Latest / Reformed Thinking / Introduction to Dogmatic Theology

Transcript

Introduction to Dogmatic Theology · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to reform thinking. Imagine getting into a screening
0:04
match in the middle of a crowded market.
0:06
Or, you know, a full scale riot in the streets.
0:09
Right, a literal riot all over the definition of a single word.
0:13
I mean, in the ancient world that was not some hypothetical
0:16
scenario. People actually fought, bled,
0:19
and died over theological definitions.
0:21
Yeah, they fought over what basically started as personal
0:24
opinions. And the incredible irony is
0:25
like, if I look at you today and say you are being so dogmatic
0:28
right now, I am handing you a supreme insult.
0:31
Oh. Totally.
0:32
It's not a compliment. No, in our current culture,
0:35
being called dogmatic means you are just stubborn.
0:38
It implies you're rigid, close minded, and you know you refuse
0:42
to listen to reason. Yeah.
0:43
Because we live in a society that prizes extreme flexibility.
0:46
Open mindedness, the idea of personal subjective
0:49
interpretation. To be dogmatic today is
0:51
basically social prime. But centuries ago, dogma was the
0:55
primary mechanism keeping society from fracturing into
0:58
pieces. Which is such a wild shift.
1:01
And hey, it is great to have you sitting down with us again.
1:04
We always picture you, the listener, pulling up a chair
1:07
right here at the table, acting as the third person in the room
1:10
with us, ready to tackle some weighty ideas.
1:12
We really do. It's always great to have you
1:15
here. Today we have a specific
1:17
mission. For this deep dive, we are
1:19
looking at an excerpt from Paul NS book The Moody Handbook of
1:23
Theology, revised and expanded. Specifically, we're zeroing in
1:27
on the section titled Introduction to Dogmatic
1:30
Theology. Right.
1:31
And our goal is to strip away all that modern cultural bias
1:36
and look at what this concept actually means.
1:38
Having you with us today is fantastic because this is one of
1:40
those subjects that sounds incredibly academic on the
1:43
surface. Oh, it sounds so dry.
1:45
It does, but it actually bleeds into every single aspect of how
1:49
churches function. You know, how they teach and how
1:53
believers understand their own faith on a daily basis.
1:56
So practical. Yeah.
1:57
The text from Paul Ends gives us a fantastic runway to look into
2:01
some distinct, sharp historical and logical lines.
2:05
If you label someone's view as dogma at a dinner party today,
2:09
you are essentially dismissing it as unreasoned stubbornness.
2:13
Yeah, you're shutting them down. Precisely.
2:16
But we have to peel back these centuries of cultural baggage
2:19
that word has picked up because in the context of our deep dive
2:22
today, and in the context of Paul Enz's work, dogma is not an
2:26
insult at all. It's actually a highly specific,
2:28
historically loaded and incredibly structured
2:31
theological category. Right.
2:33
We need to look at the actual definition, the history and the
2:36
structural value of dogmatic theology to see why this concept
2:40
is vital for a coherent faith. Well, before we can even define
2:43
what dogmatic theology is, I think we should first look at
2:46
what it is frequently confused with.
2:48
The ends text brings us up right away.
2:50
It does. There's a whole geographic and
2:52
linguistic debate surrounding this term that we need to sort
2:54
out. Because it turns out people use
2:57
words interchangeably when maybe they should not, and when
3:00
scholars do that, it creates a massive barrier for anyone
3:03
trying to study the topic. The text points out that
3:06
dogmatic theology is very often confused with or used as a
3:10
direct synonym for systematic theology.
3:13
Now for you listening, you might have heard the term systematic
3:16
theology thrown around a lot more often, especially if you
3:19
grew up in certain parts of the. World yeah NS notes a specific
3:22
historical figure here, William GT Shed.
3:26
Shed was a heavy hitter in the theological.
3:28
World. Oh, a massive figure.
3:30
Yeah, he wrote a dense 3 volume work and he titled it Dogmatic
3:34
Theology. But inside those 3 volumes, he
3:38
used the term systematic and dogmatic interchangeably.
3:41
Like they were the exact same thing.
3:42
Yeah, as if there was no difference at all.
3:44
That is wild to think about. Yeah.
3:45
You spend years, maybe decades, writing your life's work.
3:49
You title it one thing, and then inside the text you treat that
3:53
title as if it's just a casual synonym for another field
3:56
entirely. It is a bit mind boggling.
3:59
That feels like a scholar being a bit sloppy with his
4:01
definitions, honestly. It really does.
4:03
And Ends also points out a geographic divide here, which I
4:06
find fascinating. He says that the designation
4:09
dogmatic theology is much more common in places like Germany
4:13
and Holland, but systematic theology is the popular
4:17
designation in Britain and America.
4:20
What is driving that linguistic split across the Atlantic?
4:24
Well, that geographic split tells us a huge amount about how
4:27
different regions approach the academic study of faith.
4:29
It comes down to political and religious history.
4:32
OK, how so? Germany and Holland have very
4:35
distinct, historically entrenched state church
4:38
traditions. In those countries, you had a
4:40
long history of official state recognized confessions of faith.
4:43
OK, think of the Augsburg Confession in Germany.
