Dynamic Truth E-Book

Rolf Pöhler

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Serie: ADVENTISTICA - Studies in Adventist History and Theology - New Series
• Sprache: Deutsch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Seitenzahl: 1029

Beschreibung

Dynamic Truth is a reprint of the author's groundbreaking dissertation on Change in Seventh-day Adventist Theology. Submitted in 1995 and initially published in 1999 (Part I) and 2000 (Part II), it is the first and only in-depth study to date dealing with the issue of doctrinal development from an Adventist perspective. Part I analyzes the intricate problem of doctrinal development and presents a historical survey of theories of doctrinal change, classifying them in three ideal types. In the author's view, a dialectic approach concerned about substantial continuity as well as authentic change can best avoid the pitfalls of dogmatic immobilism and revisionism. Part II provides a detailed study of the problem of doctrinal change in a Seventh-day Adventist setting. It analyzes the extent, nature, and direction of doctrinal developments in the light of the religious background of the church and the social forces at work in it. It also discusses the church's response to doctrinal adjustments and Ellen G. White's involvement in, and conception of, doctrinal change. The study concludes that Adventist teachings have been significantly affected by theological and hermeneutical developments under the impact of social forces nudging the church closer towards evangelical Protestantism. Ellen White, co-founder of the church, was personally involved in theological change. Her concept of doctrinal development shows a remarkable depth of insight and presents a well-balanced approach to the dynamics of faith and truth.

Leseprobe

TO MY STUDENTS

who scrutinize my beliefs

and prompt me persistently

to reexamine their foundations

in the search for “present truth”

Contents

Preface

Author’s Preface

Introduction

Background and Context

Scope and Purpose

Methods and Presuppositions

Part I

Continuity and Change in Christian Doctrine:

A Preliminary Inquiry

Chapter 1: The Problem of Doctrinal Development

Introduction

Clarification and Definition of Key Terms

Continuity and Change

Development and Progress

Doctrine and Theology

Doctrinal Development and the Study of History

The Rise of Historical Consciousness

The Historical Study of Doctrinal Development

The Importance of History for Theology

The Dilemma of Doctrinal Development

The Universal Scope of the Problem

The Complex Nature of the Issue

The Hermeneutical Crux of the Matter

Summary and Conclusion

Chapter 2: Conceptual Models of Doctrinal Development

Introduction

Unvarying Doctrine – The Immobilist-Stationary Approach of Traditional Theology

The Model of Conceptual Completion (The Historical Theory)

The Model of Logical Explication (The Logical Theory)

The Model of Progressive Revelation (The New Revelation Theory)

Developing Doctrine – The Progressivist-Evolutionary Approach of Modern Theology

The Model of Unlimited Progress (The Transformistic Theory)

The Model of Organic Unfolding (The Organistic Theory)

The Model of Ideal Growth (The Psychological Theory)

The Model of Controlled Advance (The Theological Theory)

Development as a Supra-Rational Process

Development as a Supernatural Process

Development as a Magisterially Guaranteed Process

Development as a Multilateral Process

Transmutating Doctrine – The Revisionist-Revolutionary Approach of Contemporary Theology

Models of Radical Revisionism (Revisionist Theories)

Bultmann’s Existential Reinterpretation

Tillich’s Existential Correlation

The New Hermeneutic’s Word Event

Radical Theology’s Consistent Secularism

Process Theology’s Permanent Reconstruction

Models of Historical Perspectivism (Situationist Theories)

Dewart’s Doctrinal Dehellenization

Baum’s Corrective Refocusing

Dulles’s Creative Adaptation

Wiles’s Perspectival Alteration

Pannenberg’s Proleptic (Re-)Formulation

Summary and Conclusion

Chapter 3: A Typology of Theories on Doctrinal Development

Introduction

The Static Type

Premises and Assumptions

Marks and Features

Varieties and Representatives

Methods and Criteria

Strengths and Weaknesses

The Evolutionary/Revolutionary Type

Premises and Assumptions

Marks and Features

Varieties and Representatives

Methods and Criteria

Strengths and Weaknesses

The Dynamic Type

Premises and Assumptions

Marks and Features

Varieties and Representatives

Methods and Criteria

Strengths and Weaknesses

Summary and Conclusion

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Patt II

Continuity and Change in Adventist Teaching:

A Historical Investigation

Chapter 4: Adventist Theology between Tradition and Renewal: A Survey

Introduction

Adventist Theology in Historical Perspective:

The Religious Background of Seventh-day Adventism

Millerite Apocalypticism

Methodist Revivalism

Christian Restorationism

American Protestantism

Adventist Theology in Significant Progression:

The Historical Reality of Doctrinal Development

The Extent of Doctrinal Development

Continuity and Change in

Peripheral

Teachings

Continuity and Change in

Fundamental

Doctrines

Theology proper: The Trinity

Christology

Pneumatology

Anthropology/Hamartiology

Soteriology: Atonement

Soteriology: Righteousness by Faith

Continuity and Change in

Distinctive

Beliefs

The Sabbath

Eschatology

The Sanctuary

The Spirit of Prophecy

The (Remnant) Church

The Nature of Doctrinal Development

Homogeneous Developments

Heterogeneous Developments

Hermeneutical Readjustments

The Direction of Doctrinal Development

From Flexible/Simple to Fixed/Compound Statements of Faith

From Heterodox to Orthodox Doctrines

From Distinctive to Fundamental Truths

From Legalism to Evangelicalism

Adventist Theology in Cultural Context:

The Social Forces of Doctrinal Change

Prophetic Disconfirmation

Church Growth and Internationalization

Social Adaptation and Acculturation

Sect or Denomination?

Summary and Conclusion

Chapter 5: Adventist Conceptions of Doctrinal Development: An Assessment

Introduction

Responses to Doctrinal Developments and Disputes in Adventist History

1846-1865

1866-1885

1886-1905

1906-1925

1926-1945

1946-1965

1966-1985

Catchwords of Doctrinal Continuity and Change in Adventist Phraseology

“Present Truth” and “New Light”

Landmarks, Pillars, and Foundations

“No Creed but the Bible!”

Concepts of Doctrinal Development in Adventist Theology

Unvarying Doctrine – The Static Approach

The Model of Conceptual Completion: The Historical Theory

“We have always believed this”

“We have never changed”

“If anything changes, everything changes”

The Model of Logical Explication: The Logical Theory

The Model of Progressive Revelation: The New Revelation Theory

Developing Doctrine – The Dynamic Approach

The Model of Organic Unfolding: The Organistic Theory

The notion of doctrinal vagueness

The notion of doctrinal deviations

The notion of doctrinal unification

The notion of doctrinal perfection

The Model of Controlled Advance: The Theological Theory

Development as a unilateral process

Development as a multilateral process

The Model of Historical Perspectivism:

The (Moderate) Situationist Theory

Transmutating Doctrine – The Evolutionary/Revolutionary Approach

The Model of Unrestrained Change: The Revisionist Theory

Summary and Conclusion

Chapter 6: Prophetic Authority and Doctrinal Change: An Analysis

Introduction

Ellen White’s Role in Doctrinal Development

Doctrinal Formation

Doctrinal Preservation

Doctrinal Revision

Ellen White’s Participation in Doctrinal Development

Theological Maturation and Growth

Doctrinal Readjustments and Revisions

Examples of Ellen White’s Participation in Doctrinal Change

The Shut-Door Doctrine

The Garments of the High Priest

The Two-Horned Beast

The Pre-Advent Judgment

The Law in Galatians

“The Daily”

The Apocrypha

Ellen White’s Concept of Doctrinal Development

The Twofold Nature of Truth

The Dialectic between Continuity and Change

The Twofold Process of Doctrinal Development

Restoration and Rediscovery

Reinterpretation and Recontextualization

Summary and Conclusion

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Epilogue: What Next?

Appendix 1: Other Revisionist Models of Doctrinal Development

Appendix 2: Synoptic Tables of Theories of Doctrinal Development

Appendix 3: Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists: A Synopsis

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviations

Author Index

Subject Index

Preface: “Another Leap Forward”

Rolf J. Pöhler, a pastor in his native Germany, earned a Master of Divinity degree summa cum laude at Andrews University in 1975. A paper he wrote during 1978 on Adventist history caught my attention, causing me to expect further quality studies from him.1 Inasmuch as pastoral and administrative duties engaged Pöhler for another dozen years, it took him until 1995 to complete a Doctor of Theology program at Andrews University, with a dissertation entitled “Change in Seventh-day Adventist Theology: A Study of the Problem of Doctrinal Development.”

UMI Dissertation Services of Ann Arbor, Mich., claim to make available “almost every doctoral dissertation accepted in North America since 1861.” So I read Pöhler’s dissertation with deep interest. It is now more accessible as two handsome volumes. These books blend the sensitivity of a pastor, the didactic skills of a teacher and the rigor of a scholar. Pöhler is a conservative in the best sense: he is so deeply committed to the faith and the values of his church that he tends to understate rather than overstate problematic issues. Yet the tenacity of his research leads him to a wealth of material and his faithfulness to truth constrains his analyses. The result is a joy to read even though it challenges often-heard assumptions.

Pöhler has done his homework so well in Christian thought for his first volume that he comes to the study of Adventism with a tentative set of expectations, most of which prove to be apt. His dissertation cites 31 master-level and doctoral studies that deeply inform his enquiry into Adventist history. He is thoroughly acquainted with the published work of historians and theologians whose writings are germane to his topic. But Pöhler does his own thorough investigation into the primary sources; indeed, his bibliography runs to 94 pages. While his conclusions are congruent with those of his colleagues, they extend the analyses of Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal development that are currently available from other sources.

After reviewing the evidence, no one can truthfully deny the fact of doctrinal change within Christianity in general and Adventism in particular. But a more important question to ask is how the processes of change can be understood and described effectively. That exercise calls the community of faith to develop safeguards to protect itself from irresponsible change even as it welcomes change that brings it closer to Scripture. Pöhler is able to handle sacred issues and controversial matters with such care and calmness that most unbiased readers will applaud his findings.

For its mastery of sources, the quality of its analyses and the balance of its propositions, this groundbreaking study is an outstanding achievement. In that its cutoff point is 1985, it lays an effective foundation for continuing exploration.

Perhaps the most important chapter in Pöhler’s dissertation is, surprisingly, the shortest. Entitled “Prophetic Authority and Doctrinal Change: An Analysis,”2 it concludes with the claim that Ellen White “exerted a significant influence on the development of Adventist doctrines, being actively involved in the formation, preservation, and revision of the teachings of the church.” More than that, “she herself participated in various types of theological change, encompassing not only theological maturation and doctrinal growth but, at times, even doctrinal adjustments and revisions.” Therefore Pöhler can affirm, cogently: “To a considerable degree, she shared in and fostered the process of theological growth and doctrinal development which the Seventh-day Adventist Church experienced during her lifetime.”

Not only did Ellen White surpass her fellow believers in the depth of her understanding “but also in striking a balance between the need for theological continuity and substantial identity, on the one hand, and the possibility of theological revisions and doctrinal changes, on the other.” Her genius was, in part, to tirelessly warn the church against two perils: “the careless rejection of precious ‘old light’ and the stubborn resistance to much-needed ‘new light’.” The moral is clear, and well stated: “This concept can still provide guidance for the church faced by the perennial dangers of theological immobilism and doctrinal revisionism. Seventh-day Adventists may do well to emulate the example of their prophet who served both as a strong factor of doctrinal continuity and a constant catalyst of doctrinal change.” Pöhler finds Ellen White’s concept of doctrinal development intriguing: “The truths of redemption are capable of constant development and expansion.”

A decade or two after their completion, a few dissertations are seen to tower above the many. Pöhler’s dissertation is on my short-list of those in Adventism that will be seen increasingly as thorough, illuminating and constructive. I await with keen anticipation the fulfilment of his promise about “upcoming work.” One who has enabled Adventist studies to take another significant leap forward must continue to share his giftedness with the church at large.

Arthur Patrick†, DMin, PhD3

1 "... And the Door Was Shut.’ A Study of the Doctrine of the Open and Shut Door as Related to the Sabbatarian Adventists in the Decades after the Disappointment of 1844,” Manuscript 1978 (192 S.)

2 In the manuscript, chapter 6 had 32 rather than 21 pages. At the request of the dissertation committee, the “Examples of Ellen White’s Participation in Doctrinal Change” were left out. Likewise missing in the book of 2000, they are reinserted in the present volume.

3 Arthur Patrick (1934-2013) was an esteemed Australian pastor, teacher, and author. He was the first director of the Ellen G. White/Seventh-day Adventist Research Centre in Australia. Just months before he succumbed to a fight with cancer, he invited me to preach and lecture at Avondale College and in Sydney. I remember him as a Christian gentleman, a gifted scholar, and a personal friend. As a tribute to him, his review of my doctoral dissertation is published here with the kind permission of his widow Joan.

Author’s Preface

When I took up advanced theological studies at Andrews University in the 1970s, the development and even change of the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church immediately caught my attention. The early history of the denomination, in particular, provided a rich field for studying its theological growth and adjustments. It also raised some intriguing questions regarding the possibilities and limits of theological development. Research into the unique sanctuary doctrine soon led me to the intricate problem of the “shut-door” teaching. The latter, in turn, made me aware that doctrinal readjustments were not only a historical fact but constituted a theological challenge that should not be underrated nor ignored by scholars and churches alike, including my own Seventh-day Adventist denomination.

From this insight it was only one step to the realization that the problem of doctrinal development required the serious attention of trained theologians. What was needed were detailed and precise information as well as adequate methodological tools for dealing properly with the historical facts as well as the contemporary challenge of doctrinal change. The latter had received renewed attention under the impact of Vatican Council II’s clarion call for the aggiornamento of the Roman Catholic Church (1962-1965).

Relating the issue of doctrinal continuity and change to my own church and its history resulted in an innovative and quite extensive study on “Change in Seventhday Adventist Theology: A Study of the Problem of Doctrinal Development.” It was accepted as doctoral dissertation for the ThD degree at Andrews University (Michigan, USA) in 1995. The 600pp-study consists of two parts of unequal length: Part I offers a concise and preliminary inquiry into the issues of continuity and change in Christian doctrine, laying the foundation for Part II, which presents a detailed historical investigation of continuity and change in Adventist theology.

In 1999 and 2000, respectively, the dissertation was published by Peter Lang in a slightly adapted form in two books, specially geared to historians and theologians studying doctrinal change, on one side, and interested Adventist readers (teachers, students, and laypersons alike), on the other. The last copy sold early this year, which raised the question of whether or not a republication was called for.

Several reasons suggest it. Firstly, the book is still used as a textbook in Adventist schools (including Friedensau Adventist University), regarded by some as a definitive text for students of Adventist history and theology. Secondly, the high selling price was forbidding from a student budget’s perspective. Thirdly, the publication in two volumes left both wanting in a sense like an unfinished artwork. For these reasons, the dissertation is now published again in unabridged form as an inexpensive reprint. The reissue as print on demand and as e-book makes it also economically suitable.

But is this volume still up-to-date, considering that its research was undertaken several decades ago and that it uses 1985 as the cut-off date for its historical analysis? Actually, Dynamic Truth was not only the first Adventist study of doctrinal development, but still is the only extensive academic investigation of its kind. Apart from George Knight’s commendable In Search for Identity (2000), no Adventist theologian has traced the various phases of Adventism’s theological journey in a monograph. And no one at all has studied the various Adventist responses to change in the light of the different models and theories on doctrinal development developed by Christian theologians over the centuries.

While the first part of the book as well as the concluding chapters 5 and 6 – dealing with Adventist conceptions of doctrinal change including Ellen White’s view on it – are unparalleled in Adventist literature, chapter 4 may be considered somewhat outdated. Not only is its historical survey on Adventist doctrinal developments limited to about a dozen examples of growth and change, none of them reaching beyond 1985. Since then, quite a number of research papers and even doctoral dissertations have been written, bringing to light further details on these case studies and discussing other doctrinal topics as well.

However, the case studies presented in this volume still serve as illustrations of its main points, amply demonstrating the reality, extent, nature, and direction of doctrinal development in Adventist history. They should be supplemented with, and amplified by, other studies, which will further strengthen the argument of this book.

Dynamic Truth is presented in the hope of further contributing towards the much-needed theological reflection on the multifaceted and complex issue of doctrinal development, particularly within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In view of the challenges posed to the Christian faith by secularized societies, relativistic world views, and pluralistic theologies, it is essential to have a clear understanding of both the issues involved in, and the options available with regard to, the perennial and intricate problem of doctrinal continuity and change. Beyond that, it may also serve as a case study on doctrinal development from the perspective of a relatively young Protestant denomination. To note how a conservative church is grappling with unexpected and considerable doctrinal changes may be eye-opening, not just for its own adherents, but for the wider Christian community as well. It is to this end that Dynamic Truth is published.

I am particularly thankful to my student assistant, Philip Nern, for his editorial help; to my colleague, Stefan Höschele, for his perusal of the manuscript; and to the Institute of Adventist Studies for supporting the project. As with the original manuscript, the most important acknowledgment is due to the abundantly gracious and inexhaustible Source of all life and achievement. Soli Deo Gloria.

Rolf J. Pöhler, MDiv, ThD

Professor of Systematic Theology

Friedensau Adventist University

July 2020

Introduction

I would exchange a thousand errors for one truth!

John Nevins Andrews

From the beginning of my studies I have made it a rule that whenever I come to know a sounder opinion on an issue, I will gladly and humbly give up the first opinion knowing that what we know is very little in comparison to what we do not know.

Jan Hus

Background and Context

As in the life of individuals, so also in the corporate existence of institutions and groups, churches and nations, crisis situations may develop that have an up-setting and disconcerting effect upon the people involved. From its inception, the history of the Christian church is replete with examples of this, one of the best known being the Protestant Reformation and its aftermath of the sixteenth century.

In spite of its recent origin, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has not been exempt from such times of crisis. Some of these involved controversies regarding doctrines whose traditional understanding was questioned by some within the community of faith. Apart from the years following the great disappointment of 1844, the most important and best known of these periods is tied to the year 1888. In this century, similar crisis situations occurred when some Adventists4 challenged certain historic beliefs of the church.5

This study was written in the wake of another, more recent one of these theological controversies that proved quite traumatic for a number of Adventists involved in it.6 Judged from the past, similar crises should rather be expected in the future. However that may be, what usually seems involved in such conflicts is the theology, the authority, and the identity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

In other words, what we are dealing with is a threefold challenge and potential crisis situation: (1) a crisis of theology challenging the traditional and distinctive body of beliefs the church has inherited from its founding fathers; (2) a crisis of authority questioning whether the powers that be are indeed ordained of God to exercise their role in a given manner in the church; and (3) a crisis of identity putting in question the historic and unique self-understanding of the church.7 It has become rather commonplace for Adventists in some parts of the world to speak of the existence of an identity crisis in the church.8

What lies at the bottom of this threefold challenge is, in fact, a crisis of change. The widening gap between the movement’s founders and their spiritual descendants, the growing sense of history and cultural change, and the discovery of certain modifications in the church’s heritage of faith over the years are raising nagging questions as to the timeless validity and continuing relevance of the message, mission, and self-understanding of the church.9 These tensions are heightened by the fact that Western societies have largely become secular and pluralistic segments in a heterogeneous world making it all the more difficult for any Christian denomination to maintain unity of faith, conformity of practice, and singularity of purpose.10

Thus, any new generation of believers needs, in a sense, to establish anew its relationship to the inheritance received from its spiritual progenitors.11 But can, or should, these traditions be modified and adapted to new situations? Must they perhaps even be discarded and replaced by new beliefs? Is change necessary for the growth and advancement of the church, or rather does it constitute an impediment to it threatening its very existence and self-identity? These are questions raised among Seventh-day Adventists today.

Psychologically speaking, people generally tend to resist change.12 Besides, in matters of religion, doctrinal adaptations and revisions seem to stand in irreconcilable conflict with the concept of an eternal and revealed truth.13 At the same time, however, the winds of change have repeatedly been blowing with force, if not on the Adventist church premises, then certainly throughout Christendom in general – not to the least in recent decades.14

There are those who see this not merely as a dangerous threat but rather as a welcome opportunity for the Christian church.15

Crisis is a part of life – of that which is vital, dynamic, moving forward ... It is a peak point of decisiveness which either ushers in a significant spurt of growth or a retardation that ranges from stagnation to disintegration or extinction.16

So, in spite of the possible risks involved, the Christian church in general, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church in particular, should face the issue of doctrinal change unhesitatingly – at least, if they want to provide reliable answers to the questions raised by the crises of change. In the view of a renowned church historian, “no task confronting Christian theology today is more vital than the demand that it face this issue squarely.”17 It is in response to Pelikan’s challenge that this work was written.

Scope and Purpose

In order to be prepared for and properly respond to the periodic challenges of change, the church needs to understand the circumstances as well as the possible reasons and driving forces behind them.18 To this end, an analysis of doctrinal developments in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and of the various theological positions regarding doctrinal continuity and change could contribute significantly.

More specifically, this document pursues a twofold objective. In the first place, it discusses the problem of doctrinal continuity and change as treated in theological literature in general in order to gain a full understanding of both the issues involved and the possible solutions available for them. By studying Seventh-day Adventism in the wider context and in the light of the history of Christian theology as a whole, the study provides an interpretative framework that may help both Adventists and those studying Adventism to better understand the history and development of the denomination (Part I).

In the second place, the study investigates the extent, nature, and direction of doctrinal developments that have occurred in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church from its inception until recent years. Over against this backdrop, the document then analyzes the reactions to whatever doctrinal changes were occurring and the conceptions of doctrinal development advanced within the church (Part II). It is hoped that this provides an adequate and solid foundation on which a hermeneutical concept of doctrinal development may be built within the particular context of Adventist theology.

In order to avoid possible misunderstandings and false, or exaggerated, expectations, it may also be helpful to indicate at the outset what this study does not intend to accomplish.

First, the historical analysis of doctrinal developments does not investigate the manner in which the various Adventist teachings originally came into existence. Instead, it examines how and, to some degree, also why certain of these teachings developed and changed after they did already exist in some, however rudimentary, form. As is shown in Part One, the term doctrinal development as used in theological hermeneutics denotes not the mode of formation but the successive transformation of a doctrine. In other words, it deals with the modification and growth of a teaching following its inception or birth.

Second, this work does not provide an exhaustive treatment of the struggle for doctrinal continuity and change within Seventh-day Adventism. Neither does it discuss all the published or unpublished views advanced in this international and, indeed, worldwide denomination, nor does it analyze the many instances where proposed doctrinal changes were resisted and the historic understanding of the church was confirmed. Its focus lies rather on selected doctrinal modifications and their interpretation within the church insofar as they shed light on the theological problem of development.19 In order to keep a proper perspective, the year 1985 has been chosen as the cut-off date for the historical investigation of doctrinal change.20

The historical importance of American Adventism for, and its continuing influence on, the teachings and policies of the denomination provides the rationale for limiting this work, in the main, to the purview of English-speaking North America. Occasionally this horizon is widened by the input from the author’s personal Western European background. Today, both of these regions together represent approximately 12% of the worldwide membership of the Adventist church.21

Third, it should also be clear that the historical analysis of doctrinal developments within Adventism does not provide a criterion for possible doctrinal changes in the future. While such an analysis may and, most likely, will have implications for a theology of doctrinal development, any challenge to the teachings of Seventhday Adventists must be evaluated separately and on its own ground. In other words, doctrinal changes in the past do not, of themselves, provide any justification for doctrinal revisions in the present or in the future.22

Finally, it should be noted that this study does not attempt to develop or present an Adventist theology of doctrinal development. As needed as this may be, its requirements would go beyond the limits of this investigation and must, therefore, await another opportunity.23

Methods and Presuppositions

In dealing with its subject matter, this book proceeds in a triad of objective information and clarification, historical illustration and demonstration, as well as critical interpretation and evaluation.

Part I provides the background and foundation of the study. It contains a preliminary inquiry into the many-faceted problem of doctrinal change (chapter 1), followed by a historical-genetic survey of the scholarly and involved debate on doctrinal development (chapter 2), as well as a systematic-typological classification of the numerous theories of doctrinal continuity and change (chapter 3).

Part II constitutes the center and crux of the study. First, it presents a historical investigation and analysis of some noteworthy theological developments within Seventh-day Adventism as well as of certain sociological factors that seem to have been involved in them (chapter 4). Then, it surveys and assesses what Adventist authors up to now have written on the issue of doctrinal continuity and change (chapter 5). Finally, it takes a closer look both at Ellen G. White’s involvement in doctrinal development and her views on doctrinal continuity and change (chapter 6).

In brief, then, this work proceeds inductively by means of historical description and critical analysis.24 However, insofar as there are certain basic and unavoidable premises influencing all scholarly research, this study openly acknowledges that it has been written from the perspective of an involved and committed “insider”25 whose loyalty to his church is only surpassed by his desire to follow truth wherever it may lead. Combining historical criticism and personal faith, I aim at unbiased objectivity but make no claim to detached neutrality.26

To approach one’s own denomination in a scholarly fashion is beset by several risks. On the one hand, scholars may be tempted to treat the history and theology of their church in a too benign fashion by failing to discuss unpleasant historical facts, glossing over obvious weaknesses, or downplaying questionable theological notions – all in the name of scholarly neutrality. In the attempt to avoid such hidden partisanship, they may, on the other hand, adopt a hypercritical stance denouncing seeming historical blunders and attacking alleged theological aberrations – again in the name of scientific objectivity.

