The Development Of Doctrine
The development or propagation of doctrine was always two-fold; it was to combat false teaching and teachers while at the same time instructing the saints, the elect of God; believers, those chosen from before the foundation of the world, and then called out to be the congregation to which instruction in the truth is to be made.
This can be seen in every age beginning before the Apostolic age, as the Triune LORD God warned Israel in Deuteronomy 13 concerning this very thing. Indeed, the whole book of Deuteronomy is a warning against apostasy, and their going after false gods as He brought them to the conquest of the land promised to their fathers, while highlighting His Providential and Sovereign will and purposes, that will be performed in this history right in their midst.
Moreover, during the Patristic period of Biblical doctrine, following upon the Apostolic period, we see this played out in many and various ways. There was the Gnostic error, the assault on Christology, which Irenaeus combatted. As a result, and because of other influences such as Platonism, especially the Alexandrian fathers, less so the school of Antioch, other doctrines crept in which led to various councils on the Trinity, with Nicaea, 325 AD, at the helm of this and various related controversies. At the same time, the influence of culture under Constantine began its assault which downgraded doctrine in various ways, the most obvious being the rise of Papistry being the most grievous and long-lasting development of many errors. This was a terribly dark period but not without its significant influence, and in particular, that of an espoused universal atonement, with such things as indulgences, among other things, in direct conflict with Biblical truth. The masses of people were told they could purchase or buy their way into glory, if they would follow the instructions of the Magisterium and the Great Tradition, since they were ignorant of Latin, in which, so called, “divines” were the only sanctioned interpreters. Though the Scripture is clear, that understanding, comprehending, interpreting, and applying the Scripture is contingent upon a supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit in illumination and regeneration! This is NOT a universal reality!
Henceforth, we come to the Reformation period which brought with it many challenges still being contested today. Along with this, so called, enlightenment period we have what is perceived as the recovery of the true Gospel, thought this concept itself seems to indicate that it was entirely lost, however, that was NOT the case which can be demonstrated historically as God always preserves the true remnant and elect of God. It could never be totally lost as He is in full control, knowing the end from the beginning!
During this period of push back against the Papists and the doctrinal fornication of the union of Ecclesiastical with the Civil Magistrate powers, we can see the further development of doctrine and the resurrection of many of the previous errors which were combatted in the past, taking on revived forms and propagated once more. Among these were the issue of authority, the governing of the State, and that of the Congregation.
This was the atmosphere in which many dissenting, and emerging viewpoints began to take root, so that specific doctrinal nuances began to separate, divide, and distinguish what a person subscribed to as biblical doctrine and truth. This period of development had its own nuances and similarities which contributed to the further development of doctrine and great push back against a universalist message normalized by the Papistry, and fed by many Protestants, and so created more controversy as a result. The point here is that there is no consensus of doctrine, rather, an increased denominationalism which fed each distinguishing nuance, though we can see what many claim are the orthodox, and or, required doctrines which define one as an elect believer, or by some other nuance which defines one’s own theological focus. Often presented today by the educated, the new Magisterium who are viewed as academically qualified, and NOT the common man. So that, confessionalism began to emerge to define these differences and distinctions. This begs the question as to why we would be surprised by such distinctions, since their purpose is to differentiate what they hold to be true from what others espouse. Unfortunately, today these distinctions are nearly meaningless because of compromise and tolerance of differing viewpoints which add more confusion than clarity!
Therefore, we ought to stay in our own lane and be committed to our own distinctions, which become our own “tradition,” instead of telling others, in some cases while telling others, what distinctions they themselves ought to be subscribed. Moreover, presenting your doctrine/confession ought to separate one from another because they do not subscribe to the same doctrine! This is supposed to distinguish you and differentiate your views from another’s view. Thus, biblical fellowship and unity cannot be mutually pursued as a result and the cycle goes on, unending while we deny it happens!
Presenting the message and allowing the results to be confirmed or denied by the LORD Himself is the way. However, there are consequences to what doctrine one holds and especially when it can be shown to be deficient in one way or another. Hence, the never-ending controversy(ies) which continue to divide those making a profession of faith or doctrinal commitment. Like politics, our doctrine demonstrates where our allegiances are and define who we will more than associate with, that is, have fellowship and communion, being united and knit together by Christ and His doctrine. Matthew Barrett is a prime example of the confliction and confusion of this subject of compromise and tolerance!
Thus, I present for your consideration, what Jared teaches showing how the development of particular doctrines emerged before, during, and after this period, namely, the 18th century period!
Robert Gilmore is a Strict and Particular Baptist preacher. He resides in Blountville, Tennessee, serving the Lord in various capacities. He is widely read on historic and modern theology, engaging with believers on social platforms and other mediums.
