“Surely we believe in one and the same Lord Jesus Christ” is often claimed to be the foundation of agreement between Roman Catholic doctrine and evangelical theology. But is this affirmation enough to be the grounds of ecumenical unity between Rome and Protestants? Rome claims a type of unity with Protestants because both religious movements affirm the Nicene Creed in its entirety. The recently published edited volume The Nicene Creed challenges this assumption. As the contributors put it, “Our goal is not to deny what is in common, but to ask questions about its depth, given the fundamental differences that evangelicals and Catholics express and that give rise to different accounts of the gospel” (4). The book originated as papers at the 2023 Rome Scholars and Leaders Network (RSLN) sponsored by the Reformanda Initiative.[1] Each chapter of The Nicene Creed seeks to evaluate the legitimacy of the claims of unity between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals based on the confession of the same creeds such as the Nicene Creed.[2]
1. The Initiative’s goal is to “identify, unite, equip and resource evangelical leaders to understand Roman Catholic theology and practice, to educate the evangelical church, and to communicate the gospel” (6).
2. In chapter one, Rachel Ciano presents the historical precedent of the Nicene Creed; in chapter two, Alastair Dunlop maintains the biblical foundation of the creed; in chapter three, Leonardo De Chirico explains the Trinitarian framework of the creed; in chapter four, Matthew Johnston discusses the Person of Christ; in chapter five, Robbie Bells discusses the work of Christ; in chapter six, Gregg R. Allison discusses the Holy Spirit; in chapter seven, Lauren J. Montenegro evaluates Mariology; in chapter eight, Mark Gilbert delineates the “marks” of the church; in chapter nine, Clay Kannard considers baptism; in chapter ten, Reid Karr considers the world to come and the judgment Christ brings; in chapter eleven, Bradley G. Green wonders if Nicaea is enough as the grounds of unity between Catholics and Protestants.
This book seeks to defend Evangelicals against two charges: The first charge alleges that Evangelicals ought to affirm common confessional statements as a unifying point between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals and care more about creeds (such as the Nicene Creed). The second charge claims that Reformed Evangelicals care too much about the Nicene Creed in a way that exaggerates distinctions between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals. However, while both Roman Catholics and Evangelicals confess the Nicene Creed—and so stand on somewhat similar ground—this book shows that they remain irreconcilably distinct in the definitions of biblical-theological terms. The unity most Christians are looking for is already in place if we confess the truth that the Bible confesses and attach the same meanings to the words we use in these confessions. Nicene Creed seeks to consider if everybody means “the same things by the words we are saying” (5). Nicene Creed answers this with a resounding “no” as it structures its chapters to correspond to the heads of doctrine expressed in the Nicene Creed.
Summary
Chapter one introduces what is at stake in the very words we confess in the Nicene Creed, and it maintains that a unity based on face-value agreement on the Nicene Creed is superficial, and “anemic” at best (16). The understanding and articulation of what the Creed means is battle over descriptions and definitions of words, e.g., the iota that makes all the difference in whether Jesus is of a similar nature to the Father (homoiousios) or is of one and the same nature as God the Father (homoousios). The meaning and distinction of words in the theological task of confessing the Christian faith rests on an absolute authority, namely, Scripture alone as God’s Word.
Chapter two establishes Scripture as the standard for the evaluation of whether, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals “even mean the same things when we use the same words?” (33). Certainly, even in saying the same things, Roman Catholic doctrine means differently from what Evangelicals say. Rome thus, appears to lean heavily on human tradition and extra-biblical notions. Here is a resounding call for Christians everywhere to ground our faith and theological investigations in the solid and true foundation, that is Scripture as God’s own word.
Chapter three evaluates the manner of God’s relation to us as the Triune God. The chapter shows that the exaggerated notion of unity between Protestants and Rome because they share the same Nicene confession is just too “simplistic and theologically superficial” (47), especially given Rome’s commitment to a naively optimistic view of human nature in relation to God. For Rome, human nature is neither spiritually dead nor depraved, but only “morally disordered” (40). The Protestant view, however, distinguishes that “while we retain our imago Dei, we have radically and permanently lost our natural capacity for God unless God himself regenerates it in our hearts. We find ourselves under God’s righteous judgement without any ability to bypass it ourselves” (41). One sees a stark example of this distinction in the way Roman Catholicism considers Mary as inseparably linked to the Trinitarian articulation of the Christian faith. Mary is said to have been sinlessly conceived herself just as she is said to have remained sinless and a virgin after Jesus’ birth. Thus, “Evangelicals and Catholics may recite the same trinitarian formulations of the Nicene Creed, but there are fundamental differences” in its apprehension (42–43).
