point when He quotes this Psalm to show the resurrection of the Messiah was anticipated in the Old Testament.

The Redeemer (who must be divine, Isa. 7:14; 9:6) is distinguished from the Lord (Isa. 59:20). The Lord is distinguished from the Lord in Hosea 1:6-7. The one speaking here is Yahweh, the Lord, yet, note the statement in verse 7, “I will have compassion … and deliver them by the Lord their God.” The Spirit is distinguished from the Lord in a number of passages (Isa. 48:16; 59:21; 63:9-10).  In the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, God made it clear that the One who would be born of the virgin would also be Immanuel, God with us.  Two other passages which imply the Trinity are Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1. In Isaiah 48:16 all three Persons are mentioned and yet seen as distinct from each other. See also Gen. 22:15-16.

The case for the Triunity of God is even stronger in the New Testament. Here it can be unequivocally demonstrated the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Furthermore, the New Testament teaches us that these three names are not synonymous, but speak of three distinct and equal Persons.

The Father is called God in several New Testament passages (John 6:27; 20:17; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; Phil. 2:11; 1 Pet. 1:2).

Jesus Christ the Son is declared to be God. His deity is proven by the divine names given to Him, by His works that only God could do (upholding all things, Col. 1:17; creation, Col. 1:16, John 1:3; and future judgment, John 5:27), by His divine attributes (eternality, John 17:5; omnipresence, Matt. 28:20; omnipotence, Heb. 1:3; omniscience, Matt. 9:4), and by explicit statements declaring His deity (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8).

The Holy Spirit is recognized as God. By comparing Peter’s comments in Acts 5:3-4, we see that in lying to the Holy Spirit (v 3), Ananias was lying to God (v 4). He has the attributes which only God can possess like omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10) and omnipresence (1 Cor. 6:19), and He regenerates people to new life (John 3:5-6, 8; Tit. 3:5), which must necessarily be a work of God for only God has the power of life. Finally, His deity is evident by the divine names used for the Spirit as “the Spirit of our God,” (1 Cor. 6:11), which should be understood as “the Spirit, who is our God.”

Ryrie wrote: “Matthew 28:19 best states both the oneness and threeness by associating equally the three Persons and uniting them in one singular name. Other passages like Matthew 3:16-17 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 associate equally the three Persons but do not contain the strong emphasis on unity as does Matthew 28:19.” (Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 53.)

Apart from the Gospels, the evidence of the New Testament is sufficient to show that Christ had instructed his disciples on this doctrine to a greater extent than is recorded in the Gospels. They whole-heartedly proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity as the threefold source of redemption. The outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost brought the personality of the Spirit into greater prominence, at the same time shedding light anew from the Spirit upon the Son. Peter, in explaining the phenomenon of Pentecost, represented it as the activity of the Trinity: ‘This Jesus … being … exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear’ (Acts 2:32-33). The church of Pentecost was founded on the doctrine of the Trinity. In 1 Cor. there is mention of the gifts of the Spirit, the varieties of service for the same Lord and the inspiration of the same God for the work (1 Cor. 12:4-6). Peter traced salvation to the same triunal source: ‘destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ’ (1 Pet. 1:2). Paul’s apostolic benediction of ‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all’ (2 Cor. 13:14) not only sums up the apostolic teaching, but interprets the deeper meaning of the Trinity in Christian experience, the saving grace of the Son giving access to the love of the Father and to the communion of the Spirit.

Amazingly, this confession of God as One in Three took place without struggle and without controversy by a people indoctrinated for centuries in the faith of the one God, and that in entering the Christian church they were not conscious of any break with their ancient faith. Why? Maybe because when they came to know Jesus, they came to know and understand God fully and, therefore, did not need triunity to be explained to them.

From the above evidence, it should be clear that the Scripture teaches God is one and three.

Defining Terms

Trinity is not a word found in the Bible, but is a concept that does exist there. Rather than define the term in every discussion, ancient theologians used the term “trinity.”  Webster’s dictionary gives the following definition of trinity: “The union of three divine persons (or hypostases), the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one divinity, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three Persons (or hypostases as to individuality).” Synonyms sometimes used are triunity, trine, triality. The term “trinity” is formed from “tri,” three, and “nity,” unity. Triunity is a better term than “trinity” because it better expresses the idea of three in one. God is three in one. Hypostases is the plural of hypostasis which means “the substance, the underlying reality, or essence.”

A definition of the Trinity is not easy to construct, as Ryrie wrote “Some are done by stating several propositions. Others err on the side either of oneness or threeness. One of the best is Warfield’s: “There is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence.” (Ryrie, electronic media quoting B.B. Warfield, “Trinity,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, James Orr, ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930, 5:3012.)

In speaking of the Triunity, the term “person” is not used in the same way it is ordinarily used to describe an identity completely distinct from other persons. Actually, the word persons might detract from the unity of the Trinity. According to the teaching of Scripture, the three Persons are inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one Divine Being.  Thus, it is evident that the word “person” is not ideal for the purpose. Orthodox writers have struggled over this term. Some have opted for the term subsistence (the mode or quality of existence), hence, “God has three substances.” Most have continued to use persons because we have not been able to find a better term. “The word substance speaks of God’s essential nature or being and subsistence describes His mode or quality of existence.” (Boa, p. 46.)

In its theological usage, essence refers to “the intrinsic or indispensable, permanent, and inseparable qualities that characterize or identify the being of God.” The words triunity and trinity are used to refer to the fact that the Bible speaks of one God, but attributes the characteristics of God to three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in essence or substance, but three in personality. This does not mean three independent Gods existing as one, but three Persons who are co-equal, co-eternal, inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one absolute Divine Essence and Being.  Typically, the words triunity and trinity are used to help us express a doctrine that is scriptural, though difficult for the human mind to grasp. Again, it needs to be emphasized that this is a doctrine that is not explicitly stated either in the Old or New Testaments, but it is implicit in both.

My friend RV’s Master’s thesis makes the statement:

“Evangelical Christianity has believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, Triunity, or the Triune Godhead because of the teaching of the Bible as a whole (Old and New Testaments) and not because of one or two particular passages. As will be shown below, the whole of Scripture gives testimony to this doctrine.

There are many specific passages which teach us there are three distinct Persons who possess deity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, but the Bible also teaches us with equal emphasis that there is but one true God or one Divine Essence or Substance and Being.

Taking the whole of Scripture, one can see that there is stress on: (a) the unity of God, one Divine Being and Essence, and (b) on the diversity of God in this unity, three Persons identified as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It speaks of these Persons in such a way that it ascribes absolute undiminished deity and personality to each while stressing that there is but one God in divine substance. It is the doctrine of the trinity that harmonizes and explains these two thrusts of Scripture—oneness in three personalities.” (RV Underwood, Master’s Thesis, Golden Gate Seminary, 1965, p. 3)

The three Persons are the same in substance, in essence or in their essential nature, but distinct in subsistence which describes God’s mode or quality of existence in three Persons. By mode of existence we do not mean one God acting in three different ways, but one Divine Being existing in three distinct Persons within one Divine Substance or Essence. Again, this is not exactly three individuals as we think of three personal individuals, but one Divine Being who acts and thinks as one within a three-fold personality. This is incomprehensible to our finite and limited minds, but it is the teaching of the Scripture.

The New Bible Dictionary has an excellent summary of this point:

In the relationship between the Persons there are recognizable distinctions.

a. Unity in diversity

In most formularies the doctrine is stated by saying that God is One in his essential being, but that in his being there are three Persons, yet so as not to form separate and distinct individuals. They are three modes or forms in which the divine essence exists. ‘Person’ is, however, an imperfect expression of the truth inasmuch as the term denotes to us a separate rational and moral individual. But in the being of God there are not three individuals, but three personal self-distinctions within the one divine essence [italics mine]. Then again, personality in man implies independence of will, actions and feelings leading to behavior peculiar to the person. This cannot be thought of in connection with the Trinity. Each Person is self-conscious and self-directing, yet never acting independently or in opposition. When we say that God is a Unity we mean that, though God is in himself a threefold centre of life, his life is not split into three. He is one in essence, in personality and in will. When we say that God is a Trinity in Unity, we mean that there is a unity in diversity, and that the diversity manifests itself in Persons, in characteristics and in operations.

b. Equality in dignity

There is perfect equality in nature, honour and dignity between the Persons. Fatherhood belongs to the very essence of the first Person and it was so from all eternity. It is a personal property of God ‘from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named’ (Eph. 3:15).

The Son is called the ‘only begotten’ perhaps to suggest uniqueness rather than derivation. Christ always claimed for himself a unique relationship to God as Father, and the Jews who listened to him apparently had no illusions about his claims. Indeed they sought to kill him because he ‘called God his own Father, making himself equal with God’ (Jn. 5:18).

The Spirit is revealed as the One who alone knows the depths of God’s nature: ‘For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God … No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God’ (1 Cor. 2:10). This is saying that the Spirit is ‘just God himself in the innermost essence of his being.’

This puts the seal of NT teaching upon the doctrine of the equality of the three Persons.

c. Diversity in operation

In the functions ascribed to each of the Persons in the Godhead, especially in man’s redemption, it is clear that a certain degree of subordination is involved (in relation, though not in nature); the Father first, the Son second, the Spirit third. The Father works through the Son by the Spirit. Thus Christ can say: ‘My Father is greater than I.’ As the Son is sent by the Father, so the Spirit is sent by the Son. As it was the Son’s office to reveal the Father, so it is the Spirit’s office to reveal the Son, as Christ testified: ‘He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you’ (Jn. 16:14).

It has to be recognized that the doctrine arose as the spontaneous expression of the Christian experience. The early Christians knew themselves to be reconciled to God the Father, and that the reconciliation was secured for them by the atoning work of the Son, and that it was mediated to them as an experience by the Holy Spirit. Thus the Trinity was to them a fact before it became a doctrine, but in order to preserve it in the credal faith of the church the doctrine had to be formulated.  (The New Bible Dictionary, Electronic Media, Logos Bible Software.)

The concept of trinity or triunity has lead to some errors in the past that should be avoided. Christianity does not teach tri-theism. This is the teaching that there are three Gods who are sometimes related, but only in a loose association. Such an approach, abandons the biblical oneness of God and the unity within the Trinity.

Sabellius (A.D. 200), the originator of Sabellianism or Modalism, spoke of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but he understood all three as no more than three manifestations of one God. This teaching came to be known as modalism because it views one God who variously manifests Himself in three modes of existence: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Arianism. This doctrine had it roots in Tertullian, who (perhaps unintentionally) made the Son subordinate to the Father. Origen took this further by teaching that the Son was subordinate to the Father “in respect to essence.” The result was ultimately Arianism which denied the deity of Christ. Arius taught that only God was the uncreated One; because Christ was begotten of the Father it meant Christ was created by the Father. Arius believed there was a time when Christ did not exist. Arius and his teaching were condemned at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.

Since he was headed off to an archeological dig in Israel that he has participated in for the last several summers, Alan forwarded an article and a bunch of commentary on the Trinity and challenged me to use parts of it on the blog. If I get myself in hot water, he’s going to be out of touch – which I think was his plan, actually. This is my synopsizing of more than 30 pages of information which I’m going to present in parts because, well, frankly, it’s unwieldy. I love Alan, but he’s a scholar, not a writer, which is why he hired me to help him write his doctrinal dissertation 20 years ago.

Because the word trinity is never found in the Bible some wonder about whether this is a Biblical doctrine, but the absence of a term used to describe a doctrine does not necessarily mean the term is not Biblical. The question really is, does the term accurately reflect what Scripture teaches? In reality, due to the incomprehensible nature of the truth this term reflects, some believe it is a poor word to describe exactly what the Bible teaches about this truth concerning God. When anyone studies a complicated doctrine or reads about it in a theological book or an article like the one Alan sent me, it may appear that the writer is presenting a finished package and demanding the reader accept it without questioning, but “If that’s the case it is only because you are looking at the results of someone’s study, not the process” (Charles C. Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, Moody Press, Chicago, 1972, p. 29) that led to their position on a particular doctrine.

My goal is to investigate the facts of Scripture so we can see from the process of investigation presented just what the Bible teaches us about how God exists. Historically, the church has believed that He exists in Holy Trinity or Triunity. The tri-personality of God is exclusively a Christian doctrine and a Scriptural truth. Mu purpose, then, is to demonstrate that the doctrine of the trinity (triunity) of the Godhead is another Biblical revelation that teaches us more about the nature of God or how He exists. The Bible teaches us that God not only exists as a personal Spirit being, but that He does so in Holy Trinity.

Before investigating the facts of Scripture, I want to point out that this is a doctrine beyond the scope of man’s finite mind. It lies outside the realm of natural reason or human logic. The late Dr. Walter Martin points out:

“No man can fully explain the Trinity, though in every age scholars have propounded theories and advanced hypotheses to explore this mysterious Biblical teaching. But despite the worthy efforts of these scholars, the Trinity is still largely incomprehensible to the mind of man.

Perhaps the chief reason for this is that the Trinity is a-logical, or beyond logic. It, therefore, cannot be made subject to human reason or logic. Because of this, opponents of the doctrine argue that the idea of the Trinity must be rejected as untenable. Such thinking, however, makes man’s corrupted human reason the sole criterion for determining the truth of divine revelation.” (Walter Martin, Essential Christianity, Vision House, Santa Anna, 1975, p. 21)

The ultimate issue as always is, does the Biblical evidence support the doctrine of the Trinity or tri-personality of God? If biblical evidence supports it, we can know it is true. Comprehending it is another matter. John Wesley said, “Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can comprehend the triune God.” (Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations, Assurance Publishers, p. 504)

We should not be bothered by this fact. God’s Word tells us that we should expect His revelation, the revelation of an infinite, omniscient, all-wise Creator, to contain an infinite depth that corresponds to His infinite mind (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Kenneth Boa has an excellent word here concerning the concept of God’s thoughts being higher than ours:

“It follows from all this that we cannot and should not expect to understand the Bible exhaustively. If we could, the Bible would not be divine but limited to human intelligence. A very important idea comes out of this, something over which many non-Christians and even Christians stumble: Since the Bible is an infinite revelation, it often brings the reader beyond the limit of his intelligence.

“As simple as the Bible is in its message of sin and of free salvation in Christ, an incredible subtlety and profundity underlies all its doctrines. Even a child can receive Christ as his Savior, thereby appropriating the free gift of eternal life. Yet no philosopher has more than scratched the surface regarding the things that happened at the Cross. The Bible forces any reader to crash into the ceiling of his own comprehension, beyond which he cannot go until he sees the Lord face-to-face.

“Until a person recognizes that his own wisdom and intelligence are not enough, he is not ready to listen to God’s greater wisdom. Jesus alluded to this when He said to God, “you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children” (Luke 10:21).” (Kenneth Boa, Unraveling the Big Questions About God, Lamplighter Books, p. 12.)

God has communicated to men truly though not exhaustively. Moses expressed this to us in Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.”

The Greek word for mystery “musterion” refers to what was previously hidden, but is now revealed to us through the revelation of the Word (1 Cor. 15:51; Eph. 3:3, 4, 9). Sometimes it is used for that which God makes known through His revelation to man which man could not know on his own (1 Cor. 2:7). There is also a sense in which some of God’s truth, though clearly revealed in the Bible, remains a mystery. Such are truths revealed in Scripture, like the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God or the divine/human nature of Jesus Christ. The Trinity is a kind of mystery in that it goes beyond the boundaries of human comprehension. God hasn’t explained all the mysteries of His revelation to us undoubtedly because we simply cannot yet grasp them.

The Apostle Paul wrote: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12).

The citizens of Corinth would have particularly appreciated Paul’s illustration, for their city manufactured bronze mirrors. The perfection and imperfection mentioned in verse 10 were deftly likened to the contrasting images obtained by the indirect reflection of one’s face viewed in a bronze mirror and the same face when viewed directly. Such, Paul said, was the contrast between the imperfect time in which he then wrote and the perfect time which awaited him and the church when the partial reflection of the present would give way to the clarity of perfect vision. Then Paul would see God (1 Cor. 15:28; 1 John 3:2) as God now saw Paul. Partial knowledge (1 Cor. 8:1-3) would be displaced by the perfect knowledge of God.

Because of our limited capacity in this life, some of the revelations of God gives in the Bible defy explanation and illustration. When seeking to explain those truths that fall into this category, our explanations and especially our attempts to illustrate them must necessarily fall short of our ability to clarify and comprehend them.

Obviously a doctrine can be true even if it defies our human imagination or ability to comprehend it. Only human arrogance would claim otherwise. Truthfully, we must recognize our need to simply trust God’s special revelation to us, the Bible, and submit our minds to that teaching which is truly expressed in its pages. This does not mean we do not test the Scripture to make sure these things are truly taught, but once we are convinced that that is what the Bible says, we must lay hold of it by faith and wait for complete understanding to be revealed in eternity.  How egotistical for a person to say because an idea in the Bible does not make sense by conforming to his or her reasoning, it cannot be true and the Bible must be in error on this point.

