SELECTED ARTICLE
Church History – Primer
Estimated time to read:
PART I — WHY STUDY CHURCH HISTORY
“Remember the days of old; consider the years of many generations.”
— Deuteronomy 32:7
“There is nothing new under the sun.”
— Ecclesiastes 1:9
Why Study Church History?
People generally either love history or hate it. There are, however, two important reasons why we should study history:
- To gain a glimpse of where we came from.
- To gain a glimpse of where we are headed.
I believe it was the Harvard philosopher, intellectual, and writer George Santayana who once wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” On the flip side, we have the high school dropout and industrial pioneer Henry Ford, who transformed history through his genius of mass-producing the automobile and who famously declared, “History is bunk.”
In my opinion, neither statement is entirely correct. History is certainly not bunk, yet remembering history alone does not prevent anyone from repeating it. After all, many of the world’s greatest military leaders possessed an intimate knowledge of previous military failures and nevertheless repeated those very same mistakes.
History is a record of past behaviors, patterns, and events. History reveals recurring patterns of human behavior, and because human nature has not changed, those patterns often become the best predictor of future behavior and events—second only to Scriptural prophecy
Before we take a glimpse into the future through our trip down memory lane, I first need to make a distinction between:
- The INVISIBLE Church
- The VISIBLE Church
The Invisible Church and the Visible Church
The Invisible Church consists of all true believers—those known only to God who have been genuinely saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
The Visible Church, by contrast, is the earthly, institutional expression of Christianity. It includes all who profess faith in Christ, whether those professions are genuine or merely outward.
This distinction is crucial because, other than growth in its membership, the INVISIBLE Church belonging to Christ has remained unchanged throughout history.
In contrast, the history of the VISIBLE Church is marked by periods of significant change and transformation. Although church historians commonly divide its history into approximately nine major periods, it could just as easily—depending on how deeply one wishes to study the subject—be divided into hundreds of smaller periods. For our purposes, however, we will take a very brief and broadly summarized overview by dividing its history into four periods:
- The Early (Ancient) Church
- The Medieval Church
- The Reformation (Evangelical) Period
- The Modern Church
Why History Matters
Ernest Hemingway is often quoted as saying, “How did you go bankrupt? Two ways: Gradually, then suddenly.” Whether or not Hemingway actually coined the phrase, it aptly illustrates the principle of gradualism. Significant change is often so subtle that it goes largely unnoticed until, at some later point, it appears to have happened almost overnight.
I believe historical change within the visible Church has often occurred in much the same way and continues to occur today, perhaps at an even more rapid pace. While we may not be able to prevent the world from repeating history, we as individuals can use history to better understand and recognize the signs and indicators of gradual change so that we are not taken by surprise. As Peter reminds believers in 1 Peter 4:12, we should not think it strange when fiery trials come upon us.
History helps us recognize that many of today’s struggles are not new. They have appeared before.
God’s Purpose for History
Remember, God created the chronological passage of time flowing from the future, into the present, and then into the past. Since God is a God of purpose, it stands to reason that there is also purpose in His design that we retain knowledge of the past—what we call history. Hopefully, that realization will encourage those who currently dislike history to reconsider it and gain a greater appreciation for its usefulness in both Bible study and their everyday Christian walk. Take full advantage of it, for history itself is a gift of knowledge God has graciously given us.
So, keeping in mind what I have said about history being one of the greatest predictors of future behavior and events—second only to Scriptural prophecy—and remembering how change often happens gradually until, seemingly, suddenly, let us begin with the Early Church.
PART II — THE EARLY CHURCH (A.D. 30–313)
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” — Matthew 28:19
The Apostolic Church (A.D. 30–70)
The Early Church spans approximately the first five centuries following the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. During this period there were two major turning points, the first occurring in A.D. 70, when Jerusalem and the Second Temple were destroyed by the Romans, and the second beginning in the early fourth century with the conversion of Emperor Constantine and the legalization of Christianity.
