What, for a Protestant, is dogma?

[Fidelibus]

And how do Protestants define it?

The reason I ask, is because of an article I was reading asked these very questions, and I thought they would be a good topic for discussion here on this forum.

Now, for a Catholics like myself, a dogma is a teaching that has been revealed by God and must be believed with the assent of faith that is due to God, who cannot lie and whose teaching is sure - and what falls into this category is defined by the Church's Magisterium. But for a Protestant, what is dogma? And how does it relate to the concept of Christian unity?

Have a Blessed day!

 

[chevyontheriver]

And how do Protestants define it?

The reason I ask, is because of an article I was reading asked these very questions, and I thought they would be a good topic for discussion here on this forum.

Now, for a Catholics like myself, a dogma is a teaching that has been revealed by God and must be believed with the assent of faith that is due to God, who cannot lie and whose teaching is sure - and what falls into this category is defined by the Church's Magisterium. But for a Protestant, what is dogma? And how does it relate to the concept of Christian unity?

Have a Blessed day!

Maybe a related question would be 'Is a dogma a bad thing or could it be a good thing?' I suspect the answer would be it is always a bad thing. But I can wait and see.

 

[The Liturgist]

Karl Barth was a Swiss Reformed theologian whose work Church Dogmatics is the most ambitious project of systematic theology since Thomas Aquinas and his Summa, which I love reading much more than Church Dogmatics despite being Congregationalist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Dogmatics

All of the “Magisterial Protestant” churches are going to have dogmas, very clearly articulated. The kinds of Christians who reject dogmas tend to be either Radical Reformation types or the “No Creed but Christ” set and the type of evangelical non-denominational “Bible Church” where the preacher often has and encourages an anti-intellectual attitude. These churches are an embarrassment to the liturgical, traditional Christian churches such as Orthodox Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, the Church of the East, Anglicanism, Methodism and various Reformed churches, all of which value learning. Indeed, this pro-intellectual attitude is why most of the private universities in the US were founded either by Roman Catholics, Methodists, Puritans (Harvard, later taken over by Unitarians), Presbyterians (Yale), and other denominations. The Orthodox in the US, due to their small numbers, have not founded any universities, but they have the second highest number of monasteries after the Roman Catholics, and several seminaries.

 

[Albion]

And how do Protestants define it?

The reason I ask, is because of an article I was reading asked these very questions, and I thought they would be a good topic for discussion here on this forum.

Now, for a Catholics like myself, a dogma is a teaching that has been revealed by God and must be believed with the assent of faith that is due to God, who cannot lie and whose teaching is sure - and what falls into this category is defined by the Church's Magisterium. But for a Protestant, what is dogma? And how does it relate to the concept of Christian unity?

Have a Blessed day!

You're going to have to identify some denomination or communion about which you are inquiring, if we are to give you a meaningful answer.

 

[Lost4words]

For me, Dogma is the opposite to Dogpa. Simple really!

 

[Fidelibus]

You're going to have to identify some denomination or communion about which you are inquiring, if we are to give you a meaningful answer.

I disagree, as one should perceive by the title of the thread, that it is not directed at any certain Protestant denomination or sect. I believe the last two questions in my original post make that perfectly clear.


Have a Blessed Day!

 

[chevyontheriver]

I disagree, as one should perceive by the title of the thread, that it is not directed at any certain Protestant denomination or sect. I believe the last two questions in my original post make that perfectly clear.


Have a Blessed Day!

I think what he means is you might get a thousand different answers .

 

[Fidelibus]

I think what he means is you might get a thousand different answers .

Knowing the history of the poster, I would concur.

I am also surprised (or maybe I shouldn't be) by the number of views of this thread and the low number of responses.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[concretecamper]

I think Dogma is a word that is too Catholic. I bet if you ditched the word Dogma, maybe you'll get more response.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think Dogma is a word that is too Catholic. I bet if you ditched the word Dogma, maybe you'll get more response.

Except Karl Barth's magnum opus was called ... wait for it ... Church Dogmatics. I think the sensible conclusion was already spelled out in post #3 that there are at least two types of Protestants. And that they would have two very different opinions about dogma.

 

[concretecamper]

Except Karl Barth's magnum opus was called ... wait for it ... Church Dogmatics. I think the sensible conclusion was already spelled out in post #3 that there are at least two types of Protestants. And that they would have two very different opinions about dogma.

the reference is dated by 50 to 75 years. With the way EVERY protestant community changes their belief, I cant see the referenced material being relevant.

 

[tz620q]

the reference is dated by 50 to 75 years. With the way EVERY protestant community changes their belief, I cant see the referenced material being relevant.

Perhaps, but having established and well articulated dogma by one of their preeminent theologians can do a lot to drive a stake in the ground. I agree with The Liturgists. There are several Protestant denominations that have long standing confessions, catechisms, theological works on dogma, etc. I think the recent slide is not because they did not have dogma; but because they do not have discipline. Without a firm hand on the tiller, they tend to be blown by the winds of modernity.

 

[hedrick]

The term "dogma" isn't commonly used by Protestants. The churches going back most directly to Luther and Calvin have "confessions." Episcopal and Methodist churches have articles of religion that perform the same function. But exactly how they function varies.

The conservative Lutheran and Reformed treat their confessions as closer to a list of required dogmas. But a poster from the PCA (one of the more conservative Presbyterian churches) said that when his session examines potential members, they are asked to say what statements in the Westminster Confession they have an issue with. If they say "nothing," they're advised to look again. The Session makes a judgement based on their overall understanding. So even for the PCA it's not precisely a list of dogmas, though there are a large number of things in it that I'm sure they wouldn't allow exceptions to.

But at least half of these traditions are not conservative. For them, theology is done in community. You are expected to work within the community. That doesn't mean you accept a specific list of propositions, but that you're comfortable with the overall approach of the tradition, and are guided by it. That community is ecumenical, so largely the faith of the Protestant churches listed above by the Liturgist are almost the same (aside from the conservative branches). For this purpose the US Catholic church should probably be classified as Protestant.

This can be hard to define. The PCUSA has issued confessions recently, which give our current views. But not all Reformed churches, even non-conservative ones, do that. So for them you may need to look at other sources.

Technically Methodists don't have confessions, but they have issued documents giving their current views on many issues. In addition to the official Articles of Religion, the sermons of John Wesley also tend to have some degree of authority for them.

I don't know the Lutheran churches well enough to know what approach, if any, they have used to publish their current views.

 

[concretecamper]

Perhaps, but having established and well articulated dogma by one of their preeminent theologians can do a lot to drive a stake in the ground

agreed, a stake driven 75 years ago.

There are several Protestant denominations that have long standing confessions, catechisms, theological works on dogma, etc

I would seriously question long standing, but ok.

I think the recent slide is not because they did not have dogma; but because they do not have discipline

whatever the reason, the so called "dogma" has changed.

Without a firm hand on the tiller, they tend to be blown by the winds of modernity.

or you can say without a Magisterium.

 

[tz620q]

agreed, a stake driven 75 years ago.
I would seriously question long standing, but ok.
whatever the reason, the so called "dogma" has changed.
or you can say without a Magisterium.

Precisely. The confessions that were written in the 16th century have not been forgotten, just ignored. This isn't universally true. Parts of these denominations have stayed confessional and held to the stake in the ground. But other parts of the same denominations have viewed them as purely recommendations of a long forgotten progenitor. Oddly, both sides are allowed to exist under the same denominational banner. These schisms fester until the groups go their separate ways, only to form alliances with other like minded groups and form another loose denomination. Some in these denominations ponder why they are in this turmoil all the time. They hold tight to their Bible-only philosophy and wonder how God can speak through the Bible to so many and give differing messages that cause these schisms. Oddly, these same groups emphasize the fallen nature of man, yet don't see that this fallen nature warps the very reading of the Bible that they base their communal views upon. I don't see this getting better; but worse as individuality triumphs over authoritarianism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And how do Protestants define it?

The reason I ask, is because of an article I was reading asked these very questions, and I thought they would be a good topic for discussion here on this forum.

Now, for a Catholics like myself, a dogma is a teaching that has been revealed by God and must be believed with the assent of faith that is due to God, who cannot lie and whose teaching is sure - and what falls into this category is defined by the Church's Magisterium. But for a Protestant, what is dogma? And how does it relate to the concept of Christian unity?

Have a Blessed day!

Which Protestant(s) are you asking?

There is no such thing as a "Protestant" or "Protestantism". It's like asking what is the official cuisine of Europe. Germans are European, the French are European, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Finnish, Bulgarian, Russian, etc.

The only thing "Protestantism" describes is a general term referring to Western Christians who are not in communion with Rome and whose general theology and practice can be traced back to the Reformation either directly or indirectly.

You would, therefore, need to ask what Lutherans believe, or what Anglicans believe, or what Methodists believe, etc.

For Lutherans, I don't believe there is a systematic categorization of doctrines and dogmas; a teaching is a teaching.

