Introduction: The Nicene Marks
Since the year 381, Christians have confessed in the words of the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed: "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church." These four adjectives—traditionally called the attributes or marks of the church—have served for over sixteen centuries as the church's self-description. They appear in the creed not as aspirations or ideals but as confessional affirmations: this is what the church is, by God's grace and calling.
But do Protestants have any business confessing these words? After all, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions have long claimed these attributes as proof of their own institutional legitimacy. Rome, in particular, has argued that only the Roman Catholic Church is truly one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and that Protestantism—with its thousands of denominations—cannot credibly claim these marks.
The Reformers did not abandon the Nicene marks. They reclaimed them. They argued that Rome had distorted these attributes by tying them to institutional structures rather than to the gospel itself. The church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic not because of its organizational unity, its hierarchy, or its historical pedigree, but because of its union with Christ, its sanctification by the Spirit, and its fidelity to the apostolic gospel. In this lesson, we will examine each attribute from a Protestant and Reformed perspective.
One: The Unity of the Church
The church is one. There is only one church of Jesus Christ, just as there is "one body and one Spirit... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:4–6). The unity of the church is not a human achievement; it is a divine gift rooted in the unity of the triune God Himself.
"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me."
— John 17:20–21But what kind of unity is this? Rome argues that true unity requires institutional unity under a single visible head (the Pope). The Orthodox argue for sacramental unity through communion with the ancient patriarchates. Protestants, by contrast, distinguish between spiritual unity and organizational uniformity.
The spiritual unity of the church is real, deep, and indestructible. Every genuine believer is united to Christ by the Spirit and therefore united to every other genuine believer. This unity exists whether or not Christians recognize it, whether or not they belong to the same denomination, whether or not they agree on every secondary doctrine. It is the unity Jesus prayed for in John 17, and it has never been broken—because it is sustained by the Spirit, not by human institutions.
This does not mean that visible disunity is acceptable. The New Testament repeatedly commands believers to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3) and condemns divisions and factions (1 Corinthians 1:10–13). The existence of thousands of denominations is not a cause for celebration. It is a wound—a visible scar on the body of Christ that grieves the Spirit and damages the church's witness. But the Protestant answer to this wound is not institutional reunion under Rome; it is gospel faithfulness, mutual recognition, and cooperative witness among all who confess the apostolic faith.
The Reformers understood that there are times when faithfulness to the gospel requires separation from a corrupt institution. Luther did not want to leave Rome; he was expelled because he would not abandon the truth. Unity at the expense of the gospel is not true unity—it is capitulation. The church's unity must always be unity in the truth. As the Reformers insisted: better a divided church that preaches the true gospel than a united church that has abandoned it.
Holy: The Sanctity of the Church
The church is holy. But in what sense? Any honest observer of church history—or church life on any given Sunday—knows that the church is filled with sinners. Hypocrisy, scandal, corruption, and moral failure have plagued the visible church in every century. How can this community be called "holy"?
The answer lies in understanding the two dimensions of holiness in Scripture: positional holiness (being set apart by God) and progressive holiness (being made righteous over time).
Positionally, the church is holy because God has set it apart for Himself. The word "holy" (hagios) means fundamentally "set apart," "consecrated," "belonging to God." The church is holy in the same way that the temple vessels were holy—not because of any intrinsic moral quality, but because God has claimed them as His own. Paul addresses the Corinthian church—a community riddled with division, immorality, and doctrinal confusion—as "those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints" (1 Corinthians 1:2). They were holy by calling, even as they were being made holy by the Spirit's ongoing work.
Progressively, the church is being sanctified—transformed by the Spirit into the likeness of Christ. "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her" (Ephesians 5:25–26). This sanctification is real but incomplete. The church is genuinely growing in holiness, yet she will not be perfected until Christ presents her "in splendor, without spot or wrinkle" (Ephesians 5:27). Between now and then, the church lives in the tension of being simultaneously holy and still sinful—simul sanctus et peccator at the corporate level.
The church's holiness is not automatic or passive. It must be pursued and guarded. This is why the Reformers identified church discipline as one of the marks of a true church. A community that never confronts sin, that tolerates unrepentant immorality in its members, and that refuses to exercise the corrective discipline prescribed in Matthew 18 has abandoned any meaningful claim to holiness. The church's sanctity requires both the Spirit's work and the church's faithful obedience in guarding the purity of its fellowship.
Catholic: The Universality of the Church
Of the four Nicene attributes, catholic is the one most likely to make Protestants nervous. The word has been so closely associated with the Roman Catholic Church that many Protestants instinctively avoid it. Some churches even change the creed to read "I believe in one, holy, Christian church" to avoid confusion.
But catholic is not a Roman word; it is a Christian word. It comes from the Greek katholikos, meaning "universal" or "according to the whole." The church is catholic because it encompasses all true believers in all places, in all times, from all nations. It is not limited to one ethnicity, one culture, one language, one social class, or one geographical region. The church is as universal as the gospel itself.
"After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb."
