![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/06\/Development-552x828.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Development of Christian doctrine is a subject near and dear to my heart, as it was John Henry Cardinal Newman\u2019s book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine<\/em><\/a>, which played the largest role in my decision to convert to Catholicism.\u00a0The following is a transcript of a May 1, 1999 interview via telephone with Dick Kelley, host for a Connecticut Catholic apologetics television show called Pillar of Truth<\/em> (my black-and-white mug shot appeared on the screen).<\/p>\n Development isn\u2019t often talked or written about \u2014 even in apologetic circles \u2013, for some reason, which is sad, I think, because I regard it as the key factor in understanding Catholic history, and why Catholicism appears so \u201cextravagant\u201d and \u201cexcessive\u201d compared to the \u201clean and clean\u201d version of \u201cmere Christianity\u201d which is Protestantism. The interview was approximately 25 minutes long. The audio file of the interview is also available as a free download<\/a> (but it is of relatively poor quality). My book above<\/a> is also available (as low as $2.99 for an ePub or mobi file)<\/p>\n Dick\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n Q: Tonight we have a guest with us. His name is David Armstrong. Dave is a convert to the Catholic faith. He converted in the early 1990s, from evangelical Protestantism. Dave is also a free-lance writer. He\u2019s a frequent contributor to Marcus Grodi\u2019s Coming Home Network Newsletter<\/em>; also some other publications: Hands-On Apologetics<\/em>, This Rock<\/em> . . . <\/span><\/p>\n His conversion story appears in a book called Surprised by Truth<\/em>, which is edited and brought together by Patrick Madrid. The subtitle of it is: \u201cEleven Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for Becoming Catholic.\u201d Dave, welcome to Pillar of Truth!<\/span><\/p>\n A: Great to be here, thanks.<\/p>\n Q: One of the ways that I got to \u201cknow\u201d Dave is through his website, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism<\/em>. I get an awful lot of information out of that. Start us off by telling us, what is doctrine? Let\u2019s bring this down to a very simple level so we can all understand it. When we say the development of doctrine, what are we developing; what exactly is this doctrine, or any doctrine?<\/span><\/p>\n A: The Catholic Church would say there was one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the Apostles, and there\u2019s been no change in that, in terms of essence or substance; so the Catholic Church preserves that, and is the Guardian of it. But, on the other hand, there is a growth in depth of clarity, in the understanding of those truths, without essential change. In other words, the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. That\u2019s the main distinction to keep in mind when one is talking about development.<\/p>\n Q: Okay, so then doctrine would be something that was taught or was given to us by Jesus and the Apostles; is that correct?<\/span><\/p>\n A: Yes.<\/p>\n Q: The development of doctrine then is the maturing of this belief? Give us an example of the development of doctrine.<\/span><\/p>\n A: Okay. Protestants often talk about progressive revelation. When you read the Bible, if you start in Genesis, I think anyone would recognize immediately that that\u2019s a lot different from reading, say, John or Colossians. There\u2019s obviously a great development of the thought, and the theology. As an example, I would mention the idea of faith or salvation.<\/p>\n If you go back to Abraham, you have the Abrahamic Covenant, which basically is, Abraham believing in God, and as it says in the Bible, it is \u201creckoned unto him righteousness.\u201d Moving on from there, you have the notion of the chosen people, which is somewhat like election, as we would say as Christians now, or enabling grace from God. In other words, it\u2019s unmerited. God chose them and gave them grace for His purposes.<\/p>\n And you progress from there to the Davidic Covenant, which is an eternal covenant given by God to David. And you have, of course, Moses and the Law; the commandments. Then you move up from that to a notion of the Messiah. So that you see this development, where at first you didn\u2019t have much notion of the Incarnation or Jesus. They just didn\u2019t know that yet. Eventually you get to Isaiah 53, where you have the \u201csuffering servant.