The doctrine of the trinity or triunity, is part of God’s revelation of One Who is infinite to those who are finite. Doesn’t it seem logical that in our study about God we are going to find things that are incomprehensible, mysterious, and super-rational to finite man’s rational thinking capacity? So, from the outset of this study, we must understand that God in His existence as the Three-in-One is beyond the limits of human comprehension.

There is another important issue about the nature of this revelation in Scripture. We need to think a moment about the words, explicit and implicit for these two words are essential for understanding what Scripture teaches about this doctrine. Explicit means “fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied; fully and clearly defined or formulated.” Implicit means “implied or understood, though not directly expressed.”

“Trinity is, of course, not a biblical word. Neither are triunity, trine, trinal, subsistence, nor essence. Yet we employ them, and often helpfully, in trying to express this doctrine which is so fraught with difficulties. Furthermore, this is a doctrine which in the New Testament is not explicit even though it is often said that it is implicit in the Old and explicit in the New. But explicit means “characterized by full, clear expression,” an adjective hard to apply to this doctrine. Nevertheless, the doctrine grows out of the Scriptures, so it is a biblical teaching.”  (Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media.)

Historical Background

Though the Bible taught truth of the Triunity of God implicitly in both Old and New Testaments, the development and refinement of this doctrine resulted from the rise of heretical groups and teachers who either denied the deity of Christ or that of the Holy Spirit. This caused the early church to formally crystallize the doctrine of the Triunity. Actually, Tertullian in 215 A.D. was the first one to state this doctrine using the term, Trinity.

Concerning the struggle the early church went through, Walter Martin wrote:

“As the New Testament was completed toward the close of the first century, the infant church was struggling for its life against old foes—persecution and doctrinal error. On the one hand were the Roman empire, orthodox Judaism, and hostile pagan religions, and on the other hand were heresies and divisive doctrines. Early Christianity was indeed a perilous experiment.

Probably no doctrine was the subject of more controversy in the early church than that of the Trinity. Certainly the teaching of “one God in three Person” was accepted in the early church, but only as this teaching was challenged did a systematic doctrine of the Trinity emerge.

The Gnostic heresy, for instance, (which permeated Christendom in the lifetime of the apostles) drew strong condemnation in Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and John’s First Epistle. Denying the deity of Christ, the Gnostics taught that he was inferior in nature to the Father, a type of super-angel of impersonal emanation from God.

Following the Gnostics came such speculative theologians as Origen, Lucian of Antioch, Paul of Samosota, Sabellius, and Arius of Alexandria. All of these propagated unbiblical views of the Trinity and of the divinity of our Lord.

But perhaps the most crucial test of Christian doctrine in the early church was the “Arian heresy.” It was this heresy which stimulated the crystallization of thought regarding both the Trinity and the deity of Christ … 

Today there are still remnants of the Gnostic heresy (Christian Science), the Arian heresy (Jehovah’s Witnesses), and the Socinian heresy (Unitarianism) circulating in Christendom. All of these errors have one thing in common—they give Christ every title except the one which entitles Him to all the rest—the title of God and Savior.

But the Christian doctrine of the Trinity did not “begin” at the Council of Nicea, nor was it derived from “pagan influences.” While Egyptian, Chaldean, Hindu, and other pagan religions do incorporate so-called “trinities,” these have no resemblance to the Christian doctrine, which is unique and free from any heathen cultural vagaries ….” (Martin, pp. 22-23.)

While the term Trinity is never specifically used nor the doctrine explicitly explained in Scripture, it is nevertheless implicitly stated. The church councils, in their fight against heresy, were forced to think through what the Bible says about how God exists. The result was the doctrine of the Triunity. I emphasize that the development of this doctrine was based on a careful study of Scripture.

“It was an era when the main dogmas of the Christian Church were developed. The unfavorable connotation conveyed by the word “dogma” in a day of doctrinal laxity, such as the present, should not obscure the value to the Church of dogma. The word “dogma” came through the Latin from the Greek word dogma, which was derived from the verb dodeo. This word meant to think. The dogmas or doctrines formulated in this period were the result of intense thought and searching of the soul in order to interpret correctly the meaning of the Scriptures on the disputed points and to avoid the erroneous opinions (doxai) of the philosophers.” (Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1967, p. 141.)

Finally, it should be said that,

“… the doctrine of the Trinity is the distinctive mark of the Christian religion, setting it apart from all the other religions of the world. Working without the benefit of the revelations made in Scripture, men have, it is true, arrived at some limited truths concerning the nature and Person of God. The pagan religions, as well as all philosophical speculations, are based on natural religion and can, therefore, rise to no higher conception than that of the unity of God. In some systems we find monotheism with its belief in only one God. In others we find polytheism with its belief in many separate gods. But none of the pagan religions, nor any of the systems of speculative philosophy have ever arrived at a trinitarian conception of God. The fact of the matter is that apart from supernatural revelation there is nothing in human consciousness or experience which can give man the slightest clue to the distinctive God of the Christian faith, the triune, incarnate, redeeming, sanctifying God. Some of the pagan religions have set forth triads of divinities, such as, for instance, the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus, which is somewhat analogous to the human family with father, mother and child; or the Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Schiva, which in the cycle of pantheistic evolution personifies the creative, preservative and destructive power of nature; or the triad set forth by Plato, of goodness, intellect and will—which are not examples of true and proper tri-personality, not real persons who can be addressed and worshipped, but only personifications of the faculties or attributes of God. None of these systems have anything in common with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity except the notion of “threeness.” (Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1976, pp. 80-81.)

This is the first break. I want to define Trinity and then look at the evidence in my next post.

What is often terms “priesthood of the believer” is a Christian belief that every person has direct access to God without any mediator other than Christ. This doctrine has had a profound implication for Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, because it informs our relationship with clergy.

All religions have developed an intricate system of priesthood, an order of religious professionals who act as mediators between the worshiper and God. The essence of the Christian gospel is that believers have direct access to God because Christ has broken down the barriers (Eph. 2:14-16). This means that the “priesthood of the believer” has become a strong Christian doctrine which developed in two directions.  One, believers can respond directly to the personal activity of God in their lives, through the Holy Spirit and the written word of Scripture. We do not require a human priest to mediate authoritative communication with God. Two, Christians have become a “holy priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5) and can minister to one another and to the world. A professional priesthood no longer acts as an exclusive channel for holy communication. Any believer can be the channel of God’s Spirit and mediate the grace of God in prayer, confession, or witness in particular situations.

The role of Christ as our only priest means that He is the only Mediator between God and the believer (1 Tim. 2:5). The priestly role of Christ is a major theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews (4:14-15). Further, this priesthood of Christ is said to be “after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:6), which means that God appointed Him directly and Jesus did not have to trace His priesthood through the human line of Aaron or Levi. This priestly ministry of Christ is the foundation of the doctrine, because the work of Christ is sufficient for all and His “once for all” sacrifice fulfilled the promise and purpose of the Old Testament priesthood.

The Gospels record a dramatic event occurring at the very moment Jesus died on the cross. The great veil in the Temple, which separated the holy of holies from the rest of the sanctuary, was torn asunder from the top to the bottom, suggesting that God Himself opened up the direct access to the holy of holies through the death of Christ.

The priestly ministry of all believers derives directly from Christ, who calls all His followers to share in His priestly ministry. This fulfills Israel’s role as a kingdom of priests and a light to the nations. Peter compared Christian believers to living stones “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). Here the emphasis is not upon our coming directly to God without a human priest, but rather upon the priestly function of all believers as they offer “spiritual sacrifices” to God through Jesus Christ. The question immediately arises, “What are these spiritual sacrifices?” Hebrews 13:15-16 lists praise of God in prayer and song, doing good, sharing with others. Any real sacrifice will cost us something; it should be our response in love and gratitude to the One who has given Himself for us.

Romans 12:1 emphasizes another dimension of this priestly ministry of all Christians “I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship”. The progression in the Biblical record of sacrifice is clear. The priests of the old covenant offered the sacrifice of animals upon the altar. Christ, as High Priest, offered His own life upon the altar of the cross. Followers of Christ are called upon to offer their very bodies as a living sacrifice, a day-by-day commitment and service to God, as the truest form of worship.

Following are Biblical examples of that ministry.  We are urged to pray for one another, offering the priestly ministry of intercessory prayer. 

We are also urged to confess our sins to one another and to bear one another’s burden. The ancient role of the priest was to receive the confession of the people and to convey it to God to receive His forgiveness. All of us have the opportunity at some time to be a special channel of blessing and help to a fellow believer on the journey.

We can bring others to Christ. The ancient role of the priest was to bring people in contact with God. While Christ has come to reveal the Father, it is necessary for us to fulfill the priestly role of bringing people to Jesus in order that they may have access to the Father through Him.

What bothers some observers is the idea that Christians, as “priests of the Most High God” can interpret Scripture for ourselves. We are sometimes accused of being able to be a denomination unto ourselves. This is true in the purest sense, but not strictly true in that we live in community, interacting with other Holy Spirit-led believers, who act as safeguards to prevent heretical interpretations of Scripture. We find this to be a more Godly scenario than relying on the words and interpretations of clergy vetted by men who are themselves vetted by men who may or may not even know the Lord. We hold this is where heresy enters churches under the guise of tradition and eats away at its foundations. A many stranded cord is much stronger than one of one or a few strands. By submitting to our fellow believers, even our clergy is submitting to the Holy Spirit as speaking through the congregation.

Since Trinity has become such a huge topic on the blog, I’m posting a fuller explanation of the concept here rather than trying to fit it into a 2000-character comment.

This is drawn from the Holman Bible Dictionary with some commentary from my friends AB and PW, both Biblical scholars, and my elder friend RV, who actually wrote his Master’s thesis on the Trinity, something I didn’t know until last night.

Trinity is a theological term that defines God as an undivided unity expressed in the threefold nature of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is so much easier to say trinity than the definition that Christians often use the “church word” without explanation, which might be part of our problem. As a distinctive Christian doctrine, the Trinity is considered a divine mystery beyond human comprehension to be reflected upon only through scriptural revelation. In other words, you come to understand it as you read the Bible in its fullest context of Genesis through Revelation and not in the restricted zone of proof-texts. The Trinity is a Biblical concept that expresses the dynamic character of God. It is not, contrary to some speculation by novelists and agenda-driven historians who play fast and loose with facts, a Greek idea pressed into Scripture from philosophical or religious speculation. While the term trinity does not appear in Scripture, the trinitarian structure appears throughout the New Testament to affirm that God Himself is manifested through Jesus Christ by means of the Spirit.

A proper Biblical view of the Trinity balances the concepts of unity and distinctiveness. Two errors that appear in history when discussing the doctrine are tritheism and unitarianism. In tritheism, error is made in emphasizing the distinctiveness of the Godhead to the point that the Trinity is seen as three separate Gods, or a Christian polytheism. Please note that the original Christians were Jews coming from a strong and extremely strict monotheism. They clearly would have rejected polytheism and, though accused of promoting just that, they held strictly to their belief and message that Jesus was God. On the other hand, unitarianism excludes the concept of distinctiveness while focusing solely on the aspect of God the Father. In this way, Christ and the Holy Spirit are placed in lower categories and made less than divine. For some cultists, this is not a problem. Jesus is still divine; He’s just not as divine as the Father. However, for the Christian, both errors compromise the effectiveness and contribution of the activity of God in redemptive history. If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not fully God with all the divinity of the Father, then the redemptive process is one of worshipping mere idols. We hold to the same standard as the early church when it was populated by monotheistic Jews. God is not divided!

The biblical concept of the Trinity developed through progressive revelation. The Old Testament consistently affirms the unity of God through such statements as, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4). This verse, called the Shema, was a daily prayer presented by Israel in which God’s oneness is stressed to caution the Israelites against the polytheism and practical atheism of their heathen neighbors.

Though Trinity was not fully knowable from the Old Testament, it implies the trinitarian idea by establishing a vocabulary through the events of God’s nearness and creativity; both receive developed meaning from New Testament writers. For example, the word of God is recognized as the agent of creation (Ps. 33:6,9; Prov. 3:19; 8:27), revelation, and salvation (Ps. 107:20). This same vocabulary is given distinct personality in John’s prologue (John 1:1-4) in the person of Jesus Christ. Other vocabulary categories include the wisdom of God (Prov. 8) and the Spirit of God (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:30; Zech. 4:6).

A distinguishing feature of the New Testament is the doctrine of the Trinity. It is remarkable that New Testament writers present the doctrine in such a manner that it does not violate the Old Testament concept of the oneness of God. In fact, they unanimously affirm the Hebrew monotheistic faith, but they extend it to include the coming of Jesus and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The early Christian church experienced the God of Abraham in a new and dramatic way without abandoning the oneness of God that permeates the Old Testament. As a fresh expression of God, the concept of the Trinity—rooted in the God of the past and consistent with the God of the past—absorbs the idea of the God of the past, but goes beyond the God of the past in a more personal encounter. It’s like knowing someone as a pen pal for decades and then getting to spend time with them in person. What you knew before doesn’t change, but what you know now is far deeper and more personal.

The New Testament does not present a systematic presentation of the Trinity. The scattered segments from various writers that appear throughout the New Testament reflect a seemingly accepted understanding that exists without a full-length discussion. I find similarity to this acceptance of Truth in the way God’s existence is presumed in the Old Testament to the point that the writers didn’t seem to feel it necessary to prove His existence.  Why try to prove obvious Truth? In the same way, the accepted understanding of Jesus is embedded in the framework of the Christian experience and simply assumed as true. The New Testament writers focused on statements drawn from the obvious existence of the trinitarian experience as opposed to a detailed exposition.

The New Testament evidence for the Trinity can be grouped into four types of passages. The first is the trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2; Revelation 1:4. In each passage a trinitarian formula registers a distinctive contribution of each person of the Godhead. Matthew 28:19, for example, follows the triple formula of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that distinguishes Christian baptism. The risen Lord commissioned the disciples to baptize converts with a trinitarian emphasis that carries the distinctiveness of each person of the Godhead while associating their inner relationship. This passage is the clearest scriptural reference to a systematic presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Paul, in 2 Corinthians 13:14, finalized his thoughts to the Corinthian church with a pastoral appeal that is grounded in “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” (NIV). The formulation is designed to have the practical impact of bringing that divided church together through their personal experience of the Trinity in their daily lives. Significantly, in the trinitarian order Christ is mentioned first. This reflects the actual process of Christian salvation, since Christ is the key to opening insight into the work of the Godhead. Paul was calling attention to the trinitarian consciousness, not in the initial work of salvation which has already been accomplished at Corinth, but in the sustaining work that enables divisive Christians to achieve unity.

In 1 Peter 1:2, the trinitarian formula is followed with reference to each person of the Godhead. The scattered Christians are reminded through reference to the Trinity that their election (foreknowledge of the Father) and redemption (the sanctifying work of the Spirit) should lead to holy living obedience to the Son).

John addressed the readers of Revelation with an expanded trinitarian formula that includes references to the persons of the Godhead (Rev. 1:4-6). The focus on the triumph of Christianity crystallizes the trinitarian greeting into a doxology that acknowledges the accomplished work and the future return of Christ. This elongated presentation serves as an encouragement to churches facing persecution.

The triadic form of Ephesians 4:4-6 and 1 Corinthians 12:3-6 is a second type of Trinitarian passage. Both passages refer to the three Persons, but not in the definitive formula of the previous passage. Each Scripture balances the unity of the church. Emphasis is placed on the administration of gifts by the Godhead.

A third category of passages mentions the three persons of the Godhead, but without a clear triadic structure. In the accounts of the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:3-17; Mark 1:9-11; and Luke 3:21-22), the three synoptic writers recorded the presence of the Trinity when the Son was baptized, the Spirit descended, and the Father spoke with approval. Paul, in Galatians 4:4-6, outlined the work of the Trinity in the aspect of the sending Father. Other representative passages in this category (2 Thess. 2:13-15; Titus 3:4-6; and Jude 20–21) portray each member of the Trinity in relation to a particular redemptive function.

The fourth category of trinitarian passages includes those presented in the farewell discourse of Jesus to His disciples (John 14:16; 15:26; 16:13-15). In the context of these passages, Jesus expounded the work and ministry of the third person of the Godhead as the Agent of God in the continuing ministry of the Son. The Spirit is a Teacher who facilitates understanding on the disciples’ part and, in being sent from the Father and the Son, is one in nature with the other Persons of the Trinity. He makes known the Son and “at the same time makes known the Father who is revealed in the Son” (16:15). The discourse emphasizes the interrelatedness of the Trinity in equality and operational significance.