4:46
Spot on. Or the decisions of the Synod of
4:48
Dort in the Netherlands. These were not just theoretical
4:51
documents, They were tied to the social and political fabric of
4:54
the nation. So they carried legal weight in
4:56
a sense. Yes.
4:57
So the term dogmatic, which as we will see relates heavily to
5:01
official Church decrees, fits very naturally into their
5:05
cultural vocabulary. It implies an authoritative
5:08
communal stance. That makes a lot of sense.
5:10
In a place where the church and the state have historically been
5:13
intertwined, a word that carries the weight of official decree
5:17
would just be the standard. Exactly.
5:19
But then you look at Britain and particularly America.
5:22
Right, which is a totally different scene.
5:23
Totally different. Britain, and especially America
5:25
have a massive history of religious descent.
5:28
You have the Puritans, the Baptists, the Quakers, and a
5:31
whole host of independent churches.
5:33
America was built on a much more entrepreneurial, free market
5:37
approach to religion. Yeah, eventually codified in the
5:40
1st amendment. You do not have a state church
5:42
issuing binding dogmas for the whole country.
5:45
So systematic, which implies A logical academic organization of
5:50
ideas rather than an authoritative, binding church
5:53
decree, became the preferred term.
5:55
Yeah, it sounds more objective, more scientific, and less tied
5:59
to an institutional hierarchy. So what does this mean for
6:03
someone like William GT Shed? Because I used to think the
6:05
difference between systematic theology and dogmatic theology
6:09
was akin to the difference between soda and pop.
6:12
Oh, that's a good comparison. You know if you are in the
6:15
Midwest of the United States, you ask for a pop.
6:19
If you are on the East Coast, you ask for a soda.
6:21
But you are getting the identical carbonated beverage.
6:23
Right, the actual drink is the same.
6:26
Yeah, the recipe is the same, It is just a regional dialect.
6:29
But based on what you were saying about the state churches
6:32
versus independent dissenters, it sounds like soda versus pop
6:36
is actually the wrong way to look at it.
6:37
It is the wrong way. Are systematic and dogmatic just
6:41
regional dialects for the identical item, or is there a
6:45
distinct difference in the recipe itself?
6:47
There is a difference in the recipe.
6:49
Because if there is a difference in the recipe, I have to push
6:51
back on shed. If you title a book one way but
6:54
use the other term internally, doesn't that create a huge
6:58
amount of unnecessary confusion for anyone trying to learn this
7:00
material? It creates a massive amount of
7:02
confusion, and many scholars would argue shed was blurring a
7:05
necessary line. So it's not soda versus pop?
7:08
No, it is more like comparing a brilliant architect's blueprint
7:12
to a city council's official zoning.
7:15
Law. Oh, wow.
7:15
OK. They might deal with the same
7:17
property, and they might even look similar on paper, but their
7:20
function and authority are completely different. 1 is an
7:23
idea and one is the law. Right.
7:25
If we look closely at what the disciplines actually require, a
7:29
fluid vocabulary suggests the disciplines overlap entirely.
7:33
But as we will discover, they do not.
7:35
OK, I'm tracking with you. They might use the same
7:38
ingredients, scripture, historical writings, logic, but
7:42
the kitchen they are cooked in and the chef who stamps the
7:45
final approval are very different.
7:49
The recipe for dogmatic theology requires an ingredient that
7:52
systematic theology simply does not demand well.
7:55
You have my attention. To settle whether there's a true
7:57
difference in the recipe of these two terms, we should look
8:00
back at the ancient roots of the word itself.
8:02
We definitely should. Let's look at the etymology of
8:05
dogma. And here's where it gets really
8:07
surprising for you listening, because the origin of this word
8:10
is going to sound like a complete contradiction to
8:13
everything we just discussed regarding modern negative
8:15
connotations. It is huge historical shift.
8:19
The term dogma originates from ancient Greek and Latin, and
8:23
originally it meant that which is held as an opinion.
8:27
An opinion that is completely counterintuitive.
8:29
It started out denoting a personal view, a thought someone
8:32
held, or a philosophical perspective.
8:34
It's one guy's thought. Yeah, but over time it evolved
8:38
drastically. It moved from meaning a simple
8:41
personal opinion to denoting a doctrine or body of doctrines of
8:45
theology and religion formally stated and authoritatively
8:49
claimed by a church. That is a massive path for a
8:52
single word to walk down. It really is.
8:54
Louis Berkoff, a major theologian referenced in our
8:57
source text, defines dogma as having three specific pillars.
9:01
OK, what are they? First, it must be derived from
9:03
scripture. Second, it must be officially
9:05
defined by the church. And 3rd, it must be declared to
9:09
rest upon divine authority. I want to break down those 3
9:12
pillars because that is the recipe you mentioned earlier.
9:14
Derived from scripture, defined by the church, resting on divine
9:18
authority. That middle pillar officially
9:21
defined by the church. That's the game changer.
9:24
And historically, the ends text points out that church councils
9:28
were the mechanism for this. They were the engine that drove
9:31
it. Yeah, Church councils sought to
9:33
resolve theological problems and to distinguish truth from error.
9:37
They formulated doctrinal statements known as dogma, and
9:40
because the Church officially affirmed them, those statements
9:43
became binding on Christians. If we connect this to the bigger
9:46
picture, we need to really understand how a Church council
9:50
actually functioned in the ancient world.
