click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Can Doctrine Develop? An Important Issue that Divides Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics
by C Michael PattonAugust 30th, 2007
65 Comments
How can Protestants justify their belief in sola fide (salvation by faith alone) when it does not seem to be existent prior to the sixteenth century? How do Catholics explain their belief in the Assumption of Mary when it was not dogmatized until the twentieth century? How do Orthodox justify their under-developed and often unbiblical beliefs concerning the atonement?Â
During the recording of Theology Unplugged today, Greg Cromartie (the ”muddying the water guy”) asked me a very difficult question that I have yet to make any definitive decision about. This should not surprise many of you knowing that there are many issues which I have yet to decide upon and many about which I assume that I, out of necessity, must be comfortable concerning my indecision until Christ comes. But the question touched on something that I feel is very important. Therefore, my indecision is an uncomfortable one. The issue has to do with the “doctrine of” the development of doctrine.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with this issue (you obviously have yet to watch Session 10 of Introduction to Theology - shame on you!), let me briefly explain. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics all have a philosophy of history which has to account for the way in which truth has been progressively understood from the early church until now. There are doctrines to which each tradition holds that not only have to be examined biblically, but historically as well. The history of how God’s people have understood truth is a frustrating yet serious study that all traditions have problems with. Here are the problems that each tradition faces:
Protestants: How do we explain why we hold so strongly to doctrines such as sola Scriptura (the Scriptures are our final and only infallible rule of faith and practice)Â and sola fide (salvation is by faith alone) when prior to the Reformation of the sixteenth century it seems that most of those in the church did not hold to these doctrines? Saying “because the Bible is clear about these doctrines,” while important, begs the question of why, if the Bible is so clear about such teachings, did these doctrines take so long to develop? What of those who did not hold to these doctrines for the first sixteen hundred years of the church?
Catholics: How do Catholics explain how they can introduce historically novel dogmas such as the assumption of Mary (that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven like that of her son’s) in 1950 and hold their people responsible for believing such a doctrine under the pain of excommunication? This doctrine finds little support in church history and is not mentioned at all until the fifth-century. If it is so important that Pope Pius XII felt it necessary to speak infallibly about such a doctrine (one of the few acknowledged ex cathedra statements made by a Pope), why isn’t it emphasized to this degree prior to the Pope’s proclamation. We could as well talk about the dogmatizing of the seven sacraments as salvific in the middle ages through the influence of Peter Lombard’s Sentences, the development of what “Outside the Church there is no Salvation” means, the infallible proclamation of the Pope concerning his own infallibility, and the other Marian Dogmas. The question is the same for Catholics as it is for Protestants: What about those before these dogmas were proclaimed? Why didn’t they emphasize these issues to the degree that you are?
Orthodox: The Orthodox have a very different approach to doctrinal development. In short, they don’t really believe in it – at least in the way we have been discussing it thus far. The Orthodox believe that the fullness of doctrine was developed in the first few centuries of the church. They would believe that all developments since this time are novel and/or heretical. In short, if the early church did not articulate it, neither should we. Their problem comes when we begin to realize that the early church articulated doctrine only to the degree that issues were challenged. In other words, we cannot expect the early church to have dealt with many issues since time had not elapsed for their simple and primitive understanding to be challenged and, in turn, developed. Orthodoxy has a hard time when it comes to explaining issues concerning the meaning of the atonement, the instrumental cause of salvation, and the authority in the Church. Frozen in the first few centuries, they find themselves defending many beliefs such as the ransom to Satan theory of the atonement because that is where it stood then, not because it is biblical. From the Orthodox perspective, all issues that were not dogmatized in the first few centuries are doomed in their perpetual state of apophadic necessity.Â
Both Catholic and Orthodox look alike in that they seek, above all else, to find their tradition in the early Church. They both hold to a philosophy of history that assumes the closer you can get to the Apostles successors, the closer you are to truth. Protestants, on the other hand, are divided on this issue. (Frankly, the division is not an informed division, but comes from mass ignorance about the history of the church among Protestants.)Â
Some Protestants will follow the methodology of the Catholics and Orthodox and attempt to find their beliefs in the early Church. These will jump in the trench dug by Catholic theologian John Henry Newman with his (ingenious) publication on this subject called An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Here they will argue that doctrines such as sola Scriptura and sola fide were always held, it just took controversy to articulate and dogmatize them.
Other Protestants will reject the assumption that the early church had it all right. (Hang with me here, for this is going to get messy). They would opt for a development of doctrine which sees the Protestant dogmas as those that define Protestant orthodoxy, yet, while true and important, do not define historic orthodoxy (see my blog “Are You Orthodox or Heretic“ for more on this). In other words, the doctrine of sola fide, for example, may not have been held prior to the Reformation, but God, in His grace and in His own time, allows doctrines to develop in essence and articulation throughout church history. Their argument would be that the primary essentials of who Christ is and what He has done have always been held by all. That Christ is both fully God and fully man, that Christ died on the cross and rose from the grave, that we are sinful in need of a savior, that faith in Christ is necessary, that grace is the only foundation for salvation, etc. are doctrines that have always been held. Yet, from this perspective, discoveries have been made through the centuries that help us to add flesh to what these doctrines mean. Many times, this flesh is significant and changes our understanding. These would also seek the concession of others that they hold to this methodology as well, they just don’t admit that it amounts to change.