All of these passages are embryonic efforts by the early church to express its awareness of the Trinity. The New Testament is Christological in its approach, but it involves the fullness of God being made available to the individual believer through Jesus and by the Spirit. The consistent trinitarian expression is not a formulation of the doctrine, for at that time there was no challenge to the doctrine, but reveals an experience of God’s persistent self-revelation.

In the post-apostolic era, the Christian church tried to express its doctrine in terms that were philosophically acceptable and logically coherent. Greek categories of understanding began to appear in explanation efforts. Discussion shifted from the New Testament emphasis on the function of the Trinity in redemptive history to an analysis of the unity of essence of the Godhead.

A major question during those early centuries focused on the oneness of God. Orthodox Christian writers addressed several related heresies in the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries. Most are lumped under the heading of Gnosticism today. The Sabelians described the Godhead in terms of modes that existed only one at a time. This theory upheld the unity of God, but excluded His permanent distinctiveness. The Docetists understood Christ as an appearance of God in human form, while Ebonites described Jesus as an ordinary man indwelt with God’s power at baptism. Arius was also an influential theologian who viewed Jesus as subordinate to God. To Arius, Jesus was a being created by God, higher than man, but less than God. This idea, as well as the others, was challenged by Athanasius at Nicea (A.D. 325), and the council affirmed the position of Jesus as “of the exact same substance as the Father.”

Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430) was probably the most outstanding thinker of the early church. He began with the idea of God as one substance and sought explanation of the Godhead in psychological analogy: a person exists as one being with three dimensions of memory, understanding, and will; so also the Godhead exists as a unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While this explanation is helpful and contains the concept of three persons in one, it does not resolve the complex nature of God. God is so complex, it is highly unlikely that human beings can fully understand Him, much less explain Him to the satisfaction of others. We can know God as a triune Being, but explaining it is somewhat like trying to describe the scent of the color 9.  Yeah, 9 isn’t a color and you can’t smell a number … or can you? God is that complex!

Perhaps four statements can summarize and clarify this study.

God is One! The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. His offer of salvation in the Old Testament receives fuller revelation in the New Testament in a way that is not different, but more complete. The doctrine of the Trinity does not abandon the monotheistic faith of Israel, but rather develops it.

God has three distinct ways of acting in the redemptive event, yet He remains an undivided unity. That God the Father imparts Himself to mankind through Son and Spirit without ceasing to be Himself is at the very heart of the Christian faith. A compromise in either the absolute unity of the Godhead or the true diversity reduces the reality of salvation.

The primary way of grasping the concept of the Trinity is through the threefold participation in salvation. The approach of the New Testament is not to discuss the essence of the Godhead, but the particular aspects of the revelatory event that includes the definitive presence of the Father in the person of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. You can only truly know God through salvation and, therefore, non-believers can never truly understand Trinity. Believers can understand Trinity through experience, but explaining it to non-believers is usually a difficult matter. Again, how do you describe the scent of the color 9?

It’s good to remember that the doctrine of Trinity is a spiritual mystery as Paul described in Ephesians. It is primarily known, not through philosophical speculation, but through experiencing the act of grace through personal faith. While we might wish we could logically explain what we know to be true, it ultimately comes down to finite human beings trying to grasp an infinite God. The risk we run is that our explanations tend to limit God to our understanding when He is so much greater than our understanding. Metaphors break down because human language cannot even contain the full concept of God. Thus we are left with knowing God without fully understanding God. As my friend RV put it, that old scientist who became a theologian and is now a wise man in his 70s – “God doesn’t fit into my slide rule, but that doesn’t mean I can’t know Him. It just means I can’t know Him on my terms.”

I had intended to end the series with the final focus on Catholic theology, but I found some more information and decided to expound a bit upon it before closing. Eventually, I will be returning to Scripture. Acts awaits!

In 1994, a research and education institute located in New York City, called Religion and Public Life, held a press conference to release a document prepared and signed by a group of Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics. At the time, Southern Baptists had nothing to do with the document – neither its preparation nor any subsequent documents. In more recent years, Charles Colson, himself a Southern Baptist, has been involved in a cooperative project between Catholics and Evangelicals. Some of what I am writing is from a response statement from Dallas Theological Seminary (provided by my friend AB, who is an alumnus) to that original 1994 statement and some of it are the thoughts I had as I was reading what Charles Colson wrote about this effort in his recent book “The Faith”.

Many evangelical Christians recognize that evangelicals and Roman Catholics share much in common on moral and social issues and can often cooperate in those areas. Our society is assaulted daily by the forces of secularism, humanism, and false religions. United, Catholics and evangelicals can oppose such evils as abortion on demand and pornography, for we support many basic theology truths and Biblical values on morality and the family. Cooperation in these areas can take the form of political, moral and social action – resisting abortion, establishing crisis pregnancy centers, and lobby for laws that promote moral values and protect the abused are areas where Evangelicals and Catholics have cooperated in the past and can continue to do so in the future.

However, the theological differences between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics remain significant and must not be minimized. I agree with Dallas Seminary in strongly questioning whether Evangelicals and Catholics can ever “unite on the great truths of the faith.” Both groups might use the same words and quote the same Scriptures, but at least four fundamental issues separate Evangelical and Catholic doctrine.

1. Evangelicals hold to sola fide (justification by faith only in Christ alone) while official Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that justification also involves human effort and merit.

2. Evangelicals teach that the new birth is not dependent on water baptism while Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that water baptism is a “sacrament of regeneration.” Therefore, baptism for evangelicals is a symbolic gesture undergone by older children and adults following salvation, while for Roman Catholics it is a salvic ritual performed on an infant child as soon after birth as possible.

3. Evangelicals affirm sola scriptura (the Word of God alone is our final authority for doctrine and Christian life) while Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that church tradition and the authority of the pope sustain equal validity with the Bible.

4. Evangelicals hold that all believers are priests with immediate access to God through Jesus Christ while Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that the clergy, saints, and the Virgin Mary are also mediators whom individuals need to approach God.

The doctrinal differences stated above are far too significant to ignore. As they were major issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation and cannot be dismissed for the sake of unity, Dallas Seminary therefore could not in good conscience endorse the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document. They hoped to maintain fellowship with those Evangelicals who did sign the document. Unlike past generations of Catholics in similar situations, Evangelicals consider our brothers and sisters in Christ to remain our friends while disagreeing with their particular actions.

It must be noted that none of these efforts at what Catholics would call “ecumenicism” are binding on anyone. The 1994 document, nor more recent documents, are not formal agreements between Evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church. The 1994 document stated unequivocally, “This statement cannot speak officially for our communities.” It was and remains a document representing the views of several Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, but it never intended to speak on behalf of either group as a whole.

Conversely, the document highlighted the fact that a number of Roman Catholics are trusting in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation and are truly “born again.” Evangelicals rejoice to hear that Roman Catholics are finally coming to an understanding of Biblical salvation. Welcome!

The document reminded Evangelicals that Roman Catholics are our allies in the fight to reclaim the basic moral and spiritual values under assault in our society. This has been enhanced by Colson’s more recent involvement in the ongoing movement. Morally and socially, we share much in common and we should not view one another as enemies in opposing camps. We must be careful, however, to not forget what is most important with regards to faith. We cannot compromise the gospel for moral or social advantage! As Catholics and Evangelicals continue to work together for the good of our nation, we Evangelicals must not lose sight of the larger issue of the gospel.

It matters very little what form our government takes so much as what state God finds our souls.

Roman Catholic salvation theology is driven by two defining tenets: first, man has been wounded by sin, and second, justification is incomplete without ultimate sanctification. With the help of divine grace, sin’s wounds must be overcome and a life of charity must be produced. Only then is justification assured. Sanctification has been assimilated into justification in Catholic theology and thinking, so that as Catholics cooperate toward sanctification they increase their justification. This, of course, runs counter to the Protestant doctrine of sola fide.

A theological understanding of man’s condition outside of Christ, in his sinful state, informs one’s approach to the doctrine of justification. Man’s role in his own salvation is affected by the state in which sin has left him. If man is dead in sin, then there is presumably nothing he can do about his own salvation. He is dependant upon God. If instead he has only been injured by sin, then he may contain within himself the necessary resources to recover from sin’s wound.

“The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice.” (Catechism, 375-376)

Original holiness refers to man’s capacity to share in divine life. Original justice refers to the harmony which Adam and Eve experienced, both inwardly within themselves and outwardly with one another and creation generally.

“…not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”--a state and not an act.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 404.)

“Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin--an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.” (Ibid., no. 405.)

The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the 5^th century, especially in Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the 16^th century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil, which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546). ( Ibid., no. 406.)

Catholicism attempts to bridge the gap between Pelagianism and Protestant theology. Man needs grace, but he is not dead. Justification in Catholicism might best be described as cooperative--God begins it, but man, with God’s help, finishes it.

“Roman Catholicism is generally referred to as semi-Pelagian in its theological stance. Pelagius taught that each person was born with a free will and the ability to choose good as well as evil. He rejected the notion that man’s will had been affected by the fall of Adam. Although Roman Catholicism differs from Pelagianism, it does acknowledge the cooperation of the human will with God’s grace in salvation--this being possible because the sin of Adam left man in a weakened condition but not spiritually dead.” (Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), p. 527.)

From a evangelical perspective, the Roman Catholic Church seems to want to be God’s partner in salvation rather than God’s servant. We see a major disagreement with Biblical teaching:

This would seem to be declaring that: 1) all have sinned (including small children); 2) that we’re all dead (yet, Adam and Eve lived for many years in their dead state).  This passage also stresses the importance of faith in salvation as does the Catechism:

“Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. “Since ‘without faith it is impossible to please [God]’ and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘but he who endures to the end’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 161; quoting from Dei Filius 3.)

“Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: “Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.” To live, grow, and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; it must be “working through charity,” abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the church.” (Ibid., no. 162.)

Justification includes both the removal of sins committed prior to Baptism and the infusion of faith, hope, and love for sanctification. What Protestants understand to be sanctification, or growth in grace, and see to be a result of justification, Catholics believe to be a part of justification. So a Catholic is not completely justified before God until he is fully sanctified. Protestant Michael Horton explained:

“Rome simply combined [at the Council of Trent] the two concepts into one: God justifies us through the process of our moving, by the power of God’s Spirit at work in our lives, from being unjust to becoming just. In other words, men and women are accepted before God on the basis of their cooperation with God’s grace over the course of their lives, rather than on the basis of Christ’s finished work alone, received through faith alone, to the glory of God alone.” (Michael S. Horton, What Still Keeps Us Apart? in Roman Catholicism, John Armstrong, gen. ed., (Chicago: Moody, 1994), pp. 257 and 258.)

The Catechism explains as follows:

“...justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2018.)

 “Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted to us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.” (Ibid., no. 2020.)

“Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent....” (Ibid., no. 1993.)

While the first work of justification is grounded solely on grace through faith, the completing work of justification is merited. As the Catholic cooperates in charity with the promptings of the Holy Spirit he merits his sanctification, resulting in eternal life. Eternal life is an earned privilege.

 “Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.” (Ibid., no. 2010.)

“The children of our holy mother the Church rightly hope for the grace of final perseverance and the recompense of God their Father for the good works accomplished with his grace in communion with Jesus.” (Ibid., no. 2016.)

I asked BJ, Paul and Scott all if they felt assured of their salvation. BJ and Paul both feel their salvation was assured at salvation and re-baptism as believing adults, but both say they doubt they had any salvation before they were born-again. Scott believes himself to be “saved” by his association with the Roman Catholic Church and his baptism as an infant. However, he admits that if he doesn’t live according to the dictates of “charity” and the rules of the (RCC) Church, he is not assured of salvation. Assurance comes at death, though he expects to spend some time in Purgatory. It’s odd to me to hear BJ and Paul say they remember believing that as well and feeling like there was no way they could live up to that standard. They were assured as young men that they were going to Hell, even as they were struggling to obey the dictates of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet, now, as heretics (according to Roman Catholic theology), they feel empowered to live Christian lives and feel assured that salvation awaits them when they die.

“Catholics put the sacraments before a relationship with God,” BJ said. “They have activities of faith rather than a relationship of faith. I think that is why I always felt so lost, because I was doing instead of being.”

“But this is how you were taught to interact with God,” Paul said. “We were encouraged to pray a canned prayer, never anything like ‘God, I’m really in need of you this second. Help!’ When you went for absolution, you were given so many Hail Marys and Our Fathers to say. When you went back for the same issue, the priest gave you more Hail Marys and Our Fathers. It was all about what you did rather than what God did.”

In Catholic theology, as I understand it, excepting the sacrament of Baptism, which produces justification, the sacramental economy is the currency of the cooperative aspect of justification, (what Protestants would call sanctification). Participation in the sacraments yields the needed grace for charity, which continues and perfects justification.

“The liturgy, in its turn, moves the faithful filled with “the paschal sacraments” to be “one in holiness”; it prays that “they hold fast in their lives what they have grasped by their faith.” The renewal in the Eucharist of the covenant between the Lord and man draws the faithful and sets them aflame with Christ’s insistent love. From the liturgy, therefore, and especially from the Eucharist, grace is poured forth upon us as from a fountain, and the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God to which all other activities of the church are directed, as toward their end, are achieved with maximum effectiveness.” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, no. 10.)

“In Christian tradition [liturgy] means the participation of the People of God in “the work of God.” Through the liturgy Christ, our redeemer and high priest, continues the work of our redemption in, with, and through his Church.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1069.)

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.” (Ibid., no. 1129.)

The Catholic understanding of the death-burial-resurrection event as a unique ever-abiding event explains its presence in the sacraments. The sacrifice of Christ is not only historical, but is also an ever-present event producing present results.

“In the liturgy of the Church, it is principally his own Paschal mystery that Christ signifies and makes present. During his earthly life Jesus announced his Paschal mystery by his teaching and anticipated it by his actions. When his hour comes, he lives out the unique event of history which does not pass away: Jesus dies, is buried, rises from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the Father “once for all.” His Paschal mystery is a real event that occurred in our history, but it is unique: all other historical events happen once, and then they pass away, swallowed up in the past. The Paschal mystery of Christ, by contrast, cannot remain only in the past, because by his death he destroyed death, and all that Christ is--all that he did and suffered for all men--participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times while being made present in them all. The event of the Cross and Resurrection abides and draws everything toward life.” (Ibid., no. 1085.)

In the life of most Catholics, entry into the Church begins as a days-old infant at baptism.

“Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission...” (Ibid., no. 1213.)

“...it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one “can enter the kingdom of God.” (Ibid., no. 1215.)

Special emphasis is directed toward the Baptism of infants:

“Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.” (Ibid., no. 1250.)

Two principal effects result from the sacrament of Baptism – all sins, both original and personal, are forgiven and all punishment is remitted. Nothing impedes entrance into heaven “neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin...” (Ibid., no. 1263.)

“The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification which enables them to believe in God, grants them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit, and allows them to grow in goodness.” (Ibid., no. 1266.)

BJ remembers his confirmation – the months of preparation in catechism class, the solemnity of the event. Thinking back, he doesn’t remember any sort of transformation occurring, but then neither do our children remember their salvation experiences in great detail. The significant difference is that he still didn’t feel transformed as a teenager and young adult while our daughter, who is now 15, says she knows there is something that is different in her heart from those of her unsaved friends.

“...the reception of the sacrament of confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For “by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit.” (Ibid., no. 1285.)

It might be noted that confirmation was not a standard rite of passage in the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Protestant Reformation. This might indicate that the ceremony was added to the liturgy in response to Protestant charges that Catholicism was a religion of inherited transmission rather than of personal faith.

“The effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the “full outpouring of the Holy Spirit”, which results in an “increase and deepening of baptismal grace.” (Ibid., no. 1302 and 1303).

The baptized believer must be in a state of grace to receive Confirmation. To insure this, the sacrament of Penance is urged prior to receiving the sacrament of Confirmation. One commentary I read stated that Confirmation is often celebrated alongside Baptism eliminating this concern, but I fail to see how a tiny infant might participate in this. The commentary might have missed mentioning that this was for older people.

The Eucharist, also referred to as Holy Communion and Holy Mass, “makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior.” (Ibid., no. 1330.)  It is the centerpiece of the sacramental economy and of the Church’s life. In the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated throughout the ages. The Eucharist (what is often called Mass) begins with a homily, which is followed by the presentation of the offerings, the bread and wine. The anaphora, the portion of the liturgy in which the elements are offered as a sacrifice, follows.  In the preface, the Church gives thanks to the Father, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, for all his works: creation, redemption, and sanctification. In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit. In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all. In the anamnesis that follows, the Church calls to mind the Passion, resurrection, and glorious return of Christ Jesus; she presents to the Father the offering of his Son which reconciles us with him. In the intercessions, the Church indicates that the Eucharist is celebrated in communion with the whole Church in heaven and on earth, the living and the dead, and in communion with the pastors of the Church, the Pope, the diocesan bishop, his presbyterium and his deacons, and all the bishops of the whole world together with their Churches. (Ibid., no 1352, 1353, and 1354)

In the communion, preceded by the Lord’s prayer and the breaking of the bread, the faithful receive “the bread of heaven” and “the cup of salvation,” and the “body and blood of Christ...” (Ibid., no. 1355.)

