Lexham Survey of Theology - feedback
Comments
-
But there is no reason to waste our time on how Logos got here this particular time. We can do two things (a) enter error reports for all cases where we find the LST to be factually inaccurate and (b) press for a review by a broader spectrum of scholars.
Don't forget (c) press FaithLife to prioritize including all of Logos's systematic theologies in the Theology Guide so people can more easily get into the sources themselves and make up their own minds. Also, related, (d) improving the recommended reading lists within the LST, which at this point are extremely hit or miss (IMO: mostly miss).
Revising the LST would be good, but tweaking it too frequently and too much could render it unusable for citation (acknowledging that the circumstances where it would be advisable to do so are rather limited, to say the least). It's also a situation where it will be difficult to please everyone, which is why I prefer my point (c) as a priority.
On the bright side, at least it's a step up from the first edition of the [CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADJECTIVE] Moody Handbook of Theology that they stuck in early base packages. [;)]
0 -
Strikes me that their customer base is largely a reflection of western Christianity of the last 200 years :PShort 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.
Glad they are expanding though. I have orthodox, catholic, lutheran, and wesleyan base packages. People from other traditions approach questions from a different place, and that can deepen ones understanding of an issue. Even though I might well disagree with their conclusions.
Non-western cultures seem to be ones that will grow in the future, but aren't necessarily paying the bills today.L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
As for Bellingham ... between my house and Bellingham I can find:
3 Coptic churches - one Catholic, two Orthodox
5 Ethiopian/Eritrean Churches
8 Orthodox Churches - Greek, Russian, Romanian, American
1 Armenian Apostolic Church
1 Nestorian Church, assuming it still exists
1 Jacobite Church (only a bit too far south to count)
seemingly innumerable churches with Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese in their name. Seems as if there is a market literally at their doorstep if they are smart enough to beat the competition to it.
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 -
You cannot impose a definition of objectivity that seeks to prevent people disagreeing with you because you do not identify with the challenge.
Challenge? That sounds like a word appropriate for a work of apologetics. This is a "survey" of theology. It presents what different sides believe. The first step in any dialogue is to make sure you can explain what the person you are dialoguing with in terms they agree represent what they believe. Then begins the challenge.
This idea isn't mine - it's just standard practice in academia, and in very recommendable for marriage counseling!
And thankfully it is practiced by many, many scholars and authors of all faith traditions. It is very commonplace nowadays to read Protestants who can explain Catholicism very well, and vice-versa, and who speak in ways that are understandable by both sides. I speak from experience - I'm a theology professor, and more than half the readings I personally read are by Protestant authors, and more than half the readings I assign my students (who are mainly Catholic seminarians) are by Protestant authors! And I don't assign them to critique them, I assign them because they happen to be the best presentation I've found of a certain topic. I don't care who wrote it, or what branch of Christianity they came from, I care about the truth, because I trust that following the truth will lead me and my students to Jesus Christ, who is the truth.
The Lexham Survey, however, falls short in many of its paragraphs on the first step, that of being a "survey." Surveys aren't meant to argue for one side or another, to "challenge" the other side. Challenging one you think is wrong is very important, and has its place. Just not in a "survey." Surveys prepare the ground for that.
0 -
Actually by the measure of it's treatment of the New Testament canon, I don't consider the LST as trustworthy on any topic.
Wow. That is a strong statement. So its treatment of the doctrine of God is not trustworthy? Surely that is a topic that all historical Christians agree on- right?
Reactionary pendulum swing here?
0 -
I think this is actually an interesting example, because the explanation that is given of what a Catholic thinks of "universal" has almost nothing to do with how a Catholic actually understands "universal" or "catholic". It would be simple enough (and arguably far more formative for all) to explain briefly how Catholic theology understands "catholic" or "universal".
That's a very interesting example. Thank you. It's difficult to respond within the constraints of the forum's prohibitions on discussing theology, but I'll do my best to tread the line.
I'm sympathetic with the authors here. I think the main issue in discussing the topic in the survey is that we can't get away from the problem that many within both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism haven't recognised their opposite numbers as part of the universal church. (That's more true historically than it is now, but it can't be ignored.)
