[...] To be sure, some of these doctrines “develop,” or mature but their maturation is only in relation to their seed form which preexisted their more mature expression. (For more on this, see here.) [...]

[...] of the Grand Canyon. In a similar fashion, God gave revelation to His people in snapshots [aka: progressive revelation]. Progressive revelation simply means that when Adam and Eve were in the Garden, God did not give [...]

[...] would recommend a blog article by Michael Patton on the progressive revelation of truth: from theological DNA to maturity. He’s got a few diagrams to illustrate his points, and I [...]

While I enjoy spreading my own propositional peacock feathers, it’s exercises like this that remind me why I prefer the mystical-relational to the theological-academic. Jesus often railed against those who had all the religious answer. Jeffry Smith (#13) infers the pivotal question: is complex propositional religious understanding key to a healthy Spirit-following life?

Very interesting and well articulated. Certainly time allows us more situations and circumstances that cause us to refine theological positions like those you mentioned in the post. However, time is also at work against your big arrow of progressive understanding. The further time carries us along, the further we are separated from the culture, context and intent of the NT authors. We are often groping for interpretations of texts that probably didn’t cause early Greek-speaking elders to raise an eyebrow. Overall, I agree with your premise of development but perhaps it is a little too “evolutionary” in that time equals improvement. Perhaps time just equals different. The church in every culture and time has it’s blindspots, and left unchecked she will drift away from orthodoxy. This is why it is imperative to look backward through time and observe church history. Time is not a neutral agent in the struggle for orthodoxy.

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.

Thank you for your fine essay. Many questions on orthodoxy are left unasked even in this essay: how much belief (orthodoxy) is necessary for salvation? What is the minimum? How much erroneous belief (unorthodoxy) will prevent salvation, if you have the necessary beliefs for salvation? There are many scriptural answers for these questions, an exercise I will leave to the reader.

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.

Great post. I can’t believe there are only 11 (now 12) comments on this one. I’m going to have to let it soak and make sure i understand your proposition(s) before i can add anything useful. Hard to comprehend why there aren’t even any big arguments, er, discussions on this one. Seriously, people are always willing to argue, haha. There are plenty of questions that could be asked at the very least. But i’ll hold off for fear that i missed a point here or in a previous O/orthodox(y) post.

Yes RJS,

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.

[...] For the past week or two, through out conversation about bridging the gap between emergents and traditionalists there has been a lot of talk of understanding orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is simply right belief. We are orthodox in the church if we believe the right things. The question of course is what are the right things and how do we determine them. Much of our conversation has revealed differing ideas of what is required to be orthodox and how it is determined. Well thankfully I just read one of the best blog posts I have ever encountered over at Parchment and Pent. Here is the link. [...]

Michael,

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?