“When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present: the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. “As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.” (Ibid., no. 1364, quoting Lumen Gentium 3.)

“To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven.” (Ibid., no. 1370.)

Christ is present in the Eucharist by virtue of transubstantiation, a divine action whereby the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood.

“In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” (Ibid., no. 1374, quoting from Trent.)

Catholics worship the Eucharist. “In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. “The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.” (Ibid., no. 1378, quoting Paul VI, MF 56.)

Penance, or Reconciliation, restores the Catholic to grace after he sins. Penance provides, from God’s mercy, pardon for offenses committed against him and reconciles the repentant Catholic to the Church. Penance is an essential remedy available to the Catholic to be relied upon during the course of sanctification. Without the sacrament of Penance, the Catholic guilty of mortal sin, having lost his baptismal grace, could not be restored to grace, and so would be condemned to hell. For this reason, Penance is also thought of as the second conversion, Baptism being the first conversion.

Catholicism evaluates sin according to the degree of seriousness. Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart and turns the Catholic away from God, necessitating the sacrament of Penance for resolution. Venial sin offends and wounds charity, but does not destroy it.  For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (Ibid., no. 1857.)  Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger. (Ibid., no. 1858.) 

“Venial sin weakens charity...[and]...merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable.” (Ibid., no. 1863.)

As an evangelical, reading these words seems to bring a flavor of bargaining with God. Sin, as I understand it from the Bible, is sin. God doesn’t see it in shades of grey. Have you looked at a woman with lust in your heart? You’re guilty of adultery. Yet, this is not the view of many Catholics and I find the seeds of this gradation of sin in their theology.

“Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance. (Ibid., no. 1430.)

“It comprises two equally essential elements: on the one hand, the acts of the man who undergoes conversion through the action of the Holy Spirit: namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction; on the other, God’s action through the intervention of the Church. The Church...through the bishop and his priests forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ and determines the manner of satisfaction.” (Ibid., no. 1448.)

“Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance... Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended...” (Ibid., no. 1456 and 1458).

“Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.” (Ibid., no. 1459.)

“The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent’s personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear.” (Ibid., no. 1460.)

The doctrine of indulgences is closely related to the sacrament of Penance, so is presented here. This doctrine also involves the Treasury of the Church.

“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven... An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.”  (Ibid., no. 1471, quoting Paul IV.)

An indulgence provides a pardon of the need to make satisfaction in completing Penance. The Catechism explains:

“To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.” (Ibid., no. 1472, quoting Trent.)

Indulgences are obtained from the Treasury of the Church, which is a bank of spiritual goods, or satisfactions, available for distribution by the Church. It can be used to remit the sins for both the living and the dead.

(It should be noted here that this was the practice that caused Martin Luther to post his Treatises at Wittenberg. He could find no Biblical justification for this practice, which was becoming a drain on the resources of the peasantry at the enrichment of the Church).

This sacrament was formerly known as Extreme Unction, as it was conferred almost exclusively at the point of death. The sacrament is now used in the case of grave illness, and it is a repeatable sacrament. Its purpose is “the conferral of a special grace on the Christian experiencing the difficulties inherent in the condition of grave illness or old age.” (Ibid., no. 1527.)  It is almost always given when death seems imminent.

Similar to the Protestant practice of “ordination”, Holy Orders is used by the Roman Catholic Church to invest clergy with authority. As with most of the Roman Catholic sacraments, Holy Orders has a deep metaphysical meaning.

 “In the sacrament of Holy Orders the recipient is ordained into the line of apostolic succession, granting him sacerdotal power.  Sacerdotal power authorizes a priest to act as a mediator. Included as sacerdotal powers are the power of the keys and the power to bind and loose. In the case of consecration to the episcopate (bishops) and the presbyterate (priests). Sacerdotal power does not apply to deacons, though they are consecrated through this sacrament as well. The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a “sacred power” which is none other than that of Christ.” (Ibid., no. 1551.)

The bishop upon receiving Holy Order is integrated into the episcopal college, making him the visible head of the church where he is assigned. “As successors of the apostles and members of the college, the bishops share in the apostolic responsibility and mission of the whole Church under the authority of the Pope.” (Ibid., no. 1594.)

Priests are united with the bishops in “sacerdotal dignity” and at the same time depend on them in the exercise of their pastoral functions; they are called to be the bishops’ prudent co-workers. “They form around their bishop the presbyterium which bears responsibility with him for the particular Church. They receive from the bishop the charge of a parish community or a determinate ecclesial office.” (Ibid., no. 1595.)

The sacrament of Matrimony signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved his Church; “the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies them on the way to eternal life.” (Ibid., no. 1661.)

It seems in the evangelical perspective that Catholics believe baptism saves them. It wipes away the original sin of Adam and allows the child to grow up in a state of grace. Yet, we note that Paul claimed to have been a sinner from an early age. As soon as he knew what sin was, he became under the authority of sin. (Romans). This would seem to run counter with the Catholic idea of baptismal regeneration. Confirmation, which was really added to the liturgy during the Counter-Reformation, would seem to be an attempt to add a reasoned faith step to this process, but it should be noted that it is often scheduled for a child’s birth date rather than their spiritual readiness. Baptism is always seen in Acts as occurring after the salvation experience, but infants cannot reason and accept or deny Christ, so it would seem that this sort of baptism is without any spiritual effect. If faith is necessary for salvation, as the Catholic documents suggest, then what value does infant baptism have?

Scott talks about the Eucharist as his contact with God and he really struggles with the notion that BJ, Paul and I have this contact with God at all times. In fact, at times, he’s certain we can’t have this contact at all since we don’t participate in the Eucharist. Our Lord’s Supper is a symbolic gesture focused on remembering Jesus’ sacrifice. It has no salvic value, but it is provided as a means of focusing on what Jesus did on the cross. To an evangelical, it seems as if Catholics have made the symbol more important than the actual event. Christ died for us. That was a once-for-all thing. It doesn’t require repeating. As indicated before, the categorization of sins into venial (lesser) and mortal (truly bad) seems almost like bargaining with God. I can get away with these few sins, but these others over here – well, I don’t do those. (I would note that both of my former Catholic informants and my present Catholic friend agreed with me on this. They have experienced a sense of gradation and allowed it to affect their spiritual lives because they thought they could “get away with it”. A survey of friends who come from a strictly evangelical background found that most consider all sins equal, though they have a human tendency to wish that lying was less sinful than murder. Most of the ones I surveyed admitted to thinking that wish was also a sin).  

There was a time when every Christian was pleased to identify with the catholic church--catholic with a small “c,” that is. Following Pentecost, the gospel spread rapidly. Despite seasons of intense and violent persecution, pockets of believers emerged throughout the Roman Empire. These early Christians held to a common faith and enjoyed a God-given affinity wherever they met. Paul’s teaching of the church as one body made up of all true believers provided a theological understanding of this new relationship (1 Corinthians 12:12-31). At the very outset, it behooves us to understand that early Christianity was not a monolithic group. For example, Jewish Christians clung to Judaic ceremonies and even continued to worship in Temple and synagogues for quite some time, while Gentile Christians were not required and presumably felt no need to keep Jewish traditions. Yet, the two groups considered themselves brothers in the Lord, despite their differences.

Early Christians used the term catholic, a Greek word meaning concerning the whole, to describe this worldwide nature of the church. When early Christians referred to the catholic faith, they were speaking of the faith of the whole or universal church. The oldest document containing the term is a letter by Ignatius from the early second century. He wrote, “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.” In the first three centuries, “the catholic church” referred to all believers holding to the same faith throughout the world.

With such a noble heritage, it is not surprising that today not only the Roman Catholic Church but most Christian denominations claim to hold to the catholic faith--that is, the faith of the whole church in apostolic times. The distinguishing mark of those identified as Roman Catholics is submission to the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as Christ’s representative on earth. Nevertheless, the Church rarely refers to itself as the Roman Catholic Church. It prefers to call itself the Catholic Church so as not to limit in any way its claim to universal jurisdiction as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

The Catholic Church is referred to as Mother: “It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes, and sustains my faith.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 168)

“Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: “We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation.” Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.” (Ibid, no. 169)

She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation.” (Ibid., no. 868).

Entrance into the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation since “all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his body.” (Ibid., no. 846.) Though salvation is administered through the Church, Roman Catholic theology would not think of the Church as a mediator between man and God. Instead, the Church is regarded as “a visible organization through which [Christ] communicates truth and grace to all men.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 8.)

Protestant theology recognizes the visible church (the church on earth at a given point in time) and the universal church (all New Testament saints for all of time, inclusive of those in heaven and on earth). Saints presently residing in heaven are understood as distinct from those presently residing on earth in terms of activity and relationship. Catholic theology, however, recognizes a continuity between the faithful of all time regardless of their state of being. “All, indeed, who are of Christ and who have his Spirit form one Church and in Christ cleave together.” (Ibid., no. 49)

Some Christians are presently on earth, some are being purified in Purgatory, and others are in heaven. Regardless of their state of being, they continue to contribute to or benefit from one another.

The Church faithful are those who embrace the doctrine of the Church, submit to the hierarchy, and enter into the sacramental system.

“Fully incorporated into the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who--by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion--are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved.” (Ibid., no. 14.)

The popular and theological use of the term saint in Catholic theology refers to those people who have lived their earthly life, died, and are now enjoying heaven.

“...the union of the wayfarers [those who remain on earth] with the brethren who sleep in the peace of Christ is in no way interrupted, but on the contrary, according to the constant faith of the Church, this union is reinforced by an exchange of spiritual goods. Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness, add to the nobility of the worship that the Church offers to God here on earth, and in many ways help in a broader building up of the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-27). Once received into their heavenly home and being present to the Lord (cf. 2 Cor. 5:8), through him and with him and in him they do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5), serving God in all things and completing in their flesh what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church (cf. Col. 1:24). So by their brotherly concern is our weakness greatly helped.” (Ibid., no. 49.)

While Protestants recognize the term “saint”, we hold with the Biblical definition, which refers to the communion of all living Christians, thus being in disagreement with the Roman Catholic usage.

“The witnesses who have preceded us into the kingdom, especially those whom the Church recognizes as saints, share in the living tradition of prayer by the example of their lives, the transmission of their writings, and their prayer today. They contemplate God, praise him and constantly care for those whom they have left on earth. When they entered into the joy of their Master, they were “put in charge of many things.” Their intercession is their most exalted service to God’s plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2683.)

In the veneration of the saints, Roman Catholicism sees a way to draw the faithful toward ever greater exercise of charity and closeness to Christ.

“The Church has always believed that the apostles and Christ’s martyrs, who gave the supreme witness of faith and charity by the shedding of their blood, are closely united with us in Christ; she has always venerated them, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy angels, with a special love and has asked piously for the help of their intercession. Soon there were added to these others who had chosen to imitate more closely the virginity and poverty of Christ, and still others whom the outstanding practice of the Christian virtues and the wonderful graces of God recommended to the pious devotion and imitation of the faithful.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 50.)

From a Protestant perspective, this would appear to be ancestor worship, but Catholicism distinguishes veneration from worship:

“The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.” The honor paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone:^” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2132, quoting from Basil and Thomas Aquinas.)

Religious worship is not directed to images themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

Purgatory is the place of final purification, a logically essential doctrine to Roman Catholicism. Heaven is the place for only those who have died in God’s grace and friendship, those who are perfectly purified. Yet, many of the Faithful die in God’s grace, but are not completely purified at the moment of their death. They are assured of eventual entrance into Heaven because they have died in God’s grace, but they must be completely purified first. Purgatory provides the place of purification between life on earth and life in heaven for the faithful who have died in grace. Purgatory is distinct from the punishment of those who are destined for hell.

“In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and, “because it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins” (2 Mac. 12:46) she offers her suffrages for them.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 50.)

“All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1030.)

In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.” In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits the others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Recourse to the Communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.

We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints the Church’s treasury, which is “not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries. On the contrary the ‘treasury of the Church’ is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ’s merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy.

“This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.” (Ibid., nos. 1475, 1476, 1477, quoting from Indulgentiarum doctrina.)

In Protestant theology, we find no Biblical evidence that the saints in heaven are acting in any way on the behalf of those on earth. Many Roman Catholics rely on Hebrews 12:1 “Therefore since we also have such a large cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us lay aside every weight and the sin that so easily ensnares us, and run with endurance the race that lies before us,…” to support their doctrine, but I think they don’t realize that this verse refers to the preceding chapter – what Evangelicals call “the Roll Call of Faith.” Therein is listed all the Old Testament saints, those who lived before Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, but did so by faith, showing that the law was never the basis for salvation. Drawing on Luke 16:19-31 (the parable of the rich man and Lazarus), I believe that the dead cannot really do anything on our behalf because there is a great chasm between us and them and the dead cannot cross it. I believe this based upon Biblical example. While Roman Catholics may not see a difference between veneration and worship of the saints, I am afraid I, like most non-Catholics, are not convinced that there is a substantive difference. Romans 3:23 (“
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”) and Romans 8:1-2 “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death”) indicate to me that there is no way any of us can die in a perfectly pure state and that Paul considered himself already free from any condemnation for his sin, therefore the dogma of Purgatory seems Biblically unsupported. What I read, particularly in Romans, is that none of us dies perfectly pure, but it doesn’t matter because Jesus died for us and He is perfectly pure. If we accept that sacrifice and turn our lives over to Him, we are considered perfectly pure. There is a vital distinction here.

Mixing the dogmas of purgatory and veneration together, the Roman Catholics focus tightly on Mariology.  Mariology had its beginnings with the angel Gabriel’s statements to Mary recorded in Luke 1:26-38. Mary was greeted as “you who are highly favored” (NIV), and was told that she would bear the Son of God. Mary responded with great faith, “I am the Lord’s servant, may it be done to me as you have said.” Because of her special position and her faith, Mary is reverenced first among the saints. She is also hailed as a type of the redeemed and purified Church. Over the centuries an extensive theology has grown up around Mary.

To become the mother of the Savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.” The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace.” In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.” (Ibid., no. 490.)

Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:  

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtues of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” (Ibid., no. 491)

Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus,” Mary was acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord.” In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Ibid., no. 495.)

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as...the “Ever-Virgin.” (Ibid., no. 499.)

Protestants sometimes raise the objection that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to the Old Testament expression.” (Ibid., no. 500.)  Non-Catholics still are not convinced since we read the words “brothers and sisters” in the Bible.

Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death. (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 59.)

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians.... (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 966.)

“Mary...devoted herself totally, as a handmaid of the Lord, to the person and work of her Son, under and with him, serving the mystery of redemption.... Therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of Man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she “being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 56.)

“In the public life of Jesus Mary appears prominently; at the very beginning when at the marriage feast of Cana, moved with pity, she brought about by her intercession the beginning of miracles of Jesus the Messiah. ...the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully preserved in her union with her son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consented to the immolation of this victim which was born of her.” (Ibid., no. 58.)

After her Son’s Ascension, Mary “aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers.” In her association with the apostles and several women, “we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit...”. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 965.)

In the words of the apostle there is but one mediator: “for there is but one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all” (1 Tim. 2:5-6). But “Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 60.)

“She conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ, she presented him to the Father in the temple, shared her Son’s sufferings as he died on the cross. Thus, in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the work of the Savior in restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.” (Ibid., no. 61.)

“Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. This however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.”  (Ibid., no. 62.)

In dealing with the concept of Mediatrix, S. Lewis Johnson provides the following background and application which augments the Vatican II statements above:

“Since the practice of praying to the saints increased during the Middle Ages, it is not surprising that Mary became especially popular. Jesus came to stand for the stern, forbidding and unapproachable judge. The faithful were pointed to Mary, the compassionate mother who would act as mediator for them. The period of time from Trent to the French Revolution was preeminently the time of the defining of the compassionate mediation of Mary, principally in reaction against the Reformation, Jansenism, and eighteenth-century rationalism. A leader in the development of the sense of Mary as the compassionate Mediatrix was Alphonsus Liguori, a leading Italian moral theologian, who wrote many devotional and mystical works in praise of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and of Mary as “semi-divine mediatrix.” In his work on the glories of Mary he said, “God wants all graces to come by the hand of Mary.”

