I Thought I Understood Doctrinal Development... I Didn't
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Doctrinal development is basically a cope for realizing doctrines aren't apostolic even though we said they were, right?
Well, it turns out that, as in most things, famous thinker's ideas aren't well-summarized in memes or comment sections.
St. John Henry Newman's famous "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" has the poor luck of being a work that everyone thinks they understand without reading it because the thesis is so famous. For years, I put off reading it because it's long, and I thought I basically understood it. This was a mistake. It's one I hope you don't make either.
In this video, I give an overview of the book and focus on two of Newman's key criteria for determining valid development of doctrine.
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon:
/ gospelsimplicity
One Time Donation: www.paypal.me/...
Merch: shop.gospelsim...
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook:
/ gospelsimplicity
Instagram:
/ gospelsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a UA-cam channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Austin Suggs holds a BA in Theology from Moody Bible Institute and is currently pursuing an MA in Liberal Arts with a focus in Theology and Philosophy from St. John's College, Annapolis. He has served in the local church in a number of ways, including as a full-time staff member,, teacher, church planter, and more. Today, he resides outside of Baltimore with his wife Eliza.
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
E1GGQTH7MDNVAM5V
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.
The best analogy I've ever heard is Triangles.
Triangles. As children, we learn their shape, that they have three sides, and what they look like so we can draw it.
As we get older, in school we learn about trigonometry : angles, ratios (sine, cosine, tangent, secant, cosecant, cotangent), inverse functions, etc.
Then once you get even older, you can further deepen your understanding of triangles by applying trig to different fields and disciplines, such as astronomy, navigation, precise location triangulation, surveying, physics, architecture, acoustics, etc.
At the end of the day, you're still just dealing with the same thing you learned in kindergarten : triangles.
It's not a change ; it's a deepening understanding.
That’s a great insight! I’m stealing that for my middle school theology class
@Stygard happy to be of help. Just passing down what someone else taught to me. Glory to Jesus Christ
Wow, this analogy really blew my mind! Never thought about it that way.
Another way I like to put it: A change would be going from "yes" to "no," or from "no" to "yes." I.e. going from affirming a doctrine to then rejecting that same doctrine later.
A development/growth, on the other hand, is going from "yes" to "yes, because..." to "yes, because... and therefore..." i.e. you take a doctrine to its logical conclusion, leading to necessary consequences that must be affirmed because it is grounded in the original premise.
Properly understood, the Trinity is an equilateral triangle, pointing up. The filioque turns it into an acute isosceles triangle pointed down.
Excellent summary, Austin! It’s important to remember that Newman was not Catholic when he wrote his Essay on the Development of Doctrine. He was searching for answers to why Christianity of the early centuries looked and sounded different than later. So often, he acknowledged, Protestants did not accept the fact of doctrinal development, even though they were the beneficiaries of it. The first step in understanding development is to accept that it happens.
This is probably the most succinct summary of the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
Thank you! My goal was to do it justice without going on forever.
@@GospelSimplicity Totally wouldn’t have minded if you’d kept going, for what it’s worth!
You have my great respect Austin for being the only Protestant I've seen who actually honestly read it cover to cover.
I didn't know much about Newman before I became a Catholic after being a Baptist for more than 40 years. It all started with my reading the Church Fathers. Behind their writings, their agreements and disagreements I saw the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church staring at me and inviting me. I could not resist its Mother voice.
Newman's work was very significant for me when I started learning more about church history and theology. One thing that I found out later of note is that Newman's ideas were not novel and can be found all the way back in the early church like in st Vincent of lerins work called the commonitorium.
I always thought Newman work was a negative response to saint vincent
@@esoterico7750 huh...interesting. I haven't run across that thought before and am a bit confused by it. Chapter 23 in the commonitorium deals with development of religious knowledge and he even uses the analogy of an infant growing into an adult (similar to Newman) to describe how religious knowledge grows. In both cases there is continuity of essence but also growth.
He says this in the video at 9:30
@@jess96154 St. Vincent of Lerins is awesome
My new favourite video from this channel! (Now in second place: the video on Rituals you did some time ago).
Great work, Austin; a very fair treatment.
That rituals one is a throwback! I think the common denominator is me changing my mind, lol
As a Catholic, thank you for this!
Great video. If you read the final conclusion of my book on the Papacy, you’ll see how much my view rests on an application of Newman’s point
If?! Erick, my friend, you underestimate me :)
Jokes aside, glad you liked the video!
Newman makes a similar point about the Arians being scriptural literalists in his book Arians of the Fourth Century. He argues their heresy to be rooted in the more literalist Antiochian approach to Scripture, and Athanasius' defense of Christ's divinity to be rooted in the more mystical Alexandrian approach.
Yeah, great point. But not only that: St Athanasius consistently affirms the divinity of Our Lord through the catholic reading of Scripture (“catholic” as it was used back then, which is often how the documents of the Catholic Church use the word “catholic” when referencing a sense of Biblical interpretation that is “kata holos”, that means “according to the whole”, an idea by which the correct interpretation needs to search for universality not only in geographical or temporal senses (all peoples and all ages, despite particularities), but also for the integrity and the integrality of the one deposit of the faith, a thing by which the very idea of theological conclusions as deduction and expansion through clarification can only make too much sense, while the fragmentation and fossilization of Christian doctrine become biblically nonsensical). But, as said, not only that: St Athanasius also claimed the universal teachings of the bishops (that means, the ordinary and universal Magisterium) up to his own time to prove the divinity of Our Lord against the Arian bishops, as explaining - and serving - Scripture and Sacred Tradition accordingly, as he thought and taught to be so. St John Henry Newman simply knew St Athanasius was just “too Catholic” to be missed in his own studies. On the other hand, Arians and Semi-Arians were the ones who used the exegetical approach towards Scriptures (and only Scriptures) for their claims, accusing Catholic bishops and theologians of “paganism” and “unbiblical development” (accretion?). Does it sound familiar?
