Program / Course 12: Patristics and Historical Theology / Lesson 7.4
What you will learn
- Explain the difference between development, change and corruption of doctrine.
- Summarize Vincent of Lerins’s rule and Newman’s tests for genuine development.
- Describe how Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions each understand continuity.
- Apply a six-step method for tracing one doctrine through the periods of this course.
The big idea
Every Christian tradition claims to teach the faith received from the apostles, yet every tradition has words, practices and definitions that the apostles did not use. The question is how to tell a true growth of the same faith from a departure from it. Thinkers from Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century to John Henry Newman in the nineteenth have proposed tests, and the traditions answer differently. Tracing a doctrine through history, using primary sources, is the way to see the evidence and to judge the claims fairly.
Key terms
- Development of doctrine
- The idea that the church’s understanding and statement of the faith can grow over time while remaining the same faith.
- Corruption
- In Newman’s usage, a change that destroys or distorts the original idea, as opposed to a true development that unfolds it.
- Tradition
- What is handed on. In Christian use it can mean the whole life of the church as it passes on the faith, or particular teachings and practices. Traditions differ on its authority.
- Dogma
- A teaching that a church holds to be revealed by God and formally defines as binding.
- Primary source
- A text written during the period being studied, such as a creed or a Father’s letter, as opposed to a later account about it.
- Anachronism
- Reading later ideas or words back into an earlier time.
- Semper reformanda
- Latin for always being reformed. A Protestant phrase for the church’s need for continued reform according to the Word of God.
Background
The question of change is as old as the church. In the fifth century, a monk named Vincent of Lerins, writing about the year 434, sought a rule to distinguish the true faith from novelty. He proposed that the church should hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all. He also recognized that doctrine can grow. He compared the growth to a child who becomes an adult: the person changes greatly and remains the same person. The church’s teaching should advance in understanding but not alter in meaning.
In the nineteenth century, John Henry Newman, an Anglican priest who became Catholic in 1845, took up the question in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. He saw that history shows doctrines developing, and argued that this is what should be expected of a living idea. He listed tests, or notes, to tell a true development from a corruption.
These are Catholic and Anglican voices, but the question belongs to every tradition. Orthodox and Protestant Christians also have to explain how they are faithful to the apostles while using terms like homoousios or justification by faith alone.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Three possibilities
When a teaching or practice in a later age differs from an earlier one, there are three possibilities. It may be a development: the same truth more clearly seen or stated. It may be a change: a real difference, which may be good or bad. Or it may be a corruption: a distortion that harms the original.
Which one it is depends on the standard used. Traditions differ on the standard. Catholics point to the living teaching authority of the church. Orthodox Christians point to the consensus of the Fathers and the councils, received by the whole church. Many Protestants point to Scripture as the final norm. A student can describe the evidence without taking sides on the standard, and should say clearly which standard each claim uses.
Step 2: Vincent and Newman
Vincent’s rule works well for doctrines held widely and early, such as the Trinity as defined. It is harder for questions on which the early church was divided or silent. Vincent himself allowed growth, using the language of progress and not alteration.
Newman proposed seven notes of genuine development: preservation of the idea’s type, continuity of its principles, power of assimilating new material, logical sequence, anticipation of its future, conservative action on its past, and chronic vigor. Critics say the tests are hard to apply and can be bent to defend a result decided beforehand. Supporters answer that no simple test is possible for a living reality and that the tests still offer a disciplined way to ask.
Step 3: How the traditions speak of continuity
Catholic teaching, at Vatican I and Vatican II, says that understanding of the revealed word grows through contemplation, study and the teaching of the bishops, but that the meaning of defined dogmas remains. Examples include the Marian definitions of 1854 and 1950 and papal infallibility in 1870. Orthodox and Protestant Christians generally do not accept these as developments of the apostolic faith.
Orthodox teaching holds that the faith was fully given and is preserved, not developed, and that the councils express it afresh against error. Yet Orthodox scholars also speak of the church’s living tradition. Protestants hold that the church must be tested by Scripture and be always reformed, and they often see medieval changes as corruptions. Yet Protestants also use later terms, such as Trinity and the two natures of Christ, that are not in Scripture.
Step 4: A method for tracing a doctrine
A practical method has six steps. First, define the doctrine in a short paragraph and note what each tradition says today. Second, find the biblical roots, noting texts used by every side. Third, trace the early church: find two or three early writers, read what they actually say and avoid reading later vocabulary into them. Fourth, trace the medieval and Reformation periods through key texts, such as a council, an Aquinas article, a confession. Fifth, note the modern forms. Sixth, compare and judge: list what has stayed, what has changed, what has been added and what has been lost, and state which standard you used.
At each step, quote the source, give a date and mark what is certain, what is debated and what is your own judgment.
Step 5: Avoiding common mistakes
Several mistakes recur. Anachronism reads later terms back into earlier writers, for example reading Nicene language into Justin. Cherry-picking quotes a line that supports a view and ignores the rest. Treating the winner’s account as neutral takes a later orthodoxy’s description of its opponents as fact. Treating silence as proof assumes that what a writer does not mention was unknown. And confusing development with progress assumes that later is better or worse without argument.