Until A.D. 70, the Church remained largely centered in Jerusalem. Those who first embraced Christianity were almost entirely Jewish and were generally regarded as a deviant sect within Judaism known as the Nazarenes, as first mentioned in Acts 24:5:
“For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.”
The Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles, marked the beginning of the Church’s worldwide mission to proclaim the Gospel to every nation. As the Gospel spread throughout the Roman Empire, many Gentiles believed in Christ, and churches were established throughout Asia Minor, Greece, Syria, North Africa, and eventually Europe itself.
From Jerusalem to Rome (A.D. 70–107)
In A.D. 70, in response to the Jewish revolt, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem exactly as Jesus had foretold. With Jerusalem devastated and the Jewish nation scattered, the influence of the Church gradually shifted toward the Gentile world. Although no single city immediately replaced Jerusalem as the unquestioned canter of Christianity, Rome steadily emerged as the most influential Christian city because of its political importance, its large Christian population, and its historical association with both Peter and Paul.
Christianity still remained a minority throughout the Roman Empire, but it had undergone a remarkable transformation. No longer viewed primarily as a Jewish sect, it increasingly came to be recognized as a universal faith.
The English word “universal” comes from the Latin catholicus, itself derived from the Greek word katholikos. Its earliest known use in reference to the Church is generally attributed to Ignatius of Antioch who, while being taken in chains to Rome for execution around A.D. 107, wrote in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans of the Catholic Church. His use of the term emphasized the universal nature of the Christian faith and the Church’s understanding of itself as one, holy, apostolic, and catholic.
It is important to remember that the word Catholic simply meant universal. At this point in history there was no Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Lutheran Church, Anglican Church, Baptist Church, or Protestant Church as we understand those terms today. There was simply the Christian Church, understood to be universal.
The Organization of the Early Church (2nd Century)
During the apostolic age the Church was primarily governed by the apostles together with local elders. As Christianity spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire and the apostles passed from the scene, additional offices gradually developed in order to meet the growing needs of the Church.
By the second century responsibilities had become more formally delegated among deacons, presbyters (elders), and bishops. Bishops generally exercised oversight within a particular city or region while maintaining fellowship with bishops in neighboring areas.
At this stage the Church functioned largely through a decentralized network of regional leadership rather than under one universal earthly authority.
Persecution and Heresy (2nd–3rd Centuries)
Throughout its first three centuries the Church endured repeated waves of persecution under various Roman emperors. Ignatius himself was not traveling to Rome as an honored guest but in chains under the orders of Emperor Trajan. Upon arriving in Rome he was martyred by being thrown to wild beasts.
At the same time the Church faced an increasing number of false teachings concerning both the person and work of Jesus Christ. These controversies multiplied throughout the second and third centuries and eventually culminated in the great Christological debates of the early fourth century.
Meanwhile the Roman Empire entered a prolonged period of instability. During the third century it was plagued by civil wars, political assassinations, economic decline, currency devaluation, inflation, foreign invasions, and devastating epidemics. These crises eventually divided the Empire into three rival states: the Gallic Empire, the Palmyrene Empire, and the remaining Roman Empire.
These political upheavals, together with the growing theological controversies within the Church, set the stage for one of the most significant turning points in Christian history.
PART III — CONSTANTINE AND IMPERIAL CHRISTIANITY (A.D. 306–337)
“My kingdom is not of this world…” — John 18:36
By the beginning of the fourth century the Roman Empire stood at a crossroads. For nearly three hundred years Christianity had existed as a frequently persecuted minority. Yet within only a few decades it would move from being an illegal religion to enjoying imperial favor throughout much of the Empire.
This transformation did not occur because Christianity conquered Rome by military force. Rather, Rome gradually embraced Christianity as Christianity steadily transformed the Empire from within. That transformation would forever alter the relationship between the visible Church and the State and would ultimately shape the theological, political, and ecclesiastical developments that dominated the next thousand years of Church history.
Enter Constantine the Great (A.D. 306–337)
The rise of Emperor Constantine marks one of the most significant turning points in the history of the visible Church.
