<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Non Sermoni Res &#187; Development of Doctrine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://willgwitt.org/category/theology/development-of-doctrine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://willgwitt.org</link>
	<description>Musings About Theology, Mostly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:15:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>I get mail . . .</title>
		<link>http://willgwitt.org/anglicanism/i-get-mail/</link>
		<comments>http://willgwitt.org/anglicanism/i-get-mail/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:40:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>William Witt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Anglicanism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development of Doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The North American Anglican Province]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://willgwitt.org/?p=1081</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I received the following today, which succinctly summarizes questions I have been asked numerous times in recent years: Dear Sir, Just curious about how you can be a part of ACNA which endorses and embraces innovations to doctrine and discipline that seem to make the Assumption and IC rather more forgivable- i.e. ordination of women, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://willgwitt.org/anglicanism/i-get-mail/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Newman&#8217;s Incoherence</title>
		<link>http://willgwitt.org/anglicanism/newmans-incoherence/</link>
		<comments>http://willgwitt.org/anglicanism/newmans-incoherence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:43:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>William Witt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Anglicanism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development of Doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://willgwitt.org/?p=484</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a previous blog post in which I listed a number of theological principles I hoped someday to discuss further, I had written the following: 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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://willgwitt.org/anglicanism/newmans-incoherence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More on the Development of Doctrine: The Choice is not between &#8220;Protestantism&#8221; and the &#8220;Older Traditions.&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://willgwitt.org/theology/more-on-the-development-of-doctrine-the-choice/</link>
		<comments>http://willgwitt.org/theology/more-on-the-development-of-doctrine-the-choice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:05:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>William Witt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Development of Doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://willgwitt.org/?p=387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michael Liccione has continued the discussion on the Development of Doctrine over at Perrennis Philosophia. This is the first part of what I hope will be a series of responses. 1) Dr. Liccone begins with a misleading summary of the issue of disagreement. He suggests that when it comes to the question of the Development [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://willgwitt.org/theology/more-on-the-development-of-doctrine-the-choice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thomas Aquinas on the Formal Sufficiency of Scripture</title>
		<link>http://willgwitt.org/scripture/thomas-aquinas-on-the-formal-sufficiency-of-scripture/</link>
		<comments>http://willgwitt.org/scripture/thomas-aquinas-on-the-formal-sufficiency-of-scripture/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:54:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>William Witt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Development of Doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scripture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://willgwitt.org/?p=258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dr. Michael Liccione has responded to my post on the distinction between formal and informal sufficiency of Scripture, and specifically objects to my reading that Thomas Aquinas subscribes to a &#8220;formal sufficiency&#8221; of Scripture. By a formal sufficiency I had meant that Scripture has an inherent intelligibility that does not derive from some source outside [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://willgwitt.org/scripture/thomas-aquinas-on-the-formal-sufficiency-of-scripture/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Little More on the Development of Doctrine</title>
		<link>http://willgwitt.org/theology/a-little-more-on-the-development-of-doctrine/</link>
		<comments>http://willgwitt.org/theology/a-little-more-on-the-development-of-doctrine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:08:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>William Witt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Development of Doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://willgwitt.org/?p=98</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A reader with the nom de plume of kepha asks me to respond to a piece by Michael Liccione, which I haven&#8217;t read yet. I will look at Prof. Liccione&#8217;s piece. The two of us have a history together and this sometimes produces more heat than light in our conversations. Perhaps this is because we [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://willgwitt.org/theology/a-little-more-on-the-development-of-doctrine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On the Development of Doctrine</title>
		<link>http://willgwitt.org/theology/on-the-development-of-doctrine/</link>
		<comments>http://willgwitt.org/theology/on-the-development-of-doctrine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:47:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>William Witt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Development of Doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://willgwitt.org/?p=121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On a blog post awhile back entitled &#8220;Some Basic Theological Principles (to be discussed later)&#8221; I had stated: On the question of doctrinal development, the fundamental choice is between Newman&#8217;s and Barth&#8217;s understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The issue of continuity between (1) God&#8217;s revelation in the history of Israel, Christ, the apostolic [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://willgwitt.org/theology/on-the-development-of-doctrine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