“Change” is the key word here. Orthodox, Catholics, and the first option among Protestants do not like this word with regards to doctrine. According to them, no doctrine changes. This second group of Protestants don’t mind a nuanced use of the word “change” with regards to this issue. They would say that all the essential components for doctrine are found in the apostles’ teaching, but that even the apostles themselves had yet to put flesh on these bones. Another way to put it is that doctrine is an undeveloped seed. These Protestants would say that the seed of Scripture can grow in wrong ways, being in bad soil and having lack of water (hence the Orthodox and Catholic corruption). But the seed can be restored by being placed in soil that is purified and has allowance to grow (hence the Reformation). From this perspective, it is not as if the Orthodox and Catholics are without the essential elements – the seed (who Christ is and what He did, etc.), but that they have failed to allow doctrine to develop correctly based upon unfounded assumptions.
In short, Catholics will not allow for and admit change or mistakes in doctrine. Orthodox will not allow for essential development, only articulation. Protestants will either follow the methodology of Catholics or allow for change.
So, here is my problem: I am a Protestant. The Bible is my final authority because no other authority can meet the same qualifications. Therefore, de facto I hold to sola Scriptura. Because, from my perspective, Protestantism has more integrity with regards to the interpretation of Scripture than Orthodoxy or Catholicism, I am forced to choose one of the two Protestant options. Option one, while attractive, has problems with the doctrine of sola fide. Sola Scriptura does seem to have much support throughout church history (though not by any means universal), but sola fide is a little more difficult to find. Most in the early and medieval church did believe that their works contributed to some degree to their salvation.
The second option is where I have been for some time. I do believe that it is rather naive to think that the early Church had everything right simply because they were closer to the Apostles. Why would we make such an assumption? How would we justify this belief? I don’t even think the Apostles themselves had everything figured out. They certainly would not have articulated the doctrine of the Trinity the way we do, even if they did progressively believe its basic components. They laid the perfect seed, but this seed was undeveloped. That is why the earliest creeds simply state, in biblical language, what the truth is without attempting to define things too much. It is only when challenges are made and time has passed that the church further studies and defines doctrine in a more comprehensive way.
Since I adopt the second option, I now introduce my problem that goes back to Greg’s question on Theology Unplugged (man, it took a long time to get here!). He asked if we, from God’s standpoint, can say that God holds the church accountable for adhering to doctrine as it has developed. In other words, while the church may not have been unorthodox for not having a doctrine of sola fide prior to the Reformation, if a church denies sola fide now, post Reformation, post articulation, post development, does that make them heterodox with regards to the issue?
This is the question I leave you with while not assuming you have adopted my position.
One more thing. A quote. Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Christian historian who converted from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy in his 70s and who died last year, sums up all these issues this way:
“I consider that the parting of the ways between the two Christian communities [he is speaking of Catholicism and Protestantism] takes place on the issue of development of doctrine. That development has taken place in both communities cannot possibly be denied. The question is, what is legitimate development, what is organic growth in the understanding of the original deposit of faith, what is warranted extension of the primitive discipline of the church, and what, on the other hand, is accretion, additive increment, adulteration of the deposit, distortion of true Christian discipline?
. . . Perhaps, above all, the question is, What are the limits of development and growth – the limits that must be reached on peril of archaistic stuntedness, and the limits that must not be transgressed on peril of futuristic decadence?” (J. Pelikan, Development of Christian Doctrine. Some Historical Prolegomena [London 1969], p. 1.)
Similar Posts:
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
- An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 4: Are Catholics Orthodox?
- Theological Word of the Day: Sola Fide
- Finally a Catholic who is Not Afraid to Condemn Me?
- An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 3: The Maturing of Orthodoxy
Loading ...
65 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Michael,
Let me be the first to take a stab at this.
You wrote: “If a church denies sola fide now, post Reformation, post articulation, post development, does that make them heterodox with regards to the issue?”
I think it is true that many Protestants hold to the docrtines like sola fide and sola scriptura without thinking much beyond the reasons other than “because that’s what the Bible says.” As you rightly pointed out that isn’t a good enough reason to stop the inquiry.
I’ve heard the development of doctrine explained to Catholics this way: it’s like a mustard seed. The mustard seed starts off no larger than the tip of pen but grows and expands into a large bush/tree. Are the seed and bush wholly unrelated because they look so different? No, the seed contained all the things that would become the bush and therefore cannot be separated.
Catholics have this same view of Sacred Tradition. We believe that all of our teachings and beliefs are contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture both explicitly and implicitly. So Catholics would say that a doctrine like the Assumption of Mary was at least implicit in Tradition for approximately the first 500 years and then it developed, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, until the Church was sure enough of the will of the Holy Spirit to solemnly define it in 1950.
If the doctrines of Sola Fidei and Sola Scriptura were indeed developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and were part of authentic Sacred Tradition then yes a church that didn’t affirm it would be heterodox. But the Church finds no warrant in Scripture or Tradition for these beliefs (with minor qualifications) so perhaps the Protestants are the heterdox ones?
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Chad,
So help me here… why is it that there are minor qualifications? To me, these seem to be the mustard seeds of which you spoke – if we assume your perspective on doctrinal development. This seems to be “pruning” that mustard tree.
-steve
Like or Dislike:
1
The factual answer to the question, “Can doctrine develop?” is, “What do you mean, can it? It has!” Take an easy, uncontroversial example: the doctrine of the Trinity. Is it biblical? Well, er, yes. Did the early church believe something like that? Of course. Did they believe full-blown Nicene Trinitarianism? Of course not.