Chapter four explains that while there is general ecumenical agreement in the basic Christological statements of Nicaea, the same agreement does not follow in the entailments of the distinct theological traditions such as Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism (53). The author invites the reader to savor, appreciate, and anticipate the God presented in the Nicene Creed. He also rightly offers the caveat that the Nicene Creed is not the final word on Christology nor on any of the interlinked heads of doctrine. The creeds thus function as a prompt or urge of our “eagerness to know more.” (55). Thus, the Nicene Creed is not to be taken as a definitive exposition on the Trinity and the relations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit described as persons. The author helpfully explains that lingering issues like the relation of the human and divine natures would be answered progressively in the succeeding church councils (58).
Chapter five considers the differences between Roman Catholic and Evangelical views on the work of Christ. The author thus focuses on what it means that Christ, or God the Son Incarnate, was born, lived and died, rose again, and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, “for us and for our salvation” (as the Nicene Creed puts it). Roman Catholics affirm with Evangelicals that Christ’s suffering and death by crucifixion was substitutionary by nature. However, Roman Catholicism stops short of saying that “Christ’s death is a penal substitution” (72). In fact, the official Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts “Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned” (73; cf., Catechism of the Catholic Church, 603). This chapter rightly highlights that if the Roman Catholics affirmed penal substitutionary atonement, they would then lose the sacrament of penance—and with it, the lofty notion of man’s cooperation with God in salvation. Distinctly therefore, Rome in practice rejects that Christ’s death on the cross is penal and substitutionary.
Chapter six focuses on the person of the Holy Spirit as God and his works as the “giver of life” and the agent of all of God’s revelation. In contrast to Evangelicals, Roman Catholic theology insists that there is a special anointing and empowering given to priests such that they can act in persona Christi, or in the person or stead of Christ (88). Priests uniquely anointed by the Holy Spirit serve for the effectual sanctification of the laity through the sacraments—sacraments that are effectual only when administered by such a priest. In contrast, Evangelicals affirm the priesthood of all believers, where every Christian operates from the same faith and power of the same Holy Spirit, even if some may be called to distinct roles of Christian ministry (92). Whereas Protestants celebrate the administration of only two sacraments—baptism and the Lord’s Supper—the Catholic Church celebrates seven: baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, holy matrimony, holy orders, last rites.
Chapter seven considers the points of divergence in the understanding of Mary’s person and role in our salvation. Roman Catholicism holds that Mary is rightly called the Mother of God, as she bore God the Son Incarnate. Thus, she is sinless, remains a virgin perpetually, and was assumed into heaven in such an impeccable state, therefore not experiencing the corruption of death. Evangelicals often shudder at such “worship” of Mary, which Roman Catholics maintain is veneration, and never worship properly considered (106). The author calls for sensitivity in addressing or bashing the Catholic views on such emotionally charged topics as Mary’s role (108).
Chapter eight teases out how the “marks” of the church— “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”—possess different meanings to Evangelicals and Roman Catholics. The distinction is crucially one of access that people have to God and who gets sent and with what authority. For example, Roman Catholics find their authority from God in apostolic succession, the idea that there is an unbroken line from the Apostle Peter all the way to the present pope. Protestants, however, see their mandate from God in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20), whereby God’s gives authority in the power of the Holy Spirit to Christians being sanctified in likeness to God. The faithful Christian church “is holy because God is holy. It is set apart from this world because God and his gospel transcend this world. Yet it is also catholic—available to all—because God became human and made himself available to everyone” (126).
Chapter nine distinguishes between the saving, effectual sacramental of baptism in the Roman Catholic church (132–133) and the baptism taken to be a public profession of an already existing faith in Jesus Christ for Evangelicals. In Roman Catholicism, unity is generated or established by one’s baptism into the Roman church, that is, baptism makes one a Christian. In Evangelicalism, an already existing unity of faith is only affirmed and celebrated whenever one is baptized (141).
Chapter ten considers the world to come, when Jesus Christ will judge the living and the dead and establish a kingdom that enjoys his own terms. The difficulty that this chapter’s author points out is the common uneasiness that people have generally with judgement and specifically with hell. The Roman Catholic’s view that man is not desperately evil lends itself nicely to a notion that all “good people” go to heaven. Since most people are good in the Roman Catholic system, this author argues that Romans Catholics see hell as most likely empty. So, it is unclear in Roman Catholicism who gets judged when the Lord Jesus comes again (153). This view undermines the offer of the gospel, which is given precisely so that men and women can flee and escape the coming judgment.