9:52
Paint that picture for us. Imagine the early centuries of
9:55
Christianity. You do not have mass
9:56
communication. You do not have printing
9:58
presses. No Internet, no Zoom calls.
10:00
None of that. You have churches spread across
10:02
the Mediterranean, down into Africa, up into Europe and over
10:06
into the Middle East. As the movement grows, questions
10:09
start popping up. Big questions.
10:11
Deep, complicated questions about the nature of God, the
10:14
exact nature of Jesus, how the divine and human interact, and
10:18
different leaders in different cities start teaching different
10:21
things based on their reading of the texts.
10:23
And some of those teachings begin to clash violently.
10:26
Very violently. And it was not just polite
10:28
academic disagreement in the university lounge.
10:32
These were massive society shaking controversies.
10:36
People were rioting in the streets of ancient cities like
10:39
Alexandria and Constantinople over theological definitions.
10:44
The social fabric was literally tearing.
10:46
Yeah. So to solve these controversies,
10:49
you would have a council, a massive gathering of church
10:53
leaders, bishops and thinkers from all over the known world.
10:56
They would travel for weeks or months, often at great personal
10:59
peril, just to get to a single city.
11:02
The logistics alone are staggering.
11:04
Oh, absolutely. You have to remember some of
11:06
these early bishops attending the Council of Nicaea still bore
11:09
the physical scars of persecution from the Roman
11:12
Empire. Wow, that puts it into
11:14
perspective. They would sit down, sometimes
11:16
for months on end, and they would argue.
11:18
They would debate the scriptures.
11:19
They would review what the apostles taught.
11:21
They were trying to separate truth from error.
11:23
And when they finally reached a conclusion, they would write it
11:25
down as a formal statement. And that formulation became a
11:29
binding dogma. It was no longer just an idea
11:32
floating around. It was the official
11:34
authoritative stance of the gathered church.
11:37
Berkhoff's three pillars make so much sense in that context.
11:40
The council members firmly believed their decisions were
11:43
derived from Scripture. They were not just inventing
11:45
concepts out of thin air. Right, they were anchoring it in
11:48
the text. They were officially defining it
11:50
as the church gathered, and by doing so they declared it rested
11:53
upon divine authority. But I have to push back here, or
11:58
at least point out a striking historical irony.
12:01
Let's hear it. We started by saying the root
12:03
word meant opinion. An opinion is by its very nature
12:07
subjective. It is open for debate.
12:09
Yeah, that's true. If I have an opinion on the best
12:11
way to brew coffee, you can disagree, but dogma became
12:15
binding and authoritative. How did a word completely flip
12:18
its function over the centuries? How do we go from here is my
12:22
opinion to here's the binding law of the church?
12:25
That is the crucial tension and it is a brilliant question.
12:28
The shift happened because of who was holding the opinion.
12:31
OK, unpack that. In the ancient world, if a
12:33
single philosopher held an opinion, it was just an idea.
12:36
It was subjective, but if the United Universal Church gathered
12:40
together and formulated A collective opinion on what the
12:44
Scriptures taught. That collective agreement
12:46
carried a totally different weight in their minds.
12:48
It was the shift from the individual subjective to the
12:51
collective objective. The Church's opinion became the
12:54
standard by which all individual opinions were judged.
12:58
Because they believe the Holy Spirit guided the gathered
13:01
council. Right therefore, once the
13:03
Council spoke, the time for personal, subjective debate on
13:07
that specific issue was over. The boundary lines were drawn.
13:11
The opinion of the Council became the dogma of the people.
13:15
That paints A vivid picture for us.
13:17
The early Council's formulated these binding truth, these
13:19
boundary lines to keep the faith coherent.
13:22
But our text points out something very surprising.
13:24
What's that? Even though the Council's were
13:26
making dogmas in the first few centuries, like Nicaea in the
13:29
three hundreds or Chalcedon in the four hundreds, the specific
13:33
title of dogmatic theology as a distinct field of study or book
13:37
title did not emerge until a very specific historical
13:40
flashpoint. It took a remarkably long time
13:43
for the phrase to make it onto the cover of a book.
13:45
Which brings us to the 17th century.
13:48
The text tells us that the term dogmatic theology was probably
13:51
first used by a man named L Reinhardt in 1659 as the title
13:56
of a book. Think about that timeline.
13:58
The early church councils were happening in the three hundreds,
14:00
4 hundreds, 5 hundreds, but it is not until 1659 that we see
14:04
the phrase used in the specific academic publishing way.
14:08
Let's talk about the climate of 1659.
14:10
The text says. The word dogmatics came into
14:13
vogue following the Reformation. Yeah, that's a key detail.
14:16
It was used specifically to designate the Articles of Faith
14:18
officially formulated by distinct groups, the Roman
14:21
Catholic Church, the Reformed Church, and others.
14:23
Why did the post Reformation era necessitate this specific
14:28
terminology? What was happening in the mid
14:30
1600s that made people suddenly need to categorize their
14:35
theology as dogmatic? Well, to understand 1659, we
14:39
have to look at the historical climate of Europe.
14:41
Just prior to that, Europe was just coming out of a period of
14:45
immense, unparalleled turmoil. The.
