On the weekend, I attended a fine choir performance featuring Mr. Charles Nelson Chuckles at an impressively built Vancouver church. Some adherents within this overall church tradition, not just the particular denomination, emphasize love and respect for others, for which I am in agreement. Some within this tradition also reject the idea of theological Dogma.
Dogma
Blackburn in his philosophy text has two definitions for dogma.
The first is in general, a belief held to with undefended certainty. (109).
The second is within the Christian Church via a belief communicated through divine revelation and explained by the Church. (109).
In an orthodox Christian, biblical theology and worldview, from the first definition, I reject the term 'undefended'. Biblical Christianity properly defended should not exercise excessive use of faith, in other words, it should not be fideistic. It should never favour faith at the expense of reason. The second definition for me is more agreeable.
Pocket Dictionary opines that within Protestant circles dogma is nearly synonymous with doctrine. (40). Both are connected to theological training. (40). In Roman Catholic and Orthodox circles, dogma is considered official doctrine and teaching of each Church. (40).
As there are various Protestant churches, there are various dogmas, from various theologians, whereas within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches it is firmly set doctrines. (My own ideas concerning comments from page 40). The term dogmatics refers to summarizing and systemizing bible and theology. (40).
I can agree that dogma in a Protestant context often flows more from particular theologians, although still within a historical context; as opposed to Catholicism and Orthodoxy with more set historical, theological, institutionalized systems.
Interestingly, my 'The Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms', contains no entry for Dogma. It calls Doctrine, the teaching of the Church. (797).
The British, A New Dictionary of Christian Theology documents, 'dogma' as being Greek for opinion. (162). Dogma was applied, historically, to various historical philosophical movements. (162). The author opines that the New Testament was not originally dogmatic, but that dogma was imposed through Church history and Church Councils, such as the Council of Nicea in 325 and Council of Chaldedron in 451, regarding the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ were done through interpretation. (162).
It is stated: This means that dogmas cannot and should not be treated as ultimate norms. (162).
In regards to primary New Testament doctrines, the New Testament contains certain teaching and theology that is considered primary, revealed, divine doctrine, and even, in a sense, dogma, such as for example, the trinity, the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ and his gospel work, human sin, the fall and corruption of humanity. The Church in Councils, historically, further documented these theologies in agreements, creeds and dogma. It could be stated that the New Testament doctrines became more systemized.
Secondary and tertiary doctrines, such as ones that lead to different churches and denominations can still be could considered dogmas, but here I can agree that many of these should not be considered as ultimate norms; for example, in regards to the musical style of Church worship music.
The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology writes that from the Greek refers to decree, ordinance, decision or command. (327). Early Christian theology as did Greek philosophy, used the term 'dogma' in the sense of 'propositions of faith.' (327). In the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church had the view of depositum fidei (deposit of faith) (327), where the Church used dogma through papal and Church teaching. (327).
In Protestantism, papal and ecclesiastical dogma has been rejected. The dogmas, doctrines, theology of theologians and teachers should be tested via Scripture, (327) in particular via the New Testament.
The interpretations of dogma within the Protestant tradition do not come with papal and ecclesiastical infallibility. (327). But, I would add that within various forms of biblical Christianity, including Protestant, Reformed and Evangelical (where these are actually biblical), the original New Testament autographs are considered infallible. I hold to divinely inspired, theologically and factually infallible, original documents.
It seems to me within this very non-exhaustive researched article, that doctrine and dogma indeed are not quite synonymous. There are doctrines and there are dogmatic doctrines that can be considered dogma. For a church, often progressive and liberal, to claim that they have no dogma (separating themselves from supposedly offensive biblical Christian faith with dogma) and instead have various doctrines from different perspectives; they risk the danger of overlooking the premise that a theological prohibition against dogma may in itself be considered dogma.
It is reasonably certain that some (not all) within these traditions will hold this belief rejecting dogma...dogmatically.
 |
| I am firmly theologically Reformed. However, the document that came with my adoption states that I am paternally Roman Catholic and maternally Greek Orthodox (Ethnically Ukrainian). The text above features useful scholarship. |
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
O' COLLINS, GERALD (1999) 'Dogma', in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.
MC KIM, D.K. (1996) ‘Arianism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
