JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH & ITS

HISTORICAL CHALLENGES #5

by Ron Merryman, Copyright, 1999

As we have seen in this series, the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone (so clearly taught in Acts, Romans, and Galatians) was soon clouded, then lost sight of, by post apostolic fathers. By modifying water baptism and the Lord’s Table into "mystical sacraments that saved" (sacramentalism), they subverted the clear teaching of the New Testament on how one is to be right or righteous before God. Add to this the concept that only a priest could mediate these "saving sacraments" (sacerdotalism), a doctrine developed in the fourth and fifth centuries, and the subversion of biblical justification is complete. The issue had shifted from righteousness which came directly through Christ to the believer, to righteousness which comes through ritualism-priestism. And, because "priests" were identified with a "church" ¾ righteousness via the church. But which church?

How did it come to pass that the Western Church, the church that looks to Rome for her authority, emerged as the church outside of whose doors there was no salvation? Why not the Eastern Church? And why Rome? Why not Ephesus, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem or even Carthage? Whence comes this ecclesiastical power that comes to be known as "The Roman Catholic Church" headquartered in Rome?

In this article, I am presenting numerous historical developments that led eventually to the exaltation of the Bishop of Rome to the position of "Supreme Pontiff" or "Pope," the titular head of the Western Church. This, dear friend, is how the Roman Church rose to power.

 

The Growth of the Power of Rome & Her Bishop

Of the many influences that contributed to the growth and power of Rome and her Bishop, the following are major.

  1. The rapid numerical growth of the church in the capital city of the Empire led to great influence for her Bishop.

By the year 100 AD, the church at Rome was the largest in the empire. By 200, there were at least forty congregations in the city overseen by one bishop and attended to by presbyters (elders). Property values and land holdings multiplied to the church so that special church offices had to be created to care for the various possessions (sub-deacons, stewards, advocates, notaries, sextons, etc.). By 300 AD, the Bishop had ecclesiastical supremacy over ten provinces comprising all of Italy south of the northern border of Etruria and Sicily, plus Sardinia, Corsica, and Valeria. Its very name connoted glories of the old republic of the Augustan empire. Slowly but surely, its influence and jurisdiction extended themselves over the entire church in the West, but not maximally until the fifth and sixth centuries.

2. The exaltation of apostolic tradition associated with Peter at Rome: his founding of the church there and subsequent 25-year stay as Bishop.

How and when did this tradition start?

Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (d. 340 AD), who writes the first "History of the Church," erroneously states as we shall show, that Peter went to Rome during the reign of Claudius (41-54AD).1 The tradition that he remained there as bishop for twenty-five years is first recorded by Jerome (d. 420 AD).2 From that time until the twentieth century, the Roman Church has dogmatically insisted that: 1) Peter as the Prince of the Apostles founded the Church of Rome; 2) that he served as bishop there for 25 years; and 3) that at his death, he passed "the keys of the Kingdom" to his successor, who in turn did the same, et cetera, down to the present time.

Consider the dogmatism of the following from a Catholic guide-book for religious questioners:

It was not divinely revealed that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, but it is dogmatic fact, i.e., an historical truth so certain and so intimately connected with the dogma of primacy, that it comes under the divine infallible teaching authority of the Church. The Vatican Council defined it as an article of faith that St. Peter still lives, presides, and judges in the person of his successors, the Bishops of Rome.3

Note the admitted absence of divine revelation and/or scripture for such a claim! Note also, the claim that history supports it! Really! Does it? Consider the following facts from the New Testament:

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT PETER COULD HAVE GONE TO ROME UNDER EMPEROR CLAUDIUS, ESTABLISHED THE CHURCH THERE, AND REMAINED ITS BISHOP FOR 25 YEARS! There is not one shred of historical evidence for this claim: in fact, all the historical evidence indicates otherwise.

Yet for over 1500 years, fearful that the truth would undermine the doctrine of Peter’s direct influence in Rome which under-girds its ecclesiology, the Roman Church insisted it to be so.