14:47
Reformation the Reformation, which kicked off in the early
14:50
1500s, completely shattered the religious unity of Western
14:53
Europe. Prior to that, there was
14:55
essentially 1 dominant church structure in the West.
14:58
Right. If you talked about the faith,
14:59
everyone assumed you meant the teachings of the Roman Catholic
15:01
Church. There was a monopoly, but the
15:04
Reformation splintered everything.
15:06
You suddenly had Lutherans, Reformed, Anabaptist, the Church
15:10
of England, and the Roman Catholic Church all operating in
15:12
the same geographical spaces. All claiming to hold the true
15:15
interpretation of Scripture. Exactly.
15:17
It was a massive fracturing, yeah.
15:18
And it was followed by decades of intense, brutal religious
15:23
wars. Yes, very bloody conflicts.
15:25
By the mid 1600s, the dust is just starting to settle after
15:29
catastrophic events like the 30 Years War which decimated the
15:33
population of Europe. Right.
15:35
And as that dust settles, the splintering of Western
15:38
Christianity forced these distinct ecclesiastical bodies
15:41
to explicitly, formally write down and officially declare
15:44
their specific belief. They had to differentiate
15:46
themselves from one another. Yes, if you lived in a
15:49
Germantown in 1659, you needed to know precisely what the local
15:54
church believed compared to the town down the road.
15:56
They needed formal, authoritative statements.
15:58
So the Roman Catholic Church had held the Council of Trent to
16:01
solidify their boundaries against the Protestants.
16:04
And the Reformed churches had gatherings like the Synod of
16:06
Dort to clarify their boundaries against other groups.
16:09
They were all producing massive, detailed documents of faith.
16:13
So if I am putting myself in the shoes of a theology student
16:16
before Reinhart's 1659 book, what did theological study look
16:21
like? It was different.
16:22
Did the Reformation essentially force theological transparency?
16:27
Because if church councils were making binding dogmas for
16:29
centuries prior, why did it take until 1659 for someone to
16:33
actually put the phrase on the cover of a book?
16:36
Before the Reformation, theology was often studied through
16:39
commentaries on a massive text called the Sentences by Peter
16:43
Lombard, or through Thomas Aquinas's incredibly detailed
16:47
Summa Theologica. It was a vast, unified, but
16:50
sometimes murky sea of medieval scholasticism.
16:53
There was no pressing need to clearly label your specific
16:57
groups unique dogmas on the cover of a book because there
17:00
was a monopoly on the market. Aquinas was basically the
17:02
standard, but the Reformation broke the monopoly.
17:05
Once you have a marketplace with competing vendors, every vendor
17:08
needs a very clear sign above their shop.
17:10
Well, that makes sense. Reinhart and others began using
17:12
the term dogmatic theology to signal.
17:15
This book contains the official, recognized, formally endorsed
17:18
teachings of my specific church body.
17:21
It was a way of organizing the new reality of a divided
17:24
Christian Europe. Wait, I have to push back here.
17:26
I am confused by this progression.
17:28
John, go ahead. The Reformation was largely
17:30
about getting rid of the Pope's binding absolute authority over
17:34
the individual believers conscience, right?
17:36
Yes, that was a massive part of it, the.
17:38
Reformers wanted to point back to the Bible.
17:41
So why are they suddenly writing their own binding dogmas in
17:44
1659? Isn't a local Protestant council
17:47
writing a binding dogma? Just replacing 1 Pope in Rome
17:51
with a local council in Germany or Holland?
17:54
That feels contradictory. That is a very sharp
17:57
observation, and it is a tension the reformers themselves
17:59
wrestled with constantly. How do they defend it?
18:02
The defense they would offer is that they were not replacing the
18:05
Pope with a new infallible council.
18:07
They were providing transparency and community standards.
18:11
A marketplace of ideas requires clear signage.
18:13
As we said, they argued that their dogmatic statements were
18:17
not newly invented truths carrying equal weight to
18:19
Scripture. Rather, they were communal
18:21
agreements on what Scripture already plainly taught.
18:24
Oh, I see they needed these documents to train pastors to
18:27
teach children, and to defend themselves against political
18:31
accusations of heresy. But your pushback hits on the
18:34
exact problem modern theologians still argue over How do you
18:38
balance the authority of the text with the authority of the
18:41
group? Which leads perfectly into how
18:43
modern scholars try to build a fence around what actually
18:46
qualifies as dogmatic theology today.
18:50
And looking at the ends text, the scholars do not agree with
18:53
each other at all. They certainly do not.
18:55
Ends provides us with a fascinating scholarly divide by
18:59
presenting the views of four major thinkers, William GT
19:02
Shedd, Wayne Grudem, Carl Barth, and Louis Berkoff.
19:06
A heavy hitting lineup. Oh, for sure.
19:08
Each of these men tries to pinpoint the exact nature of
19:11
this discipline, and their differing approaches highlight
19:13
the tension between individual study and church authority.
19:17
Let's start with Shed. We talked about him earlier with
19:19
his confusing book titles, but his actual definition is very
19:22
sharp. Shed provides A2 part definition
19:25
for dogma. First, he says it denotes A
19:27
doctrinal proposition that has been derived exegetically from
19:30
the Scriptures. That means pulling the meaning
19:32
directly out of the biblical text using original languages
19:35
and contexts. Right.