The problem with "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church", as it could be read that those outside the Catholic Church are also outside Christ. Given the history (especially after Trent), even such as simple statement is charged with extra baggage which may mean that the statement would not be understand in the way that it was meant.
So I read the extract from the LST as trying to acknowledge this, albeit very briefly, when (in theory) both protestants and Roman Catholics would agree that “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the catholic Church” (I've modified the 'c' to lower case to secure the agreement!). Catholics have tended to see Protestants outside the catholic Church if they consider the Protestants have failed to recognise apostolic succession/authority, where as protestants have tended to see Catholics outside the catholic church if they consider the Catholics have failed to adhere to biblical teaching. (I'm over-simplifying, I know, as is the article. But that's what I think it's trying to do – successfully or otherwise.)
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 think this is actually an interesting example, because the explanation that is given of what a Catholic thinks of "universal" has almost nothing to do with how a Catholic actually understands "universal" or "catholic". It would be simple enough (and arguably far more formative for all) to explain briefly how Catholic theology understands "catholic" or "universal".
That's a very interesting example. Thank you. It's difficult to respond within the constraints of the forum's prohibitions on discussing theology, but I'll do my best to tread the line.
I'm sympathetic with the authors here. I think the main issue in discussing the topic in the survey is that we can't get away from the problem that many within both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism haven't recognised their opposite numbers as part of the universal church. (That's more true historically than it is now, but it can't be ignored.)
The problem with "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church", as it could be read that those outside the Catholic Church are also outside Christ. Given the history (especially after Trent), even such as simple statement is charged with extra baggage which may mean that the statement would not be understand in the way that it was meant.
So I read the extract from the LST as trying to acknowledge this, albeit very briefly, when (in theory) both protestants and Roman Catholics would agree that “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the catholic Church” (I've modified the 'c' to lower case to secure the agreement!). Catholics have tended to see Protestants outside the catholic Church if they consider the Protestants have failed to recognise apostolic succession/authority, where as protestants have tended to see Catholics outside the catholic church if they consider the Catholics have failed to adhere to biblical teaching. (I'm over-simplifying, I know, as is the article. But that's what I think it's trying to do – successfully or otherwise.)
Thank you for these thoughtful considerations. This is precisely the type of conversation the commission that writes this document should have had, but couldn't because there wasn't a Catholic on the commission!
With considerations like this, it doesn't have to be an either / or. It can be a both / and. And here I refer to finding formulas that work for everyone. That is, they type of considerations you make should be taken into account. But that takes nothing away from the desirability of simply explaining what "catholic" means to a Catholic. They are absolutely compatible, and possible in the space needed for an article like this.
Consider the definition offered by the U.S. edition of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church of "catholic":
One of the four marks or notes of the Church, taken from the Nicene Creed. The Church is catholic or universal both because she possesses the fullness of Christ’s presence and the means of salvation, and because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race (750, 830).
At least a far as I remember, I didn't consult this definition when writing my response to Sean. And yet, precisely the same 2 points I explained of what "catholic" means to a Catholic are what are offered here... in one brief sentence. If one wants to do a "survey" of how "catholic" is understood by Christians, actually discussing how it is understood is essential!
Then, there are related points, such as who is a member of the church and who isn't. But this isn't an article about who is a member and who isn't! It's an article about what "catholic" means. They are related, so if it is seen as important to discuss it, great! But first say what it means and start from there.
Notice the contrast with what follows in the Lexham Survey of Theology, when, after speaking about apostolic succession in Catholicism, it discusses catholicity in Protestantism:
"for the vast majority of Protestants the universality and continuity of the church comes from God’s preservation of his people through the preaching of the word and the sanctifying power of the Spirit. Wherever people adhere to biblical teaching, the work of the Spirit is manifest, and the catholicity of the church is preserved."
The number is centered on the Word of God and on the Holy Spirit. Great! Those are understood as sources of catholicity in Protestant theology. If the presentation just before this of Catholic theology and been written in a way that corresponds to the Catholic understanding of "catholic", it would have said how for Catholics the source of Catholicity is the "fullness of Christ's presence and the means of salvation" which are entrusted to the Church who is sent out on "the mission to the whole human race."
