Apostolic Antiquity

One weapon of the theological arsenal used by Catholics and Protestants alike is the idea of doctrinal development. This idea is perpetuated in order to justify many of the doctrines that they teach in their churches today that were not explicitly taught by the Apostles through scripture. For example: the trinity, trinitarian baptisimal formula, marian dogmas, papal supremacy, papal infallibility, icon veneration, and infant baptism. Doctrinal development is generally defined as follows: Doctrine may develop but only from that which has already been established through the tradition and writings of the New Testament authors. Doctrinal development is making explicit what is implicit in scripture or it is expounding upon something that is allegedly vaguely implied in the Bible. Lets take a look at how this epistemology actual holds up as well as how this may effect the idea of the trinity.

The Trinity and the Ecumenical Councils:

Now from the onset I must say that although their interpretation of the Godhead is consistent with the hermeneutical approach of doctrinal development it does not mean in and of itself that it thereby validates the interpretation that they have arrived at (for to believe that one must first except doctrinal development as a proper hermeneutical approach). Concerning the Trinity, it is the belief that God is one in usia (substance) and three in hypostasis (persons). Or put into more simpler terms; three whos (Father, Son Holy Spirit) and one what (the Divine essence). Now can this understanding of the Godhead be seen in scripture as implicit at least to some degree? I believe yes. But again I must say that in saying that it is theoretically possible that this interpretation could be implicit in scripture does not give reason to validate it. When I say the doctrine of the Trinity could be implicit in the Bible what I mean is that someone could potentially take those presuppositions that Trinitarian understanding imposes and read them back into the text. I must also say that if the Trinity was theoretically what scripture is trying to reveal it is so incredibly vague and ambiguous that it would hardly be worth making it an established essential doctrine. And yet that is what much of Christendom has done. Why? Because they have excepted the premise of doctrinal development. They explicitly define what the apostles implicitly meant. This is essentially what the ecumenical councils were all about. Even as early as Nicea 325 and Constantinople 381 doctrinal development was already an established idea. Charles Freeman in his book 381 pagans, heretics, and dawn of the monotheistic state writes

“Gregory [of Nazenzus, 380-381 AD] then addressed the question of why the Spirit has not been  recognised as God in the gospels. His answer was that the doctrine of the Trinity has been subject to progressive revelation. First, God the Father has to be revealed, in the Old Testament; then, through the gospels, Jesus the Son; and finally the Holy Spirit, who appears to enthuse the disciples after the Passion and through the fiery tongues at Pentecost. ‘God meant it to be by piecemeal additions … by progress and advance from glory to glory, that the light of the Trinity should shine upon more illustrious souls.’’’

This shows that doctrinal development likely played a huge part in how many Christians thought early on and that it likely made a significant impact on the way ecumenical councils were influenced in the earliest centuries. Now how did they come away with this idea of a triad within the Godhead through a doctrinal development approach? The Bible says God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), from the trinitarian perspective this is implicit of the one undivided nature/essence of divinity. The Bible also speaks to of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). From the trinitarian perspective this is implicit of three divine persons co-equal, co-eternal, con-substantial. And so from the premise of doctrinal development we see that scripture plus this hermeneutical approach does not necessarily contradict the trinity doctrine. Doctrinal development is quite frankly a horrible hermeneutical approach because it’s based upon eisegesis not exegesis. It seeks to find where there is silence and when it is found it is replaced with anything the interpreter finds philosophically coherent and compatible with the rest of the Bible. However compatibility does not mean accuracy. Further more its not enough to just believe in doctrinal development but one must also take the next step in figuring out who or what to trust with interpreting these ambiguous passages of scripture. Catholics, Orthodox, and some Protestant denominations turn to the ecumenical councils for help, 

Protestants generally do not recognize ecumenical councils as binding, as they do not have the same hierarchical structure as the Roman Catholic Church. While the Catholic Church recognizes twenty-one ecumenical councils, Protestants typically accept only the first four councils, which address key issues such as the deity of Christ and the nature of the Holy Spirit. This raises a question for the side of Protestants, evangelicals, Charismatics and even some Pentecostals (namely trinitarian ones) who do not except the councils as authoritative. Why do you believe the Trinity when you do not have faith in the councils that made it explicit? Also if one chooses to accept some councils and not others they undermine the very councils they claim to accept and make the councils more about their subjective interpretation rather than an objective Spirit lead standard. One cannot be selective with the councils and still affirm that God played any part in them.

Further more if you believe the councils are fallible then you believe in an explicit yet fallible interpretation of what you believe to be vague and ambiguous verses of scripture, and yet you make these interpretations that form the trinity and other various doctrines essential doctrine for salvation! It is ludicrous. The only one who dose not fall victim to these fallacies would be the Catholic Church because not only do they except all twenty-one councils but they also view them as authoritative and infallible when confirmed by the Pope thus making the councils (if one excepts what the Church says about them) completely reliable  for developing doctrine from implicit to explicit. This does not make the Catholic Church is correct in their assumption that their interpretations of scripture are correct but it does make their belief in the trinity more logical than it would be for Protestants and even Orthodox to believe. The Trinity only works if you first buy doctrinal development, and once you do that, authority becomes unavoidable; Protestants and Orthodox want the result without the epistemic cost. Catholics, though I may disagree with  them, at least have a consistent authority structure necessary to make doctrinal development coherent. Now that we have considered this it would now be right to figure out if the Catholic claims about the councils can be true. If not then belief of the trinity on the basis of any ecumenical council has been excluded. We need not look any further then to see weather the councils are infallible or not. The first immediate test that we must do is to see weather the councils contradict each other or the pope because if they do then that desimates the validity of the councils that supposedly make clear implicit scriptures thus invalidating 

Doctrinal development.