I would like to reframe things a bit. Let’s exchange the word “theology” for “doctrine.” Theology is God-talk. It is a human exercise.
theology != revelation
Humans theologize; God reveals. Revelation is the word of God. It is God making himself known and revealing previously hidden truths about himself. It’s already been given; the words have been spoken, and the events are done and over with.
Theology is what we do with the revelation. We make doctrines. We adapt them as we think we get a better understanding of the revelation. We adapt how we communicate them to our context, and sometimes our context moves us to change them. This will never stop until the eschaton when we’ll find out how good and accurate we were at it.
So doctrines, the products of the human endeavor of theologizing, can and will continue to develop.
***
On the other hand, not all doctrinal developments can be considered legitimate. They need to be shown to have rooting in the revelation as it was given. A seed, if you will. So I agree with you there. Hence, protestants need have no fear in rejecting later doctrinal developments such as the Marian dogmas and limited atonement.
Like or Dislike:
0
Gosh, if a brilliant mind like yours wrestles with this question, what hope is there for us average Joes? (here is where I would put that cute yellow smiley face but haven’t figured out yet how to do it)
But seriously, this question bears some thought. And I think the response is going to very much be driven by our theological, traditional and personal perspective. That may sound very simplistic, but I don’t think we can underestimate how much perspective plays into our determination of these things. For example and mass ignorance aside, how else do you explain the divergent views of Matthew 16:17-18, even under the umbrella of responsible scholarship?
I’m going to think on this and maybe comment later.
Like or Dislike:
0
God has revealed his truth and it does not develop. What does develop over time is our understanding of what God has already revealed to us.
What was needed was our willingness to allow the Holy Spirit to teach us and show us what was contained in the Scriptures.
Read through the New Testament and you will see many examples of where from the Lord Jesus to Jude believers were told that the scriptures contained the truth that they should have known but were slow to believe or weren’t diligent in upholding it.
So I say that doctrine doesn’t develop but our understanding of what has already been revealed does.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve,
All I meant when I said “minor qualifications” is that the Church rejects as a whole the ideas of sola fidei and sola scriptura. However, within both of those doctrines there are things that the Catholic can wholly approve of. I am not try to qualify or wobble on Church teachings.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Sean,
I think your example of the Nicene Creed is perfect. Would’ve Christians in the 1st or 2nd century expressed their beliefs of the trinity using the exact words of the Nicene Creed? I doubt it, but one thing we should remember though is there is no contradiction in the development of doctrine from earlier generations. So, I think if 1st century Christians were presented with the Nicene Creed they would be able to sign off on it with no hesitations.
Can the same thing be said of the Protestant docrtines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidei? I don’t think so.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Chad,
It is your assumption that 1st Century Christians would sign off on it no problem. This also assumes that either they would recognize it without any further mental processing of their own and it would just “click” as true – or it assumes they would have to think about it and once they were able to follow the same thought process that their successors followed they would embrace the truths. I think the latter is a far more fair and plausible explanation. Until they too, individually, had to deal with the issues and tensions of the Trinity it wouldnt make sense as to what – and why – it was necessary to say things as the Nicene Creed does.
Where we will clearly disagree is that I feel the same is true of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Sure, the first time they heard it they’d wonder what in the world we were talking about, but I think as their theological process’ kicked in they’d arrive at those conclusions too and be able to embrace these doctrines.
-steve
Like or Dislike:
0
… finding their roots in scripture. (sorry, hit that submit button too fast)
;^)
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve,
I think the early Christians would be able to process the language and concepts used to describe the Trinity in the Nicene Creed. I think they would be able to come to the same conclusions and see no contradictions with it and their theology.
You are absolutely right, I disagree with you and your assertions about sola scriptura and sola fidei.
See the following:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
as well I don’t believe they would have signed off on the Marian Dogmas either
Like or Dislike:
1
I will trump you all and say that, if you asked Peter, right after his Acts 2 sermon, whether Jesus was God, he would have looked at you kind of funny and not known what to say. Very possibly (brace yourself here), he might have said “no, that would not be correct.” I think the full understanding of Jesus’ deity took time to grasp (and I think Dan Wallace, at least, agrees with me on this point). Read his Acts 2 sermon again from that perspective and see what you think.
Like or Dislike:
0
I see no problem with your second option. Paul himself said that savage wolves would come in after him. “After him” refers to a time really early in church history, still first century. John talked about antichrist already at work. So I don’t trust early churchmen *just* because they were early. And I don’t distrust sola fide just because (according to some) it was definitively defined late.
Like or Dislike:
0
Peter would have remembered, “I and the Father are one.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
I’ll grant you that the ramifications of Christ’s deity may not have been fully formed yet. I think your proposition is interesting but may be a bit of stretch. In the speech in Acts 2 Peter calls Jesus Lord. Is this word similar to the word rendered Lord in the OT? What I’m asking is the word translated as Lord in Acts 2 the same word that could be used in reference to God or is it only an honorific title like ‘sir’ or ‘master?’
In Matthew 16:16 Peter affirms that Jesus is the Son of the living God. Jesus goes on to say that only this could be revealed to him by his Father. Not a direct affirmation of his deity but it sounds good to me.
Another thing I remember hearing once is that when Jesus used “I am” all those times in the Gospel of John he upset the Jews because they associated the phrase “I am” with God’s name in Exodus 3:14 (“I AM sent you”). Peter may not have read the Gospel of John but he would’ve definitely known the words Jesus spoke and would’ve been able to draw the same connections that upset the Jews so much.
