In
the January 20, 2019 thread I linked to Gordon Carle's doctoral dissertation, "Alexandria in the Shadow
of the Hill Cumorah: A Comparative Historical Theology of The Early Christian
and Mormon Doctrines of God" (link).
The primary content and context of the dissertation, "is a comparative
study of the theological and historical development of the early Christian
(Pre-Nicene) and Mormon doctrines of God." The post gave rise to a robust
discussion concerning which of the two above paradigms has been the more
faithful development of the divine revelations recorded in the Old and New
Testaments, with a focus on anthropomorphism.
The
issue of the development of doctrine has been one of the major topics explored
here at AF for over a decade now, with 55 prior posts delving into the
subject (see THIS LINK).
However, the relationship between anthropomorphism and development
of doctrine was not explored until the above referenced thread. My current
studies into this topic has brought to light an essay presented by C. S. Lewis
to the 'Socratic Club'—an Oxford debating society—back in 1944.
This essay provides some fascinating contrasts between
theology, mythology and poetry; but it is page 10 where the issue of doctrinal
development begins. Note the following:
What did the early
Christians believe? Did they believe that God really has a material palace in
the sky and that He received His Son in a decorated state chair placed a little
to the right of His own? — or did they not? The answer is that the alternative
we are offering them was probably never present to their minds at all. As soon
as it was present, we know quite well which side of the fence they came down.
As soon as the issue of Anthropomorphism was explicitly before the Church in, I
think, the second century, Anthropomorphism was condemned. The Church knew the
answer (that God has no body and therefore couldn’t sit in a chair) as soon as
it knew the question. But till the question was raised, of course, people
believed neither the one answer nor the other. There is no more tiresome error
in the history of thought than to try to sort our ancestors on to this or that
side of a distinction which was not in their minds at all. You are asking a
question to which no answer exists.
It is very probable that
most (almost certainly not all) of the first generation of Christians never
thought of their faith without anthropomorphic imagery, and that they were not
explicitly conscious, as a modern would be, that it was mere imagery. But this
does not in the least mean that the essence of their belief was concerned with
details about a celestial throne room. That was not what they valued, or what
they were prepared to die for. Any one of them who went to Alexandria and got a
philosophical education would have recognised the imagery at once for what it
was, and would not have felt that his belief had been altered in any way that
mattered...
The earliest Christians
were not so much like a man who mistakes the shell for the kernel as like a man
carrying a nut which he hasn’t yet cracked. The moment it is cracked, he knows
which part to throw away. Till then he holds on to the nut, not because he is a
fool but because he isn’t. (Pages 10, 11 - LINK to PDF)
Those who are familiar
with John Henry Newman's, An Essay On The Development of Christian Doctrine,
will most likely discern his motif of organic development in Lewis' essay.
Before ending, I would
like to issue a challenge of sorts: take Newman's famous seven notes concerning
doctrinal development—Preservation of Type, Continuity of its Principles, Its
Power of Assimilation, Its Logical Sequence, Anticipation of its Future,
Conservative Action Upon its Past, and Its Chronic Vigor—and apply them to the
two different paradigms contrasted in Carle's dissertation.
Hope to hear from those
folk who take up the challenge soon...
Grace and peace,