DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE?

 

Imagine with me this scenario:

Once upon a time in a far away land, there was this wonderful and mystical church.  And God was very pleased with it.  This church remained faithful to the Word of God, even in spite of persecution.  Then, one day the emperor of the land made it illegal to persecute the church any more.  Also, the emperor’s new laws allowed the teachings of the pagans to blend with the teachings of the church.  This immediately caused problems for the church, and as time went on, this church got farther and farther away from the Scriptures.  Over time, the leaders in the church grew more and more corrupt, and embraced many false doctrines that were unique to that church.  Then, one day a group of resisters arose and challenged the corruption and false teachings of this church.  The resisters demonstrated that this church’s teachings were no longer according to the Bible.  It soon became clear that the church’s arguments did not hold up to the reasoning of the resisters.  So, the church found a man who presented a new concept, proposing that the church’s teachings had developed over time.  And they told everyone, “That’s how come our teachings didn’t seem to line up with Scripture – they were there all along, but were simply in ‘seed form!’”  So, this “development” idea seemed to save the day for the church – but not everyone lived happily ever after…

Of course, anyone (Protestant or Catholic) can easily determine who the characters are in this story:

The church is the Church of Rome (later to become the Roman Catholic Church).  The emperor is Constantine.  The leaders are (mainly) the popes.  The resisters are the Protestants of the Reformation.  And the man who proposed the “development” theory is Cardinal John Henry Newman in the 1800’s.

Of course, some Catholics will say that this story/scenario is indeed a fairy tale.  But, in spite of its simplicity, I believe that this story is exactly what happened.

To Grow or Not to Grow

Many great minds (both Catholic and Protestant) have debated the topic of “development of doctrine” for a long time, so I don’t pretend to have all the answers.  I just want to present a simple case.  Catholics say that the development of doctrine does not mean that doctrine changes, but that it “grows” and its essence or substance remains over time (even if it looks different later on). 

They claim that all these uniquely Catholic teachings were there in Scripture the whole time.  They just needed to be drawn out by “development.”  You know, like an acorn becomes an oak tree.  It has the same DNA, i.e., the same essence, just a different appearance.  So, they would say that this is what happened to doctrines like Purgatory, papal primacy, the Marian doctrines, etc.

But a doctrine is either true or false from the beginning and it remains that way unless someone changes it.  It doesn’t grow or morph by itself into something more complex.  It is constant.  I don’t believe that a doctrine develops; only our understanding of it does!  But it is a corruption (not growth) when one’s doctrine ends up contradicting Scripture. 

What If?

Now who’s to say that Catholic doctrines will not undergo even further “development” later on?  For example, what if they “discover” one day that Mary’s mom was actually also immaculately conceived (like Mary was)?  Seems like a logical development, right?  Jesus was conceived without sin, therefore (they say) Mary had to be conceived without sin first.  If that’s the case, then why didn’t this also happen to Mary’s mother, and Mary’s grandmother, on and on, all the way back to Eve?  Given enough time, couldn’t this development of doctrine theory justify almost any form of “development” [read change]?  Yes, my friends, this theory is a slippery slope!

The Pagan Connection

I mentioned paganism in the beginning of this article.  It is very interesting that Newman, himself, admits that the Catholic Church has blended with paganism.  In his very famous book, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, he writes:

“We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion [Christianity] to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own… The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.” (Chap. 8, Section 2, Paragraph 6 – emphasis added)

See the online version here:

https://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html

So, again, Newman admits that many additions Rome made to Christianity were of pagan origin, i.e., they were pagan practices and rituals - some acceptable, some not so good.  Several of these are closely related to idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:14).  At the very least, they could be a stumbling block for others (1 Corinthians 8:9-13; 2 Corinthians 6:3).

Notice that Newman says they were “sanctified” by their adoption into the Church.  But author/theologian/philosopher, Norman Geisler in his article, “An Evaluation of John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” states:

“The Gospel does not “change” a false doctrine into a true one, nor take pagan practices and “make them right.”  (Emphasis in original) 

He also said:

“Newman’s theory of ‘development’ is a beautiful theory, but it is ruined by a brutal gang of facts about the Paganism that was adopted by Catholicism.  It is clearly a corruption of biblical truth, not a true development of it.”  See Geisler’s article here:

https://normangeisler.com/evaluation-jhnewman-dev-christian-doctrine/

The late Christian researcher Dave Hunt sounded this warning:

“In all pagan/nature religions there is a presumed cause-and-effect relationship between the ritual or ceremony performed and the obtaining of the power or healing or other blessing sought. The whole idea of pagan ceremonies — the rites of the shaman or witch, the burning of candles, the making of potions, the use of fetishes, etc. — is that they will (if done correctly) elicit a response from the gods or spirits.”

See here:

https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/paganism/

 

How to Become Catholic

According to the National Catholic Register :

 

“Blessed John Henry Newman's intensive study of the development of doctrine eventually led him to the Catholic Church.”  See here:

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/development-of-catholic-doctrine-a-primer

Yes, a false method like the “development of doctrine” can indeed lead people to Catholicism.  Another false method that has led many to the Catholic Church is an over-emphasis on the church fathers and/or church history, essentially putting them above Scripture.  Another is the unbiblical personal experiences that some have had with the Eucharist.  And yet another is trusting in the flimsy arguments that certain people have used against the Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) or Sola Fide (“Faith Alone”). 

So, yes, wrong teaching and wrong perspectives can lead one to the Catholic Church.

Conclusion

Catholics will claim that the development of doctrine helps us to better articulate the doctrines we have today.  But clear articulation does not make a false doctrine true.  Which begs the question – where does one find truth? 

Catholics will answer, “The truth is whatever the Catholic Church teaches!”  But that’s just begging the question.  It is this “development of doctrine” that is on trial here in the first place.  But the correct answer to the question of finding truth is that we must look to Scripture (John 17:17).

Catholics also love to point out that Newman was a former Protestant (Anglican).  Maybe so, but in my opinion, there is not a great amount of distance between Catholicism and the Anglican/Episcopalian religions.  There are a number of those from this camp who have ended up joining the Catholic Church.  Sadly, they had much in common to start with.

Calling it “development” is no justification for teaching and promoting false doctrine. This theory of the “development of doctrine” is simply an excuse for Catholics to continue to embrace certain unbiblical, paganistic, and idol-infected teachings.

The bottom line is that, in these strictly Catholic “developed” doctrines, there is always a contradiction involved when tested against the Bible (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

See also this link on the “development” of the papacy:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-papacy-foundation-of-sand.html