Prior to Constantine, Christianity had endured nearly three centuries of sporadic persecution under successive Roman emperors. Christians were often viewed with suspicion because they refused to worship the Roman gods or acknowledge the emperor as divine. Although periods of peace occasionally occurred, the Church remained largely powerless in political affairs and depended entirely upon the power of the Holy Spirit and the faithful proclamation of the Gospel for its continued growth.
Constantine’s rise to power dramatically altered that relationship. Following his reported vision before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in A.D. 312, Constantine became increasingly favorable toward Christianity. The following year, through the Edict of Milan (A.D. 313), he and Licinius granted Christianity legal recognition and ended the Empire’s official persecution of Christians.
It is important to understand that Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Rather, he legalized Christianity, granted it imperial favor, restored confiscated church property, and increasingly supported the Church through imperial patronage. Christianity would not become the official religion of the Empire until the reign of Emperor Theodosius I later in A.D. 380.
Regardless, Constantine’s actions fundamentally changed the relationship between the visible Church and the Roman State.
The Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325)
The legalization of Christianity did not immediately produce peace within the Church. Instead, theological controversies that had been developing for generations quickly came to the forefront. The greatest of these concerned the nature and deity of Jesus Christ. The controversy centered upon the teaching of Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria, who argued that because Christ was the Son of God He must have had a beginning and therefore was a created being. According to Arius, there was a time when the Son did not exist. This teaching quickly divided much of the Church.
Concerned that the growing theological conflict threatened the unity of the Empire itself, Constantine convened the First Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325.
Although Constantine presided over the council politically, the theological debate was conducted primarily by the bishops themselves. Among Arius’ strongest opponents were Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his young deacon Athanasius.
The central issue became whether Christ was:
- created, or
- eternally begotten.
The council overwhelmingly rejected Arianism and affirmed that the Son is
“begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father.”
The Nicene Creed became one of the defining confessions of orthodox Christianity and remains foundational for much of Christianity to this day.
Language and Theology
One of the greatest difficulties faced by the Council was language itself.
- The Eastern Church primarily spoke Greek.
- The Western Church primarily spoke Latin.
Many of the theological terms under discussion—including ousia, hypostasis, prosopon, and physis—carried multiple meanings inherited from Greek philosophy. As a result, bishops often agreed doctrinally while appearing to disagree linguistically.
The Council therefore spent considerable effort not only defending biblical doctrine but also defining precise theological terminology capable of expressing that doctrine.
This problem of language would continue to influence theology for centuries and would eventually contribute to the growing separation between the Eastern and Western Churches.
The Beginning of Church and State
There were as many then as there are today who believed the union between the Church and the State was a tremendous blessing. Conversely, many historians view the Empire’s endorsement of Christianity as the beginning of the visible Church’s gradual institutional decline. The Roman Empire now protected the Church. The Church, in return, increasingly provided spiritual legitimacy to the authority of the Roman Emperor. It is not difficult to see how such an arrangement could create conflicts of interest. The catalyst for genuine Church growth has never been found in the corruptible power of governments or political institutions. Rather, it has always been found in the incorruptible power of the Holy Spirit working through faithful believers who proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Persecution is not necessary for the growth of Christianity. Yet throughout Scripture and history God has repeatedly used persecution to separate the wheat from the chaff—the faithful from the merely professing. What we begin to witness during this period is the gradual transformation of the visible Church from being the earthly institutional expression of the invisible, Spirit-empowered, suffering-servant Church into becoming an increasingly powerful institution supported by the authority of the State.
Imperial favor brought many blessings. It also brought political influence, financial wealth, and worldly power. As Christianity became socially advantageous, the visible Church experienced an unprecedented influx of converts. Many came to genuine faith. Others entered the Church for political, economic, or cultural reasons, bringing with them remnants of their former pagan beliefs, customs, philosophies, and religious practices.
