Topic: Constantly Evolving Theology - Scott Hahn

[Irish Hermit]

Scott Hahn has been quoted saying that Orthodoxy is deficient because its theology is stagnant.

The implication would seem to be that Roman Catholic theology is superior since it is always in a state of evolution.

Is the Roman Catholic institution unique in this respect?

Does Buddhist teaching constantly evolve?  Judaism?  Islam?

Do people here believe that constantly evolving theology is a necessary mark of the true Church?

[ialmisry]

Of course, Father, just as St. Jude wrote:"contend earnestly for the faith which is delivered over and ove again in revisions to the saints"

[LBK]

Of course, Father, just as St. Jude wrote:"contend earnestly for the faith which is delivered over and ove again in revisions to the saints"

Priceless. Need anything more be said? You da man!  

[Shiny]

Theology should not change if God does not change.

[Andrew Crook]

And yet a Catholic would probably use the argument, that originally (as some have come to a consensus on).. Yahweh was worshipped as just one, among other gods.  Then the understanding of Yahweh developed into realizing that he is the Only God, and there are no others.  Then gradually as time passes.. the Son of God incarnates, a new understanding comes.. of seeing God as the Holy Trinity.  Not so much that these are complete changes from what was, but it builds on top of each other -- like the layers of a pyramid.. until you reach the nexus (who knows when that is).

Even the ecumenical councils themselves seem to point towards a development, as the Church must define what is the Orthodox teaching -- as beforehand, some individuals were not sure what the consensus was.  Perhaps this is why you had so many heresies floating hither and yonder.. back in the early days. 

What do you all think?

[Irish Hermit]

Even the ecumenical councils themselves seem to point towards a development, as the Church must define what is the Orthodox teaching -- as beforehand, some individuals were not sure what the consensus was.  Perhaps this is why you had so many heresies floating hither and yonder.. back in the early days. 

What do you all think?

Dear AveChriste,

There are some words written by Saint Vincent of Lerins which touch on what you are saying.

See message 306
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29681.msg470869/topicseen.html#msg470869

[Father H]

And yet a Catholic would probably use the argument, that originally (as some have come to a consensus on).. Yahweh was worshipped as just one, among other gods.  Then the understanding of Yahweh developed into realizing that he is the Only God, and there are no others.  Then gradually as time passes.. the Son of God incarnates, a new understanding comes.. of seeing God as the Holy Trinity.  Not so much that these are complete changes from what was, but it builds on top of each other -- like the layers of a pyramid.. until you reach the nexus (who knows when that is).

Even the ecumenical councils themselves seem to point towards a development, as the Church must define what is the Orthodox teaching -- as beforehand, some individuals were not sure what the consensus was.  Perhaps this is why you had so many heresies floating hither and yonder.. back in the early days. 

What do you all think?

I think that the argument would not be solid in front of Abraham, who beheld Yaweh as three persons yet heard one voice.   We read several times that God said "let US..." (make man...go down...)  in Genesis.  Who is this "Us"?  Some say God was speaking to angels.  Did angels help create humans?  This is not possible.  Who is the "us"?  We find out who the us is when we get to the hospitality of Abraham, where the "Us" is three in number.  

So depends what you refer to as "development."  If clarification of what is already there is meant, then this is not development.  If layer upon layer of new material is meant, then this is not the Faith delivered once for all to the saints.    

[Volnutt]

And yet a Catholic would probably use the argument, that originally (as some have come to a consensus on).. Yahweh was worshipped as just one, among other gods.  Then the understanding of Yahweh developed into realizing that he is the Only God, and there are no others.  Then gradually as time passes.. the Son of God incarnates, a new understanding comes.. of seeing God as the Holy Trinity.  Not so much that these are complete changes from what was, but it builds on top of each other -- like the layers of a pyramid.. until you reach the nexus (who knows when that is).

Even the ecumenical councils themselves seem to point towards a development, as the Church must define what is the Orthodox teaching -- as beforehand, some individuals were not sure what the consensus was.  Perhaps this is why you had so many heresies floating hither and yonder.. back in the early days. 

What do you all think?

I would say the nexus is Christ on the Cross and everything else is bringing out the implications of that, as St. Vincent said. But this doesn't seem to be what Hahn is advocating. He seems to think the RC needs to be developing completely new doctrines, if I understand him.

[Volnutt]

Scott Hahn has been quoted saying that Orthodoxy is deficient because its theology is stagnant.

The implication would seem to be that Roman Catholic theology is superior since it is always in a state of evolution.

Is the Roman Catholic institution unique in this respect?

Does Buddhist teaching constantly evolve?  Judaism?

Buddhism maybe, Judaism definitely.

[Nero]

Judaism is constantly evolving. The basis may have been the Torah and the Tanakh, but many other things have been added over time to make the Judaism we see today. Among them are the Talmud, codifications of Halakha (such as the Mishneh Torah), the Zohar for Chasidic and Kabbalah-practicing Jews, the Tanya, etc. And these are just a few in a sea of books.

But I absolutely agree that theology should not change if God does not.

[Robb]

All religions change and develop over time, even if only on a cultural if not a theological level.  Sure Orthodox may believe in the same doctrines that she held a thousand years ago, but the way those doctrines are presented to her faithful is probably different today then centuries ago.  Today there is much more emphasise in religion on man and his human needs.  Much more emphasise is placed on social justice, and building up Gods kingdom here on Earth as opposed to telling people to be content with their poverty and misery and wait till they die to get their reward. 

Also, much more pastoral approaches are used by clergy of all faiths today in regards to moral issues such as those dealing with human sexuality (Especially in the area of birth control) Then would have been common years ago. Priest these days are more prone to use Economia with their flocks in order to reconcile the teachings of the Church to people whose lives are often caught up in the modern world, with all its temptations and complexity. 

  I personally like the new, more human developments that have taken place in religion then the more rigorous ways of yesteryear.

[Jetavan]

Theology should not change if God does not change.

But theology is something humans do, and humans do change.

[Wyatt]

Theology is not synonymous with "the faith." Theology is the study of the the faith. As such, theology certainly can evolve because it is simply our understanding of the faith delivered once and for all to the saints.

[Peter J]

Scott Hahn has been quoted saying that Orthodoxy is deficient because its theology is stagnant.

The question is, do any of the Catholics on this forum actually agree with that criticism? (Granted Papist said that he agreed with Hahn's assessment of Orthodoxy; but he specifically excluded the stagnancy charge.) If not, then I think you're beating a dead horse.

I think what you fail to realize is that neoconservative Catholics -- the sort of Catholics who worry about Orthodoxy being "stagnant" -- make a big show of being "ecumenical" toward the Orthodox, but very few of them will come on this forum and actually talk to Orthodox. (I sometimes call it "the ecumenism of not talking".)

[Volnutt]

Theology is not synonymous with "the faith." Theology is the study of the the faith. As such, theology certainly can evolve because it is simply our understanding of the faith delivered once and for all to the saints.

That sounds more Kantian than Christian. If "the Faith" is just this thing bracketed off somewhere "out there" where we can only imperfectly access it, then that kind of mocks RC (and Orthodox) attempts to arrive at an absolute source of religious knowledge.

[Jetavan]

Theology is not synonymous with "the faith." Theology is the study of the the faith. As such, theology certainly can evolve because it is simply our understanding of the faith delivered once and for all to the saints.

That sounds more Kantian than Christian. If "the Faith" is just this thing bracketed off somewhere "out there" where we can only imperfectly access it, then that kind of mocks RC (and Orthodox) attempts to arrive at an absolute source of religious knowledge.

I would alter Wyatt's statement and say "God is not synonymous with 'the faith'".

[Peter J]

Theology is not synonymous with "the faith." Theology is the study of the the faith. As such, theology certainly can evolve because it is simply our understanding of the faith delivered once and for all to the saints.

