Changing of Doctrines in Church History

civic

Well-known member
How do Protestants justify their belief in sola fide (salvation by faith alone) if it didn’t exist prior to the sixteenth-century? How do Catholics explain their belief in the Assumption of Mary when it wasn’t dogmatized until the twentieth-century? How does Eastern Orthodox justify their under-developed beliefs and tendency to punt to “mystery”? What’s going on with all this changing doctrine?


Free Video – Session 1 from the Church History Boot Camp


How do Protestants justify their belief in sola fide if it didn’t exist prior to the sixteenth-century?

How we answer these questions is our doctrine about the development of doctrine itself. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics have to account for the way truth has been progressively understood over time. Here are the problems each tradition faces:


Protestant Problems​


Why do we hold so strongly to doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide when, prior to the Reformation, many (if not most) in the church didn’t? The typical answer is “because the Bible is clear about these teachings”. While true, it causes us to wonder, if the Bible was so clear, why did these doctrines take so long to develop?


If the Bible was so clear, why did these doctrines take so long to develop?

Catholic Problems​


In 1950, the doctrine of The Assumption of Mary was dogmatized in Catholicism, and enforced under pain of excommunication. However, it finds no biblical warrant and little support in church history. In fact, the first mention of the Assumption of Mary we find in church history isn’t until the fifth-century. Why wasn’t it heard of before this? Why did it take so long for it to become dogma? This is only one of the many doctrinal “developments” Catholicism must explain. Here is a partial list:


  • Doctrine of Purgatory
  • Dogmatization of the seven sacraments and the specific role they play in one’s salvation in the Middle Ages.
  • Papal infallibility
  • The Marian Dogmas
  • What “outside the Church there is no salvation” meant (pre and post-Vatican II).

The first mention of the Assumption of Mary we find in church history isn’t until the fifth-century.

Both Catholics and Protestants face the same question: What about those who came before? Why didn’t they understand or emphasize these issues to the same degree?


Eastern Orthodox Problems​


Eastern Orthodoxy has a very different approach to doctrinal development. In short, they don’t really believe in it, at least not in the way we’ve been talking about it. They hold that the fullness of doctrine was developed in the first few centuries of the church. All future developments are deemed novel and/or heretical. In short, if the early church didn’t articulate it, neither should we.


If the early church didn’t articulate it, neither should we.

What’s the problem with this perspective? It sounds good. The difficulty is that the early church articulated doctrine only to the degree that those doctrines were challenged. In other words, there wasn’t enough time for all doctrines to be fully established, challenged, and refined in the first few centuries.


Just insert the word “mystery”, and you’ll be fine.

Because of their perspective on doctrinal development Eastern Orthodox have difficulty with:


  • The meaning of the atonement
  • The instrumental cause of salvation
  • The canon of Scripture
  • The authority in the Church
  • The “ransom to Satan” theory of the atonement

They’re frozen in the past. Issues that weren’t dogmatized and articulated in the first few centuries are doomed to a perpetual state of apophatic necessity. In other words, just insert the word “mystery”, and you’ll be fine.https://credohouse.org/blog/changing-doctrine-how-can-anyone-justify-this
 
continued :

The Protestant View of “Changing” Doctrine Defended​


Both Catholic and Orthodox are alike in that they seek, above all else, to find their tradition in the early Church. Their philosophy of history is, “the closer you get to the Apostles’ successors, the closer you are to truth.”


Do you get closer to truth the closer you get to the Apostles?

Protestants, by-and-large, do not take this approach, believing it to be naive. We reject the assumption that the early church (the one right after the Apostles) got it all right. (Hang with me here). We opt for a development of doctrine which sees the Protestant dogmas as defining Protestant orthodoxy. While true and important, these dogmas do not define historic orthodoxy (see my blog Are You Orthodox or Heretic for more on this).


God, in His grace and in His own time, allows doctrines to develop in essence and articulation.

In other words, the doctrine of sola fide, for example, may not have been strictly held, prior to the Reformation. However, God, in His grace and in His own time, allows doctrines to develop in essence and articulation. It is true that Evangelical Protestants who hold to essentialism would fly this flag higher than other traditions in the Protestant faith.


A Uniquely Protestant Problem​


Here is an attempt to represent how Protestants understand doctrinal development.


The Protestant Model of Changing Doctrine



Our argument would be that the essentials of who Christ is and what He has done has always been held by all (Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox):


  • That Christ is both fully God and fully man
  • That Christ died on the cross and rose from the grave
  • That mankind is sinful and in need of a savior
  • That faith in Christ is necessary
  • That grace is the only foundation for salvation

This is just a short list of doctrines that form the bedrock of orthodoxy (not Orthodoxy as in “Eastern”). Yet, from this perspective (the crucible of time) controversy, canonical reflection, and maturation help us to add flesh to what these doctrines mean. Many times, this flesh significantly develops our understanding.


“Change” is a Bad Word​


Change is the key word here. And if you noticed, I have not used it to describe our belief. No one likes this word. No tradition (outside of liberalism) believes doctrines change. Evangelical Protestants say that all the essential components for doctrine are found in the apostles’ teaching, but even the apostles had yet to put flesh on these bones.


No tradition (outside of liberalism) believes doctrines change.

Here’s another way Protestants look at it. Scripture is an undeveloped seed that could grow in the wrong way if it’s grown in bad soil (Catholic) or lacks water (Orthodox). This seed can be restored by being placed in purified soil and with allowance to grow (hence the developments of the Great Reformation).


From the Protestant’s perspective, it is not as if the Orthodox and Catholics are without the essential element – the seed, but that they have failed to allow doctrine to develop correctly.


Another way to put this (I work through this extensively in The Church History Boot Camp) is that the DNA of truth never changes. It is immutable. But the DNA has to mature and develop. The Scriptures never change. The truths of Scripture are perfect and without error. But these truths (this DNA) can, have, and will continue to mature. The primary evidence of the maturing is not only in articulation, but systematic understanding.


“Development” is a Good Word

It’s naive to think that the early Church got 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 and teach its basic components.


I don’t even think the Apostles themselves had everything figured out.

The Apostles planted the perfect seed and, like a seed, it wasn’t fully grown at the time of its planting. This is why the earliest creeds simply state, in biblical language, what the truth is without providing detailed definitions. Again, it is only when challenges are made and time has passed that the church further studies and refines doctrine. This is how I can say that belief in the doctrine of sola fide can be historically defended. It is not a change, but a development.


The Failure of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy​


Catholics, on the other hand, I believe, must admit with Martin Luther that their tradition is riddled with compromising change. Catholic scholar John Henry Newman put together the first substantial defense against the charges of change in Catholicism (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine). But, as brilliant as it was, history is the witness that significant contradictions exist in the history of Catholic doctrine. This would not be so devastating to Catholicism if they did not believe Church dogma to be infallible. “Development” or “maturation” are words Catholics would like to adopt, but they’re simply self-deceiving Band-Aids covering what I believe to be fatal wounds.


The Orthodox time machine is quite impressive. And, for the most part, their theology does reflect what might be considered an eastern consensus on doctrine. They hold to the first seven Ecumenical Councils and the statements of faith they represented. Protestants greatly appreciate that the Eastern Orthodox reject:


  • Purgatory
  • Papal infallibility
  • The assumption of Mary
  • The equality of the Protocanonical works (Protestants 66-book canon) with the Deuterocanonical works (the Apocrypha).

However, their “time freeze” is not only unwarranted, but denies the power of the Spirit to work through the church, bringing us a more mature, sanctified, and systematic understanding of God. If we’re going to grow in our understanding of the Lord throughout eternity, why claim that all maturation of our faith ceased in 787?


I’d like to share a quote from my favorite Christian historian, Jaroslav Pelikan, who converted from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy in his 70s and died just a few years ago. He sums it up like this (taking about Catholicism and Protestantism):


I consider that the parting of the ways between the two Christian communities 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.)
 
Theologians often break down the study of historical theology into four main periods of time: 1) the Patristic Period from AD 100—400; 2) the Middle Ages and Renaissance from AD 500—1500; 3) the Reformation and Post-Reformation Periods from AD 1500—1750; and 4) the Modern Period from AD 1750 to the present day.

The purpose of historical theology is to understand and describe the historical origin of the key doctrines of Christianity and to trace the development of these doctrines over time. It examines how people have understood different doctrines throughout history and attempts to understand the development of the doctrines, recognizing how changes within the church have affected different doctrines either for better or worse.

Historical theology and church history are two different yet closely related and important subjects. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to understand church history without also understanding the history of doctrine that often led to different divisions and movements within church history. Understanding the history of theology and doctrine helps us to understand the history of Christianity since the first century and why there are so many different denominations.

The basis for studying historical theology is found in the book of Acts. Luke records the beginning of the Christian Church as he continues toward his goal of giving an account of “all that Jesus began to do and to teach” (Acts 1:1). The work of Christ did not end with the final chapter of Acts. Indeed, Christ is at work today in His church, and that can be seen through the study of historical theology and church history, both of which help us to understand how the biblical doctrines essential to the Christian faith have been recognized and proclaimed throughout church history. Paul warned the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:29–30 to expect “savage wolves” who would teach false doctrine. It is through the study of historical theology that we see just how true Paul’s warning turned out to be, as we come to understand how the essential doctrines of the Christian faith have been attacked and defended throughout the more than 2,000 years of church history.

Like any area of theology, historical theology is also sometimes used by liberal scholars and non-Christians to cast doubt upon or attack the essential doctrines of the Christian faith as simply being the concoctions of men instead of the divinely revealed biblical truth that they really are. One example of this is in the discussion of the triune nature of God. The historical theologian will study and trace the development of this doctrine throughout church history knowing that this truth is clearly revealed in Scripture, yet throughout church history there have been times when the doctrine came under attack and thus it was necessary for the church to define and defend the doctrine. The truth of the doctrine comes directly from Scripture; however, the church’s understanding and proclamation of the doctrine has been clarified over the years, often in times when the nature of God had come under attack by those “savage wolves” that Paul warned would come.

Some well-meaning but misguided Christians want to dismiss the importance of historical theology, citing the promise that the Holy Spirit who indwells all born-again Christians will “guide us to all truth” (John 16:13). What these Christians fail to recognize is that the Holy Spirit has indwelt Christians throughout church history, and it is Jesus Christ Himself who has given “some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11–12). This includes not only those given in this generation but also those whom Christ ordained throughout church history. It is foolish to believe we have no need to learn from many gifted men that preceded us. A correct study and application of historical theology helps us recognize and learn from Christian teachers and leaders from centuries past.

Through the study of church history and historical theology, the born-again Christian is encouraged to see how God has been at work throughout history. In it we see God’s sovereignty over all things displayed and the truth that God’s Word endures forever (Psalm 119:160). Studying historical theology is really nothing more than studying God at work. It also helps remind us of the ever-present spiritual battle between Satan and the truth of God’s Word. It shows us from history the many ways and forms that Satan uses to spread false doctrine in the church, just as Paul warned the Ephesian elders.

The study of historical theology and church history also shows that the truth of God’s Word remains triumphant. As we understand the theological battles of the past, we can be better prepared to resist the errors that Satan will try to entice us with in the future. If pastors, churches, and Christians are not aware of church history and historical theology, then they will be more open to falling prey to the same type of false teachings that Satan has used in the past.

Historical theology, when correctly understood and applied, does not diminish the authority or sufficiency of Scripture. Scripture alone is the standard in all matters of faith and practice. It alone is inspired and inerrant. Scripture alone is our authority and guide, but historical theology can help us understand the many dangers of some “new teaching” or novel interpretation of Scripture. With over 2,000 years of church history and thousands if not millions of Christians preceding us, shouldn’t we be automatically wary of someone who claims to have a “new explanation” or interpretation of Scripture?

Finally, historical theology can remind us of the ever-present danger of interpreting Scripture in light of the cultural and philosophical assumptions of our times. We see this danger so much today as sin is being redefined as a sickness to be cured by drugs instead of a spiritual condition. We also see it as many denominations leave the clear teaching of Scripture and embrace the cultural acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle.

Historical theology is an important aspect of studying theology, but, like any other method of study, it is not without its dangers and pitfalls. The challenge for all Christians and for all students of theology is to not force our theological system on the Bible but to always make sure that our theology comes from the Scripture and not from some system that might be popular.got ?

hope this helps !!!
 
This just all seems like the genetic fallacy to me, and people twist the ECF just to claim their stuff is "closer."

I use to have zero respect for the ECF, I mean zero. Why should I assume they were real Christians and got it right? You have to... the only real argument you can make, is the Holy Spirit would not abandon the true church, but this begs the question of what the true church is. Roman Catholics were the majority for much of the time, yet people who want to go "behind their backs" to even earlier Christians, obviously can't consistently keep this "Spirit guides the visible church" logic. The real Christians are not the ones in the limelight, they are ones nobody ever hears about. But I have since mollified my stance—slightly—as they can show signs of a saving faith, and also have things we can learn from.

Still—I started with ground zero, just the inspiration of Scripture, and I end there. That is right foundation.
 
Unfortunately for so many on earth, satan owns 99% of all religion. He started Catholicism( 2 Thess 2:3), Jesus didnt. They held councils and created many false truths, which in turn small changes in translation to fit those false council teachings. No one was allowed to read the bible except clergy, until about the 1300,s it was kept in Latin, Few could read latin. Once translated to the language people could understand, the protestants ran from Catholicism because their own translating proves them false religion. Unfortunately for the protestants they had no clue as to those small changes to mislead. They never fixed those problems and are in the same boat as Catholicism.
 
Why do we hold so strongly to doctrines such as sola scriptura

Imo, as a form of censoring in order prevent anyone from reading an enemy text and seeing in them connections to things in scripture which would then be understood. And then those who do could be bullied and labeled.


and sola fide when, prior to the Reformation, many (if not most) in the church didn’t? The typical answer is “because the Bible is clear about these teachings”. While true, it causes us to wonder, if the Bible was so clear, why did these doctrines take so long to develop?
These were tricky ideas esau instituted
and overlaid onto scripture
to alter His Words
and prevent us from meeting Christ.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately for so many on earth, satan owns 99% of all religion. He started Catholicism( 2 Thess 2:3),

true.

Jesus didnt.
True.

They held councils and created many false truths, which in turn small changes in translation to fit those false council teachings.

I would say the corruption began in the OT...

No one was allowed to read the bible except clergy, until about the 1300,s it was kept in Latin, Few could read latin.
Once translated to the language people could understand, the protestants ran from Catholicism because their own translating proves them false religion. Unfortunately for the protestants they had no clue as to those small changes to mislead. They never fixed those problems and are in the same boat as Catholicism.
The vision was sealed...
 
Imo, as a form of censoring in order prevent anyone from reading an enemy text and seeing in them connections to things in scripture which would then be understood. And then those who do could be bullied and labeled.



These were tricky ideas esau instituted
and overlaid onto scripture
to alter His Words
and prevent us from meeting Christ.
what is so tricky about lies is that they resemble the truth ...

so sola scriptura would makes sense if it referred to only what God said...
 
Why do we hold so strongly to doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide when, prior to the Reformation, many (if not most) in the church didn’t?
It is a reaction to RCC corruption, which usurped Christ’s authority on Earth.

RCC holds that they merely clarified doctrine informally held since the beginning.

The EOC hold to a mystical spiritual journey and find no need to go beyond the revealed word.

I do lik threads that ponder the fallibility of doctrines one adheres to. There is something humbling in it.
 
It is a reaction to RCC corruption, which usurped Christ’s authority on Earth.

RCC holds that they merely clarified doctrine informally held since the beginning.

The EOC hold to a mystical spiritual journey and find no need to go beyond the revealed word.

I do lik threads that ponder the fallibility of doctrines one adheres to. There is something humbling in it.
I didnt understand what you meant by 'eoc'
is that eastern orthodox ?

Anyway, all these denominations will go away soon.
 
How do Protestants justify their belief in sola fide (salvation by faith alone) if it didn’t exist prior to the sixteenth-century? How do Catholics explain their belief in the Assumption of Mary when it wasn’t dogmatized until the twentieth-century? How does Eastern Orthodox justify their under-developed beliefs and tendency to punt to “mystery”? What’s going on with all this changing doctrine?


Free Video – Session 1 from the Church History Boot Camp




How we answer these questions is our doctrine about the development of doctrine itself. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics have to account for the way truth has been progressively understood over time. Here are the problems each tradition faces:


Protestant Problems​


Why do we hold so strongly to doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide when, prior to the Reformation, many (if not most) in the church didn’t? The typical answer is “because the Bible is clear about these teachings”. While true, it causes us to wonder, if the Bible was so clear, why did these doctrines take so long to develop?




Catholic Problems​


In 1950, the doctrine of The Assumption of Mary was dogmatized in Catholicism, and enforced under pain of excommunication. However, it finds no biblical warrant and little support in church history. In fact, the first mention of the Assumption of Mary we find in church history isn’t until the fifth-century. Why wasn’t it heard of before this? Why did it take so long for it to become dogma? This is only one of the many doctrinal “developments” Catholicism must explain. Here is a partial list:


  • Doctrine of Purgatory
  • Dogmatization of the seven sacraments and the specific role they play in one’s salvation in the Middle Ages.
  • Papal infallibility
  • The Marian Dogmas
  • What “outside the Church there is no salvation” meant (pre and post-Vatican II).



Both Catholics and Protestants face the same question: What about those who came before? Why didn’t they understand or emphasize these issues to the same degree?


Eastern Orthodox Problems​


Eastern Orthodoxy has a very different approach to doctrinal development. In short, they don’t really believe in it, at least not in the way we’ve been talking about it. They hold that the fullness of doctrine was developed in the first few centuries of the church. All future developments are deemed novel and/or heretical. In short, if the early church didn’t articulate it, neither should we.




What’s the problem with this perspective? It sounds good. The difficulty is that the early church articulated doctrine only to the degree that those doctrines were challenged. In other words, there wasn’t enough time for all doctrines to be fully established, challenged, and refined in the first few centuries.




Because of their perspective on doctrinal development Eastern Orthodox have difficulty with:


  • The meaning of the atonement
  • The instrumental cause of salvation
  • The canon of Scripture
  • The authority in the Church
  • The “ransom to Satan” theory of the atonement

They’re frozen in the past. Issues that weren’t dogmatized and articulated in the first few centuries are doomed to a perpetual state of apophatic necessity. In other words, just insert the word “mystery”, and you’ll be fine.https://credohouse.org/blog/changing-doctrine-how-can-anyone-justify-this
The issue is not whether or not a term or phrase can be found in the Bible or when it was first coined, but whether it refers to concept that is taught by the Bible. For example, the authors of the Bible could have taught a concept that is in accordance with the "Trinity" even if they never referred to it as such.
 
The issue is not whether or not a term or phrase can be found in the Bible or when it was first coined, but whether it refers to concept that is taught by the Bible. For example, the authors of the Bible could have taught a concept that is in accordance with the "Trinity" even if they never referred to it as such.
God doesn't use lingo words ever...

where it is easy to understand that

Souls can cooperate with God.
 
and what is the trinity ? simply three gorgeous Beings
He, His Spirit and His Son...
all having His type of Nature, that of paradise which soon we will be restored to

Simple words are better... and no need for aristotelian pretzels
like substance or persons or what have you...
 
Christ has His Same Nature and so does His Spirit..
that's all we need.

no need for weird theological sorcery.
 
I don't see why anyone would accept to alter His words by ever using words He did not give.
That is sorcery.
 
Back
Top Bottom