Chad: The earliest Christians had a well developed mariology. There are examples of graffiti in the catacombs of Rome and from the 1st/2nd century onward the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was believed in and from the 4th & 5th centuries the Dormition of Mary was celebrated in the East. Why do you reject Marian dogmas when the earliest Christians didn’t?
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
1
ChadS:
I agree that by the time Peter died, my guess is that he had a very developed Christology, but we are talking about what he thought at the time of his Acts 2 sermon. Those other prior references are just vague enough to be inconclusive, and the text of the Acts 2 sermon itself speaks of a very different thinking. There, Jesus is a “man” appointed and exalted, with no reference whatsoever to deity.
But, really, what is the danger? Why do we become so nervous? We know that Paul developed a LOT of doctrine, putting it into language and forms that even Peter said were difficult to understand. I think Peter learned how to think about a lot of this from Paul, and vice-versa, and why not?
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
I agree that doctrines concerning Christ’s divinity and christology can develop over time — as they certainly have.
You seem to be talking about a different thing though. You are suggesting that Peter went from a non-belief (if not an unbelief) in Christ’s divinity to a full acceptance of his divinity. To claim that Peter only thought of Christ as only a “man” seems in and of itself a stretch also.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance, you have some very good points. Your line of thinking is what we need to wrestle with in order to make some of these decisions. I seriously doubt that Peter had as well developed Christology as we do today. This is not saying that he was wrong about anything, but that canonical studies provide more insights to the whole picture that each Apostle did not have individually. Assumptions made about the understanding about what the Apostles understood in total are hard to sustain outside of traditionalistic necessity.
Yet, as you have said, this should not scare anyone. If option #2 of the Protestant understanding of doctrinal development is correct, this is exactly what we would expect.
The key here is the issue of change. Most honest historians would say that our understanding of the satisfaction/substitutionary view of the atonement was not understood much prior to Anselm. Not to say that it was completely absent, but it was neglected in favor of its opposite, the Ransom to Satan view. Unless you are an Orthodox or hold to the second option in the Protestant view, you have some significant problems. Holding to the Orthodox view (although, in reality, it seems to have changed some) is untenable biblically. Satan was not deceived into releasing us. Therefore, we must say that to some degree the doctrine of the Atonement went through a major change in the 11th century to which the west adhered. This change was not a change in truth itself, but our understanding of truth.
Now, this is the question again. Can we call those who reject the satisfaction/substitution model of the atonement heretics in the proper sense? If we can, then we are saying one of two things:
1. Most everyone before Anselm was a heretic.
2. Once the doctrine was developed, then people are responsible to believe from that day forward.
I think both are problematic for many reasons. Yet the second option, while trivial, is much less problematic than the first. But again, I don’t know what to do.
We could stick our head in the sand and say “Well, they really did hold to a satisfaction theory, they just had not articulated it.” While in many cases such as that with sola Scriptura this might be feasible, the problem with this issue is that the church, by and large, had adopted it opposite. While the Christus Victor view of the atonement can be reconciled with the satisfaction/substitutionary view, the Ransom to Satan emphasis within this view cannot.
Another option is to go in the direction of the Emerging church and that presented by Roger Olson in his Mosaic of Christian Belief. Here we would simply say that this issue is not important enough, due to disagreements in the Great Tradition, to define orthodoxy. Therefore, those who hold to a Ransom to Satan view are not unorthodox historically, even though they may be traditionally (i.e. Not holding to a western orthodoxy).
I am just not sure. I think that we have to see development as a movement of God that explains in the hearts and minds of men His revelation. Therefore we must take it very seriously (God is not a cheerleader on the lines of history). Yet we need to be careful about how we treat those who, while holding to the Great Tradition, don’t hold to a particular development within your tradition, even if it is correct.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael:
You’re comment:
“Assumptions made about the understanding about what the Apostles understood in total are hard to sustain outside of traditionalistic necessity.”
…I agree with.
Also, it’s very hard and potentially dangerous to make assumptions about what people in history past _might_ have believed if they had read a modern take on a particular issue which had not yet been addressed previously. To make the assumption that they would agree with this, or agree with that (whether I agree with the conclusion or not) is to effectively do nothing more than to read ones conclusion back into the pages of history and then use it in support of their argument. Epistimelogically, I could just as easily say that the early church clearly would have unanimously supported Liverpool FC had they merely been presented with the evidences. It really begs the question.
Enjoy the blog, great to chew on these issues…
-steve
Like or Dislike:
0
To all:
Please answer these questions.
Who is responsible for the doctrines we believe in? Where do they come from?
Preacher Jack
Like or Dislike:
1
I think Michael raises a good point regarding doctrinal development. Would a wrong early view on a major doctrine (as opposed to just a lack of having formulated it yet), make them “unbelievers”? I would suspect that there was a time, in the very earliest times of the Church, that the majority of those that called themselves Christians, would not have accepted the concept of the Trinity later developed, as mentioned above. Not just that they had not considered it yet, but more particularly, if they had the question put to them, they would have said no, that was not how they viewed it. We seem OK on some doctrines (the Atonement, as Michael mentioned), but not the Trinity or a proper Christology.
Major segments of the early Church, long before Arianism came along, did not yet realize Christ’s deity. The Ebionites, I believe, were just representative of much of Syrian and Palestinian Christianity. How could these groups have even come to be if the early, Apostolic, teaching was uniformly and clearly the Christology later formalized in the Councils?
