On a blog post awhile back entitled "Some Basic Theological Principles (to be discussed later)" I had stated:

On the question of doctrinal development, the fundamental choice is between Newman's and Barth's understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The issue of continuity between (1) God's revelation in the history of Israel, Christ, the apostolic Church: (2) the canonical Scriptures; and (3) the post-apostolic Church, must be decided theologically, in terms of the inherent intelligibility of the subject matter of revelation, not by alien philosophical criteria rooted in such historical conundrums as the relation between the one and the many, or problems of epistemological scepticism.

There have been a few inquires about what I meant by the "fundamental choice . . . between Newman's and Barth's understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity." I haven't answered that question yet. (My life has changed considerably since becoming a theology professor. Ironically, I have less time to do theology blogging.) However, I got an email today from someone (a Roman Catholic) who had read my post on "Why Not Leave?," and asked me if I had changed my mind. This is my answer, and it relates to the question of development of doctrine:

Dear xxxxxx,

Thanks for writing. I do need to take some time and update my website with contact information.

No, nothing in the last couple of years or so has caused me to change my mind about my commitment to Anglicanism. I have been blessed to be able to fulfill my lifelong dream of teaching in an Anglican seminary for the last year, where I find myself surrounded by wonderful colleagues and students. I just finished teaching a June term course this spring on the Anglican Way of Theology, which was a refresher course for me on the Reformed Catholic tradition that I appreciate in Anglicanism.

I love and admire the (Roman) Catholic Church. I did all of my graduate studies in Catholic settings, and I am grateful for the generous scholarship that was provided me at the University of Notre Dame. If I were going to become Catholic, I would have done it during my years studying in Catholic institutions.

It is not my intention to encourage anyone to leave the faith tradition he or she is in. I would especially not encourage someone to leave Rome or Orthodoxy now to become Anglican, given the battle we are in the midst of. At the same time, I am rather encouraged by the events of the last several years. I have been convinced for at least a decade that the Anglican Communion would split over the issue of homosexuality. Whether that would be a split between the whole of the Communion and the handful of Western churches that have embraced the liberal agenda, or whether that would be a split between North and South would depend largely on the direction taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This summer the two alternative conferences of GAFCON in Jerusalem, and Lambeth in England, made clear that the future will involve a North/South split. (Whether the Global South technically withdraws from the Communion is a matter of definition, since it is clear that they now consider Canterbury to be an irrelevance, if not an obstacle to orthodoxy.) The vast majority of the Global South will go with GAFCON and a new orthodox Anglican province will be formed in the US. I have cast my lot with GAFCON and the Global South.

My own reasons for not becoming Roman Catholic have not changed. It was precisely the problem of doctrinal development that I found unsatisfactory. I believe that J. B. Mozley's The Theory of Development provides the decisive critique of [John Henry] Newman on development of doctrine. Mozley argues that Newman commits a logical fallacy of amphibole by not distinguishing between two different kinds of development. Newman is correct that there is genuine development in the early church. For example, Nicea's doctrine of the homoousios, or the Trinity as formulated by the Cappadocians, or the Chalcedonian formula of the incarnation as one person and two natures is not found explicitly in the New Testament.

[More]

A friend of mine who is on the search committee for a new rector asked me for a list of questions that might help sort out a potential candidate's theology, what was their churchmanship, whether they were Calvinist, Arminian, Evangelical or Anglo-Catholic. I thought the following might be interesting questions to address to interviewees. I wish my parish had asked some of these of a couple of "stealth" candidates who surprised the congregation with their real theology only after they had been called.

1. Who is Jesus? What does it mean to say "Jesus saves"? How do you interpret John 14:6?

2. Why is it important to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? Why is it important that Jesus rose from the dead? If the bones of Jesus were found in a grave in Palestine, would that make any difference to Christian faith?

3. What is the central message of the gospel?

4. What is justification? Sanctification? How are they related?

5. What does God contribute to salvation, and what do we contribute? How are they related?

6. How do you understand divine sovereignty and providence? Can anything happen outside God's will? Can human beings thwart God's will?

7. Why do Christians pray if God already knows everything that will happen and exercises divine providence over the world?

[More]

Note: The repeated appeal by Standing Committees to the "baptismal covenant," particularly the promises to "respect the dignity of every human being," as the rationale for refusing to consent to Fr. Mark Lawrence's election as Episcopal bishop of South Carolina has prompted me to post this article (originally on my website) to my blog. I think it speaks clearly to the current misuse of baptismal theology.

Historical Background

During the middle of the twentieth century, the practice of infant baptism became the subject of debate in traditionally paedobaptist churches in a manner unparalleled since the time of the Reformation. This discussion began within the ranks of mainline Continental Protestant Churches, but was repeated and re-echoed in two churches in the United Kingdom (the Church of England and the Church of Scotland) and later in (mostly American) Roman Catholic circles. The following is a summary of the history of the debate as well as a bibliography of the most important sources.

[More]