On Private Judgment

As comments, and interest, in my series on doctrinal development appeared to be nearing an end, I thought I would devote a bit of my non-committed time to other goings on in the blog world. A thread at the Beggar’s All blog caught my eye (HERE) and I decided to respond. As with many threads at BA, the combox took on a life of its own, moving away from “faith alone” into other controversial genre, one of which was the issue concerning “private judgment”; it seems that I am the ‘guilty’ party, for it was my quote of A.N.S. Lane’s essay (see side bar) which referenced the following: “The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholics and were not slow to attack it in its Anabaptist manifestation.” This prompted a response by Jason Loh, who posts under the name of ‘Augustinian Successor’. Jason wrote:

Well, Lane's thesis is refuted by McGrath in "Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution, a history from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first".

Lane is mistaken here. The RIGHT to private judgment was one of the principles of Reformation. The issue relates to USE of private judgment: is it based on sola Scriptura? If so, how is sola Scriptura understood?

Sola Scriptura does not mean abandonment of Tradition but re-defining its use to ensure and maintain continuity. Sola Scriptura does not mean ecclesial and liturgical arrangements for the sake of good order (not by divine institution, unlike Romanism in reference to e.g. the papacy - therein lies the difference) can be opposed with impunity.
And again:

Of course Lane was mistaken. He confused the RIGHT to private judgment with the USE of private judgment. The ABUSE of private judgment could be seen in Luther's confrontation with the Schwaermer (Enthusiasts).

The LIMITS to private jugdment is set out in e.g. Article XXXIV - Of the TRADITIONS of the CHURCH:

"It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying."

Jason’s response reveals two important details concerning “private judgment”: first, there are “LIMITS”; and second, these “LIMITS” involve the issue of Church authority.

I then responded with:

Lane is not saying that Luther, Calvin, Knox, et al. denied “the RIGHT to private judgment” IN A CERTAIN SENSE. As a Catholic, I too have “the RIGHT to private judgment” within a set of historically defined parameters (e.g. Ecumenical Councils and ex cathedra promulgations). What Lane IS saying is that in PRACTICE, there was little difference between Calvin’s “Church” and Sadolet’s “Church”. Though Calvin denied infallibility to creeds, confessions, catechisms et al., they in day-to-day church polity functioned as such.

I sincerely thought that Jason would come to the understanding that Dr. Lane was not “mistaken”, that he was actually affirming what Jason had earlier said with different terminology and emphasis. But I was wrong—Jason then posted:

"The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholics and were not slow to attack it in its Anabaptist manifestation."

David, as the above quotation shows you've thoroughly misread Lane, and Lane was mistaken (as he tried to equate the Reformers' fear of private judgment with the Roman), and you're absolutely wrong. Let me spell this out to you, AGAIN, since you're not listening to me.

The right to private judgment is one of the principles of the Reformation. It is grounded in the priesthood of all believers. The Roman Church denies the latter theological premise and hence private judgment. Private judgment is a dirty word in the Magisterium, remember?

Once again, Dr. Lane is not denying “private judgment”, he is merely affirming that the Reformers placed “LIMITS” on it—greater “LIMITS” than Jason seems to realize. And perhaps even more importantly, Jason seems to think that Catholics deny “private judgment”, when in fact, “private judgment” (with, of course, “LIMITS”) is affirmed. Note what the famous English Catholic convert, Ronald Knox wrote on this issue:

By an equally grotesque illusion, most Englishmen have the idea that Catholics base all their religious beliefs on the authority of the Church…Let me then avoid further ambiguity, give a list of certain leading doctrines which no Catholic, upon a moment’s reflection, could accept on the authority of the Church and on that ground alone.

1. The existence of God.

2. The fact that he has made a revelation to the world in Jesus Christ.

3. The Life (in its broad outlines), the Death, and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

4. The fact that our Lord founded a Church.

5. The fact that he bequeathed to that Church his own teaching office, with the guarantee (naturally) that it should not err in teaching.

6. The consequent intellectual duty of believing what the Church believes. (Ronald Knox, The Belief of Catholics, pp. 30, 31.)

He follows this with:

“When you have contrived to persuade him that, for Catholics, the authority of the Church in matters of faith is not a self-evident axiom, but a truth arrived at by a process of argument, the Protestant controversialist has his retort ready. ‘You admit, then after all,’ he says, ‘that a man has to use his own private judgment in order to arrive at religious truth? Why, then, what is the use of authority in religion at all? I had always supposed that there was a straight issue between us, you supporting authority and I private judgment; I had always supposed that you criticised me for my presumption in searching for God by the light of my imperfect human reason; it proves, now that you are no less guilty of such presumption than myself! Surely your reproaches are inconsistent, and your distinctions unnecessary. If you use your private judgment to establish certain cardinal points of theology, the existence of God, the authority of Christ, and so on, why may I not use my private judgment to establish not only these, but all other points of theology…” (Ibid., pp. 34, 35.)

To which Knox replies:

“I could not have imagined, if I had not heard it with my own ears, the accent of surprise with which Protestants suddenly light upon this startling discovery, that the belief we Catholics have in authority is based upon an act of private judgment. How on earth could they ever suppose we taught otherwise? I say nothing here of the grace of faith, which is the hidden work of God in our souls. But how could the conscious process by which we arrive at any form of truth begin without an act of private judgment?” (Ibid., p. 35.)

And again:

“Reject private judgment? Of course Catholics have never rejected private judgment; they only profess to delimit the spheres in which private judgment and authority have their respective parts.” (Ibid., 35 – bold emphasis mine.)