@@masterchief8179 Heretics use legitimate argument forms all the time. One could appeal to sedevacantists and their appeal to tradition, and say, "Look!". Or more troublingly, the Pharisees. Or to the various heresies that Iranaeus opposed, with their extra-biblical traditions. Pointing out a misuse of an entire form of argument doesn't invalidate the entire form.
Furthermore, very few Protestants have any huge quarrel with the church until ~450 A.D. and the rise of the papacy.
Finally, as a practical matter, appealing to tradition and church history as an accurate source of authority when you're living in the as yet unfallen Roman Empire and have all manner of now-lost sources is simply less prone to error than after picking up the pieces centuries later in the medieval era. To deny it is to sound like the one thing "worse" than us filthy Protestants, no, i.e. current liberal scholars.
"Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian." - Williams, Rowan (2004). Arius: Heresy and Tradition.
The development of Arius' view was in reaction to a perceived revival of Sabbelianism and caught on in the Alexandrian Diocese before eventually spreading further afield. If the Alexandrian school of mystical interpretation is such a useful hermeneutic why was its namesake the incubation chamber of this very heresy? Wouldn't Arius have a hard time convincing people there of his view if their approach was ideal?
It's also interesting that the biggest Unitarian group today are Oneness Pentecostal's who, as a charismatic movement, are all too open to a mystical view on things. This is followed by the JW's who have modified the text of Scripture to fit their view, followed by lesser known Restorationist groups that use claims of Prophethood and other cultish means of persuasion.
@zacdredge3859 I cannot dispute Bishop Williams' thesis, not yet having read his book. I can say with some certainty, however, that Cardinal Newman would.
"...it is of far less consequence, as it is less certain, whether Arianism be of Jewish origin, than whether it arose at Antioch; which is the point principally insisted on in the foregoing pages. For in proportion as it is traced to Antioch, so is the charge of originating it, removed from the great Alexandrian school, upon which various enemies of our Apostolical Church have been eager to fasten it."
"Arians of the Fouth Century," Section 1
As I have heard some priests put it, doctrinal development can often be thought of like the growth of a tree from an acorn. Everything right and true to the mature oak is there in the acorn, and we should therefore exercise wisdom and caution in pruning the mature tree, especially if we're trying to cram the tree back into the nut from which it sprang.
The question is... is it the same tree? or have things grown that shouldn't have? Is the DNA and emphasis the same? The acorn shares the same DNA as the oak tree.
@@pigetstuck Yes. The early church is the Catholic Church. God the Father Himself is the Vine Grower who prunes the bad branches (John 15:1-8). As it's been said, "the water is purest closet to the source."
Explain theheretical Pope then. If anything all the orthodox churches have a much better claim for that. @jarrahe
@channelMasterGuiGame Convert to Orthodoxy, then. It'd be 1000x better than to continue following any of protestantism's various flavors of man-made falsehoods.
@@jarrahe how do you recommend people determine which is the true church?
He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”
Matthew 13: 31-32
The church is supposed to grow organically like a tree. Not stay static like a rock.
Great breakdown of fairly heady stuff. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Great video about one of my favorite modern works by one of my favorite saints. I dare say I wouldn't be catholic if it were not for this work. Still shapes my thinking and has had a monumental influence on the life of the Church. St John Henry Newman, Ora pro nobis.
Austin, the work you put into understanding concepts is remarkable.
My wife would laugh at me for saying this, but that's genuinely one of my favorite things to do.
I am strongly recommending again that you bring Christian Wagner on to talk about this. He has the most content in regard to this and is very informed about the subject.
I'd be happy to talk to him about it
Facts, he’s very knowledgeable
It would be great to see Christian Wagner here on this topic.
@@GospelSimplicity Great to hear! He said you can DM or email him.
@@MerePleb True!
One of the interesting things is that Newman wrote the Essay in the course of his final year or so towards conversion to the Catholic Church. In a sense, at least in taking the final step, he convinced himself of the Catholic Church in writing this work.
Austin, this video came at a really good time! I'm about 100 pages shy of finishing this book and I've really enjoyed it. Newman's insistence on the mystical interpretation and how that plays out in history is fascinating, especially with Theodore of Mopsuestia's extremely literal interpretation of Scripture and the Nestorian controversy. I've also found Newman's treatment of the Vincentine Canon to be well-argued. Definitely glad I got this book!
Thanks, I learned something new today. I knew Newman's ideas were good, but you added meat to the bone!
Remember...St. Newman did not come up with the idea and it had been (for about 6-7 centuries at that point) a common area of theology to discuss long before St. Newman wrote his essay.
St. Newman basically takes the same reading of the Development of Doctrine as Francisco Suarez (d. 1617).
so true
Logical development which gets us to the third and fourth Marian dogmas:
1) Mary is the new Eve
2) Eve was created sinless.
3) Because antitypes are superior to their types, Mary must have been created sinless (Immaculate Conception)
4) Because Mary is held to have remained sinless, and since death and decay are the consequence of sin, she was not subject to the grave (Assumption).
Except Mary did rest in the grave for a brief time before the Assumption (The Dormition).
Where does "Mary is the new Eve" come from? And where does the idea that Mary remained sinless come from?
I don't see any clear evidence for either doctrine in scripture, and I'm not aware of any passage teaching either in the Apostolic Fathers. And if you can't even find the seeds of a doctrine in the Apostolic era, it seems grossly irresponsible to elevate that doctrine to the level of a dogma.
