Perhaps no such profound assertion of Christian fidelity exists today as that best conveyed by our Koine Greek σύμβολον τῆς πίστεως or πιστεύω “Nicene Creed” 381 AD:

σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός

Now pray indulge me here to undertake such a humble responsibility myself:

“and [sc. ‘Who’] was for our sake crucified under Pontius Pilate and suffered death and was buried, and on the third day rose again in accordance with the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven and is seated on the right hand of His Father”

[v. my complete post further down infra]

Did you mean to say “profession of faith?” I’ve never encountered the phrase “confession of faith.”

For it no doubt remains the Nicene Creed 381 AD which best represents our oldest and most venerable confession of faith in Christian worship—sorry, profession of faith would instead have more to do with a self-proclaimed vocatio that entails rather someone’s genuine “calling” to his/her ordained life’s pursuit of devotional service.

Sorry for the confusion between “confession” and “profession.” We Southern Baptists tend to avoid the term “confession.” We do that at the time of our profession of faith, then figure that we can sin to our heart’s content, since we also believe that salvation is a permanent condition.

Just kidding, of course. I take my religion seriously, but I also find the nuances of different faiths and denominations to be a fascinating subject. It’s sad that religious rhetoric gets in the way of religious tolerance—more proof of how language is used and misused.

Yea, for I also enjoy all the blessed virtues from studying comparative religion—especially when it comes to various Christian denominations: Jubilant exaltation must therefore extend to those modern-day sons of Old Testament Patriarch Abraham for such unrivaled primacy as that of Hebrew Scripture, then to Byzantine Orthodox Christians for teaching me the right way to believe and finally to our Protestant Episcopal Church for these so many happy rewards of unflinching loyalty.

‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty,’—that is all
    Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.  cf. ex musa John Keats Ode on a Grecian Urn ad fin 1819

And I, too, am an adherent of the study. If only the truisms contained in the three aforementioned denominations were more widespread. We have such a smorgasboard to pick from, it is a wonder
any truth remains.

My experience with comparative religion has been mostly a result of the study of literature. I took several courses under the poet/novelist James Dickey and was introduced to Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which, according to Dickey, was the inspiration for Deliverance. It was also the inspiration for Star Wars, according to George Lucas.

While I am fascinated by the similarities between Christianity and other religions, I find that the more I read, the simpler my faith becomes. The same is true for comparative analyses of Christian denominations. Too many people argue over extraneous doctrines at the expense of the cohesive nature of simple truths.

All of this has little to do with language, except that it reminds me of the extraordinary power of the written word, especially when one word or sentence is taken to mean so many different things—differences that cause people to judge others because of how they interpret scripture, to hate those whose ideas are at odds with their own, and to kill in the name of religion.

And the question: what is the difference between doctrine and dogma as enumerated in these denominations?

Doctrine
1.    a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2.    something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3.    a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Dogma
1.    a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2.    a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3.    prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4.    a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

Hmmmmmm. Sounds a lot alike. I think we tend to use the latter in a pejorative sense. For example, I would not say the dogma of original sin, the dogma of salvation, or the dogma the priesthood of believers. If you agree with it—or at least respect it—it’s probably a doctrine. It you think it’s a nut-brained idea, it’s probably a dogma.

As for me and my house, I’m not going to remark on which is which.

If a specific tenet or doctrine (i.e. the dogma of the Assumption) is specified by a particular Church, ie,Catholic, is it also Doctrine?

I believe that a doctrine is a general tenet and becomes a “Doctrine” when it is specific, such as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation (or the Doctrine of Saltines and Grape Juice in the Baptist faith), the Doctrine of the Assurance of Salvation, or the Doctrine of the Trinity.

I suppose that the fact that I believe this is also a doctrine (the Doctrine of Capitalization?).

I guess what I am trying to figure out is:
teachings in the Gospels, are probably dogma. Yes?
Church teachings are probably doctrine? Or are they the same?

. . . getting bogged down in religious dogma, however, pure bogma!

Perhaps we should stick to the more personal word “belief” when referring to individual points of view.

Or drop the subject altogether. Matters of religion and politics are best left alone, like sleeping dogs.

I agree. On the another subject (or object).