I feel fairly confident that Peter, at the time of the Acts 2 sermon, had not yet come to view Jesus as divine in the same way we do. Now, if put to the question and made to wrestle with it, and given the benefit of the analysis and thinking which came after him, would he have accepted it? Well, very likely. And, within a few decades, we see more references to this in Paul, and then a few decades later, we see it made very explicit in John. But if you start with the Acts 2 sermon, then go to Paul, then go to John, there does seem to be a progression there.
I don’t think this would make Peter an unbeliever AT ALL. And for similar reasons, I would not necessarily consider the Ebionites as “unbelievers”. There is a difference between not yet having developed a proper “-ology” (of whatever type), on the one hand, and having been presented with a clear doctrinal statement and simply rejecting it.
Like or Dislike:
0
I agree, but I would make some qualifications before people misunderstand what I am saying. I don’t think that people could have rejected that Christ was the “son of God.” Whatever implications this designation might have, I don’t think that we could say that anyone could say that Christ was just a man. In some sense people would have to have believed that He was Lord. (Rom 10:13). We see this playing out very early in church history and in the NT church.
Therefore, I do believe that the deity of Christ was believed very early, but how they understood this (i.e. son of God, ontological subordination, etc) is hard to say. At the very least, I think Vance is right in that Peter would have been somewhat taken about by our definition of the Trinity, even if he ultimately said it makes sense. I do agree that he would have said “Give me some time to think about that.”
John, on the other hand, 60 years later would have had a fuller understanding of not only the deity of Christ, but also the person of the Holy Spirit.
I would be careful with the Ebionites though since they, from what I understand denied Christ’s divinity entirely. Remember what Christ said to Peter after his confession “You are the Christ, the son of the living God”? “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. Belief in Christ is a supernatural belief/acceptance.
Having said this, I would say that there is a sine quo non of Christian belief that has existed from the very beginning: Christ’s Lordship (he was more than a man–the “son of God”, our sinfulness, his atonement, salvation by faith and grace, and the resurrection). That is as far as I am willing to go.
Like or Dislike:
0
Preacher: Are you talking about the human responsibility or the divine responsibility?
Like or Dislike:
0
I guess I would go a bit further, being a bit more tolerant of the early Church’s struggles with such things. I am more willing to see their initial understanding of Jesus as the “son of God” as not necessarily equal to some sort of divinity, but his role as messiah. As Peter described Jesus to those first hearers:
“A man attested by God”, “the Christ” who was “exalted to the right hand of God.” No mention of any divine status whatsoever.
I would agree completely with the “more than a man” part, but God himself? I think Peter would definitely have to ponder on that one!
I have a soft spot for the Ebionites (even while agreeing they were entirely wrong), since I believe that they were a branch which may represent VERY early beliefs, then isolated from other doctrinal developments for a while, or clinging to early held belief of the Jerusalem congregation who fled after the fall of Jerusalem. Twisted and distorted yes, but arising out of initially incomplete understandings. Yes, they should have reconsidered when presented with correct doctrine, of course, but there were a lot of casualties of doctrinal developments during those early days.
Like or Dislike:
0
hmm, “tolerant” in that first sentence was the wrong word, since it makes any other view sound “intolerant”. My meaning was I am more willing to accept greater diversity of thought, and even a very incomplete and even incorrect belief, in the first few decades.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think in the end, it must be admitted that these issues are important yet confusing. I certainly agree that we must be careful and bring a little more humility and less presuppositions to the table.
I am just amazed at the importance of this issue, yet how little it is brought up or discussed.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
You wrote: “How do we explain why we hold so strongly to doctrines such as sola Scriptura (the Scriptures are our final and only infallible rule of faith and practice) and sola fide (salvation is by faith alone) when prior to the Reformation of the sixteenth century it seems that most of those in the church did not hold to these doctrines?”
but then later you go on to describe the Assumption of Mary, a dogma you believe has as little or most likely less warrant than sola scriptura as “historically novel.” Catholics are portrayed as “introducing” dogmas while Protestants “hold so strongly” to their dogmas. You admit that prior to the 16th century the doctrine of sola scriptura wasn’t held but yet you don’t describe that one as “historically novel,” why is that?
It seems the language you choose to portray your discussion of dogmas in is value laden and designed to elicit more favorable and sympathetic responses for the more reasonable ‘sola scriptura’ as opposed to the invented ‘Assumption of Mary.’
The Assumption was even spoken of long before your claim of 5th century origins. Epiphanius spoke of it in 377 and Ephraem (d. 373) wrote of Mary being “carried through the air to heaven.” So the Assumptions are a little more sure than you admit and the fact that it wasn’t dogmatized until 1950 as little bearing on its truth or historicity for that matter.
You also wrote: “We could stick our head in the sand and say “Well, they really did hold to a satisfaction theory, they just had not articulated it.†While in many cases such as that with sola Scriptura this might be feasible the problem with this issue is that the church, by and large, had adopted it opposite.”
The reason Christians prior to the 16th century did not hold to ‘sola scriptura’ is not because they held it but just didn’t articulate it. The fact is stated in the last part of the quoted sentence: they “had adopted [the] opposite.” That is Christians prior to the Reformation had believed in the traditional Catholic teaching of both Scripture and Sacred Tradition being two sources of divine revelation. Until the reformers had come up with the “historically novel” dogma of ‘sola scriptura’ nobody prior to them had even believed it. Trying to prove that early Christians held to ‘sola scriptura’ is not only difficult it is impossible.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
1
Michael,
Exactly, and amen. As someone with an historical bent, it frustrates me how little people consider Christianity as a religion with an historical background. It is as if their Church, as it exists today, was just dropped from Heaven, wrapped in a bow.