That sounds more Kantian than Christian. If "the Faith" is just this thing bracketed off somewhere "out there" where we can only imperfectly access it, then that kind of mocks RC (and Orthodox) attempts to arrive at an absolute source of religious knowledge.

I think it's completely Christian. The Deposit of Faith was given and does not change, but our thinking about it does change.

[Volnutt]

Theology is not synonymous with "the faith." Theology is the study of the the faith. As such, theology certainly can evolve because it is simply our understanding of the faith delivered once and for all to the saints.

That sounds more Kantian than Christian. If "the Faith" is just this thing bracketed off somewhere "out there" where we can only imperfectly access it, then that kind of mocks RC (and Orthodox) attempts to arrive at an absolute source of religious knowledge.

I think it's completely Christian. The Deposit of Faith was given and does not change, but our thinking about it does change.

That's like saying the stove didn't burn you, the heat emitted by it did when your skin came into contact with it; a distinction without a difference.

And where do you draw the line? A "spiritually" resurrected Jesus? A only "metaphorically" virgin Theotokos? An "allegorical" Passion? Once you start shifting with the times, where does it stop? Any of the above could be written off by a Church determined to get with the times as "the same faith thought about a different way."

[sainthieu]

Do people here believe that constantly evolving theology is a necessary mark of the true Church?

No. I tend more to the traditionalist, or intentionalist, camp. I don't believe in a "living" Bible (or a "living" Constitution, for that matter). If something is living, it can be killed: up is down, left is right, white is black, slavery is freedom, evil is relative. Calls for institutional change, in my experience, usually originate from people who don't want to be limited by some aspect of the institution---sinners in this case---not those who are attempting to approve it. I don't see any modern prophets around, do you? Or theologians offering insight at the level of the Church Fathers. Only destroyers. Mankind tends to have a little too much hubris. I trust the Church Fathers. They were much closer to Christ and His divinity than I will ever hope to be.

I'd agree that the faith doesn't change, but that our feelings about it do. It's inevitable. But Orthodox Christianity has preserved for us eternal and unchanging aspirations which need no improvement. Any changing that is done is to be done by us---by me personally, internally.

In the last 50 years, under the influence of Saul Alinsky and his fellow travelers, half the Roman Catholic Church has evolved into what is, frankly, cheap crypto-Marxism. I don't regard that as an improvement, and it is killing their church. Their theology now wallows in the mud. I don't want to be fashionable with sinners; I want to be the best Christian I can be.

[Wyatt]

Theology is not synonymous with "the faith." Theology is the study of the the faith. As such, theology certainly can evolve because it is simply our understanding of the faith delivered once and for all to the saints.

That sounds more Kantian than Christian. If "the Faith" is just this thing bracketed off somewhere "out there" where we can only imperfectly access it, then that kind of mocks RC (and Orthodox) attempts to arrive at an absolute source of religious knowledge.

I think it's completely Christian. The Deposit of Faith was given and does not change, but our thinking about it does change.

That's like saying the stove didn't burn you, the heat emitted by it did when your skin came into contact with it; a distinction without a difference.

And where do you draw the line? A "spiritually" resurrected Jesus? A only "metaphorically" virgin Theotokos? An "allegorical" Passion? Once you start shifting with the times, where does it stop? Any of the above could be written off by a Church determined to get with the times as "the same faith thought about a different way."

I completely disagree. There is definitely a difference between the revealed Truth and our understanding of that Truth.

[wayseer]

The word 'evolving' is a loaded scientific term that has distinct meanings.   'Evolution' is a word appropriated by science to describe a particular set of natural circumstances none of which has to do with culture or society.

Religion is part of culture and culture is always changing.  Culture cannot not change.  It is continually under the process of change.  Most of that change is subtle and we hardly notice it happening.  At other time that change is so dramatic that we call it 'revolution' - an almost complete severance with the past.  We are undergoing such a change with respect to the 'information revolution'.

The claim that somehow the Orthodox Church has escaped change is unsustainable.  But what the Orthodox Church has managed to do is to manage the pace of that change - and it has done so effectively.

[Volnutt]

Theology is not synonymous with "the faith." Theology is the study of the the faith. As such, theology certainly can evolve because it is simply our understanding of the faith delivered once and for all to the saints.

That sounds more Kantian than Christian. If "the Faith" is just this thing bracketed off somewhere "out there" where we can only imperfectly access it, then that kind of mocks RC (and Orthodox) attempts to arrive at an absolute source of religious knowledge.

I think it's completely Christian. The Deposit of Faith was given and does not change, but our thinking about it does change.

That's like saying the stove didn't burn you, the heat emitted by it did when your skin came into contact with it; a distinction without a difference.

And where do you draw the line? A "spiritually" resurrected Jesus? A only "metaphorically" virgin Theotokos? An "allegorical" Passion? Once you start shifting with the times, where does it stop? Any of the above could be written off by a Church determined to get with the times as "the same faith thought about a different way."

I completely disagree. There is definitely a difference between the revealed Truth and our understanding of that Truth.

In theory, sure. But what is the practical difference between an "understanding" that changes like the wind, and a changing truth? As Kay from Men in Black put it, "2000 years ago, everybody knew the earth was flat. 500 years everybody knew the earth was the center of the universe and 5 minutes ago you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

[Robb]

I never liked Scott Hahn or his brand of apologetics.  It seems as if he converted to Catholicism, yet still tries to act in the role of Protestant evangelist (Who preaches Catholicism).  Since he is neither a bishop or priest of the RCC and, as far as I know is not licensed to preach theology by the Vatican.  Why then should any person (Whether Catholic or Orthodox) Take him so seriously?

[Peter J]

In theory, sure. But what is the practical difference between an "understanding" that changes like the wind, and a changing truth?

It isn't obviously to you that if tomorrow I decide that grass is purple, then the truth won't have changed but only my belief?

[Irish Hermit]

The question is, do any of the Catholics on this forum actually agree with that criticism? (Granted Papist said that he agreed with Hahn's assessment of Orthodoxy; but he specifically excluded the stagnancy charge.) If not, then I think you're beating a dead horse.

Well, it is certainly something which looms as important in your mind.

You have given us this Scott Hahn quote 3 times.

Message 96
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36486.msg583807.html#msg583807

Message 27
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37124.msg589626.html#msg589626

And you even made it the OP for an entire thread
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37651.0.html

[Volnutt]

In theory, sure. But what is the practical difference between an "understanding" that changes like the wind, and a changing truth?

It isn't obviously to you that if tomorrow I decide that grass is purple, then the truth won't have changed but only my belief?

If you decided that it wouldn't change it. If everyone on earth decided it, then for all intents and purposes, the truth becomes irrelevant.

[deusveritasest]

And yet a Catholic would probably use the argument, that originally (as some have come to a consensus on).. Yahweh was worshipped as just one, among other gods.  Then the understanding of Yahweh developed into realizing that he is the Only God, and there are no others.  Then gradually as time passes.. the Son of God incarnates, a new understanding comes.. of seeing God as the Holy Trinity.  Not so much that these are complete changes from what was, but it builds on top of each other -- like the layers of a pyramid.. until you reach the nexus (who knows when that is).

Even the ecumenical councils themselves seem to point towards a development, as the Church must define what is the Orthodox teaching -- as beforehand, some individuals were not sure what the consensus was.  Perhaps this is why you had so many heresies floating hither and yonder.. back in the early days. 

What do you all think?

I think the implication of the phrasing "the faith delivered to the saints once and for all" is that while the substance of doctrine may have changed before the Advent of Christ because not all fundamental revelation had been given yet, Christ delivered all fundamental revelation in His life and ministry, and therefore the only development that is to occur after that point is in formulating of the fundamentals and in secondary matters.

[Volnutt]

And I would add, "clarifying implications there-off." Eg. iconodulia.

[deusveritasest]

And I would add, "clarifying implications there-off." Eg. iconodulia.