Firstly some may say that Catholics are only obligated to believe statements from the pope which are infallible and that are ex-cathedra. This however is not true, Code of Cannon Law 752 states: 

 “Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.”

This document says that lay people must believe everything the Pope and the magisterium says as binding. Therefore contradictions within Catholic dogma still have profound implications even if those dogmas were not declared infallibly. Keeping this in mind lets see how some of these dogmas, infallible or not, contradict other statements found in the councils. Unam Sanctam, a document issued by  Pope Boniface VIII  in 1302 says this:

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

According to Code of Canon Law 752 as we read, Unam Sanctam is binding to the submission of the mind of the laity because it was issued by Bishop of Rome. 

In other words the laity is bound to believe that outside the Catholic Church and its Bishop there is no hope of salvation. Now compare that with the second Vatican council Lumen Gentium 16 which declares that those who have zero knowledge of the Church can be saved through other means of salvation:

 “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.”

This, according to Canon Law 752, is also binding because this statement was affirmed by the Roman Pontiff. We have two contradictory statements that are supposedly binding upon the consciousness’s of those who follow Rome, one of which is from an ecumenical council. Now not only does Vatican 2 contradict other statements of papal supremacy but more importantly it contradicts scripture which says in Acts 4 verse 12:

 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.”

Now we see that these councils are not only unreliable but can be outright dangerous to the Christian faith. When a council puts itself above the word of God it is going above that which is infallible and thus make evident the fact that it is itself not infallible and should therefore not be trusted with interpreting ambiguous scriptures. Anything that exalts itself against the knowledge of God must be brought down!

“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” – 2 Corinthians 10:5

The Church Fathers:

Many appeal to more than just ecumenical councils to justify the idea of doctrinal development but they may also appeal to the so-called “church fathers”. I am going to show how these figures are not reliable stepping stones for reaching towards the proper interpretation of what are apparently vague statements of scripture. Firstly they do not present a unanimously agreed upon doctrine of God. Origin believed much like the Arians and Jehovah’s witnesses. He essentially believed in something that reflected the term applied to the arian heresy which was condemned at Nicea ‘homoiousious’ which means similar substance as opposed to same substance. Origin believed that Jesus was like the Father but that He was a lesser deity. In his work Contra Celsum he writes: 

“But we grant that some among those among the multitude of believers take a divergent view, and because of their rashness suppose that the Saviour is the greatest and supreme God. But we at least do not take that view, since we believe him who said: ‘The Father who sent me is greater than I.’ [John 14:28]”

                   Now Tertullian who is coined with being one of the first to use the word Trinity and coming up with trinitarian terminology such as ‘substance’ and ‘person’ also had a different view from that of a modern Nicean understanding of God. He writes in Adversus Praxean:

“Before all things God was alone—being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Word (Sermo). He had this Word within Himself, by silently thinking and planning within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter through His Word. Then, when God willed to put forth into activity and visibility what He had been arranging within Himself, He first brought forth the Word, having within Himself His own Reason, made into utterance. This Word we learn was produced from God, and therefore is called the Son of God, and God, from unity of substance with God. For God also is Spirit, and Word is Spirit from Spirit, and God from God, as light is kindled from light. The fountain is not separated from the river, nor the sun from its ray”

         What Tertullian is proposing is that Gods Word and Spirit existed only internally within the person of the Father and not as distinct persons that is until he brought them forth out of himself at a certain point in time to accomplish His work as distinct personifications of the Fathers attributes.

Now Ignatius of Antioch had a very Oneness or modalistic way of looking at God at the end of his letter to the magnesians he says: 

              “Fare well in the harmony of God, you who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ.”

          Here we see that he recognized Jesus Christ Himself as that inseparable Spirit and not as a distinct person. 

           If one should say, “we believe that through the teachings of the fathers was expounded the more clear and accurate understanding of what the Scripture is implicit of”’ I might rightly ask which ‘fathers’ interpretation do you agree with? To say you agree with any one of these quotations I just presented would be to say you disagree with the others and are, therefore, selective of the fathers and thus make it less about what they believed and more about which of them you agree with more. The same problem that applies to the councils applies to the church fathers. You must accept all the church fathers in order for even one of them to be a valid basis to interpret scripture or else you are being selective and thereby subjective of which things you surrender you intellect to. However you cannot accept all of them because they often contradict each other. The same fallacies that the councils run into the church fathers run into as well. Church tradition has tried to ignore these contradictions because they know how serious these implications really are. Furthermore the Catholic church has not only set itself up as the only infallible interpreter of scripture, but of the church fathers as well. How do we know who the “true church fathers” are? Because the Catholic church interprets these individuals to mean Nicean christianity,  even if thats not truly what they meant. And if Nicene trinitarianism is the basis for who is to be regarded as a church father than it quickly falls under the fallacy of circular reasoning. You cannot presuppose what standard of orthodoxy to judge who the church father are and then claim you received that standard of orthodoxy from the church fathers themselves. The logic simply doesn’t work. The very idea of having what is known as “church fathers” cannot work let alone applying to the fathers the authority to develop doctrine. 

Conclusion:

What would be needed for doctrinal development to work is a consistent interpretative authority that that does not have internal contradictions, nor can there be selectivity of the divisions within that authority. There must also be a definitive way to define where that authority is found without any prior presuppositional standards for what that authority must look like. When we look at all the denominational institutions we see that none of them meet that criteria. Doctrinal development as the basis for any extrabiblical beliefs is no longer a logical option. Rather we must alow the Bible to interpret itself through the means of the greek and hebrew language, literary style, and its ancient Near Eastern context and culture in which it was written. And where there is silence or ambiguity we must not try to fill that silence through means of eisegesis but through prayer and careful hermeneutics.
 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” –2 Timothy 2:15