In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK REVIEWS Unfolding Revelation: The Nature of Doctrinal Development. By JAN HENDRIK WALGRAVE, 0. P. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 197~ Pp. 418. $9.95. Almost a decade ago John Courtney Murray wrote in The Problem of God: " leaving aside the issue of what Catholic and Protestant respectively mean when they say, 'Credo,' I consider that the parting of the ways between the two Christian communities takes place on the issue of development of doctrine. " The intervening ten years have shown, if anything, that the issue slices not only between Confessions but within Confessions. Recall the breakdown of discussions between the Nijmegen catechical school and the Roman theologians, the reaction to H. Kung's Unfehlbar, the ferment over whose catechism to use in CCD programs, etc.. Prof. Jan Walgrave, a noted Newman scholar, makes a significant contribution to contemporary discussion on development of doctrine with his latest book, Unfolding Revelation (hereafter designated UR). A major portion of the book is an historical survey of theological thinking on development, an impressive synthesis of various currents and opinions. The book ends with Walgrave's own theological reflection on the nature of doctrinal development, borrowing on insights from the past, especially Newman's and Blondel's, and using his own fresh approach to epistemology. I propose to present en gros the thrust of UR and conclude with some of my own reflections. The book operates within certain presuppositions, viz., that Revelation is a possibility, that is clothed in human language-hence the problem of reconciling the truth of dogma with the fragileness inherent in human thought-and that in some sense Revelation was closed with the apostolic generation; otherwise it is ongoing and totally new dogmas pose no problem. Fair enough presuppositions. Doctrinal development is presented as an aspect of cultural development because in many respects, as Newman noted, dogmas develop the way cultural ideas do. However, Walgrave is careful to point out the ways in which the analogy breaks down (cf. p. 861 f.), due to the sui generis nature of revealed saving truth. The problem of doctrinal development-how to reconcile the historical fact of development with the claim of the substantial immutability of Revelation-is posed neither by Scripture nor the earliest theologians. The passage of time had to force the issue. If, given the fact of development, however, did these earliest theologians have principles for accepting it? It seems clear to Paul and John that the nature of faith, on both the 378 BOOK REVIEWS 379 individual and collective ecclesial level, is susceptible of growth and fuller consciousness and was to be expected. The early Fathers, such as Tertullian, lrenaeus, and Origen, viewed Tradition as alive and growing through the action of the Spirit. Admittedly, Tertullian distinguished regula fidei and disciplina, yet the latter are not merely ecclesiastical laws. The Fathers of the great Councils of the fourth and fifth centuries worked with non-scriptural ideas not opposed to Scripture but offered as a clarification of implicit truths. (The advocates of homoousios were accused by the traditionalists of doctrinal innovation not surprisingly.) UR concludes that, for these theologians, the finality of Revelation in Christ does not exclude a developing understanding of it, but because this posed no problem, these early theologians spoke loosely of development and gave no rules for what would constitute a true development. Among the medieval theologians the idea of development becomes more distinct in their discussions on the nature of faith and of theology. In some tracts on faith as existential encounter with God utterly beyond human words implications are laid that a developing clarification of Revelation is not governed by logical rules alone. However, the general trend of Scholastic theology, under the influence of Aristotle's notion of scientia, is to conceive of development as logical inference; the seeds are sown for those later theories of development that Walgrave calls " logical theories. " But in this earlier stage of Scholasticism the problem of immutability versus development is not keen; the earlier dogmas were not viewed in terms of their historicity. I should mention here in passing a particularly valuable dimension of UR. Walgrave has a gift for capturing the spirit of an age, a rare power at...

pdf

Share