-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dogmatics
- Thread starter Jope
- Start date
Are you talking about dogmatism or dogmatics?
Cuz there be a difference.
Dogmatics are, in theological circles, another name for a systematic theology. (i.e. Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics.)
Dogmatism is, usually, being hardline about a specific theology or set of beliefs. (i.e. YEC as the only valid interpretive option.)
Cuz there be a difference.
Dogmatics are, in theological circles, another name for a systematic theology. (i.e. Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics.)
Dogmatism is, usually, being hardline about a specific theology or set of beliefs. (i.e. YEC as the only valid interpretive option.)
Hey there preachinjesus
Dogmatics, not dogmatism.
As in,
a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
dogma. 2013. In Merriam-Webster.com.
Retrieved July 29, 2013, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma
Retrieved July 29, 2013, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma
(And yes, systematic theology).
Last edited by a moderator:
The proverb doesn't tell us that the subject is the teaching of the Scriptures, but rather, of persons ("the wise").
I therefore conclude that this proverb tells us that dogma is permissible.
When we study a passage or verse, such as Proverbs 13:14, we must look at other verses or passages that address the same or a similar topic.
Who are the wise? Those who listen to God and learn from God, for the wisdom of this world is foolishness according to scripture.
Thus those that teach or instruct according to God's word provide the fountain of life found in the gospel of Christ. And as Paul said, to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Thus God's word prepares us for the snares of death.
Thus this proverb teaches that God's Word is the fountain of life and protects us from the snares of death.
If a man's dogma accurately and correctly presents God's Word, rightly dividing the word of truth, then he is a wise man and his teaching or instruction should be valued.
However, if a man's dogma, rewrites God's word to make it conform to his invention, then such "dogma" should be placed on the dust bin of history.
Lets give some examples:
As the noble Berean would say, check the "dogma" against God's word to test whether the "wise" man is wise according to God or wise according to the world.
Who are the wise? Those who listen to God and learn from God, for the wisdom of this world is foolishness according to scripture.
Thus those that teach or instruct according to God's word provide the fountain of life found in the gospel of Christ. And as Paul said, to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Thus God's word prepares us for the snares of death.
Thus this proverb teaches that God's Word is the fountain of life and protects us from the snares of death.
If a man's dogma accurately and correctly presents God's Word, rightly dividing the word of truth, then he is a wise man and his teaching or instruction should be valued.
However, if a man's dogma, rewrites God's word to make it conform to his invention, then such "dogma" should be placed on the dust bin of history.
Lets give some examples:
a) God desires all men to be saved. Does the dogma teach that or does it nullify that truth?
b) Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Does the dogma teach that or does it nullify that truth?
b) Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Does the dogma teach that or does it nullify that truth?
As the noble Berean would say, check the "dogma" against God's word to test whether the "wise" man is wise according to God or wise according to the world.
Context Van,context. The meaning is intended for all kinds of people --not all people en mass. In other words everyone without distinction,whether kings or beggars and everyone betwixt them.
Not just for Jews,but for the Gentiles too. The Lord has not, nor will not remove His wrath from each and every person, past, present and future --that's why many are in eternal perdition --God's wrath abides on them eternally. Their sins were not propitiated. So internationally, from every tribe, language group, people and nation the Lord has His own for whom propitiation has been made.
We can see this proverb in action here:
Justin's dogma turned his audience from the snares of death.
And yes, Van, you are correct about the berean passage.
Another passage I will use to prove that dogmatics are permissible that of the doctrine of the death and resurrection of the Lord (Lk. 18:31-34). No where in OT scripture does it organize such a doctrine so that you will find a chapter devoted to such, but rather, it is an accumulative doctrine gathering scriptural truths together.
“If, then, the teaching of the prophets and of Himself moves you, it is better for you to follow God than your imprudent and blind masters, who even till this time permit each man to have four or five wives; and if any one see a beautiful woman and desire to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob [called] Israel, and of the other patriarchs, and maintain that it is not wrong to do such things; for they are miserably ignorant in this matter. For, as I before said, certain dispensations of weighty mysteries were accomplished in each act of this sort. For in the marriages of Jacob I shall mention what dispensation and prophecy were accomplished, in order that you may thereby know that your teachers never looked at the divine motive which prompted each act, but only at the grovelling and corrupting passions. Attend therefore to what I say. The marriages of Jacob were types of that which Christ was about to accomplish...Now Leah is your people and synagogue; but Rachel is our Church.
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. ch. CXXXIV.
Justin's dogma turned his audience from the snares of death.
And yes, Van, you are correct about the berean passage.