I know I may push the envelope a bit on these issues, and I am self-aware enough to know that I do so in part to shake people out of their complacency a bit. We have to ask these questions which may sound shocking in order to force ourselves to take a step back and review things a bit. If you end up coming to the same conclusion, then you will come away with a broader perspective.
Like or Dislike:
1
I just realized that I tend to say “a bit” a bit too much.
Like or Dislike:
0
Chad,
You said:
“The reason Christians prior to the 16th century did not hold to ’sola scriptura’ is not because they held it but just didn’t articulate it. The fact is stated in the last part of the quoted sentence: they “had adopted [the] opposite.†That is Christians prior to the Reformation had believed in the traditional Catholic teaching of both Scripture and Sacred Tradition being two sources of divine revelation. Until the reformers had come up with the “historically novel†dogma of ’sola scriptura’ nobody prior to them had even believed it. Trying to prove that early Christians held to ’sola scriptura’ is not only difficult it is impossible.”
Obviously this begs too many questions for this discussion so forgive me if I don’t respond.
You also wonder why I say that the Marian dogmas are novel and don’t critique the Protestant’s doctrines the same. Yet, I thought that is what I did. When I expressed the problems of Protestantism, I did say they were problems.
However, the issues Protestants deal with are, from my perspective, more fundamental to a basic understanding of truth and the Gospel. The Marian dogmas are not related to either (I know, question begging–but I am speaking historically). Therefore, their novelty is much greater and importance much less. This is why they pose such a big problem for Catholics to defend in any model of doctrinal development.
Yet, in the end, Catholics cannot admit change de facto so they cannot entertain the option that I have adopted. This is also why, in my opinion, they have necessarily put themselves is a position that is very hard to defend. The funny thing is that both Protestants and Catholics have very similar problems, yet the Catholics cannot admit change in conjunction with development, no matter how minor, Protestants can.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
A bit.
;^)
Sorry, couldn’t resist the humor. Not to worry… we know what you mean.
-steve
Like or Dislike:
0
HEY, wait a second, I see what this is all about!
You got stumped on Theology Unplugged, so you come here and ask all of us the question so you will be able to answer it on the next show!
I have had professors like you, who need to write an article, so ask their students to do a paper on the same topic, then steal all their ideas! Pretty sneaky . . .
Like or Dislike:
0
Hey Vance,
Off topic, but I was thinking about our discussion on this issue of original sin
and your perspective coming from a theistic evolutionist’s position.
I was curious if you could link me or offer a book or two that would best
describe what evolution is (I mean in definite terms because I know people throw
that word around and to some it has different meanings than others) and what
is the best evidence for it. Mainly because my only exposer to evolution is from
a high school class room and the majority of that information has been updated
or refuted.
Oh here I can bring it back on topic, to paraphrase Michael, “Just become a Calvinist
and it will solve your problems.”
Then you don’t have to “worry” about those people who didn’t articulate doctrines the same way as we do to. lol
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance! You got me. What am I supposed to do. It is doing theology in commuity and then stealing the idea. That is what it has been about from the beginning. You don’t think I really buy into this emerging postmodern community stuff do ya?
Like or Dislike:
0
Josh, now your are talking. Long live reformed theology. It solves everything and is biblical at the same time
Like or Dislike:
0
Josh, here is a pretty good summary from a Christian perspective:
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp
Another can be found here, also from a Christian perspective:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm
It is a bit more of a mission statement of “evolutionary creationism”, and has some ID overtones, but I think it is very good regardless. It does a good job of bridging the science and faith gap.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I don’t really believe I am begging any questions here. There are only two that need dealt with. 1) Prior to the 16th century show that Christians rejected the Catholic views of Scripture and Sacred Tradition acting together in harmony. If a nascent view of ‘sola scriptura’ was in evidence, as seems to be your assumption, then it should be easy to prove. 2) Show that ‘sola scriptura’ existed as the alternative to the scripture/tradition combination in anything that amounted to a substantial or broad avenue of Christian thought prior to the Reformation.
You’ve made specific claims about the origins of ‘sola scriptura’ yet nothing approaching ‘proof’ has been proffered.
I understood very well what you meant by problems concerning new dogmas — both for Catholics and Protestants. What I was taking issue with was the language used in describing those problems. To describe the Assumption being promulgated in 1950 you used the words “historically novel.” This term is not designed to elicit sympathy but only scorn and it ignores the fact that evidence of it being taught dates from the 370s. When you described sola scriptura it was as a doctrine that is “strongly held to” not as “historically novel.”
You wrote: “However, the issues Protestants deal with are, from my perspective, more fundamental to a basic understanding of truth and the Gospel. The Marian dogmas are not related to either.”