The invisible Church belonging to Christ remained unchanged. The visible Church, however, increasingly found itself confronting new theological controversies, philosophical influences, and institutional challenges that would shape its development for centuries to come.
New Challenges Facing the Church (Fourth–Fifth Centuries)
This period witnessed not only the growth of Christianity but also the rise of significant theological controversies. Among the most influential were:
- Manichaeism, with its dualistic worldview.
- Donatism, concerning the purity and authority of the Church.
- Pelagianism, denying humanity’s inherited corruption and emphasizing moral ability.
These controversies forced the Church to define with increasing precision its doctrines concerning sin, grace, salvation, the Church, and ultimately the very nature of God Himself.
It was also during this remarkable period that some of Christianity’s most profound theological formulations—including the doctrines of the Trinity and the person of Christ—were carefully refined and defended by great theologians such as Tertullian, Athanasius of Alexandria, Ambrose of Milan, and Augustine of Hippo. Among them, Augustine would become the single most influential theologian in the development of Western Christianity. For that reason, before continuing into the Medieval Church, his life and theology deserve closer examination.
Click to open or close: AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (A.D. 354–430)
AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (A.D. 354–430)
“Test all things; hold fast what is good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Augustine’s Place in Church History
Because Augustine is so pertinent to both the historical development and the subject of election and predestination, he warrants closer examination before we move into the Medieval Church.
Augustine of Hippo, also known as Saint Augustine, was born in A.D. 354 in Thagaste, located in present-day Algeria. He became one of the Early Church Fathers, Bishop of Hippo, theologian, philosopher, and perhaps the single most influential interpreter of the Apostle Paul’s epistles in the history of Western Christianity.
Few individuals have exercised greater influence upon both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology than Augustine. Yet his theological legacy remains deeply divided. His doctrines have been received with enthusiastic endorsement by some theologians and with equally strong rejection by others.
Augustine was also a man whose theology underwent considerable development throughout his lifetime. His surviving writings reveal a noticeable progression from his earlier works to his later writings, particularly regarding sin, grace, free will, and predestination.
Augustine’s Early Theology
In his earlier writings Augustine largely repeated the arguments of Origen and many of the Antiochene theologians in defense of human free will. Although paraphrasing somewhat, Augustine’s early position can fairly be summarized as follows: God would not be God had He not foreseen that angels and human beings alike would choose to do evil. Nevertheless, He created moral beings knowing that He would ultimately bring good from their evil. God would justly punish sin, for justice itself is a great good, and He would redeem His people from their sins.
For this reason Augustine is often regarded as one of the strongest early defenders of what has become known as the free-will defense. Yet as his understanding of sin and grace developed, he gradually became dissatisfied with this explanation.
Augustine’s Conversion (A.D. 386)
Throughout his Confessions, Augustine describes a youth marked by intellectual curiosity, philosophical exploration, and moral indulgence. Although his mother, Monica, was a devoted Christian who faithfully sought to guide him toward Christ, Augustine instead pursued rhetoric, philosophy, worldly ambition, and the pleasures of the flesh.
He maintained a long-term relationship outside marriage through which a son, Adeodatus, was born. He also embraced Manichaeism, the dualistic religion discussed previously. Looking back, Augustine described these years with profound remorse.
His Confessions reveal a man deeply conscious of his own guilt and utterly convinced of the enslaving power of sin.
Augustine’s conversion around A.D. 386 did not occur through one isolated emotional experience but through a prolonged internal struggle. The decisive moment came while reading Romans 13:13–14, where Paul exhorted believers to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh.” From that point Augustine’s life changed dramatically.
From Free Will to Predestination
No believer can deny the necessity of God’s divine intervention in salvation. Augustine, however, gradually took that conviction considerably further. He concluded that fallen human beings, in their present condition, are unable not merely to do spiritual good but even to will or desire that which is spiritually good apart from God’s prior grace. Consequently, Augustine eventually concluded that even the preaching of the Gospel itself was insufficient to produce saving faith unless God first bestowed the grace necessary to believe.
His mature theology may be summarized by the conviction that: God commands humanity as He desires and also provides the grace necessary to hear the Gospel and obey His commands.
If such grace is absolutely necessary for salvation and is not bestowed equally upon all, then it logically follows that God grants it selectively. Otherwise, all would ultimately be saved.
It is my contention that the chronological development of Augustine’s writings strongly suggests that this conviction arose first from his own reflection upon God’s work in his personal conversion and was only afterward developed into a comprehensive theological system through his interpretation of Scripture.
Whether one ultimately agrees with Augustine or not, this illustrates an important principle. There is an inherent danger in approaching Scripture through the lens of deeply held personal convictions rather than allowing Scripture itself to reshape those convictions. The same danger exists whenever someone concludes that because God is loving, everyone must therefore be saved, or because they feel themselves to be a good person, God surely would never send them to Hell.
Augustine’s Influence Beyond Theology
Following his conversion Augustine embraced an ascetic lifestyle marked by self-denial and became one of Christianity’s strongest defenders of orthodoxy.
His profound awareness of his own past appears to have significantly influenced the way he understood both sin and grace. Augustine’s influence, however, extended well beyond theology. He also profoundly shaped the Church’s understanding of its relationship to civil authority.
While opposing the Donatists he defended the limited use of civil coercion in religious matters, arguing that force could, under certain circumstances, serve the purpose of leading souls back to truth. Although Augustine almost certainly never envisioned the later abuses committed in Christianity’s name, this principle would eventually be cited in support of religious persecution and later inquisitions. His influence therefore extended not only to theology but also to the institutional life of the medieval Church.
Augustine and Original Sin
Be it intentional or not, Augustine frequently retained familiar theological terminology while substantially developing the concepts those terms represented. One of the clearest examples concerns the doctrine of Original Sin.
Working primarily from the Old Latin translation of Romans 5:12 available in his day, Augustine developed the concept that humanity inherits not only Adam’s corrupted nature but also the guilt of Adam’s original transgression. Many modern scholars acknowledge that Augustine’s interpretation was influenced by the limitations of the Latin text available to him.
Likewise, the surviving writings of the pre-Nicene Fathers generally describe humanity as inheriting the consequences of Adam’s fall—death, corruption, and a sinful nature—which in turn leads every individual to become guilty through personal sin. The fully developed doctrine that Adam’s personal guilt itself is immediately imputed to every descendant does not appear with clarity in the earliest centuries of the Church.
It is therefore significant that Augustine’s mature understanding of Original Sin developed alongside his mature doctrines concerning grace, election, and predestination during his controversy with Pelagius. This naturally raises an important historical question.
- Did Augustine’s theological transition result primarily from a fresh understanding of Scripture? OR
- Did the Pelagian controversy itself significantly shape the theological framework through which Augustine came to interpret Scripture?
That question deserves careful consideration because it lies near the heart of the later debates concerning grace, election, and predestination.
Augustine’s Legacy
Augustine should neither be placed upon a pedestal nor dismissed altogether. He was simply a man. Like every other man, he was capable of making mistakes, allowing personal biases to influence his thinking, misinterpreting Scripture, and making poor decisions despite the very best of intentions.
Likewise, through no fault of his own, Augustine worked primarily from the Old Latin translations of Scripture, which we now know contained textual deficiencies in places.
There were undoubtedly things Augustine got wrong. Yet there were equally many things that Augustine got remarkably right, from which Christians continue to learn today. We should therefore resist the temptation to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It is abundantly clear from Augustine’s writings that he loved God, loved God’s Word, loved the Church, and sincerely desired to defend what he believed to be biblical truth. For these reasons he deserves both our gratitude and our respect.
At the same time, we must never place any man upon a pedestal. The writings of every theologian—including Augustine—must continually be tested against the authority of Scripture. Remarkably, Augustine himself demonstrated this principle. Near the end of his life he undertook the extraordinary task of reviewing many of his earlier writings and recording corrections in a work entitled Retractions. While he undoubtedly failed to identify every error, the existence of that work beautifully demonstrates both his humility and his sincere desire to submit his teaching to the authority of God’s Word.