19:36
And he says the authority of the dogma in this first case is
19:38
divine. Second, he says it denotes A
19:41
decree or decision of the Church.
19:44
The authority in this latter case is human.
19:46
We need to spend significant time untacking Shed's
19:49
distinction here because it is the hinge for his whole
19:52
argument. Shed is splitting the concept of
19:54
authority right down the middle. Give us an example of how that
19:57
works. Let's use a specific case study
19:59
to show how this works. Take the doctrine of God's
20:02
omniscience, the idea that God knows everything.
20:05
OK. When a theologian sits in his
20:07
study, reads the original Hebrew and Greek of the Psalms, and
20:11
derives the doctrinal proposition that God is
20:13
omniscient, Shed says that truth has divine authority because it
20:16
comes from God's Word. The scholar did the exegetical
20:20
work. But for that proposition to
20:22
become dogma, it requires a second step.
20:24
Yes, yes, the Church, as a human institution gathered together,
20:28
must make a decree or decision to officially adopt that
20:31
proposition into their official teaching.
20:34
That second step carries human authority.
20:37
So Shed is saying that dogmatic theology requires both.
20:41
It needs the divine truth of the text and the human stamp of the
20:45
Church's decree. Exactly this dual nature is what
20:49
distinguishes it from systematic theology.
20:51
A definition of systematic theology, according to Shed's
20:54
logic, would not need to include a statement on the authority of
20:57
the church. You can write a systematic
20:59
theology without a church council backing you up.
21:03
Precisely. Many systematic theologies have
21:05
been written without any official sanction or endorsement
21:08
of a church or ecclesiastical body.
21:10
A single brilliant scholar sitting in a university library
21:14
can write a systematic theology. They organize the doctrines
21:17
logically, they write it all down and they publish it.
21:19
But they cannot write a dogmatic theology on their own because
21:23
they lack that second human authority of the Churches
21:26
decree. Dogmatic theology discusses the
21:28
same doctrines, often using the exact same outline, but it does
21:32
so from a particular theological stance and church
21:35
identification. It is the community speaking,
21:37
not just the professor. OK, so that is Shed's view, a
21:40
clear distinction between the solo scholar and the gathered
21:43
church. But then we move to Wayne
21:45
Grudem, and Grudem just comes in and wipes the board clean.
21:48
He really does. Grudem argues that dogmatic
21:51
theology and systematic theology are the exact same thing he
21:54
says. And I quote dogmatic theology is
21:57
another term of systematic theology.
21:59
Yes, and this is where we see a sharp contrast in methodology.
22:02
Grudem is writing from a modern, largely American evangelical
22:06
context, right? In his view, the systematic
22:09
organization of biblical truth is the highest goal.
22:12
He does not place the same weight on the historical,
22:15
ecclesiastical stamp of approval as the defining characteristic
22:19
of the discipline itself. If you write a thorough,
22:22
accurate, systematic account of what the Bible teaches, Grudem
22:26
says, you are doing dogmatics regardless of whether a church
22:29
council ever votes to endorse your book.
22:30
I look at Grudem's approach and it leaves a massive gap.
22:34
If an independent scholar can just write a systematic theology
22:38
and call it dogma, what keeps that scholar accountable?
22:41
That's a huge question. If systematic theology can be
22:44
written by an independent academic without church backing,
22:47
as Shed implies, but Grudem says they are the same thing, it
22:50
feels like Grudem is ignoring the entire historical weight of
22:54
the word dogma that we just spent 20 minutes discussing.
22:58
He is flattening the nuance. He removes the community from
23:01
the equation completely. That is the primary critique
23:04
levelled against that approach. It leans heavily into
23:07
individualism. And this is exactly the anxiety
23:11
the third scholar, Karl Barth, tries to solve.
23:13
OK, how does Barth approach it? Barth looks at this potential
23:17
for unmoored individualistic theology and says no, we need an
23:20
anchor. Barth ties dogma to propositions
23:24
acknowledged, confessed and deposited in the church symbols.
23:28
Deposited in the church. Symbols.
23:30
That is an intriguing phrase. When I hear symbols, I think of
23:32
abstract shapes, or a corporate logo, or maybe a metaphor and a
23:36
poem. But that is not what Barth means
23:38
here, is it? No, not at all.
23:39
In theological terms, a symbol is a creed, a confession, or a
23:43
catechism. OK.
23:44
It is a formal written document that symbolizes the faith of the
23:48
community. Think of the Apostles Creed, or
23:51
the Westminster Confession, or the Heidelberg Catechism.
23:54
So Barth is saying that dogma is not just an idea floating in the
23:58
ether of a university classroom. It is concrete.
24:02
It is deposited, banked, stored, secured in these official
24:07
documents that the Church has historically confessed.
24:10
By using the word deposited, he gives it a sense of weight and
24:13
permanence. This brings us right back to the
24:16
idea of the church's authority. Dogma is what the church has
24:19
written down and claimed as its own.
24:20
Exactly. And then we get to Louis
24:22
Birkhoff, who, N suggests, synthesizes it.
24:25
All the best, Birkhoff says. Dogmatics deals with the
24:28
doctrinal truth of Scripture in a systematic way, and more
24:31
particularly with that truth as it is confessed by the Church.
