How are Christians Monotheists if God is a Trinity?

I love a good riddle. There’s something so enjoyable about pondering over a riddle while anticipating the relief of the answer – digging more and more as the pieces slowly come together. Finally, something inside “clicks”, and the answer suddenly becomes all too obvious. The satisfaction is amazing.

But not every riddle and puzzle has an answer that simply “clicks”. Some puzzles go beyond our ability to reason. It’s not that they don’t make sense, or even that they aren’t logical. Rather, they exceed our ability to think. There are people who are intellectual geniuses, whose ability to comprehend things exceeds our own (Einstein, Mozart, Plato, etc). But there are mysteries that even geniuses can’t comprehend.

As a Christian, I see many objections raised against my faith. There are many mysteries, puzzles, and seeming contradictions arise in Christianity. At the very top of these mysteries is the belief that God is a Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). How can a single God be three persons? This begs another question: If Christians believe God is a Trinity, why do they call themselves monotheists?

After all, Christians say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Sounds an awful lot like three Gods, doesn’t it? And if a polytheist is someone who believes in multiple gods, then why aren’t Christians polytheists?

To answer this question, we will need to do a little ground work to make sure we understand how Christians understand God as a Trinity. To begin, let’s look at the origin of this belief: we start with Jesus’ own words.

The Trinity is Revealed

Jesus did a lot in his earthly ministry. To name everything would be like trying to count the sand on the beach. But there is one thing in particular that he did that concerns our question: Jesus revealed who God is. Sure, God revealed himself to Israel through the Old Testament, but Jesus came to complete what was being revealed in the Old Testament.

There are many references to God’s identity throughout the New Testament. For instance, we see this in the Lord’s Prayer, as Jesus instructs us to address God as “Our Father in heaven…” (Matt 6:9). We also see Jesus revealed as God in Thomas’ famous exclamation to the risen Christ: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Similarly, we see the “Spirit of God” (the Holy Spirit) descend upon Jesus shortly after his baptism (Matt 3:16).

Just before his ascension, Jesus put a bow on the topic when he told the Apostles to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19, emphasis added). Notice that he didn’t say “in the names…”. It’s a singular name, with three persons.

Jesus told us these things so that we could know God as he is: a Trinity. But at this point we should put up some caution tape. When I say Jesus “revealed” God, I mean that we couldn’t have figured this out on our own. We can use our reason to know that God exists, but we would never be able to figure out that God is a Trinity without Jesus having revealed it. We accept the doctrine of the Trinity by faith in Jesus’ words (for further discussion about faith, click here).

Some might be questioning the math here. Jesus revealed three persons, yet Christians say that there is only one God. What gives?

That’s a fantastic question. But before we can answer it, we need to do a little groundwork. We need to look at the difference between a “person” and a “nature”.

Person vs. Nature

I’ve been told that I’m freakishly similar to my father (a fact that I, too, agree with). We have the same build, tastes, and we both think that engineering is cool. But we have something even more fundamental in common: we share the same nature.

This can be said of all humans. We’re human because we all share our human nature. That’s what separates us from other creatures, like horses and cats (though some might disagree with me when it comes to cats…).

So what is a nature? Essentially, a nature defines what we are and what we can do. My human nature contains the fundamental characteristics that make me human.

What is a person? If a nature is what we are, then a person is who we are. A person is an individual, a “self”, distinct from others. Frank Sheed best sums up the distinction between person and nature:

Nature answers the question what we are; person answers the question who we are. Every being has a nature; of every being we may properly ask, What is it? But not every being is a person: only rational beings are persons. We could not properly ask of a stone or a potato or an oyster, Who is it? [1]

With that distinction, we can begin to make some sense of our math dilemma. There are three Persons in the Trinity: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But there is only one Divine Nature that each Divine Person possesses. The three Persons are completely distinct from one another, but they are completely (and mysteriously) unified, possessing the one Divine Nature.

If you find this confusing, don’t worry. There is more to the story. We need to understand (with our limited human abilities) how the three Persons of the Trinity are related.

How it Works

The Father is the Origin
God the Father is the first Person of the Trinity, and our starting point. He is all knowing and all powerful. He completely possesses the Divine Nature and is rightly called God.

But his name, Father, also tells us something important about him: He is the source, the origin of everything, including his Son, Jesus.

The Son Proceeds from the Father
“Now wait a minute,” some might argue. “I thought you said Jesus was God. Now you are saying God the Father created Jesus?”

The short answer is no, God didn’t create Jesus. But Jesus proceeds forth from the Father. Allow me to explain.

This is where things get technical (bear with me). God is all knowing. To know everything infinitely, that means he must know himself perfectly and infinitely. So his own knowledge, or thought of himself would also be infinite in nature. And his idea of himself would be divine in nature, since he is divine. And his self-knowledge would also have to exist with him for all eternity, since God can’t, even for a moment, stop being all knowing.

Let’s piece together what we have so far. God the Father has an infinite, eternal, and divine knowledge of himself. God’s self-knowledge is so infinite and real that it (he) becomes a person. At this point, the beginning to St. John’s Gospel might make more sense.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1-2).

We see that the Word (Jesus) was with God for all eternity, and was God. Some might object that “Jesus is referred to as God’s word, not his ‘thought’ or ‘idea’.”

This is a good point. But we need to rethink our understanding of what “word” means. A word expresses a thought, but it does so by creating a sound; it requires a medium (usually air) to carry its sound waves. But Jesus was with the Father before anything was created (including air). So by calling Jesus God’s Word, we can rightly think of him as God’s idea or thought. Frank Sheed echoed this when he said:

So God utters a word – not framed by a mouth, of course, for God has no mouth. He is pure spirit. So it is a word in the mind of God, not sounding outwardly as our words sound, akin rather to a thought or an idea. [2]

We need to be careful here. I’m not calling Jesus a figment of God’s imagination (that would be heresy). Jesus is more real than the screen you are looking at. You see, God’s image of himself is infinite. It’s so much greater than anything we can comprehend. It’s so real that it (he) takes on personhood. He becomes a person. He is not the Father, but he is real, eternal, infinite, and divine. He is the second person of the Holy Trinity.

The Father and the Son exist together in heaven for all eternity, both completely possessing the Divine Nature. The Son proceeds from the Father through the Father’s intellect. They are a family together.

The Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son
The third person of the Trinity emerges when we consider that God is all powerful. His ability to do all things with infinite power includes his ability to love. This is where the Holy Spirit comes in.

Like any good family, the Father and the Son love each other, as a father loves his son, and a son loves his father. The Father infinitely pours his love onto the Son. The Son, in response, returns that love back to the Father. This mutual love is continual and eternal. We saw how immeasurable this love is when, in perfect, loving obedience, the Son gave up his own life on the cross.

This infinite exchange of love between the Father and Son is so great, that it takes on an infinite, divine nature. It’s a nature that is so powerful and real that it becomes a person. This is the Third Person of the Trinity: The Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is the very love that flows between the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. He is distinct from them both, yet he (as the Son is to the Father) proceeds forth from them. Frank Sheed sums this up well as he wrote:

As the one great operation of the spirit, knowing, produces the second person [Jesus], so the other, loving, produces the third [Holy Spirit]. But be careful upon this – the second proceeds from, is produced by, the first alone; but the third, the Holy Spirit, proceeds from Father and Son, as they combine to express their love. [3]

Don’t feel intimidated if you are having trouble wrapping your head around this – it’s deep stuff. The inner workings of the Holy Trinity make rocket science look like second grade math homework. God is a mystery, and we will never fully grasp the whole of his being, for we are finite beings trying to understand the infinite.

Final Thoughts

In short, Christians believe in one God, though he is three persons: three persons who share completely in one Divine Nature. Each person is completely distinct from the others, yet inseparable. The Father can’t simply cease to be the origin of the Son any more than he can cease to be infinite. And the Father and the Son can’t cease to infinitely love one another.

The Catholic Church echoes this teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church when it says:

The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”. The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God. [4]

Each Person is entirely eternal and divine. Each Person is God. This sheds some light on Jesus’ words when he said to baptize that nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). God is one. Yet God is made of three Divine Persons.