For that reason I have little doubt that Augustine himself would be just as pleased for us to reject what is false in his writings as he would be for us to embrace what is true. Indeed, I believe he would willingly explain the reasons for his mistakes if doing so would help future generations avoid repeating them.
PART IV — THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH (A.D. 476–1517)
“You have abandoned the love you had at first.” — Revelation 2:4
The Fall of the Western Roman Empire (A.D. 476)
Before his death, Constantine relocated the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to the ancient city of Byzantium, renaming it Constantinople after himself. The move was primarily strategic. Constantinople offered better access to the wealthy eastern provinces, greater control over important trade routes, and a naturally defensible position from which to govern the Empire.
Although the imperial capital moved eastward, the Bishop of Rome remained in Rome. What initially appeared to be little more than an administrative change would, over the centuries, contribute significantly to the growing separation between the Eastern and Western Churches. Meanwhile, the Western Roman Empire had already begun its long decline. Economic instability, political corruption, military defeats, civil unrest, and repeated barbarian invasions steadily weakened imperial authority.
Rome suffered devastating blows with the sack of the city by the Visigoths in A.D. 410, followed by another sack by the Vandals in A.D. 455. Finally, in A.D. 476, the Germanic leader Odoacer deposed the last Western Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus. This event traditionally marks the end of the Western Roman Empire and the beginning of what historians call the Medieval period.
Rome and Constantinople
Constantine’s relocation of the imperial capital unintentionally created two growing centers of influence within Christianity. Initially, the Churches of East and West worked closely together in defining theology, establishing creeds, regulating liturgical worship, and addressing matters of ecclesiastical leadership. Yet differences gradually emerged.
- The Eastern Church spoke primarily Greek.
- The Western Church primarily Latin.
Many theological terms—including ousia, hypostasis, prosopon, and physis—carried different shades of meaning in the two languages. As a result, theologians sometimes appeared to disagree when, in reality, they were often using different terminology to describe similar ideas. Agreement therefore required careful definition of words before doctrines themselves could be clearly expressed. Differences also arose concerning liturgical practices, ecclesiastical authority, and the relationship between bishops.
None of these disagreements alone divided the Church. Rather, theological, linguistic, cultural, political, and ecclesiastical tensions accumulated gradually over many centuries. They finally culminated in what historians know as the Great East–West Schism of A.D. 1054, formally separating the Western Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Although many of the historical developments discussed in this study affected both branches of Christianity, my primary focus will remain upon the Western Church because it provides the historical background necessary for understanding the later Protestant Reformation.
The Rise of the Holy Roman Empire (A.D. 800)
To borrow a famous observation often attributed to Voltaire, “The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.”
Although intentionally provocative, the statement captures many of the tensions that would characterize medieval Europe.
The Carolingian dynasty emerged during the eighth century under the Frankish ruler Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great. Ascending to power in A.D. 768, Charlemagne expanded his kingdom into one of the largest empires Western Europe had seen since the fall of Rome. His conquests included much of present-day France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, northern Italy, the Low Countries, and portions of Spain. He became especially well known for his prolonged campaigns against the continental Saxons and the Avars. Charlemagne sincerely promoted Christianity throughout his expanding empire.
On Christmas Day, A.D. 800, Pope Leo III crowned him “Emperor of the Romans.” The coronation symbolized a renewed alliance between Church and State. History, in many respects, appeared to repeat itself. Just as Constantine had looked to Christianity as a means of strengthening the Roman Empire, Pope Leo III likewise recognized in Charlemagne’s empire an opportunity to strengthen both the influence of the Church and the authority of the Papacy throughout Western Europe.
Whether motivated primarily by politics, religion, or both, the result was an increasingly close partnership between ecclesiastical and secular authority.
Church and State
The relationship proved mutually beneficial.
- Kings received legitimacy from the Church.
- The Church increasingly relied upon kings to protect its interests and enforce its authority.
Yet this alliance also created inevitable conflicts of interest. The catalyst for genuine Church growth has never been found in the corruptible power of governments or political institutions. Rather, it has always been found in the incorruptible power of the Holy Spirit working through faithful believers proclaiming the Gospel.
Persecution is not necessary for the growth of Christianity. Nevertheless, throughout history God has often used persecution to separate genuine faith from superficial profession.
As the visible Church accumulated wealth, political influence, and legal authority, many entered Christianity for reasons far removed from personal faith in Christ. The invisible Church remained exactly what Christ intended it to be. The visible Church, however, increasingly reflected the political structures surrounding it.
Medieval Society and the Church
The collapse of the Western Roman Empire created a significant power vacuum. Throughout much of Western Europe the Church became the principal institution providing stability, education, charity, and moral leadership.
- Kings frequently relied upon bishops as advisers.
- Monasteries preserved learning.
- Churches established schools, hospitals, orphanages, and systems for caring for the poor.
As easy as it is to paint an unfavorable picture of the medieval Church, we should remember that the invisible Church remained faithfully serving Christ throughout these centuries. Many believers faithfully preached the Gospel, cared for the needy, translated Scripture, educated children, and demonstrated genuine Christian compassion.
At the same time, increasing political influence brought increasing temptation. Some bishops gradually blended their spiritual calling with secular ambition. Although calls for reform repeatedly emerged, they seldom produced lasting institutional change.
Wealth, Power, and Corruption
Interpretation of Scripture gradually became viewed as the responsibility of the clergy rather than the ordinary believer. Most Christians therefore relied upon priests not only to administer the sacraments but also to explain the Scriptures. Ecclesiastical authority increasingly reflected the hierarchical structure of medieval society itself.
Daily life revolved around the Church. The calendar, education, marriage, funerals, holy days, and community life all centered upon its ministry. Tithes supported clergy, charitable institutions, schools, hospitals, monasteries, and care for the poor. Yet growing wealth also created opportunity for abuse. Among the most notorious were the commercial abuses surrounding indulgences and the widespread trade in questionable relics. Unscrupulous clergy sometimes exploited sincere religious devotion for financial gain.
Ecclesiastical discipline likewise expanded. Excommunication could isolate individuals not only from church fellowship but from much of medieval society itself. Many faithful Christians, including respected figures such as Hildegard of Bingen, openly criticized corruption among church leaders. Others, including John Wycliffe and Jan Hus, would eventually call for far more substantial reform.
Reform Before Luther
Not every group opposing ecclesiastical corruption abandoned orthodox Christianity. The Beguines, for example, devoted themselves to poverty, prayer, and caring for the poor while remaining largely within historic Christian doctrine. Other movements, such as the Cathars, departed significantly from orthodox Christianity and embraced teachings heavily influenced by dualism.
Although very different theologically, both movements demonstrated that increasing numbers of people sought spiritual renewal outside the institutional structures of the medieval Church. Their existence testified to growing dissatisfaction with corruption, wealth, and political entanglement within the visible Church.
The Seeds of the Reformation (Fourteenth–Fifteenth Centuries)
Calls for reform did not begin with Martin Luther. More than a century earlier, John Wycliffe and his followers had already challenged numerous abuses within the Church. Jan Hus continued that call in Bohemia. To modern readers it may seem surprising that reform developed so slowly. Yet medieval Europe offered virtually no legitimate alternative to the Roman Catholic Church. Heaven, Hell, and purgatory were understood as immediate realities. To challenge the Church was widely perceived as risking not merely one’s social standing but one’s eternal destiny.
The remarkable question is therefore not why so few demanded reform. The remarkable question is how anyone found the courage to do so. The Protestant Reformation would not begin as an attempt to destroy the Church. It would begin as yet another sincere effort to reform it according to the authority of Scripture. That effort would soon change the course of Christian history forever.
PART V — THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION (A.D. 1517–1648)
“The just shall live by faith.” — Romans 1:17
A Church Ready for Reformation
By the opening of the sixteenth century, the visible Church had reached a turning point. For centuries, concerns over ecclesiastical corruption, the growing wealth and political power of the Church, the sale of indulgences, and the increasing distance between the Scriptures and ordinary believers had steadily accumulated. Reform movements had repeatedly arisen, yet most were either suppressed or faded without producing lasting institutional change.
At the same time, several historical developments prepared Europe for what previous generations had been unable to accomplish. The invention of Johannes Gutenberg’s movable-type printing press around A.D. 1450 made the rapid distribution of books—and eventually the Bible—possible on an unprecedented scale.
The Renaissance had renewed interest in studying the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures rather than relying solely upon the Latin Vulgate. Universities flourished throughout Europe, producing a growing number of educated scholars capable of examining both Scripture and Church tradition for themselves. Politically, the authority of the Papacy was increasingly challenged by emerging nation-states whose rulers were becoming less willing to submit to Rome’s influence.
In many respects, Europe had become fertile soil for reform. The visible Church had changed gradually over many centuries. Now those gradual changes were about to produce sudden consequences.
Martin Luther (1483–1546)
Martin Luther was born in A.D. 1483 in Eisleben, Germany. Originally studying law, Luther entered an Augustinian monastery following a terrifying thunderstorm during which he vowed that, if spared, he would become a monk. He was eventually ordained a priest and later became professor of biblical theology at the University of Wittenberg. Like Augustine before him, Luther possessed an acute awareness of his own sinfulness.
Despite fasting, prayer, confession, and rigorous ascetic practices, he found little peace concerning the righteousness required to stand before a holy God. His understanding began to change as he studied Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, particularly Romans 1:17:
“The just shall live by faith.”
Luther gradually became convinced that justification is received by faith alone and not earned through human merit or religious works.
The Ninety-Five Theses (1517)
Luther’s growing concerns came to a head in A.D. 1517. Disturbed by the sale of indulgences, particularly those promoted by Johann Tetzel, Luther composed his famous Ninety-Five Theses. Contrary to popular imagination, Luther’s initial intention was not to divide the Church. Rather, he sought an academic discussion concerning practices he believed lacked biblical support.
The sale of indulgences became the immediate catalyst because it appeared to offer forgiveness and relief from punishment in exchange for financial contributions. Luther believed such practices obscured the Gospel itself. What began as a call for reform soon developed into one of the most significant theological movements in Christian history.
The Five Solas
As the Reformation matured, its central theological convictions became summarized in what are commonly called the Five Solas:
- Sola Scriptura — Scripture alone is the supreme authority for Christian faith and practice.
- Sola Fide — Justification is by faith alone.
- Sola Gratia — Salvation is by grace alone.
- Solus Christus — Christ alone is the mediator between God and man.
- Soli Deo Gloria — Glory belongs to God alone.
These principles did not seek to introduce a new Christianity. Rather, the Reformers believed they were recovering the apostolic Gospel that had gradually become obscured through centuries of accumulated tradition and ecclesiastical abuse.
The Reformation Expands
Luther’s challenge soon spread far beyond Germany. Men such as Ulrich Zwingli in Switzerland, John Calvin in Geneva, Thomas Cranmer in England, John Knox in Scotland, and numerous others each contributed to the expanding Reformation.
Although united in many fundamental doctrines, the Reformers frequently disagreed among themselves concerning church government, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, predestination, and numerous other theological questions. Consequently, Protestantism quickly developed into several distinct traditions rather than one unified movement.
A New Question Emerges
The Reformers agreed that salvation is entirely by grace through faith in Christ. The question that increasingly divided later generations of Protestants was not whether salvation is by grace…
…but how that grace operates.
Does God sovereignly determine those who will believe? Or does God’s gracious call genuinely enable all people to respond in faith?
Those questions eventually became the center of one of the most influential theological debates in Protestant history. To understand that debate, we must now turn to two men whose influence continues to shape evangelical theology to this very day: John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius.