Studies in Christian Doctrine - James Drummond - Google Books

Books

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGES

Definition of Doctrinal Theology, 1.

Distinction of Doctrinal from Dogmatic Theology, 1-5: Meaning

of dogma, 1-2; of a Creed, and of a Confession, 2; dogma

not necessary for religious societies, 2-3; definitions of Dog-

matics, 3-4; objection to Dogmatics, 4; inevitable pre-

Agreement of method with that in other branches of study, 5.

Aim of the work, 6.

SOURCES OF DOCTRINE

DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT

The primary question relates to sources and method, 7. Pro-

testant, Roman, and Greek view, 7. A preliminary question

relates to the human mind, 7-8.

The Rights and Limitations of the Intellect

The rights of the intellect not destroyed by an infallible dog-

matic revelation, 9-12 for (1) The infallibility can be

established only by reason, and (2) The evidence depends

partly on the contents of the revelation, 10. Examples, 10–11.

But there may be doctrines beyond the range of our faculties,

II. Statement of principles, 11-12.

Limitations of the rational and critical powers, 12-14: two

kinds of temperament, and of theological questions, 12-13.

Inalienable rights of the intellect, 13. Danger of one-sided

intellectualism, 13-14.

The Moral Nature and Revelation

Connexion of the moral nature with theology, 14-15.

Revelation and Ethics, 15-19: (1) There might be authoritative

rules before the knowledge of higher motives, 15-16. (2)

There might be rules relating to a single motive, 17-18.

(3) Higher motives might be made known, 18-19.

But Christian Ethics not to be included in Dogmatics, 19-20.

3. The Religious Element

Questions relating to it, 20.

(a) The existence of the Religious Element, 20-32: Proposition,

20-21. Sense in which Religion is used, 21; Definitions

to be avoided, 21-23. The evidence-1. Our consciousness,

23-24. 2. Universality, 24-31. Objections to the argument

(a) religion may be an invention, 25-26; (b) it may be due to

traditional beliefs, 26-27. Answers (1) that only can be

developed which exists in germ, 27; (2) our judgment of

religious motives, 27-28; (3) not probable that accidental

transmission could secure universality, 28-29; (4) when

religion has been discarded, it has always revived, 29;

distinction from religious prejudices, 29-30. (c) Religious

knowledge may be derived from other knowledge, 30; but

religion includes emotion, 30-31. 3. Special phenomena

in the manifestation of religion, 31-32.

(b) The Religious Element points to an Object or Objects

answering to it, 32-37: Nature of the inquiry, 32. Religious

feelings exist only in relation to an object, and tend to

create a belief in the existence of the object, 33. Objections:

emotions lead to delusions; but delusions are temporary,

34-35; the thing to be proved is assumed; but there must

be an ultimate assumption, 35–36. The conclusion confirmed

by the whole analogy of our nature, 36-37.

(c) Testimony of the Religious Element to doctrines, 37-45:

Proposition stated, 37. The satisfaction of an inward want

an evidence of truth, 37-38; for (1) it follows from what

has been said about the Religious Element; and (2) the

proposition is supported by the facts of consciousness, 38-41.

Objections (1) beliefs maintaining themselves in this way

may be mere prejudices, 41; but (a) they are more persistent,

(b) they tend to recur, (c) they are felt to have a divine claim

PAGES

PAGES

upon us, (d) they are often opposed to our prejudices, 41-43; 41-81

(2) many such beliefs have been mere errors, 43; but these

errors may be partially true (instance, the idea of sacrifice),

43-44; (3) We have the same tendency to believe what

satisfies a prejudice; this undoubtedly shows liability to

error and need of care, 44-45.

(d) Nature of the Religious Element, 45-51: to be learned by

an examination of facts, 45-47. It includes feeling, knowing,

and doing, 47-49. Resulting classification of the kinds of

religion, 49-51.

(e) Catholic self-knowledge, 51-61: two modes of regarding

the capacity of the religious nature, 51-54: recognition of

spiritual truth, 51-53; discovery and construction, 53-54.

Source of knowledge, our own consciousness, 54-55; difficulty

arising from this, 55-56; self-knowledge must be catholic,

56-57. Lines of tendency described, 57–61.

(f) Sources of error, 61-74: (1) incapacity for intellectual

formulation, 61-62; (2) failures in the religious consciousness,

(a) want of proper balance in its contents, 62-64; (b) absence

of some of its constituents, 64-65; (c) reliance on a prejudice

or idiosyncrasy, 65-66, nevertheless an idiosyncrasy may

anticipate the universal, 66-68. Hence spiritual discernment

has various degrees, and is susceptible of cultivation and

growth, 68-74. Examples: belief in the existence of God,

68-69; in his attributes, 69-70; knowledge of the human

soul 70-71; recognition of spiritual relations, 71-73. Two

resulting facts, 73-74.