Actually I would argue that the Marian dogmas are related to basic understandings to the truth and the Gospel. Marian devotions, as properly practiced by Catholics, point in only one direction and that is to Christ. Without a properly formed and informed Mariology something is lacking in the Christology then. Without a properly formed and informed Christology something is lacking in Mariology then. One quick example is that Catholics call Mary, the Mother of God. Her title was used as a catchall heresy detector since to call Mary, Mother of God you admit that Jesus was indeed God and that Mary didn’t give birth to only the human nature of Jesus. That gave heretics no wiggle room to qualify answers — they could call her Mother of God and proclaim their orthodoxy or they could deny it and proclaim their heresy.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Chad, I did not mean “question begging” in a logical fallacy sense, or that your argument is wrong, just that your contribution has assumptions that are not accepted by Protestants, therefore to entertain you first comment, we would have to get into that whole authority thing again. I really don’t want this blog post to turn that way
My post assumes that we are dealing with this from a Protestant perspective. There are real problems that we must recognize. Therefore, I don’t want this to turn into a thing where we (Protestants) are defending home base without taking a critical look at our own struggles.
The Assumption of Mary is more novel since it is not heard of until the 5th century and even then for many years is not discussed, much less thought of as an essential doctrine that needs to be dogmatized.
My representation of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy is accurate from a Protestant perspective. I perfectly understand that you will not agree with its accuracy.
Hope you understand.
Like or Dislike:
0
BTW: I am planning on posting on the history of sola Scriptura and making my de facto argument historically. Who knows, I might do that tonight! I hope to make people think through this. But again, the primary intent is to make Protestants think, so it will not be intended to be a debate.
Like or Dislike:
0
OK guys, as much as I don’t want this to be a Protestant-Catholic debate, I REALLY don’t want it to be a Creation-Evolution debate!
Like or Dislike:
0
ChadS mentioned the Assumption of Mary as being mentioned in the 300s which sent me internet searching. After some other readings, I came across this:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp and one of the things it says is:
“One reason why it is difficult to assess where Mary’s last days were is because she left no remains. The early Church prized the relics of early Christians, as can be seen by reading The Martyrdom of Polycarp. However, no one claimed to have Mary’s remains, which would have been prized above all others. There is no historical reference to the relics of Mary, the corruption of Mary, or the place where her body lies. A skeptic who denies Christ’s Resurrection should be asked to find evidence of the remains of Christ, and the same challenge can be extended to whoever denies Mary’s Assumption.”
I never really thought about it before, but you don’t hear anyone saying they have a bit of Mary’s bones or whatever. (Unless you count those folks who say they found Jesus’ family tomb. And even then, I am not remembering them saying they had Jesus’ mom there.)
I wish we had some writings from people who actually walked on earth with Jesus and Mary telling us what they know and think about Mary. I know in the Book of Acts it says that Mary prayed with the disciples but that may be the last time she gets mentioned in the New Testament unless you see her in some of the Book of Revelation passages.
The Mary that is mentioned in the Gospels seems very different than the Mary apparitions that you hear about.
If we believe that Enoch and Elijah were translated from earth to some realm of heaven, I guess we can at least admit the possibilty that this also happened to the mother of Jesus, the human being God chose to give flesh to his Son.
And Vince, I have read over and over in the New Testament trying to determine how Jesus’ apostles saw him. I would have to find the passage, but one of the letters talks about Jesus being elevated because of his obedience to God. So it makes it sound like Jesus EARNED his place beside God. Don’t you just wish sometimes that you could just sit right down with Jesus physically in front of you and ask him these questions? But Jesus said we were blessed if we believed WITHOUT seeing. Perhaps our imaginations bring us closer to God than we even realize. And we will just have to learn to live without a perfect understanding. Perfect love is what we strive toward, knowing that we can only practice perfect love through the grace of Jesus. But how easily we miss the mark, over and over again. I am comforted by Jesus praying to the Father as he was killed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.” Gee, I hardly EVER know what I am doing, so I think Jesus would say I need forgiveness too! Don’t we all….
Joanie D.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I look forward to reading your historical argument concerning ‘sola scriptura’ and its roots and development. Hopefully I will learn something new, because even as Protestant ‘sola scriptura’ remained mostly an unexamined assumption. It was just one of those things that just went unchallenged. So…tell me something new.
In regards to the Assumption of Mary, not being talked about doesn’t in and of itself indicate opposition. It was quite possible that it was accepted as a matter of faith without much discussion or debate.
Joanie…I enjoyed your comments. Perhaps the extra-Biblical historical record isn’t as complete as we would like in terms of biography. There are some writings by early Christians and Gnostic sects that wrote apocraphyl gospels that purported to relay facts about Mary’s life. The problem is separating the gold from the dross can be difficult.
In our view Mary’s life and example calls us into a deeper knowledge and committment to her son Jesus. We look to the Wedding Feast of Cana for some of the example. Mary tells those around her “to do as he says.” Any true thing relating to Mary will always have that commandment at its heart.
ChadS
Like or Dislike:
0
Joanie, I recall that one as well, and if you are on the lookout for such things, aware of such development, you can see it elsewhere as well. Of course, there ARE verses that argue the other way, which could show a diversity of thought in the earliest days.
I seriously think that much of these issues, even very major issues, had not been thought out. I think many, especially in the Jerusalem community were thinking “the Messiah has come!” to bring about the Kingdom of God, but in a very different way than we had expected. As time went on and they had to preach and answer questions and challenges, they had to wrestle with these things. This involved a lot of “remember what Jesus said about X? That must mean that . . .” and some “if/then” analysis as well.
On the Christology issue alone, the fact that there such DRAMATICALLY diverse views on this, and at such an early date, argues strongly for the idea that thinking about this was not very well developed in the first few decades. Could those diverse schools of thought develop, with such wide variations, if the Apostles had been teaching much about it, or teaching it the way we would?