Faced with such overwhelming evidence, current historians of the Catholic communion have well, but reluctantly, written, "But the obscurity which surrounds the history of the prince of the Apostles during the previous years continues still, for we know nothing of his Roman sojourn except the martyrdom which crowned it." And "… of Peter’s life in Rome, we know for certain only the last act, his martyrdom."4

Regardless, the exaltation of apostolic tradition associated with Peter’s supposed ministry in Rome lent great credence and authority to the Bishops that ministered there. Indeed, this tradition remains a main prop for the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church today.

  1. The growth and implications of the concept of the Primacy of Peter increased the power of the Bishop of Rome.

The exegetical foundation for the papacy at all times since its inception (ca. 5th or 6th century) has been Matthew 16:18,19:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros, masculine gender, a small stone like one could throw) and upon this rock (petra, feminine gender, a huge fixed rock like Gibraltar) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.5 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Tempted as I am to give a thorough exposition of this text (perhaps in a later article), the nature of this paper is historical, so I must direct our thoughts to those of the Church Fathers. In general, it can be dogmatically stated that the bishops of the fourth and fifth centuries both in the Western (Latin) Church and in the Eastern (Greek) Church understood this passage as do Protestants today: that is, "the rock" upon which Jesus would build his church was Christ, or Christ as the basis of Peter’s confession. The rock was not Peter nor his primacy among the Apostles in the view of such prominent figures as Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine! In fact, only 16 out of 84 early church fathers believed that the Lord referred to Peter when he said "upon this rock I will build my church;" the others holding variously that it applied to Christ, to Peter’s testimony to Christ, or to all the Apostles.6

The claim of a Roman bishop to universal dominion because of the alleged primacy of Peter was first made in the fifth century by Innocent I, (Bishop there from 402-417), then bolstered by those of Leo I (Bishop, 440-461). Leo I’s arguments, based upon his understanding of Mt. 16:18,19, have been repeated by papal advocates ever since.

For Leo I to make the claim for universal sovereignty is one thing: to exercise it another!

It is imperative that one understand that the Church at Rome and her Bishop were perceived even in the fifth century as only one of the most prominent bishoprics of the universal (catholic) church. The Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople enjoyed equal status. Though Rome had individual supporters promoting her dominance, the reality of that dominance was years in coming. And even when it came, it was only in the West! The eastern (Greek) churches refused to grant Rome any greater authority than that it shared with the four other metropolitans.

As previously stated, the claims made by Leo I for universal authority in the church were based upon his understanding of Matthew 16:18,19; that is, upon the primacy and unique authority of Peter, an authority that was supposedly transferred to Peter’s successors in Rome. Obviously, the Bishop of Rome, in such an ecclesiastical scenario would be pre-eminent.7

And it is Leo I’s concepts in this regard that run their course through the Middle Ages. The Bishop of Rome is elevated to the position of Supreme Pontiff: the Pope.8

4. Simply by his virtue of position in the Imperial City, the Bishop’s power and influence would expand. Rome’s importance as the center of all final political, commercial, imperial, and military power were further stimulants to the success of the church there.

5. The removal of the imperial capital to Constantinople by Constantine in AD 330 left a vacuum of power in the old city that powerful bishops would soon fill. Moreover, it freed the clerics from constant interference of emperors and political foes, so that strong bishops emerged as public heroes with great political influence.

6. In 343, the Council of Sardica bolstered the authority of the Roman Bishop when it decreed that when a bishop is deposed:
  1. he must appeal directly to the Bishop of Rome;
  2. he must wait for the Roman Bishop to appoint judges to review the case (thus a basis for ecclesiastical courts);
  3. the church must await Rome’s decision before recognizing another bishop.

 

7. In the episcopate of Damascus (366-384), Emperor Gratian issued an edict that gave imperial sanction to the decisions of the Council of Sardica and asserted the primacy of the Roman Bishop. It declared that all Christians should "hold the faith which the holy Apostle Peter gave to the Romans" and defined that faith as the faith taught by the current Bishop of Rome.

8. Successive barbarian invasions of Rome in the 5th century succeeded in toppling the Empire, but not the Church. Strong in the face of barbaric terrorism, the Roman Bishops gained prestige and fame. What looked like the end became a launching pad for notoriety and power.
  1. Thus by 550 AD, the Roman Empire in the West was defunct: the Germanic Gothic and Vandal tribes had conquered and overrun that entire area. But there remained a continuing ecclesiastical structure based upon the Roman political model, the head of which was the Roman Bishop (see Fig. 1). His power ran its course in the Middle Ages.

    2.  

    Fig. 1 Ecclesiastical Structure Superimposed upon the Roman State Structure in the West, ca. 550 AD

    (this illustration is available on hard copy only)

  2. Augustine, in the early 5th century, gave much unconscious support to Rome when he wrote De Civitate Dei, The City of God. Though not his intent, the perception grows from this widely read book that Rome is the eternal city, the spiritual and physical heart of the Kingdom of God on earth. Obviously, her Bishop had to be eminent.

    3.  

  3. The policies of Emperors Constantine and Justinian, followed by those of Pepin and Charlemagne, enormously contributed to the extension of the authority of the Bishops of Rome in their jurisdictions. Medieval papism was sure to follow.

 

 Conclusion

Thus we see that no one factor created the Papacy; rather, a series of ideas, interpretations, understandings and actual historical events over several hundred years eventuated in the elevation of the Bishop of Rome to the position of Supreme Pontiff in the West. And from the perspective of this series of articles, the titular Head of the Church outside of which there was no salvation!

Salvation had become institutionalized! It was the exclusive domain of a Church! No longer was it the Gospel that saved: it was the Church and her sacraments that saved. And these sacraments could be dispensed solely by priests, HER priests!

To the contrary, the Bible teaches that salvation is of the Lord. It belongs to Him. No church, no institution, be it Protestant, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Greek Orthodox, Baptist, or even Bible, can save anyone from sin. It is belief solely in the Gospel that saves, and intrinsically involved in that salvation is the doctrine of justification.

An institution that claims to have a corner on salvation must be challenged; its spurious doctrine must be confronted. ENTER THE REFORMERS… BRING ON THEIR COMMON CRY: "SOLA GRACIA," "SOLA CHRISTO," "SOLA FIDE," "SOLA SCRIPTURA"… "by grace alone, through Christ alone, through faith alone, and by the Scriptures alone!" ¢

BRING ON THE REFORMATION! NEXT IN THIS SERIES.

Footnotes:

1 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk. II, ch. 14: see in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff, Edit., Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1979 reprint, Vol. I, p.115

2 Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, ch.1: see in The Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 361.

3 The Question Box: A Catholic Guide to Religious Questionnaires, Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York, Imprimatur.

4 Lebreton, Jules, S. J., & Zeiller, Jaques, The Church in the New Testament, trans. from the French by Ernest Messenger, Collier Catholic Reader Series, Collier Books, N.Y., 1962, pp. 303-304. Only in the last half of this century has the Roman Church come to grips with this truth.

5 Mt. 16:18: kavgw. de, soi le,gw o[ti su. ei= Pe,troj( kai. evpi. tau,th| th/| pe,tra| oivkodomh,sw mou th.n evkklhsi,an kai. pu,lai a[|dou ouv katiscu,sousin auvth/jÅ

6 For an excellent discussion of the views of the Church Fathers on this issue, see Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, Eerdmans reproduction of the fifth edit. of 1910, Grand Rapids, 1960, Vol. III, pp. 302-314.

7 Though some non-Catholic historians see Leo I as the first Bishop of Rome to exercise papal power in the West, it is debatable; but Gregory I, Bishop of Rome, 590-605 AD, unquestionably does.

8 For the first several hundred years of the church, the term "pope," from the Lt. papa and the Gr. pappas, was the honorary title of every bishop, as of a spiritual father; but after the fifth century, it became the special distinction of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Rome. It is only later that the title is assigned exclusively to the Roman bishop, and to him in an eminent sense as the father of the whole church. On the contrary, in the Greek and Russian churches, all priests are called Popes (from papaV , papa). Even the titles apostolicus, vicarius Christi, and summus pontifex, were for a considerable time given to various bishops, but subsequently claimed exclusively by the bishops of Rome. See op. cit., Schaff, Hist. of the Christian Church, Vol. III, p.300, ft.nt.1.

Ron Merryman served the Lord in Bible colleges for 11 years, 3 of those as Acting President of Western Bible College. He also pastored Holly Hills Bible Church in Denver, Colorado, for 14 years. Ron currently teaches in the G.I.B.S., a ministry of Duluth Bible Church.