\u201d<\/p>\n To my knowledge, that\u2019s the first indication of what actually happened on the cross (there might be something here or there \u2014 like Psalms 22). So, that\u2019s a development all the way through the Old Testament, to the gospel being announced, with John the Baptist and Jesus Himself, and even then Jesus said, \u201cI came not to change the Law but to fulfill it.\u201d So in my mind that would be a very clear example of development in the Bible itself.<\/p>\n Q: So that Jesus, when He said that \u201cI came to fulfill,\u201d it\u2019s like He\u2019s bringing to a conclusion all the development that\u2019s occurred so far in the Old Testament.<\/span><\/p>\n A: Yes.<\/p>\n Q: God revealing Himself to the Jewish people . . . What would be an example of the Catholic development of doctrine? Something that was taught by Jesus and the Apostles, and has matured through the 2000 years of Catholic thinking?<\/span><\/p>\n A: First, I would mention Christology, for the reason that, basically all Christians are agreed on that aspect of theology: the nature of Christ and the Trinity. But this was definitely a development, because it wasn\u2019t explicit in the Bible. On my website, I have a lot of Scripture that would indicate the Trinity and Christology [Jesus as God], but if you didn\u2019t put it together in that way, it wouldn\u2019t jump right out at you from Scripture. So for that reason the Church had to develop it \u2014 and usually in response to heretics.<\/p>\n So you had, for example, the Nestorians, claiming that, basically, Jesus was two persons, where He was human and divine. They tried to make a distinction of persons. And the Church said \u201cno, that\u2019s not true. He\u2019s one Person, the God-Man.\u201d<\/p>\n And when the Church pondered the nature of Mary, it said Mary was the Theotokos<\/em>, which means \u201cGod-bearer,\u201d so she\u2019s the \u201cMother of God\u201d \u2014 that\u2019s where that came from. That was at the Council of Ephesus in 431. So this is an example of the heretics coming along, making a claim. The Church then reflects upon it, and rules against it. The Church decrees \u2014 by its apostolic authority \u2014 that the Christian teaching is that Jesus is the God-Man, with no separation.<\/p>\n And that was further elaborated upon in 20 years, at the council of Chalcedon in 451, which promulgated the notion of the Two Natures of Christ and the Hypostatic Union, where Jesus is God and Man, and there\u2019s no separation. That was in response to the Monophysite heresy, which held that Jesus had one nature. The Church ruled that He had Two Natures. And so, on and on, with all the heretics.<\/p>\n Q: If it wasn\u2019t for what we call the development of doctrine, we\u2019d have been in a mess!<\/span><\/p>\n A: Well, I think so.<\/p>\n Q: One of the issues that our anti-Catholic brothers and sisters like to emphasize is that the Catholic Church teaches so many things which are \u201cnot found in the Bible.\u201d For instance, you won\u2019t specifically see the Assumption of Mary in the pages of Scripture. That probably is \u2014 I imagine \u2014 a doctrine that is developed over the years. Where in Scripture does the Church receive its authority to do this? Is there any precedent from Jesus or one of the writers of the New Testament which says that this will occur, this development of doctrine? Where do we have permission to do this?<\/span><\/p>\n A: That\u2019s difficult to establish, in terms of an explicit passage. But the way I would defend it, is by what I\u2019ve already done: by showing that the Bible itself, in its own example, develops, so therefore the Church is merely continuing that process of developing thought. But there are a few passages, like the parable of the mustard seed (Mt 13:31-32), where the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, and it grows into a huge tree \u2014 so obviously there\u2019s a growth. And also the analogy of the Body of Christ. That implies that it is a living organism; therefore it grows (an increase of understanding). And you have the Holy Spirit, in John 14:26 and 16:13; Jesus says \u201cHe will lead you into all truth\u201d \u2014 the Paraclete, the Comforter.<\/p>\n Part of that is teaching. The Church learns things through the ages. There is no reason to think that all knowledge will cease after the apostles. We still reflect upon doctrines. Even the Protestant \u201cReformation,\u201d as they call it \u2014 I would call it a Revolution \u2014 pretty much presupposes that they think that they are a development. It\u2019s a new teaching, in terms of Church history, according to them. They really accept this, too, on their own terms.