Newman Reading Group, Chapter 2

[Sherlock]

Hello AngelicDoctor,

My apologies for not posting sooner—I haven’t found the time to write more than the occasional short post on other threads. This subject is deserving of better treatment. I hope that others will jump in the discussion.

Whereas Chapter One outlined, in a general way, the development of ideas and delineated various categories of that development, Chapter Two begins to bear down on details…

One item I found particularly interesting was Newman’s statement, “Again, if Christianity be an universal religion, suited not simply to one locality or period, but to all times and places, it cannot but vary in its relations and dealings towards the world around it, that is, it will develop.” And a sentence later, “Hence all bodies of Christianity, orthodox or not, develop the doctrines of Scripture.” My temptation is to add, “whether they know it or not!” Newman’s statement is in contrast with some fundamentalists—I had an e-mail exchange with a Baptist who was horrified at the suggestion that doctrine develops. I had another exchange with an Evangelical who also expressed dismay at the idea: when I pointed out that the Trinity was an example of a developed doctrine, he replied that the concept of the Trinity was “readily inferred” by Scripture. But, as Newman explains the development of ideas, “readily inferred” IS development, as the act of inferring is an act of development! (At the time, I merely pointed to the Arian heresy as an indication that it wasn’t so easily inferred by the early Christians.)

To be continued…

 

[Sherlock]

continued…

Newman gives his own example: “When it is declared that ‘the Word became flesh’, three wide open questions open upon us on the very announcement. What is meant by ‘the Word’, what by ‘flesh’, what by ‘became’? The answers to these involve a process of investigation, and are developments.”

Newman goes on to point out that “great questions exist in the subject matter of which Scripture treats, which Scripture does not solve; questions too so real, so practical, that they must be answered, and, unless we suppose a new revelation, answered by means of the revelation we have, that is, by development.” He gives the Canon of Scripture as an example. Another example is that of the effects of Baptism: that this is an important part of a Christian’s life is not doubted, but Scripture leaves unanswered some important questions regarding it. Newman suggests that this lack of information regarding such doctrines may be, in itself, “an antecedent probability in favour of a development of them.”

I’ll post some more on this Chapter tomorrow, and then it’s on to Chapter Three—I don’t want to fall behind our “chapter a week” schedule. I hope others will jump into the discussion.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Sherlock,

Some of the passages that you cite here are the same ones that jumped out at me when I read chapter 2. I never before heard Newman’s argument that to interpret Scripture constitutes the development of doctrine. But, if you think of his point that Scripture does not explicitly give all the necessary information for some key doctrines, and the fact that the meaning of the very words used must be secured, it does make sense.

I will finish reading chapter 2 today and try to post something and then we can move on to chapter 3.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Reading John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine. Do join us!
newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter2.html#questions

1. Sherlock and all other visitors,
   OK, after much delay, I finally finished reading, and re-skimming this power-packed chapter 2.

**1. “Scripture needs completion”?

**To go along with what you commented on, I found it very interesting how Newman proceeds to refute the idea that Sacred Scripture–inerrant revelation though it be–is insufficient to give Christians all that they need for salvation. Scripture does not include *all *of the answers to all of the questions we have–questions that become essential for receiving the complete articulation of God’s message and the manner in which we are to live it out. On page 62 he argues that Scripture needs completion. Well, this statement out of context might make a Sola-Scripturists’ blood curdle. It might seem to be an attack on the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. It, of course, is not. Let’s see a quote:

“Another very large field of thought, full of practical considerations, yet, as far as our knowledge goes, but only partially occupied by any Apostolical judgment, is that which the question of the **effects of Baptism **opens upon us. That they who came in repentance and faith to that Holy Sacrament received remission of sins, is undoubtedly the doctrine of the Apostles; but is there any means of a second remission for sins committed after it? St. Paul’s Epistles, where we might expect an answer to our inquiry, contain no explicit statement on the subject; what they do plainly say does not diminish the difficulty:——viz., first, that baptism is intended for the pardon of sins before it, not in prospect; next, that those who have received the gift of Baptism in fact live in a state of holiness, not of sin. How do statements such as these meet the actual state of the Church as we see it at this day?.. Since then Scripture needs completion, the question is brought to this issue, whether defect or inchoateness in its doctrines be or be not an antecedent probability in favour of a development of them.” (Ch. 2, sect. I, paragraph 6; pp 61-62)

CONTINUED…

 

[AngelicDoctor]

…CONTINUED (part 2)
Another example is the issue of the intermediate state between death and the Resurrection (though, he admits, this question does not have the same practical import). Again, Scripture “does not, strictly speaking, keep silence, but says so little as to require, and so much as to suggest, information beyond its letter.”
Elsewhere, Newman also argues that creeds, like Scripture, need completion in this way. Creeds, like Scripture, have certain gaps which need to be filled. He defines creeds as “no collection of definitions, but a summary of certain credenda (beliefs), an incomplete summary, and like the Lord’s Prayer or the Decalogue, a mere sample of divine truths, especially of the more elementary.” He adds to this that “no one doctrine can be named which starts complete at first, and gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith and the attacks of heresy.” (Ch. 2; Section I, paragraph 12) Well said.