So, one can clearly see that Catholics affirm “private judgment”, placing “LIMITS” on its use, as does the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglicans cited by Jason; as does the Formula of Concord of the Lutherans, from which we read:

With reference to the schism in matters of faith which has occurred in our times, we regard, as the unanimous consensus and exposition of our Christian faith, particularly against the false worship, idolatry, and superstition of the papacy and against other sects, and as the symbol of our time, the first and unaltered Augsburg Confession, which was delivered to Emperor Charles V at Augsburg during the great Diet in the year 1530, together with the Apology thereof and the Articles drafted at Smalcald in the year 1537, which the leading theologians approved by their subscription at that time.

Since these matters also concern the laity and the salvation of their souls, we subscribe Dr. Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms as both of them are contained in his printed works. They are “the layman’s Bible” and contain everything which Holy Scripture discusses at greater length and which a Christian must know for his salvation.

All doctrines should conform to the standards set forth above. Whatever is contrary to them should be rejected and condemned as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith. (Formula of Concord, “The Epitome”, in The Book of Concord, trans. Tappert, p. 465.)

And:

Herewith we again whole-heartedly subscribe this Christian and thoroughly scriptural Augsburg Confession, and we abide by the plain, clear, and pure meaning of its words. We consider this Confession a genuinely Christian symbol which all true Christians ought to accept next to the Word of God, just as in ancient times Christian symbols and confessions were formulated in the church of God when great controversies broke out, and orthodox teachers and hearers pledged themselves to these symbols with heart and mouth. Similarly we are determined by the grace of the Almighty to abide until our end by this repeatedly cited Christian Confession as it was delivered to Emperor Charles in 1530. And we do not intend, either in this or in subsequent doctrinal statements, to depart from the aforementioned Confession or to set up a different and new confession. (Formula of Concord, “Solid Declaration”, in The Book of Concord, trans. Tappert, p. 502.)

And so with The Genevan Confession:

The Confession of Faith which all the citizens and inhabitants of Geneva and the subjects of the country must promise to keep and hold. (1536) (Calvin: Theological Treatises, ed. J.K.S. Reid, p. 26.)

So much for my musings on “private judgment”; I sincerely hope I have shed some important light on this issue.

Grace and peace,

David

Presuppositions and Doctrinal Development

I have finally finished the reading list concerning doctrinal development (hereafter DD) that I imposed upon myself (though I am quite sure that there shall be further additions to the list in the near future).

My introduction for this thread will be a recommended bibliography (abbreviated and English only) on DD, with brief notes. [Please note: if a referenced work is available online in either a ‘full view’ or ‘limited preview’, a link (or links) in brackets shall immediately follow the citation.]

The second portion of this thread shall summarize the fundamental assessments of my readings on DD.

First, and foremost, on my abbreviated list of essential readings concerning DD is John Henry Newman’s, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine [1845 ed./pdf HERE; 1878 ed./html HERE]. This book is the “classic” work on DD in English. Though other DD treatments preceded this tome, none were as comprehensive, and/or focused. To my knowledge, virtually all subsequent books on DD reference Newman’s Essay, as do the vast majority of essays and articles. (Note: I highly recommend that the reading of Newman’s autobiography, An Apologia Pro Vita Sua [1864 ed,/pdf HERE; 1865 ed./pdf HERE; 1864-1865 ed./html HERE], immediately follow the reading of his Essay.)

My second recommendation is Peter Toon’s, The Development of Doctrine in the Church [full view/html HERE]. Dr. Toon’s book includes summaries of Newman’s Essay, critiques of Newman, Roberty Rainy’s and James Orr’s DD contributions, recent (but prior to 1979) Protestant and Catholic DD views, and his own theory of DD. This work is the most comprehensive, single treatment of the theory and history of DD from Newman through 1979 I have read. What the book lacks in depth of the particulars, it more than makes up for in its breadth.

Next are three essays by ecumenically minded Catholic theologians: Karl Rahner’s “The Development Of Dogma” (in Theological Investigations – Volume I, pp. 39-77; his “Considerations On The Development Of Dogma” (in Theological Investigations – Volume IV, pp. 3- 35; and Nicholas Lash’s “Dogmas and doctrinal progress” (in Doctrinal Development and Christian Unity, pp. 3 – 33). These three essays, while remaining faithful to Newman’s theory, are sensitive to Protestant concerns.

James Orr’s, The Progress of Dogma [limited preview HERE; unfortunately, the most important chapter/lecture (I) is not in the preview]. In many respects, this work is a Protestant version of Newman’s Essay.

R.P.C. Hanson’s, The Continuity of Christian Doctrine. This work is an interesting one; it written by an Anglican patristic scholar, who upholds the Bible as “authoritative” and “a norm for development”, while denying inerrancy; I would describe him as a “moderate”.

D. H. Williams, Retrieving The Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism [limited preview HERE]. This book is a must read for Evangelicals who see little need to reflect on importance of tradition in its relationship to the Scriptures, and the fact of DD in history.

Johan Adam Möhler’s, Unity in the Church or The Principle of Catholicism. The book is perhaps the most important Catholic treatment of DD concerning the pre-Nicene Church period.

Jaroslav Pelikan’s, Development of Doctrine – Some Historical Prolegmena [limited preview HERE]. This book presents some of the author’s explorations into nature and history of DD. IMHO, this book should probably be read before his magnum opus, The Christian Tradition – A History of the Development of Doctrine (5 vols.).

Philip Schaff’s, The Principle of Protestantism [full view/pdf HERE]. Though a bit too polemical at times, it still remains as a substantial Protestant contribution to DD readings, and includes an important “Introduction” by John W. Nevin.

Maurice Wiles’, The Making of Christian Doctrine. Presents some excellent assessments concerning the “motives for development” in the early Church. His interaction with the historical examples he provides is also useful.

Aidan Nichols’, From Newman To Congar. Provides excellent summations and assessments of important DD scholars from Newman to Yves Congar.

