The Rise of Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church developed over several centuries. Ultimately it is the product of the evolution of two main elements: church government and the sacramental system. Both of these elements developed side by side throughout the eras of the Church’s history until they come to an intersection. It is at this intersection of the Roman Catholic brand of episcopal church government and the fully developed system of the seven sacraments that we have what we know of today as the Roman Catholic Church.

The Development of Church Government
In the beginning, we see that the ancient church starts out with a plurality of leadership. Churches appear to be congregational with both elders and deacons in place. There are also special roles within the church in this time to include apostles, teachers, evangelists, prophets, and church planters. The shepherding role within the church was with the elders or bishops. These two terms are used interchangeably with reference to the NT church. Elders functioned within their congregations as servant leaders who shepherded the flock through instruction, humble service, and leading by example. The rest of the congregation fulfilled their own equally important roles through mutual edification according to their own spiritual giftedness during participatory church gatherings and the breaking of bread together.
However, as early as the writings of Ignatius, we see a development in the pattern of church government. Church administration began to be consolidated under a single a bishop. The main reason for this was a reaction against emerging heresies. The thinking was that in order to protect the true gospel, the truth would be preserved under the teaching of one single bishop in the local church. That way, the church could know who was standing in the truth or standing outside the truth since the teaching of the bishop would be the standard. But as we will see with many developments in the Church, this development would trend towards further development. Since the truth was consolidated under the bishop, that truth had to be handed down eventually to successors. And so as early on as the writing of Clement of Rome, we see the idea of apostolic succession blossom and then intersect with the development of one-bishop rule to form the early stages of the Roman Catholic style of episcopal church government.
Among the consequences of the development of this style of church government is the principal of precedent. With the gospel truth and unity of the church residing solely in the bishop and then being handed down through succession, any further development from the current bishop would establish a new precedent that would be handed down to the next successor who would then build upon that foundation which he inherited. Eventually, it is only a matter of time before differences arise between local church bishops. The bishops were put in place to watch over the truth and unity of the church but before long someone has to ask the question, “Who watches the watchers?” Out of this concern, we see the rise of the hierarchal structure of higher, regional bishops watching over lower, local priests. This is exactly what we see by the time we get to the Council of Nicea in 325 when the administration of the various churches and their bishops were placed under the rule of the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. But once a hierarchal structure is put into place you cannot expect it to stop developing until there is only one person at the top. And so, the next development we see is a push for the primacy of the bishop of Rome above all other bishops. The argument of those in support of this idea was that Rome should have primacy because the church in Rome was the church that was associated with Peter and Paul, the two greatest apostles. As a result, we see this primacy given to the bishop of Rome at the Council of Constantinople in 381.
Subsequent bishops or Rome, or popes as they would come to be known, went on to build and expand upon this precedent. Pope Leo I was especially influential in this regard, who confronted the leader of an empire, Attila the Hun, such that the medieval papacy would expand not only into a religious institution, but a political one as well. This new political power would reach its climax when the papacy crowned Charlemagne emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Other popes would follow suit, crowning several more emperors of various kingdoms. Pope Gregory I would continue to expand upon this further consolidation of papal authority. Perhaps his most comprehensive development was the proliferation of the idea that the Church alone dispensed the grace of God through the word of God and the sacraments of the Church such that it was declared that there was no salvation outside the church. The Church would go on to experience subsequent ebbs and flows during the Dark Ages, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Inquisition, and the Crusades. But this trend of the consolidation of the power of the papacy would still continue throughout the Church’s history, perhaps most notably at Vatican I, when the doctrine of papal infallibility was declared.

