Page 2 of 2 (37 items) < Previous 1 2
This post has 36 Replies | 4 Followers

Posts 1810
LogosEmployee
Phil Gons (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 6 2015 7:44 PM

Mark Barnes:
I've no real interest in Logos dividing theologians into various theological camps (I'd rather do that myself)

I'm curious why.

Mark Barnes:
I would LOVE to have sections of systematic theologies tagged so they appear in the appropriate sections of the Factbook, Topic Guide and Sermon Starter Guide.

We're first bringing STs to passage-based guides. We'll probably do LCV alignment and bring them to the Topic Guide (and Factbook?) as well. Not sure about Sermon Starter Guide, but we'll consider it.

Posts 676
Robert Peters | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 6 2015 7:53 PM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):
We're first bringing STs to passage-based guides.

Have a tentative date when this would happen? 

Posts 1810
LogosEmployee
Phil Gons (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, May 6 2015 8:46 PM

Robert Peters:

Phil Gons (Faithlife):
We're first bringing STs to passage-based guides.

Have a tentative date when this would happen? 

It's currently scheduled to ship with 6.4.

We plan to ship 6.3 in a week and a half on Monday, May 18. With our six-week release cycle, 6.4 would ship on Monday, June 29.

Posts 1145
William | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 8 2015 2:41 PM

I am sure that a theologian can not really be defined by this or that theological label.  ??? 

I of course have no real experience labeling or even knowing what this or that label really means.  I think I am an evangelical Lutheran that lives in America but there is absolutely no comparison between me and what I have heard and/or seen of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America  (ELCA)

I will take one step back and say we agree "there's a God"  

I recently asked a "reformed" Jew that  question and they said no....how?  They recite the schema every Saturday.  Yet. No God?  

Oh well I need to step off this platform.

Posts 2995
David Taylor Jr | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 8 2015 2:53 PM

William Bingham:

I am sure that a theologian can not really be defined by this or that theological label.  ??? 

I of course have no real experience labeling or even knowing what this or that label really means.  I think I am an evangelical Lutheran that lives in America but there is absolutely no comparison between me and what I have heard and/or seen of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America  (ELCA)

I will take one step back and say we agree "there's a God"  

I recently asked a "reformed" Jew that  question and they said no....how?  They recite the schema every Saturday.  Yet. No God?  

Oh well I need to step off this platform.

I think it will be easier to  understand than you think. 

Teacher, Ministry Leader, Student, Author, Husband

How to upload logs

Visit My Site: Reformed Truths

Posts 13343
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 8 2015 4:24 PM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):

Mark Barnes:
I've no real interest in Logos dividing theologians into various theological camps (I'd rather do that myself)

I'm curious why.

For two reasons:

  1. I have my own preferences for systematic theologies, so if I just want to compare a few systematic theologies, I'd just use my favourites (I wouldn't use a collection of "reformed" or "baptist" or whatever theologies.
  2. Judging by the spreadsheet in the FL group, there's not really enough useful regarding "views". However, since I wrote the comment I discovered the "Categories" tab of the spreadsheet which gives me hope that more info might be added, but I'm not really interested in looking at "all baptists". I might be interested in looking at "all new covenant theologians", or "all amillennial charismatics".

PS - the ecclesiology area is missing the episcopalian view.

Posts 1810
LogosEmployee
Phil Gons (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 8 2015 5:41 PM

Mark Barnes:

Phil Gons (Faithlife):

Mark Barnes:
I've no real interest in Logos dividing theologians into various theological camps (I'd rather do that myself)

I'm curious why.

For two reasons:

  1. I have my own preferences for systematic theologies, so if I just want to compare a few systematic theologies, I'd just use my favourites (I wouldn't use a collection of "reformed" or "baptist" or whatever theologies.
  2. Judging by the spreadsheet in the FL group, there's not really enough useful regarding "views". However, since I wrote the comment I discovered the "Categories" tab of the spreadsheet which gives me hope that more info might be added, but I'm not really interested in looking at "all baptists". I might be interested in looking at "all new covenant theologians", or "all amillennial charismatics".

PS - the ecclesiology area is missing the episcopalian view.

Thanks, Mark.

What I'm more interested in doing than just classifying systematic theologies (or, better, systematic theologians) by denomination is developing a robust set of author metadata across all authors, allowing you to have more control and precision in browsing your library, building collections, running searches, and understanding where people are coming from as you read their content.

The views work is experimental for now and needs to be fleshed out. We've not really undertaken that work yet, but I've love to. The longer-term vision of that work is to enable you to

  1. look up any significant disputed theological issue
  2. see where it fits in the larger systematic theological hierarchy
  3. explore related issues nearby in the hierarchy
  4. see the major views on the issue
  5. see who holds to those views (with perhaps the ability to jump to a list of all known views by a given author)
  6. jump to defenses of those views
  7. see lists of Bible passages used to support those views

I think the outcome of this work will be extremely helpful to serious students of theology.