Owen Chadwick’s, From Bossuet To Newman [limited preview HERE]. Excellent summation of DD precursors to Newman, and a good treatment of Newman’s theory, plus some of the shortly following critiques.

The above is my “short” list of DD reading materials. I have purposely left out treatments that lie at the extreme “right” and “left” ends of DD (see Joseph F. Kelley’s cited comments provided at the beginning of my last THREAD), for both personal and intellectual reasons. And as one who adheres to the dictum, “you can’t beat something with nothing”, I have also chosen not to list works that are strictly critical in nature (e.g. Brownson, Cunningham, Faber, Moberly, Mozley, et al.).

So, what have I gleaned from my recent DD readings? First, DD is a historical fact; second, one’s presuppositions have a tremendous impact on one’s accepted theory of DD; and third, the theory of DD is still developing!

Moving beyond my above general assessments, I would like to reproduce my responses to questions posed by Ken Temple in the combox of the last thread here at AF:

what are the main presuppositions of the John Henry Newman DD and Roman Catholicism?

Me: 1.) the Scriptures are “God breathed”, and as such inerrant, and materially sufficient; and 2.) the Church is the “pillar and ground of truth”, is the “body of Christ” and indwelt by the HS, and as such is guarded from error in doctrine and morals.

What are the main presuppositions of Darby, Calvin, and Cunningham?

Me: The Scriptures are “God breathed”, and as such inerrant, and materially and FORMALLY sufficient.

What are the main presuppositions of the liberals?

Me: The Scriptures are human accounts of God’s revelation, and as such, are not inerrant.

Anyone who attempts to build a comprehensive view of DD will do so by beginning with one of the three above presuppositions/positions (the first embraces two components). At this stage of my studies, I have come to the understanding it is the first position that leads one to the most consistent theory of DD (though it certainly still retains its own set of difficulties). This conclusion is essentially reached by default, for the second position (P2) borrows from the third (P3) to refute the second component (C2) of the first (P1), while borrowing from P1 to build its theory of DD; and P3 offers no serious objective reasons to combat Harnack’s assault on any theory of DD, claiming all DD constitutes a corruption of the “pure Gospel” (which has been adopted with slight variations by those who lean towards Kelley’s far “left”).

By way of illustration, James Orr and Peter Toon whole-heartedly embrace modern historical critical methods to attack the C2 of P1, yet then refuse to apply the same methods to P2. They also borrow Newman’s general principles to determine “true” developments from “false” ones. James Orr wrote: “Dr. J.H. Newman, e.g., in his famous essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, laid down what we must recognize as sound general principles—the very soundest—however much we may differ from him in the application of them” (The Progress of Dogma, p. 20).

In ending, I find that when I apply the same methods I use to defend the C1 of P1 to the C2 of P1, I end up with the same results; and on the flip side, if I apply the methods of P3, used by proponents of P2 to confute the C2 of P1, to P2, P2 does not hold up any better than P1. (All this is not to say that P1 is without ‘difficulties”, but rather, once again, that P1 appears to be the most consistent position of the three.)


Grace and peace,

David

Looking for substantive alternatives to Newman’s ‘Theory of Development’.

The last few threads here at AF have been explorations into the complex issue of the development of doctrine. As with virtually every theological construct, one is confronted with numerous competing theories, the range of which lies between two radically different conceptions. Joseph F. Kelly eloquently sums up these two extremes:

On the right, some Christians claim that all the Church can do is adhere strictly to the plain meaning of the biblical texts and eschew any notion of development of doctrine or even of ministry, since development is merely a euphemism for abandoning rigid biblicism.

On the left, other Christians claim that the gap between the modern world and the world in which the Bible came into existence is so vast that modern Christians cannot truly understand the Bible and they are thus not bound by it. For these people, Christian doctrine or teaching is what modern Christians determine it to be, with no normative reference to the Bible, or, for that matter, any earlier period of Christian history. (Joseph F. Kelly, “Introduction” in R.P.C. Hanson, The Continuity of Christian Doctrine, p. ix.)

We have explored an advocate of the extreme right (Darby), as well as some interesting thoughts from Cunningham and Calvin, and are waiting for Chris to present an example, or examples, of the extreme left. In between the two extremes lies Newman’s famous theory, which, since its publication in 1845, has had more than its fair share of critiques (especially outside of the RCC, though not exclusively). I have read a good number of these critiques (e.g. Brownson, Cunningham, Darby, Faber, Moberly, Mozley, Palmer, Salmon), and via these readings have come to an understanding that Newman’s theory is in need of some improvement and ‘development’ (though Karl Rahner has made some important contributions in this area which I hope to explore in a subsequent post). However, I think it is important to point out that while I have come to appreciate some of the “difficulties” which have been raised by Newman’s critics, I could not help but notice that none of them provided an even remotely adequate replacement theory. And I am not alone in this assessment. The noted patristic scholar, R.P.C. Hanson observed:

Mozley not only does not solve Newman’s problem; he does not even realize it exists. He is still in the world of thought of in which Bishop Bull in the seventeenth century answered Petavious...On this point of development, however, Newman looks like a man of the modern day, whereas Mozley seems not yet to have to left the seventeenth century. The same can be said of George Salmon’s book The Infallibility of the Church (1888). In destructive criticism of Newman’s arguments in favor of the Roman Catholic Church, it is superb. In advancing a constructive alternative to Catholic doctrines of development, Newman’s or any other, it is rudimentary. (R.P.C. Hanson, The Continuity of Christian Doctrine, pp. 24, 25.)

A little bit later in the book, Hanson states an important dictum that all of us need to keep in mind: “If doctrine can be repudiated, there must be some norm whereby that repudiation takes place” (Ibid., p. 32).

So, with this in mind, I am going to request from my readers alternatives to Newman’s theory of development. The said alternatives can be submitted in three different forms: first, as a post in the combox of this thread; second, as a new thread sent to me via email that if approved will be posted under the author's name here at AF; and third, as a link to a thread in another blog.


Eagerly looking forward to your alternatives.


Grace and peace,

David

Calvin on the visible Church—or, Don’t Do As I Do, Do As I Say!

I have often wondered why it is so many Reformed apologists resort to the use of double standards in their polemical writings. I think I may have gained some insight into this phenomenon during today’s studies—I suspect that it stems from the polemics of the earliest Reformers attempts to justify their break from the Catholic Church, while at the same time attacking the Anabaptists (and other dissenters) as schismatics.

John Calvin had the following to say concerning the visible Church [bold emphasis mine]:

But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title “mother” how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels [Matthew 22:30]. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah [Isaiah 37:32] and Joel [ Joel 2:32] testify. Ezekiel agrees with them when he declares that those whom God rejects from heavenly life will not be enrolled among God’s people [Ezekiel 13:9]. On the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true godliness are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem [cf. Isaiah 56:5; Psalm 87:6]. For this reason, it is said in another psalm: “Remember me, O Jehovah, with favor toward thy people; visit me with salvation: that I may see the well-doing of thy chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the joy of thy nation, that I may be glad with thine inheritance” [Psalm 106:4-5 p.; cf. Psalm 105:4,Vg., etc.]. By these words God’s fatherly favor and the especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church. (Institutes, 4.1.4 – The Westminster Press edition: edited by McNeil, trans. by Battles, p. 1016.)

Christ himself, the apostles, and almost all the prophets have furnished us examples of this. Fearful are those descriptions with which Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Habakkuk, and others bewail the afflictions of the Jerusalem church. In people, in magistracy, and in priesthood all things had been so far corrupted that Isaiah does not hesitate to liken Jerusalem to Sodom and Gomorrah [Isaiah 1:10]. Religion was in part despised, in part besmirched. In morals one frequently notes theft, robbery, treachery, slaughter, and like evil deeds. Still the prophets did not because of this establish new churches for themselves, or erect new altars on which to perform separate sacrifices. But whatever men were like, because the prophets considered that the Lord had set his word among them and had instituted rites wherewith he was worshiped there, they stretched out clean hands to him in the midst of the assembly of the wicked. Surely, if they had thought they would become contaminated from these rites, they would have died a hundred times rather than allow themselves to be dragged thither. Nothing, consequently, kept them from creating a schism save their zeal to maintain unity. But if the holy prophets had scruples against separating themselves from the church because of many great misdeeds, not of one man or another but of almost all the people, we claim too much for ourselves if we dare withdraw at once from the communion of the church just because the morals of all do not meet our standard or even square with the profession of Christian faith.

Now what was the world like in the time of Christ and the apostles? Even then the desperate impiety of the Pharisees and the dissolute life which commonly prevailed could not prevent them from practicing the same rites along with the people, and from assembling in one temple with the rest for public exercises of religion. How did this happen, except that those who participated in these same rites with a clean conscience knew that they were not at all contaminated by association with the wicked?

If anyone is not convinced by prophets and apostles, let him at least yield to Christ’s authority. Cyprian, then, has put it well: “Even though there seem to be tares or unclean vessels in the church, there is no reason why we ourselves should withdraw from the church; rather, we must toil to become wheat; we must strive as much as we can to be vessels of gold and silver. But the breaking of earthen vessels belongs solely to the Lord, to whom has also been entrusted an iron rod [Psalm 2:9; Revelation 2:27]. And let no one so claim for himself what is the Son’s alone, that it is enough to winnow the chaff and thresh the straw [cf. Matthew 3:12; Luke 3:17] and by human judgment to separate out all the tares [cf. Matthew 13:38-41]. Proud, indeed, is this stubbornness and impious presumption, which wicked madness takes upon itself,” etc. [Ibid. 4.18.19a, pp. 1032, 1033.]

Amazing, simply amazing. And yes, I have read Calvin’s defense of his schism; his reply to Cardinal Sadolet’s letter, and his “The Necessity of Reforming the Church.” They are certainly eloquent attempts, but ultimately do not irradiate what is clearly the use of a double standard on his part. It seems the apple has not fallen far from the tree…



Grace and peace,

David

The Church, development and apostasy—A Reformed View.

In my last thread I presented Darby’s theory on apostasy, development and the church. In this thread, I shall do the same for the Reformed theologian William Cunningham. Though Cunningham’s position is quite close to that of Darby’s, there are some important and subtle differences. I see no need to point out the differences myself, for they are quite evident via Cunningham’s own pen. The following quotes are from Cunningham’s Historical Theology, The Banner of Truth 1979 reprint [all bold emphasis will be mine].

Romanists say the church is indefectible, or will never cease to exist. Protestants admit this; and hence Bellarmine says, “notandum est multos ex nostris tempus terere, dum probant absolute Ecclesiam non posse deficere: nam Calvinus, et caiteri hæretici id concedunt: sed dicunt, intelligi debere de Ecclesia invisibili.” It is true that.as Bellarmine says, Calvin and other heretics concede this, but say that it is to be understood of the invisible church ; i.e., they contend that the only sense in which the indefectibility of the church can be proved from Scripture is this, that from the time when Christ ascended to the right hand of His Father, there have always been, and until He come again there will always be, upon earth, some persons who have been chosen to salvation, and who, during their earthly career, are prepared for it. More than this may have, in point of fact, been realized in providence, with respect to the standing and manifestation of the church on earth in every age ; but Protestants contend that nothing more than this can be proved to be implied in the statements and promises of Scripture upon this subject, i.e., that for aught that can be proved, all the statements of Scripture may be true, and all its predictions and promises may have been fulfilled, though nothing more than this had been realized.

The Romanists go on to assert that this indefectible church is visible, and, while it exists, must possess visibility. Protestants while conceding the existence of visible churches, not composed exclusively of elect or believing persons, and of “a catholic visible church, consisting of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children,” deny that there is anything in Scripture which guarantees the constant existence at all times, or in any one particular country, of an organized ecclesiastical society standing out visibly and palpably to the eyes of men as the true church of Christ ; and, on the contrary, they think that there are pretty plain intimations in Scripture, that in some periods the true church under the New Testament, as happened with the church under the law when there were still, though the prophet could not discern them, seven thousand men in secret, who had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal might be reduced so low as not to possess anything that could with propriety be called visibility. (William Cunningham, Historical Theology, 1.17.)

These observations serve to explain the meaning and application, and the scriptural ground of the doctrine of our Confession of Faith [Cunningham is referring to the Westminster Confession of Faith] upon this subject, as expressed in the following words: “This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible ; and particular Churches which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some of them have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.” (1.18)

The corruption into which the visible church after the apostolic age so speedily and so extensively fell, and the desire to defend or to palliate all this, soon introduced very lax and erroneous views concerning the nature and objects of the church in general, concerning its constituent elements and qualities, and the standard by which it ought to be judged. (1.26.)

Protestants believe, as a matter of unquestionable historical certainty, that at a very early period error and corruption i.e., deviations from the scriptural standard in matters of doctrine, government, worship, and discipline manifested themselves in the visible church gradually, but rapidly; that this corruption deepened and increased, till it issued at length in a grand apostasy—in a widely extended and well-digested system of heresy, idolatry, and tyranny, which involved in gross darkness nearly the whole of the visible church for almost a thousand years, until it was to some extent dispelled by the light of the Reformation. (1.34.)

The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants; and when the divine origin and authority of the Bible are conceded or proved, Protestants are quite able to deduce from it all the doctrines which they maintain, and to establish them in such a way that no assault from any other quarter, such as the testimony of history, could competently be brought to bear upon them. (1.39.)

There is, indeed, something dark and mysterious in the survey of the history of the church of Christ, in its so soon losing its purity, and falling into error and corruption ; and in this error and corruption gaining such an ascendency, and virtually overspreading the visible church for nearly a thousand years. (1.41.)


Though not quite as bleak as Darby’s position, (I suspect Cunningham wishes to stave off his “grand apostasy” until after the Council of Chalcedon to protect the development of the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology), Cunningham’s theory still presents quite a dark picture for the Church that our Lord instituted. Viewed from a Calvinistic position, one would have to say that God “regenerated” very few individuals for well over 1,000 years; and the Holy Spirit’s promise to lead the Church into all truth had to wait until the 16th for its fruition.


Grace and peace,

David

Searching for a consistent theory of the Church, development and apostasy.

Newman’s theory of development when it first appeared in print was attacked from three different positions. First, was the attack from a few fellow Catholics who saw Newman’s theory as a threat to what I shall term the “traditionalist” position. Second, there was the attack from those who embraced the via media position of the High Anglicans, also called the Tractarians (which, as most know, was Newman’s position before entering the RCC). And finally, there was the Evangelical attack. This post is going to focus on this last position. I briefly touched on this position with the quote from Darby in THIS THREAD. I shall now delve a bit deeper into this viewpoint.

John Nelson Darby’s most detailed articulation of his theory of development (or lack there of) appears in his lengthy essay, “Christianity Not Christendom”. This essay is available online (HERE). [The following quotes will reflect the page numbers from my hard copy (volume #18 of “The Collected Writings of J.N. Darby”) which I believe are the same as the online version.]

“…is any church as now understood, coming down from ages past, however reformed and arranged, a thing of God? Is it to pass in some shape on this descendible principle? Is there that which, calling itself a church, exercises authority over the mind of man according to the mind of God? We are forced to look the whole question in the face: is the existing professing church, whatever shape it may assume, a thing which God owns? Is a successional body, in any shape, true or right according to God? I repeat, this question is forced upon us, the whole question; not, Is this or that church right?” (Page 250.)

“Now I look all this in the face, and take the question up, not on the disputed claims of churches, who mutually disprove their respective claims, but on the question of the church, as man looks at it now, as we see it in every time as the subject of ecclesiastical history; and I say it never was, as a system, the institution of God, or what God established; but at all times, from its first appearance in ecclesiastical history, the departure, as a system, from what God established, and nothing else; primitive church and all; and the more it was formally established, the more it was corrupt. Saints, beloved of God I do not doubt were and are in it; but it was a corruption offensive to God from the beginning of its history. Take a history, any history, of the church, it is a history, not of God's institution, but of man's corruption. History and scripture both testify of this, and no man can speak of the church of ecclesiastical history, if he be an honest man, without admitting that it was man's corruption, not God's institution, or denying history and scripture alike; I say, from its outset as the subject of ecclesiastical records, or scripture statements.” (Pages 251, 252.)

Darby’s theory of the “true” Church is summed up with:

“Two great principles lie at the base of Christianity, God's righteousness, Christ sitting at the right hand of God, and the presence of the Holy Ghost. Paul tells us (2 Cor. 3) that Christianity (or the gospel) was the ministration of righteousness and the ministration of the Spirit: these are the two great essential elements.” (Page 254.)

He then goes on to write:

“But such was Christianity as presented to us in scripture in its essential features. Has it preserved them? Is what is now called the church that Christianity, the system I find there?” (Page 260.)

“The church, as understood in modern times in all its compartments, is constituted, has its existence by, and is based on, the clergy and its sacraments, not on an accomplished redemption and the presence and power of the Holy Ghost-a clergy which is called the ministry, and even the church. I take, as a plain popular proof of the truth of this, the Evangelical Alliance. It abhors the corruption that has entered into the church, but it would not admit Quakers and Plymouth Brethren: the former reject clergy and sacraments, the latter clergy only, holding baptism and the Lord's supper, both insisting on ministry by the Spirit. I am not insisting now on their being right or wrong; I merely take it as a popular proof of the basis of the universal system, even where gross corruptions are resisted. It results in this, that the recognition of a clergy is the basis of the church, the sine qua non, the essential condition.” (Page 261.)

“My thesis is, not that the church as now held historically was corrupted, but that the church so held was itself the total departure in principle from scripture, from what Christ set up by the Holy Ghost. The doctrine of full justification by faith, founded on accomplished redemption, and the recognition of the Holy Ghost as present and a directing power, were lost, and the clergy and sacraments substituted for them. The Reformation removed many corruptions which had grown intolerable, and many false principles; but the notion of the church was still based on the clergy and the sacraments. It is hard to prove a negative; but it is quite certain that neither a full redemption, nor, though the words be used once or twice, a complete possessed justification by faith, as Paul teaches it, a perfecting for ever by its one offering, a known personal acceptance in Christ, is ever found in any ecclesiastical writings after the canonical scriptures for long centuries.” (Page 262 – bold emphasis mine.)

He then asks:

“Was this departure from Christ to be expected at once? or was the successional continuance of the outward body that which was secured by the Lord's promise? What does the word declare? Heresy fully contributed its part; but whatever was the cause, was the continuance of the body under God's approbation contemplated or not?” (Page 272.)

To these questions he gives a round of resounding yeses (with “proof” texts). And towards the end of the essay states:

“The historical church is man's system, from the beginning, in contrast with God's: that system has been corrupted, but what has been corrupted is man's system, not God's. No doubt God had gathered the first materials into unity, but the principles on the which He founded His assembly resisted, specially by Judaism, during the life of the apostles, were given up when they were gone; and the system they had resisted became that which stood before men's eyes as the church. The free power of the Spirit, and known acceptance in an exalted Christ, ceased to be the constituent principles of those gathered; the clerical principle denying the Spirit, making elders the ministry as a clergy, that is, ordained teachers, not the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. This was first developed in local episcopacy, then in diocesan episcopacy and the hierarchy, and then in popery.” (Page 274.)

And there you have Darby’s theory of the Church, development and apostasy.

Next thread, the reformed scholar, William Cunningham’s view.


Grace and peace,

David

The Trinity and the Development of Doctrine

In countless books on the Trinity (countless in the sense that I do not wish to devote the considerable amount of time it would take to actually count them) that I read during my in depth study of the faith I was born into (JWs), I was constantly reminded that the doctrine of the Trinity was CLEARLY taught in the Bible. Some of the same books also maintained that the pre-Nicene Church Fathers also taught the doctrine. However, when I began my own studies into the ECFs, a different picture emerged. The following brief paper that I composed about a decade ago pretty much sums up my studies into the issue:

My understanding of the Evangelical doctrine of perspicuity is that the Scriptures are clear on the “essentials”. It is also my understanding that Evangelicals believe the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those “essentials”. Now, I would like to explore this issue—is the doctrine of the Trinity clearly (i.e. explicitly) contained in the Scriptures?

All serious scholars of Christian history know that the particular doctrine of the Trinity held to by many, but not all, Evangelicals was not developed until after the Council of Nicea. Bettenson writes, “‘Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy...”[1]. Hanson wrote the following, “Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.”[2] And again, “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355”.[3] Newman writes, “If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian...Tertullian is heterodox on the Lord’s divinity...Origen is, at the very least suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian.”[4]

The following are a few examples from the early Church Fathers. First, Justin, “Our teacher is Jesus Christ...and we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third...”[5] The Son is, “...the first-born of the unbegotten God...”[6] And, “...next to God, we worship and love the Word, who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God...”[7] Justin then says to Trypho the Jew, “I shall attempt to persuade you...that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things...”[8] The Son, “...was begotten of the Father by an act of will...”[9] And, “...this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures(i.e. creation)...”[10]

Tatian, a disciple of Justin, in his Address to the Greeks, wrote that God, “was alone”; that the Logos “was in Him” and “by His simple will the Logos springs forth” and becomes “the first-begotten work of the Father”; and that “the Logos, begotten in the beginning, begat in turn our world”.[11] Theophilus, wrote that, “...at first God was alone and the Word was in Him…The Word then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills...”[12] Athenagoras, “...we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, imcomprehensible...by whom the universe has been created through His Logos...Nor let anyone think it ridiculous that God should have a Son...the Son of God is the Logos of the Father...the Son, I will state briefly, that He is the first product of the Father...”[13]

Leaving the second century Fathers, and moving on to the third, we will examine what Origen had to say on our subject. From his work De Principiis we read, “That there is one God, who created and arranged all things...This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures...”[14] In Against Celsus we read, “We therefore charge the Jews with not acknowledging Him (Jesus) to be God, to whom testimony was borne in many passages by the prophets, to the effect that He was a mighty power, and a God next to the God[15] and Father of all things.”[16] Origen in his Commentary On John wrote, “He (John) uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God...God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God himself); and so the the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, ‘That they may know Thee the only true God;’ but all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without the article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of exalted rank than the other gods beside Him...The true God, then is ‘The God’, and those who are formed after Him are gods, images as it were of Him the prototype.”[17] The following quote is from Origen’s Dialogue With Heraclides and His Fellow Bishops On The Father, The Son and, and the Soul:

Origen said: “Since the beginning of a debate is the time to declare what the topic the debate is, I will speak. The whole Church is here listening. It is not fitting for doctrinal differences to exist from church to church, for you are not a Church of falsehood. I call upon you, Father Heraclides: God is the almighty, the uncreated One, who is above all things. Do you agree to this?” Heraclides said: “I agree; for this is what I too believe.” Origen said: “Jesus Christ, though he was in the form of God (Phil. 2.6), while still being distinct from God in whose form He was, was God before He came into the body: yes or no?” Heraclides said: “He was God before.” Origen said: “Was He God distinct from this God in whose form He was?” Heraclides said: “Obviously distinct from the other and , while being in the form of the other, distinct from the Creator of all.” Origen said: “ It not true, then, that there was a God, the Son of God, and only begotten of God, the first born of all creation (Col. 1:15), and that we do not hesitate to speak in one sense fo two Gods, and in another sense of one God?” Heraclides said: “What you say is evident. But we too say that God is the almighty, god without beginning, without end, who encompasses all and is encompassed by nothing, and this Word is the Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things were made, God according to the Spirit, and man from being born of Mary.” Origen said: “You don’t seem to have answered my question. Explain what you mean, for perhaps I didn’t follow you. The Father is god?” Heraclides said: “Of course.” Origen said: “The Son is distinct from the Father?” Heraclides said: “Of course, for how could He be son if He were also father?” Origen said: And while being distinct from the Father, the Son is Himself also God?” Heraclides said: “He Himself is also God.” Origen said: “And the two Gods become a unity?” Heraclides said: “Yes.” Origen said: “We profess two Gods?” Heraclides said: “Yes, [but] the power is one.”[18]

Before leaving Origen, it is important to note what he had to say about prayer. The following is from Origen’s treatise Prayer:

If we understand what prayer really is, we shall know that we may never pray to anything generated–not even Christ–but only to God and the Father of all, to whom even Our Saviour Himself prayed, as we have already said, and teaches us to pray...For if the Son, as shown elsewhere, is distinct from the Father in nature and person, then we must pray either to the Son, and not to the Father, or to both, or to the Father only...There remains, then, to pray to God alone, the Father of all, but not apart from the High Priest who was appointed with on oath by the Father...The saints, then, in their prayers of thanks to God acknowledge their thanks to Him through Christ Jesus.[19]

Next, we shall look at Tertullian whose writings are late second century through the first two decades of the third. From one his polemical works, Against Praxeas, we read that “before all things God was alone”, and the Word “proceeds forth from God”. The Word which is also called Wisdom was “created or formed” by God and is His “first-begotten”[20]. From Against Praxeas we also read:

I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original source is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring...I confess that I call God and His word–the Father and His Son–two...there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun...Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each other...Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son...we...do indeed definitively declare that Two beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three...[21]

Tertullian, like Origen, can speak of two, and three in one sense, and in another sense, of just One God. Eusebius, too, strongly asserts this same theme. We read the following in his Proof of the Gospel:

Remember how Moses calls the Being, Who appeared to the patriarchs, and often delivered to them the oracles afterwards written down in Scripture sometimes God and Lord, and sometimes the Angel of the Lord. He clearly implies that this was not the Omnipotent God, but a secondary Being...This same being who appeared to Abraham is called Lord and God. He teaches the saint mysteriously of His Father’s rule, and speaks some things, as it were, of another God...surely there are Two...we have, by thirty prophetic quotations in all, learned that our Lord and Saviour the Word of God is God, a second God after the Most High...[22]

With the above examples from the Pre-Nicene Fathers in mind, to which dozens more could be added, we can objectively concur with Bettenson and Hanson that subordinationism was in fact Pre-Nicene orthodoxy.

As we move into the Nicene period, we are going find that the theme of subordinationism is not abandoned, in fact, it will be demonstrated that it continues as a dominant theme well into the fifth century. Evangelical apologists strongly suggest that when the term homoousion was put into the Nicene creed we have the triumph of “orthodoxy” over subordinationism. This “orthodoxy” is the affirmation that homoousios teaches the Godhead is one, single, identical substance shared by three Persons. But is this really the case? Concerning the subject at hand, Philip Schaff wrote:

The term homoousion, in its strict grammatical sense, differs from monoousion...and signifies not numerical identity, but equality of essence or community of nature among several beings. It is clearly used thus in the Chalcedonian symbol, where it is said that Christ is “consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father as touching the Godhead, and consubstantial with us [and yet individually distinct from us] as touching the manhood.” The Nicene Creed does not expressly assert the singleness or numerical unity of the divine essence...and the main point with the Nicene fathers was to urge against Arianism the strict divinity and essential equality of the Son and the Holy Ghost with the Father.[23]

The great Reformed theologian Charles Hodge admits that the term homoousios, “...may express either specific sameness, or numerical identity. In the former sense, all spirits, whether God, angels, or men, are homoousioi*.”[24] Although Hodge believes that the Nicene Creed teaches the latter sense, he cites a German theologian who disagrees with him:

Gieseler goes much further, and denies that the Nicene fathers held numerical identity of essence in the persons of the Trinity. The Father, Son and Spirit were the same in substance as having the same nature, or same kind of substance. This he infers was their doctrine not only from the general style of their teaching, and from special declarations, but from the illustrations which they habitually employed. The Father and the Son are the same in substance as among men father and son have the same nature; or as Basil says, Father and Son differ in rank, as do the angels, although they are the same in nature. Gieseler says that the numerical sameness of nature in the three divine persons, was first asserted by Augustine. It was he, according to Gieseler, who first excluded all idea of subordination in the Trinity.[25]

Note that Gieseler made the assertion that it was Augustine “who first excluded all idea of subordination in the Trinity”. As we know from history, it was Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity that eventually became the dominant view of Catholic theology. The reformers inherited, and for the most part embraced Augustine’s view.