— Revelation 7:9The catholicity of the church has several dimensions. Geographically, the church extends across the entire globe. Christianity is not a Western religion; it is the most geographically diverse movement in human history, with its center of gravity now firmly in the Global South. Temporally, the church extends across all of history—from the patriarchs to the apostles to the present day to the eschaton. The communion of saints includes believers who died centuries ago. Socially, the church crosses every human boundary. In Christ, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female" (Galatians 3:28).
Catholicity is also a qualitative attribute: the catholic faith is the whole faith, the full counsel of God, not a truncated or sectarian version of it. Vincent of Lérins famously defined the catholic faith as "what has been believed everywhere, always, by all" (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). While Protestants do not treat this as an infallible test, the instinct is right: the church must hold the whole faith and resist the temptation to reduce Christianity to a few pet doctrines.
Protestants should not cede the word "catholic" to Rome. When we confess "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church," we are not confessing allegiance to the Pope. We are confessing that the church of Jesus Christ is universal— it belongs to no single denomination, no single culture, no single era. Every local congregation should reflect this catholicity: welcoming people of every background, reading theologians from every tradition, and recognizing fellowship with believers across the world.
Apostolic: The Foundation of the Church
The church is apostolic. But what does this mean? Rome interprets apostolicity primarily in terms of apostolic succession— an unbroken chain of bishops stretching back to the apostles themselves, with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as the successor of Peter. The Orthodox hold a similar view, though without the papal claims.
The Protestant understanding is fundamentally different. Apostolicity means fidelity to the apostolic teaching—the doctrine delivered by the apostles and now preserved in the New Testament Scriptures. The church is apostolic not because it can trace an institutional lineage of bishops but because it believes, teaches, and confesses what the apostles believed, taught, and confessed.
"...built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone."
— Ephesians 2:20Paul's metaphor is instructive: the apostles and prophets are the foundation, and Christ is the cornerstone. A foundation is laid once; it is not re-laid with each generation. The apostolic office was foundational and unrepeatable. There are no new apostles. But the apostolic teaching endures in Scripture, and every generation of the church is built on that foundation.
This is a crucial point against Rome's claim. Rome argues that apostolicity requires an institutional chain of succession. But succession of office without succession of doctrine is meaningless. If a bishop in the supposed line of succession teaches a different gospel than the apostles taught, his institutional pedigree counts for nothing. As Paul warned the Galatians: "Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). The test of apostolicity is the content of the message, not the office of the messenger.
The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura is fundamentally an apostolicity principle. To say that Scripture alone is the final authority is to say that the apostolic witness—now inscripturated in the New Testament— stands above all subsequent tradition, councils, and hierarchies. The church does not stand over Scripture; Scripture stands over the church. The church is apostolic precisely when and insofar as it submits to the apostolic Word.
The Attributes Held Together
The four attributes are not independent qualities that can be affirmed separately. They form an interconnected whole. The church's unity is grounded in the apostolic gospel—we are one because we share one faith. The church's holiness is both the source and the demand of her catholicity—a holy people drawn from every nation. The church's apostolicity guarantees her unity—we are united by the truth, not by organizational structure. And the church's catholicity flows from her holiness—God is calling a people from every tribe because He is holy and His purposes are universal.
When any one attribute is isolated or exaggerated, distortion follows. An emphasis on unity without apostolicity produces ecumenical compromise. An emphasis on holiness without catholicity produces sectarianism. An emphasis on apostolicity without unity produces fragmentation over minor doctrines. An emphasis on catholicity without holiness produces a lowest-common-denominator faith that tolerates anything. The healthy church confesses all four together, holding them in dynamic tension.
Conclusion: Confessing What We Believe
When we stand in worship and confess "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church," we are making a statement of faith, not a description of empirical reality. We look at the church and we see division, sin, parochialism, and doctrinal confusion. But we confess—by faith—that beneath and beyond what we see, God is building a church that is truly one, truly holy, truly universal, and truly founded on the apostolic gospel.
These attributes are both gift and task. They are gifts because God has made the church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic through the work of Christ and the Spirit. They are tasks because we are called to live into what God has given. We pursue unity because we are already one. We pursue holiness because we are already sanctified. We pursue catholicity because the gospel is already universal. We pursue apostolic faithfulness because the foundation is already laid. The church is what God has made it—and we labor, by His grace, to make visible what is already true.
"...eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
— Ephesians 4:3–6Discussion Questions
- The lesson argues that the spiritual unity of the church 'has never been broken' even though visible disunity is rampant. Do you find this distinction convincing? How should a local church practically demonstrate its unity with other congregations — including those of different denominations — without compromising its doctrinal convictions?
- The church is called 'holy' despite the obvious presence of sin within it. How does the distinction between positional holiness and progressive holiness help explain this? What happens to a church's identity and witness when it stops pursuing holiness through discipline and accountability?
- The Protestant understanding of apostolicity centers on faithfulness to the apostolic teaching rather than institutional succession. How would you respond to a Roman Catholic who argues that without apostolic succession, Protestants have no guarantee of doctrinal faithfulness? What is the Protestant alternative to institutional succession as a safeguard of truth?