At that point you would actually have two different theological opinions (possibly compatible) and could actually start a dialogue. You could even then add the point about relating it to "apostolic succession" and how that works out. But by presenting how each side actually thinks about this issue, you provide a "survey" of theology that can serve to educate and inform, and can be a basis for deeper understanding and dialogue.
0 -
that LST (probably) isn't trustworthy when it's talking about people and things that aren't Protestant.
Actually by the measure of it's treatment of the New Testament canon, I don't consider the LST as trustworthy on any topic.
There is that, and I must admit that I had the same reaction when I looked at that the first time. When I was writing the post you replied to, I think I had forgotten about that, but I may have filed that as a non-Protestant topic. I should have clearly indicated, rather than writing "people and things that aren't Protestant", that I included not only 'contemporary' non-Protestant matters, but also everything before c.1500.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
Sine Nomine, what you describe here is serious, so LST is tied up to guides in Verbum and persons are not aware that the descriptions related to Catholic topics are not representative of the actual dogma?
In the Catholic Products forum, concerns were raised about LST, and Verbum staff indicated that they had intentionally not advertised it because of the concerns given.
Do you know if Verbum's staff is Catholic? how did they allow the above situation to happen if they are? were they not allowed to check?
I imagine that they were left out of the process.
This is strange, looks like some quality controls were missing.
Could it be that the project was under time constraints or budget limitations?
I expect so.
From the experience I have with FL, I would not think that there was malicious intent in this, but obviously something was not right if quality check for content was not done properly on an important work like LST.
I don't believe that there was malicious intent either. I'm still waiting for my request to be acknowledged by FL, though.
I do hope Verbum comes up with the Catholic version of the survey, so comparative studies can be done.
Others have said this already and better, but I'm not convinced that such a work is necessary. I am convinced that it shouldn't be necessary.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
quote]
This is a serious discussion with serious points being made but at it best Protestantism really believes it is being objective, and tries to be so, but the fact that those it is interpreting do not think that they are being dealt with fairly does not necessarily mean that they are not.
The Reformation was led by serious people who understood Roman Catholic theology but thought that this theology meant that what they believed was not what they said they believed.
You cannot impose a definition of objectivity that seeks to prevent people disagreeing with you because you do not identify with the challenge.
Consider the following three statements, which a Catholic might write:
1. "Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, which in practice results in every Protestant being his/her own pope."
2. "Protestants believe that every Protestant is his/her own pope."
3. "Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura."
The first statement is one that most Protestants would probably disagree with--a Catholic could, however, say it, and make a case for it in a work of theology/apologetics. This is an example of a Catholic seeing something in a Protestant belief that the Protestant doesn't. It may or may not be accurate, but whether it is or it isn't is not something dependent on whether a particular Protestant believes that it is fair. It would not be appropriate, however, even were it true, for it to be placed by a Catholic scholar in an "objective" survey of theology. The statement, "Some Catholics have argued that..." could be appropriate, however.
The second statement is simply (and objectively) wrong. Protestants, as a whole, don't actually believe that (even if some somewhere do). That's simply an objective fact. There are lots of things in the LST about non-Protestants and about pre-Reformation church history (e.g., the settling of the canon of the NT) that are simply wrong. I, personally, would be much less bothered by these errors if LST stopped advertising itself as objective.
The third statement is simply (and objectively) right. It is of a kind that belongs in an objective summary of theology, like LST. Happily, LST includes statements of this kind... but not only statements of this kind.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
Actually by the measure of it's treatment of the New Testament canon, I don't consider the LST as trustworthy on any topic.
Wow. That is a strong statement. So its treatment of the doctrine of God is not trustworthy? Surely that is a topic that all historical Christians agree on- right?
Reactionary pendulum swing here?
Well, if I can't trust what the LST says about the Bible, from which we learn about God, how can I trust what the LST says about God?
