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? 

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) 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. 

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.) 

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.)

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!