One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church
The following is the edited text of my WSC chapel lecture on the Nicene Creed for their series on the Creed from the Fall of 2025
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
My purpose in this post is to address that section of the Creed which speaks to the attributes of the church: “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Reformed Christians usually emphasize the marks of the church (preaching of the gospel, the proper administration of the sacraments, church discipline, and for some, prayer) before discussing the attributes of the church. When confessing the Nicene Creed the matter of the attributes or characteristics of the church moves to the fore. What are those attributes which must be confessed as necessary in order for the marks of a true church to be present?
There are four classical attributes of the church found in the Creed and embraced in different forms/ways across various Christian traditions: These attributes are 1). Unity, 2). Holiness, 3). Catholicity, and 4). Apostolicity. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and the Reformation churches all confess these same attributes but understand them in fundamentally different ways. There may be less catholicity here than elsewhere. I will cite from several Reformed writers and our confessions to make these differences apparent.
Several Reformed theologians have pointed out the classical attributes confessed in the Creed are not merely descriptive, they are also an exhortation. These are the ideal–the aspirational goal for which the church must strive. When seen in this light, these attributes are both a gift and a mandate. There is an eschatological dimension as well–these attributes tell us what the church is, what it should be, but they direct us ahead to that day when they will all be realized in perfection when the Lord Jesus returns.[1]
Briefly, I will go through the four attributes from this line in the Creed and then wrap up with a look at 1 Corinthians 1:1-2, where all four attributes are explicitly mentioned by Paul.
We Confess that the Church Is “One”
We begin with our confession that the church is “one.” It will come as no surprise that Rome anchors unity in the papacy. Ubi papa ibi ecclesia – “Where the Pope is, there is the church.” And we can add “where the Pope is, there is the true church, pure doctrine, and apostolic succession.”[2] In Ratzinger’s Called to Communion, he contends that “the Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.”[3]
The Eastern Orthodox understand unity in terms of visible communion of the saints in the Eucharist. It is not bishops which hold the church together, leading Kallistos Ware to ask, so “what then holds the Church together? [The] Orthodox answer, the act of communion in the sacraments. . . . The Church is not monarchical in structure, centered round a single hierarch; it is collegial, formed by the communion of many hierarchs with one another, and of each hierarch with the members of [Christ’s] flock.”[4]
In contrast, the Reformed depart from both Rome and the EOC in terms of how we understand the attributes of Christ’s church. When it comes to unity, we speak in terms of an invisible and a visible church. Invisibly, Christians enjoy a common union with Christ, by one Spirit, through one faith, hope, and love. God calls Christians to strive to give expression to this unity visibly (in part, but not exclusively, through external organization). Berkhof notes, the Reformers “did not find the bond of union in the ecclesiastical organization of the Church, but in the true preaching of the Word and the right administration of the sacraments.”[5]
The Belgic Confession, article 27, speaks of “one single catholic or universal church” and concludes by affirming Christ’s church is “joined and united in heart and will, in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith.”
According to Herman Bavinck,
This unity, though primarily spiritual in character, nevertheless exists objectively and really, and it does not remain completely invisible. It manifests itself outwardly—albeit in a very imperfect way—and at least to some degree comes to light in that which all Christian churches have in common. No Christianity exists above or beneath religious differences, but there is indeed a Christianity present amid religious differences . . . . That which unites all true Christians is always more than that which separates them.[6]
We might say that unity of organization, of some sort, is one of the things we strive for, but the elements of institutional unity do not depend upon a single, worldwide ecclesiastical structure centered in the Papacy–a standard Roman polemic.
Second, We Confess that the Church Is “Holy”
The Reformed seek to understand the church’s holiness in an objective sense. According to Paul, we are saints (through reception of the saving merits of Christ received though faith) and identified as such in Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; and Colossians 1:2. In addition, we are called to be saints in Romans 1:7 and 1 Corinthians 1:2. This holiness is grounded in an objective Trinitarian reality: The Father who calls us is holy (1 Peter 1:15). Christ’s atonement on our behalf makes us holy and cleanses us (Ephesians 5:25-27). According to the author of Hebrews God has purified the heavenly temple for us (Hebrews 9:15-28). Furthermore, the Spirit who indwells us is holy (1 Corinthians 6:19).
While Rome and perhaps the East has some claim to an outward unity that the Reformed do not have, they certainly have nothing of the sort when it comes to holiness. The Roman Catholic Church may be externally the Roman Catholic church, but it’s not externally the holy catholic church.
Christ’s church is called to holiness. In 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1. Paul writes
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.” Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.
Paul uses an indicative and an imperative here. We are the temple of the living God (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:19) and God makes his dwelling among us. Therefore we should be separate from unbelievers, touching no unclean thing. “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.”
Again, Bavinck’s summation is helpful.