I don't know about that. The EO are really hard-core about it. I've been affirmative of the veneration of icons as communicative of the divine life for years now, but I've never been able to understand the perspective that icons are fundamental to salvation history.

[akimori makoto]

And I would add, "clarifying implications there-off." Eg. iconodulia.

I don't know about that. The EO are really hard-core about it. I've been affirmative of the veneration of icons as communicative of the divine life for years now, but I've never been able to understand the perspective that icons are fundamental to salvation history.

I think perhaps it is more that the denial of the icons perverts salvation history?

A distinction without a difference, some might say.

[LBK]

Iconoclasm is, at its core, a denial of the Incarnation of Christ. It denies that the Word became flesh. It refuses to acknowledge that Christ is fully Man and fully God. It continues the heresy of the depravity of matter and of the body. Seems like a rather important aspect of salvation history, and of our personal salvation journey, methinks.

[akimori makoto]

But if the iconoclasm had never occurred, would we still have the same robust theology of the holy icons that we do or would our position be closer to that of the Copts?

[deusveritasest]

And I would add, "clarifying implications there-off." Eg. iconodulia.

I don't know about that. The EO are really hard-core about it. I've been affirmative of the veneration of icons as communicative of the divine life for years now, but I've never been able to understand the perspective that icons are fundamental to salvation history.

I think perhaps it is more that the denial of the icons perverts salvation history?

A distinction without a difference, some might say.

As simplistic as it may seem, I've never seen a real response to the criticism that we don't know what Jesus looked like and therefore the idea that we could actually portray Him even in His humanity is hubris. Rafa (who I often have found ridiculous, but not all the time) used this reasoning to indicate that the Mandylion must have been the only real icon, and I very much understood his position.

[deusveritasest]

And I would add, "clarifying implications there-off." Eg. iconodulia.

I don't know about that. The EO are really hard-core about it. I've been affirmative of the veneration of icons as communicative of the divine life for years now, but I've never been able to understand the perspective that icons are fundamental to salvation history.

I think perhaps it is more that the denial of the icons perverts salvation history?

A distinction without a difference, some might say.

It would seem to me that icons can be denied on a premise other than perversion of the Incarnation, and in that case I could see how that it would be a perversion of salvation history.

[deusveritasest]

On top of that, I can't see how icons can be really fundamental to worshiping "in fullness and truth".

[deusveritasest]

Iconoclasm is, at its core, a denial of the Incarnation of Christ. It denies that the Word became flesh. It refuses to acknowledge that Christ is fully Man and fully God. It continues the heresy of the depravity of matter and of the body. Seems like a rather important aspect of salvation history, and of our personal salvation journey, methinks.

Except when it's not. 

[LBK]

As simplistic as it may seem, I've never seen a real response to the criticism that we don't know what Jesus looked like and therefore the idea that we could actually portray Him even in His humanity is hubris. Rafa (who I often have found ridiculous, but not all the time) used this reasoning to indicate that the Mandylion must have been the only real icon, and I very much understood his position.

Have you read St John of Damascus' In Defence of the Holy Images? All you need to know is there.

[LBK]

It would seem to me that icons can be denied on a premise other than perversion of the Incarnation, and in that case I could see how that it would be a perversion of salvation history.

On top of that, I can't see how icons can be really fundamental to worshiping "in fullness and truth".

All concerns which St John's treatise addresses.

Except when it's not.   

Care to explain?

[deusveritasest]

Care to explain?

If you're referring so much to the treatise of John Damascene to defend your position, perhaps this conversation can't really continue until I give your defense a read.

[LBK]

Care to explain?

If you're referring so much to the treatise of John Damascene to defend your position, perhaps this conversation can't really continue until I give your defense a read.

Good. It's not a long read, and it's available as an online document. Here's a link: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/johndam-icons.html

Also useful is the treatise defending icons by St Theodore of the Studion.

[ialmisry]

And I would add, "clarifying implications there-off." Eg. iconodulia.

I don't know about that. The EO are really hard-core about it. I've been affirmative of the veneration of icons as communicative of the divine life for years now, but I've never been able to understand the perspective that icons are fundamental to salvation history.

I think perhaps it is more that the denial of the icons perverts salvation history?

A distinction without a difference, some might say.

As simplistic as it may seem, I've never seen a real response to the criticism that we don't know what Jesus looked like and therefore the idea that we could actually portray Him even in His humanity is hubris. Rafa (who I often have found ridiculous, but not all the time) used this reasoning to indicate that the Mandylion must have been the only real icon, and I very much understood his position.

We don't know what He sounded like, nor have His exact words for the most part (they being recorded in Greek when He said them in Aramaic), but the Gospel text isn't hubris.

[Peter J]

And I would add, "clarifying implications there-off." Eg. iconodulia.

I don't know about that. The EO are really hard-core about it. I've been affirmative of the veneration of icons as communicative of the divine life for years now, but I've never been able to understand the perspective that icons are fundamental to salvation history.

I think perhaps it is more that the denial of the icons perverts salvation history?

A distinction without a difference, some might say.

As simplistic as it may seem, I've never seen a real response to the criticism that we don't know what Jesus looked like and therefore the idea that we could actually portray Him even in His humanity is hubris. Rafa (who I often have found ridiculous, but not all the time) used this reasoning to indicate that the Mandylion must have been the only real icon, and I very much understood his position.

We don't know what He sounded like, nor have His exact words for the most part (they being recorded in Greek when He said them in Aramaic), but the Gospel text isn't hubris.

I like that actually.

[Volnutt]

And I would add, "clarifying implications there-off." Eg. iconodulia.

I don't know about that. The EO are really hard-core about it. I've been affirmative of the veneration of icons as communicative of the divine life for years now, but I've never been able to understand the perspective that icons are fundamental to salvation history.

I think perhaps it is more that the denial of the icons perverts salvation history?

A distinction without a difference, some might say.

As simplistic as it may seem, I've never seen a real response to the criticism that we don't know what Jesus looked like and therefore the idea that we could actually portray Him even in His humanity is hubris. Rafa (who I often have found ridiculous, but not all the time) used this reasoning to indicate that the Mandylion must have been the only real icon, and I very much understood his position.

What Jesus (and the Theotokos, Saints Peter and Paul, etc.) looked like can't be part of Holy Tradition? That's how I see it (with or without the idea of Saint Luke having been a painter).

Also, Saint Nicholas of Myra's recent facial reconstruction looks very much like his traditional portrayal. Not conclusive, but perhaps a reason for benefit of the doubt.

[Peter J]

And yet a Catholic would probably use the argument, that originally (as some have come to a consensus on).. Yahweh was worshipped as just one, among other gods.  Then the understanding of Yahweh developed into realizing that he is the Only God, and there are no others.  Then gradually as time passes.. the Son of God incarnates, a new understanding comes.. of seeing God as the Holy Trinity.  Not so much that these are complete changes from what was, but it builds on top of each other -- like the layers of a pyramid.. until you reach the nexus (who knows when that is).

Even the ecumenical councils themselves seem to point towards a development, as the Church must define what is the Orthodox teaching -- as beforehand, some individuals were not sure what the consensus was.  Perhaps this is why you had so many heresies floating hither and yonder.. back in the early days. 

What do you all think?

I think the implication of the phrasing "the faith delivered to the saints once and for all" is that while the substance of doctrine may have changed before the Advent of Christ because not all fundamental revelation had been given yet, Christ delivered all fundamental revelation in His life and ministry, and therefore the only development that is to occur after that point is in formulating of the fundamentals and in secondary matters.

That sounds about right.

"God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world." Hebrews 1:1-2

[Peter J]

In theory, sure. But what is the practical difference between an "understanding" that changes like the wind, and a changing truth?

It isn't obviously to you that if tomorrow I decide that grass is purple, then the truth won't have changed but only my belief?

If you decided that it wouldn't change it. If everyone on earth decided it, then for all intents and purposes, the truth becomes irrelevant.

Not so.

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it."
- William Penn (I believe).