Chapter eleven evaluates and ponders if the Nicene Creed is sufficient as a summary of our Christian faith to the point of fellowship between various Christian traditions. The author suggests that Nicaea “is not enough” (158). He insightfully shows that the naive sense of unity whenever people recite the Creed springs from an undue romanticizing of the early church period. While there was common agreement expressed in the Nicene Creed, it was not long after this period that the early church father Athanasius was exiled—by the same bishops who had been at the Nicene council (160)! With the example of John Henry Newman (Catholic), and James Orr (Scottish Protestant), the author suggests that unlike Newman’s desire to link every branch of doctrine to its early seed-form, we can follow Orr and “think about how the church can grow and develop in its theological understanding without having to bear the burden of somehow justifying every doctrinal affirmation that the church has made throughout its history” (162). This means the church’s theology can develop over time as we rethink and rework our theological understanding.
Evaluation
The book keeps the reader engaged as the various chapters weave through the different sections of the Nicene Creed. These chapters illustrate the interconnectedness of the Christian doctrinal statements, especially regarding God and his nature: simple, unchangeable, eternal, etc., and so they guide our reflection on Jesus Christ as such a God, God the Son! The chapters are devoted to the theological loci or categories and helpfully illustrate the works of God corresponding to and appropriated by the persons of the Trinity.
The authors are instrumental in highlighting that the Nicene Creed (and by extension, almost every confessional statement of the early church) was not a mere theological musing or abstraction. The creeds were to be taken as sound responses to “an array of heresies” which, if not dealt with, would undermine the gospel (59). This is crucial because, for example, “confusion about the person of Christ creates confusion about how Christ accomplished redemption” (62).
Following the accessible language of the Nicene Creed, the book is written with similarly accessible language. The aim to present complex theological statements clearly and in a non-highly academic style is commendable, and thus this book serves as a good and thorough introduction to the Nicene Creed and the biblical issues at stake in its terms. The chapters end with a few questions intended to stimulate further reflection on the reliability of the creed as an affirmation of biblical truth and its relevance to our lives today. Indeed, the Nicene Creed is not merely a theological relic from the past!
The book rightly proves its main point that the Creed is not a sufficient launching pad for fostering unity among Christians. Affirming the Nicene Creed without defining its terms only produces a “paper-thin, anemic unity” (16), a unity that is forced at best. Thus, while drawing on the rich theological heritage of the Christian Faith, this book defends the Reformed view of Christian Theology, a view quite distinct from Roman Catholic doctrine (63). For example, Roman Catholic tradition views the church as the extension of Christ, such that the pope takes the “priest’s role as an alter Christus, another Christ,” with the same powers of Christ. The Evangelical view distinguishes that the church or its ministers cannot be another Christ, but they are called to be like Christ. For the church then, there is “no need for a human head on earth, because Christ is present with his people by the Spirit” (66). The book does not, however, develop further the Lord Jesus’s description of who the Holy Spirit is as another one of the same kind as he is i.e., very God and one and the same (John 14:16, cf., 16:7–15).
Chapter three does not emphasize enough Rome’s claim of being almost another Christ on earth by virtue of being united to him and extending his work and body through the world. The contrary point deserves further affirmation: the church has the only merit of being covenantally united to Christ. It is not a natural union, not expected and never deserved!
In an introductory book such as this, I would have enjoyed recommendations for relevant resources on the other creeds and confessions that Christians have enjoyed over time.[3]
3. E.g., similar works on the Chalcedon Definition mentioned in Chapter four.
Most of the chapters engagingly presented the historical context and precedent of the section of the creed they addressed along with the relevance of such a discussion to the church. In a book intended to unapologetically affirm what is true and expose what sounds true but in practice is unbiblical, the chapter on Mariology (chapter seven), presented a graceful balance in the call for sensitivity to such a topic. The balance is greatly accentuated by the author’s proclamation of the love of a Father, the love of God the Father, who does not need his arm to be twisted by a maternal figure to be nice to us (109–110).
Conclusion
Everyone who is suspicious that creeds and confessions are relics from the past, and everyone who thinks that Roman Catholics and Evangelicals believe the same meanings in the Nicene Creed ought to read this book. It serves as a primer for Christians needing to revisit their confessional heritage in depth, and it is especially helpful for Protestants who want to explore some of the fundamental differences between them and Rome.
Overall, this book successfully and skillfully explains the distinctions between the Roman Catholic and Evangelical understandings of the Nicene Creed. Rightly then, the Nicene creed as a “common confession should not mask these substantial points of disparity on this doctrine that is at the heart of what it means to be the church” (97). While both Roman Catholics and Evangelicals affirm the same words of the Creed, they believe in vastly different meanings behind the words. By engaging the questions in this book, the reader can be “responsible enough to look past the words being used, to the worlds that shape their understanding” (142).