So Christians aren’t polytheists. We believe in One God. He is mysterious to us, yes, but shouldn’t we expect that of the infinite God of the universe? When Jesus revealed the mystery of the Trinity, he revealed something that we can only begin to grasp; he left us a great puzzle.


[1] “Theology and Sanity.” Frank Sheed: Author’s Page at Ignatius Insight. N.p., n.d. Web.          17 Apr. 2017.

[2] Sheed, F. J. Theology for Beginners. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant, 1981. Print.

[3] ibid

[4] Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 253

The Origins of the Authority of the Pope: The Historical Witness

Below is a collection of Early Christian writings that exhibit the belief of the Pope being the leader of the earthly Church.

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have250px-Clemens_I.jpg nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).


“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D.
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Dionysius of Corinth

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).
“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).


“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

“A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be 220px-Eusebius_of_Caesarea.jpgcelebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom” (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).
“Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches” (ibid., 24:18).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).
“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).
“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (ibid., 55[52]:8).
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).


“[Pope] Stephen … boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. … Stephen … announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).

Pope Julius I

“[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. … Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. … What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

The Origins of the Authority of the Pope (Part 3) Papal Infallibility

Papal infallibility. What is it? Does it mean the pope cannot sin? Does it mean he is perfect? Since when is the pope infallible?

Papal infallibility is used by the pope during formal teaching, or the Formal magisterium, mentioned previously at the start of this article series on the pope. This form of the teaching Magisterium is that which is used by popes to formally define articles of the faith infallibly. When the pope teaches this way, it is referred to as ex cathedra.

The notion of Papal infallibility dates back to the teachings of Christ to the Apostles. st_-peters-basilicaChrist told His Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth (John 16:13), as they had been given the job of teaching everyone the things Christ had commanded (Matthew 28:19-20). Speaking through His Apostle Paul, Christ taught the deacon Timothy that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Christ’s Church is the ground of truth. It cannot err in its doctrinal teachings. If it would, it would not be the pillar of truth.

How is this applied to the teachings of the Church today? Yes, the Church is the pillar of truth, but who exactly defines the teachings? One cannot just say “the Church”. The Church is much more than just a vague expression.

The pope, the successor of Peter, enjoys the protection of infallibility when formally pronouncing Catholic doctrine. When doing this, speaking ex cathedra, the pope does not invent doctrinal beliefs; he defines them. Any beliefs formally defined by the pope were not news to Christians — they  were long held beliefs. The protection from error does not equate to invention of doctrine.

Neither does infallibility mean that a pope cannot sin. Popes sin. Many have been horrible sinners. But sin doesn’t effect infallibly protected teaching. Peter was a sinner,cropped-st_peters_basilica_rome.jpg and yet he made an infallible teaching at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-30).

Infallibility has nothing to do with the private lifestyle of the pope. Infallibility prevents a pope from solemnly and formally teaching error as a truth. It has nothing to do with the state of his soul, or how many sins he commits. It merely prevents him from solemnly and formally teaching error.

— Patrick Devens


The Origins of the Authority of the Pope (Part 2)

The Early Christian writing show us what Christianity believed from the time of the Apostles on through the centuries. Many of the First Christians were disciples of the Apostles and also their successors. Their writings show us Christian thinking of the first centuries, and how Christ’s teaching was understood. Who better to express the Apostles’ teaching than their own students? They certainly believed that Peter held a place of primacy among the Apostles.

Tatian the Syrian

“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).



Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).


The Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).


The Clementine Homilies

“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).



“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is 0831cyprian-of-carthage0012.jpgmade clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

“There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another” (ibid., 66[69]:8).



“But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

“[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (ibid., 74[75]:17).


Ephraim the Syrian

“[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).



You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).


Ambrose of Milan

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).


Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).



“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which thecopy_of_st_jerome_writing_by_boelberner.jpg Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).



“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).


Council of Ephesus

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).


Sechnall of Ireland

“Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).


Pope Leo I

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).


Council of Chalcedon

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

Both history and the Scriptures point to Peter being made the leader of the earthly Church. Why object to it? Scripture teaches it; the first Christians believed it. A person who makes an attack on the papacy is either ignorant or wrongly informed. I would next like to study the one of the specifics of the teaching power of the pope, that is, infallibility.