@@stephengray1344 Justin Martyr just off the top of my head calls Mary the new eve. You can find quite a bit on that from tradition.
Jesus never calls Mary "mom" or by her name. He calls her "Woman" which is the name that Adam gave Eve before she commits sin. When God finds the serpent in the garden he says he will bestow a woman whose offspring will crush his head. (This prophecy is referring to Mary.)
@haronsmith8974 how is Mary "he"?
@@kazager11 “And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
The woman in this prophecy is Mary. Woman as we discussed earlier was what Adam named the new eve. Her offspring is Jesus. He is the one that strikes the head of the serpent.
Newman was a sound voice in a world full of a whole lot of noise. He seems to remain a treasured resource specific to the modern/post-modern era. I mean to read more of him, and to consult his work. What I've read of him has been edifying.
I appreciate you making this video and actually reading Newman (many Protestants seem to avoid him like the plague) but his work is worth far more than this 20 minute video. The rapid summarization you give of preservation of type in each time period does not do Newman or the Catholic Church justice. You should at least read all of his beautiful prose on those! He summarizes them
Great video! I always find that people only think of doctrinal development as being logical development, but they miss so much by not recognizing the other forms mentioned. I think the assumption of Mary fits very well in the historical development piece, whereas to say it is a logical development is a little silly.
You’re right, but You don’t have to say “this or that” it can be “both or all” as well.
It was obvious to me, as a mathematician, that Jesus came and gave the apostles all the axioms. Over time, the church has worked towards writing proofs based on the axioms. They've never added axioms or gotten rid of any.
Regardless, when a sufficeintly complex system of axioms is described, it's never clear what are all the truths that the system of axioms entails. In fact, if a system of axioms passes certain complexity thresholds, all possible proofs derrivable from those axioms become uncomputable! That's why sometimes it takes a long time to write a proof. Logic isn't straightforwardly obvious.
That was a tour de force. ☝
I think what St J.H. Newman calls "rupture of type" is what Thomists would call "substantial change."
Yep exactly right!
Newman's point about mystical interpretation being essential to orthodoxy was one of the key stumbling blocks for me in Protestantism. Because it became really obvious that it just simply wasn't the case that, using a standard reading of texts, you could absolutely exclude all the interpretations (or even most of the interpretations) of the Bible the orthodox want to exclude. How much God is Christ? The orthodox think there's basically only one answer here: fully God. But also fully man. But a person off the street, with no commitment to Christianity or any sense of its interpretative tradition, could absolutely come to any number of different conclusions just from reading the text. But those conclusions are excluded. Or at least they are by the Protestants most intent on Sola Scriptura. Lots of protestants in more theologically liberal communities, with less attachment to the reformation principles as such, are perfectly willing to allow more diversity in Christology or Trinitarian theology. And I'd say they're right, if what we're doing is just using ordinary interpretative principles to read a text. But that's not what we're doing. We're reading through the eyes of faith, the lens of history, the tradition of a church.
It will be helpful to clarify what you mean by 'literal meaning' here.
The historical-grammatical method does not neccessaitate that every passage should be taken literally in the normal sense of the word.
Awesome video, thank you! You should next read DBH's "Tradition and Apocalypse." He addresses Newman and has some critiques.
Your patience with the text shows. Only problem is that you’re wearing a Liverpool polo. Yanited!
I liked/loved it when you call him St.
Glad you liked that! To be fair, it was less of a deeply thought out thing and more of my nature of preferring not to cause unnecessary offense.
Interesting to see many people with different Christian backgrounds commenting
Love the T-shirt, Austin! As a Liverpudlian born into a family of Reds, I approve. Blessings from the UK ❤
Praying for you. Hope you find the church Jesus established.
Man Austin, 😮😮😮. Thanks for sharing this.
My pleasure!
Mystical historicity?
The best kind of historicity!
Please reach out to Christian B Wagner (Scholastic Answers) to talk more about this and related topics! Great video!
Austin is always so drippy 🔥🔥🔥
I’ll just leave this here: David Bentley Hart’s recent book Tradition and Apocalypse. I hope some of you will read it.
I love watching your content. An open heart and love for truth will bring anyone to the Catholic Church.
JHN: mystical reading and orthodoxy stand or fall together.
Me, decidedly unorthodox: Your terms are acceptable. 😂
Basically, listen to Mother Church and what she hands us through time. Don't worry about the hiccoughs, they'll be flattened out as time moves on.
Great video, Austin! Very fair treatment to Newman’s investigation. You explained some complex ideas with great synthesis, so thanks a lot! Just to point out one little thing: some people in the comment section maybe don’t know (or fail to remember) that St John Henry Newman wrote this Essay *still as an ANGLICAN (!),* not as a converted Catholic. He was one of the greatest - if not the greatest - proponent of the theory of Anglicanism as “Via Media” between ‘Romanism’ and ‘Protestantism’ (as it was common among Anglicans during that time) and his compilation “The via media of the Anglican church: illustrated in lectures, letters and tracts written between 1830 and 1841” represents the acumen of the Oxford Movement. In trying to find the best arguments for the “Via Media” theory and getting rid of the poor ones, he paved the way for his later conversion. But as an Anglican luminary and professor, he was one of the most prestigious preacher of the Kingdom and is up to this day considered to have written the greatest sermons of Victorian England, so what could his conversion out of Anglicanism gain for him? It is kind of ugly that some people say the “Essay” is a Catholic “cope” because that doesn’t even make sense.
God bless!