I haven't personally gone through and read all of what LST has to say about God, and I don't have time to at the moment, but I think the principle stands--especially since, in discussing the doctrine of God, one must at least eventually talk about the history of the doctrine of God, and the history of the Bible LST has already messed up.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
discussing the doctrine of God, one must at least eventually talk about the history of the doctrine of God,
You may amuse yourself but trying to figure out where the discussion of energies/essences falls. Insomuch as Palamas is the "Aquinas" of the Orthodox, it must fit somewhere [;)]
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 -
quote]
This is a serious discussion with serious points being made but at it best Protestantism really believes it is being objective, and tries to be so, but the fact that those it is interpreting do not think that they are being dealt with fairly does not necessarily mean that they are not.
The Reformation was led by serious people who understood Roman Catholic theology but thought that this theology meant that what they believed was not what they said they believed.
You cannot impose a definition of objectivity that seeks to prevent people disagreeing with you because you do not identify with the challenge.
Consider the following three statements, which a Catholic might write:
1. "Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, which in practice results in every Protestant being his/her own pope."
2. "Protestants believe that every Protestant is his/her own pope."
3. "Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura."
The first statement is one that most Protestants would probably disagree with--a Catholic could, however, say it, and make a case for it in a work of theology/apologetics. This is an example of a Catholic seeing something in a Protestant belief that the Protestant doesn't. It may or may not be accurate, but whether it is or it isn't is not something dependent on whether a particular Protestant believes that it is fair. It would not be appropriate, however, even were it true, for it to be placed by a Catholic scholar in an "objective" survey of theology. The statement, "Some Catholics have argued that..." could be appropriate, however.
The second statement is simply (and objectively) wrong. Protestants, as a whole, don't actually believe that (even if some somewhere do). That's simply an objective fact. There are lots of things in the LST about non-Protestants and about pre-Reformation church history (e.g., the settling of the canon of the NT) that are simply wrong. I, personally, would be much less bothered by these errors if LST stopped advertising itself as objective.
The third statement is simply (and objectively) right. It is of a kind that belongs in an objective summary of theology, like LST. Happily, LST includes statements of this kind... but not only statements of this kind.
But you are equating a statement about the consequences of a belief with an actual belief.
For instance a Roman Catholic may say that a Protestant believes that you can have salvation without the necessity of good works, which is not something most Protestants would say (as they believe that good works flow from salvation) but then again it is a legitimate statement that highlights an "issue". This kind of statement has got to be fine and to be prevented from making it would be preventing a position being objectively described.
If the Roman Catholic goes on to say that this position means that Protestants are antinomian then you are moving beyond objectivity.
Just because someone describes something in a way you would not does not mean that they are not being objective, perhaps they are identifying your own lack of objectivity.
0 -
Just because someone describes something in a way you would not does not mean that they are not being objective, perhaps they are identifying your own lack of objectivity.
Mike, you keep coming back to this point although no one is arguing otherwise. Can you explain what you are objecting too? No one is insisting that something be described as they would describe it. They are insisting that its meaning be consistent with how they would describe it when they are the group being described. When I look at it through Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox lens, that simply is not the case.
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 -
No one is insisting that something be described as they would describe it.
They are insisting that its meaning be consistent with how they would describe it when they are the group being described.
Surely objectivity requires that you are not bound by someone else's analysis of meaning
0 -
M.J., might another way to describe the issue be to say that, in an ideal world, the tool should be equally useful to Christians from all traditions? That might have two pieces:
- A reliable reference for the beliefs of their own tradition; and
- A reliable guide to the beliefs of other traditions.
Of course, we're not in an ideal world, so instead of "reliable" perhaps we should say "reasonably reliable" or at least "reliable enough to prove useful". But I think what I'm hearing you say is that someone from a Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox church wouldn't recognize their own faith tradition in the current version - so for them, at a minimum it's not a useful reference for the beliefs of their tradition. Is that right?
0 -
The overall concern some forum participants have voiced, particularly SineNomine and Devin Roza, that the LST describes Roman Catholic theology in terms it would not use for itself is one we at Lexham/Faithlife take very seriously. So let me reiterate that I am very open to specific feedback on objectionable statements. I’ve read back through all seven pages of posts just now looking for those concrete, actionable (editable!) items. These are all the actual quotations from the LST that I found:
- Ken McGuire mostly liked the definition in the baptism article (Jonathan Warren) but felt 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.”