Posts 3023
SineNomine | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 8 2015 7:31 PM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):

The views work is experimental for now and needs to be fleshed out. We've not really undertaken that work yet, but I've love to. The longer-term vision of that work is to enable you to

  1. look up any significant disputed theological issue
  2. see where it fits in the larger systematic theological hierarchy
  3. explore related issues nearby in the hierarchy
  4. see the major views on the issue
  5. see who holds to those views (with perhaps the ability to jump to a list of all known views by a given author)
  6. jump to defenses of those views
  7. see lists of Bible passages used to support those views

I think the outcome of this work will be extremely helpful to serious students of theology.

That tool in its happily ambitious fully developed form could be very awesome.

I do, however, have one very important request: involve Catholic theologians in this classification process. There are a myriad of reasons for this.

Posts 26263
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 8 2015 9:15 PM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):

What I'm more interested in doing than just classifying systematic theologies (or, better, systematic theologians) by denomination is developing a robust set of author metadata across all authors, allowing you to have more control and precision in browsing your library, building collections, running searches, and understanding where people are coming from as you read their content.

The views work is experimental for now and needs to be fleshed out. We've not really undertaken that work yet, but I've love to. The longer-term vision of that work is to enable you to

  1. look up any significant disputed theological issue
  2. see where it fits in the larger systematic theological hierarchy
  3. explore related issues nearby in the hierarchy
  4. see the major views on the issue
  5. see who holds to those views (with perhaps the ability to jump to a list of all known views by a given author)
  6. jump to defenses of those views
  7. see lists of Bible passages used to support those views

I think the outcome of this work will be extremely helpful to serious students of theology.

May I offer some observations?

  • Why are you thinking it terms of hierarchy? It seems to me that a network is a more appropriate model.
  • Why not use one of the models of argumentation to organize and display the data. Are you familiar with the old standby Toulmin? http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/toulmin.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toulmin
  • Note the Toulmin approach allows for coding and display without implying which position is right or wrong which is essential for the software.
  • In addition to Biblical references as support, you also need to include Early church fathers and church documents .... yes, I know Logos has little of the latter but it is an area in which you must grow in supporting mainstream Protestants
  • a major need is the ability to jump to the assumptions behind an assertion/proposition as well as careful definitions of the terms as used in a particular context - many theological arguments exist primarily because of differences in how different traditions and theologians define terms - canon being a prime example.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 1810
LogosEmployee
Phil Gons (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 8 2015 9:48 PM

MJ. Smith:

May I offer some observations?

  • Why are you thinking it terms of hierarchy? It seems to me that a network is a more appropriate model.
  • Why not use one of the models of argumentation to organize and display the data. Are you familiar with the old standby Toulmin? http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/toulmin.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toulmin
  • Note the Toulmin approach allows for coding and display without implying which position is right or wrong which is essential for the software.
  • In addition to Biblical references as support, you also need to include Early church fathers and church documents .... yes, I know Logos has little of the latter but it is an area in which you must grow in supporting mainstream Protestants
  • a major need is the ability to jump to the assumptions behind an assertion/proposition as well as careful definitions of the terms as used in a particular context - many theological arguments exist primarily because of differences in how different traditions and theologians define terms - canon being a prime example.

Thanks, MJ. I appreciate the suggestions and links.

By hierarchy I meant, for example, that the topic of regeneration would be a child of the area of soteriology (though maybe it won't always be that clean). So we might have something like this:

  • area: soteriology
    • topic: regeneration
      • issue: relationship to faith
        • position 1: logically but not temporally precedes faith
          • proponent 1: Wayne Grudem
            • source 1: Systematic Theology, 700ff
            • passages: Jn 3:5; 6:44, 65; Acts 16:14
        • position 2: logically and temporally precedes faith
          • proponent 1: another theologian
            • source 1: another source, 125
            • passages: more passages
        • position 3: logically follows faith
          • proponent 1: another theologian
            • source 1: another source, 125
            • passages: more passages
Posts 26263
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, May 8 2015 11:18 PM

My view is only slightly different ... but of course I have to link an argument map from my favorite argument software (which does support Toulmin) so no I'm not asking for it in Logos yet. Your hierarchy isn't as foreign as I thought it might be.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 809
Cynthia in Florida | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 9 2015 5:40 PM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):

Mark Barnes:
I've no real interest in Logos dividing theologians into various theological camps (I'd rather do that myself)

I'm curious why.

Mark Barnes:
I would LOVE to have sections of systematic theologies tagged so they appear in the appropriate sections of the Factbook, Topic Guide and Sermon Starter Guide.

We're first bringing STs to passage-based guides. We'll probably do LCV alignment and bring them to the Topic Guide (and Factbook?) as well. Not sure about Sermon Starter Guide, but we'll consider it.

I'm reading this thread because I'm intrigued...  but I have to chuckle because this entire post (your response AND Mark's original comment) are absolute Greek to me! Smile

Cynthia

Romans 8:28-38

Posts 809
Cynthia in Florida | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, May 9 2015 5:44 PM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):

Mark Barnes:

Phil Gons (Faithlife):

Mark Barnes:
I've no real interest in Logos dividing theologians into various theological camps (I'd rather do that myself)

I'm curious why.

For two reasons:

  1. I have my own preferences for systematic theologies, so if I just want to compare a few systematic theologies, I'd just use my favourites (I wouldn't use a collection of "reformed" or "baptist" or whatever theologies.
  2. Judging by the spreadsheet in the FL group, there's not really enough useful regarding "views". However, since I wrote the comment I discovered the "Categories" tab of the spreadsheet which gives me hope that more info might be added, but I'm not really interested in looking at "all baptists". I might be interested in looking at "all new covenant theologians", or "all amillennial charismatics".

PS - the ecclesiology area is missing the episcopalian view.

Thanks, Mark.

What I'm more interested in doing than just classifying systematic theologies (or, better, systematic theologians) by denomination is developing a robust set of author metadata across all authors, allowing you to have more control and precision in browsing your library, building collections, running searches, and understanding where people are coming from as you read their content.

The views work is experimental for now and needs to be fleshed out. We've not really undertaken that work yet, but I've love to. The longer-term vision of that work is to enable you to

  1. look up any significant disputed theological issue
  2. see where it fits in the larger systematic theological hierarchy
  3. explore related issues nearby in the hierarchy
  4. see the major views on the issue
  5. see who holds to those views (with perhaps the ability to jump to a list of all known views by a given author)
  6. jump to defenses of those views
  7. see lists of Bible passages used to support those views

I think the outcome of this work will be extremely helpful to serious students of theology.

Okay!  THIS I understood and love...and agree completely.  As someone who has a ton of resources in her library, I am always going to the web to understand their theological view beforehand.  It's not that I don't read it, I do, but I need to understand where they are coming from.  Mark is brilliant at this, and knows a ton about authors and resources, but for the average user, I believe this would be very helpful!

Cynthia

Romans 8:28-38

Posts 13343
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 10 2015 4:56 AM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):

  • area: soteriology
  • topic: regeneration
    • issue: relationship to faith
      • position 1: logically but not temporally precedes faith
      • position 2: logically and temporally precedes faith
        • proponent 1: another theologian
          • source 1: another source, 125
          • passages: more passages
      • position 3: logically follows faith
        • proponent 1: another theologian
          • source 1: another source, 125
          • passages: more passages

If you could produce a tool that was a systematic theology equivalent of SBL's Exegetical Summaries for the digital age, that would be an incredible service.

That said, if you're going to the trouble of creating that data, there are many additional ways I could see it being used, and I'd hope that users were given lots of options. Although L6 made really good progress in opening up new ways of searching, there's still a tendency for Logos not to expose the most useful data in tools.

Posts 676
Robert Peters | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 11 2015 6:35 PM

Wow! I would never have thought one of my ideas would get so much attention, but after hearing some of the comments I think their are several features that could service all types of Bible Students. First, I love the passage guide feature This will allow pastors and Bible Teachers to connect the passage they maybe teaching. THis same feature could be used in the Factbooks and topic guide as well. Second, I would love not only systematic theology, but biblical as well. It will allow teachers to not just connect passages to a systematic theology but how this connects with biblical theology as well.  Third, a theology explorer would be useful for those who not as versed in theology, but who would want to understanding a particular theological concept or tradition better. I see the explorer more suited for beginners/intermediate Bible students of theology. Whereas the passage Guide would be useful for everyone.  

Posts 1210
Mike Tourangeau | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 11 2015 9:42 PM

Mark Barnes:

If you could produce a tool that was a systematic theology equivalent of SBL's Exegetical Summaries for the digital age, that would be an incredible service.

This is what I hope/thought is happening. I would pay for that (assuming links led to appropriate sections of the resources) 

Posts 1083
Myke Harbuck | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 21 2015 6:56 PM

Any update on the development of this feature? Thanks!

Myke Harbuck
Lead Pastor, www.ByronCity.Church
Adjunct Professor, Georgia Military College
Mac OS 10.13.6 High Sierra, Mid 2015 iMac, 2.5GHz i7, 32 gbRAM, 1tbSSD

Page 2 of 2 (37 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS