“You cannot bear it now” and the development of doctrine
Imagine this scene: Jesus is with his disciples at the Last Supper, and he begins to teach them:
“I am God the Son, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God. I am eternally begotten and of one substance with the Father. God is actually three persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – but only one divine nature. I am one divine person, but I have both a human nature and a divine nature.”
At this point I can just see Peter scratching his head, looking over at John, and going “huh?”
Of course, Jesus didn’t say the above, even though all of it is true, and is actually the bedrock of Christian belief about the Godhead and Jesus Christ. In today’s Gospel reading, Jesus states quite plainly why he didn’t give such a speech: “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now”, but then he follows this disappointing statement with a promise: “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.” (John 16:12-13).
This is the foundation for the concept of development of doctrine. The mysteries of God are infinite, but the human mind is quite finite. Thus God simply cannot reveal all truth about Himself and His work immediately, but instead must do so incrementally. We see this clearly in the Old Testament, as God slowly leads His children to a deeper understanding of His nature as a loving and merciful God, and also prepares them for the coming of His Son. After the Revelation of Jesus Christ, there is no need for further revelation, but there is a need for a deeper understanding of that revelation. And that quest for deeper understanding can be a long, drawn-out process. As Jaroslav Pelikan, author of The Christian Tradition, a five-volume work on the development of Christian doctrine, once said,
For those who believe that you don’t need tradition because you have the Bible, the Christian Tradition has sought to say, “You are not entitled to the beliefs you cherish about such things as the Holy Trinity without a sense of what you owe to those who worked this out for you.” To circumvent Saint Athanasius on the assumption that if you put me alone in a room with the New Testament, I will come up with the doctrine of the Trinity, is naive. So for these readers I have tried to provide a degree of historical sophistication, which is, I believe, compatible with an affirmation of the central doctrines of Christian faith.
An understanding of the Christian mysteries entails hard work, especially for those who first received them. We do not live in a Matrix-style world, in which God simply dumps information into our minds; instead we are made to learn by meditating over information over a period of time. And in the case of the doctrine of the Trinity, it took over 300 years – with the guidance of the Spirit of Truth – to finally come to even a basic understanding of that mystery that could be put into human language.
The greatest expositor of the concept of the development of doctrine is of course John Henry Cardinal Newman. It was in fact his recognition of the development of doctrine that led him into the Catholic Church. He studied the early Church and realized that it was the earlier form of the modern Catholic Church – not identical, but instead a younger version of itself. Just like in his middle age he was not identical to his youthful self, so too the Church grows and develops over time.
But this growth is not haphazard and completely dependent upon sinful, finite man. No, Jesus promises us a guide: the Spirit of Truth. He will make sure that the Church comes to the correct understanding of the divine mysteries. He does not promise that it will not be a long, difficult journey at times, or that some people will not attempt to lead the Church down the wrong path, but he does promise that we will eventually be led to “all truth”.
For those interested in studying more about the development of doctrine, I recommend two works:
An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine – John Henry Cardinal Newman
The Christian Tradition – Jaroslav Pelikan (a five-volume series; link is to the first volume)
Great insight, Eric.
Excellent points!
Great article!
So – scripture, which too many insist is sole authority, testifies against itself as sola scriptura as right out of Christ’s mouth. And, additionally, this is why at 1Timothy 3:15 we have the testimony that “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, [is] the pillar and bulwark of the truth. “
Eric – you have only given us here at best half a loaf, because you do not address the point that the Church has always taught that Revelation occurred – it is done, over, and the Church is the repository of that Faith once delivered. Seriously, you could be a Mormon for what you said about Dev.of Doctrine, as the Mormons say the same. Of course ,they have no bulwark against innovation to the True Faith once delivered, as it develops for them too. This was Newman’s weakest area in his dev of doctrine, as he only very, very reluctantly came up with a “it must be so, because there’s a hole otherwise” bulwark, namely ultra-montanism.
Stephen,
I’ll say two things in response:
1) This is a blog post, and so it is not going to be an in-depth study of the issue. I am just scratching the surface of the topic.
2) I do in fact explicitly address the issue you bring up:
We see this clearly in the Old Testament, as God slowly leads His children to a deeper understanding of His nature as a loving and merciful God, and also prepares them for the coming of His Son. After the Revelation of Jesus Christ, there is no need for further revelation, but there is a need for a deeper understanding of that revelation. (emphasis added)
There is no further revelation after the death of the apostles, and development of doctrine is simply a deeper understanding of that revelation of which the Church is the repository. This is quite different from the belief of the Mormons that new revelation has come to us through Joseph Smith and his successors.
Eric, the risk with development of doctrine is the slippery slope it creates in allowing for innovation to that repository. I as an individual am certainly in constant and ongoing need to have a “deeper understanding”; but to project my deficiency onto the Church by saying the Church too needs a deeper understanding seems to be full of hubris. Does the Church not know Herself and Her Groom? Are you really saying that?