- M.J. objected to “the placement of the Adamic Covenant apart from other covenants.”
- Damian McGrath objected to a paragraph in the purgatory article (Jack Kilcrease) for being “unrecognizable as Catholic.”
- M.J. felt that the immaculate conception article (Jack Kilcrease) failed to count early celebration of the “special purity of Mary” as a significant precursor to the immaculate conception.
- M.J. felt the canon article (John Frame) omitted the testimony of canon lists that should have been included. (I was a little fuzzy on your argument here, M.J.—did I understand you correctly?)
- Devin Roza felt that the article on “The Church as Universal” (Jack Kilcrease) gave an inaccurate presentation of the Catholic definition of “catholic.”
Points 3 and 6 are those which are most concerning to me, because they involve alleged misrepresentation. If Catholic or Orthodox readers in particular find any other specific statements which they do not feel represent their viewpoints accurately, please contact me at mark DOT ward AT —well, you know.
I and my team will diligently consider feedback for future planned revisions. I'm setting the forum to email me replies to this post.(And as for concerns about incomplete Recommended Resources lists, I’d send readers back to my previous post.)
0 -
Surely objectivity requires that you are not bound by someone else's analysis of meaning
Isn't the sole purpose of language to convey meaning? If it is not the medium of transferring information from person 1 to person 2, why bother?
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 -
For instance a Roman Catholic may say that a Protestant believes that you can have salvation without the necessity of good works, which is not something most Protestants would say (as they believe that good works flow from salvation) but then again it is a legitimate statement that highlights an "issue". This kind of statement has got to be fine and to be prevented from making it would be preventing a position being objectively described.
Yes and no. The statement, "Some Catholics hold that Protestants believe that you can have salvation without the necessity of good works" is an objective statement, and could be made in a survey text (if deemed true). The statement, "Protestants believe that you can have salvation without the necessity of good works" is simply wrong, because many (most) Protestants don't believe that. As you correctly wrote, (many/most) Protestants would say that good works (necessarily) flow from salvation. As such, I--a Catholic--would deem it unacceptable to write "Protestants believe that you can have salvation without the necessity of good works" without further qualifiers/clarification, not only in a general survey of theology like LST, but also in a confessionally Catholic survey of theology, in a book of Catholic apologetics, in a Catholic church bulletin, etc. I deem it unacceptable because it's false.
If the Roman Catholic goes on to say that this position means that Protestants are antinomian then you are moving beyond objectivity.
Just because someone describes something in a way you would not does not mean that they are not being objective, perhaps they are identifying your own lack of objectivity.
If you can say that the hypothetical accusation of anti-nomianism leveled at Protestantism would move beyond objectivity, then it follows that I can say that certain statements in LST move beyond objectivity with regard to Catholicism.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
The overall concern some forum participants have voiced, particularly SineNomine and Devin Roza, that the LST describes Roman Catholic theology in terms it would not use for itself is one we at Lexham/Faithlife take very seriously. So let me reiterate that I am very open to specific feedback on objectionable statements. I’ve read back through all seven pages of posts just now looking for those concrete, actionable (editable!) items. These are all the actual quotations from the LST that I found:
- Ken McGuire mostly liked the definition in the baptism article (Jonathan Warren) but felt 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.”
- M.J. objected to “the placement of the Adamic Covenant apart from other covenants.”
- Damian McGrath objected to a paragraph in the purgatory article (Jack Kilcrease) for being “unrecognizable as Catholic.”
- M.J. felt that the immaculate conception article (Jack Kilcrease) failed to count early celebration of the “special purity of Mary” as a significant precursor to the immaculate conception.
- M.J. felt the canon article (John Frame) omitted the testimony of canon lists that should have been included. (I was a little fuzzy on your argument here, M.J.—did I understand you correctly?)
- Devin Roza felt that the article on “The Church as Universal” (Jack Kilcrease) gave an inaccurate presentation of the Catholic definition of “catholic.”
Points 3 and 6 are those which are most concerning to me, because they involve alleged misrepresentation. If Catholic or Orthodox readers in particular find any other specific statements which they do not feel represent their viewpoints accurately, please contact me at mark DOT ward AT —well, you know.
I and my team will diligently consider feedback for future planned revisions. I'm setting the forum to email me replies to this post.Thank you for this. I suspect that Fr. Devin Roza and MJ will have extensive feedback, if it hasn't landed in your inbox already.
Should I take your post as an oblique response to the request of mine that started this thread--a response that says, in effect, "We want to make LST objective insofar as it isn't already"?
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
M.J., might another way to describe the issue be to say that, in an ideal world, the tool should be equally useful to Christians from all traditions? That might have two pieces:
- A reliable reference for the beliefs of their own tradition; and
- A reliable guide to the beliefs of other traditions.
Of course, we're not in an ideal world, so instead of "reliable" perhaps we should say "reasonably reliable" or at least "reliable enough to prove useful". But I think what I'm hearing you say is that someone from a Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox church wouldn't recognize their own faith tradition in the current version - so for them, at a minimum it's not a useful reference for the beliefs of their tradition. Is that right?
This is a perfect summary. Thanks EastTN.
Again, this is particularly important as this is the text for the Theology Guide.
0 -
So its treatment of the doctrine of God is not trustworthy?
I'm not a theologian - most my knowledge is either liturgical theology or interfaith relations. But my first reaction to the doctrine of God was to wonder where I'd put the energy/essence theory of Palamas - a seminal Orthodox theologian http://catholic-church.org/grace/ecu/v/4.pdf Why does Palamas come to my mind? Because of potential sufi influences, he (like St. Francis) falls into interfaith relations. But when there are blatant factual errors in areas I know, I must assume that there is an equivalent level of sloppiness in areas I do not know. My option is to be gullible in areas I don't know.
Surely that is a topic that all historical Christians agree on- right?
How long has church history also included a nontrinitarian thread? How much of the West rejects the energy/essence distinction? How many accept the apophactic theology of the godhead?
So my answer to your question - I don't know.
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,
Thank you for responding again.
I have shared a google doc with you (I hope).
0 -
Breaking News: FL to offer confessionally-adapted theology surveys!
LST to be renamed PST (Protestant Survey of Theology). Rumour has it, it will be replaced by RST (Reformed), LST (Lutheran), BST (Baptist) and AST (Anglican) in due time. PST will then be used for the Pentecostal version.
VST (verbum), OST (Orthodox), and SDAST in the pipeline.
The EST (Ecumenical), JST (Jewish), and AST (Atheist or Agnostic, you choose) are being secretely tested at an undisclosed location. The FST (Feminist) to be nominated for most daring product of the year.
[:P] [:P] [:P]
0 -
Breaking News: FL to offer confessionally-adapted theology surveys!
LST to be renamed PST (Protestant Survey of Theology). Rumour has it, it will be replaced by RST (Reformed), LST (Lutheran), BST (Baptist) and AST (Anglican) in due time. PST will then be used for the Pentecostal version.
VST (verbum), OST (Orthodox), and SDAST in the pipeline.
The EST (Ecumenical), JST (Jewish), and AST (Atheist or Agnostic, you choose) are being secretely tested at an undisclosed location. The FST (Feminist) to be nominated for most daring product of the year.
[:P]
Avoiding this is precisely what all of my proposals on this thread are oriented towards.
0 -
Consider the following three statements, which a Catholic might write:
1. "Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, which in practice results in every Protestant being his/her own pope."
2. "Protestants believe that every Protestant is his/her own pope."
3. "Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura."
The first statement is one that most Protestants would probably disagree with--a Catholic could, however, say it, and make a case for it in a work of theology/apologetics. This is an example of a Catholic seeing something in a Protestant belief that the Protestant doesn't. It may or may not be accurate, but whether it is or it isn't is not something dependent on whether a particular Protestant believes that it is fair. It would not be appropriate, however, even were it true, for it to be placed by a Catholic scholar in an "objective" survey of theology. The statement, "Some Catholics have argued that..." could be appropriate, however.
It is understandable what you are trying to convey, but discharging certain duties of an office does not mean being that office bearer.
The Pope is ascribed with a "vicarius File Dei" status, which no protestant would accept. To my understanding, the Holy Sprit is the g:Paraklete, and is the one to guide the individual to the truth, and He would not contradict Scripture.
As far as interpreting Scripture taking into consideration the "whole Counsel of God" and the "doctrine of the Apostles (i.e. original 12 after replacing apostate one), is a responsibility that each individual believer has. Luke 10:26. Note Jesus points to inspired Sacred Scripture, Jesus did not say: what did Gamaliel say, nor what does the doctrine of the Pharisees establish.
As you can see, there is a problem with conflicting theology as different traditions have interpreted different. To have coherence within a system, I think is best to have a Survey for each tradition.
Comparison can be thus done by each individual believer afterwards. (Check all, and retain what is good is a Biblical mandate).
People seem to not understand their responsibility to check all and retain what is good. You will not be able to say to Jesus "My Pastor / Pope, team leader, etc. told me so and I did not check, I just believed (without critical thinking using God given rationality)".
Salvation is too important to rely on someone else's interpretation. And this is the usefulness of a survey, a common vocabulary, so each can explore to see if "things are so", are we not to be noble like the Synagogue Bereans?
If you investigate, and you come to conclusion that a given tradition best jibes with the Bible (our reliable source about God and His requirements), then amen to that, but if none fulfills the Christlike obligations, then stay away, have g:koinonia, but do not buy into their constructs.
Your salvation is yours, you need to find out what does God require to enter the New Covenant and do it, if you make a sincere mistake, God will probably take that in consideration, but do not accept convictions without analysis. That again is what the Survey of theology is trying to help us do.
I love the "view" series (as in X views on law and Gospel, etc.) because you can see different angles on a given topic, so you can check which seems to jibe better with the Bible... teach the controversy, let them pick what they believe is the best because salvation is an individual choice, and a God given right.
I believe moral theology for certain applications is very important, I would not expect a protestant group to have it developed to the extent the Catholics have. So I would expect to find the very key subjects related to it in a Catholic survey, not a protestant or other one.
Someone mentioned and incompatible mesh of tidbits, but such are important when searching for truth. Jesus used the Scripture when explaining why the Saducees had erroneous beliefs. He did not overpower them saying "I am the Messiah, and I tell you that it is like I say period", He was showing an example for us to learn and check to see if thing are so.
In theory we are all interested to help people get to the truth (Jesus is the truth), so lay it all out, presuppositions, previous understandings, preconceptions, assumptions, and the like, let people check and see if things are so, do not become a stumbling block by muddling the topics, let people check all retain what is good using what Jesus used: the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit (yes even Jesus had to get the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) to show us what the New Covenant is about: restoration of Koinonia with the Father lost after the transgression, and possible because Jesus made possible the indwelling of the Holy Spirit back in humankind by HIs sacrifice.
0 -
confessionally-adapted theology surveys!
Actually one survey is sufficient with an interactive user interface to control various visual and theological filters? [:$]
Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 11
0 -
Hamilton
please note the forum guidelines
Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.
Some of us are trying to address a particular problem that we perceive with a logos tool.
0 -
Damian:
Yes, I understand, but I am trying to show that there are so many little details in each group's doctrines, so is best to keep them separate so that there is no misrepresentation, and clear comparison can be done among them.
Asserting that salvation is an individual responsibility I do not consider theology, but basic objective fact. Many traditions may not agree, but this is the kind of "very important matter" that a theology survey should help sort out.
Who is in authority, who determines what is truth, can someone be given that responsibility for, or is each responsible for checking their own beliefs?
Are not the basic tasks of theology to evaluate doctrine, develop doctrine, communicate doctrine (as per Mobile ed systematic theology course), then at what level does that have to be done? individual believer or some institutionalized hierarchy?
Very important subjects, and the answer to those questions have to be explored by all believers, that is what a Survey of theology do help empower the sheep, because it is that sheep's destiny what is at stake.
Kind regards.
0 -
Hamilton
please note the forum guidelines
Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.
0
