Also, I would venture to say that there should be some delineation between the presentation of truth as revealed in the canon and the understanding of truth after the close of the NT. I would perhaps be more comfortable with keeping the capital letters while discussing progressive revelation and then moving to lowercase letters after the canon was closed. The authors of the Bible did not know God’s truth fully, but I am uncomfortable equating the truth contained in special revelation to the truth understood by contemporary theologians. Or actually according to the diagram, allowing contemporary understandings of truth to supersede that which was revealed by God in Scripture. I hope I am not reading too much into the capitalization. Overall, very thought provoking and helpful. Thank you.

I tend to agree with your view of Progressive and Paleo-Orthodoxy. I am also sympathetic to the Catholic approach of definitively proclaiming what is and what is not orthodox. One missing element in your essay is the the action of the the Holy Spirit, Who will lead His Church to all truth. I expect the doctrinal differences to melt away in the heat of persecution as the Day of His Return approaches. You do not find Christian doctrinal disputes in North Korea.

Like I said in the post, our idea of maturing or “developed” is never really complete or perfect. We see in a mirror dimly. We must always allow for us to advance. But I would have a problem when people says that our “developing” or “maturing” can entertain the opposite of what has been proclaimed. That is why I think DNA is a good illustration. The basic components are their early on.

A fascinating post.

On your last point about the maturing of orthodoxy – you use the example of the the vicarious, substitutionary view of the atonement as a maturation of orthodoxy. This is an excellent example to consider.

You give four options that are predicated on the assumption that your view of atonement is the final matured form. This is where we differ most significantly.

Given a view of maturing orthodoxy, isn’t it possible that this view (substitutionary atonement) is, in fact, a stepping stone in the process of maturation? Given the development of thinking about atonement over the millenia why would we think that it was finally matured?

Thanks for the comment.

That is why I put “can” elevate tradition above Scripture. Even the Catholics recognize this problem and do, theoretically, take measures to prevent it by grounding everything in tradition and Scripture.

Catholicism’s view of authority needs to be understood, in their contemporary theology, as a three leg stool. Tradition, Scripture, and the Church. Tradition is the unwritten deposit of faith. Scripture is the written deposit of faith. The church is the “living” interpreter of BOTH.

Hope that makes sense.

“Can elevate the authority of the early church above that of Scripture.”

Mt Patton I disagree it is not a matter of the Church elevating the authority of the early Church above Scripture.

Scripture comes from the early Church.

That is it was written by leaders of the Church for the Church and therefore must be read though the eyes of the Church for it to be properly understood.

It was showing an exception, an obvious exception, to your claim.

Was it that hard to understand?