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