(g) Confirmatory facts, 74-78: (1) diversity of theological belief,

74-75; (2) men have a power of seeing the truth of a doctrine

which they could not have discovered, 75-76; (3) dependence

on authority, 76; (4) revolts against authority, 76-77; (5)

men cling to a creed after they have ceased to believe in it

(h) Revelation, 78-81: (1) might be given of truths which the

human mind normally could not have discovered, 78-79;

(2) might be given of truths which the mind normally reaches

only by a tedious process, 79; (3) might be given of the

spirit which is the ground of doctrinal truth, 79-81.

Traditional view, 82-89: Catholic dogma, 82-83; doctrine of

the Church of England, 83-84; doctrine of the Westminster

PAGES

Confession, 84. Source of ecclesiastical dogma, 84-87. Early 84-97

Protestant definitions, 87-88. Change in modern times, 88-89.

The Bible not infallible, 89-93: Infallibility not justly inferred

from religious experience, 89-90. A statement in the Bible

itself could not prove it, 90; but no such statement to be

found, 90-91. The onus probandi does not rest on those who

deny infallibility, 91. Evidence of fallibility, 91-92. Magni-

tude of the change of view, 92-93.

Importance of the Bible in the construction of doctrine, 93-97 :

Man needs religious help, and the Bible supplies this by its

appeal to the religious nature, 93-95; other religious books

have a similar effect, but the Bible has a unique position, 95.

Its highest value consists in making known the mind of Christ,

95-97. It is a primary source of doctrine, 97.

Greek and Roman reliance on tradition, 98. Dogma of papal

infallibility, 98-101 Statement of the dogma, 98-99. View

of tradition on which it rests, 100-101. Defect in the evidence

(1) Jesus did not make a dogmatic revelation, 101; (2) there

are different types of thought in the New Testament, 101-102;

(3) not proved by Matthew xvi. 18, 19; (4) nothing said about

transmission to Peter's successors; (5) nothing said about

Rome, 102. Objections to the dogma (1) the leading dogmas

of the Church are absent from Christ's teaching, 103-104;

(2) the history of doctrine shows uncertain growth, 104–105 ;

(3) Catholics themselves have erred, 105.

The views of Protestants, 105-107.

The value of dogmas, 107-108. Natural and supernatural

authority, 108-109.

Educative influence of the Church, 109.

DOCTRINE OF GOD

PRIMARY CONCEPTIONS OF GOD

Philosophical arguments assumed, and attention confined to

religious aspects of the subject, 110-111.

The reality of God implied by the religious nature, III.

God must be regarded as personal, 111-115: some phases of III-118

religion satisfied without personality, 112; but others have

no meaning apart from personality, 112-113; plea that he is

suprapersonal, 113-114; plea of agnosticism, 114; but he is

not a person, 114-115.

God is incomprehensible, 115–116.

Unity of God, 117-118.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

General aspects of the subject; usually thought to be beyond

the range of our faculties, though recently said to be alone

satisfactory to reason, 119-121.

Starting-point of the doctrine, 121-122.

Statement of the dogma, 122-127.

Arguments in connexion with the dogma, 127-159.

The Biblical argument, 127-136:—

(1) Passages where God, Christ, and the Spirit are mentioned

together, 127-129. (2) Passages where God and Christ

are mentioned together, 129-132. (3) General adverse

considerations, 132-136: (a) The doctrine had no name

for one hundred and fifty years after the death of Christ,

133-134; (b) It is nowhere stated in the Bible, 134; (c) Its

characteristic propositions are nowhere laid down, 134-135;

(d) Several passages are apparently inconsistent with it, 135;

(e) Many scholars are satisfied that the doctrine is not in

the Bible, 135-136. Conclusion, 136.

II. Arguments based on history, 136-144 :-

Two possible explanations of the slow formation of dogma:

(1) No pronouncement was required till the doctrine was

challenged, 136-137; (2) germs of thought may have un-

folded themselves as fresh problems arose, 137-138. Con-

siderations which favour the latter hypothesis, 138-142:

Catholics admit the imperfection of early statements, 138;

there is an advance in the complexity of successive creeds,

138-139; particular testimonies of early writers, 139-142.

The evidence seems to show that the doctrine was no part

of primitive Christianity, but was gradually formed through

the exercise of thought, 142–144.

III. Philosophical Arguments, 144-156:—

(1) It is said that those who deny the dogma represent God

as an abstract and solitary unit, 144-145. (2) God must

« Previous Continue »