Another passage I will use to prove that dogmatics are permissible that of the doctrine of the death and resurrection of the Lord (Lk. 18:31-34). No where in OT scripture does it organize such a doctrine so that you will find a chapter devoted to such, but rather, it is an accumulative doctrine gathering scriptural truths together.
To follow after a certain doctrine is not bad and can be good but, following after a doctrine more than the word leads to false leadership.
Not the context at all. God desires all men to be saved. the context is we are to pray for all men, including kings and those in authority so we remain at peace with them, opening an avenue for a presentation of the gospel.
Jesus becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for all men does not mean all men have received the propitiation. Only those whose faith God credits as righteousness are set apart in Christ, the sanctifying work of the Spirit, and are washed by His blood, turning the wrath of God from them.
Jesus becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for all men does not mean all men have received the propitiation. Only those whose faith God credits as righteousness are set apart in Christ, the sanctifying work of the Spirit, and are washed by His blood, turning the wrath of God from them.
Jope,
While I do not see this proverb as a positive statement to teach dogmatics, it certainly supports the underlying idea of sound teaching.
Well said. I retracted my view on this proverb after reading a post made by Van in this thread. It got me thinking:
It can mean that the wise man is teaching from the scriptures, and so the medium through which the scriptures are being taught is the wise man, and the wise man is turning his audience or readers from the snares of death just by simply reading aloud the scriptures.
I think that dogmatics are still permissible based on what I have shown about the Lord and his doctrine of His death and resurrection though (specifically systematic theology).
The pre-trib rapture, for example, is a systematic-theology-doctrine.
I also think that words like "T.V." aren't found in scriptures and it's up to the Church to study the Bible and history and see what the Bible meant in its historical context and how it can be applied to us today. I think that something like this would also be included in dogmatics.
Compare Nehemiah 8:8:
NASB
They read from the book, from the law of God, translating or explaining to give the sense so that they understood the reading.
They read from the book, from the law of God, translating or explaining to give the sense so that they understood the reading.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dogmatics can also be viewed as simply the logical and natural result of a specific way of thinking. This is what systematic theology is all about. I am a Reformed Christian. Reformed theology does not exist in the abstract. It follows a logical view of Christian doctrine based on a systematic approach to biblical interpretation. The same with Dispensational theology. That is why both Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians typically hold to a set of beliefs that are consistent with their way of thinking. That is why it is so difficult to have someone change their mind on a specific doctrine. That specific doctrine is usually part of a greater whole. To change just one doctrinal view can put the person's whole theology in jeopardy.
I dont want to throw this whole OP off base, but Herald you'd indicated you were a RC, an Arminian (Non-Cal) whatever, Dispensational, now a Reformed Calvinistic Baptist. So somewhere along the way you modified & changed your own thinking process & thus your theology. How did that happen? You can Private Message me if thats preferable? You would do that for a fellow Jerseyian, right! :smilewinkgrin:
Thanks
Steve
With Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, the winning argument lies in the fact that no where does it say in scripture that the Davidic and Abrahamic covenant are abrogated. If we are to assume that they are, then we call God a liar and further, jeopardize the covenant made with the Church that we are under (if God abrogated the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant without specifically saying so, what stops me from claiming that God has abrogated our Church covenant as well without God specifically saying so?).
I don't mean to open up a whole new topic (of dispensationalism and covenant theology) on this thread, by the way. Although if you want to talk more about it, we could see about opening another thread. I don't know how much I'd participate if we did though.
Last edited by a moderator:
My point was not to debate either of them but to point out that both are dogmatics.
What I told Jope is accurate. If you change one core belief of your theological system it threatens the rest of it. Why? Because the doctrines of most theological systems are symbiotic in nature. They depend on each other. I left Roman Catholicism when I came to faith in Christ. I was in the Assembly of God denomination for about a year. As I grew in my knowledge of the scriptures I was convinced Pentecostalism was in error. I then became a fundamentalist Baptist. I attended the Word of Life Bible Institute in Pottersville, NY and bought into their Finneyistic-Dispensational belief system hook, line, and sinker. I did not view Reformed theology as simply wrong, I viewed it as a tool of Satan. I would give some of the staunchest opponents of Reformed theology on this board a run for their money.
Unfortunately I found that I could not run from God or ignore His word. I will save you the lengthy details, but suffice to say that I was forced to do more than just gloss over some of the difficult passages of scripture in regards to election and predestination. As soon as my view of election changed it became inevitable that I would abandon Baptist fundamentalism and its accompanying free will theology.
That is the CliffsNotes version.