{To be continued in The Origins of the Authority of the Pope (Part 3) Papal Infallibility}


Can Man have Free Will if God Knows the Future?

When I was young, I used to pray for my future wife. I didn’t know who she was, but I knew she was out there, and God knew who she was. God knew who I would choose someday, and He knew who I was praying for, even when I didn’t.

Praying for someone we have yet to meet may seem normal to some. But to others, it probably sounds rather strange. After all, my future wife was a person I would choose, and I hadn’t chosen her yet. Could God really know who she was? And if God knew who I would marry, was I really free to choose her myself?

And here we run into a classic dilemma within the Christian faith. It’s where man’s free will intersects with God’s omniscience (His infinite knowledge). You may have heard of this dilemma before, as it’s a common objection to Christianity. Spelled out, it looks something like this:

Christianity says that people have free will and God is omniscient. If God is omniscient, then He already knows every action that I will ever choose. If He already knows this, then I am not free to choose something other than what He already knows I will choose. Therefore, people cannot have free will while God is omniscient.

If you are like me, thinking about this for too long will hurt your brain. After all, the line of reasoning seems to be logical. But it also contradicts two essential claims of Christianity. If this dilemma proves that God is not omniscient or that people do not have free will, it would greatly damage, if not completely disprove, Christianity (and I wouldn’t be a fan of that).

But I believe that this dilemma is not a contradiction at all. It’s puzzling, mind-bending, and even intimidating, but it’s not a contradiction. With a closer look at the argument, we’ll find that the argument simply does not hold water. Before we begin, let’s parse the argument out into parts.

Premise 1:  God is Omniscient.
Premise 2:  People have free will.
Premise 3:  If God is all-knowing, then He already knows every action that I will ever choose.
Premise 4:   If God already knows this, then I am not free to choose something other than what He already knows I will choose.
Conclusion: Therefore, people cannot have free will while God is all knowing.

We can accept premises 1 and 2 without concern. These are the claims of Christianity and the starting point for the argument. Right now we aren’t concerned with justifying these claims. Let’s move on.

Premise 3 is really a continuation of premise 1. For God to be omniscient means that He would know everything I did, everything I am doing, and everything I will do. If God does not know any of those three things, then He does not know all. So God must know my future actions with absolute certainty. Again, no problem here. Onward.

That leaves premise 4 (this is where the rubber hits the road). If God knows what I will do in the future, then I will not be able to act differently, because God has already seen the choices I will make. Put in other words: If I have a choice between A and B, and God knows that I will choose B, then I can’t choose A, right? (Dramatic pause) Or can I?

At this point, you might be thinking “What are you saying? If God knows you will choose B, then you can’t choose A. You don’t have a choice!”

I wouldn’t be so sure. To explain my reasoning, let’s look at a few types of knowledge.

Past Knowledge

You are driving home from work, anxiously awaiting the start of the football game. You pull into the driveway, plop on your sofa with a cold glass of soda and a bag of chips. Turning on the TV, you find that the game just ended. You missed it.

But you pull yourself out of your slump and (thanks to modern technology) find the game posted online. With a few quick clicks and the brief appearance of a loading bar, the game comes on and you are back in business. Whether the game has ended or not, you still don’t know the outcome. You sit and watch the game as if it were happening live.

Then the game ends, and the score is final. During the game, did the athletes have free will? If you answer no, then sports may well be played by robots. Of course they had free will! That’s why sports are so unpredictable. Athletes make their own choices freely.

Did the athletes have free will in the rerun that you watched, even though it was a rerun? After all, you were watching each choice after it was made. The athletes’ choices were finalized once they were made (hence the video will be the same every time you watch it), but the athletes still acted freely. Just because you watched it after does not change that.

“Now wait a second,” you object. “I didn’t know what would happen in the game. Anything could have happened for all I knew!”

Good point. So let’s change the story up a bit.

After missing the game you find it posted on the internet, and you begin watching, just the same as in the last scenario. Then the phone rings and you answer the call.