The remedy is humility: read widely, check translations, ask what the author was trying to do and let the sources push back. This course has tried to model the habit, and the final assignment asks the student to practice it.
- What would count as a faithful growth and what as a departure, in the standard of your own tradition?
- Is Vincent’s rule enough? What does it leave out?
- Which of Newman’s notes seems the most helpful, and why?
- How can a church claim both that nothing is added and that understanding grows?
- What examples of development or corruption come to mind in the history you have studied?
- Which common mistake are you most likely to make?
Examples
The word homoousios
A Protestant who accepts the Nicene Creed uses a word not in Scripture. They would say the word protects what Scripture teaches about Christ. This is a case that nearly all traditions treat as development.
The veneration of images
The seventh council defined the honor due to icons. Orthodox and Catholic Christians treat this as faithful development of the doctrine of the incarnation. Many Protestants see it as a departure. The standard used decides the answer.
The canon of Scripture
The list of the books of the New Testament was settled gradually in the first four centuries. Every tradition accepts the result, though they explain differently how the church recognized it and what it says about the authority of the church.
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholics hold that Christ promised to guide the church, so that a true development can be recognized by the church’s teaching office. Vatican II says that the tradition from the apostles makes progress in the church, as understanding grows through contemplation, study, experience and the teaching of bishops.
Orthodox
Orthodox Christians hold that the apostolic faith has been kept entire and that the councils express it, not add to it. They are wary of the language of development when it suggests new doctrines, though they affirm that the Spirit continues to guide the church and that the faith is lived in new ways.
Protestant
Protestants hold that Scripture is the supreme norm, to which the church’s teaching must always conform, and that traditions can be reformed. Many distinguish the early creeds from later developments, and some groups reject creeds entirely. They differ widely in how much weight to give tradition.
Scholarly views
Historians of doctrine such as Jaroslav Pelikan describe how teachings changed in their settings without ruling on truth. Some argue that the concept of development is itself a modern tool. Others use it to describe the evident fact that ideas grow, and they leave the theological verdict to the churches.
Why it matters
Almost every disagreement between Christians turns on this question: what counts as faithful change? A student who can ask it clearly, with evidence and without name-calling, is better prepared to read, to talk with others and to judge their own tradition honestly.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: The idea of doctrinal development is a Catholic invention.
Correction: Vincent of Lerins, an early monk, wrote about growth in doctrine. Newman gave it its modern form. All traditions face the question under other names.
Misunderstanding: If a doctrine grew, it must have been added later by mistake.
Correction: Growth can be faithful or unfaithful. Most Christians accept the Trinity as faithful, for instance, though the word is not in Scripture.
Misunderstanding: Historians can settle which developments are true.
Correction: Historians can show how doctrines arose and changed. Whether a change is faithful depends on a standard, which is a theological question.
Misunderstanding: Older always means more authentic.
Correction: Early texts are closer in time, but a later clarification may be a faithful answer to a new question. The tests above are meant to weigh this, not to assume it.
Knowledge check
What is Vincent of Lerins’s rule?
Writing around 434, Vincent said the church should hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all. He also allowed growth in doctrine, comparing it to a child growing into an adult who is the same person. The church’s understanding may advance, but the meaning must not change.
What did Newman add?
In his 1845 Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Newman argued that a living idea develops, and gave seven notes to distinguish genuine development from corruption: preservation of type, continuity of principles, power of assimilation, logical sequence, anticipation of the future, conservative action on the past and chronic vigor.
Why do traditions disagree about which developments are faithful?
They use different standards. Catholics point to the church’s living teaching authority, Orthodox Christians to the consensus of the Fathers and councils received by the whole church, and many Protestants to Scripture as the final norm. The same change can look like development under one standard and corruption under another.
Name three mistakes to avoid when tracing a doctrine.
Anachronism, which reads later words back into earlier writers; cherry-picking, which quotes only helpful lines; and treating silence as proof that a writer did not know something. Others include accepting the winner’s description of opponents as neutral and assuming that later means better or worse without argument.
Think it through
- What standard do you use, perhaps without noticing, to judge whether a change is faithful?
- Is it possible to hold a standard and still read the evidence fairly?
- Which doctrine would you most like to trace, and what do you expect to find?
- How would your answer change if you were a member of another tradition?
Independent assignment
Tracing a doctrine through history
Choose one doctrine: the Trinity, the person of Christ, original sin and grace, the atonement, the Eucharist, justification or the authority of Scripture. Follow the six-step method in this lesson and write 1,200 to 1,800 words in your notebook. Use at least four primary sources from the library, cite each by title and section, mark claims as certain, debated or your own judgment, and end by stating the standard you used to judge whether the doctrine developed, changed or was corrupted. Wait three days, then reread and mark every claim that needs a source or a date.
Further study
- Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (5 volumes) Use it to follow a doctrine through each period.
- J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines A reference for how early doctrines took shape.
- First Vatican Council, Decrees of the First Vatican Council (including Pastor Aeternus on papal primacy and infallibility) Read the section on faith and reason that speaks of growth in understanding.
- Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) See the Catholic account of the church’s teaching office.
- Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction A modern survey that follows doctrines across the periods.
- Jude 1:3 The faith once delivered unto the saints.
- John 16:13 The Spirit guides into truth.
- 2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words.