The Development of the Sacraments: Symbolic to Salvific
The development of the Roman Catholic church government gives us the big picture of how the church developed. But the picture does not come into complete focus without the sacramental system of the Church. Just like the Church government, the sacraments developed over time through evolution based on established precedent after established precedent.
In the early NT church, and in other early church documents, what we see is two sacraments (or ordinances, depending on your point of view). These were baptism and the Lord’s supper. These ordinances were seen as symbolic, representing what Christ had done on our behalf.
The water of baptism was a symbol of the cleansing of sin. Baptism was also seen as the initiation rite of the church. Believers were to be baptized after instruction and profession of faith. This is the pattern that we see in the Book of Acts and also early church documents such as the Didache. However, what we see over time in early church history is a development beyond the merely symbolic to the salvific. The significance of the symbol began to overtake the symbol itself so that rather than baptism being seen as a symbol of the cleansing of sin because of the work of Christ, it was seen as the actual cleansing of our original sin. And since this is an actual cleansing of sin, we cannot deny this cleansing to those who cannot express faith, lest they perish. In other words, baptism must be extended to infants. Church fathers such as Origen would go on to argue that this practice was actually early church tradition. Others, such as Cyril would even go on to write that there is no salvation without baptism. This is how baptism developed from the symbolic to the salvific.
The Lord’s Supper, or the Eucharist developed along the same lines. In the NT and in the ancient church, the Lord’s Supper was a celebratory feast of thanksgiving, observed on a regular basis when they were gathered together on the Lord’s day. The bread and the wine were symbolic of the body and the blood of Christ. The nourishment received from the supper was symbolic of the spiritual nourishment we received through Christ. But even as early as the writings of Irenaeus, we see a development in thought over the nature of the Eucharist. At this point, it was not necessarily seen as salvific, but there was definitely an element of sanctifying, sin-cleansing grace being bestowed through the Eucharist. Thought on the extent to which this sanctifying grace was bestowed through the Eucharist would continue to grow throughout the history of the Church until we reach a landmark development by Gregory I. From Gregory, we see the introduction of the Mass in which Christ is actually said to crucified again for the remission of sins. The host, as the body of Christ, was elevated to be adored by those in attendance. This created further development in thought over the elements of the Mass themselves. No longer were they merely symbolic but there were something more spiritual altogether. Either Christ was actually present in the elements or they literally became the body and blood of Christ. There would be some debate over this until the fourth Lateran Council when the doctrine of transubstantiation was official adopted by the Church. With this change, the host was said to literally become the body of Christ at the word of the priest. Thus, the Eucharist had fully developed from the symbolic to the salvific. This brings us to the crossroads.

The Intersection of Sacrament and Government
The Church, having been organized under the hierarchal system of the papacy and the bishopric, and the sacraments having developed to the point of being salvific in and of themselves, brings us to the intersection where we find what we know of as the modern Roman Catholic Church. Other sacraments emerged in Church tradition to the point where there are now seven, all of which are essential and salvific in nature. The fact is, according to the Roman Catholic church, there is no salvation outside the Church because the pope holds the keys to the Kingdom and God’s grace is only dispensed through the administration of the bishops and priests without whom you cannot participate in the sacraments.
Lest we are quick to look down our noses at the Roman Catholic Church as Evangelicals, here is one final thought: We share the same spiritual lineage with the Roman Catholic Church. Our history is their history. Therefore, there are still elements in our own faith and practice that exist which we have inherited from that tradition. Yes, there was a Reformation. But the Reformation was largely a reaction to corruption within the Church and a rediscovery and return to the scriptures. That does not mean the Reformation is over. The development of the Roman Catholic system of church government represents the gross disenfranchisement of the average believer, the propagation of the false clergy-laity dichotomy, and the denial of the priesthood of all believers. As Evangelicals, our church structures may be adorned quite differently now, and our church government may be congregational on paper, but for the most part, we are still organizing ourselves after the top-down, man-made hierarchal structure of the papacy/bishopric. In recent years, we have seen a resurgence in local church gatherings who function with a plurality of elders, and that is a good thing. But there is still more work to be done. We still have underutilized, disenfranchised believers doing little more than attending gatherings, holding down a seat, and bringing casseroles to potlucks. We have left them behind. We have focused almost exclusively on how to train elders and forgotten how to train the rest of the body to be healthy, contributing, and participating members of the body. Let us not say to them, “We have no need of you.” Rather, let us say, “We love you. We need you. What can you teach us today?”

