What, for a Protestant, is dogma?

[Fidelibus]

Which Protestant(s) are you asking?

Well, I guess in this case ....you.

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.

So how would you then describe the thousands of different non-Catholic denominations/ non-denominational, churches and sects throughout the globe if not "Protestant?"

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.

Traced back, meaning five hundred years or less, correct? Also, by this statement, one might surmise what you are saying, is that "Protestantism" is non-existent in all of Eastern Europe and Asia.

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

Oh, I do agree these churches have many different beliefs and practices. With that being said, would you agree this creates implications for doctrine and unity among these different non- Catholic churches and sects? this is why I asked the two questions at the end of my OP.

"But for a Protestant, what is dogma? And how does it relate to the concept of Christian unity?"

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

Would the many different variants of Lutheran churches %100 agree with you?

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.

Meaning something other than Sacred Scripture or the bible alone..... Got it!

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well, I guess in this case ....you.



So how would you then describe the thousands of different non-Catholic denominations/ non-denominational, churches and sects throughout the globe if not "Protestant?"

Calling them Protestant is fine. What I am trying to point out is that there is no such thing as "Protestantism". There is no such thing as "The Protestant Church".

If I treated Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as though they were the same thing, and then point out that disagreements between Catholics and Orthodox as evidence of the failures of both, every Catholic and Orthodox Christian here would be in their right to point out my error in doing this.

In the same way, treating every "Protestant" church as though it were part of some nebulous "Protestantism" and then pointing out "Ah! See, you all don't agree!" doesn't work.

If you want to understand Lutheranism, you have to understand Lutheranism, not talk about some nebulous "Protestantism"; as though Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, et al were somehow all part of the same thing.

The term Protestant is helpful, historically and categorically, but it isn't how we live our lives. I don't live my life and faith as a "Protestant". But as a Catholic Christian in the Lutheran theological tradition.

Traced back, meaning five hundred years or less, correct? Also, by this statement, one might surmise what you are saying, is that "Protestantism" is non-existent in all of Eastern Europe and Asia.

To the first, it depends. I consider my Church to be the Holy Catholic Church which Jesus Christ founded. Dr. Luther isn't the founder of my Church, Jesus Christ is. Luther, like many others throughout the history of the Church, was just one theologian and reformer. My religion does not come from Luther, but from Christ and His Apostles. The holy fathers, creeds, and ancient councils are the fathers, creeds, and councils of the Church which I belong to.

As to the second question, not at all--there are plenty of Protestants in the East. The evangelical reform of the 16th century was largely centered in parts of the Holy Roman Empire and Scandinavia, but not exclusively of course; and likewise through missions the Gospel has been preached throughout the world by faithful preachers of the Gospel. Just the same as has happened in your tradition, such as the Jesuit, Dominican, and Franciscan missions to the Americas and in Asia. Through immigration and missions the religious topography of the planet has changed a lot in the last several centuries.

Oh, I do agree these churches have many different beliefs and practices. With that being said, would you agree this creates implications for doctrine and unity among these different non- Catholic churches and sects? this is why I asked the two questions at the end of my OP.

Of course it does. In the same way that the differences in beliefs and practices between your church and other churches creates implications for doctrine and unity.

I could not in good faith and conscience receive the Most Holy Eucharist in a Baptist church for example, they deny the true flesh and blood of Christ in His Supper. That is not a matter of ill will or hostility; but of confession, conviction, faith, and conscience.

"But for a Protestant, what is dogma? And how does it relate to the concept of Christian unity?"

Would the many different variants of Lutheran churches %100 agree with you?

The faith once and for all delivered is to be received and confessed. I have no idea if every Lutheran congregation and synod around the globe agrees with me that there is no official definitions for delineating the differences between doctrine and dogma. My understanding is that this kind of rigorous categorization is fairly unique to your tradition.

Meaning something other than Sacred Scripture or the bible alone..... Got it!

Have a Blessed Day!

Lutherans aren't "Bible alone". We adhere to Sola Scriptura, or more accurately Solum Verbum--Word Alone; but we have never taught or confessed that the Bible is the only authority in matters in doctrine and praxis, we have never denied the importance of the fathers, of the vital and essential importance of the Creeds. We have never denied the historic tradition of the Church as important and vital for the life of the Church.

What we have said is that the Scriptures alone are the Norma Normans (the Rule that Rules) of Christian teaching and practice, while the Creeds, the Confessions, these are the Norma Normata (the Rule that is Ruled).

Scripture takes precedence, it rules over the life of the Church, and no man is above it. Scripture therefore rules over our faith, guiding us, giving Christ to us for here in Scripture is Christ Himself.

As that most honored Doctor of the Church, St. Augustine himself has taught, there is but one Utterance in all of Scripture, and that Utterance is Jesus Christ Himself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fhansen]

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. Church Dogmatics - Wikipedia

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.

Yes, and yet the anti-intellectual, philosophy-rejecting, fundamentalist and/or evangelist is quite dogmatic in whatever beliefs they hold to. And while they and so many others reject the concept of infallibility, in practice they actually embrace it for themselves by the certainty with which they hold and defend their own positions-against those who hold different or opposing positions.

 

[Dave L]

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!

As a Calvinist, dogma begins in the Ecumenical Creeds and remains until any church teaches contrary to them. For instants, The Council of Ephesus condemned Pelagianism (salvation based on free will) as heresy. So that removed many churches that teach free will salvation from my having involvement with them.

 

[FenderTL5]

I grew up in the Independent Baptist Church where ignorance of "isms and schisms" and "no creeds nor screeds but the KJV 1611 Authorized Version" were worn as a badge of honor.

Later, I was a member of the SBC where they have the "Baptist Faith and Message" as a reference but seemingly non-binding confession.

In both, issues that were considered dogmatic would vary pastor to pastor. A change in pastoral leadership would/could mean a different emphasis and adherence even within the same congregation.

 

[hedrick]

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.

Of course change will creep in. Plenty of change happens in the Catholic tradition as well. Traditional ideas about the Trinity and Incarnation are a result of reinterpreting Christianity for the late ancient culture. Protestant ideas on the Atonement are based on ideas of honor and justice from the medieval period. "No salvation outside the church" has been radically reinterpreted by Catholics. I don't see any evidence that Jesus intended to establish a list of dogmas that will never change, though one hopes that these reinterpretations are broadly consistent with his intent.

Catholics, at least in the US, operate pretty much the same as mainline Protestants, and in fact there's a single community for Biblical study. Theology is slightly more separated, but there's a lot of influence in both directions. I think the US Catholic church is close to being a mainline Protestant body whose rules on sex and gender are dictated from the outside. Sort of like the Methodists at the moment.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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!

I am not Catholic so I guess I would fall under Protestism. As a Protestant only "doctrine," in its purest form from scripture ,is used to teach the Kingdom of God through Jesus Christ of Nazareth. In other words the basic teachings of Christ and His Apostles. Dogma on the other hand is used extensively by the Roman catholic church to teach Catholicism. In other words man made decrees. It is also possible for some non-Catholic denominations to introduce "new dogma" into a congregation through the teachings of men . Blessings.

 

[Albion]

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.!

No, they don't.

You asked us about "a Protestant" and "Protestants," i.e. just about every Christian denomination other than Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the cults.

Catholics are fond of asserting that there are thousands of different Protestant denominations, and that they have all manner of different doctrines. So, what's this thread asking?

By the way also, when essentially the same question was put to you by Via Crucis, you answered that his own branch of Christianity would suffice for purposes of framing the answer, so you obviously know what I'm talking about. But you still haven't told us what the OP was supposed to be asking for.

 

[John Mullally]

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?

Good question. Commonly Protestant denominations term what you view as dogma in a written "Statement of Faith", "What we believe", etc that can be accessed over the internet. Which is cool as it allows one to peek under the hood.

I think more Christians should visit Churches of other denominations. Just avoid high pressure salesmen.