Theological Development

Absolutley not. That would be heretical. All dogmas, creeds and christological definitions are only means to clarify and explain the Tradition already held. Furthermore the vocabulary used must be understood in light of the specific heresy It addresses and how it was understood by those same Fathers.

We believe that Pentecost was the final revelation of God to man. Since then the Church has had to be more precise in her explanations, particularly as heretics arise and twist the church's words. But we do not gain new knowledge or new understandings; we just make that which has already been believed more precise so that our wording can't be used to advance a heresy.

everbecoming2007 said:

Do the Eastern Orthodox believe the theology of the trinity developed?

Click to expand...

I would personally reject the notion that people like St. Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr were "subordinationists" who had to be "corrected" by Nicene Orthodoxy. Like all fathers, they had to be corrected, but not in that respect.

Did Trinitarian theology develop? Of course. There was a reasoning out, a utilization of philosophy and cosmology to understand and explain the Trinity, a process which still goes on today.

But in terms of new revelation that exegetes God himself to humanity, we would say that the ultimate revelation of God to mankind was Christ on the Cross. No new revelation can trump that or add to it.

The Roman Catholic view is that certain teachings start off as "seeds" and over time they are cultivated till they reach maturity. Thus a specific teaching may indeed have been unknown and even rejected if espoused before it fully came to age. Orthodoxy rejects this.


We believe a true apostolic teaching would not be rejected in any age. Thus if the church formulates a dogma today in answer to a specific heresy, even the apostles in first century Jerusalem would agree with it.

The formulation of dogma is also accomplished differently in Orthodoxy. In that we don't define every little tradition for the sake of clarity. If it isnt broke don't fix it. It is only considered when a heresy has arisen and is tearingg the fabric of the church. Theexplanation is meant to correct wrong belief with right belief not to micromanage every aspect of belief. Thus no magisterium exists in Orthodoxy.

buzuxi said:

The Roman Catholic view is that certain teachings start off as "seeds" and over time they are cultivated till they reach maturity. Thus a specific teaching may indeed have been unknown and even rejected if espoused before it fully came to age. Orthodoxy rejects this..

Click to expand...

This is great. Catholics believe theology can "evolve" over time, for lack of a better word. The filioque is said to be a result of this evolution, as well as the doctrine of original sin.

everbecoming2007 said:

How does this differ from the Catholic view? The Catholics speak in similar terms.

Click to expand...

And yet Pastor Aeternus, for example, is not merely a new way of explaining, or relating, or logically concluding from, an old belief.

everbecoming2007 said:

How does this differ from the Catholic view? The Catholics speak in similar terms.

Click to expand...

we believe that progressive revelation stopped at Pentecost. Christ promised that the Apostles would be led into all Truth by the Spirit, which means that there is nothing new that can be added. Rome sees progressive revelation as continuing to even today.

now, there can be new ways to express that revelation as Capp pointed out, but there is no new revelation. as a modern example, I know some Orthodox scientists use light to describe the Trinity since light behaves like a wave, a beam, and a particle. before science could show us that, we could not use that analogy, but there is no new belief, just a new way to describe the Trinity that was revealed at Pentecost.