Stephen,
I agree that the risk of development of doctrine is that some might abuse it to advocate innovation. But the abuse of something does not invalidate its proper use. Furthermore, I trust the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from that risk.
And note that I am not saying anything about the Church that she does not say about herself. In Dei Verbum, the Council Fathers wrote, “To bring about an ever deeper understanding of revelation the same Holy Spirit constantly brings faith to completion by His gifts” (emphasis added).
My wife has been married to me for almost fifteen years now. During that time she has deepened her understanding of me. In a like fashion, the Church – consisting of human men and women – has deepened her understanding of her Groom over the centuries.
Eric, what I find unsettling is the contrast between the Council Fathers of the mid-20th century in their tone and approach versus every single prior proclamation of any assemblage of their predecessors, who first and foremost claimed to pass down only what they themselves had received. The pre-20th century fathers posited the legitimacy and validation of their proclamations on adherence to what had be claimed and proclaimed heretofore – without innovation. Do you ever, I mean ever, hear any of them over the course of 1900 years talk about some deeper understanding of revelation, which implies that those who came before knew less? I’ve yet to find it.
Stephen,
You are right that previous councils used language that only emphasized the Church as repository of the faith. But just a cursory glance at history shows that it is irrefutable that the Church’s understanding of revelation has developed. Otherwise, you would have to argue that Peter and Paul would have understood the Greek philosophical language behind the Trinity or Transubstantiation!
Vatican II does not reject the fact that the Church is the repository of the Faith, and that fact does not have to conflict with the belief in development of doctrine. They are both true and complementary. Furthermore, either belief can be taken to an extreme and abused. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit guides the Church – especially during Church councils like Vatican II – to make sure that she does not go to such extremes in her official pronouncements.
Eric, how do you know that Peter and Paul did not? The point seems irrelevant. What is important is what Peter and Paul believed and taught, and that this has remain unchanged till now.
So what evidence is there to support the contention that it is “irrefutable that the Church’s understanding of revelation has developed.”?
Stephen,
As just one example, read the Church Fathers’ writing on the Trinity from the 2nd century through the 5th. It is clear that their understanding of this mystery developed over time. They accepted from the beginning what they were handed on – that the Father was God, that Jesus was God, and that the Holy Spirit was God, although there was only one God. Yet they did not always know how to explain that or what exactly that meant. It was only after three hundred years of prayerful reflection, assimilation of Greek philosophical ideas, as well as serious debates in the 4th century that the Church was able to define the Trinity as we know it today. That’s development of doctrine in practice. A first century Jew like Peter or Paul simply didn’t have the tools or the time necessary to make that definition. That doesn’t mean that their faith is inferior to ours, just that we are able to stand on their shoulders – and the shoulders of giants like Athanasius – to express our faith in a more developed fashion.
Eric, you wrote. “Yet they did not always know how to explain that or what exactly that meant.” Again, don’t you think such a statement to be presumptuous and hubristic? How does anyone know whether they had to explain it or not? Or can say what they knew or what something meant? The Christological and Trinitarian dogmas were proclaimed because threats to the faith once delivered arose within the Church, and the Fathers defended that faith via conciliar, synodal and episcopal teachings. But this is a far cry from saying that these Post-Nicene generations – or ours – had a better understanding than the Apostles.
I don’t think it is presumptuous or hubristic because I’ve read what they have written. Read Justin Martyr or Irenaeus or Tertullian or Origen on the Godhead. Their understanding of the Trinity is going in the right direction, but at the same time it is not complete or as fully developed as Athanasius or, even more so, Aquinas. If the Church’s understanding of the Faith is static, as you seem to indicate, then their writings should be as fully developed in this area as those who come after them.
[...] been fascinated by the topic of the development of Christian doctrine. Not long ago, I wrote a post about the New Testament foundations for this concept. But typically when one speaks of the [...]
Pingback by Development of doctrine in the New Testament? « Divine Life – A Blog by Eric Sammons — June 4, 2010 @ 7:42 amEric, I ask you to distinguish between what various Church fathers have written, and what the Church has proclaimed in prayer. The latter is where one goes to understand what the Lord revealed, the Apostles proclaimed and the Fathers guarded. If that is static to you, then such is your definition. But the public, communal prayer life of the Church is where we first understand the deposit of faith. Your neo-Hegelianism (an unfolding human conscious where every generation acquires “understanding” which previous generations did not) is part of the spirit of the times, I understand, but we should be cautious of letting anything but the Church understand Herself.
[...] I don’t think it was that simple, nor do I think that is how God usually works in this world. As I have written before, the Church’s understanding of God and His works develops over time, and I think the primacy [...]
Pingback by Why Rome? « Divine Life – A Blog by Eric Sammons — June 21, 2010 @ 8:10 am