“Dude! Did you see that? It was a total shutout! I can’t believe the Jets crushed the Patriots! Oh, and the third quarter! Who could have guessed the quarterback would have ran with the ball on the first play! You would have…”

You hang up, crushed. Not only did you miss the live game, your (former) friend ruined it for you. In your pit of self-pity, you resolve to watch the game anyway. The quarterback ran with the ball on the first play of the third quarter, just as you knew he would. And the game ended exactly as you knew it would: a total shutout.

In the first example, you would have seen the game end the same way as it did in this example. But this time, you knew what would happen (at least the final score and a QB sneak). Could the outcome have been different this time? Of course not. The same choices were made, and the outcome was the same, regardless of how much you knew. Your knowledge of the outcome had nothing to do with the choices the players made during the game.

Let’s sum up what we know about past knowledge, and how it relates to free will: Knowledge of past decision does not take away the freedom of the decision. Put simply, if I know that you chose B yesterday, you still chose B freely. My knowledge of your choice didn’t limit your freedom.

“Okay, okay, I see your point. But you watched the game after it had ended. It is different if you would have known the results before the game. God knows everything before it happens, remember?”


Future Knowledge

It’s now time for an obvious question: If I know that yesterday you chose B, is it because you chose it? Or did you choose B because I know that you chose B? (I warned you it would be obvious).

“Duhh! You know that I chose B because I chose B. Any more questions, Dr. Obvious?”

Sounds good to me. Any knowledge of past choices that we have, we know because they were already chosen.

But would this hold true for future events? What if God knows one of your decisions in the future? Let’s use our A-B scenario again. If God knows you will choose B tomorrow, will you choose B because He knows you will? Or will He know it because you will choose it?

If you notice, this is the same obvious question we asked above, but set in the future. Is the answer so obvious now? No doubt, the rules get a little weird when we talk about the future. But I believe that the same is true of this question as in the previous: God knows what you will do simply because you will do it.

“Alright, that sounds poetic and all, but that doesn’t make a lick of sense. How can God know something that hasn’t happened yet? It’s impossible!”

In human terms, you are correct. Humans can’t know future events because they haven’t happened yet. But we need to look at one more attribute of God. Namely, He is the Creator.

God created everything. He created matter, energy, space, and time. And as the creator of all, He is not bound by creation as we are. For instance, God can see all of space at once (I might give myself an aneurysm if I even tried). This means that He is also not bound by time. Rather, He is outside of time. He can look at all of time and space at once. Everything is eternally present to Him, no matter when it happened.

This may sound difficult to imagine at first, but I believe that we can relate, in our own human way. Imagine that you are standing in the middle of a corn field that is covered in crop circles. You look around and see corn stalk all around, some standing, some knocked over. But you can’t really see any patterns. Now hop on a helicopter and fly one hundred feet above the fields. You would be able to see the patterns in the fields clearly from up there.

God sees all because He is not limited by space or time at all! He can see every inch of our world with clarity. He can see the big picture (like the pattern in the crop circles), or the minute details of smaller things. No moment is ever lost to God because He is not limited by time as we are. He can see every moment of our lives at all times, even before we live them.

Now let’s go back to our question: If God knew you will choose B tomorrow, will you choose B because He knows you will? Or does He know it because you will choose it?

Just like we know past choices because they already happened, God knows our future choices because they will happen. God sees your future decisions because He can see all of time at once. He is outside of time looking in. You will choose B tomorrow, and God knows that today. We are not forced to act as God knows we will. Rather, we make each decision freely as they come to us, and God knows exactly what we will decide each time, because He stands in eternity watching.



Let’s take a look at our original dilemma: “If I have a choice between A and B, and God infallibly knows that I will choose B, then I will have to choose B because God already knows that I will choose it.” Even after all of this discussion, the dilemma is still an intriguing one. I believe that is because it causes us to think about time and eternity in a way that we are not used to. It is like a fish trying to imagine living outside of water.

But there is no contradiction here. Knowledge of a past choice does not take away the freedom with which it was made. And similarly, God’s knowledge of a future choices does not remove man’s freedom to choose. To God, all things, past, present, and future, are forever present to Him. He knows what we will choose because He has already seen us make the choice. Man is free, and God knows all.

So when I look at my beautiful wife now, I can know that God knew who I would marry, and that I was praying for her all along.