His point here is not to question the inerrant nature of the revelation (found in Sacred Scripture), but rather to suggest the need for a divine intention for the process of the development of doctrine (in other words, that this development of doctrine had to be intended by God) and for the need of the Church to function throughout history as a living authority for the preservation, ratification, confirmation, application, etc. of God’s revelation. Newman says that “some authority there must be if there is a revelation given, and other authority there is none but she (the Church)” (pp. 88-89; ch. 2, section II, paragraph 12). There must be a guide to any revelation, and Newman explicitly argues that, contrary to sola scriptura, Sacred Scripture was never meant to be this guide. Scripture is the revelation, but it cannot be the sole means for interpreting the revelation,… nor can it confirm itself as revelation. Contrary to sola scriptura advocates, Scripture is not self-authenticating. It does not verify its own inspired quality. I do not know that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired simply by reading the Gospel of Matthew–I know that it is inspired because God handed this revelation down to humanity through the Church–I know that these certain books (including the specific canon) are inspired because the Church has told me so.

CONTINUED…

 

[AngelicDoctor]

…CONTINUED (part 3 of 3)

**2. Doctrinal developments are not self-authenticating

**Interestingly enough, Newman makes the point that, just as revelation cannot be self-authenticating, neither can the authentic developments of doctrine be self-authenticating:

“Considering that Christians, from the nature of the case, live under the bias of the doctrines, and in the very midst of the facts, and during the process of the controversies, which are to be the subject of criticism, since they are exposed to the prejudices of birth, education, place, personal attachment, engagements, and party, it can hardly be maintained that in matter of fact a true development carries with it always its own certainty even to the learned, or that history, past or present, is secure from the possibility of a variety of interpretations.” (P. 76; Ch. 2, Section II, paragraph 1)

In short, doctrinal developments do not come with their own certainty of authenticity… and, the variety of interpretations and contradictory developments throughout history is a proof of this.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

1. **Is Revelation a seed?**Sherlock. Perhaps you can shed light. Look at the following passage:

“It may be objected that its inspired documents at once determine the limits of its mission without further trouble; but ideas are in the writer and reader of the revelation, not the inspired text itself: and the question is whether those ideas which the letter conveys from writer to reader, reach the reader at once in their completeness and accuracy on his first perception of them, or whether they open out in his intellect and grow to perfection in the course of time. Nor could it surely be maintained without extravagance that the letter of the New Testament, or of any assignable number of books, comprises a delineation of all possible {57} forms which a divine message will assume when submitted to a multitude of minds.” (Ch. 2, Sect. I, para. 2)

So, I guess that what he is saying is that Revelation itself–is a seed that must grow–a seed that is planted at its first utterance/recording by the sacred writer or prophet, but that it is God’s intention for the revelation to come to perfection as it progressively unfolds through time (authentic development through the divinely appointed authority–the Church–under the influence of the Holy Spirit). Would this be, do you think, what is meant when the Church teaches that there can be no new revelation after the death of the apostles,… but that doctrine can develop (meaning the original revelation can continue to grow and mature, and realize its originally intended design)?

Newman goes on to make some interesting points. He argues that the Christian religion can be understood through the lens of the incarnation–it has an external human aspect (as a religion of men it must grow ‘in wisdom and stature’ just as Jesus did), and also the divine substantial aspect (“the powers which it wields, and the words which proceed out of its mouth, attest its miraculous nativity”).

Also, he mention that Scripture itself exhibits a development of doctrine: the prophetic scriptures show this. One prophet utters the kernel of revelation, another builds on it later as a God-initiated response to the history of His people, and as other events occur, the development continues (p. 64-5, ch. 2, sect. 1, para. 9) . Lastly, he mentions how Jesus’ own teaching exhibits this character of a kernel that develops–especially as seen in the parables of the kingdom (the seed that grows overnight, the tiny mustard seed blossoming into the large bush, etc.) (p. 67, Ch. 2, sect. I, para. 11).

 

[AngelicDoctor]

OK, last point. Check it out,… comment if you’d like (on any or all of it), and then we can start reading ch. 3.

1. **An integral faith means no “Cafeteria-Catholicism”

**This excerpt really struck me:

“Of the Sacraments, Baptism is developed into Confirmation on the one hand; into Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences on the other; and the Eucharist into the Real Presence, adoration of the Host, Resurrection of the body, and the virtue of relics. Again, the doctrine of the Sacraments leads to the doctrine of Justification; Justification to that of Original Sin; Original Sin to the merit of Celibacy. Nor do these separate developments stand independent of each other, but by cross relations they are connected, and grow together while they grow from one. The Mass and Real Presence are parts of one; the veneration of Saints and their relics are parts of one; their intercessory power and the Purgatorial State, and again the Mass and that State are correlative; Celibacy is the characteristic mark of Monachism and of the Priesthood. You must accept the whole or reject the whole; attenuation does but enfeeble, and amputation mutilate. It is trifling to receive all but something which is as integral as any other portion; and, on the other hand, it is a solemn thing to accept any part, for, before you know where you are, you may be carried on by a stern logical necessity to accept the whole.” (P. 94, Ch. 2, sect. III, para. 2)

The Christian faith as expressed in Catholicism is so inter-connected (so unified and universal) that to reject one key doctrine (like the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the other sacraments, etc.) is to put in jeopardy the whole (which includes the Incarnation, the Redemption, etc.).

Likewise, it seems odd to Newman to reject just one part of the Catholic faith without rejecting the whole sha-band: “To take up with Luther, and to reject Calvin and Socinus [whoever he is?], would be according to that epigram, like living in a house without a roof to it” (p. 96, Ch. 2, Sect. III, para. 4).