<\/p>\n Q: You made a good point, when you used the analogy of the growing body. Protestantism, unfortunately, would more resemble a statue, than a living body, because it doesn\u2019t grow.<\/span><\/p>\n A: That\u2019s right.<\/p>\n Q: What was the \u201cschema of Church history\u201d which you had constructed? What was the picture of the Church that you had in mind up till now?<\/span><\/p>\n A: Basically, it\u2019s what I call the \u201cProtestant myth.\u201d I don\u2019t use that word to say it\u2019s totally false, like Aesop\u2019s fables or something, but it\u2019s sort of a legend or picture that Protestants have of the early Church. The average Protestant thinks that the early Church basically was Protestant \u2014 with a few differences. They won\u2019t say that it looks like the 16th century. But they would say that the early Christians were much more Protestant than they were Catholic. So I just accepted that.<\/p>\n When you\u2019re a Protestant, you simply assume<\/em> these things. You don\u2019t pursue it, usually. So I had to come to grips with this sort of thing. I didn\u2019t like the Catholic Church. It seemed to have this excessive growth, that appeared to the outsider as a corruption. But what I didn\u2019t realize is that corruption can just as easily be subtraction from the received teachings of Christianity.<\/p>\n Either way, it\u2019s a corruption. An automobile that didn\u2019t have spark plugs, or gas, or brakes, would be a corrupt car. That\u2019s how I view Protestantism. Cardinal Newman gave me (as I see it) the key to Church history; how to understand a consistent development, compared to a corruption.<\/p>\n Q: So Newman struggled with it, too, then?<\/span><\/p>\n A: Yes, in his case, being Anglican, what he was working through was called the Via Media<\/em>, where they thought that Anglicanism was sort of a \u201cmiddle way\u201d between Catholic and Protestant. His studies of Church history led him to believe that it was thoroughly inconsistent; that this so-called \u201cmiddle way\u201d was not synonymous with orthodoxy. The Catholic Church had always been that, and was in his own time, by the same principle. The Protestants introduced a radical change of principle. They claimed to be going back to the early Church, but they\u2019re really not, because many of their teachings were never there.<\/p>\n For instance, I have a quote here from Norman Geisler, who\u2019s a well-known Protestant apologist. This is from his book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals<\/em>, which came out in 1995 \u2014 page 502. He states:\u00a0\u201cBetween the time of the Apostle Paul and the Reformation, scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness, or forensic justification.\u201d<\/p>\n Now that\u2019s a remarkable statement, in that it pretty much undermines the entire notion of the so-called \u201cReformation,\u201d which was supposed to be going back to early Church doctrine and bringing it back again (which is what the very word reform means). But he flat-out admits that it\u2019s never been there since the Apostle Paul [and Catholics would vigorously dispute that as well!]. Therefore, that particular doctrine is a corruption, not a development.<\/p>\n Q: We Christians sometimes don\u2019t want to change, even when we\u2019re shown to be wrong. Something that Newman wrote convinced you, and you were obedient enough that you did change your way of thinking, and were willing to admit that you were wrong. What was the force of Newman\u2019s argument? What was it that he was able to say to bring you to that point?<\/span><\/p>\n A: He makes a series of analogies, showing that the Catholic Church was orthodox, and the early heretics were not. For example, he explained that the heretics were known for Scripture Alone<\/em>, which is one of the Protestant pillars. They would appeal to Scripture, but Newman said the Church would appeal to not just Scripture, but also to the Fathers and Apostolic Succession, or Tradition. The patristic idea was that whatever is true Christian doctrine, can be shown to have been passed down historically.<\/p>\n So the Fathers would cite an early Church Father like St. Clement or St. Ignatius. This was a different principle of authority. Sola Scriptura<\/em> can\u2019t be found in the Fathers. But the way Newman really hit home with me was \u2014 I mentioned in my story \u2014 , was as follows: I used to picture Christianity or the Church as a ship. So Tradition would be like the barnacles underneath the ship.<\/p>\n Q: All the extras . . .<\/span><\/p>\n A: You have to get rid<\/em> of it; you have to scrape it out. But Tradition, rather than being the barnacles on the ship, is the rudder of the ship, or the guiding principle of the Church, as it passes through the \u201csea of history,\u201d so to speak. So development is the principle of a living, breathing Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit, and also the consciousness of the Church as a whole.<\/p>\n And Newman writes about the laity \u2014 that\u2019s a theme of his, what\u2019s called the sensus fidelium<\/em> in Latin: the \u201csense of the faithful.\u201d It\u2019s difficult to briefly summarize but his arguments made it very clear to me that the Catholic Church always was the Church, and the papacy was at the center of orthodoxy with a small \u201co\u201d.<\/p>\n Q: We could probably say that the Bible is actually an example of development of doctrine.<\/span><\/p>\n A: Oh, for sure.<\/p>\n Q: How did we get our Bible, Dave?<\/span><\/p>\n A: A lot of Protestant views of Scripture or variants of sola Scriptura<\/em> are more or less like Islam, where Muhammad receives the Koran out of heaven. In other words, it\u2019s written by God, without the involvement of human beings and Tradition. But, of course, anyone who knows Church history at all knows that\u2019s not true, that the canon of Scripture is a development, that lasted some 350 years, and the Bible we have today was finalized only in 397 at the Council of Carthage. James and Revelation, for example, were accepted very late. Right up to the late 4th century they were being disputed.<\/p>\n And other Fathers accepted books that later weren\u2019t in the canon, like the epistles of Barnabas and Clement. So it\u2019s definitely a human process; it\u2019s a Church authority issue, and this is where Protestants have a huge problem, of what might be called epistemology, because they appeal to Scripture Alone, yet Scripture itself talks about Tradition (which is another issue). But also that the canon of Scripture isn\u2019t in the Bible. That\u2019s obvious, too, but they just accept it. I don\u2019t think they really analyze it closely enough.<\/p>\n Q: Of all the doctrines which had developed over the years, was there any one in particular that you really had to struggle with?<\/span><\/p>\n A: Yeah; I would say that that\u2019s infallibility. For several months I tried to refute that, because I thought it was ridiculous, on the face of it \u2014 someone claiming to be infallible . . . As a corollary to that, I would say, the Inquisition was what bothered me the most. To me that was a disproof of the divine origin of the Catholic Church. But then later I studied the \u201cReformation\u201d and I saw that they committed far worse atrocities than the Catholics did, while claiming to be the \u201creformers\u201d and more \u201cpure,\u201d etc.<\/p>\n So I concluded that that issue was a wash; that no one can claim any sort of moral superiority. Everyone\u2019s a sinner; the Church has never claimed to be sinless. I studied infallibility for almost a year, and Newman \u2014 again \u2014 was the one who helped me resolve that, because he showed that these things were consistent developments, rather than corruptions, even though they appeared to be much larger \u2014 as if they were corruptions of doctrine.<\/p>\n Q: Thank you very much for joining us this evening, and I\u2019ll be in touch again.<\/span><\/p>\n A: Alright.<\/p>\n Q: Thank you, Dave.<\/span><\/p>\n A: God bless.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n (originally 5-1-99)<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Development of Christian doctrine is a subject near and dear to my heart, as it was John Henry Cardinal Newman\u2019s book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which played the largest role in my decision to convert to Catholicism.\u00a0The following is a transcript of a May 1, 1999 interview via telephone with Dick […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":19922,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1567],"tags":[246,3102,2652,3618,2336],"class_list":["post-19919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-development-of-doctrine-2","tag-development-of-doctrine","tag-doctrinal-development","tag-history-of-christian-doctrine","tag-history-of-theology","tag-john-henry-newman"],"yoast_head":"\n