I would not find it surprising if the groups which developed out of the Jewish-Christian community seemed to have developed a lower Christology (as evidenced by the Ebionites, for example), and the hellenistic-Christian community developed a higher Christology, since they would be more open and accepting of such truths.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ok so now if I follow all that is being said here then the apostles and other writers had no clue about some of the truths that they wrote down on paper when composing the books of the New Testament.
Now it seems that this will contradict the position many of you hold when it comes to the inspiration of the scriptures.
If they did not have a developed sense of these truths then they were used to write portions of the scriptures and they were not in control of what was written.
I believe that this also flies against what every council and fight with a heretical doctrine was motivated by (not to mention Sola Scriptura) “What do the Scriptures say?” Isn’t that what every council sought to do match each side by the scriptures and say who was orthodox and who was not?
If the bible is the final authority, the Regula Fidei, in what truths and doctrines we stand on then these authors would have to have a grasp (at least) on those concepts. They may have been at all levels of spiritual maturity but they had to have a grasp.
Peter said of Jesus “You are the Christ, The Son of the Living God.†this was before the Church era began and it sounds like his Christology was well on its way to being developed then.
How can they not have a grasp on the concept of a triune God when they saw the Father, Son and Holy Spirit at work all at the same time in Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22. Not to mention the other times when these same witnesses state that there was God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. We are not saying now that the Apostles and the other writers of the New Testament were polytheistic are we?
Like or Dislike:
0
Jack,
“Ok so now if I follow all that is being said here then the apostles and other writers had no clue about some of the truths that they wrote down on paper when composing the books of the New Testament.”
This is not at all what I am saying. This would amount to a mechanical dictation. The Apostles understood exactly what they were saying. What I am arguing for is called intra-canonical development. It is very common among commentators, but very seldom talked about. Intra-canonical development says that the authors of the Scriptures developed in their understanding of theology. We certainly allow for it in the Old Testament, and there is no reason to say that it would be different in the New Testament. Here is a good article from Wallace about it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Preacher Jack:
I do not think that any Apostle wrote anything that they did not know about, I don’t think they just dictated as automatons.
My point is that there is no *conclusive* Scriptural evidence on some of these issues, and some important historical and circumstantial evidence to consider.
You mention Peter’s statement. Being the “Christ” does not mean being God. In fact, it would mean to any Jew of the day very much NOT being God, since the messiah, according to their expectations would definitely be a human being. And the Son of God was a term that also did not require a conviction of divinity. The kings of Israel were referred to as the Son of God, IIRC, and I believe even Israel itself was called the Son of God.
So, there is nothing there that requires the speakers, in these texts, to be thinking deity at all. Something more than a normal man, possibly. And, yes, he *could* have meant it the way we would take it now. The point is that it is not conclusive, and there is evidence to the contrary.
At the baptism, they had God and His Spirit, but they would not necessarily have taken anything there to mean Jesus was “God the Son”. And the Jewish concept of what the Spirit was is very different than ours, and does not incorporate a “another person” of God at all. So, the writers were understanding the events according to where they were, not where we are.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I did not mean to single you out, I agree that the Apostles and the other New Testament writter’s understanding developed over time as they yielded to the Holy Spirit.
What I don’t agree with is that if we hold to Sola Scriptura then the truths we hold to had to have been written down in the pages of Scripture.
Let me clearify that I am not talking about the terminology we place on these docorines ( like the word trinity or even triune) but the concepts them self were there already in the Scriptures.
If the Scriptures are our Regula Fidei then what we need has to be contained in the pages. Which would then seem to me that within 65 years (plus or minus a few) after the death of our Lord the writters had a pretty full understanding. Not complete understanding, because no can claim a complete understanding of God, but pretty full.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
Sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with you. Peter knew what he was saying because the Father had revealed it to him. Also I do not believe that he was just lightly calling him the “Son of God”, the Jews were going to stone for claiming he was God for even less clear statements.
Like or Dislike:
0
Preacher Jack,
I think it is something Christians can definitely disagree over, and I think that is the point of this thread: to step back a bit and consider these issues. If you do that, and still come to the same conclusion, that is great!
I think there is a richness to the history and the processes that took place that we must embrace and not be afraid of. I think we need to avoid anachronistic, modernistic thinking and consider all of this because it can help us in our own hermeneutic and theology.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes Preacher Jack amen. Because here, they cater to their reason and not the Holy Scriptures as their final authority. The fact that the Scriptures involved human AND divine authors seems to skip their minds. I guess the Holy Spirit didn’t develop Jesus as God until Paul started writing. Of course that fact Peter himself spoke the words in Acts 5 that the Holy Spirit is God seemed to skip their minds as well. (Maybe Peter was bi-nitarian then!). This is exactly what higher criticism and the quest for the Historical Jesus will do. Leave your divine revelation at the door and analyze it with a very critical human mind.
Ahhhh, sorry, but to be more irenic. I have always believed that through the times and ages when an individual gets saved the Holy Spirit grants all the essential beliefs to the individual. Then the individual on his quest to know God better, the individual deviates from the non-essentials or does truly come closer to God. However, the one who deviates from the essentials does not know God and therefore was never truly saved.
As for those historians, do we have an exhaustive complete history? Is it infallible? Do we give it more weight than Scriptures?
As we all wrestle with this, and I agree this is very important and engaging (btw, I’m eating pizza not popcorn (sorry no booze, just bad food)) the essentials are not negotiable in any age, but the discussion is very fruitful although sometimes harmful – unity and diversity of the Church.
More Comments:
1 2 Next »