![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2025\/02\/MadonnaRaphael5.jpg\")
<\/a>\n1) virtually no one, Protestant or Catholic, cares about such an exhaustive treatment of the Fathers;<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n*
\n2) very few in either group care about, or even understand<\/em>\u00a0in the most rudimentary way, development of doctrine (my favorite topic in theology, by the way, and the biggest factor in my becoming Catholic), that this subject necessarily involves;<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n*
\n3) I know that it\u2019s exceedingly unlikely, based on almost universal past experience of thirty years, that you or any other Protestant apologist, would reply and interact with anything I might produce by way of counter-reply. So, e.g., Jordan Cooper tells me he has no time to counter-reply to my 18 or so critiques of his videos. Gavin Ortlund has only replied once to over 30 critiques. He, too, says he has no time for it and cites priorities, etc.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\nIt\u2019s fine to be good stewards. I do the same thing. But what I\u2019m saying is that for me to undertake a project this huge, which virtually no one would care about or read, and which would almost certainly receive no reply back, is, in the end, not worth the huge amount of time and effort this would require, seeing that there are hundreds of other things in apologetics and theology to write about or discuss (on my new YouTube channel<\/a> with Kenny Burchard).
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nIn the meantime, my analogical mind immediately thought of a similar situation that is the Protestants\u2019 \u201cproblem\u201d just as this is ours to work through. Protestants, too, claim that the Church fathers are more on their side than ours. Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz certainly thought that, and non-Lutherans like Calvin did as well, and I hear this repeated times without number by Protestant apologists, such as Cooper and Ortlund, Jason Engwer, and many others. In other words, judging by the grandiose patristic claims that also regularly come from your side (largely in reaction to us), you, too, have the intellectual burden of having to demonstrate that the fathers espoused your<\/em>\u00a0distinctive (and I say, novel and late-arriving) views. Thus, I could paraphrase your own words as follows:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\u201cOur Protestant friends are as fond as we are of making grand appeals to history and the consensus of the Church\u2019s theologians down through the ages. But could they truly argue that the consensus of the theologians is on their side when it comes to their two \u201cpillars\u201d: sola Scriptura<\/em> and sola fide<\/em>?\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nWhen it comes to these two \u201cpillars\u201d of the Reformation, it\u2019s exceedingly difficult to demonstrate virtually any patristic espousal at all<\/em>, let alone a supposed \u201cconsensus.\u201d I contend that it\u2019s much more<\/em>\u00a0difficult than our task with regard to Mary\u2019s sinlessness, as developed over a long period into the Immaculate Conception. I myself have \u2014 through many hundreds of hours of work \u2014 collected scores and scores of evidences that the Church fathers en masse<\/em> rejected both. But I can also draw from Protestant experts on the topic. Hence, Alister McGrath, widely considered the foremost authority on the history of justification, made the following observation:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nWhereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, \u2018justifying righteousness\u2019 is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former \u2018justification\u2019 and the latter \u2018sanctification\u2019 or \u2018regeneration.\u2019 For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\nThe importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. . . .<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\nThe Council of Trent . . . reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther\u2019s thought . . . . Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process . . .\u201d (Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction<\/em>, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nProtestant apologist Norman Geisler makes an even more striking observation:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nOne can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . . (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences<\/em>, with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 222)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\nIn other words, goose and gander, pot calling the kettle black, etc. You guys make your arguments against Marian doctrines and other distinctively Catholic positions, and we offer similar ones back, about distinctively Protestant positions. Yet Protestants only very rarely are willing to produce any counter-replies when we make our arguments along these lines, which in turn is one of the reasons why I\u2019m disinclined to reply to this article of yours. \u201cNo one\u201d would read it or care about it, and almost certainly no one \u2014 who is able to \u2014 would reply to whatever I came up with.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nWe all must be wise stewards of our time and efforts. In an ideal world, where everyone loved debate and dialogue and the exchange of ideas, and loved to back up their own opinions under intense scrutiny, I would like few things more than to discuss this and many other theological topics for months on end, with able and willing dialogue opponents, but I don\u2019t expect that that will ever happen, because it takes two . . .<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\nThank you for your reply. I\u2019m sorry you haven\u2019t been able to have the robust back-and-forths that you\u2019ve been wanting to have with Protestant apologists.