In my own personal usage I tend to use "dogma" to stress those things which are the fundamental tenets of the Christian religion as affirmed in the ancient Creeds and Ecumenical Councils of the Holy Catholic Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't know the Lutheran churches well enough to know what approach, if any, they have used to publish their current views.

One of the current matters of major difference among Lutheran bodies today is on the question of whether the Confessions are to be taken as true quia ("because") they agree with Scripture or are to be taken as true quatenus ("insofar as") they agree with Scripture. It's not a particularly simple subject, but it is a major factor in why, for example, the LCMS and ELCA are not in communion for example. Though that particular example is a lot bigger than that, and includes things such as the Seminex Controversy.

-CryptoLuthearn

 

[hedrick]

One of the current matters of major difference among Lutheran bodies today is on the question of whether the Confessions are to be taken as true quia ("because") they agree with Scripture or are to be taken as true quatenus ("insofar as") they agree with Scripture. It's not a particularly simple subject, but it is a major factor in why, for example, the LCMS and ELCA are not in communion for example. Though that particular example is a lot bigger than that, and includes things such as the Seminex Controversy.

-CryptoLuthearn

That wasn’t exactly my question. I’m fairly sure the ELCA doesn’t agree with every statement in the traditional confessions. Or at least many leaders and members don’t. What I’m not sure about is whether there are any official or semi official statements describing current views. Several other mainline churches have these, though I think the PCUSA may be unusual in giving recent statements confessional status.

I see that the ELCA web page has statements on many social issues, some of wahich I’d guess don’t agree with 16th Cent Lutheranism. But I don’t see anything on more theological topics.

 

[hedrick]

Precisely. The confessions that were written in the 16th century have not been forgotten, just ignored. This isn't universally true. Parts of these denominations have stayed confessional and held to the stake in the ground. But other parts of the same denominations have viewed them as purely recommendations of a long forgotten progenitor. Oddly, both sides are allowed to exist under the same denominational banner. These schisms fester until the groups go their separate ways, only to form alliances with other like minded groups and form another loose denomination. Some in these denominations ponder why they are in this turmoil all the time. They hold tight to their Bible-only philosophy and wonder how God can speak through the Bible to so many and give differing messages that cause these schisms. Oddly, these same groups emphasize the fallen nature of man, yet don't see that this fallen nature warps the very reading of the Bible that they base their communal views upon. I don't see this getting better; but worse as individuality triumphs over authoritarianism.

I think you're overly pessimistic. I think there's convergence within the two major Protestant theological traditions, evangelical and mainline. I admit that there are plenty of outliers, e.g. prosperity theology. But there's a broad evangelicalism represented by the NAE and various ecumenical statements. Similarly, the traditional difference among Methodists, Presbyterians, etc, are not so significant these days, because those denominations form a single mainline theological community based on Biblical scholarship and a common understanding of Christian social policy.

Barth was mentioned as a possible stake in the ground. He's an odd case. In his reaction to the bad state of the German church, he rejected the broad liberal Christian tradition, and tried to construct something based on traditional Reformed theology but informed by recent scholarship. While he's generally considered an important figure that everyone needs to read, at least in the US I think mainline churches are more in line with the broad liberal tradition, mediated by current scholarship on Jesus and Paul.

(Note that I'm using liberal here in a technical theological sense, to refer to an approach going back to Schliermacher and Ritschl, not to liberal in the sense currently used in politics and most CF discussion.)

Barth may well have been right that the German version of the liberal tradition had become sufficiently weak-minded that it couldn't cope with the Nazis. But looked at internationally over a longer period, I think it has done better. One reason is that NT scholarship over the last 50 years has led to a bit more concrete results than in the 19th Cent. The other is the reinvigorated understanding of the implications of the Gospel for our engagement in society. In the US this is represented by people like Walter Rauschenbusch and Reinhold Niebuhr.

 

[tz620q]

I think you're overly pessimistic. I think there's convergence within the two major Protestant theological traditions, evangelical and mainline. I admit that there are plenty of outliers, e.g. prosperity theology. But there's a broad evangelicalism represented by the NAE and various ecumenical statements. Similarly, the traditional difference among Methodists, Presbyterians, etc, are not so significant these days, because those denominations form a single mainline theological community based on Biblical scholarship and a common understanding of Christian social policy.

I agree about my pessimism. The mainline Protestant traditions have good and respected theologians that formulate how to approach their confessions (or belief systems). Historically they do not vary as much as the newer traditions. Still to a Catholic, it looks like a system that cannot last through centuries without some change creeping in.