Glad you enjoyed it! That's a good piece of background that probably would've been smart to add to the video. I found his treatment of the anglican quagmire on defending infant baptism really interesting, but there was just so much I had to cut to keep this a manageable length (including the last two of Newman's criteria)
@@GospelSimplicity It was perfect! As someone coming from the world of Law, sometimes (many times, actually) I envy - in a good sense - those who can be succinct. It’s a huge quality. There is this story about someone who has written a huge letter ending with “sorry for this long letter, I didn’t have time to write it short”. That’s what this is about! You did great in what mattered the most: the video nailed it and it did a good for us all by making justice to Newman, a humble servant of the Lord; it combats a caricature online that is usually erected - unfortunately - on a strawman of Newman. Kudos! It’s already 10k views in only two days!
Great summary. Now I'd love to hear you compare Newman's essay with Jaroslav Pelikan's book with the same title!
A comparison of those two would be fascinating, albeit a lot of work!
Cats playing on UA-cam! That drives my dog wild!!
Doctrinal development is basically take the faith to its logical conclusions. If A is true, and A implies B is true, then B is logically true, even if it was never affirmed before. Newman was not bringing anything new to the table but he was great for explicitly defining something that we always knew.
@@JeffersonElder That is only one of the types of development that Newman identifies, and I don't think it should even count as development.
Taking faith to its logical conclusions is a disaster every time, though.
You take *any* sound scriptural principle and overemphasise it and you get heresy or gross sin. Even things as basic as "There is only one God", or "Forgive others".
This just rubber stamps whatever extension to logical limits that Catholicism has made.
@@SeanusAurelius your examples are not taking the faith to its logical conclusions is taking ONE doctrine and focus solely on that going against the others. One great examples is sola scriptura.
As a Catholic, I really love your shirt. YNWA! Anyone else here loving the shirt?
Backs up how we got the Trinity.
Prots:attrition
Ortho Caths: Doctrinal Development
Jesus: mustard seed = grows
To wit: Church History 👏
If the Catholic church only rested in Man's hands it would have fallen apart long ago.
How? The power hungry popes always fought for power and wealth. Heck, it was its own kingdom.
More likely is that the Roman leadership rested in Satan's hands.
@@kianoghuz1033think about how ridiculous it is that it’s still around 2000 years later. GK Chesterton said he knew Catholicism is true because how could you explain and institution so mismanaged for thousands of years has managed to survive.
@@johnbrion4565 It may have more to do with birth rate than anything else.
@@jeromepopiel388 are you saying that God, who is the author of life itself, is not connected with, indeed direct, procreation?
Your comments on continuity of principle and seeing it with the eyes of faith bring to mind 2 things in Scripture. Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach many things that He had not taught. Jesus told Thomas that those who believe without seeing are blessed , not a small thing considering that blessed is the word used by Elizabeth to describe Mary's unique gift from God, and Mary, being the first Christian, shows us that we can hope for blessings also( Behold, your Mother). Abraham is called our Father in Faith. It seems to me that blessing always entails or implies the need for faith. The Publican was rebuked. The Jews balked indignantly at the healing of the Centurian's servant. The woman caught in adultery showcased the hypocrisy of those who would stone her. Jesus went to both Matthew and Zacchaeus' homes causing a flurry of gossip. Jesus asked his disciples "will you leave also?(paraphrase). It seems that His teaching involved a continual challenge, or indication of the need for change, that a faithful response would bring an answer to, a solution that man is incapable of. It seems that Jesus was always developing faith in His teachings.
Doctrine development is certainly modeled by the OT. The entire thing is doctrine development. It's crazy how people approach scripture when their way isn't modeled in anything God spoke in creation or scripture
Youve gotta read DBHs "Tradition and Apocalypse" next. Its a direct response to Newman.
Is DBH a Christian still??
@@1984SheepDog depends on what a Christian is, DBH teaches Universalism and Monism, which is rejected by most mainline Protestants and all Catholics and Orthodox (I hope).
@@NJWEBER18 And he's outright flirting with other religions too. I think he says he prefers Eastern religions to most forms of Christianity now. So, no.
It's on my list
Scripture isn't an algorithm in which you input a modern concern and it spits out an apostolic answer. We are all living in the time of Christ, none of us are living in 1st century Israel
We should be!
The doctrine of development of Doctrine. Is a historicizing tendancy in western or Latin theology to try to account for the fact that many of the central features of Roman Catholicism are not present in the teaching of the Apostles.
The East just larps and reads medieval practice into the Apostles, which is simply not historically tenable.
Only protestants can come to a consistent position re tradition by making it subservient or inferior to Holy Scripiture.
Otherwise one can never discern what is development and what is corruption, one needs a holy rule or standard.
Thankfully God has given us this in his Holy Word.
As a staunch Catholic, I have long said that protestants frequently get the "what" correct, but rarely the "why" and "how," and that is where Catholics excel and find the fullness of truth. You've about said that today.
I will say in terms of Rowan Willaims: as a C of E anglican, I remember when he was archbishop of canturbury. I do not want to go back to those days.
Complain about Justin Welby all you want, I still very much prefer him to Rowan Williams.
How come?
@@roaringforties
I never liked his "liberal catholic" tradition.
It doesn't surprise me that a book he wrote seems to support the 'liberal catholic' tradition within the C of E, I'd attribute that to his bias.
In addition, he has always spoken in the most vague unclear way possible on a wide range of topics. Some people like it because it makes them feel clever when they finally decipher what he's maybe saying, I just find it incredibly annoying.
Justin Welby at least admits it when he's unsure of something instead of hiding it behind a mess of words.
Maybe I'm being unfair as english isn't Rowan's native language but honestly I would be astonished if he is much better in Welsh. I think it's deliberate.