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nI can certainly understand how much of a bummer it is to put a lot of effort into a robust response while receiving no interaction in return. I, myself, am also very busy spinning a lot of plates (with my YT channel, my job, other projects, family, etc\u2026), but at the very least, I would like to interact with your comment here.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nI haven\u2019t done a deep-dive into all the relevant sources regarding Justification yet, so I can\u2019t provide a lengthy, in-depth analysis of the historical data at the moment. That being said, I wouldn\u2019t agree with the idea that the Lutheran understanding of Justification is a clear break with the past. Alister McGrath isn\u2019t the only Protestant scholar who has done work on this issue. Additionally, McGrath also didn\u2019t survey every single Patristic writing (realistically, who could though!) and his analysis of the sources isn\u2019t uncontested. See here for a brief interaction with McGrath by a fellow Lutheran:<\/span>
\n*<\/div>\n\u201cThe Lutheran Doctrine of Justification in a Patristic Perspective: A Critique of Alister McGrath\u2019s Iustitia Dei<\/em>\u201c<\/a> (Mikkel S\u00f8tb\u00e6k<\/a>, The Conservative Reformer<\/em>, 7-15-24)
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nDo you have an article detailing your case for doctrinal development? If so, I\u2019d like to read it. When it comes to understanding the Roman Catholic understanding of doctrinal development, what are some of your favorite resources (books, videos, articles) that you would recommend?<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\n\nDelighted to see your reply!<\/p>\n
There are always, of course, other scholars who disagree with any given scholar. That\u2019s where it gets fun! I think it\u2019s striking that statements such as the ones I cited from McGrath and Geisler exist at all. I believe that Jordan Cooper said in one of his videos that I\u2019ve critiqued, if I recall correctly (and I think I do), that the Lutheran conception of justification was only fully developed in the 16th century (and that this was okay). I\u2019m sure you could find bits and pieces of imputed justification here and there in the fathers and medieval theologians, but nowhere within a million miles of a consensus, even if McGrath\u2019s views aren\u2019t entirely accurate.<\/p>\n
Also, our view of what we call initial justification is essentially the same. In this respect, even Trent allows some degree of imputation. Initial justification is entirely monergistic. Trent is very explicit and clear about that. Our concern is with the post-regenerate person\u2019s life, and what he or she is responsible for then (and good works are a necessary part of that).<\/p>\n
And so, if I\u2019m correct about that, you\u2019re basically in the same boat that you claim we\u2019re in: you firmly believe a doctrine that is hard to find before Melanchthon (not even fully in Luther, who talked about theosis), just as you would say our Marian doctrines are late-arriving, and corruptions rather than developments. And the same goes for sola Scriptura<\/em>. So that is one turn-the-tables reply. I\u2019m not saying it nullifies<\/em> your argument against us; just that Protestants also have similar \u201cproblems\u201d<\/em> in locating their distinctive views in historical theology.<\/p>\n
As for resources on development, I have a web page devoted to it<\/a>, including several introductory treatments and more in-depth stuff.\u00a0I also wrote a book on the topic<\/a>, way back in 2002.\u00a0I\u2019ll send you a free e-book version of that if you like (pdf, mobi, or ePub). Cardinal Newman\u2019s essay on development is the classic treatment, and it\u2019s free online.<\/a> Nothing else comes to mind, but on Amazon, these three looked interesting:<\/p>\n
A Brief Introduction to the Development of Doctrine: According to the Mind of St. Thomas Aquinas<\/em><\/a> (Fr. Thomas Gilby<\/a>, March 2023)<\/p>\n
Vincent of L\u00e9rins and the Development of Christian Doctrine<\/em><\/a> (Thomas G. Guarino<\/a>, May 2013)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
St. Vincent was basically Newman\u2019s jumping-off point, as he developed his theory.<\/p>\n
The Development of Dogma: A Systematic Account<\/em><\/a> (Guy Mansini<\/a>, Jan. 2024)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Here are five meaty and good Catholic articles:<\/p>\n
What Does it Mean for Doctrine to Develop?<\/a> (Fr. Thomas Weinandy, Catholic Answers<\/em>, 5-2-20)<\/p>\n
The Difference Between Development and Change<\/a> (Eduardo, Echeverria, Catholic Answers<\/em>, 6-15-20)<\/p>\n
Newman, Aquinas, and the Development of Doctrine<\/a> (Joshua Madden, Homiletic & Pastoral Review<\/em>, 6-30-21)<\/p>\n
Development of Doctrine and St. Vincent of Lerins<\/a> (Joe Heschmeyer, Catholic Answers<\/em>, 12-29-22)<\/p>\n
On the relevance and reality of the development of doctrine today<\/a> (Fr. Thomas Weinandy, The<\/em> Catholic World Report<\/em>, 1-18-24)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\nI will at least do a partial reply-article consisting of Newman\u2019s thoughts on the patristic and later development of the belief in Mary\u2019s sinlessness and Immaculate Conception, drawn from one or more of my three quotations books devoted to St. Cardinal Newman.<\/p>\n
God bless!<\/p>\n
Thank you for the lengthy reply!<\/span><\/p>\n
Part of my interest in this article was in asking the question: Does every Roman Catholic dogma pass the \u201cconsensus of the fathers\u201d check? (With the Immaculate Conception as a case study); especially since that check is very often levied by RC laymen against all sorts of Protestants on all sorts of issues (whether accurate or not). As such, it was intended to be a bit of an internal critique of sorts. I need to do a lot more reading before I make up my own mind on the subject of doctrinal development and put forth my own positive construction on the issue (and the ways it may relate to doctrines such as Sola Fide).<\/span><\/p>\n
In line with that, I will certainly check out the resources you\u2019ve linked (probably a little later once I\u2019m done working on a few projects I have going at the moment). If you do write an article on this, I\u2019ll also try to make time to read it as promptly as my schedule allows.<\/span><\/p>\n
Thanks again for the charitable interaction.<\/span><\/p>\n
Well, the short answer to your question is that we think doctrines develop at different rates. The Immaculate Conception obviously developed very slowly. The first motif was \u201cNew Eve\u201d or \u201cSecond Eve\u201d. Newman notes that pre-fallen Eve \u2014 like Adam \u2014 was a sinless person; therefore the patristic analogy, which he describes as \u201cexplicit\u201d presupposes a sinless Mary. If that\u2019s true, then it\u2019s present in that sense every time we see this common theme in the fathers.<\/p>\n
On a broad scale, Catholics agree that Jesus was front and center, both in the NT and in the fathers. That\u2019s our answer if asked why there is so little about Mary in the NT. Trinitarianism was still being importantly developed in the 6th and even 7th centuries. The Christological heresy of Monophysitism<\/a> was still present in the 6th century, and Monothelitism<\/a> extended all the way to the Third Council of Constantinople<\/a> in 681, where it was condemned. So we\u2019re talking about some 650 years after Christ just to get trinitarianism and the deity of Christ right once and for all. A lot of folks (including in vast areas in the East, still didn\u2019t fully get it) Once that was established, folks thought relatively more about Mary and many other topics of theology, and development quickened as a result. First things first, in other words.<\/p>\n
By the time of III Constantinople, Germanus, from the same city was alive (c. 634-c. 733), and he even taught the doctrine of Mary Mediatrix. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church<\/em> (1983, ed. Cross), stated that \u201cMary\u2019s incomparable purity, foreshadowing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception\u201d was a \u201cfrequently recurring\u201d theme in his writing (see p. 561).<\/p>\n
Likewise, Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740) wrote about how \u201chuman nature . . . regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God\u201d (Homily 1 on Mary\u2019s Nativity<\/em>)\u00a0and described Mary as \u201calone wholly without stain\u201d (Canon for the Conception of Anne<\/em>).<\/p>\n
Marian scholar Hilda Graef, a source that appeared once in your article, noted that \u201caccording to John of Damascus [c. 675-749], even the \u2018active\u2019 conception of Mary was completely without stain . . .\u201d: a position that even goes beyond what the Catholic dogma holds (which is that her immaculate conception had nothing to do with her parents at all). Thus, these last two writers express pretty much the fully developed<\/em> doctrine of Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception, around the same time as trinitarian debates were wrapping up, or only shortly thereafter.<\/p>\n
So Catholics ask Protestants, in Newmanian analogical style: \u201cif even trinitarianism<\/em> was fully developed as late as 681, why is it an issue that Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception was first explicitly<\/em> expressed (as far as we know) around the same time<\/em>?\u201d If one thing is okay, so is the other. One can\u2019t accept late development only of Protestant distinctives or doctrines where we agree. The same analysis and standard has to be used across the board.<\/p>\n
What I\u2019ve always argued is that the sinlessness of Mary (which is the essence of her immaculate conception) is biblical, based on Luke 1:28<\/a> (\u201cfull of grace\u201d \/ kecharitomene<\/em>\u201c) and the analogies of others also sanctified in the womb<\/a> (John the Baptist, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Paul). Sinlessness is the original essential kernel. The thought then developed over many centuries, just as almost every other doctrine did. But a few doctrines seem almost fully developed early on; for example, baptism and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, where Lutherans and Catholics agree. Others, like original sin or the Two Natures of Christ, took many centuries.<\/p>\n
But some fathers are simply wrong about things. St. Augustine was wrong about double predestination (again, we agree there). Even \u201cunanimous consent\u201d<\/a> doesn\u2019t literally mean that, in the Latin. It means \u201coverall consensus.\u201d<\/p>\n
There are many relevant factors concerning Mary\u2019s sinlessness in the fathers that I will at least briefly allude to in my reply paper, that will primarily concentrate on Newman\u2019s thoughts.<\/p>\n
This whole thing interested me because my two favorite topics in theology are development of doctrine and Mary.<\/p>\n
Thanks for your charitable demeanor as well.<\/p>\n
*
\n***
\n*<\/p>\nPractical Matters<\/strong><\/em>:\u00a0 I run the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site:\u00a0rated #1\u00a0for Christian sites<\/a>\u00a0by leading AI tool, ChatGPT \u2014 endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or\u00a0fifty-six books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic\u00a0<\/a>or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>, or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>. If you believe my\u00a0full-time apostolate<\/a>\u00a0is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address:\u00a0apologistdave@gmail.com. Here\u2019s also a\u00a0second page to get to PayPal<\/a>. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including\u00a0Zelle<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0100% tax-deductible donations<\/strong>\u00a0if desired), see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nYou can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my\u00a0YouTube<\/em>\u00a0channel,\u00a0Catholic Bible Highlights<\/em><\/a>, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos<\/a>), and\/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, \u201cSign Me Up!\u201d\u00a0Thanks a million!<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n