Augustine
Augustine is arguably the most important theologian in the history of the church. Other than Erasmus, no other theologian comes close to Augustine in terms of influence and proliferation of ideas. He is best known as the Bishop of Hippo in North Africa and the author of several monumental works of theology. The life of Augustine is quite the storied history. He was born in North African in 354. His father was an official in the Roman government and his mother was a very devout Christian. At the age of 16, he took advantage of his opportunity to study rhetoric in Carthage. After he finished his education he taught rhetoric in his hometown to pay off his school debt. After that year, he landed a position teaching rhetoric at the university in Carthage.
Augustine had a strong Christian upbringing especially because of his mother. His mother prayed fervently for his conversion. Despite his upbringing, during his time in Carthage, he began to fall away from his faith. He took a mistress whom he lived with along with his mother. He also got caught up in Manichaeism. This philosophy is very mystical and dualistic in nature and Augustine was drawn to its explanation to the problem of evil. The problem of evil was a big issue for him. Manichaeism with its dualism provided a satisfying answer. But it would not be too long before Augustine would become disillusioned with this philosophy and jaded with the state of his life. He had greatly anticipated hearing the lectures of Faustus, a prominent Manichean philosopher. But upon hearing him speak, Augustine was underwhelmed. He realized that Faustus was simply using rhetoric to convince others that what he was saying was true when Augustine could tell that Faustus really did not believe in what he was saying. Combine this with the fact that things were not going well in Carthage. His students were a bunch of ungrateful slackers who did not take their education seriously or pay him his due. It was at this point that Augustine fell into skepticism.
About the time he was 30, Augustine was offered a position teaching in Rome. He took this position and left his mother behind without telling her of his plans. He had hoped things would go better in Rome but he continued to languish in his skepticism and the students in Rome were not any better than the students in Carthage. So he finds a position teaching in Milan and sends a letter of apology to his mother and invites her to come with him.
His time in Milan would prove to be the turning point in his life. It was here that he met Ambrose, the bishop of Milan. Through the influence of his mother who attended the cathedral church, he heard Ambrose preach at the cathedral. Augustine was truly inspired by Ambrose’s preaching. Here was someone who actually believed what he was saying and spoke it with passion and conviction. Ambrose gave to Augustine a copy of Paul’s letters, which Augustine began to devour. It was at about the same time that Augustine also took to the writings of Plotinus. In Neo-Platonism, he has another satisfying answer to the problem of evil. The idea of God in Neo-Platonism is that of this effervescent being that overflows. Wherever God overflows, that is where we find creation and all of creation is good. But wherever God is not, that is where we find evil. Just as cold is the absence of heat, evil is the absence of God. Augustine is eventually won over to Christianity but only mentally and intellectually. He believes it is true, but he is aware that he is lacking a conversion experience. Augustine struggled a great deal with lust and he seemed unable to put that away. One day he heard a child playing on the other side of a fence chanting, “Take up and read, take up and read.” So he took up his copy of Paul’s letters and read from Romans 13: “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh.” This was the conversion experience he was longing for. This was the epiphany he needed. He realized that he could not put off the flesh in order to come to Christ, but he had to put on Christ and come to him so that he could put off the flesh. And so he was finally able to put away his struggle with the lust of the flesh, which meant that he also put away his mistress.
After his conversion, Augustine felt the call on his life to become a monk. And so he moved back to Hippo to start a monastic community there. It was not long after that time that he met the bishop of Hippo and was invited to speak at the chapel. Augustine was a big hit with the congregation there and he ends up being co-bishop. After the bishop’s death, he took over as full time bishop of Hippo.
Augustine faced some important challenges as bishop. One of those challenges was the Donatist controversy. There was concern over ordination done by bishops who had fallen away during the Diocletian persecution. Should an ordination be considered valid if it was carried out in part by a bishop who had fallen away but since repented? Donatus was of the opinion that the ordination should be invalid. Since the bishop of Carthage’s ordination was carried out by one who had fallen away, Donatus moved to have him himself elected as bishop in opposition to the current bishop. Donatus gathered several followers under him and the Donaists became schismatics, breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church. Augustine was very grieved by the who situation. He did not see the Donatists as heretics, but he did see them as schismatics who threatened the unity of the church. Church unity was very important to Augustine and he wanted to preserve it. But he could not stop the Donatists from leaving.
The other controversy he faced was the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius had read the writings of Augustine and he disagreed with Augustine’s strong view of God’s grace. Pelagius denied original sin and taught that man with the help of God’s word had the ability to live a pure life. He taught this even so far as the possibility of sinless perfection. Augustine was opposed to Pelagius. Augustine believed in original sin and because of the original sin of Adam, mankind has the proclivity towards evil and not good. We can follow God’s will but we need the grace of God to do so. And so Augustine at one point wrote, “God command what you will, but will what you command.”
The Pelagian controversy, along with other writings from Augustine show us that Augustine had a very strong view of God’s grace. He believed in the depravity of man and the need for God’s grace to draw us to himself, sustain us, and cause us to walk in his ways. It is this belief in God’s drawing and sustaining grace that led Augustine to be the first major theologian in church history to be a proponent of predestination. He also believed in the need for regeneration but for Augustine, regeneration happens at baptism.
Augustine is the author of several outstanding works of theology. On the Trinity is one of the greatest treatises on the doctrine of the Trinity in the history of the church. In it, he gives the analogy of the wick, the wax, and the flame. The City of God is his magnum opus. It is ultimately his view of redemptive history. In this work he lays out a grand, inaugurated eschatology where there are two cities: the City of Man, and the City of God. The City of God has broken into the City of Man with the coming of Christ and the City of God will gradually and definitively overtake the City of Man when Christ will reign over all.
Augustine has so much to offer in terms of the wealth of wisdom and knowledge we can meditate on. When we consider his search for satisfaction in various philosophies only to become disillusioned with them, we can truly appreciate what he meant when he wrote, “Thou has made us for thyself, O God, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in thee.” Augustine knew what it meant to finally find that soul satisfaction after searching so long in vain in other inadequate things. He helps us appreciate how God uses the circumstances in our lives to draw us to himself. Augustine not only had a grand view of the grace of God, but his life is a testament to the same.

The Apostolic Fathers
The Apostolic Fathers get their name form their association with the apostles of the NT. They were either associated with the apostles or associated with someone who knew an apostle. These sources are very important in the history of the church because they represent the next closest source on the life of the early church after the NT. For the purpose if this exam, we shall focus on three of these sources.
Ignatius of Antioch
In the NT church, we see that Antioch was ground zero for the early missionary movement. It was from Antioch that Paul set out on his missionary journeys. Antioch along with Rome and Jerusalem were the most important cities in the life of the early church. When we consider the prominence of Antioch in the life of the church, we can see how a glimpse into the life of Ignatius of Antioch would provide us with key insights as to what life in the early church was like.
What we have from Ignatius is a series of seven letters written to the church in Antioch which he wrote during his imprisonment while he was on his way to be tried and executed in Rome. Ignatius wrote a great deal about his martyrdom and also his concern for the unity of the church as they fought against legalism and Gnosticism in their ranks.
The legalism that Ignatius stood against came from the Judaizers. These were the same challengers that Paul and Peter faced in the books of Acts, Galatians, and Colossians. The Judaizers wanted to force the Gentiles to first keep the Mosaic law before faith in Christ. Ignatius fought against these Judaizers in the same tradition as Paul, by preaching the risen Christ and standing for Christian freedom. It was still a delicate balance in order to maintain the unity of the church, just as it was with the NT church.
The other threat to the unity of the church that Ignatius was concerned about was Gnosticism and in particular Docetism which was bred from Gnosticism. Docetism taught that Christ did not in fact come in the flesh but that he only appeared to come in the flesh. This was born out of the Gnostic disdain for all things physical. To them, the physical world was evil and therefore they eschewed the flesh. The inevitable consequence of this belief had to be a denial of the incarnation of Christ. But the problem here is that a denial of the incarnation equals a denial of the Christian faith. Without the incarnation, there could be no vicarious suffering of Christ on our behalf, no crucifixion, no resurrection and ultimately no atonement for sin. It was a denial of the very core of Christianity. And so Ignatius was right to be concerned about this heresy and he fought vigorously against it, even if it meant he had to die.
Ignatius’ martyrdom was more than just a death sentence to him. It was his opportunity to be a faithful witness to the centrality of the bodily incarnation of Jesus Christ. It is revealed through his letters that Ignatius actually had ties to certain people who could use their influence to arrange for his release. But remarkably, he writes instructions to the church to take no action towards his release. Instead, he speaks of being “wheat ground by the lion’s teeth” for the Lord’s pure bread. He truly saw his martyrdom as his own testimony to the sincerity of his faith and a proclamation of the indispensable nature of the incarnation.

The Didache
The Didache is an important document written by an unknown author in the early second century. The document itself was not extant until the late 15th century when a German scholar found a copy at a flea market. The document addresses several important issues in the life of the church. Among these issues were instructions concerning baptism and the Lord’s supper, or the Eucharist. The discovery of this document gave us key insights into this aspect of the faith and practice of the early church. For example, we see that they were indeed practicing believer’s baptism, not infant baptism. One interesting thing to note is that they were also practicing trine baptism – that is three immersions – or one immersion for each member of the Trinity. This is significant because it shows us that even the early church had a triune understanding of the Godhead. The church did not just make up the Trinity as some liberal scholars might assert.
The Didache addresses several moral concerns. This was important to the church as the threat of persecution increased. It is true there that there is not much talk of grace in this document. However, if people were going to suffer and die for their faith they had better know what they were suffering and dying for and exactly what it meant to live the Christian life. Whatever they stood for would become a part of their testimony to the outside world. Therefore, believers were encourage to live upright and moral lives.
Finally, the Didache also had instructions on not only caring for traveling missionaries, but also on how to identify a genuine missionary. Apparently, people posing as prophets and missionaries under false pretenses was a common problem in those days. The documents lists several signs by which one could identify a phony missionary.
To many, this document may seem odd in places for its apparent lack of grace and at times, it may even push the envelope of being quirky or even heterodox in some areas. However, that does not make it any less valuable to the church. We may not put it on the level of scripture, but there are still valuable insights to be gained that we might not otherwise have the opportunity to see if this document were not extant today.

The Letter to Diognetus
The Letter of Diognetus comes to us from what we may consider the end of the apostolic era, near the end of second century. It is very important as an apologetic work which shows us what it looked like to defend the Christian faith in the early church setting of the Roman world. In this regard, it can be compared to Paul’s speech at the Aeropagus or the ministry of Justin Martyr, another apostolic era apologist. The author of the letter is unknown and nothing is known about the recipient other than the name Diognetus. What is apparent is that Diognetus had several questions and concerns about the Christian faith and the author is writing to answer those questions and address those concerns.
The author does not simply write an informative tract on Christianity, but he writes a polemic against the Greco-Roman worldview accompanied by a treatise on the superiority of the Christian worldview. The author’s argument against the Greco-Roman worldview recalls the Book of Jeremiah where the prophet illustrates to futility of idol worship. The author of Diognetus applies the same argument of futility to the Roman gods. The author brilliantly argues on the perishable materials the gods were made of and their need for upkeep. He comments on how the ones made with more precious materials have to be guarded against thieves. What kind of god needs to be guarded?
The author of the letter goes on to lay the foundation for the Christian worldview. He contrasts it with the Greco-Roman worldview pointing out that it is not the product of human philosophy or ingenuity. This allows him to explain the Christian basis for epistemology. It is not based on some Platonic or Aristotelian concept of forms, but rather it starts with revelation. Our basis of knowing is that God has revealed himself to us, and we know this because he has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ. From there, the author builds upon this foundation and presents the gospel. But his style is not mere recitation of the facts. He presents the truth in a doxological style that recalls the writings of Paul when he bursts into spontaneous praise and worship based on the truths he expounds. He presents the truth in an appealing and winsome fashion.
We can learn much from the approach of the author of this letter. If we stop and think about it, we do share certain things in common in terms of the spirit, or as some would say, the zeitgeist of that era. The Greco-Roman worldview was built upon a very humanistic centered epistemology and its own brand of ethereal mysticism. This worldview was incompatible with Christian worldview, a worldview built upon a God centered epistemology. The principle that we can learn he is that we cannot just assume the gospel in every situation. We too live in an era that is increasingly secular and man centered. We need to be able to understand competing worldviews and dismantle them by showing how they are insufficient to answer life’s most important and fundamental questions. We need to then be able to show how the Christian worldview gives the only true and satisfying solution, a solution that comes from the God who is there and who is not silent, who has created us in his image and revealed himself to us in his Son Jesus Christ. How we present the truth matters. The truth of the gospel ought to be beautiful, winsome, and deeply satisfying. That is what we should take away from this letter.

That's a lot of cutting and pasting.  I'm not sure what your objective is.

micah7seven :   Hey man.  I also don't want to sound insensitive to your posting, but is there any purpose to the articles / letters that you are copying and pasting?  If it's information you wanted to share, why not add a personal touch and say something about it and why you want to share it etc. and simply insert a link to the article.  In the forum universe people who eat copypasta are frowned upon   Cool username btw.

I am indeed the author. This comes from my own personal writings and reflections from studying church history. There is no online article and blog to link to. I am sharing what I have written. If church history interests you, please feel free to discuss and interact. To know where one is going it is useful to know where one has been. What implications for the church (as a whole) in the present era can you observe? If church history does not interest you, there is no need to comment.

Ghostbear1111 :

SoL@R :  I am indeed the author. This comes from my own personal writings and reflections from studying church history. There is no online article and blog to link to. I am sharing what I have written. If church history interests you, please feel free to discuss and interact. To know where one is going it is useful to know where one has been. What implications for the church (as a whole) in the present era can you observe? If church history does not interest you, there is no need to comment. -M7