Serious scholarly works will avoid both of these pitfalls. As historians, scholars will analyze the sources carefully and critically and then describe what the facts appear to be as objectively as possible. As theologians, they will meticulously reflect on the data and take a stand without hiding the premises influencing their thinking. They will not try to please friend or foe but serve the truth to the best of their ability. This book makes a deliberate attempt to live up, as far as possible, to this goal.27 After all, Adventists have been told,

we have nothing to hide in our history. We have a heritage worth protecting. The best way for the church to protect it is to deal candidly with the controversial and problematic before we are forced to do so by critics. In the long run, the scholars who have the sources, the courage, and the competence to deal with all the evidence can do most for the cause of truth and the nourishment of faith.28

4 The short term Adventist(s) as a synonym for the longer, and more accurate, phrase Seventhday Adventist(s) is used in this study, except when dealing with the Millerite phase of the Advent movement.

5 During the first decade of this century, J. H. Kellogg and A. F. Ballenger caused a major stir in the church involving pan(en)theistic notions of God and the uniquely Adventist doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary. In the 1930s, the Australian pastor W. W. Fletcher and the European church leader L. R. Conradi fell out with their denomination when they openly rejected the authority of the prophet Ellen White. For more details, see below, pp. 231-232, and 235.

6 The controversy centered on the doctrinal views of former Adventist Robert D. Brinsmead, theologian Desmond Ford, and pastor Walter T. Rea. In the main, it involved questions of soteriology, prophetic interpretation, and the authority of Ellen G. White. More than 100 pastors left the ministry, or even the church, either voluntarily or under pressure; several thousand church members went into open or inner emigration by withholding their assent to certain church teachings or even founding new congregations. However, the long-term effects of this crisis on the Adventist Church seem not to have been very significant. The situation was reflected in the titles of several publications dealing with conditions in the church. See, e.g., Arthur LeRoy Moore, Theology in Crisis: Or Ellen G. White’s Concept of Righteousness by Faith as It Relates to Contemporary FDA Issues (Corpus Christi, Tex.: Life Seminars, 1980); “Must the Crisis Continue?” Spectrum 11:3 (1981): 44-52; Richard Emmerson, “The Continuing Crisis,” Spectrum 12:1 (1981): 40-44; “Adventist Colleges Under Siege,” Spectrum 13:2 (1982): 4-18; Desmond Ford and Gillian Ford, The Adventist Crisis of Spiritual Identity (Newcastle, Calif.: Desmond Ford Publ., 1982); and Alexander LaBreque, “Adventism in Crisis,” Evangelica, March 1983, 17-18.

7 As in the case of an individual, a community (like a family or a church) needs a clear and healthy sense of identity which involves at least the following five dimensions: self-acceptance (Who am I?), relationships (Where do I belong?), origins (Where do I come from?), purpose/mission (What am I here for?), and goals (Where am I going?).

8 N. Gordon Thomas, for example, openly declared in the general church paper, “We Adventists face an identity crisis ... This identity crisis may be a major factor behind the attempted reinterpretation and reevaluation that now disturbs our church” (“The Almost Chosen,” AR, 14 January 1982, 4). Already in 1969, James J. Londis had applied this expression to Adventists (“We Don’t All Worship the Same God,” RH, 23 October 1969, 5). See also Thomas Steininger, “Adventistische Identität,” Adventecho, 1 April 1983, 4-5. More recently, Clifford Goldstein asserted, “Adventism today is suffering an identity crisis, a theological crisis, and a spiritual crisis” (False Balances [Boise, Idaho: PPPA, 1992], 16). Similarly, Jack W. Provonsha reflected on “the crisis of identity” that the church currently faces; he concluded that “the Seventh-day Adventist movement, at least in the First World, may be facing its greatest crisis since the disappointment of 1844” (A Remnant in Crisis [Hagerstown, Md.: RHPA, 1993], 7, 166).

9 This issue was addressed in a book prepared for the delegates to the 53d Session of the General Conference of SDAs, Dallas, Texas, 1980. See Gottfried Oosterwal et al., Servants for Christ: The Adventist Church Facing the ‘80s, ed. Robert E. Firth (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1980). For a perceptive description of the “chasm between faith and history of faith” and of the “bridge-building that is essential to care for the chasm,” see Arthur N. Patrick, “Does Our Past Embarrass Us?” Ministry, April 1991, 7-10. “Too often we tend to forget the ups and downs of the past, and imagine that our doctrines have been static. This failure to perceive the nature and extent of historical development of faith, doctrine, and practice in the Adventist Church has caused a chasm of misunderstanding between the faith of many Adventists and the realities of their heritage” (ibid., 8).

10 That Adventists are becoming increasingly aware of the secular and pluralistic character of the contemporary world is indicated by several publications. See Humberto M. Rasi and Fritz Guy, eds., Meeting the Secular Mind: Some Adventist Perspectives, Selected Working Papers of the Committee on Secularism of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists 1981-1985, 2d ed. (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1987); Caleb Rosado, Broken Walls, North American Division Series on Church Leadership (Boise, Idaho: PPPA, 1990); Rolf J. Pöhler, “Religious Pluralism: A Challenge to the Contemporary Church,” in Cast the Net on the Right Side: Seventh-day Adventists Face the “Isms,” ed. Richard Lehmann, Jack Mahon, and Borge Schantz (Newbold College, Bracknell, Berks, England: European Institute of World Mission, 1993), 81-89; and Michael Pearson, “The Problem of Secularism,” ibid., 90-101. See also below, pp. 243-245.

11 “It is of the essence of Christian theology, from its very beginning, that it investigate ever anew its relevance to the world and its identity in Christ” (Jürgen Moltmann, “Christian Theology and Its Problem Today,” Reformed World 32 [1972-1973]: 6, 5-16).

12 “No one really likes the new. We are afraid of it” (Eric Hoffer, The Ordeal of Change [New York: Harper & Row, 1952/1963], 3).

13 “The changing Church poses a problem to the abiding character of the Christian [sic] faith. Many people are troubled by the changes going on in the life and teaching of the Church. They wonder how they can still cling to the unchanging truth of the Christian [sic] faith” (Gregory Baum, Faith and Doctrine:A Contemporary View [Paramus, N.J.: Newman Press, 1969], 9).