“Leo XIII in an encyclical in 1891 strongly affirmed Mary’s mediation: “Nothing is bestowed on us except through Mary, as God himself wills. Therefore as no one can draw near to the supreme Father except through the Son, so also one can scarcely draw near to the Son except through his mother.” Vatican II reaffirmed Mary’s role as mediatrix, although warning against in any way limiting the dignity and efficacy of Christ as the one mediator.” (S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., Mary, the Saints, and Sacerdotalism in Roman Catholicism, John Armstrong, ed., (Chicago: Moody, 1994).

“But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph. 5:27), the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues. Devoutly meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church reverently penetrates more deeply into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her spouse.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 65.)

Mary is venerated in the Church with a degree of devotion which is greater than that given to the saints, but which is less than that reserved for divinity. This degree of honor, known as hyperdulia is reserved for Mary alone. McCarthy explained:

“The most common way in which Catholics venerate Mary is by saying the Rosary. Considered by the Church an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” it is a series of prayers counted on a string of beads. These are arranged in groups of ten small beads separated by one large bead. There are five sets of these decades. On the large bead, the Our Father or Lord’s Prayer is said. On each of the ten small beads, Catholics pray the Hail Mary:

“Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.” (James G. McCarthy, p. 206.)

For Protestants, Mary is a human woman who was honored by God to be the mother of His earthly body. He chose her because she had good attributes and she was betrothed to a man who also had outstanding attributes (poor Joseph doesn’t seem to get a lot of credit from Roman Catholics for accepting God’s will in his marriage). Still, Mary was a human being and, as such, born under sin like the rest of us. We see where she questions the angel because she knows she’s a virgin and couldn’t be pregnant by natural means. She questioned Jesus’ teaching in the Temple just as Joseph did. She was with His brothers (and yes, I think they were His biological brothers and her biological sons) when they demanded to know when He was going to take up His family responsibilities. I’m not saying she wasn’t a fine woman of faith, but she was still human and, like almost everyone around Jesus during His ministry, she seemed a bit clueless about what His true purpose was. Mary’s response in Luke 1:28 showed her faith that God wouldn’t do anything to harm her. Faith works like that. But faith doesn’t make us better or more special than anyone else. It simply means that our trust is put in the right place. The Immaculate Conception, which has always bothered me, remains a major stumbling block for me. As I understand it, Roman Catholics believe that Mary herself was the child of immaculate conception. Why do we not find that anywhere in the Bible? And why wasn’t this dogma believed in the early centuries of the church? It seems to have sprung up during the Medieval era, many centuries after Jesus’ death. I also fail to understand the spiritual value of the Roman Catholic Church’s dogma of perpetual virginity. I think many of the Catholic dogmas concerning Mary grew from heresies among laity who did not know the Bible because they couldn’t read and weren’t permitted to read the Bible even if they could read. I think the Church accepted these as dogmas under the auspices of Tradition because they saw the dogmatic focus on Mary as a way to keep the faithful’s attentions away from other issues, like the total lack of religious liberty within the Roman Catholic Church.

Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae articulated the Church’s position regarding the social and civil liberty of individuals and communities in religious matters. The purpose of the document was to affirm constitutional religious liberty on the basis of human dignity. Freedom of religious practice in society is viewed as a God-endowed right, and should therefore be exempt from civil restriction.

“It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons, that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore bearing personal responsibility, are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth. But men cannot satisfy this obligation in a way that is in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy both psychological freedom and immunity from external coercion.” (Vatican II, Declaration on Religious Liberty, no. 2.)

In an atmosphere that is free from coercion, men are obligated to “seek the truth.” 

“The search for truth, however, must be carried out in a manner appropriate to the dignity of the human person and his social nature, namely, by free enquiry with the help of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue. It is by these means that men share with each other the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in such a way that they help one another in the search for truth.” (Ibid., no. 3.)

But, “seeking the truth” is in no way to be understood as license to religious pluralism.

“...while the religious freedom which men demand in fulfilling their obligation to worship God has to do with freedom from coercion in civil society, it leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ.” (Ibid., no. 1.)

Religious liberty proposed for individuals is similarly proposed for communities. The freedom or immunity from coercion in religious matters which is the right of individuals must also be accorded to men when they act in community.

“...these groups have a right to immunity so that they may organize themselves according to their own principles. They must be allowed to honor the supreme Godhead with public worship, help their members to practice their religion and strengthen them with religious instruction, and promote institutions in which members may work together to organize their own lives according to their religious principles.

Religious communities have the further right not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word.” (Ibid., no. 4.)

Religious liberty produces an atmosphere in which humans are free to embrace the Church.

“...the principle of religious liberty contributes in no small way to the development of a situation in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will and give it practical expression in every sphere of their lives.” (Ibid., no. 10.)

“For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth,
since what can be known[15] Or what is known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them.
From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people[16] Lit they are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20

This passage appears to differ from the Roman Catholic position. Those who do not know God are compelled by their natures, according to Romans, to suppress the truth, not seek it. Yet nature reveals the truth all around us, in myriad ways, so that we cannot avoid it, even if we wish to ignore it.

I really don’t see Dignitatis Humanae granting Catholics freedom of religious inquiry. It basically grants them the right to ask questions of priests, which my husband and his friend Paul, both growing up in post-Vatican II parishes, found not to be the case. Yes, you can ask, but you had better like the answers and how dare you bring up any Bible verses that disagree with the priests.  Neither ever felt encouraged to find real Biblically based answers to their questions until they joined non-Catholic Bible studies. (Both cite these as among the reasons they aren’t Catholics any longer).

I think, and Scott agreed with me on this (as did BJ and Paul), that the purpose of this Vatican II statement was to assuage Roman Catholic anxieties that perhaps the Protestants were right after all and believers really ought to know what the Bible says and form their beliefs from that rather than the priests’ opinions. Since the Church couldn’t stop Roman Catholics from reading the Bible, they decided to allow it, but insist that they do so under the auspices of the Church. This is in a similar vein to her call for ecumenism.

The Roman Church’s Decree on Ecumenism articulated her desire for the restoration of unity among all Christians. The document, Unitatis Redintegratio, expressed an attitude of inclusiveness. No longer are Protestants considered condemned; rather, we are seen as separated brethren. Protestants are now regarded as Christians who are in “imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church. The objective of the Church’s ecumenical dialogue is to gather all Christians back into the Catholic Church. The document begins by explaining the need for an ecumenical movement.

“In this one and only church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. For men who believe and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” (Vatican II, Degree on Ecumenism, no. 3.)

“Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow...” (Ibid.)

Next, the concept of ecumenism is defined. The term “ecumenical movement” indicates the initiatives and activities encouraged and organized, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity. These are: “first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult. Then, dialogue between competent experts from different Churches and communities... Through such dialogue everyone gains a truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life of both communities. In addition, these communions engage in that more intensive cooperation in carrying out any duties for the common good of humanity which are demanded by every Christian conscience. They also come together for common prayer, where this is permitted.” (Ibid., no. 4.)

The Council expected the ecumenical movement to produce Christian unity.

“The results will be that, little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only Church....” (Ibid.)

Unitatis Redintegratio provided several criteria for implementing the ecumenical movement by the Church. First, the Church is called to interior renewal, a change of heart and holiness of life. Second, ecumenical prayer services “for unity” are desired. Worship in common, however, is not encouraged. In addition to these, the document added:

“We must become familiar with the outlook of our separated brethren. Study is absolutely required for this, and it should be pursued in fidelity to the truth and with a spirit of goodwill.” (Ibid., no. 9.)

The document dealt with the principal schisms within the Church including the separation of the Eastern Church in the 12^th century and the Reformation in the 16^th century. Regarding the Protestant church the document stated:

“Our thoughts are concerned first of all with those Christians who openly confess Jesus Christ as God and Lord and as the only mediator between God and man.... We are indeed aware that there exist considerable differences from the doctrine of the Catholic Church even concerning Christ the Word of God made flesh and the work of Redemption, and thus concerning the mystery and ministry of the Church and the role of Mary in the work of salvation.” (Ibid., no. 20.)

In my research, I was surprised to find (though I really shouldn’t have been, since I know my history, but I was) that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that the initial point of departure in practice between Roman Catholic and non-RCC churches is the role, timing and significance of baptism.

“Though the Protestant church embraces baptism, the beginning point in Catholic theology, the absence of the other sacraments produces the imperfect communion which the separated brethren have with Catholics.

“By the sacrament of Baptism, whenever it is properly conferred in the way the Lord determined and received with the proper dispositions of soul, man becomes...reborn to a sharing of the divine life...

“Baptism, therefore, constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn. But baptism, of itself, is only a beginning, a point of departure, for it is wholly directed toward the acquiring of fullness of life in Christ.”  (Ibid., no. 22.)

The advantage to the Catholic call for ecumenism is that Catholics are now willing to talk with Protestants rather than just assume we’re evil. Paul and BJ both left the Roman Catholic Church before ecumenism was well understood and they have both been surprised by Scott’s openness to the gospel – to a point. He also knows Roman Catholic dogma and can share the differences comfortably. This new openness provides evangelicals with an opportunity to speak with Catholics that truly didn’t exist 20-25 years ago when BJ and Paul were converting. They were both seekers whose life choices had shown Roman Catholicism to be an utter failure at reforming their interior lives, which afforded them with a greater interest in a Savior Who is personal.

And, this is the actual break-point between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians. It is not, as the Roman Catholic Church assumed, baptism that separates us initially, but salvation. All the pretty-sounding rhetoric concerning “separated brethren in imperfect communion” does not really address the issue that evangelicals, particularly among Protestants, believe that you must come to Christ as a reasoned (thinking) decision, not as an infant at parental action. It has nothing to do with baptism and everything to do with what, for the evangelical, precedes baptism.

Nostra Aetate, Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, articulated the Church’s desire to initiate dialogue with non-Christian religions.

“...there is found among different peoples a certain awareness of hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the events of human life. At times there is present even a recognition of a supreme being, or still more of a Father. This awareness and recognition results in a way of life that is imbued with a deep religious sense. The religions which are found in more advanced civilizations endeavor by way of well-defined concepts and exact language to answer these questions.

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn.14:6).” (Vatican II, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, no. 2.)

The document focused upon two groups, Muslims and Jews.

“The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own. Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as prophet, his virgin mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. (Ibid., no. 3.)

Lumen Gentium added,

“...the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems...” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 16.)

Nostra Aetate also referenced the Jews specifically. However, the quote which follows is taken from the Catechism and augments what is stated in Nostra Aetate..

“When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the people of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”; “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 839, quoting from NA 4; Roman Missal, Good Friday 13: General Intercessions, VI; and Romans 9:4-5; 11:29.)

BJ would say that I’m being provocative at this point, but the Nostra Aetate does seem to have a bit of “resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!” to it. Maybe I’m just reading it in there or maybe I’m discerning a spirit of denial, a lack of understanding that non-Catholic Christians are non-Catholics in part because we disagree with the Catholic Church; that it is, at least for a great majority of us, a conscious decision to not be members.

The idea that Muslims worship the same God has Christians is abhorrent. They worship a god who has no love and who lies to his people, telling them that Jesus died on the cross, but really substituting Judas. They also worship a god that does not include Jesus as part of the Godhead. This is not the same god as the God of the Christians.

Jews, on the other hand, have known the God of the Christians for millennia; they have simply failed to understand Him in all of His complexity. God will take care of that some day. Whether He will do through the Roman Catholic Church or through the salvation of Jesus Christ is not a subject of debate for me.

The next and I think the last article in this series will be on the differences between how Roman Catholics view salvation and how non-Catholic Christians, particularly Protestant evangelicals, view it.

As I explained, this latest series is based largely upon continuing conversations with a friend named Scott who is a Roman Catholic. My husband and his friend Paul are former Catholics who are trying to help Scott understand why they are longer Catholics. In doing so, they have discovered many areas of agreement and quite a few, critical, areas of disagreement. They asked me to do some of the research for them and my efforts are reflected in these articles.

The first area of critical disagreement that exists between Roman Catholics and non-Catholic Christians is in the area of authority. Behavior among God’s people is defined by doctrinal beliefs rooted in some source of authority. The question of authority is the foundation of any religious system. Roman Catholicism and Protestant Christianity first and fundamentally divide around the question of authority. The doctrinal differences that separate the two arise from the distinctive voices of authority which underpin them.

Protestant Christianity contends that the Scriptures are the sole source of authority for the believer--hence, sola scriptura, or, Scripture alone as authoritative. Sola scriptura (along with sola fide--faith alone) was the rallying cry of the Reformers as they realized anew that the Bible alone is vested with absolute authority. It is the only sure guide for the believer’s faith and life. Protestant belief in the Bible as the single source of authority results in the subordination of all beliefs and practices to the Bible. Beliefs and practices counter to the Scriptures are expected to be discarded and replaced by those which are clearly Biblical.

Every religious movement that develops some unity and continues to live has its traditions, which tend to synopsis the beliefs, thinking, practices and rules of the group, particularly as these are expressed in its doctrinal standards and forms of government. This provides stability to the movement and provides a way to hand on that religious system to the next generation.

Protestant Christians do not reject all tradition, but make judicious use of it in so far as it accords with Scripture and is founded on truth. For instance, most Protestants treat with respect and study with care the confessions and council pronouncements of the various churches, particularly those of the ancient church and of Reformation days. We also give careful attention to the confessions and council decisions of present-day churches, scrutinizing most carefully of course those of the denomination to which we belong. We do not, however, give any church the right to formulate new doctrine or to make decisions contrary to the teaching of Scripture. The history of the church at large shows all too clearly that church leaders and church councils can and do make mistakes, some of them quite serious. Consequently their decisions should have no authority except as they are based on Scripture.

Protestants keep these standards strictly subordinate to Scripture, so they are ever ready to re-examine them. We insist that in church life Scripture is primary and denominational standards are subordinate or secondary. Protestant churches use their traditions with one controlling caution: they continually ask if this or that aspect of their belief and practice is true to the Bible. We test every statement of tradition to that standard and should be willing to change any element that fails to meet that test.

Faithfulness to the Bible is a believer’s weapon against costly spiritual compromise and error. Faithfulness to Scripture translates into faithfulness to God in Christian life.

In contrast to the Protestant position of sola scriptura, Roman Catholicism finds its source of authority in three areas: the Bible, Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church, or the Magisterium. Roman Catholic documents state:

Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out of the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move toward the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and by the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.

Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church. By adhering to it the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (cf. Acts 2:42 Greek). So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.

But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.

It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.   (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 9 & 10). All Vatican II quotations used here are taken from Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Austin Flannery, ed., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992). Why? Because my friend Paul loaned it to me.

Roman authority resides, then, in the “Word of God” as the source and the teaching office of the Church as interpreter. These two must walk hand-in-hand, according to Roman Catholic doctrine.

Roman Catholicism embraces the inspiration of the Scriptures.

In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God.” [Note the lower case “w” in “the word of God.”] “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Ligouri, MO: Ligouri Publications, 1994), no. 104, quoting DV 21 & 24.)

Catholics believe that God is the author of Sacred Scripture:

“The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” (Ibid., no. 105, quoting DV 11).

Roman Catholicism’s Bible differs, however, from the Bible used by non-Catholics. The Roman Catholic Bible contains the Apocrypha--books contained in the LXX (Greek Old Testament or Septuagint) but not contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. The early church and the Reformers questioned the authority of the Apocryphal books on the basis of their absence from the Hebrew Canon. “Jerome (d. A.D. 420) declared as apocryphal all those writings which stood outside the Hebrew Canon, but in his Vulgate Version he included them according to church practice, though not without some reservations.” (R. K. Harrison, Article on the Apocrypha in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Merrill C. Tenny, ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975).  Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was declared Rome’s official Bible at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing so, it was therefore canonized by the Catholic Church. The Latin Vulgate Version alone was recognized as authentic by the Catholic Church.

The Vatican Council of 1870 [Vatican I] reaffirmed the declaration of the Council of Trent that “these books of the Old Testament and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, in their integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the decree of the said council, and are contained in the ancient Latin edition of the Vulgate.”

In 1590 Sixtus V issued an edition of the Vulgate which he declared to be final, prohibiting under an anathema the publication of any new editions following unless they should be exactly like that one. However, he died soon after; scholars found numerous errors in his edition, so two years later a new edition was published under pope Clement VIII; that is the one in general use today. (I thought anathemas were similar to Paul’s use of the word, which meant absolutely forbidden and God-cursed, but the RCC may have a more subtle definition that allows people to lift the ban of a pope after he’s died. I dunno.)

The Roman Catholic Douay version of the Bible (New Testament, 1582, and Old Testament, 1609), which was apparently translated under that anathema, was translated from the Latin Vulgate, as were the Roman Catholic translations into modern languages. Rome’s centuries-old reverence for the Vulgate meant that Catholic translations of the Bible were only translations of translations rather than translations of the oldest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Advances in the quality of the original texts gained by the process of textual criticism did not benefit Rome. (The same could be said for the KJV-only crowd).

The Church seems to have shifted in its position toward the Vulgate according to Vatican II documents.

“...suitable and correct translations are [to be] made into various languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 22).

The Reformers’ commitment to sola scriptura was met with many assaults by the Roman Church. They were sometimes over-zealous in protecting their theology from potential incursions of tradition. The following illustrates the unusual extremes to which they were willing to go to defend sola scriptura.

The Hebrew alphabet originally consisted of consonants. Until the age of the Masoretes (around AD 520 onward), few of the vowels had any written notation. By then, Hebrew was falling into disuse as people became increasingly less conversant with it. Visible representations of the vowel sounds in the Hebrew Old Testament had become a necessary crutch. The Masoretes did not invent the vowel sounds, but “received” them as part of their tradition: what they did was add signs or “points” to the text as visible representations of the traditional vowel sounds. This “pointed" Masoretic Hebrew text became the text that the Reformers relied on, and is still the text on which virtually all modern Protestant translations are based.

Some of the Reformers’ successors found themselves embarrassed by these Hebrew points. The Catholics had their “ancient and vulgate edition which had been translated from the Hebrew prior to the addition of the vowel points and certified as authentic by the magisterium of the church.  The points were simply scribal tradition--something that had been handed down.  “Sola scriptura, indeed!” the Catholics insisted. The reformed churches had less certainty than Rome for the base of their translations!

Some of the Reformers were uncomfortable with this seeming dilemma, and undertook to argue that the points, far from being of recent, man-made origin, had always existed alongside the consonantal letters and were equally inspired by God. The climax of this was reached in 1675 when the Helvetic Consensus Formula provided that no man should be licensed to preach the Gospel without first professing his belief in the divine inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points!! (Adapted from Tradition Old and New by F.F. Bruce, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), pp. 160-161.)

It is healthy to acknowledge that both sides have been dogmatic to the point of idiocy at times.

Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has forbidden the free use of the Bible by the laity and even among the lower orders of priests. The Council of Trent reaffirmed the earlier Council of Valencia (1229) with the following:

In as much as it is manifest, from experience, that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to everyone, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it; it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops, or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety, they apprehend, will be augmented, and not injured by it; and this permission they must have in writing. (Loraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1962, p. 97, quoting Council of Trent.)

In the interest of paralleling Roman Catholicism with Protestant theology, it seems to me that this is an attempt to prevent “regular” Christians from knowing the will of God. This would be fine if churchmen were completely pure of heart and without any agenda other than to disseminate the actual Word of God, but that would disqualify most of the human race from being churchmen. Unfortunately, we all have agendas and we bring those to our interpretation of the Bible or we, sadly, twist the Bible itself to fit our agenda. Yet, how are Christians to know when their spiritual leaders have led them into heresy if they cannot read the Bible for themselves?

It should be noted that history does show that where ever people have had the ability to read the Bible in their own language, they have frequently found disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church; in this, the Council of Trent was correct.

Boettner added: Such was the teaching and practice of the Roman Church for centuries. For one to possess or read the Bible in his native tongue without permission in writing from his superior and under the watchful eye of the bishop was a mortal sin, for which absolution could not be granted until the book was delivered to the priest. (Ibid., p. 99).

The Church has recently shifted its position regarding the use of the Bible. Vatican II encouraged Bible study among the laity:

“Access to sacred Scripture ought to be wide open to the Christian faithful.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 22.)

and later,  “...all clerics, particularly priests of Christ and others who, as deacons or catechists, are officially engaged in the ministry of the Word, should immerse themselves in the Scriptures by constant sacred reading and diligent study.

“Likewise, the sacred Synod forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful, especially those who live the religious life, to learn “the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:8) by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” Therefore, let them go gladly to the sacred text itself....” (Ibid., no. 25.)

Webster defines tradition as “the process of handing down information, opinions, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example....” Tradition in Catholic theology is that which has been handed down from the apostles.

“Christ the Lord...commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel.... This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline. This was faithfully done: it was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received--whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit....

In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them “their own position of teaching authority.”

Thus, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time. Hence, the apostles, in handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to maintain the traditions which they had learned either by word of mouth or by letter....” (Ibid., nos. 7 and 8).

The Catechism adds, “This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.

“The sayings of the Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 78.)

Roman Catholic Tradition is the apostles’ preaching, example, and institutions passed down through their successor bishops, expressed in the life of the Church. This Tradition is said to be living in that the Holy Spirit maintains the continuity of the unwritten, apostolic Gospel in the Church, and provides growth in insight into the Tradition through its expression in the lives and worship of the faithful.

Catholic theologian Avery Dulles explained, “It had become common, especially since the Counter-Reformation, to think of tradition objectively, as a collection of truths communicated to the apostles and preserved in the church. Without rejecting this notion, contemporary Catholicism shows a deeper awareness that tradition cannot be adequately understood as a body of explicit teaching. Many doctrines are contained in a merely implicit way in tradition considered as an activity or process whereby faith is expressed and transmitted.” (Avery Dulles, Faith and Revelation in Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, Francis Schussler Fiorenza and John P. Galvin, eds., (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 121.)

As indicated here, Tradition is not simply a body of truths, but is a “process whereby faith is expressed and transmitted.” The expression of the Roman Catholic faith collectively by the faithful continually elucidates the Tradition in such a way that previously unseen elements of its content become less obscure. Through this process, insight into the Tradition grows:

“The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism [sic] of truth. Thus, as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in her.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 8.)

McCarthy commented about this growth in insight:  “Since what the Church does reflects what the Church believes, the universal practice of the Church is also considered a reliable witness to the Roman Catholic faith.” (James G. McCarthy, The Gospel According to Rome, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), p. 298.)

Catholic theology holds that no further revelation is to be expected prior to the return of Christ. The sacred deposit is complete, though not yet fully understood. The significance of the Word of God will be increasingly understood over the course of time:

“...no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 66.)

Boettner added, “...the Roman Church...denies that it formulates any new doctrines at all. Rather it insists that in ex cathedra pronouncements the Holy Spirit enables the pope to draw out and proclaim what belonged to the original revelation.” (Boettner, 80.)

The sacred deposit, Scripture and Tradition, were entrusted by the apostles to the whole Church. The responsibility for interpreting the sacred deposit, however, lies with the Magisterium--the bishops headed by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. The bishops and the Pope are formally considered to be the apostles’ successors.

“This sacred synod [Vatican II], following in the steps of the First Vatican Council, teaches and declares with it that Jesus Christ, the eternal pastor, set up the holy Church by entrusting the apostles with their mission as he himself had been sent by the Father (cf. Jn. 20:21). He willed that their successors, the bishops namely, should be the shepherds in his Church until the end of the world. In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided he put Peter at the head of the other apostles, and in him he set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and communion. This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful, and, proceeding undeviatingly with this same undertaking, it proposes to proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops, successors of the apostles, who together with Peter’s successor, the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the whole Church, direct the house of the living God.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 18.)

“That divine mission [the spread of the Gospel], which was committed by Christ to the apostles, is destined to last until the end of the world (cf. Mt. 28:20), since the Gospel, which they were charged to hand on, is, for the Church, the principle of all its life for all time. For that very reason the apostles were careful to appoint successors in this hierarchically constituted society.” (Ibid. no. 20.)

“In order to fulfill such exalted functions [those ecclesiastical functions of the bishops], the apostles were endowed by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming from them (cf. Acts 1:8; 2:4; Jn. 20:22-23), and, by the imposition of hands (cf. 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6-7), they passed on to their auxiliaries the gift of the Spirit, which is transmitted down to our day through episcopal consecration.” (Ibid. no. 21.)

Hence, the Roman Catholic Church is said to be apostolic “because she is founded on the apostles,” and “continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles...through their successors.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 857.)

Roman Catholic theology does not see the Church has greater than the Scriptures, but sees the interpretation of Scripture as the sole duty of the Magisterium of the Church – the hierarchy:

“...the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 10.)

The task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. Avery Dulles added, “Since revelation is public, the church requires a way of publicly proclaiming the doctrine that expresses or safeguards that revelation. Catholics find evidence in the New Testament that Christ commissioned Peter and the apostles with the responsibility of overseeing the life and witness of the church. The pope and the other bishops are regarded as successors, respectively, of Peter and the other apostles. One of their most important tasks is to keep the church in the truth of the Gospel by proclaiming sound doctrine and condemning doctrinal deviations. In this function the hierarchy constitutes the church’s official teaching body, or magisterium.” (Avery Dulles, p. 123.)

The magisterium consists of the bishops and the pope working in concert as a group.  The Pope, which is a word not found in the Bible, but comes from a Latin term meaning father, is the Bishop of Rome and the head of the Roman Catholic Church. According to Boettner, at his coronation, the Pope is triple crowned as the Father of Princes and Kings, Ruler of the World, and Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ.  Later documents (i.e. Vatican II) emphasize the Pope’s title as Vicar of Christ and his supreme ecclesiastical authority:

“...the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

“The Lord made Peter alone the rock-foundation and the holder of the keys of the Church (cf. Mt. 16:18-19), and constituted him shepherd of his whole flock (cf. Jn. 21:15 ff.). It is clear, however, that the office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter (Mt. 16:19), was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head (Mt. 18:18; 28:16-20).”  (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 22.)

According to the Catechism, “the ‘power of the keys’ designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ The power to ‘bind and loose’ connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 553.)

The infallibility of the Pope has already been mentioned above. Vatican II addressed papal infallibility, which extends to the college of bishops when they exercise the supreme Magisterium:

“The Roman Pontiff...enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful...he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. For that reason his definitions are said to be irreformable [sic] by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, in as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church’s charism [sic] of infallibility is present in a singular way.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 25.)

Dulles further explained, “When Catholics speak of the infallibility of the Magisterium they mean that in certain specified acts the popes and bishops, teaching doctrine concerning faith and morals in a way that binds the whole church, are divinely protected from falling into error. ...the pope can teach infallibly when, in his capacity as successor of Peter (ex cathedra), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine to be held by all the faithful on the basis of divine revelation.” (Avery Dulles, p. 124.)

As I said, Protestants and Roman Catholics can find a great deal to agree upon as we discuss our differing systems. For example, both of us are agreed that God exists and that He has made Himself known to mankind through Jesus Christ and both of us embrace the central belief that Jesus is fully God, revealing the Biblical concept that theologians have entitled Trinity.

We agree that the Bible is divinely inspired by God and is useful learning about God. Both of us believe that apostles were divinely appointed by Jesus to bring the gospel to mankind.

Where we separate, however, prove to be critical junctures.  Protestants see authority for what we believe as being solidly grounded in God’s written word which never changes. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that tradition is a living support for the written word and, although they give lip service to the equality of the Bible against tradition, it might be noted that where the Bible and tradition differ, the Roman Catholic always falls back to interpretation by the Magisterium, which inevitably supports Tradition over the Bible. We are left with a conundrum. Believe the Bible or believe often extremely-divergent interpretation that seems to come from a man.

For Protestants, this is not possible, because we recognize all men as fallible and we also recognize that in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, there have been popes who proved to be extremely fallible even as they were making ex cathedra pronouncements. The issue of the Office of Peter has already been discussed at length.

I think what it comes down to for many Roman Catholics, Scott included, is the feeling that non-Catholics are in rebellion to the authority of the Catholic Church. However, for Protestants, it comes down to the issue of whose authority ought Christians to be under. Should be we under the direct authority of God Himself or under the secondary authority of a man who in many historical instances appeared to live his life in rebellion to the clear words of Scripture and in many other instances, lived in rebellion to the standards of his own sect (how many popes fathered illegitimate children, in defiance of a vow of chastity?). Protestants do not consider ourselves as outside the authority of God, but actually much closer to that authority because we are personally beholding to God. We have no mediator but Jesus Christ, Who is God incarnate.

Yet it is this differing view of authority that is the first and insurmountable division among Protestants and Roman Catholics.

“Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Hence the Church teaches that the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ”. Catechism of the Catholic Church, page 249, published 1997.

“It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas, that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’… Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as the prince of the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema. That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the church, which founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time… . Blessed Peter … received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race; and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood. Therefore, whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains, by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received… . Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself, (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.” Session 4, July 18, 1870, of the First Vatican Council 1869-1870 in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: Trent to Vatican II, pages 812-813, published 1990.

Up to now, we’ve looked at Matt 16:18 from an exegetical and historical point of view. On an exegetical level, scholars have largely fallen into three camps regarding the identity of the pevtra of v. 18. Some theologians, such as Luther and Zwingli, stated that the “rock” is Jesus. Others, such as Caragounis and McNeile, maintain that the “rock” is Peter’s confession of faith. However, the majority of modern exegetes, both Catholic and Protestant, affirm that the “rock” is the apostle Peter.

At a time in which audiences were questioning his identity, Jesus asked his own disciples: “Who do you say that I am?” (Matt 16:15). Only one apostle, Peter, answered and declared Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt 16:16). Just as Peter singled out his Lord, Jesus now singled out his apostle and explained his name. For the staunch expression of his faith, Peter was to become the “rock” of the Church. Given the intentional use of the pevtra-Pevtro" pun in Matt 16:18, the only verse in the entire NT corpus that contains both words, it seems unlikely that Jesus was referring to anyone/anything other than the apostle Simon Peter. Peter was not made the “rock” because he was inherently more worthy than the other disciples; his later condemnation by Jesus affirms this (16:23); instead, Peter was made the “rock” because he boldly proclaimed the truth about his Lord. However, nothing in the exegesis, leads one to conclude that the office was meant for anyone other than the apostle Peter. Study of the actual words in the original languages did not indicate any real basis to assume that the text is outlining the basis for a succession of supreme pontiffs who claim their authority from Peter.

Furthermore, a survey of the major patristic writers, from both the east and the west, has proven that there is no real consensus on the identity of the “rock” of Matt 16:18. It is true that from the 3^rd to the mid-5^th century, many theologians held a Petrine interpretation of the verse; however, many other notable scholars (Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Origen) did not even believe that the rock in question was Peter. For them, the rock was either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. Clearly, they did not use this verse as the foundation for a permanent Roman See with Petrine authority since for them Peter isn’t even the rock!

It should be noted that Augustine’s Christological position would largely hold the day throughout the Middle Ages. This is important because the Catholic Church maintains that the institution of the papacy is of divine, not human, origin and Matt 16:18 is claimed to substantiate this. If this claim is true, then one would certainly expect to find the “doctors of the church” referring to the institution of the papacy and linking it to this verse. However, with the exception of Jerome and the bishops of Rome, such references are mostly not present in the writings of the fathers. Yes, it is true that Rome possessed a position of pre-eminence in the early Church; no historian or theologian would dispute this. However, the question is whether the primacy promised to Peter in Matt 16:17-19 and actually exercised by him was transferred to bishops of the Roman Church. That a church occupied a position of preeminence still does not prove that it stands in such a relation to Matt 16:17-19 as to give it a divine right to that superior position for all time, yet the Catholic Church has claimed exactly that. Granted, Rome was the center of the Empire at the time and wielded a considerable amount of authority. Tradition holds that Peter and Paul brother taught, established churches and died in Rome, which would certainly add to the city’s ecclesiastical authority, but it would not mean that the Roman church then becomes the primary and best spokesman for the Christian faith for all time. It should be noted that the popes did not even make a claim to Peter’s office and authority until the beginning of the 3^rd century. If the papacy is a perpetual institution established by Jesus at Caesarea Philippi, how is it that the popes didn’t seem to know about it? More than 100 years passed before the primacy of Rome was linked to Jesus’ promise to Peter. Did Peter not know that those who were to succeed him (traditionally, Linus and Clement) were to inherit his office as apostle and therefore his authority? If he did know of succession to his office, he did not mention it in his epistles. He also appears to have lacked this knowledge in the Gospels and Acts.

Quite simply, there is nothing in Matt 16:18 that even mentions successors of Peter. The fathers  who held to a Petrine interpretation almost universally maintain that the “rock” was Peter alone. Jerome is the exception in holding with the papal reading of this verse. When the church fathers such as Origin and Tertullian did discuss others becoming “rocks”, they were not referring to the successors of Peter becoming “rocks”; instead, they maintained that Peter was the representative for all Christians, not just the bishops of Rome. Yes, it must be conceded that many of the church fathers affirmed the idea of apostolic succession. In fact, many (such as Firmilian and even Augustine) believed that the popes were the legitimate successors of Peter. However, their writings do not indicate that they used this verse to substantiate that claim. They believed that historically (for Peter’s successors are not named within Scripture) Peter chose leaders in the church to take his place as shepherd and teacher after his death in order to preserve right teaching. The chief function of apostolic succession was to the preservation of true doctrine. Information by Clement could be trusted because he received that information from Linus, who received his information from Peter, who received his information from the God-man, Jesus. Truth, not an office, seemed to be the primary concern of the fathers. To take the apostle’s place as shepherd-teacher, though, does not mean that his “successors” inherit his apostolic office. Except for Jerome, not one of the church fathers reviewed referred to the bishop of Rome as anything other than that – a bishop; they did not refer to him as an apostle, let alone an apostle like the original Twelve. Yes, the pope had authority, even considerable authority as one in the line of Peter (if I concede that point for sake of argument), but the writings of the fathers do not give the impression that they viewed the pope as the “rock” in the same way that Peter was the “rock.” Moreover, before Leo, there does not seem to be any indication that Peter was somehow mystically present with the pope.

The exegetical examination concluded that the pevtra was the apostle Peter, and Jesus’ charge to the apostle established his role as leader among the Twelve. Make no mistake – the apostolic office should not be thought unimportant. The entire witness of the New Testament shows the apostolic office, particularly that of the 12, as a unique office that can never be repeated. Churches may have elders, bishops, and deacons, but the Church can never again have apostles like that seen in Scripture. After Jesus’ resurrection, Peter himself outlined the parameters for the apostolic office (Acts 2:21-22): a man who was with the original 12 while Jesus interacted with them, beginning with Jesus’ baptism until His Ascension, and a witness to the resurrection. No matter how righteous the bishop, deacon, or elder, no one today can claim these qualifications. Paul substantiated his role as an apostle by affirming that he had seen and interacted with the Risen Lord (Acts 10:41). Can Pope Benedict claim the same?

While the church is ultimately grounded on Jesus (1 Cor 10:4), there is a sense in which it is grounded upon the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20). Their ministry and work helped to establish the church after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, following His mandate that his apostles go out and make disciples, thereby creating a body of followers (Matt 28:19-20). Matt 16:18 states that Peter was chief among that apostolic group. Jesus remains the Head of His church as well as the Head of Peter, but Jesus did set the responsibility of leadership of the apostolic fellowship on Peter.

Just as Eph 2:20 and Romans 15:20 are understood in a chronological way, so it is with Matt 16:18.

Essentially, nowhere in Scripture do we find a saying or charge given to an apostle simply conferred onto future bishops. Other church offices are important and necessary for the life and function of the church, but they do not have the authority of the apostolic office. Paul recognized this in his spiritual gifts inventory; without fail the office of apostle is listed first (Rom 12:28; Eph 4:11). The office of apostle held primacy. When a new church was established in Acts, the Twelve did not command others to be apostles but bishops and elders. Theologically, the Roman church cannot adequately justify a succession of popes with the authority of Peter.

If Matt 16:18 does not provide either an exegetical or theological basis for the papacy, the next logical question is: Where did it come from?

Most Protestant scholars believe that the first reference to a pope claiming Petrine authority is either Callistus (217-22) or Stephanus (254-57); Frhlich, though, offers Leo I and Gelasius I as the first rulers to claim the office. Tertullian’s comments above indicate that the man to whom he was writing (most likely Callistus) was claiming some kind of Petrine authority; a claim unabashedly assailed by Tertullian. Interestingly, the Catholic Church has used this verse to substantiate the claim that Jesus instituted the papacy. As this thesis has shown, nothing from the text of Scripture or the tradition of the patristic writers substantiates this. Even those fathers who held a high view of Peter give no indication that a successor was implied in the text, let alone a successor with the same authority as Peter. Based upon the evidence presented, the following conclusion can be made:

While it is true that the “rock” of Matt 16:18 points to the apostle Peter, neither the exegesis nor a historical examination of the patristic writers affirms a continuation of his apostolic office.

Athanasius (c. 296-373) was born in Alexandria. In AD 312, bishop Alexander of Alexandria caught sight of a group of boys imitating church services; one boy, Athanasius, played the part of the bishop and performed mock baptisms, which Alexander found amusing, so he took him into his care, later appointing Athanasius as his secretary and archdeacon. In the year 325, Athanasius accompanied Alexander to the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, where the young bishop distinguished himself for his ardent opposition to Arianism. On June 8, 326, Athanasius became the bishop of Alexandria. During his 46-year bishopric, he was deposed and banished five times by members of the remaining Arian party. He died in AD 373. In later years, Constantine the Younger would remember Athanasius as "the man of God”; Theodoret, would call him "the great enlightener"; and John of Damascus would hail him as “the corner-stone of the church of God."

According to Athanasius, the “rock” of Matt 16:18 should be identified as Peter’s confession of faith. In one of his festal letters, Athanasius wrote the following:

But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, and frequently has accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has not been able. On the contrary, they have rather been cut off from their attempts to do so. For thus it is written, 'Thou art the Son of the Living God,' Peter confessing it by revelation of the Father, and being told, 'Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven,' and the rest. No one therefore will ever prevail against your Faith, most beloved brethren.

Here, Athanasius stated that no one will ever be able to prevail against the faith, which he seems to equate with the “rock” of the Church. This is confirmed in one of his homilies on Psalm 11. There he wrote: “In Thy saints, who in every age have been well pleasing to Thee, is truly Thy faith; for Thou hast founded the world on Thy faith, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Thus, the “rock” for Athanasius appeared to be a believer’s faith in the fact that Jesus is the Christ. Despite the fact that Athanasius had frequent contact with the Bishop of Rome and held the church there in high esteem, it does not appear that he understood this verse to provide the pope with the apostolic office and authority of Peter.

Hilary Pictaviensis (d. AD 368) is believed to have been born to wealthy parents in the town of Poitiers, France. Hilary embraced Christianity in his middle years along with his wife and daughter. Around the year 350, he became bishop of Poitiers and took a strong stance against Arianism, which was devastating the Gallic church at the time. This earned him the honorific “Athanasius of the West.” For his support of orthodoxy, he was banished by Constantine to Phrygia in Asia Minor, where Arianism maintained a strong foothold. Here, between 356 and 361, he wrote the main work of his life, On the Trinity. He died quietly on Jan. 13, 368.

On one hand, Hilary did not seem to have a problem asserting that Peter is the rock of the church. He stated the following in his tractate on Ps. 131:

He [Jesus] took up Peter – to whom He had just before given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, upon whom He was about to build the church, against which the gates of hell should not in any way prevail, who whatsoever he should bind or loose on earth, that should abide bound or loosed in heaven – this same Peter … the first confessor of the Son of God, the foundation of the church, the doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, and in his judgment on earth a judge of heaven.

Here, Hilary stated that Peter was the one “upon whom [Christ] was about to build his church.” The apostle is seen to be the first confessor of the Son of God and the keeper of the gate of heaven, so clearly Peter was given special attention and honor. On the other hand, Hilary was equally (if not more so) rigorous in proclaiming that the “rock” in question is Peter’s faith, not the apostle himself. For example, in his treatise On the Trinity, Hilary stated: “This is, therefore, the one immovable foundation, that is, the one blessed rock of faith, which confessed through the mouth of Peter: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’” He continued the “rock-faith” parallel in the same treatise, where he later wrote:

It is not the evangelical or apostolic faith to believe that He is the Son of God in name rather than in nature. If this name is one of adoption and therefore is not the Son because He came forth from God, I ask why did the blessed Simon make this confession, ‘Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Do not all have the power to be born as sons of God through the sacrament of regeneration? … And the Father, by declaring, ‘This is My Son’ revealed to Peter that he should say: ‘Thou art the Son of God. The one who reveals is indicated by the words ‘This is,’ but the knowledge of the one who confesses by the words “Thou art.’ It is upon this rock of the confession that the Church of Christ rests. But the sense of flesh and blood does not reveal the knowledge of the confession …This faith is the foundation of the Church and the gates of hell are powerless against her.

Again, Hilary declared that it was Peter’s faith that is the “rock” of the church. Therefore, the church is maintained and supported not by a single man (Peter), but by the faith that that man expressed in Jesus; that same faith is proclaimed by every true Christian. In other words, the Church of Christ is built on nothing less than the declaration that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah; he is the Son of God. For Hilary, faith in Jesus, not Peter, is the focal point of the verse. Therefore, it appears that Hilary’s understanding of Matt 16:18 wa not at all concerned with a permanent apostolic see in Rome.

Ambrosiaster is the name was given to the author (c. 366-384) of a set of commentaries on the 13 epistles of Paul; the medieval writers ascribed all but one of these works to St. Ambrose. An incidental remark on 1 Timothy 3:15 shows that the documents were probably written during the pontificate of Damasus (366-384). Erasmus was the first theologian to challenge the authoriship and Ambrose is universally denied as the author of the works.  Many people, including “Hilary the Deacon” and Hilary, a layman and Proconsul of Africa, have been suggested as possible authors. Whoever the author may be, there is little hope that the documents remain in their original form; copyists appear to have inserted many sayings from Augustine, Chrysostom, Jerome, and others into the work. Despite the problems with the writings, the commentaries use of the old Latin version and its reference to various readings, provide great help in the area of textual criticism.  Like Ambrose, Ambrosiaster maintained that the “rock” of Matt 16 is Peter’s faith. In Commentary on Ephesians, Ambrosiaster wrote:

‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.' The above puts together New and Old Testaments. For the apostles proclaimed what the prophets said would be, although Paul says to the Corinthians: 'God placed the apostles first, the prophets second' (1 Cor. 12.28). But this refers to other prophets, for in 1 Cor Paul writes about ecclesiastical orders; here he is concerned with the foundation of the Church. The prophets prepared, the apostles laid the foundations. Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life.

According to Ambrosiaster, the prophets prepared the foundation of the Church and the apostles were the foundation of the Church. The “rock” of the Church, though, is the catholic confession of faith in Jesus as the Christ. In other places, Ambrosiaster affirmed the primacy of Paul in a way that would seem to be prejudicial to Peter. In Commentary on Galatians, Ambrosiaster wrote:

By the apostles who were somewhat distinguished among their colleagues, whom also he, Paul, because of their constancy calls 'pillars', and who had always been intimate with the Lord, even beholding his glory on the mount, by them he (Paul) says the gift which he received from God was approved; so that he would be worthy to have primacy in preaching to the Gentiles, even as Peter had the primacy in preaching to the circumcision. And even as he gives colleagues to Peter, outstanding men among the apostles, so he also joins to himself Barnabas, who was associated with him by divine choice; yet he claims the privilege of primacy granted by God for himself alone, even as it was granted to Peter alone among the apostles, in such a way that the apostles of the circumcision stretched out their right hands to the apostles of the Gentiles to manifest a harmony of fellowship, that both parties, knowing that they had received from the Lord a spirit of completeness in the imparting of the gospel, might show that they were in no way appointing one another.

Although the above quotation does not specifically reference Matt 16, it does show that Ambrosiaster did not have a vision of Peter being the sole spokesman of the Church; Paul and Barnabas also wielded a great amount of authority. If Peter can claim to be the foundation of the Church for the Jews, then Paul can claim to be the foundation of the Church for the Gentiles. In any case, Ambrosiaster does not appear to use this verse to affirm the succession of bishops from Peter or the perpetuity of the apostle’s office.

Theodoret (c. AD 393-458) was born at Antioch. After distributing his property to the poor, he entered the monastery of Nicerte in c. 416 and became bishop of Cyrrhus in Syria in 423. He is chiefly known for his involvement in the theological disputes between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius. Theodoret was a friend and admirerer of Nestorius, and in a polemical work against Cyril, he explained that the term theotokos should only be applied to Mary in a figurative sense. After the Council of Ephesus, he continued to oppose Cyril and the council’s findings against Nestorianism. He was eventually deposed at the Latrocinian council and forced into exile. When the emperor Marcion ordered Theodoret to attend the Council of Chalcedon in 451, he obeyed and anathematized Nestorius by stating: “Anathema to Nestorius and to everyone who denies that the Holy Virgin Mary is the mother of God, and [to everyone] who divides the one Son, the Only-gotten, into two Sons.” After condemning his friend, Theodoret was restored to his bishopric; he died in AD 458, during the pontificate of Leo I.

Like many of the fathers before him, Theodoret appears to vacillate on the identity of the “rock” of Matt 16. In an epistle to John the Economus, Theodoret stated:

Let us hear the words of the great Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for 'On this rock,' He says, 'I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' Wherefore too the wise Paul, most excellent master builder of the churches, fixed no other foundation than this. 'I,' he says, 'as a wise master builder have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.' How then can they think of any other foundation, when they are bidden not to fix a foundation, but to build on that which is laid? The divine writer recognizes Christ as the foundation, and glories in this title.

Here, Theodoret seemed to state that Jesus is the rock and foundation of the Church. Like the other members of this school of interpretation, Theodoret was heavily influenced by Paul’s words in 1 Cor 3. In other writings, though, Theodoret clearly identified Peter’s faith as the pevtra. For example, in Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles, he wrote: “Surely, he is calling pious faith and true confession a rock. For when the Lord asked his disciples who the people said he was, blessed Peter spoke up … and the Lord answered … ‘I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’” Theodoret praised Peter’s faith. In a letter to Eulalius, Theodoret wrote: “Wherefore our Lord Jesus Christ permitted the first of the apostles, whose confession He had fixed as a kind of groundwork and foundation of the Church, to waver to and fro, and to deny Him, and then raised him up again.” Despite the fact that Theodoret called Peter “the first of the disciples,” it is the confession, not the man, which grounds the Church. Thus, it appears that Theodoret did not use Matt 16:18 to lend support to the Petrine authority to the Bishop of Rome.

Cyrillus (d. AD 444) became patriarch of Alexandria about the year 412. He was the nephew of Theophilus, who deposed and banished John Chrysostom. When Theophilus died on Oct. 15, 412, Cyril assumed his bishopric. Almost immediately he closed all the churches of the Novatians in Alexandria, and seized their ecclesiastical property. In the year 415, he used armed force to attack Jewish synagogues who opposed his authority in the city; some Jews were even put to death. From 428 to his death in 444 his life was marked by the frequent Christological controversies. Most notably, he was the chief opponent of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431.

Like the aforementioned theologians, Cyril maintained that the “rock” of Matthew 16 remained Peter’s faith. In Commentary on Isaiah, Cyril stated: “When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.” Thus, Cyril clearly linked of the “rock” in question to the apostle’s faith. This is confirmed in Dialogue on the Trinity, where he wrote: “ ‘And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' The rock, I think, is nothing other than the firm and solid faith of the disciple.” Again, it is Peter’s faith that was linked to the “rock” in question. According to Catholic scholar Michael Winter, it was Cyril’s “preoccupation with Christological questions that influenced his exegesis of Matthew 16.” Even if that is the case, Cyril’s exegesis stands as it is:  the apostle’s confession of faith, not the apostle himself, serves as the rock of the Church. Thus, it appears that Cyril did not use this verse to support the perpetuity of the papal office or the apostolic authority that it wields.

While there were patristic writers who believed the “rock” of Matthew 16:18 was Peter and those who believed it was Jesus, there were some writers who felt that the church rested upon Peter’s confession of faith. For these writers, the Church rests upon the firm belief that Jesus is the Christ. One of the reasons for the popularity of this interpretation may have been that it enabled an easy identification of the believer with Peter; he is a human being, weak, unstable, and not perfect. Instead of the apostle Peter, these theologians believed that the church needed to rest on something sturdier, something that could and would withstand the test of time. For these writers, that “rock” was faith in Jesus.

Origen (c. AD 185-254) was probably born in Alexandria, Egypt, but whether he was of Egyptian, Greek, or mixed heritage is not known. He was born to Christian parents and probably received baptism in early childhood, according to Egyptian custom. ^? His father suffered martyrdom under the reign of Septimius Severus. Shortly after the persecutions, the bishop of Alexandria, Demetrius, entrusted Origen with the task of teaching catechumens. During the persecutions under Decius, Origen was arrested and tortured; he was not put to death, but his wounds were so severe that he died shortly after release. He is best known for his compilation of the Hexapla (an Old Testament translation, including the Hebrew text, the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, and four different Greek translations), his apology Against Celsus, and his systematic theology De Principiis (On First Principles).

On one hand, it appears Origen clearly stated that the “rock” of Matt 16:18 is the Apostle Peter. In a homily on Exodus, Origen wrote the following words: “Look at the great the foundation of the church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? 'O you of little faith he says, why have you doubted?'” Here, the “solid rock” appears to reference Peter, whom Jesus later rebuked for his lack of faith. Origin affirmed again in Commentary on John, where he wrote: “Peter, upon whom the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one Epistle of acknowledged genuinity.” In his Commentary on Matthew, though, Origen seems to indicate the “rock” is actually the profession of faith. Here, he stated:

And if we too have said like Peter, “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it to us, but by the light of the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank from the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accord with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

Here, Origen stated that everyone who has confessed that Jesus is the Christ "becomes a Peter”; therefore, all disciples of Christ are “rocks”. It is not a title that Peter possesses alone. Origin later added the following in his Matthew commentary:

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but they shall prevail against the other apostles and the perfect? … For all bear the surname of “rock” who are the imitators of Christ, that is of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him, they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.

Again, Origen confirmed the “rock” of the church is anyone who is an imitator of Jesus. Peter was a rock, but he is no more of a rock than any other true believer. What made Peter a rock is the same thing that makes every believer a rock, namely, his/her faith. For Origen, that faith is shown by being an imitator of Jesus. It seems best, then, to classify Origen as a father who places the faith of Peter above the man himself. Origen’s writings do not assert a succession of bishops to the office of Peter. Again, faith is lying at the center of Origen’s argument; therefore, it is not likely that Origen understood this verse as a basis for a permanent Roman see with Petrine authority.

Ambrose (c. AD 339-397) was born at Trier, the son of a Praetorian prefect at Gaul. He practiced at the court of the praetorian prefect of Italy, Probus, who appointed him magistrate of the provinces of Liguria and Aemilia. The episcopal chair of Milan, the second capital of Italy, was occupied by the Cappadocian Auxentius, the head of the Arian party in the West, but soon after the arrival of Ambrose, Auxentius died. The election of the next bishop could have easily turned violent because both the Arians and the orthodox wanted a member of their group to become the next bishop. Ambrose appeared at Auxentius’ church and spoke to the crowd. Tradition holds that while he was speaking to the people, the voice of a child suddenly rang out: "Let Ambrose be bishop!" Both Arians and Catholics cried, “Amen.” At the time, Ambrose was an unbaptized catechumen, but he was obliged to submit and receive baptism; eight days later, in 374, Ambrose was consecrated bishop of Milan. With Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory the Great, Ambrose is listed as one of the four traditional Doctors of the Latin Church.

In his writings, Ambrose continually maintained that the “rock” of Matt 16:18 referred to Peter’s faith. In The Incarnation of Our Lord, Ambrose stated the following: “He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard: 'But who do you say I am,' immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank… . Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' But his confession of faith conquered hell.” Here, Ambrose clearly stated that it is not Peter’s flesh (meaning Peter, the man) but Peter’s faith that is the foundation of the Church. It is the confession of faith that will shield the Church from all heresies. Ambrose affirmed this interpretation in Commentary on Luke, wherein he stated:

And therefore, Peter did not await the verdict of the people, but proffered his own, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the Living God.’ … Christ is a rock – for they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ. He did not deny that grace of even this title to his disciple, so that he is a true Peter because from the Rock he has the firmness of constancy, the steadfastness of faith. Then strive that ye too may be a rock. Therefore, seek the rock, not outside you, but within you. Your action is a rock, your mind is a rock. Your house is built upon this rock, so that it cannot be shaken by any storms of spiritual wickedness. Your faith is a rock, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If ye will be a rock, ye will be in the Church.

Again, Ambrose upheld the “rock-faith” interpretation of the verse. It is true that Peter held in high regard, but he had that place of eminence on account of his faith. Ambrose placed the apostle’s faith, not the man, at the center of his exegesis. Peter’s primacy appears to be a primacy of confession, not of honor; a primacy of faith, not rank. Ambrose had a high view of Rome, he does not link his understanding of this verse to Peter’s successors. In fact, Ambrose encouraged his readers to become “rocks.” Anyone who shares in the faith of Peter can call himself a “rock upon which the Church is built.” It seems unlikely, that Ambrose understood this verse to lend full Petrine authority to later bishops of Rome.

Epiphanius (c. 310/320-403) was born near Eleutheropolis in Palestine and he died at sea, at a very advanced age, on his way back from Constantinople to Cyprus in 403. Much of his early life was spent with the monks in Egypt, where he learned not only a zeal for ecclesiastical orthodoxy but also an appreciation for the ascetic life. In 367, he was elected to the bishopric of Constantia (the ancient Salamis on Cyprus) where he served for 36 years. He is known for his works, The Anchor, a defense of Christian doctrine, and the Panarion, a book that addresses heresies.

Like many of the patristic fathers, Epiphanius appears to vacillate in his interpretation of Matt 16:18. In Anocoratus (Anchor) he stated the following about Peter: [Peter] is the first of the Apostles, that firm rock upon which the church of God is built, so that the gates of hell … will not prevail against it. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of he kingdom of heaven …” In this text, Epiphanius indicated that the “rock” in question is none other than the apostle himself. However, in Panarion, Epiphanius stated that the “rock” is the confession of faith. It reads:

Thus the Lord and his church accept the penitent, as Manasseh the son of Hezekiah returned and was accepted by the Lord – and the chief of the apostles, St. Peter, who denied for a time and still became our truly solid rock which supports the Lord’s faith, and on which the church is in every way founded. This is, first of all, because he confessed that “Christ” is the “Son of the living God,” and was told, “On this rock of sure faith will I build my Church” – for he plainly confessed that Christ is true Son. For when he said, “Son of the living God,” with the additional phrase, “the living” he showed that Christ is God’s true Son, as I have said in nearly every Sect.

 Epiphanius linked the rock to both Peter and his faith. On one hand, he stated that Peter “still became our truly solid rock which supports the Lord’s faith.” On the other hand, Epiphanius declared that it was “on the rock of sure faith” that Jesus built his Church. In Panarion, Epiphanius appears to hold the pevtra = fide interpretation: “All the sects are truly ‘gates of hell’ but ‘They will not prevail against the rock,’ that is, the truth.” Once again, Epiphanius leaned toward the apostle’s true faith, not the man himself, as the “rock” of Matt 16:18.

John Chrysostom (c. AD 347-407) was born at Antioch. His mother, Anthusa, was widowed at age 20, but refused all other offers of marriage and devoted herself completely to the education of her son. He chose to study law; when he was 18, he began to attend the lectures of the well-known sophist Libanius. Three years later, he was baptized by Bishop Meletius of Antioch and began to learn the discipline of the monastic life. His reputation as a great preacher soon became known throughout the Greek-speaking church; he was later named “the golden-mouthed.” In 397, the bishopric of Constantinople was vacant and the emperor ordered that Chrysostom fill the position. The fact that he often helped the persecuted Origenistic monks of Egypt pitted him against the empress Eudoxia, and she eventually ousted Chrysostom from his bishopric. He died in banishment.

Like the aforementioned writers, Chrysostom consistently argued that the “rock” in question is Peter’s confession of faith. He stated the following in his Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew: “ ‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession.” Chrysostom clearly identified the confession, not the apostle, as the “rock”. Similarly, in Homily 82 on Matthew he stated: “[Christ] speaks from this time lowly things … that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it.” It is Peter’s faith that was once more praised. Once more, Chrysostom wrote: “For Christ added nothing more to Peter, but as though his faith were perfect, said, upon this confession He would build the Church …” For Chrysostom, then, the rock on which the Church is built is regularly taken to be the confession of Peter, or the faith which prompted this confession. His interpretation of the verse makes no mention of an “office” of Peter. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Chrysostom would have understood this verse to provide the bishop of Rome with the authority of Peter.

For Origen, Ambrose, Epiphanius, and Chrysostom, the “rock” of Matt 16:18 was neither Jesus nor the apostle Peter. Instead, the “rock” is Peter’s confession of faith. For these writers, the Church rests upon the firm conviction that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Though Origen held a high view of Peter, he did not see Jesus give Peter any particular authority that is not given to the other apostles. In fact, for Origin, Peter served as a representative for all Christians. Whenever any believer imitates Christ, he becomes a “rock.” This view was echoed by Ambrose, who challenged all believers to become “rocks” by exercising their faith in Jesus. Finally, both Epiphanius and Chrysostom recognized the leadership of Peter, yet both men affirmed that Peter’s faith trumps Peter the man in Matt 16:18. Though Chrysostom listed Peter as the chief of the apostles, it must be conceded that there is little or nothing in his writings which explicitly affirmed the Bishop of Rome as successor of Peter in his primacy. For these fathers, then, the confession of faith, not papal authority, is central in Matt 16:18.

Although there were patristic writers who held to a Petrine school of interepretation for Matthew 16:18, there were also patristic writers who held a Christological interpretation of the same verse.

Unlike the writers we previously examined, these church fathers believed that the “rock” in question referred to Jesus.  These fathers would not use Matt 16:18 to affirm a permanent Roman see with Petrine authority because in their understanding, Jesus, not Peter, lies at the heart of the verse. The writings of Paul, particularly 1 Corinthians, were a great influence on the Christological school and some of these writers were so Christocentric that it was difficult for them to envisage a foundation other than Jesus; therefore, when these authors approached Matt 16:18, they might have recognized a degree of primacy being bestowed to Peter, but the real “rock” in question is Jesus. This interpretation would dominate the Western exegesis of the Middle Ages, and it would greatly influence the writings of the Reformers. Between the 3^rd and 5^th centuries, this view can be seen in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Augustine.

Eusebius (c. AD 260-340)  was most likely born in Palestine, where he spent most of his early years. It’s not certain that he was born in Caesarea, but he did spend a number of years there and later became bishop of that city. Eusebius was middle-aged when fierce persecution broke out against the Church under the reigns of both Diocletian and Maximinus Daia. During the years of persecution, Eusebius was hard at work on his magnum opus, the Ecclesiastical History, a work of great importance to later historians, for much of the information we have now concerning the people, places, and episodes in the life of the early church were recorded by Eusebius.

A definitive judgment on Eusebius’ interpretation of Matt 16:18 is somewhat difficult to ascertain because he expressed seemingly different views. In Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius stated: “Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which (Church) the gates of hell shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful.” Here, the historian clearly states that the Church of Christ is built upon the apostle Peter, but he does not mention any successors of the apostle or the transfer of apostolic authority. However, in  Commentary on Psalms, Eusebius identified the “rock” with Jesus. There he writes: As Scripture says: 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'; and elsewhere: 'The rock, moreover, was Christ.' For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: 'No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles.

In this text, the reference to the foundations of the earth in Ps 17 led Eusebius to consider the foundations of the church. The church, he stated, is founded upon a rock, and that rock is Jesus. Here, Eusebius was clearly allowing 1 Cor 10:4 and 1 Cor 3:11 to influence his reading of Matt 16. While the words of the apostles and prophets are also viewed as “the foundations of the Church,” they hold that position “after the Savior Himself”. For Eusebius, then, Jesus lies at the center of the verse, not Peter. Again, in Preparation of the Gospel, Eusebius wrote:

For instance, when He prophesied that His doctrine should be preached throughout the whole world inhabited by man for a testimony to all nations, and by divine foreknowledge declared that the Church, which was afterwards gathered by His own power out of all nations, though not yet seen nor established in the times when He was living as man among men, should be invincible and undismayed, and should never be conquered by death, but stands and abides unshaken, settled, and rooted upon His own power as upon a rock that cannot be shaken or broken …”

Eusebius stated that the Church is rooted upon the power of Jesus. a “rock that cannot be shaken or broken.” Curiously, he did not even mention successors of Peter or the authority that comes from such an office and, in fact, he wrote of Christ as the foundation of the Church in such a way to almost exclude the primacy of Peter. It seems, therefore, highly unlikely that Eusebius used Matt 16:18 to support an argument for the apostolic authority of the papacy.

Cyrillus (Cyril of Jerusalem, c. AD 315-March 18, 386) was probably born in or near Jerusalem around A.D. 315. Much of Cyril’s public life involved the controversy over Arianism; for example, Acacius of Caesarea, an Arian, who had elevated Cyril to the episcopal chair, took issue with him over the Nicene faith and on a jurisdictional question, and subsequently deposed him at a council in 357. After the death of Emperor Constantine, Cyril was restored to his bishopric in 361; ironically, in AD 363 his former adversary, Acacius, converted to the orthodox faith. Cyril attended the ecumenical council of Constantinople in 381, which confirmed him in his office and praised him for suffering much from the Arians for the orthodox faith.

Like Eusebius, Cyril also understood Jesus to be the “rock” of Matt 16:18. In Catechetical Lectures, he wrote: “Of old the Psalmist sang, Bless ye God in the congregations, even the Lord, (ye that are) from the fountains of Israel. But after the Jews for the plots which they made against the Saviour were cast away from His grace, the Saviour built out of the Gentiles a second Holy Church, the Church of us Christians, concerning which he said to Peter, ‘And upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’” For Cyril, the Church is a spiritual society that God called into existence to replace the Jews, who conspired against their Messiah. For him, the Jews were cast away from God’s grace due to their rejection of Jesus and the gospel. Because of Jewish unbelief, the Gentiles became the new people of God, the Church. The quotation does not specifically identify the “rock” in question, but the context focuses upon Jesus and his work, not Peter; not surprisingly, many theologians understand this passage to affirm a Christological interpretation of the verse. While Cyril attributed primacy to Peter in other passages, his failure to identify Peter as the “rock” might come from a desire to safeguard those being catechized in the faith from any misunderstandings about Christ’s unique role and position in the Church. Even if the passage were understood to reference Peter (which seems unlikely given the context), it says nothing about the apostle’s successors or any authority they might inherit.

Few scholars would argue the monumental impact of Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-40) on Western theology. One of the most prolific writers in the history of the Church, his abiding importance rests upon his keen, penetrating understanding of Christian truth. Aurelius Augustinus was born in Thagaste of a pagan father and a Christian mother. When Augustine was 17 year old, his parents sent him to Carthage, the political, economic, and cultural center of Latin-speaking Africa. He soon became involved with the Manicheans and practiced the religion for roughly nine years. Augustine later migrated to Rome, where he opened a school of rhetoric. He soon became disgusted by the behavior of his students and left for a professorship at Milan. At his mother’s urging, Augustine attended the sermons of Ambrose, bishop of Milan, which would dramatically change Augustine’s life. Ambrose answered many of the questions that Augustine held about the Bible and Christianity, so that Augustine was baptized in 368. Augustine became a priest in 391 and served as bishop of Hippo from 396 until his death. He is best known for his Confessions, City of God, and his numerous theological treatises, many of which were against heresies, such as Manicheanism and Pelagianism.

Like many others before him, Augustine strongly believed in apostolic succession. He did believe that the bishop of Rome was the rightful successor of Peter. In his writings, Augustine clearly affirmed his high view of Rome. In a letter against the Donatists, Augustine wrote:

For if the lineal succession of bishops is taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: - Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiads, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.

Arguing much like Tertullian in Prescription Against Heretics, Augustine challenged the Donatists to prove their credentials. He was basically stating that the church of Rome has apostolic roots; he can trace the current bishop of Rome all the way back to Peter himself. Therefore, the doctrine of the church can be trusted, for it is an apostolic gospel that is being preached. By arguing in this manner, it is clear that Augustine viewed the popes as Peter’s legitimate heirs. Moreover, Augustine quoted Matt 16:18 as a proof-text for this succession list. However, it is important to note that Augustine did not refer to Peter as the “rock”; instead, he referred to Peter as “a figure [representative] of the whole Church”. This is an important distinction that is prevalent in Augustine’s writings on the subject. Although he had a very high view of both Rome and Peter, the apostle basically served as the character who is representative of the universal Church of Christ; he is not the “rock” that sustains the Church. That position belongs to Jesus alone. This is confirmed in many of Augustine’s sermons. In The Retractations, he stated the following:

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’… But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received the ‘keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For ‘Thou art Peter’ and ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is more probable.

Although Augustine left the final decision to the reader, his preference regarding the rock seems clear. According to Augustine, Peter represented the Church and Jesus is the “rock” of the Church. Peter was chief among the apostles because he serves as the figure of the church, but he is not the “rock” in question. That “rock” is Jesus. In Tractate on the Gospel of John. Augustine wrote:

And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. … For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.

Again, Peter is representative of the universal Church, which Jesus himself, as rock, supports. The rock did not take its name from Peter, but Peter had his name taken from the “rock”; this interpretation expressed Augustine’s doctrine of grace, because Peter, and in him the whole church, is built upon Christ alone. The “foundation” reference clearly echoes the writings of Paul. It appears that Augustine was using 1 Cor 3:11 to substantiate his reading of Matt 16. Therefore, Peter served as a great prototype for the Church because in many ways, he was representative of the everyday Christian: sometimes he was strong (confessing that Jesus is the Christ); at other times he was weak (rebuking Jesus about his imminent death). Like everyone else, he was fallible, and needed to be grounded on something stronger than himself, namely Jesus.

For Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Augustine the rock of Matt 16:18 was neither Peter nor his confession, but Jesus himself. It appears that the Pauline epistles, particularly 1 Corinthians, greatly influenced the writings of these fathers. The rock metaphor of Matt 16:18 stressed the strength of the Church’s foundation, but the foundation image itself was seen in 1 Corinthians 3, and that foundation is Jesus. Thus Jesus builds the church upon the firm rock, Himself. Augustine, Cyril, and Eusebius all held a very high view of Peter, but they interpreted the rock of Matt 16 to be Jesus, not the apostle. For Augustine, in particular, Peter and the popes are representatives of the entire Church; Jesus, though, is the firm rock upon which that Church rests, and it is he who supports and sustains the Christian body.