Inasmuch as the Reformation again made known the church as the communion of the saints, it looked for holiness not first of all in the supernatural character of the salvific institution, but in the spiritual renewal of the members of the church. The church is holy because it is a communion of saints . . . . . And believers are called saints, first of all, because they are objectively counted as saints in Christ by virtue of God’s imputation to them of the righteousness of Christ,” and as Bavinck goes on to add, second because of the renewed lives of the saints.[7]
Michael Horton makes an important big-picture observation:
In both Roman Catholic and free-church ecclesiologies . . . . the church’s visible holiness is inherent, although for the former it flows from the one to the many and for the latter from the many to the one . . . . In both paradigms . . . the means of grace employed . . . are oriented first of all toward an infused, inherent, and inward holiness . . . . Covenant theology has taken a different route than either of these paradigms. Regardless of the personal holiness of its members, the church . . . is holy because it is the field of divine activity, in which the wheat is growing up into the likeness of its firstfruits, even though weeds are sown among the wheat.[8]
Third, We Confess That the Church is “Catholic”
This is affirmed in the Reformed Confessions as follows:
Belgic Confession, Article 27 comments on catholicity at some length:
It is “one single catholic or universal church.” “This church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end.” “This holy church is preserved by God against the rage of the whole world, even though for a time it may appear very small . . . . This holy church is not confined, bound, or limited to a certain place or certain persons. But it is spread and dispersed throughout the entire world . . .”
Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 54 refers to catholicity when it speaks of the church gathered “out of the entire human race, from the beginning of the world to its end.”
Westminster Confession of Faith 25.1 says . . .
“the catholic or universal church” that is “invisible” “consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one . . .” But Westminster Confession of Faith 25.2 adds that the visible church “is also catholic or universal under the gospel.” It is “not confined to one nation” but “consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children . . .”
We can summarize the view of the Reformed confessions as follows. Christ’s church extends throughout time, it reaches all of humanity (under the new covenant), and therefore is not limited to one time, place, nation, or people. Louis Berkhof notes that Protestants “apply this attribute primarily to the invisible Church, which can be called catholic in a far truer sense than any one of the existing organizations . . . . The invisible Church is primarily the real catholic Church, because she includes all believers on earth at any particular time, no one excepted.”[9]
Fourth, We Confess That the Church is Apostolic
The two key biblical texts making this exact point are: Matthew 16:18-19
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell 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”
and Ephesians 2:19–20
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.
Both of these texts indicate that the apostles are foundational to the church, but not a continuing office. In Matthew 16:18-19, the reference to building on a rock is obviously pointing to the need for a foundation, especially in light of Matthew 7:24-27 (the house built upon the rock). Nothing is said about the apostles as anything other than a foundation. In Ephesians 2:19-20, Paul writes: The church has been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (who function as New Testament prophets—3:5). Christ himself is cornerstone, and he has no successors.
But it is evident that the church today isn’t apostolic in the following ways:
1) Apostles or their successors are not still present
2) Our churches do not have fellowship with churches the apostles planted, since we know that these early churches could fall away (Revelation 2:5; 3:16)
3) The church must be apostolic because it is built upon the foundation the apostles laid
So, what then is the foundation upon which we still must rest? The remarkable thing about the apostles in the New Testament is that they speak the authoritative word of God which must be believed and obeyed. The apostolic foundation isn’t about persons or institutions, but teaching as seen in the following four ways.
1) The apostles speak the word of Christ
2) In Romans 2:16, Paul speaks of “my gospel”
3) In 1 Corinthians 7:10, 12, he says “not I, but the Lord…I, not the Lord,” which indicates that the word Paul spoke was equally authoritative as words spoken by Christ while on earth
4) In 2 Corinthians 13:3 the Corinthians sought proof that Christ was speaking through Paul
The conclusion: the church is apostolic because it preached the apostolic gospel revealed by Jesus to his disciples who founded his church.
Finally, how does 1 Corinthians 1:1-2 give biblical foundation to the four attributes of the church we confess in the Nicene Creed? This is a great text from which to preach about the four attributes.
Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.
The biblical basis for these attributes is set out in a single text. Unity: Paul speaks of the “church of God” in Corinth, who are called together with all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus. Holiness: Paul says they are the sanctified but also called to be holy (status and aspiration?). Catholicity: He adds that they are called together with all those who in every place call on the name of Christ, and Apostolicity: they’re authoritatively addressed by Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle.
Conclusion
In an age of great conflict over competeing religious claims perhaps it is good to remind ourselves of why the Nicene Creed is so important to confess. Shortly after its promulgation, Athanasius stated that “whoever wishes to understand the Scriptures must first confess the faith which the Church has received from the Apostles and guarded through the ages — the faith confessed at Nicaea.”[10] C. S. Lewis is quoted as saying, “We are to make of ourselves a society of the Nicene Creed — [people] who believe that Christ is God, and that through Him all things were made.”
_____________________________
[1] Heyns, The Church, 119.
[2] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.285, 323.
[3] Ratzinger, Called to Communion, 72.
[4] Ware, The Orthodox Church, 238-39.
[5] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 573.
[6] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.321.
[7] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.321.
[8] Horton, People and Place, 194-95.
[9] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 575.
[10] Athansius, De Synodis (On the Councils), chapter 54