Lexham Survey of Theology - feedback
Upon delving into the Lexham Survey of Theology, I quickly noticed a couple things that, together, I had not expected, and which I consider worthy of note:
1. The Lexham Survey of Theology is unambiguously Protestant in its perspective.
2. The Lexham Survey of Theology does not indicate that it is Protestant in its perspective.
Rather, this book seems to be trying to pass itself off as an "objective, sympathetic, [and] reverent" text "written from a scholarly perspective," to quote from the description given in the Library info pane. It's not at least one of those things. It is not objective. It is unambiguously Protestant. That's OK. But please say so.
(In case you're wondering, I looked at the articles on the sacraments first.)
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
Comments
-
Yes, one learns to accept that Logos is so intimately tied to a particular thread of Protestant that they can't see beyond it to recognize the limitations it imposes on their software. My favorite example is their assumption of studying a single passage. Note that they allow a sermon to be on multiple passages but you can only study them in isolation ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
To be fair, Verbum already has sections in the Guides that deal with theology — from an exclusively Roman Catholic perspective, of course. Theology is an area where Logos users are catching up what Verbum users have been enjoying for years. (That's not to say I don't think it would be useful to have a Verbum equivalent of LST, of course.)
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
I guess its a bit like which kind of ice cream you prefer? Personally, I like chocolate, but can go with most colours and flavours - after all its the ice cream that matters. I guess I'm fairly ecumenical about ice cream at least.
With respect, SineNomine describes the "Lexham Survey of Theology" as "unambiguously Protestant"- but I read that to simply mean "unambiguously non-Catholic" because there are many of us out here who are not Catholic but (sadly) we're not really Protestant either. As a non-Protestant in a broad sense - should I complain too? To be fair there might be other theological denominations or movements who want to see more of their own theology included - even perhaps some historic Protestants too.
Actually, I think the writers of the Lexham Survey of Theology" have done a great job. No presentation will ever be absolutely complete, objective or satisfy everyone - and maybe it will be be amended in time with further perspectives too. In the meantime, I'm happy with this ice cream and will keep playing in my new Logos 8 sand-pit. Keep well folks. Paul
0 -
Deleted.
0 -
My fundamental complaint is NOT that LSOT is Protestant in outlook.
My issue is that it doesn't declare that it's Protestant. I have enough theology to be able to tell very quickly; I could have written equivalent sacraments articles myself either from a Catholic perspective or from an unaffiliated one. Trouble is, I know a lot of other Christians of different sorts who wouldn't know that this book has a strong theological slant. Misleading them... that's not OK.
Verbum's theology resources are pretty clear that they're Catholic, and any deficits in that regard should be rectified. This Protestant resource should be clear about its own identity too.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
Since the Lexham Survey of Theology is included in the Verbum 8 Full Feature Set, I (as a Protestant) would agree that this is a valid complaint.
It is likely to be impossible to produce a systematic theology that's agnostic of any underlying theology, by the very definition what a systematic theology is.
Therefore it's true that it's impossible to cater to everyone. But that doesn't mean that a resource that specifically doesn't cater to Roma-Catholics should be included in the Verbum Full Feature Set.
0 -
I know that I am naive but as a novice coming to this resource I might well be disappointed to find that the Survey is a narrow survey.
SineNomine said:My fundamental complaint is NOT that LSOT is Protestant in outlook.
My issue is that it doesn't declare that it's Protestant.
Whereas my issue is that it is Protestant in outlook. Trying to wear the shoes (and actually wearing my own shoes at the same time) of a new user I might well come to this resource hoping to compare outlooks rather than just find the best resources study just one.
In my mind it would be a great improvement to include the sections for the many alternative views available from our lookout tower.
(And I wholeheartedly support Martha's bewailing the lack of lectionary support in all aspects of our software. I am greatly pleased when this is raised at every opportunity)
tootle pip
Mike
Now tagging post-apocalyptic fiction as current affairs. Latest Logos, MacOS, iOS and iPadOS
0 -
Mike Binks said:
Whereas my issue is that it is Protestant in outlook. Trying to wear the shoes (and actually wearing my own shoes at the same time) of a new user I might well come to this resource hoping to compare outlooks rather than just find the best resources study just one.
In my mind it would be a great improvement to include the sections for the many alternative views available from our lookout tower.
I think it would be impossible to write a systematic theology that fairly encompasses both Protestant and Roman Catholic perspectives. It's not just that some of the theology is different, it's that the whole structure and ontology would be different in many areas.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
I think it would be impossible to write a systematic theology that fairly encompasses both Protestant and Roman Catholic perspectives. It's not just that some of the theology is different, it's that the whole structure and ontology would be different in many areas.
I told you that I was naive.
Still it will be interesting to review the edition in the New Jerusalem Library.
tootle pip
Mike
Now tagging post-apocalyptic fiction as current affairs. Latest Logos, MacOS, iOS and iPadOS
0 -
Agree with your analysis Sinenomine.
In any serious theological work, first things need to come first: Prolegomena:
What are your assumptions? how about presuppositions? is there a commitment to certain tradition and why? do you believe God is supernatural and free to act as He wishes in His creation? what is the nature of reality (God's reality at that which is ultimate reality)?
How does the Holy Spirit take you to all truth? what is truth? John 14:6; has the actions of the devil ceased?are we still in a spiritual warfare until Christ comes to take care of business?
What worldview elements are you operating from? are those elements supported in Scripture?
Do you think that God is a moral monster because some affirm that He on a whim arbitrarily assigned some to go to hell and some to be saved?
What makes you think was the key factor in being assigned a Tare or Wheat status on Earth?
Is physical Israel different from spiritual Israel (gentiles included?) will physical Israel be grafted in at some time?
To my understanding of Scriptures, the nature and character of God, He always tries to be transparent and honest as much as our particular contextual situation and symbolic universe (language, etc) allows Him.
You will not see a large prolegomena going into detail in most Systematic Theologies, as many are just instruments of indoctrination into human theological constructs, and would not pass the test of basic critical thinking using as reference the Scriptures.
Fishing in muddled water best describes such approach.
Look at the writings of Paul, to me one of the best theologians of all times, crystal clear, in most thrusts, and that can only be done under the influence of the Holy Spirit. He was very able to put in perspective what in the OT had direct bearing on the historical events taking place in his times, and how a flawed religion was to spin off into the apostolic true one.
Did he do a prolegomena? some think yes, he listed all that he had accomplished as a flawed religion believer, joining wrong groups (pharisees), and under tutor of limited understanding guys (Gamaliel), and he openly said it was all rubbish when compared to Jesus Christ, His ultimate message, and His display of God's nature and character.
If most groups exposed in detail what their previous understandings, preconceptions, etc. are, we would not have much problems with false teaching, because it would be easy to tell by the Scriptures how out of whack they really are.
My own non-expert opinion of course.
0 -
Strikes me that Logos was made by protestants, and so a certain level of bias is going to be unavoidable.
Especially when it comes to theology, regardless of the level of care - some things are going to seep through.
Does overtly it bash catholicism at any point?
I was asked a question on the forums the other day, and realized a day or two later when i revisited the post that I had responded in a way that was influenced by my (protestant, baptist, reformed) theology. It wasn't intended to be a theological statement. But that was the net result.
I can't speak for everyone - but for me - I try to allow scripture to be the lens through which I view everything else. Which means my thinking, and my understanding of scripture are going to permeate those things.
Short of also having had a catholic edition made, I'm not sure how they could have done differently.
Make a user voice - maybe they will make one for you
L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
Maybe we should identify the best tools to do our own guide, ST, topical idea, etc.:
from:
https://community.logos.com/forums/p/173727/1008186.aspx#1008186
in another thread:
Sean Boisen:for each of the 234 Systematic Theology topicsThank you for the above information. May I assume that the 234 topics are the sub points found in the Lexham Survey of Theology?
As far as some considering the Theology Guide as Protestant biased, I would consider it part of protestantism biased, as I tried to find information on the following, and nothing came up:
Christian living, orthopraxis, spiritual warfare.
I did find information on demons, spiritual gifts, etc.
So the question is: in one of the web pages advertising L8, there was a mention of making own Systematic theology.
a) is there a resource that lists all possible sub topics including sub topics in Prolegomena, Israelogy, Moral theology, etc?
b) what is the recommended module to produce own ST?: Pbb, workflow, canvas, notes?
c) can one do an own theology guide? how about something in the line of Catholic Topical index?
Thanks ahead for any input, and congratulations on the improvements to L8.
Blessings.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
...Logos is so intimately tied to a particular thread of Protestant that they can't see beyond it to recognize the limitations it imposes on their software.
[Y][:(]
0 -
SineNomine said:
Upon delving into the Lexham Survey of Theology, I quickly noticed a couple things that, together, I had not expected, and which I consider worthy of note:
1. The Lexham Survey of Theology is unambiguously Protestant in its perspective.
2. The Lexham Survey of Theology does not indicate that it is Protestant in its perspective.
Rather, this book seems to be trying to pass itself off as an "objective, sympathetic, [and] reverent" text "written from a scholarly perspective," to quote from the description given in the Library info pane. It's not at least one of those things. It is not objective. It is unambiguously Protestant. That's OK. But please say so.
(In case you're wondering, I looked at the articles on the sacraments first.)
Well, thanks, SineNomine! I didn't get a package/features, so clues about L8 are always welcome. Theology that doesn't structure to the larger Christian group. I agree labeling as a minimum. I also wonder that protestants somehow hop over the bishops' Nicene etc. Our fundementalist denomination happily did that. They were cute little rabbits. My, my, Logos amazes.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Like Sine Nomine, the first portion I looked at to see theological bias was in the sacrament section. In my case, I started with Baptism to see how it fits with my Lutheran understanding. I do not mean to engage in theological discussions, which indeed would be against the forum rules. But to critique the Logos resource, I offer the following:
The initial definition: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration and union with Christ, one of two sacraments ordained by Christ to be practiced in the church until he returns."
This is better than I would have expected, honestly. That said, I would not want to be dogmatic about the number of sacraments here - I personally would say exact number of sacraments is highly dependent on how exactly you define "sacrament" - and this is indeed discussed in another section. For me that is a minor quibble. For those who dogmatically define it differently, however, it would be much more than a minor quibble - it would be a constant irritation.
My biggest problem is that it seems to hide the key part of my Lutheran understanding of Baptism - namely that it is God who is the actor who actually Baptizes us in his powerful Word which clings to the Baptismal water in the tiny phrase "ordained by Christ."
Later it says: "All major Christian bodies regard credobaptism, baptism that is based upon a convert’s confession of faith, as the normative practice of the church." Yes, the first Lutheran orders ask the infant to confess the faith of the church. IIRC, so do the Roman Catholic orders upon which the Lutheran orders were based, letting Adults officially speak for minors - which was part of the Legal tradition. The article then gives typological arguments that can be used to extend the practice to Infants. I am, of course, familiar with each of the arguments. Many Lutherans have made some of these arguments.
But Luther in his Large Catechism uses none of them - and for us Lutherans, this is the by far most extended portion of our Confessions (and so our official theology) which speaks to this issue. Instead he argues:
1) God seems to approve of the baptism of Infants because obviously God has given the Holy Spirit to people who have been baptized as infants.
2) Everything depends on the Word and commandment of God, and so the effectivness is still there no matter the faith state of the person who is the hands and lips God uses for this Word and the state of faith of the person who receives it.
3) What is faith? How do you know that an Infant does not have faith?
You are, of course, free to disagree with Luther and the official teaching of the Lutheran Church. But if you are trying to make a resource that is ecumenically aware with the goal of serving the whole church, it would be better if it seemed more aware of us - one of the larger sub-streams of the Church thoughout the world and history.
As an added note, I was frustrated that in looking through the Sacraments section, the only recommended Lutheran resource seemed to be Pieper. While he has had significant influence, it would be much better to reference either the offical Book of Concord accepted by all Lutherans, or some of Luther's MANY writings on the sacraments.
I was also a bit frustrated that none of the links to CCC work for me since I have the US and not the International edition in my library. Especially since CCC is such a multi-lingual world-wide document, would it it not be better to link to your datatype instead of just any particular edition of it?
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Ken McGuire said:
to link to your datatype instead of just any particular edition of it?
I hadn't noticed this - that is a big mistake, in my opinion. The same would hold for the Book of Concord.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
abondservant said:
Short of also having had a catholic edition made, I'm not sure how they could have done differently.
This underestimates the issue - the Anglo-Catholics/Catholics/Eastern Orthodox/Lutherans/Oriental Orthodox - do not need a separate "catholic" edition. Logos needs to learn that Christianity has been around for two millennia not two centuries and that Christianity is not a European phenomena. At times, Logos looks as if their view of Christianity is limited to England/America of the last three centuries.
I say this as one whose grandparents covered Congregationalist, Mennonite, Catholic, Pietist Lutheran, and Stone-Campbell traditions - with a bit of Unitarian flavor sprinkled on top.Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Ken McGuire said:
to link to your datatype instead of just any particular edition of it?
I hadn't noticed this - that is a big mistake, in my opinion. The same would hold for the Book of Concord.
I've reported this feedback to the editors.
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
I think it would be impossible to write a systematic theology that fairly encompasses both Protestant and Roman Catholic perspectives.
This statement illustrates the problem - it is not a Protestant/Roman Catholic divide as that is not where the divide falls. While it is also not quite right, the division is closer to Calvinist vs. everyone else. From the perspective of IT/AI a common ontology should be relatively easy with the Nicene Creed providing an outline that has been commonly applied across space and time.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
To be fair, Verbum already has sections in the Guides that deal with theology — from an exclusively Roman Catholic perspective, of course.
Hmmm ... as a Catholic, I seemed to have missed them (plural) ... if you are referring to "Catholic Topical Index" it is closer to and preceded the "Ancient Literature" Section which it overlaps significantly. As for Catholic theology, my Verbum has no sections devoted to it. Zip, zero, none ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
It is likely to be impossible to produce a systematic theology that's agnostic of any underlying theology, by the very definition what a systematic theology is.
Does LSOT actually need to be a systematic theology? I don't see why. Given it's title, I would have expected it to be a systematic survey of theology, which is a rather different thing.
Jan Krohn said:But that doesn't mean that a resource that specifically doesn't cater to Roma-Catholics should be included in the Verbum Full Feature Set.
Indeed. Especially when it's not indicated as such! I've called out FL for this kind of thing before on the forums, and was heard and the relevant labeling-related amendment was made. I hope that happens soon here.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
Mike Binks said:SineNomine said:
My fundamental complaint is NOT that LSOT is Protestant in outlook.
My issue is that it doesn't declare that it's Protestant.
Whereas my issue is that it is Protestant in outlook. Trying to wear the shoes (and actually wearing my own shoes at the same time) of a new user I might well come to this resource hoping to compare outlooks rather than just find the best resources study just one.
I certainly would have preferred the objective outlook that it advertises itself to have, but it's the mis-labeling that I found to be worth starting a thread over. I can't say it's intentionally dishonest marketing on Faithlife's part, because I authentically trust that it isn't. But it is misleading, and now I know that FL is aware of my complaint.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Yes, one learns to accept that Logos is so intimately tied to a particular thread of Protestant that they can't see beyond it to recognize the limitations it imposes on their software. My favorite example is their assumption of studying a single passage. Note that they allow a sermon to be on multiple passages but you can only study them in isolation ...
This is just plain one eyed bias, systematic theology is largely a Protestant endeavour in order to reconcile all the various passages.
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
But that doesn't mean that a resource that specifically doesn't cater to Roma-Catholics should be included in the Verbum Full Feature Set.
I've not heard anyone asking for this ... in fact, it is the Catholics who press the hardest for Anglican and Lutheran ecclesial documents ... more frequently than they push for Catholic theologians I suspect (although it may be too close to call). What I keep hearing is "either make it academic-neutral or label it what it is".
As it was recently in a Facebook discussion, I'd like to remind everyone that "Roman Catholic" is far too narrow a term. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mike Pettit said:
This is just plain one eyed bias, systematic theology is largely a Protestant endeavour in order to reconcile all the various passages.
Which is why several Protestants' agree with me? Does the Workflow support multiple passages for sermon preparation? Can I run a Passage Guide/Exegetical Guide/Sermon starter with a multi-passage focus? With the exception of the new Interesting Passages search, where can I process multiple passages?
From Wikipedia:
Notable systematic theologians[edit]
Antiquity[edit]
Middle Ages (West) and Byzantine period (East)[edit]
- Adelard of Bath
- Albert of Saxony
- Albertus Magnus
- Alexander of Hales
- Anselm of Canterbury
- Thomas Aquinas
- Bonaventure
- Catherine of Siena
- Duns Scotus
- Desiderius Erasmus
- Francis of Assisi
- Jean Gerson
- Giles of Rome
- Godfrey of Fontaines
- Gregory Palamas
- Robert Grosseteste
- Henry of Ghent
- Ignatius of Loyola
- John of Damascus
- John Scotus Eriugena
- Peter Lombard
- Maximus the Confessor
- Paschasius Radbertus
- Symeon the New Theologian
- William of Alnwick
- William of Ockham
- William of Ware
Protestant, Reformation and Anglican from 1517-present[edit]
- Marcella Althaus-Reid, Metropolitan Community Church (baptized Roman Catholic)
- Gustaf Aulén, Lutheran
- Karl Barth, Reformed
- Herman Bavinck, Reformed
- Oswald Bayer, Lutheran
- Louis Berkhof, Reformed
- Theodore Beza, Reformed
- Donald G. Bloesch, Evangelical Protestant
- James Montgomery Boice, Reformed
- Wilhelmus à Brakel, Reformed
- Gerald Bray, Anglican, Reformed
- Emil Brunner, Reformed
- John Calvin, Calvinism, proto-Reformation
- Fernando Canale, Seventh-day Adventist
- Lewis Sperry Chafer,Baptist (Evangelical, Calvinist)
- Knox Chamblin, Reformed
- Martin Chemnitz, Lutheran
- Sarah Coakley, Anglican
- James Hal Cone, Methodist
- Kevin Conner, Pentecostal
- Jack Cottrell, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ
- Joseph (Jody) Dillow, Baptist (Evangelical, Calvinist)
- Millard Erickson, Baptist (Evangelical, Calvinist)
- Gabriel Fackre, Evangelical Reformed
- Paul S. Fiddes, Baptist
- Charles Finney, Presbyterian (no formal theological training), Congregationalist
- John Frame, Presbyterian, Calvinist
- Hans Wilhelm Frei, Lutheran (later Anglican), Postliberal theology
- Richard Gaffin, Reformed, Presbyterian
- Norman Geisler, Evangelical, Graded absolutism
- Johann Gerhard, Lutheran
- John Gill, Particular Baptist
- Stanley J. Grenz, Baptist (Evangelical, Post-Conservative)
- Wayne Grudem, Baptist (Evangelical, Calvinist)
- Colin Gunton, Reformed
- Adolf von Harnack, Evangelische Kirche
- Stanley Hauerwas, Methodism, Postliberalism, Christian ethicist
- Charles Hodge, Presbyterian
- Michael Horton, Reformed
- Stanley M. Horton, Pentecostal
- H. Wayne House, Baptist (Evangelical, Calvinist)
- Thomas Jackson, Anglican
- Robert Jenson, Lutheran
- Catherine Keller, Process
- Martin Luther King Jr., National Baptist and (from 1961) Progressive National Baptist, and American Civil Rights Activist, Christian humanism
- Simon J. Kistemake, Reformed
- Robert Letham, Reformed
- George Lindbeck, Lutheran, Postliberal theology
- Martin Luther, Lutheranism, proto-Reformation
- John F. MacArthur Reformed, GTY.org
- John Macquarrie, Anglican (originally Presbyterian, Church of Scotland)
- Sallie McFague, Presbyterian, Feminist
- Alister E. McGrath, Evangelical, Anglican
- Philip Melanchthon, Lutheran, proto-Reformationist
- Jürgen Moltmann, Evangelische Kirche
- John Murray, Presbyterian
- H. Richard Niebuhr, United Church of Christ
- Reinhold Niebuhr, New Orthodox theology
- Thomas C. Oden, Wesleyan, Arminian
- Oliver O'Donovan, Anglican
- J. I. Packer, Anglican, Reformed
- Wolfhart Pannenberg, Lutheran
- Iain Paul, Reformed, Church of Scotland
- Earl D. Radmacher, Baptist (Evangelical, Calvinist)
- Albrecht Ritschl, Lutheran, Evangelische Kirche
- Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Baptist (Evangelical, Calvinist)
- Friedrich Schleiermacher, Lutheran, Evangelische Kirche, Humanist
- Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, United Methodist, Process
- William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Presbyterian, Calvinist
- R. C. Sproul, Presbyterian
- Augustus H. Strong, Baptist (Evangelical, Calvinist)
- Kathryn Tanner, Reformed
- Henry Clarence Thiessen, Evangelical, Theistic rationalism
- Paul Tillich, Lutheran
- Thomas F. Torrance, Presbyterian, Church of Scotland
- R. A. Torrey, Evangelical
- Francis Turretin, Reformed
- Kevin Vanhoozer, Reformed
- Cornelius Van Til Reformed
- John Walvoord, Baptist (Evangelical, Calvinist)
- John Webster, Anglican
- J. Rodman Williams, Charismatic
- Rowan Williams, Anglican
- N. T. Wright, Anglican
- Huldrych Zwingli, Swiss Reformed, proto-Reformation
Roman Catholic from the Counter-Reformation to the present[edit]
- Noël Alexandre
- Mariano Artigas
- Franz Xaver von Baader
- Jaime Balmes
- Hans Urs von Balthasar
- Franz Jozef van Beeck
- Józef Maria Bocheński
- Louis Bouyer
- Henri Brémond
- Christopher Butler
- Hélder Câmara
- Michel de Certeau
- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
- Franz Jakob Clemens
- Yves Congar
- Frederick Copleston
- John Dobree Dalgairns
- Jean Daniélou
- Miguel A. De La Torre
- Henry Denifle
- Peter Dens
- René Descartes
- Augusta Theodosia Drane
- Avery Dulles
- Félix Dupanloup
- Louis Dupré
- Jacques Dupuis
- Ignacio Ellacuría
- Frederick William Faber
- Peter Faber
- Cornelio Fabro
- Febronius
- Francis Schüssler Fiorenza
- Charles-Émile Freppel
- Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
- Peter Geach
- Étienne Gilson
- René Girard
- Luigi Giussani
- Auguste Joseph Alphonse Gratry
- Germain Grisez
- Vekoslav Grmič
- Romano Guardini
- Jean Guitton
- Anton Günther
- Izidor Guzmics
- John Hardon
- Karl Josef von Hefele
- Michał Heller
- Joseph Hergenröther
- Georg Hermes
- Alice von Hildebrand
- Dietrich von Hildebrand
- Oswald von Nell-Breuning
- Ivan Illich
- Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz
- Caspar Isenkrahe
- Elizabeth Johnson (theologian)
- Bernard Philip Kelly
- Joseph Kleutgen
- Milan Komar
- Peter Kreeft
- Hans Küng
- Jean-Baptiste Henri Lacordaire
- Catherine LaCugna
- Nicholas-Joseph Laforêt
- Hugues Felicité Robert de Lamennais
- Léon Ollé-Laprune
- Alphonsus Liguori
- Osvaldo Lira
- Ramon Llull
- Bernard Lonergan
- Henri de Lubac
- Richard McBrien
- Ralph McInerny
- John Mair
- Joseph de Maistre
- Nicolas Malebranche
- Gabriel Marcel
- Jean-Luc Marion
- Jacques Maritain
- Sylvester Mazzolini
- Thomas Merton
- Vincent Miceli
- Giovanni Pico della Mirandola
- Luis de Molina
- Thomas Molnar
- Thomas More
- Emmanuel Mounier
- John Courtney Murray
- Richard John Neuhaus
- John Henry Newman
- Aidan Nichols
- Henri Nouwen
- Walter J. Ong
- Cyril O'Regan
- Henry Nutcombe Oxenham
- Franciscus Patricius
- Péter Pázmány
- Giuseppe Pecci
- Marcelino Menéndez y Pelayo
- Josef Pieper
- Karl Rahner
- Joseph Ratzinger (afterwards Pope Benedict XVI)
- Gioacchino Ventura di Raulica
- Martin Rhonheimer
- Antonio Rosmini-Serbati
- Jacek Salij
- Giovanni Battista Scaramelli
- Constantine von Schäzler
- Max Scheler
- Edward Schillebeeckx
- Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza
- Angelo Scola
- Antonin Sertillanges
- Yves Simon
- Robert Spaemann
- Franz Anton Staudenmaier
- Edith Stein
- Albert Stöckl
- Francisco Suárez
- Matthias Tanner
- Luigi Taparelli
- František Tomášek
- Joseph de Torre
- David Tracy
- Karel Vladimir Truhlar
- Aleš Ušeničnik
- Jean Vanier
- Gianni Vattimo
- Louis Veuillot
- Giambattista Vico
- Francisco de Vitoria
- Michael Wadding
- Bernie Ward
- Thomas Weinandy
- Nicholas Wiseman
- Karol Wojtyła (afterwards PopeJohn Paul II)
- Austin Woodbury
- Maurice De Wulf
- Francesco Antonio Zaccaria
- Hector Zagal
- Tommaso Maria Zigliara
- Patrick Benedict Zimmer
Post-Byzantine Eastern Orthodox[edit]
Other[edit]
- M. L. Andreasen, Last Generation Theology (Seventh-Day Adventist)
- Emanuel Swedenborg, New Church
- J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology (charismatic)
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I've not spent enough time with the LSoT to do a full evaluation but:
MJ. Smith said:it is not a Protestant/Roman Catholic divide as that is not where the divide falls. While it is also not quite right, the division is closer to Calvinist vs. everyone else.
As MJ noted earlier, Logos being what it is, experienced customers will not be surprised by its leaning strongly towards a particular stream. One also must keep in mind that Protestant systematic theology is largely dominated by the Reformed tradition; it's simply a fact that they produce far more works of systematics than anyone else. I'm not Reformed, but I'd estimate that 70-80% of my library and my study time is in Reformed works.
MJ. Smith said:From the perspective of IT/AI a common ontology should be relatively easy with the Nicene Creed providing an outline that has been commonly applied across space and time.
The Nicene Creed should be the starting point. Choices do have to be made as to the work's structure/ontology. As a Protestant, I think there are distinct advantages to the structure of systematics that emerged out of the Reformation/post-Reformation period, chiefly the development of the locus of soteriology.
I don't particularly mind the LSoT being biased; I expect that when I read a theological work. What its strength should be is in the recommended reading list and the Theology Guide's annotation of your library's STs. I've commented on the latter in the other thread. With regard to the former, what I've seen so far is a mixed bag. In my opinion, the primary goal of such lists should be to guide the reader to (1) important foundational works (there's no excuse for the article on Theories of the Atonement omitting Anselm and Aulén from this list, especially since both are in Logos) and (2) reference works and textbooks that help the reader understand the doctrine at a deeper level and enter the theological conversation that's taken place over the 2,000 years of the church's history.
0 -
Hey this sounds small but please refer to it as "LST" as logos does here https://www.logos.com/product/166797/lexham-survey-of-theology
Please let me know if I am wrong (because I am waiting on an update to come out Monday before I can download logos 8), but doesn't it pull from the resources you own in your library? Because my library is reformed so I expect reformed answers.
0 -
Mathew Haferkamp said:
Please let me know if I am wrong (because I am waiting on an update to come out Monday before I can download logos 8), but doesn't it pull from the resources you own in your library? Because my library is reformed so I expect reformed answers.
No. For each article, it has a hand-picked Recommended Reading list, IMO of limited value and needing revision. The Theology Guide shows readings from a paltry 5 titles you may well have in your library: Packer, Ryrie, Berkhof, Strong, and Hodge. So, 4/5 are Reformed but of very limited scope. It's supposed to be expanded to include more titles; I hope that process begins very soon.
0 -
Mathew Haferkamp said:
Please let me know if I am wrong (because I am waiting on an update to come out Monday before I can download logos 8), but doesn't it pull from the resources you own in your library? Because my library is reformed so I expect reformed answers.
LST is a book. Your copy will be the same as mine, which means its theology will be closer to yours than it is to mine, and to both of us it will--until FL fixes this--be presented as "objective".
Part of the Theology Guide does pull from your library.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:From the perspective of IT/AI a common ontology should be relatively easy with the Nicene Creed providing an outline that has been commonly applied across space and time.
If we were just going to restrict the LST to the articles included in the Nicene Creed, then of course we could accomplish something upon which we could almost all agree. But that would a much more limited project than the LST, and much less useful.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Mark Barnes said:
To be fair, Verbum already has sections in the Guides that deal with theology — from an exclusively Roman Catholic perspective, of course.
Hmmm ... as a Catholic, I seemed to have missed them (plural) ... if you are referring to "Catholic Topical Index" it is closer to and preceded the "Ancient Literature" Section which it overlaps significantly. As for Catholic theology, my Verbum has no sections devoted to it. Zip, zero, none ...
Yes, I was especially talking about the Topical Index, in conjunction with the CCC. As you know the Catholic Topical Index gave a list of theological topics relevant to that passage, long before the Systematic Theologies section was available for Logos users, giving links to the CCC, Denzinger and and various church documents dealing with the topic. Although it also contains links to the Fathers, it's very different from the Ancient Literature Section.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
MJ. Smith said:
From the perspective of IT/AI a common ontology should be relatively easy with the Nicene Creed providing an outline that has been commonly applied across space and time.
If we were just going to restrict the LST to the articles included in the Nicene Creed, then of course we could accomplish something upon which we could almost all agree. But that would a much more limited project than the LST, and much less useful.
Huh??? I was not suggesting a more limited project - I was suggesting an organizing principle for what should be a broader project. There are a number of theological groups that "hold to the Nicene Creed" that believe it to say something very different from other theological groups holding the same belief that they "hold to the Nicene Creed". If all theologies thought it meant the same thing, then there wouldn't be more than a handful of "denominations".
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Mark Barnes said:
MJ. Smith said:
From the perspective of IT/AI a common ontology should be relatively easy with the Nicene Creed providing an outline that has been commonly applied across space and time.
If we were just going to restrict the LST to the articles included in the Nicene Creed, then of course we could accomplish something upon which we could almost all agree. But that would a much more limited project than the LST, and much less useful.
Huh??? I was not suggesting a more limited project - I was suggesting an organizing principle for what should be a broader project.
My comment "almost all agree" was regarding ontology, not content.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
Yes, I was especially talking about the Topical Index, in conjunction with the CCC. As you know the Catholic Topical Index gave a list of theological topics relevant to that passage, long before the Systematic Theologies section was available for Logos users, giving links to the CCC, a systematic theology and various church documents dealing with the topic. Although it also contains links to the Fathers, it's very different from the Ancient Literature Section.
I think that you misunderstand how the Catholic church views church documents:
- most of the documents you refer to are not applicable to the universal church - for example, the Ukrainian Catholics have their catechism (rather recent and written with the hope it would serve both Orthodox and Catholic) ... I've tracked down 5-6 official catechisms. And yes, the Ruthenian rite used the "Roman Catholic" Cathedral for years; the Maronites use whatever parish the dual-rite priest is assigned to.
- the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a document intended primarily for the training of catechists - RCIA instructors, children and adult sacramental preparation and faith formation teachers/directors ...
- most church documents are pastoral in nature addressing particular issues that have arisen in the lives of the faithful
- when I think "recent Catholic theologians," I think of people such as Hans Kung, Jungmann, both Rahners, Schillebeeckx, Congar, Danielou, Boff, Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, Robert Taft (I just posted his obituary)...
The Catholic Topical Index is from my perspective as a Catholic, an index into classic ecclesial sources not a theological exploration. It doesn't even have a category for theologians of the last few centuries.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
My comment "almost all agree" was regarding ontology, not content.
Ah, I misunderstood. If most would agree with it as a framework for ontology, then it should work very well and not affect the coverage unless I'm missing something very basic.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
But it should be possible to make one sufficiently neutral for everyone to be able to find things easily.
Yes, and I think they've done a good job of doing that. But even the outline is still obviously protestant.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Mark Barnes said:
My comment "almost all agree" was regarding ontology, not content.
Ah, I misunderstood. If most would agree with it as a framework for ontology, then it should work very well and not affect the coverage unless I'm missing something very basic.
All I'm trying to say is that if you were to post a detailed Table of Contents from a Catholic Systematic Theology and an evangelical Systematic Theology, then every person on the forums would be able to tell which was which, just from the way the "ontology" was expressed, and what topics were included/excluded. The main headings might (perhaps) be the same, or similar (perhaps not a million miles away from the Nicene or Apostolic Creeds), but as soon as you go beyond that very basic outline, major differences emerge.
(And although the example is for evangelical/Catholic, it's just an example. The same would be true for other streams, too.)
Because of that, I just don't think it is possible to provide a detailed survey of theology that doesn't have some degree of 'bias' towards one tradition or another.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
I think that you misunderstand how the Catholic church views church documents:
And I think you're misunderstanding the difference between systematic theology and historical theology :-). The Lexham Survey is intended to be the former, not the latter.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
Because of that, I just don't think it is possible to provide a detailed survey of theology that doesn't have some degree of 'bias' towards one tradition or another.
I would agree with that and give the placement of the Adamic Covenant apart from other covenants as an example. But it should be possible to make one sufficiently neutral for everyone to be able to find things easily.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mathew Haferkamp said:
Hey this sounds small but please refer to it as "LST" as logos does here https://www.logos.com/product/166797/lexham-survey-of-theology
Please let me know if I am wrong (because I am waiting on an update to come out Monday before I can download logos 8), but doesn't it pull from the resources you own in your library? Because my library is reformed so I expect reformed answers.
It's helpful for this discussion to distinguish the ontology from the survey: they're closely related but distinct.
* The Lexham Systematic Theology Ontology (LSTO) refers to the data structure: the concepts, their titles and aliases, the hierarchical organization and order among siblings, and connections between these concepts and other data.
* The Lexham Survey of Theology (LST) is a resource consisting of articles defining and describing these concepts (from one author's perspective), recommended bibliographic citations, etc.
The ontology attempts a broad categorization that is inclusive of the subjects on which the mainstream Christian groups have broad agreement. It stops short of including individual concepts that are closely bound to one tradition or another: for example, various modes of baptism.
As others have noted in this thread, an ontology reflects a model of the world, so it necessarily reflects particular perspectives on the area of systematic theology. That being said, we've certainly aimed to include areas that are of interest to both Catholics and Protestants in both the ontology and the survey articles. For example, the section on The Church's Sacraments includes concepts that some Protestants would not call sacraments at all.
The content of the articles in the Survey aren't pulled from resources in your library: it's independent content, and therefore it reflects the authors' attempts at a broad perspective on the topics. However, we're continuing to annotate systematic theologies in Logos using the concepts from the Ontology, so the Systematic Theologies section of the Theology Guide will grow over time into a larger concept index into your library (which will naturally reflect the positions of those authors, in your case, a reformed perspective). Currently that section indexes five resources (all from an admittedly Protestant perspective: that was a pragmatic decision to start with resources with broad ownership and readership, and which were relatively easy to annotate).
0 -
The Lexham Survey of Theology was produced by Calvinists, Arminians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other Protestants. The editorial team (mainly me) did require that they all be "objective, sympathetic, and reverent" within the "small-'o' orthodox" Christian tradition. When "sympathetic," in a few first drafts, undermined "objective" by leaving out opposing views, I pushed back and required historical theology and/or descriptions of the current debate over the doctrine at hand. Naturally, in a multi-author project, some contributors defaulted toward academic-descriptive and others to warm-hearted-sympathetic (to their own viewpoint!). I tried to pull both toward a middle ground which met all three of our criteria.
There is little denying that, often, that middle ground is very Protestant-looking. It is of the nature of Protestantism from its earliest days to claim that it is the proper heir of small-"o" orthodoxy (I've been reading in In Search of Ancient Roots: The Christian Past and the Evangelical Identity Crisis myself and have seen this repeatedly). But as in my own small amounts of writing on Catholicism and Protestantism over the years, I pushed for contributors to be scrupulously honest. If I failed to help them do that in any place, it was not due to some plot on the part of Faithlife to pass off Protestantism as the default Christian viewpoint; it was simple human finitude!
My team did reject some submissions, and heavily edit others, because they failed to describe small-"o" orthodoxy. And we discussed multiple times, explicitly, how to be fair to non-Protestant readers while still serving our majority evangelical Protestant clientele. But I'm with Mark Barnes: I don't think any theology resource covering as much ground as the LST covers could succeed in being equally useful and unobjectionable to Protestants and Catholics. (And, FWIW, I've gotten a little feedback from at least one Protestant that a key article was too high-church Anglican!)I would suggest, however, that users of the LST remember where the LST is headed. In particular, view the "Recommended Readings" at the end of each piece within the context of what the tool will be in time. We want it to index all of the systematics in Logos—all of the systematics in Logos! That is huge! I myself am looking forward to it very much! And I can confirm on the authority of Phil Gons that it's our desire that eventually every ST in Logos will be tagged and show up in the Theology Guide. For now, think of the Recommended Readings as falling into three broad categories: 1) some contributors loaded us all up with lengthy bibliographies; 2) some mainly appealed to major STs (the way the tool itself is supposed to do as time passes); 3) some just seemed to grab the top few titles that occurred to them. And I'm still happy as a user/reader, because I think all of those different kinds of lists are all valuable. I did not push contributors to land in one of the three categories (though I did try to fill some obvious holes); I found it interesting to see where they defaulted. Each article is signed, so readers will not be led to think that the recommended readings are somehow wholly objective. And when the full list of STs someday dwarfs their recommended readings, I think those readings will still be valuable but will figure less prominently in showing what the tool is. In fact, once that huge list is included, the whole tool will take on a different feel. The introductory articles will still be valuable, as will be the key passages. But the index to all STs will be its main feature (with the map as a close second, I think), and thereby the whole tool will feel more objective, because its primary value will be to get you to whatever denominations/traditions/theologians you want to read. Our users are smart; they know that Christian groups differ. They want help getting oriented and then sent on a reading mission; the LST provides and will provide that help.
One more thought: it's encouraging to me, because I don't just work in Christian theology but personally believe it, that there are many branches of the subway-style mind map that, in my judgment, Protestants and Catholics would structure the same way. I'd rather share more Christian belief with others than less. The tree structure did require us in a few places, however, to "take sides." I think particularly of the Sacraments branch. You're either going to privilege Baptism and the Lord's Supper as dominical sacraments, or you're going to privilege an admittedly huge Christian tradition and put the five others on the same level. Yes, we defaulted to a Protestant viewpoint here: we call Matrimony, Confirmation, Ordination, etc. "Additional Sacraments." But even when we did so, the reason we gave ourselves was one that we felt Catholics could appreciate, and it's what I just mentioned. The two we privileged are dominical; they're the ones Jesus explicitly instituted. We also called The Lord's Supper with a more commonly Protestant name; we didn't say "Eucharist." Again, we had to choose. But then there are plenty of low-church Protestants who would object to our calling it a "sacrament" at all—you can't please everyone in theology!
I haven't wandered into the forums much over my years at Faithlife. I'm glad to see the LST inspiring such ardor! I can say that it was my desire while working on this project to give the church one more tool to help it grow in the light of the Bible. I was most pleased when contributors (I think of someone like evangelical Anglican Jonathan Warren) frequently brought in the Bible, wrote beautifully, covered the whole small-"o" orthodox tradition in short space, and led me to worship as I edited. If others are as edified as I was, I'll be very well rewarded.
0 -
Mark Ward said:
The Lexham Survey of Theology was produced by Calvinists, Arminians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other Protestants. The editorial team (mainly me) did require that they all be "objective, sympathetic, and reverent" within the "small-'o' orthodox" Christian tradition. When "sympathetic," in a few first drafts, undermined "objective" by leaving out opposing views, I pushed back and required historical theology and/or descriptions of the current debate over the doctrine at hand. Naturally, in a multi-author project, some contributors defaulted toward academic-descriptive and others to warm-hearted-sympathetic (to their own viewpoint!). I tried to pull both toward a middle ground which met all three of our criteria.
Mark, as the OP, please let me briefly re-iterate my actual request, which seems to have gotten lost (repeatedly) in this thread.
Please indicate in the LST itself, or at least in the electronic description of it visible in the Library, that LST is Protestant.
I really don't care that LST is Protestant. I'm not asking for LST to be made unobjectionable to non-Protestants or for it to be otherwise rewritten. I'm imploring you to stop hiding the fact that LST is Protestant.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
Mark W.,
It is certainly correct that the document can never please everyone in everything.
However, it is a realistic goal that Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox all generally feel fairly represented, and can feel like their positions and arguments are fairly and honestly presented, in a way they can identify with.
I think the structure you present of the Systematic Theology, and most of the definitions, and some of the articles, are clear examples of how that goal is possible to achieve with work. Everyone knows that in an systematic theology that attempts to bridge Christian traditions, compromises have to be made. That is not a problem.
In that sense, for example, I am very happy with the tree structure of the work, including on subjects like the sacraments, which you mention above. I am also very happy with almost all of the definitions... in fact, often I would say I am delighted with them.
Many of the articles, however, leave much to be desired. And the reason is usually not that the article is an apologetic for Protestantism. Thankfully most, although not all, of the articles avoid that. Rather the reasons are principally that:
1. The vision of the theological debates, history, and issues is almost always limited to those of interest to a Protestant theologian. In this sense it is very interesting, but also incomplete.
2. The presentations of the Catholic faith are rarely ones I can identify with as a Catholic. Rather, I read them and it is clear to me that this is what someone who looks at Catholicism from a Protestant lens thinks we think. And I think, "Wow, that's interesting. I wish I could speak with that person to help them see how we look at this issue, which is actually quite different, and almost always far theologically richer than one could ever gather from that way of summarizing it. I would summarize the Catholic position in a much different way as a Catholic, and I wish that were represented here."
Both of these issues are resolved very simply - by including Catholics (and Orthodox) theologians in teams that review and work on these articles. Not so that the article be Catholic, or so that they be Protestant, or Orthodox. But it is necessary that Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox work together on a project like this so that the article be complete and objective. So that a Protestant can read the article and feel represented fairly and objectively. And so can a Catholic. And so can an Orthodox. And all of them can learn to appreciate the other position as those who hold that position understand it.
What I would hope from these articles, is that I can look at the Protestant position presented, and learn from that, and be sure that the Protestant position described is accurate and one that a Protestant would identify with. As a Catholic, I want to be able to identify with the presentation of the Catholic faith within the document, and would hope that a Protestant would be sorely disappointed to hear a presentation of the Catholic faith that Catholics don't identify with. I want to know about Protestant debates within theology, and would hope that Protestants would want to know about debates that are within Catholic or Orthodox circles.
I think that is what serious scholarly work of this sort entails. In that sense, I cannot endorse the LST as a serious academic work as it presents itself, precisely because of the critique that SineNomine mentions (and I think his suggestion is fair as the LST is currently written). Currently it is a Protestant work, that clearly attempts to be fair, but that rarely presents Catholicism in a way that a Catholic could identify with, or that demonstrates that it was written by someone who has studied Catholic authors directly.
Note that I'm not talking here about arguing in favor of one position or another. Just about understanding who the other is, from within his or her own position, and being able to learn about that.
And I am absolutely convinced that a project like this is possible, and that it could be an enormous boon to theology!! And possibly no other company in the world is in as good a position as Fatihlife to make it happen. I hope and pray that it can happen!
0 -
Mark Ward said:
The Lexham Survey of Theology was produced by Calvinists, Arminians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other Protestants.
I don't doubt a sincere intent to be broadly ecumenical. However, let me state the heretical: American Christianity is on the fringes not the mainstream of Christianity in a way that skews the perspective of even international denominations. When I read the biographies of the authors last night, I was not sure that the Anglicans or Lutherans were representative of their denomination rather than the American/British low church splinter of their tradition.
Mark Ward said:The tree structure did require us in a few places,
May I ask why you chose a tree-structure rather than the web/graph approach that is common to AI? In my mind, that may be the biggest error in the ontology as even mapping a single theology to a tree structure would frequently be to diminish the theology. Processing of webs has become sufficiently standardized that I see no technical reason to hold to trees. Although it will take a while, I'm going to try to come up with a more universal ontology to support your categories. Unfortunately, I have to begin by reloading some software ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mark Ward said:
We want it to index all of the systematics in Logos—all of the systematics in Logos!
Mark,
Thank you for your detailed explanation about some of the processes behind the development of this resource. I believe that the LST would benefit from an introduction which explains the principles behind the structuring of the LST, the composition of individual articles, the first selection of resources referenced, the selection of other references.
Wrt the quote above, I can only find one systematic theology in Logos from a Catholic perspective. Could not one of the problems be the weighting of available resources in a particular theological direction?
Damian
0 -
Fr Devin Roza said:
The presentations of the Catholic faith are rarely ones I can identify with as a Catholic.
The section on Purgatory is a good example of this.
This section for a "mature form" of the Catholic doctrine is unrecognizable as Catholic:
"Based on how sorrowful believers are in confessing their sins (contrition), such temporal punishment is removed. Nevertheless, since believers are never perfectly contrite, some temporal punishment needs to be suffered. This is the rationale for the priest’s act of assigning penance. When penance is not completed on earth, then it must be completed in purgatory in the afterlife."
0 -
Damian McGrath said:
The section on Purgatory is a good example of this.
This section for a "mature form" of the Catholic doctrine is unrecognizable as Catholic:
Not to mention that it requires only minor adjustments to carry information on the Orthodox (but not universal) theory of aerial toll houses.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
If someone who is mostly familiar with systematic theology from a Protestant Baptist Reformed perspective wanted to get a wider view of the entire theological tradition (or at least expand his familiarity with Orthodox and Catholic theology), where should he start reading?
Asking for a friend. [;)]
Disclaimer: I didn't work on the LST. (I mean my friend didn't.)
0 -
Doug Mangum said:
Asking for a friend
Tell your friend that they can start with Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives edited by Schussler Fiorenza and Galvin. This is in Logos.
This could be suplemented by a book that is not in Logos but for which epub and kindle versions are available: Systematic Theology: A Roman Catholic Approach by Thomas Rausch (isbn: 0814683207)
For an approach that has been very influential but not without its criticisms, see Catholicism by Richard McBrien (isbn: 0060654058). Also available electronically outside of Logos.
0
