I. The Subject-Matter of the History of Dogma
PROLEGOMENA
I. The Subject-Matter of the History of Dogma The History of Dogma is not concerned with theology in general. It deals primarily with dogmas in the strict sense of the word, and only secondarily with doctrines that have not yet received ecclesiastical sanction.
1. THE MEANING OF THE WORD "DOGMA". The word "dogma" is derived from the Greek dokein, which in the expression dokein moi meant not only "it seems to me", or "it pleases me", but also "I have definitely determined something so that it is for me an established fact". The last meaning gradually predominated, so that the word
"dogma" became the designation of a firm, and especially a public, resolution or decree. It was applied to the self-evident truths of science, to well established and admittedly valid philosophical convictions, to government decrees, and to officially formulated religious tenets.
The Bible uses the word as a designation of government decrees in the Septuagint, Esth. 3:9; Dan. 2:13; 6:8; Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7, of the ordinances of the Old Testament, Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14, and of the decisions of the Assembly of Jerusalem, Acts 16:4. While it was the philosophical and not the biblical usage of the term that gave rise to its later meaning in theology, yet its use in Acts 16:4 has points of resemblance with its later usage in theology. The Jerusalem
Assembly, it is true, did not formulate a doctrine but a regulation for the ethical life of the Church; yet its decision was occasioned by a doctrinal controversy, had doctrinal bearings, and was not merely a piece of advice but a positive injunction with ecclesiastical sanction.
While the word "dogma" is sometimes used in religion and theology with a great deal of latitude, as practically synonymous with "doctrine," it generally has a more restricted meaning. A doctrine is the direct, often naive, expression of a religious truth. It is not
necessarily formulated with scientific precision, and when it is, may be merely the formulation of a single person. A religious dogma, on the other hand, is a religious truth based on authority and officially formulated by some ecclesiastical assembly. This meaning of the word is not determined by its scriptural usage, in which it always denotes a decree, a commandment, or a rule of practical life, but is more in harmony with the philosophical use of the word to denote a proposition or principle. Some of the early Church Fathers used it to describe the substance of doctrine. Cf. Hagenbach, History of Doctrines I., p. 2 f.; Hauck, Realencyclopaedie, Art. Dogmatik.
2. THE ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OF DOGMAS. Religious doctrines are found in Scripture, thought not in finished form, but dogmas in the current sense of the word are not found there. They are the fruit of human reflection, the reflection of the Church, often occasioned or intensified by theological controversies. Roman
Catholics and Protestants differ somewhat in their description of the origin of dogmas. The former minimize, if they do not exclude, the reflection of the Church as the body of believers, and substitute for it the study of the teaching Church or the hierarchy. Whenever a new form of error arises, the teaching Church, that is the clerus, which now has its infallible spokesman in the Pope, after careful examination, formulates the doctrine taught in Scripture or by tradition, declares it to be a revealed truth, and imposes its acceptance on all the faithful. Says Wilmers in his Handbook of the Christian Religion, p. 151: "A dogma, therefore, is a truth revealed by God, and at the same time proposed by the Church for our belief."
Similarly Spirago-Clarke in The Catechism Explained: "A truth which the Church puts before us as revealed by God is called a truth of faith, or a dogma." p. 84. And since the Church is infallible in matters of doctrine, a truth so proposed is not only authoritative but also irrevocable and unchangeable. "If any one shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema." Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, Canons IV. 3.
The Reformers substituted for this Roman Catholic view another which, in spite of its similarity, yet differs from it in important points. According to them all truly religious dogmas derive their material contents from Scripture and from Scripture only. They do not recognize the unwritten word or tradition as a source of dogmas.
At the same time they do not regard dogmas as statements taken directly from the Bible, but represent them as the fruit of the reflection of the Church, as the body of believers, on the truths of revelation, and as the official formulations of competent representative bodies. Since the reflection of the Church is often determined and deepened by doctrinal controversies, the formulations to which Church Councils or Synods are finally led under the guidance of the Holy Spirit often bear the earmarks of past struggles. They are not infallible but yet have a high degree of stability. And they are authoritative, not merely because they are proposed by the Church, but formally as defined by the Church and materially as based on the Word of God.
Under the influence of Schleirmacher, Ritschl, Vinet, and others, a radically different conception of the origin of dogmas was developed, which found ready acceptance in many Protestant circles. It represents the Christian consciousness, Christian experience, the Christian faith, or the Christian life as the source of the material contents of dogmas, and regards this as more in harmony with the principles of the Reformation. The dogmas of the Church are simply the intellectual formulations of its experiences, sentiments, and beliefs, which, according to some, are awakened by an objective factor, in which piety recognizes a divine revelation. Schleiermacher contends for the immediacy of these religious experiences, while
Ritschl and his School maintain that they are mediated by some objective factor, which faith honours as a revelation of God. The religious community reflects on these experiences and finally by some competent body gives them formal intellectual expression and thus transforms them into dogmas. On this view, as well as on the other, the formulation of dogmas is not the work of an individual theologian, but of a community, either the Church (Schleirmacher),
or the State going hand in hand with the Church (Lobstein). This view of the origin of dogmas is held by Schleiermacher, Ritschl,
Kaftan, Lobstein, Vinet, Sabatier, Is. Van Dijk, and others. It should be noted, however, that it does not describe the way in which the existing dogmas actually originated in the Protestant Churches, but only the way in which, according to these writers, dogmas should come into existence. They regard the old dogmas as antiquated, because they are too intellectual, and do not give adequate expression to the life of the Church, and call for a new dogma vibrant with the life of the religious community.
Harnack's view deserves special mention here. In his monumental work on The History of Dogma he seeks to discredit the whole dogma
(i.e. the whole complex of dogmas) of the early Church by representing it as an unnatural mixture of Greek philosophy and Christian truth, in which the foreign philosophical ingredient is the preponderating element. Says he: "Dogma in its conception and development is a work of the Greek spirit on the soil of the Gospel."
The Church yielded to the temptation to represent its message in a form that would make it appear as wisdom rather than foolishness and thus to gain for it the proper respect of the educated people. The practical faith of the Church was transformed into an intellectual concept, a dogma, and this became the real pivot of the history of the Church. This was a great mistake, and a mistake that was continued in the later formation of dogmas, so that the whole history of dogma is really the history of a colossal error. It is the great ambition of the Ritschlian School, to which Harnack belongs, to eliminate all metaphysics from theology.
A dogma may be defined as a doctrine, derived from Scripture, officially defined by the Church, and declared to rest upon divine authority. This definition partly names and partly suggests its characteristics. Its subject-matter is derived from the Word of God and is therefore authoritative. It is not a mere repetition of what is found in Scripture, but the fruit of dogmatic reflection. And it is officially defined by a competent ecclesiastical body and declared to