24:34
It's a great definition. I love this definition.
24:36
It brings the 2 worlds together perfectly.
24:38
It acknowledges the systematic method, the logical organization
24:42
of the scholar, but it firmly anchors the content and the
24:45
confession of the gathered church.
24:46
Berkhoff really hits the sweet spot there.
24:49
He acknowledges that you have to be systematic.
24:51
You have to organize the truths logically.
24:54
You cannot just have a random list of thoughts right that he
24:57
refuses to let go of the communal ecclesiastical nature
25:01
of dogma. It is truth as it is confessed
25:03
by the Church. It is not just one scholars
25:05
bright idea. Let me try to build out an
25:07
analogy for you, the listener, to try and clarify this entire
25:11
scholarly debate. Think about the field of law.
25:14
Oh I like this. Systematic Theology is like a
25:18
brilliant, incredibly comprehensive textbook on
25:21
constitutional law, written by a solo university professor.
25:25
It organizes all the facts. It lays out the history of the
25:28
Constitution. It makes highly logical
25:30
arguments about how the law should be applied to modern
25:32
problems. It's a great resource.
25:34
It's incredibly useful, educational, and lawyers
25:36
everywhere read it. Dogmatic theology, however, is
25:40
the actual ruling handed down by the Supreme Court.
25:42
There's the difference. One organizes the facts and
25:45
opinions. The other is a binding
25:47
confession by a governing body. The professor's textbook might
25:51
be smarter. It might even be more logically
25:54
coherent and easier to read. But the Supreme Court's ruling
25:57
carries a completely different type of weight.
25:59
It's the law of the land, right? If a local lower court is trying
26:03
to decide a case, they do not base their legal ruling on the
26:07
professor's textbook. They base it on the Supreme
26:09
Court's dogma. That analogy holds up incredibly
26:13
well. The textbook is informational.
26:15
The Supreme Court ruling is binding.
26:18
Dogmatic theology requires that binding element, that communal
26:22
confession that functions as the rule of law for that specific
26:25
community. When a local church faces a
26:28
controversy, say a pastor starts teaching something strange about
26:31
the resurrection, the church does not just pull a random
26:34
systematic theology off the shelf to judge the pastor.
26:37
No, they wouldn't. They look at their specific
26:39
dogmatic confession to see if the pastor is out of bounds.
26:42
But if we follow that analogy to its logical conclusion, if
26:47
dogmatic theology requires the ruling of a Supreme Court, we
26:51
are forced to confront the biggest theological disagreement
26:54
of all. We have to ask who actually sits
26:57
on that court. That's the $1,000,000 question.
26:59
Who? Holds the gavel because
27:01
different churches have very different ideas about who has
27:03
the authority to make the final ruling.
27:06
And this brings us to the ultimate dividing line in the
27:08
ends text. Where does authority actually
27:11
reside? Because if dogma requires
27:13
authoritative church affirmation, you cannot proceed
27:16
a single step further until you decide what constitutes A valid
27:19
authority right. And the text outlines 2 massive,
27:22
distinct views on this fundamental question.
27:24
The text first points to the Roman Catholic view.
27:27
According to Ends, dogmatic theology in the Roman Catholic
27:30
Church acknowledges the authority of Scripture
27:32
absolutely, but it equally looks to tradition and official church
27:36
decisions for the formulation of its dogma.
27:38
It is not a solo act. We need to break down the
27:41
structural differences and how truth is arbitrated in this
27:44
system. The Roman Catholic view operates
27:47
on a triad of authority. It is a three legged stool.
27:51
OK, what are the three legs? You have Scripture, the written
27:53
biblical text. You have Sacred Tradition, which
27:55
is the unwritten teachings handed down orally and
27:58
practically from the apostles through the centuries and the
28:02
3rd, and you have the Magisterium, the teaching office
28:04
of the Church, which includes the Pope and the bishops in
28:07
communion with them. In this system, when a point of
28:10
controversy arises, the Church does not just look at a Bible
28:14
verse. They consult all three legs.
28:16
Yes, they look at tradition and they look at their own
28:19
historical decisions to formulate a new dogma.
28:22
The decisions of the Church councils and the ex cathedral
28:25
statements of the Pope are seen as being guided by the Holy
28:29
Spirit to such a degree that they carry an authority equal to
28:32
the Scriptures themselves. If you remove one leg of that
28:35
stool, the whole system of authority collapses.
28:38
But the text also mentions a very specific modern nuance
28:43
within the Catholic view. It brings up theologians like
28:46
Karl Ronner. Yes, Ronner is fascinating here.
28:49
And notes that in recent years Ronner has argued for the
28:52
necessity of experiencing dogma in life rather than simply
28:56
acknowledging creedal statements.
28:58
What is Ronner trying to solve here?
29:00
Why did he feel the need to inject experience into this
29:04
rigid 3 legged stool? Well, Ronnie's push for
29:08
experiencing dogma is a fascinating reaction to the
29:10
cultural climate of the 20th century.
29:13
Think about post World War 2 Europe.
29:16
Existentialism is on the rise. People are dealing with massive
29:19
trauma, questioning the meaning of life and pushing back against
29:23
cold institutional structures. Centuries, the focus.
29:26
In Catholic dogmatics was almost entirely on the objective, rigid
29:30
acknowledgement of the creedal statements.
29:32
You ascend to the proposition, the Church says it, you check
29:34
the box and you move on. Very intellectual, but Ronner.
29:37
Recognized a. Massive danger there.
29:39
It can become hollow. It becomes purely intellectual
29:42
ascent. He argued that dogma should not
29:45
just be a list of rules you check off, it should be
29:47
something that interacts dynamically with human
29:49
experience. Give me an example if the.
29:51
Dogma of the Incarnation. God becoming flesh is true,
29:56
Ronner argued. It should actively inform how a
29:58
person experiences their own physical suffering and joy.
30:01
However, even with. Ronner's existential turn toward
30:05
personal experience. The underlying structure of
30:07
Roman Catholic authority remains identical, right?
30:10
Yes, the Church Magisterium. Still has the final infallible
30:14
say in defining what that dogma is, which contrasts completely
30:17
with the. Protestant of you the text
30:19
groups Calvinistic, Armenian Covenant and dispensational
30:22
camps all under this broad Protestant umbrella and it says
30:27
the Protestant view places its sole authority in the
30:29
scriptures, not the church sole authority.
30:31
That's the. Key in points of controversy
30:34
the. Solution is sought in Scripture,
30:35
not in the decision of the church councils.
30:37
Furthermore, Protestant conservative theology explicitly
30:41
rejects rationalism as an authority.
30:43
The structural shift here is. Seismic.
30:45
It is a completely different architecture.
30:47
The Protestant reformers looked at that three legged stool of
30:49
authority, Scripture, tradition, magisterium, and they
30:53
essentially kicked away tradition and the magisterium is
30:55
equal authorities, they said. Scripture alone.
30:58
Exactly when a. Controversy arises.
31:01
A Protestant church council might gather to debate it, but
31:04
the council's decision is only valid in so far as it accurately
31:07
reflects the Scriptures. The Council has no inherent.
31:10
Authority to create new dogma or elevate an oral tradition to the
31:14
level of divine text. They are merely interpreting the
31:18
existing text. And as you mentioned the text
31:20
notes, they also rejected rationalism.
31:23
They did rejecting rationalism. Why is that specific rejection
31:27
mentioned by ends? What is the historical context
31:30
for that? Because in the centuries.
31:32
Following the Reformation, the Enlightenment swept across
31:35
Europe. Human reason, rationalism, the
31:38
scientific method began to be elevated as the supreme judge of
31:41
all truth. Oh, sure, philosophers began to
31:43
say that if something in the Bible did not make logical,
31:46
rational sense to the modern mind, it should be discarded.
31:49
Conservative Protestant thought rejected that Enlightenment
31:51
rationalism just as firmly as they rejected the supremacy of
31:55
the Catholic Church councils. They argued that human reason
31:57
is. Inherently flawed, corrupted by
31:59
the Fall, and must submit to the authority of the biblical text.
32:03
The text is the final ultimate arbitrator over both the Pope
32:07
and the philosopher. That's spot on.
32:09
I have a major. Question here, a real point of
32:12
tension for us to work through. We established earlier using
32:15
broke off and shed the dogma requires official authoritative
32:20
church affirmation. It requires the Supreme Court
32:23
ruling not just the law professor's textbook.
32:26
But if the Protestant view completely rejects the binding,
32:29
infallible authority of church councils to solve controversies,
32:33
if they say the solution is found solely in Scripture, how
32:36
does Protestantism even have dogmatic theology?
32:39
It sounds like a paradox, doesn't it?
32:41
It does does relying. Solely on scripture and
32:43
rejecting the binding authority of councils risk creating a
32:46
scenario where every single individual believer with a Bible
32:50
becomes their own personal church council.
32:52
How do you have dogma without an infallible church to declare it?
32:56
That is the most critical. Question we could possibly ask,
32:59
and it gets to the absolute heart of the divide.
33:01
The Protestant answer to this tension is the concept of
33:05
subordinate standards. Subordinate standards, yes.
33:08
Protestant bodies. Still hold counsels, they still
33:11
formulate dogma, and they still write massive, incredibly
33:15
detailed confessions of faith. Think of the Westminster
33:18
Confession of Faith, or the Second London Baptist
33:21
Confession. They have strict dogmatic
33:23
boundaries, but they view those. Ecclesiastical documents as
33:27
entirely subordinate to Scripture rather than equal to
33:30
it. Right subordinate.
33:32
That means. The confession is authoritative.
33:34
But its authority is derived from something else not inherent
33:37
in the document itself. Exactly right?
33:39
A. Protestant church will look at
33:40
their congregation and say this written confession is our dogma.
33:44
It is binding on our pastors, our teachers, and our community.
33:47
But it is binding only because we believe it is an accurate
33:50
summary of what the Bible teaches, meaning it could be
33:53
corrected. Yes, if.
33:56
At any point in the future, someone can prove from scripture
33:59
that a clause in the confession is wrong.
34:01
The confession must be changed. The church has authority, but it
34:05
is a ministerial authority. They minister and administer the
34:08
truth of the text. It's not a magisterial authority
34:12
where they can generate new truth.
34:14
So to answer your question. Protestants avoid the chaos of
34:17
every individual becoming their own church council by
34:20
voluntarily submitting to these shared historical confessions
34:24
while still maintaining the core conviction that the Bible is the
34:27
only flawless document. You nailed it.
34:30
It's a very. Delicate balance to maintain.
34:32
You have the authority of the gathered group, but the group is
34:35
constantly looking over its shoulder at the biblical text,
34:38
knowing the text is the real boss.
34:39
That's a great way to put it and.
34:41
Ends mentions those various. Systems within Protestantism,
34:43
Calvinistic, Armenian Covenant, dispensational grouping them all
34:47
under this Protestant view of authority shows the vast scope
34:51
of this field. It shows that even within the
34:53
scripture alone camp, there are massive structural differences
34:56
in how the text is systematically organized and
34:58
confessed. Which brings us full circle to.
35:00
Why this discipline matters? You have all these different
35:03
Protestant groups. They all claim scripture as
35:05
their sole final authority, yet they read the exact same verses
35:10
and come to completely different conclusions on certain issues.
35:13
And they write different confessions.
35:15
Take a Calvinist and an Armenian.
35:17
Right, they both read the new. Testament.
35:19
The Calvinist reads it and formulates A dogmatic stance,
35:22
heavily relying on God's sovereign predestination.
35:25
The Armenian reads the same text and formulates A dogmatic
35:28
stance, heavily leaning on human free will.
35:31
They have different dogma, this proves.
35:33
The absolute. Necessity.
35:34
Dogmatic theology as a discipline.
35:36
You cannot just say I believe the Bible because the Calvinist
35:40
and the Armenian both say that with equal passion.
35:42
Dogmatic theology forces. You to clarify historically and
35:45
communally, how your specific ecclesiastical body interprets,
35:50
organizes and confesses the words in that Bible.
35:53
It draw the lines clearly. It really does.
35:55
We have covered. A massive.
35:56
Amount of ground today for you listening.
35:58
We really appreciate you staying with us as we work through this
36:01
dense historical material. I want to take a moment to
36:04
summarize the path we have taken in this deep dive.
36:07
It's in quite a ride we. Started by looking at the.
36:09
Word itself tracing dogma from a simple ancient Greek and Latin
36:14
word meaning a subjective, personal opinion.
36:17
We saw how the fires of early church debate and massive
36:20
continent spanning councils forged that word into a term
36:23
meaning a binding, authoritative decree, and we work through the
36:27
linguistic and. Geographic splits Seeing how
36:30
state churches in Germany and Holland favored dogmatics, while
36:33
independent dissenters in Britain and America favored
36:36
systematics, we looked at the aftermath of the.
36:39
Reformation, where splintering groups in the 17th century were
36:42
forced to write down their specific beliefs to survive a
36:45
crowded marketplace of ideas that led to Elle Reinhardt
36:49
putting the phrase on a book cover in 1659, and we work
36:52
through the scholarly. Debates of shed, grudem, Barth
36:55
and berkoff finally landing on the fundamental divides over who
36:58
holds the ultimate authority to claim truth, whether it is the
37:01
Roman Catholic. Triad of Scripture, tradition
37:03
and church magisterium or the Protestant reliance on scripture
37:07
alone as the final judge over their subordinate confessions.
37:12
It is a fascinating historical. Progression.
37:14
And I want to point out to you, our listener, that the sources
37:17
provided today highlight why knowing this material matters so
37:20
much. It is not academic trivia meant
37:23
to gather dust on a shelf. No, knowing not just what the
37:27
Bible says, but how the specific ecclesiastical body you belong
37:31
to systematically confesses those truths protects you from
37:35
theological confusion. It provides structural integrity
37:38
to what you believe. The Anne's text provides some.
37:41
Fantastic resources for further study if you want to keep
37:44
digging into this topic. He mentions Hendrik Kasperkov.
37:46
'S Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics, Louis Birkhoff's
37:49
Introduction to Systematic Theology, FH Cluster's article
37:53
on Dogmatics and the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, and TWJ
37:57
Morrow's entry on dogma in the New Dictionary of Theology.
38:00
Those are excellent places to go.
38:02
Next to expand your understanding.
38:03
Highly recommend them. I'm going.
38:05
To leave you with one. Final provocative scenario to
38:08
ponder. Something to chew on after this
38:11
audio ends. We have defined dogmatic
38:14
theology as truth officially endorsed and confessed by a
38:17
church body. We have established that for
38:20
Protestants the Bible is the final authority, but the local
38:25
church still holds these subordinate dogmatic confessions
38:29
to maintain order. So what happens when an
38:31
individual believers personal, intense exegetical reading of
38:35
Scripture that puts them at odds with the confessed dogma of
38:38
their specific congregation? That's a tough spot to be in if
38:41
you were. Convinced, the Bible says.
38:42
One thing and your church's dogmatic confession says
38:45
another. What do you do?
38:47
Do you revise your personal theology to submit to the wisdom
38:50
of the group? Or do you pack your bags and go
38:53
find a new church council that agrees with your opinion?
38:55
It is attention every. Serious student of theology has
38:58
to face eventually. Think about that as you go.
39:01
About your week. Thank you so much for sitting at
39:02
the table with us today. We will catch you on the next
39:05
deep dive.