14 “Every age in human history is an age of transition, but in some ages the transition is more abrupt and disconcerting than in others” (F. F. Bruce, “The Kerygma of Hebrews,” Interpretation 23:1 [1969]: 17, 3-19). Especially since Vatican Council II (1959-1965), the Roman Catholic Church has experienced such a crisis of change. What was hailed by some as the long-overdue aggiornamento (updating and renewal) of the church was strongly opposed by others who feared that the walls of doctrinal certainty and authority were crumbling before their very eyes. (See George A. Lindbeck, The Future of Roman Catholic Theology: Vatican II: Catalyst for Change [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968]; Langdon Gilkey, Catholicism Confronts Modernity: A Protestant View [New York: Seabury Press, 1975]; and Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflectionson Crises Facing the Church [New York, and Paramus, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1975]). In the 1970s, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod got involved in a dispute over its doctrine of inspiration; it was interpreted by observers as a crisis of change (Robert W. Jenson, “Missouri and the Existential Fear of Change,” Dialog 14 [1975]:247-250).

15 Interestingly, the Chinese word for crisis contains two characters, one denoting danger, the other opportunity.

16 Mary-John Mananzan, “Crisis as a Necessary Impetus to Spiritual Growth,” in Traditio - Krisis – Renovatio aus theologischer Sicht, Festschrift Winfried Zeller zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Bernd Jaspert and Rudolf Mohr (Marburg: N. G. Eiwert, 1976), 560-561. Cf. Bernd Jaspert, “‘Krise’ als kirchengeschichtliche Kategorie,” ibid., 24-40; and Paulus Gordan, “Identitätskrise und Kontinuität,” ibid., 454-462.

17 Jaroslav Pelikan, “Theology and Change,” Cross Currents 19 (1969): 384.

18 “To stay relevant, the church must not only respond to change; it must also anticipate change, for change challenges leadership to deal more effectively with differences” (Rosado, 120).

19 In other words, the study does not so much discuss the problem of continuity, for doctrinal continuity and identity are not the crucial issues but rather to be expected in Christian faith. Instead, it addresses primarily the question of doctrinal development and change because this is where the knotty problem actually lies.

20 Choosing the year 1985 as the cut-off date for this study allows consideration of both the 1980 General Conference at Dallas (which endorsed a new version of the Fundamental Beliefs of SDAs) and the 1980 Glacier View Conference (which discussed a number of doctrinal issues important to SDAs) as well as the aftermath of these historic meetings. Because of the inherent artificiality of any cut-off date, reference has been made, in a few cases, to views publicized in even more recent years. In general, however, the 1980 Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of SDAs is treated as the terminus ad quem of this investigation. To venture upon any judgment regarding doctrinal developments during the last decade would be rather speculative and, possibly, premature. It could also result in a confusion of tentative ideas and passing theological trends with lasting doctrinal changes.

21 As far as Adventist doctrines are concerned, they still reflect a strong influence of Western thinking. They are, however, officially affirmed by the representatives of the world church convened at a General Conference.

22 While history clearly demonstrates the reality and possibility of doctrinal developments, it says nothing about the desirability or even necessity of particular doctrinal changes. For a discussion of the importance of the scientific study of history for an adequate theology of doctrinal development, see below, pp. 37-45.

23 Originally, it had been my intention to add a third part to the dissertation entitled “Towards an Adventist Theology of Doctrinal Development: Hermeneutical Reflections.” This idea was given up, however, because it would have about doubled the size of the study. I therefore decided to limit myself to the present two parts, especially as I consider them foundational to any hermeneutical reflection on the issue of doctrinal continuity and change.

24 “To write history of any sort is to render judgments of some sort” (Mark A. Noll, “Rethinking Restorationism: A Review Article,” Reformed Journal 39 [November 1989]: 20).

25 “All judgment in history is ‘sectarian’ in that it depends upon some larger conception of what is true and what is false” (ibid.).

26 The beauty of the stained-glass windows of a cathedral can be fully appreciated only when they are looked at from inside the building while the light of the outside world is shining in. Similarly, to understand the value of one’s own churchly traditions, one has to analyze them from within but in the light of the Scriptures and of theological scholarship at large. For a thoughtful essay on the meaning of “objectivity” in the context of historical scholarship and on the possibility of reconciling it with religious commitments on the part of the Christian scholar, see M. Howard Rienstra, “History, Objectivity, and the Christian Scholar,” in History and Historical Understanding, ed. C. T. McIntire and Ronald A. Wells (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 69-82.

27 For an elaboration of this methodology in the context of historical studies on Seventh-day Adventism, see Rolf J. Pöhler, “The Adventist Historian between Criticism and Faith [1990],” TMs; publ. in B. Oestreich, H. Rolly, and W. Kabus, eds., Glaube und Zukunftsgestaltung: Festschrift zum hundertjährigen Bestehen der Theologischen Hochschule Friedensau. Aufsätze zu Theologie, Sozialwissenschaften und Musik (Frankfurt, Berlin, New York: Peter Lang, 1999), 203-210.

28A Discussion and Review of Prophetess of Health (Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate, General Conference [of SDAs], 1976), 15.

PARTI

CONTINUITY AND C

Chapter 1

The Problem of Doctrinal Development

All things move and nothing stands still.

Heraclitus of Ephesus

Doctrine belongs to God, not to us; and we are called only as its ministers. Therefore, we cannot give up or change even one dot of it.

Martin Luther

Introduction

Among the many issues that theologians have addressed through the centuries, there may be few possessing greater ramifications than the intricate problem of the development of Christian doctrine. Its universal scope, its complex nature, and its hermeneutical crux are placing Christian theology in a predicament from which it could escape only at the price of tampering with either historical facts or biblical truths.

Still, many Christians, being unaware of its true import, do not seem to perceive the seriousness of the problem. In fact, until the eighteenth century even theologians apparently did not understand the true nature of this puzzling question. It was only with the rise of historical consciousness and the ensuing study of history that the problem of doctrinal development became known in its full extent and was seen as an object of serious theological research.

In recent decades, an avalanche of literature on the issue has hit the libraries of universities and theological seminaries providing students with a wealth of historical information and thoughtful reflection, which render the neglect of this vital theological question almost inexcusable.29 Continuity and change, development and progress, doctrine and theology – these are some of the key terms used in the discussion of the issue. As they are also crucial for this study, it is advisable first to clarify and define these terms.

It is the purpose of this first chapter to explain and define the problem of doctrinal development as well as to demonstrate its close relationship to the scientific study of history.

Clarification and Definition of Key Terms

Continuity and Change

If we were to characterize our contemporary world, it could wittily be done by the familiar phrase “Subject to change without notice.” Unquestionably, we live in an age of rapid and radical change. Scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs, the sudden destabilization of political and economic systems, the transformation of the social structures of society, and the abandonment of traditional patterns of thought and behavior – all are occurring today in such rapid succession and with such velocity that, in the minds of many, change seems to have become almost the only certain and constant factor of modern life.30 One is reminded of the ancient dictum of Greek philosophy – πάντα εῖ - according to which “all things are in flux.”31 A discerning observer of modernity has expressed this widespread feeling in the following way:

Change is the basic reality of history; it is in some way the character of whatever being there is. The flux of becoming, not the changelessness of being, characterizes our existence and that of our world. All is in process through time, and nothing stands still.32

And yet, even the disturbing idea that there is nothing permanent except change, which so succinctly summarizes much of modern man’s experience and thought, clearly implies that there does exist something like permanence and continuity, if not sameness or identity.33 In fact, in most instances where change occurs, it happens to something that remains in a very real sense the same, though changing some of its characteristics.34 This is the case whenever we speak of growth and development, advance and progress, movement and transition, and even transformation and metamorphosis.

The only occurrences of total or absolute change, i.e., of change without continuity, are creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) and total annihilation, instances of change from being to non-being, and vice versa. This means that the ideas of continuity (which implies a certain permanence, stability, and even a degree of sameness or identity) and change are not, in fact, mutually exclusive but rather complementary categories of thought – except for the instances of complete identity and total change, respectively.

Almost from the beginning of the attempt to systematically analyze and understand the world in which we live, humanity has been wrestling with the problem of permanence and development, identity and change. One can even say that Western philosophy originated in the endeavor to explain the reality of a constantly changing universe without abandoning the notion of constant and unchanging truth.

There were three basic answers given by the ancient Greek philosophers to the problem of continuity and change.35 On the one hand, Heraclitus (c. 500 B.C.) saw the world in a state of flux marked by continuity and change; he denied that in reality anything remained ultimately unchanged.36 On the other hand, Parmenides (born c. 510 B.C.), the founder of the Eleatic school, rejected the idea that everything eventually changes, teaching instead that nothing changes. Holding to the concept of an eternally changeless and motionless universe, he regarded the phenomenon of change (i.e., of motion, becoming, and multiplicity) as an illusion, as mere appearance without reality or being. This rejection as absurd of the very concept of change was continued by Parmenides’s disciple Zeno (born c. 489 B.C.) by means of his four famous arguments.37

Plato (428/27-348/47 B.C.), the father of Western philosophy, presented a kind of intermediate position by distinguishing between two separate and distinct levels of being: the changeless, spiritual world of intelligible things and the transitory world of sensible things. In his doctrine of ideas, Plato expressed this distinction between immutable, unchangeable reality and changeable appearances in classic form.

Plato’s most famous and influential disciple Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) rejected the Platonic notion of the separate existence of changeless forms and mutable things. Instead, he defined substance as a composite of unchanging matter (an enduring, underlying substratum) and changing form.38 This, in turn, led him to distinguish between two types of change: (1) accidental change in which there occurs either a qualitative, quantitative, or local alteration while the essential nature of a thing remains identical; and (2) substantial change in which the primary essence of a thing changes into something else.39 Thus, at the zenith of ancient philosophy there existed an elaborate theory of continuity and change that would decisively influence Christian theology in later centuries.40

In this book, the term change is used in the sense of a variation or mutation41 that modifies certain characteristics of a thing without thereby destroying the substantial identity of the object in its changed or unchanged state.42 Continuity, in turn, refers to some kind of permanence and sameness short of complete identity.

As can readily be seen, change may occur in varying degrees of intensity ranging from being almost imperceptible to being radical. In distinction from totally discontinuous, absolute changes from being to non-being, and vice versa, the expression radical change is employed here in the sense of essential alterations of an object, with continuity being limited to non-essential or accidental features.

In brief, continuity and change are treated here, not as mutually exclusive, but rather as contrasting terms which, in most cases, imply each other by expressing the complementary concepts of perpetuity (i.e., of remaining) and alteration (i.e., of becoming different).

Development and Progress

While the philosophical concepts of continuity and change had already been developed by the ancient Greek thinkers of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., the related ideas of development and progress did not receive full attention until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries A.D. It was then that, sparked by the growing awareness of the process of time and history, there arose such diverse movements as romantic and objective idealism (Schlegel, Hegel), scientific evolutionism (Darwin), positivist scientism (Comte), and dialectical materialism (Marx). They all resorted to the metaphors of development and progress in order to come to grips with intellectual, social, or natural history by giving meaning and direction to its fluctuating process.

The importance of the new sense of history for the study of doctrinal development and the impact these movements had on the discussion of the problem of change are described later.43 What is of interest here is the meaning of the terms development and progress in contrast to the related notion of change.

To begin with, both progress and development presuppose the possibility of changes occurring in time and history; in fact, they imply that some change has indeed taken place. For, to speak of development is nolens volens to speak of change, however narrowly one may wish to define the latter. This means that whoever accepts the concept of doctrinal development cannot with any logical consistency rule out the idea of doctrinal change in toto. At the same time, the terms progress and development imply a substantial degree of permanence and identity. For this reason, they can even be used as rough equivalents to the expression continuity and change.

On the other hand, progress and development differ from each other in that the first refers to the quality and direction of change, while the second more specifically deals with its manner and mode. For instance, change may not always lend itself to an optimistic appraisal in terms of progress and advance. Rather it may have to be described in a more pessimistic way as regression, decline, or degeneration. In other words, to speak of progress is to interpret a certain development positively as a forward-moving improvement or a change for the better in contradistinction to both its neutral description in terms of mere change and its negative evaluation as a backward-moving deterioration or maldevelopment.44

The idea of development, commonly regarded as synonymous with the notion of progress connoting advance and improvement, more exactly has to do with the way in which changes take place. For to develop means literally to unfold or unwrap something that had been wrapped up or enveloped. Thus, development carries the connotation of making something invisible/hidden visible/manifest by bringing out its latent characteristics or possibilities.

Such an explicatio, however, may take place in various ways – through growth (ontogenesis), differentiation, maturation, metamorphosis, macroevolution (phylogenesis), microevolution, and the like. Therefore, the mere term development, while indicating that change takes place through explicating some implicit quality or potential, is still too vague linguistically to determine the exact manner and intensity in which the unfolding is thought to occur.45

The concept of doctrinal development can be understood, therefore, in widely divergent ways, depending not only on whether change is thought to occur in a minute, moderate, or radical way, but also on whether specific developments are regarded as an improvement or corruption of Christian doctrine.46 Unless further qualified in a quantitative or qualitative way, the expression doctrinal development is used, in the following, as equivalent to the phrase doctrinal continuity and change.

Doctrine and Theology

The concept of doctrinal development calls not only for a clarification of the meaning and connotations of the term development but also for a definition of the qualifying adjective doctrinal. There are two distinct though closely related senses of the term doctrine depending on the relative strictness or looseness of one’s understanding of Christian teaching.47

In its narrow and restricted sense, doctrine48 denotes a religious affirmation that a church teaches by virtue of its perceived divine authority and that it expects all members to accept as a revealed truth of faith. For instance, in the Roman Catholic Church, teachings that have been officially defined by the magisterium as divinely revealed truths are regarded as irrevocably fixed, absolutely binding, and infallible doctrines. In this sense, doctrine coincides with the rather modern notion of dogma.49

Divested of such absolutist claims, this restricted view is reflected in the confessional writings of the Reformation and was typical of Protestant orthodoxy. It has also been the classic view of the nineteenth-century historians of dogma who concentrated on the public and binding doctrinal affirmations of the Christian church.50 It is held still today by those denominations that regard their creedal statements or other ecclesiastical teachings as normative formulations and authoritative interpretations of biblical revelation.51

In its wider and more comprehensive sense, the term doctrine applies to any theological statement or interpretation of truth insofar as it expresses and reflects the common belief of a church. As such, it is synonymous with the term teaching understood as that which a church holds to be taught in, as well as on the basis of, the word of God. Doctrine, in this view, is equivalent to theology, not in the sense of the views or speculations of individual theologians, but as signifying the commonly held understanding of revealed truth. Thus, doctrine is not limited to irrevocable dogmas or creedal formulations but includes those theological reflections that express a denomination’s corporate experience, as well as knowledge, of the faith.52

Though it is possible to differentiate between doctrine in the narrow sense of dogma and doctrine as the common theology and teaching of a church, the propriety of such a distinction for a discussion of the problem of doctrinal development may be challenged on several grounds.

In the first place, even in Roman Catholic thinking it is not altogether clear where exactly the line has to be drawn between divinely revealed dogmas, defined propositions (Catholic truths), or ecclesiastical doctrines. Besides, the distinction between absolutely certain, infallible dogmas to be held with divine faith and absolute assent, on the one hand, and certain but non-infallible doctrines to be believed with ecclesiastical faith and inner assent, on the other, is largely juridical and of little practical relevance for Roman Catholic Christians. There is also an ambiguity for Catholic theologians in that dogmatic theology deals with binding dogmas as well as with the reformable teachings and theological reflections of the church. In fact, according to contemporary Roman Catholic theology, even dogmas possess the potential for growth and development and, consequently, remain open to reformulation and reinterpretation.53

Second, the Protestant rejection of the idea of infallibly defined doctrines leaves no room for a substantial difference between official dogmas, creedal statements, ecclesiastical teachings, and commonly held theological beliefs. Their difference is merely one of degrees respecting their relative authority and finality with which they are invested by the church. Besides, public doctrinal affirmations are inseparably linked, both historically and theologically, with the entire theological heritage and teaching of a church. And, as far as doctrinal change is concerned, the process of development is virtually the same whether a doctrine remains on the level of an unofficial but common teaching or results in a strictly defined and binding dogmatic formulation.

Finally, viewed from the perspective of those Protestant denominations that know neither dogmas, nor creeds, the distinction between dogma, on the one hand, and ecclesiastical teaching and theology, on the other – valid as it may be in itself – is of little use, if not irrelevant.

For these reasons, the term doctrine is employed rather comprehensively in this work to encompass not only the official teachings of the Christian churches but also other theological concepts expressing commonly held beliefs, even though they may not have been officially formulated as church doctrines at any time. For, as Jaroslav Pelikan has succinctly defined it, “what the church of Jesus Christ believes, teaches, and confesses on the basis of the word of God: this is Christian doctrine.”54

In summary, then, the expression doctrinal development signifies that process as a result of which the common theology and teaching of a church changes in some way or other.55 Such modifications may be expressed in creedal or creed-like statements, in representative or official publications, in the public proclamation of the church, and so on. In any event, when doctrinal development occurs, it involves some change in the community’s reflective understanding and conceptual expression of divinely revealed truth that is due to an enlarged, or at least modified, perception of the meaning of the word of God.

In other words, doctrinal continuity and change refer to historical and objective developments; they are to be distinguished from personal and subjective changes that merely involve deepening insights on the part of believers into the meaning of divine truth or the teachings of the church.56 It is the discovery of this phenomenon of the development of doctrine within the Christian church to which we now turn.

Doctrinal Development and the Study of History

Almost from the beginning of Western philosophy the questions of continuity and change, permanence and discontinuity, being and becoming, were given serious attention by reflective thinkers. But it was not until the nineteenth century that the related ideas of progress and development gained prominence as basic principles common to virtually all major philosophical concepts and scientific models of the time.

Closely related to this was the emergence of a strong historical consciousness, which led to the outburst of historical studies in virtually all major areas of human life and thought and resulted in the discovery of the inexorable reality and pervasive nature of change in human history. From now on, theology could no longer ignore history. While not to be stifled by it, it nonetheless had to listen to it.

The Rise of Historical Consciousness

The first steps toward the gradual emergence of modern historical thinking57 and its concomitant evolution of a new (historical) method of dealing with change were made during the time of the Renaissance and the Reformation. While the historiographers of Renaissance humanism laid the foundation of modern historical studies58 the historians of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation introduced the historical argument as a polemical weapon in the mutual attempt to convict the other side of having introduced theological novelties and, thus, of being guilty of heretical departures from the true and unchanging faith. Though their approach was marred by dogmatic ends, they contributed nonetheless to the growing awareness of the historical phenomenon of doctrinal change.59

However, it was only in the wake of the Aufklärung that the factuality of change in history including the history of Christian doctrine came to be widely, if not universally, recognized. Rationalism and Enlightenment led to a “revolution in historical thinking.”60

Starting with Leibniz (1646-1716), German thought began to interpret history in terms of the ideas of development and progress. Following his lead, Voltaire (1694-1778) and Rousseau (1712-1778) in France, Hume (1711-1776) in England, and Lessing (1729-1781), Kant (1724-1804), and, particularly, Herder (1744-1803)61 in Germany shaped a new approach to history characterized (1) by the comprehensive and consistent application of the ideas of development and progress to both nature and human society, (2) by systematic and painstaking historical research, and (3) by the critical examination of the sources and the questioning of authorities whose credibility was to be judged by the autonomous historians themselves.62 By means of probing questions, inductive research, and imaginative thinking they attempted to reconstruct the past as objectively as possible.63

Following this historical and critical method, a variety of new historical disciplines claiming independence of ecclesiastical dominance and dogmatic presuppositions set out to investigate with scientific scrutiny past history in its own right and for its own sake.64