Infallibility? I'm sorry, but that's not really a good example in my opinion. Even Peter is seen to struggle with staying in line with Jesus' teaching when it comes to the relation between jewish and greek believers. Above that, history has seen some figures as popes, who hardly deserve this title or might even find themselves in hell after judgement day.
This video has some good points for sure, but I think we shouldn't lift the church up to be anything else than a human organization partly housing the true, invisible church.
These aren't arguments against papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I. Peter personally struggled with eating with Gentiles but he ultimately did define the doctrine correctly. To point out that some popes were rascals and may be in hell does not mean they didn't have the gift of infallibly defining doctrine should they have chosen to exercise it. Neither example is related to the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Austin did you say "Idear" lol
Oh dear, I hope not, lol.
This is linchpin of Vatican I(though it says believed at all times) and II is essentially the final argument for papalism. I'm glad to see others arriving at similar conclusions.
Vincent of Lérins did not hold the same views as Newman. Vincent argued that doctrine must 'become firmer and more deeply entrenched by the years, but remain incorrupt and uncorrupted’ (Commonitorium, ch. 23). He clarifies that true development is the 'explication of what was formerly believed in simplicity, now with greater clarity' (Commonitorium, ch. 23).
Admittedly, Gregory of Nyssa aligns more with Newman on the deity of the Holy Spirit, affirming that such truths were revealed over time. But Newman’s approach is ad hoc and circular: how do I discern which doctrines are true? Those that 'faithfully develop.' How do I know which ones are faithfully developed? The pope. But the papacy itself is a development-circular reasoning.
Have you read Newman's full essay?
In the words of the other Paul “Just slap some Newman on it”.
Props to Austin for reading Newman. The Other Paul hasn't otherwise he'd never say something so callus.
Of course some people can be butthurt that the greatest sermon writer of the Victorian England and the greatest proponent of Anglicanism as “Via Media” later converted to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - losing all his prestige in the British Empire eventually. The guy’s arguments for Sola Scriptura are really bad and, judging by that and your comment here, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t even read the works of St John Henry Newman.
This is how we understand the Blessed Virgin & Mother Mary. She is the Ideal Woman and so we know she was assumed & is Queen of Heaven
the problem with Newman's thesis is that it is at odds with pastor aeternus (i.e. that ultramontanism was always believed); this is why you'll see RCC apologists go back and forth between these 2 contradictory ideas, sometimes even in the midst of a single debate.
Yes, it explicitly contradicts extraordinary magisterium. But history contradicts extraordinary magisterium
And the fair approach would be to read Newman’s response to V1.
@@toddvoss52 was pastor aeternus always believed by the church or did it exist in some seed or acorn form in the 1st millennium? are you familiar with the many papal forgeries that were constantly appealed to?
This comment is demonstrably untrue. Newman lived through the dogmatic definition of infallibility and did not see it as contradicting this thesis...in fact the opposite is true. It is exactly this thesis that enables the teaching of pastor aeternus.
@@stephenchelius7461I doubt be was happy about it. V1 was as big a disaster for the church as V2.
Gavin Ortlund agrees where it suits him and disagrees where it helps discredit the Catholic Church 😅
No, he doesn’t. His scholarship is sound.
@@TheOtherCaleb his position of doctrinal development is biased, anti catholic. So is all of his "scholarship". As long as it goes against the Catholic Church, he agrees. He keeps talking about "Protestantism" as if it means anything apart from being against the Catholic Church.
Catholic apologists do the same thing. Something that sounds like justification by faith alone? Or sola scriptura? Hit ignore! The reality is that the fathers don't map neatly onto Protestantism, Catholicism or Orthodoxy, many would now be anathematised, and that's a bigger problem for sola ecclesia than for sola scriptura.
@@SeanusAurelius am honestly curious : which denomination do you attend?
@@TheOtherCalebhe is absolutely not sound in his scholarship. He was fully debunked on clerical continence.
Another goody. In short .. no, I mean it .. i) The Faith (whatever that means) ii) Sacred Tradition (however much that entails) iii) Magisterium (whoever gets that job, Lord help them - and us besides).
Here 'development' means : saying the same thing ( I believe/ We believe ) in various ways, at different times, and through many perspectives ( We believe in God/ I believe in One God, the Lord ) and withal under a particular and even peculiar authority running in, across and through all these 'lived' and/ or living experiences ( We solemnly declare as binding upon us in faith : 'I believe in One God = the Father the Almighty, and His only Son, Jesus called Christ, begotten not made, in the Unity of the Holy Ghost' ). Clearly, this is not an Anglican version of a Darwinian evolutionary Tree Of Life type of development - from root to branch and from fruit to root, etc - it is a much more disturbing concept: one body with one spirit, actually abiding.
What a terrifyingly odd body this quirky spirit must enliven leads us, willy nilly, from Newman to Chesterton ...
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
Great video. Its amazing to see how Newman uses the same process the Pharisees took in applying the tradition of men to God's word to such an extreme that Jesus rebuked them for it.
That’s not what the Pharisees did and it’s not what Newman did.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Matthew 15:4-6 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.
How can you argue with the teaching of the Pharisees that truly believe they are upholding the law of God, using the logical flow of reason, building on hundreds of years of traditions, and basing their conclusions on the past writings of teachers and rabbis?
“We shall find ourselves unable,” he says again, “to fix an historical point at which the growth of doctrine ceased. Not on the day of Pentecost, for St. Peter had still to learn at Joppa about the baptism of Cornelius; not at Joppa and Caesarea, for St. Paul had to write his Epistles; not on the death of the last apostle,..."(pg.107)
Sorry this is clearly heretical and should be enough to condemn his whole theory, because this is the essence of why he wrote his essay in the first place.
Pope Pius X condemned his idea in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907-- #21: Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles. --condemned.
St. Pius again condemns his theory in the same syllabus:
#22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.--condemned.
catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-henry-newmans-essay-on-development.html
Unfortunately your sweet Christ on earth Joe Taylor explicitly gave a thumbs up to Newman, as even Mario Derksen acknowledges at length.
Somehow my comment isn't complete. the above quote from Newman was condemned as heresy by Pope St. Pius X
I was praying for this, will you be coming home to Rome with this? Will you finally join His Holy Roman church because it’s certain beyond reasonable doubt that Catholicism is true?
No I prefer to stay with the Episcopal church. the Episcopal Church I attend is in between moderate and conservative.➕🕯️🕯️🍞🍷🕊️✨
Ahhhhahahaha describing Gavin at 16 minutes
Most appeals to doctrinal development are massive copes.
Most prots saying this are coping with max levels of copium.
@@llla_german_ewoklll6413Projecting much? There is no meaningful difference between Roman catholics and protestants anyway. In the RCC you can believe anything as long as you kiss the Pope's slippers, can't you now? The Pope just doubled down on that all religions lead to God. So why do we need the Pope and the RCC? Please explain.
@@llla_german_ewoklll6413copium of the masses?
@@llla_german_ewoklll6413I think you’ve both in your own way demonstrated that slogans are not arguments.
@@ZTAudio That was my point in commenting in the first place. The cope argument is a fallacy.
I think the risk here for Protestants reading this, if used as an argument for Catholicism (or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodoxy), is that it presumes that Dogma (and by extension Canonical Body) is the essence of Christianity, from which the Liturgical and Homiletic expressions of the Church develop out of.
Whereas from a Protestant point of view (I myself being a Protestant), it is the Church itself that is symptomatic of the Faith, meaning that beliefs, dogma and canons are drawn from doctrine, which is the reading of Scripture and Tradition.
We might instead make the argument that later beliefs not cited in the earliest fathers are legitimate instead due to their roots in Liturgy and Homiletic expressions not codified in our records, but are nonetheless the living essence of Christianity.
You cannot have faith without implied dogma.
Right faith walks with right belief.
'theotokos' and 'sola scriptura' are clumsy terms
no, Theotokos as a term was pretty standardized by the fathers at Ephesus 431, and the meaning that the classical reformers gave to sola scriptura is pretty perspicuous as well
@@carlpittenger you haven't encountered the confusion they can cause? never?
@@pigetstuck somebody gets confused about any concept; that in no way makes a term "clumsy". my example of a clumsy term would be something like "being" with dozens if not hundreds of distinct and widespread definitions over the millennia.
@@carlpittenger of course confusion can happen with any term, but those two in particular... lend themselves to confusing...
Can I guess what I am getting at? Or is this totally out of left field for you?
@@pigetstuck obviously not lol. feel free to elaborate
It seems like you are theologically agnostic and ultimately your faith is entirely intellectual.
This is what most contemporary Protestants would label “accretions”. Development is organic and, through the Church, Spirit-led. How Protestant denominations seek to reconcile among themselves, I don’t know.
In the classical Lutheran tradition, we believe "Scripture is the sole source and norm of Christian doctrine." We are open to the development of historical formulations, such as the doctrine of the Trinity as confessed in the Nicene Creed; but the doctrine itself must be derived from Scripture. Apart from this, we deny any other form of "doctrinal development," especially such that claims to be "apostolic." The only way the Church can know for certain that its doctrine is apostolic, is by whether it's contained in the apostolic writings of the New Testament. Everything else is either speculation or wishful thinking. Scripture is the only infallible means by which the Church can be reformed; something of which it is always in need of.
In the classical Lutheran tradition Luther called reason “Satan’s whore” so I don’t know if I’d rely on your tradition to provide sound reason. Also your church “ordains” women and allows for “divorce” and the direct and intentional sterilization or marital unions so I really would refrain from throwing stones in your glass cathedral when it comes to “doctrinal development”. The only mercy in your faith is the fact that your sacraments are invalid, therefore significantly less blasphemous to Christ.
If you think your church is being reformed over time by “the Bible” that’s a lie. The only thing it’s being reformed by is the spirit of the age because you stand outside the church which Christ established and promised indefectability.
I pray God convict you of the truth and lead you to repentance. God bless you brother.
@@SevereFamine Haha, that's ridiculous!
This was a truly weak video.
It would not surprise me if Austin were to convert to Roman Catholicism in the near future. He seems highly sympathetic to it, doesn't have much critical things to say about it, practices some Roman devotions (i.e. Divine Mercy Chaplet), has stated preferences to Catholicism over Orthodoxy, and appears to be somewhat discontent with Protestantism. The only thing that can reverse this trend is to focus more on biblical study and embrace the writings of the Reformers.
I think it's fair to say that biblical study has been at the core of Austin's journey all along, and I'm sure he knows the Protestant Reformers pretty well.
He's simply defending the apostate Roman Catholic Church and the gross error it has introduced up to the Pope saying Jesus isn't the only way to God. He's an apologist for heresy.
That isn’t what the pope said. Rather, that’s your interpretation of what the pope said. I think the pope will never say “Jesus isn’t the only way to God”
You realize that St. John Henry Newman was a Protestant Anglican when he wrote this text, right?
@@joshuakoh7858 Right, his minions always need to circle the wagons to qualify away his heretical statements. He said what he said, gaslighting aside.
@carsonianthegreat4672 Who cares? Doesn't change anything I said.
@@c.m.granger6870 Well I didn’t really qualify his statements. I just distinguish what was said and what is a possible interpretation of what was said. I think it is important to keep that in mind lest we accidentally put words in someone else’s mouth. We want catholics to have that same attitude towards the preachings of Protestant pastors too right?
E.g. If a baptist or nondenominational pastor says that baptism “is a practise that does not per se bring salvation but rather symbolises Christ’s work and our cleansing through uniting us to his death, burial, and resurrection”, we don’t want catholics to go around telling others, “baptist and nondenominational pastors say that baptism is not important”
Seems reasonable to look at some of the typology as mystical interpretation. One thing I don't agree with though is celibate clergy. In the Bible they are allowed to be the husband of one wife. Paul says not all can handle it and will burn with passion. Do they know better than the Holy Spirit?? I worry if I were in the church I wouldn't want to leave my children alone with them because I don't trust them with all sexual scandals.
First of all, the Catholic Church doesn't make celibacy a doctrine. It's a matter of discipline. (Consider the difference between a constitutional principle, like protecting free speech, vs. a traffic law, which is put in place for prudential reasons. ) The Catholic Church does have married priests in the Eastern rites and some Protestant clergy who have converted to Catholicism.
Secondly, it's not at all clear that married men avoid all of those problems you mentioned. The other churches have their share of miscreants, but the RC Church gets more attention because it's the largest "denomination. "
Historical EVENTS are not ideas to develop.
Doctrines are more than the repeating of historical events.
The Trinity is not a historical event.
"existing doctrines are universally considered, without any question, in each age to be the echo..." cannot be sustained without documentary written evidence from each age. This evidence is what is lacking and requires the rationalization of "doctrinal development". The development hypothesis requires data that if it existed would nullify the need for the hypothesis.
To call Newman a "saint" is dubious. Given his denial of sola fide and fully aware of Rome's anathemas then I am highly doubtful he is a saint.
The obsession with written documentation is an unquestionably modern idea and totally inconsistent with ancient ideas of what constituted authoritative sources.
@@zemotheon12987Thats a rather interesting thing to say for someone whose faith completely relies on the veracity of a certain ancient text we all know and love.
@zemotheon12987
Authoritative does not necessarily mean true or infailable. Neither does invoking the word modern automatically refute and idea or sentiment.
Denial of Sola Fide, a man-made doctrine first fully articulated in the 16th century, suggests that a person is damned? If that were true, why would the Holy Spirit provide that the words "faith alone" should only appear once in Scripture? "And you see that a man is not justified by faith alone, but by works". That would be pretty confusing on the part of the Holy Spirit - So confusing, the confusion apparently wasn't resolved for 1500 years.
Sure, we're saved by grace, through faith, but faith alone? It's just not Biblical. And Hebrews 10:26, all of Matthew 7, 1 John 2 and many more passages also attest to this. Our actions matter greatly, in addition to our beliefs.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty The Bible is only one piece of evidence in support of the veracity of our faith. The witness of the church, miracles, and the transformative power of the sacraments of the church are also evidence, and actually the evidence you will see church fathers referring to more often.
16:30 I would say that Papal or at least Roman infallibility has a very literal early exponent. I think it's St. Irenaeus.
doctrinal development + sola scriptura + walking in the Spirit = 🤌
@@pigetstuck 🤝
All the Catholic: So will you convert, Austin?
Austin: Probably not.
Several other protestants: I really hadn't heard it put the way Austin did. I might convert.
Jesus: 😂
hahahaha I've definitely seen this play out
Very interesting to watch as a Latter-day Saint.
I need to read the original but I think a critical question is "what are the necessary qualifications for an authorized arbiter of doctrinal development?"
The qualifications are still the same as they were since the first generation after the apostles: the collective voice of the successors to the apostles who are acting in concert with the successor to Peter.
Fantastic video, Austin.
Newman was not only a watershed theologian, he was also a brilliant philosopher who made a compelling case for Christianity being the worldview that unites the human family by grafting on all that is true, good, and beautiful. He's a future doctor of the Church, I'm sure.
Newman also followed the truth wherever it led him, at great personal expense.
Man as someone REALLY struggling with this, professed my faith in Christ. Originally wanted to be Baptist, then Orthodox, then Catholic, and currently Anglican... Feeling so so so lost. I pray every day, I pray the rosary, I go to church but I find fault in every denomination I look into. Catholicism seems the most true on paper from my extensive research, but I feel like it has so many man-made doctrines added to it. Then I think Jesus gave the church the power to add man-made doctrines; I feel some doctrines just feel so distant from who Christ is and what he would say, like people outside of the Catholic church, potentially not being saved or going to heaven. I feel like the Lord looks at someone's heart, their love and their being, their fate in the Lord. Not following dead rituals like the Pharisees. I feel the Catholic faith has so many technicalities in regards to things. But then Jesus gave the apostles the power to forgive sins. I think many of those 'dead rituals' have tremendous power, and actions shape character. I feel lost. Pray for me. Just want to say you are awesome and I feel I relate to your videos so much. I feel like Anglicans is the best of both worlds; less technicalities and man-made traditions with a lot of holy tradition, liturgy, sacraments and beauty.
Thanks for such a thoughtful comment. I know how disorienting this can be and can relate to much of what you wrote. May God guide you on your journey, wherever it leads.
Pope accepting idols as per Vatican news service. Is that really a development? To people who know anything at all of the person of Christ that's a regression.
I'm glad that other Protestants are also interested in Newman and his thought. The subject fascinated me enough to devote my master's thesis in theology to it. I first describe Newman's theory of doctrinal development, then summarize the history of its reception, and finally make a critique of it from a classically Protestant position, exposing seven key problems with it. Within a few years I intend to publish a revised, improved and expanded version of my work in the form of a book.
Sounds fascinating!
Also, a danger of hyper-literalism is the anachronistic superimposition of current trends, moral sway, and history over the text, and then drawing conclusions that are foregone and justified with circular arguments.
We can be guilty of misreading the Bible with our own culture's eyes.
Who's to say that the mystical was nothing more than an old Roman method that was evidence of a trend from that time. In other words, the literal was boring and had no life! That was Augustine's complaint. When he discovered the spiritual sense, he liked it more. And yet, the was unregenerate at the time, if I'm not mistaken.
Wouldn't a mystical approach be far more vulnerable to being read in ways that echo our own culture?
If we take the question of homosexuality, for example, the advocates for it are very much interested in arguing for development and that the literal reading of the text can't be held to apply 2 thousand years later. It's also quite clear at this point they don't have an answer to the 6 or so passages in Scripture that explicitly condemn the practice so they simply call them 'clobber passages' and ignore the literal sense entirely...
@@zacdredge3859 I agree, that is a danger
Fr Thomas Guarino has done good work on this. Newman rejected the apostolicity of indulgences and prayers for the dead--these were developments that began as "fitting" innovations.
I'll try to check out his work!
@@GospelSimplicity He is a Vincentian scholar and has written books on that. He has published an article specifically on Newman: "TRADITION AND DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT: CAN VINCENT OF LÉRINS STILL TEACH THE CHURCH?"
For those who say I am "taking him out of context," I interviewed him on my blog where he states his views quite plainly: "Questions about John Henry Newman vis a vis Vincent de Lerins with Father Thomas G. Guarino."
As for Orthodox, they have their own quite distinctively different view of developmemt which boils down to "words develop, not concepts." I have also written on this.
Austin why are you teaching demonic teachings. You're not supposed to be listening to a priest you're supposed to be obeying Jesus. I know why Austin you're not obeying Jesus because you don't have the holy Spirit in you. You don't love Jesus that's the truth. You're obeying man's interpretation of everything. Jesus through the holy spirit will tell you the true history of God's people not the tainted version of the Bible or the book that you're promoting from some priests who is not the living Jesus Christ this priest wrote this book road under his own understanding with the fleshly carnal mind. The flesh cannot anything spiritual..
You realize your own argument precludes any one from listening to you?
@@RoyCarter . Hey Roy did your heart get hurt. Your religious Church person aren't you. You listen to preacher Man who are not the living Jesus Christ. That tells me a lot about you you don't have the holy Spirit in you. If you don't have the holy Spirit in you you belong to Satan. Satan leads you and guides you and tells you what to do. Not the holy Spirit.
I’m blaming the hour I’m watching, but the blowfish with “Austin?” Sent me into paroxysms of laughter.
The analogy that Scott Hahn has used is the development of the oak tree from an acorn.
Which came first?
the most impressive part of this video was that you managed to find pictures of newman that I, the most die-hard newman fanatic i know, had not seen before. bravo. but srsly where did you find them
If you paste the images into Google Images it will tell you exactly where they came from
Credit to my editor for that!
If only he could see how the Papacy has developed 😳
I suppose you have not looked into the previous popes the Catholic Church has had in these past centuries…
A joke Sheen liked to state in short form, after coming back from the Vatican, an atheist wants to convert to Catholicism stating that despite all the corruption, the inadequate people within the Vatican, the Catholic Church 2000 years later still stands, and that is a « tour de force » or miracle showing that indeed God exists.
Bad popes, good popes, false popes, yep Catholics have been there, and done that… Scandals… yep that too… And yet, still here.
At the same time, should we expect anything different? Jesus was betrayed for money by one of His closest followers, one who saw Him perform incredible miracles like raising the dead. Another, one stated as being the first pope renounced Him 3 times out of fear and lack of faith. All fled leaving Him…
And yet God found a way to work through these men. Not only that, but He even seeked out one persecuting His Church in a most violent manner.
How the papacy has developped? What about how it all started, not exactly the most elogious presentation of the faithful… 😅
stop reading books and read the Bible my brothers. the leaven of the Pharisees is ruining your simple faith.
bro said stop reading books 🤦♂️🤦♂️😭😭
@@christophersalinas2722 I did
I read books and the Bible. The Bible is more important. But books can be very important. We all , of course, have to manage our time - because time is a limited resource.
It is odd to me that DD is so "profound" because it is so straight-forward, and is what _most_ Jews were doing in the 2nd Tempel Period for their doctrines. But we only know that because we have the benefit of historical scholarship, where most of the Church didn't for a long-time.
Newman wrote this essay because he realized that Roman teaching is neither biblical nor apostolic, but still needed a way to legitimize it in his own mind in light of his desire to join the Roman Church. If Newman's essay had been presented to the Council of Trent, it would have been rejected. Moreover, the Roman Church today teaches different things than it has historically, e.g. death penalty, salvation outside the church, etc.
Have you actually read it?
“The church” isn’t teaching anything different about the death penalty; Francis and his friends are.
The concept of salvation outside the church is harder to bat away. There is the notion of “baptism of desire”, but it’s also true that authoritative sources have stated non-Catholics cannot be saved-I believe the Council of Florence said as much, but I’m too lazy ti check. So the question is, can the church teach different things on the same topic, perhaps repudiating things it says in the past? We have adopted the unfortunate concept of “infallibility”, which IMO is very unhelpful
@@TP-om8of The Catechism of the Catholic Church has officially declared opposition to the death penalty, so it's not merely the Pope's opinion anymore.
@@TP-om8of Previous sources stated that in order to be saved one must be a member of the Catholic Church and be in submission to the Pope. However, now the Church officially teaches that people can be saved in other religions.
@@Steadfast-Lutheran I think that’s up to God, not the church