The Importance of Dogma # 5

The Importance of Dogma # 5

I shall confine myself to a simple statement of certain broad facts, which ought to encourage every loyal Christian to hold distinct doctrinal views, and not to be ashamed of "dogma."

(a) In the first place, let us turn boldly to our Bibles. Is "dogma" there, or not? Of course I do not forget that this witness goes for little with many. They regard the Bible as nothing more than a respectable collections of old Jewish writings, of uncertain antiquity, containing many good things - but not as an infallible book, to whose teachings they must bow. Whenever it contradicts their so-called "verifying faculty, and inward consciousness, and intuitive convictions," they refuse to accept its teaching! I shall have a word for these gentlemen by and by.

But I thank God that many clergymen and laymen in the Church are of a very different mind. There are yet left some thousands among us who have not forgotten their Ordination Vows, in which clergymen profess their determination to "instruct people out of Scripture," and to teach nothing necessary to salvation, but that which may be  concluded and proved by Scripture." To them and thousands like them, I can confidently appeal.

Do we not, then, all know and feel, as we read our New Testaments, that "dogma" meets us in every book from Matthew down to Revelation? Is not the fashionable claptrap assertion, that the chief object of the Gospels and Epistles was to teach us high moral precepts and charity rather than "dogma," so utterly contrary to the real facts of the case which meet our eyes when we read our Bibles - that it is absurdly untrue? Are not "dogma" and doctrine so intimately woven up and intermingled with moral precepts in the New Testament, that you cannot separate them?

We all know that there is only one answer to such questions. As for those unhappy men who can stand in a reading desk, and there read such books as John's Gospel, and the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Hebrews to a church congregation, and then denounce "dogma," and cry down dogmatic theology, and sneer at Bibliolatry in the pulpit - I can only say that I do not understand them. He who gives up teaching "dogma," in my opinion, may just as well say that he gives up teaching the Bible. You cannot neglect "dogma" without ignoring Scripture!

(b) In the second place, we can turn boldly to our Thirty-nine Articles. Is "dogma" in them or not? Once more, I do not forget that many think very little of that admirable Confession of Faith. They coolly tell us in that offhand, conceited style which is so painfully common in this day - that "nobody really believes all the Articles!" Articles as a burdensome stone, and a hobgoblin on men's consciences - and that we would do far better to abolish them, throw them overboard, and be content with no creed at all! But all this time every minister on taking possession of a church, is obliged to declare publicly that he will teach and preach "nothing contrary to the Thirty-nine Articles."

Yet what are these Articles but a wise compendium of dogmatic statements? With few exceptions, they are a series of doctrinal assertions, carefully drawn out of Scripture, which the Church regards as of special and primary importance. Where, I would like to know, is our honesty - if we shrink from teaching dogma, after pledging ourselves to teach the Articles? Where is plain faithfulness to our ministerial promises - if we do not teach and preach distinct, systematic doctrine?

As for those clergymen who retain positions in our Church, while they openly contradict the Articles, or deliberately sneer at their statements of doctrine, as "narrow, and illiberal, and unsuited to the nineteenth century" - I can only say once more that I do not understand them. I can admire their zeal and cleverness - but I cannot see that they are in their right place in the pulpit of the Church. He who is for no "dogma," no Articles, and no Creeds - in my judgment is no true and loyal churchman.

(c) In the third place, we can turn boldly to the Prayer-book. Is "dogma" there or not? That famous book, with all its unquestionable imperfections, find favor in the eyes of all schools of thought within our pale, and of myriads outside. You rarely meet with anyone, however broad and liberal, however opposed to Creeds and Articles, who quarrels with out time-honored Prayer-book, or would like to see it much altered. Week after week its old familiar words are read all over the globe, wherever the English language flies. The older the world grows, the more men seem disposed to say, with George Herbert on his death-bed, "The prayers of the Church - there are none like them!"

Yet all this time it is a curious fact that an immense amount of dogmatic theology runs through the Prayer-book, and underlies its simple petitions! He who sits down and makes a list will be surprised to find what a large amount of doctrinal statements the old book contains about the Trinity, about the deity of Christ, about the personality of the Holy Spirit, about the sacrifice and mediation of Christ, about the work of the Spirit, and many other points. They occur again and again in sentences with which we are so familiar, that we overlook their contents.

~J. C. Ryle~

(continued with # 6)