We need to see the past not as rungs on a ladder up to the present. But as individual experiences of theologians walking on the path to knowing God in Christ Jesus through worship. This will free us from the self-confidence of our own times that weighs down with a burden that could eventually crush us.

First, Christians figured out the Trinity. Then, they figured out Christology. This developmental narrative of Christian theology exists virtually everywhere. More commonly, the Protestant re-telling of this narrative goes like this. During the Medieval era, all was lost. But the Reformers rediscovered the New Testament and justification. And since then, we have grown in our theological understanding century by century. 

But this developmental theory wrongly characterizes history. It is a myth, not reality. It corresponds to our era’s scientific achievements and current evolutionary thought. When medicine and science constantly progress and when the primary meta-framework for the world requires the advancement and change of living creatures, then it seems obvious to us that theology must have progressed. 

But this is not accurate. Here’s why.

First, theologians worked out of historical contexts.

Athanasius did not set to work out Trinitarian theology in his leisure. Instead, he wrote to defend the catholic understanding of Jesus. For example, he penned On the Incarnation to explain why Jesus ascended to the cross. 

Christians had worshipped Jesus, using various language to describe his divinity and humanity. Certainly, the Nicene Symbol of Faith provided uniform language for already existing worship of Jesus. But it was not as if each Ante-Nicene author worked to formulate some sub-division of theology. 

Each author, whether Ireneaus or Maximos, needs to be read according to their own context and historical moment. They witness to the truth as they seek the living God in their lives. We can enjoy and read them even with their divergent terminology. 

Origen speaks of the Holy Spirit as being created. What does he mean? Why does he say that? The answer is not: he has not evolved enough in his theology. The answer involves his pursuit of understanding through Scripture and Spirit. And imputing later theological discussions into Origen will result not only in misunderstanding him but also doing violence to his intent. 

Second, often earlier theology is more fitting than our current theology.

Besides reading authors as authors in their context, another reason why the theory of theological development needs to stop is that theology does not progress in a linear line. Often older theology bests what we have today. Or maybe “bests” wrongly characterize things. It may be better to say earlier theology often more coherently, or beneficially, and fittingly describes our worship. 

Sometimes it does not. Sometimes it does. Thirteenth-century reflections on God’s nature and relation to the world more fittingly describe our God and our worship of him than do many today. But Luther gets at justification better than many did in the thirteenth century. 

Later Reformed writers defined justification a bit differently than Martin Luther. They described it in forensic terms which fits better into a schema of theology (with sanctification the progressive bit). Luther emphasized that justification gives us Christ and so emphasizes more fittingly what we get in justification. 

Read More