Now, when we look at “the” Evangelical doctrine of the Trinty, one is forced to conclude that it is “doctrines”, not “the doctrine”, for the following are but a few examples of the different forms of Trinitarianism held within Evangelicalism. 1.) The Son and the Spirit are generated from the Father’s essence, who is the source, fountain-head of the Trinity (Melanchthon, Jonathan Edwards). 2.) It is the person alone, not the essence which is generated from the Father (John Calvin, Francis Turrettin, and most Reformed theologians). 3.) There is no generation of persons within the Godhead; the Logos became the Son at the incarnation (Oliver Buswell, Walter Martin, early writings of John MacArthur). 4.) The Godhead is one person, and within the being of this one person there are three personal subsistences (Cornelius Van Til). 5.) The Trinity is not composed of persons in the modern sense (i.e. three distinct centers of conscious personal beings), but rather of three modes of existence (Donald Bloesch). 6.) Social Trinitarianism (Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., Millard Erickson, Edward Wierenga).

So, are the scriptures “clear” concerning the doctrine of the Trinity? When one honestly examines history, and the current state of Evangelical theology, one must conclude that it is not “clear”. IHMO, to maintain that the scriptures are “clear” on this issue is to radically change the meaning of the word “clear”.

[*Note: Greek in the original document has been transliterated.]

ENDNOTES -

[1] Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers (London, England: Oxford Univ. Press, 1978 4th impression) p. 239.

[2] RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.

[3] RPC Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988, p. xix.

[4] John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, (6th edition 1989) p. 17.

[5] Justin Martyr, The First Apology, ch. 13, in Roberts & Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 1(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979 edition) p. 167.

[6] Ibid., ch. 53, p. 180.

[7] Justin, The Second Apology, ch.13, ANF1 -p. 193.

[8] Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 56, ANF1 -p. 223.

[9] Ibid., ch. 61, p. 227.

[10] Ibid., ch. 62, p. 228.

[11] Tatian, Address of Tatian to the Greeks, ch. 5, in Roberts & Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1979 edition) p. 67.

[12] Theophilus, Theophilus to Autolycus, ch. 22, ibid. p. 103.

[13] Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, ch. 10, ibid., p. 133.

[14] Origen, De Principiis, preface, chapter 4, in Roberts & Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1979 edition) p. 240.

[15] This is but one instance where Origen contrasts Jesus Christ as “a God” (theos) with the Father who is “the God” (ho theos).

[16] Origen, Against Celsus, book 2.9, ibid. p. 433.

[17] Origen, Commentary On John, book 2.2, in Roberts & Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1979 edition) p. 323.

[18] Origen, Dialogue With Heraclides, chapters 1-2, Ancient Christian Writers volume 54 (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1992) pp. 57-59.

[19] Origen, Prayer, chapter 15.1-2, Ancient Christian Writers volume 19 (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1954) pp. 57-58.

[20] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapters 5, 7, in Roberts & Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1979 edition) pp. 600, 601.

[21] Ibid., chapters 8, 9, 13, pp. 602, 603, 604, 608.

[22] Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel, books 1.5, 5.25, 30 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981 reprint) pp. 26, 27, 267, 271.

[23] Philip Schaff, History of the Church volume 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981 edition) pp.672-673.

[24] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981 reprint) p. 460.

[25] Ibid., p. 463.

In addition to my short paper, I would like to bring into the mixture the following comments from the pen of Raymond Brown:

In the “olden” days (before Vatican II) it was apparent, even against the background of a sometimes unsophisticated biblical exegesis, that certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church were not easily detectable in the NT. In a widely held thesis of two sources of revelation, Scripture and Tradition, it could be maintained that such doctrines were passed on orally as part of the living tradition of the church, and were simply not mentioned until a much later era because no one questioned them. A more nuanced thesis was that such doctrines could be logically derived in an almost syllogistic manner from ideas of affirmations that were in the Bible. Vatican II changed the focus of the discussion significantly. The draft of the schema on the sources (plural) of revelation to the Council in November 1962 was rejected…doctrines for which there is no sufficient witness in the Bible are dealt with in another manner. A more sophisticated theory of hermeneutics argues that the written books of the Bible, as literary artifacts, had a life of their own and so their “meaning” involves the ongoing interpretation of them the Christian community. (Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Exegesis & Church Doctrine, 1985, p. 30.)Brown then goes on to discuss to 3 distinct categories concerning the “relationships between scripture and doctrine”: first, “Doctrines for which There is Abundant but Incipient Basis in Scripture”; second, “Doctrines for which There is Slender Basis in Scripture”; and third, “Doctrines about which the Scriptures are Virtually Silent” (in which he places the Marian dogmas, including the Assumption).

Concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, Brown wrote:

Nevertheless, in no NT passage, not even in Matt. 28:19 (“Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”) is there precision about three divine Persons, co-equal but distinct, and one divine Nature—the core dogma of the Trinity. Greek philosophy, sharpened by continuing theological disputes in the church from the 2nd to the 5th centuries, contributed to the classical formulation of the dogma…If ‘tradition’ implies that first-century Christianity already understood three coequal but distinct divine Persons and one divine Nature but had not developed the precise terminology, I would dissent. Neither the terminology nor the basic ideas had reached clarity in the first century; problems and disputes were required before the clarity came…Precisely because the “Trinitarian” line of development was not the only line of thought detectable in the NT, one must posit the guidance of the Spirit and intuition of faith as the church came to its decision. (Ibid. pp. 31-33.)


In summation, doctrine develops, even the so-called “clear” and “essential” doctrines were in need of development. Now, with this in mind, it seems to me that if one takes orthodoxy seriously, then it is Newman’s theory of development which is the most consistent, for to date, I have not come across a theory of DD that poses less difficulties. But, I am certainly open to the possibility that one does exist…


Grace and peace,

David