The Importance of Recognizing that Doctrines Develop

Before we can persuade a person about an idea, we need to understand the idea first. And we will not fully understand an idea until we consider it in the fullness of its context. Ideas do not form in a vacuum. They are shaped by people, events, time, truth, and even lies. Just as the human body is constantly in the process of development or decay as it ages—ideas also go through phases of development. Therefore, when assessing the health of an idea, we need to recognize it in its entire context.

By way of analogy, consider how a physician analyizes a person’s entire health context in order to determine a plan of care. Physicians recognize that people are not born in a vacuum, but they are the products of their environment. Proper care for patients requires a proper understanding of their environment. Even though a pediatrician looks for different concerns than a geriatrician, both care about the patient’s history. They seek to gather all the medical history possible in order to best serve the interests of the patient. Even a pediatrician does not start with a blank slate, but he possesses the family history of the patient, he is aware of current ailments in the region to, and also to recent medical research of children. This analogy attempts to demonstrate the importance of engaging ideas in their context and to avoid knee-jerk superficial responses. In order to properly understand an idea or doctrine, Christians should seek to examine how an idea developed and what are the principles on which it is founded. When a biblical doctrine is in view, it is important to recognize that the doctrine needs to be understood in its historical context, and not only its biblical and theological context.

As an example for understanding the importance of looking at an idea’s full context, let us take the doctrine of definite atonement, sometimes called “limited atonement”, the “L” in Calvinisms’ TULIP. Because of its association with Calvin, many believers assume it is solely the product of his engineering. When in fact, the doctrine actually has its roots in the early church. Men such as Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Augustine of Hippo, and Jerome all wrestled with this doctrine. The reformer, John Gill in the The Cause of God and Truth, noted that thirty-three church fathers wrote about the doctrine. The church fathers’ engagement on this doctrine was not born out of controversy, but rather discovered through exegetical engagement the scriptures. They were not trying to develop a systematic understanding of the doctrine in response to a heresy, but rather they embraced it as a logical conclusion based upon biblical texts they came across. So, one does not find explicit articulations of definite atonement, but statements that would infer an assumption of a definite atonement. So, even though the Fathers did not espouse a full-orbed doctrine of the atonement, they still recognized a particular and defined purpose of God in salvation.

As the church moved into the medieval period of history, the doctrine became more developed particularly through the writings of Thomas Aquinas and Peter Lombard—both men known for their systematization of theology. But even before them, medieval thinkers such as Gottschalk of Orbais articulated confidence in a definite atonement through a connection with the doctrine of predestination. In the 12 century, Peter Lombard further articulated the doctrine when he wrote that Christ died “for all with regard to the sufficiency of the price, but only for the elect in regard to its efficacy, because he brought about salvation only for the predestined.” Thus developed the succinct articulation that the atonement was “Sufficient for all, efficient for some”. Being heavily influenced by Lombard, Thomas Aquinas’ also articulated a belief in a definite atonement. But what he was particularly interested in was in understanding how the atonement meshed with predestination, election, and foreknowledge in the doctrine of God. Thus, Medieval theologians further developed the doctrine in light of its relationship to other doctrines. They did not engage it on the level of later theologians, but they were led to make definitive statements due to its association with other doctrines that were hot topics of the time.

In fact, if one were to examine Calvin’s writings, they would discover that he failed to develop a full articulation of the doctrine of definite atonement, even though his name has been permanently associated with it. This has led some theologians to argue that Calvin didn’t actually believe in a definite atonement. But even though Calvin did not explicitly commit himself to any particular view of the atonement, the sum of his writings demonstrate that he was in fact committed to the doctrine. Recognizing that even Calvin did not explicitly teach a definite atonement, but believed it, and was committed to it, helps us realize how doctrines develop, and how they must be understood within their historical context.

Ideas do not form in a vacuum. They are the result of a number of factors that combine to give inertia and dissonance to the idea being considered. This is true on the level of an individual’s understanding, as well as the development of the idea across land and time. An idea develops in an individual when they initially hear of it from a peer, a parent ,or a teacher, while still young. They consider the validity of the idea based upon the source and either embrace it, reject it, or set it on the back burner of their mind allowing it to continue to percolate.  As they encounter challenges to this idea ,or arguments in favor of it, their convictions subsequently deepen or lessen. At some point they might possibly whole-heartedly embrace the idea or completely reject the idea as patently false.

Most ideas in most individuals are in the process of development. Few people have either complete understanding or complete confidence in an idea to come to unwavering convictions about it. And given the Bible’s description of the fallibility of man, this should be seen as a good thing. What is critical as we engage a person’s understanding of an idea, is that we accurately understand their understanding and discern where correction or development might be necessary. The more we demonstrate a fair understanding of their conception of the idea, and the more we accurate discern the holes, the more trustworthy our feedback will appear, and thus, the more persuasive will be our interaction with them.

There is a lot to every doctrine. And there are a lot of different ways people can go sideways in their convictions. This should give us pause as we engage with people with whom we disagree. Although it is true that we battle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places, and it is true that Christianity is a war over ideas—we should also recognize that the battles we wage in theological circles are more diplomatic than martial. To discuss doctrine and theology is to interact with people in their present engagement of an idea in its development. We will find more success in our spiritual warfare when we recognize that each combatant could possibly become an ally, if effectively persuaded. Such allies will rarely be created through threats, humiliation, and mischaracterization, but through trust and confidence in our sound-mindedness in articulating an issue.