Did Denominational Tags Make it into L9?

Blair Laird said:

Perhaps it's such a low percentage that it is a non-issue 

I think it's worth thinking about.

Offhand I can think of G. K. Chesterton, St. John Henry Newman, Scott Hahn, C. S. Lewis, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, and Jaroslav Pelikan as well-known convert authors who FL carries. I know FL carries both pre- and post- conversion works from Chesterton, Newman, and Lewis; I believe there's one from Ware, and probably also some from Pelikan. I don't think Hahn published anything before his conversion. I'm pretty sure all of these are better known as members of their destination ecclesial community (respectively, Catholic, Catholic, Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Orthodox) than wherever they were before (Anglican, Anglican, Presbyterian, atheist, Anglican, Lutheran), and the only one I'd potentially flag as it mattering that his pre-conversion work be findable according to his pre-conversion label is St. John Henry Newman, but, realistically, you can't look all that much at 19th century Anglicanism without running into him in short order, so it's not a big deal from my perspective.

[Y] I would certainly rather have the tagging then say it’s too difficult because of changing theology. There are certainly people who are easy to categorize. Its difficult with a cross denominational library to check where each person I am reading is coming from. It would be cool if the authors info could  be incorporated so you can click and see their education or past and present affiliations. The denominational tagging is essential for me when I want to know how a particular group views a certain doctrine. Without the tagging searching that info is hard. 

Both.

Some more converts that come to my mind with works in Logos (albeit mostly monographs), Hank Hanegraaff (Evangelical to Eastern Orthodox), Robert Spencer (Evangelical to Eastern Orthodox), Stephen Ray (Evangelical to Catholic).

Most (if not all) reformers should have started off as Catholic, but I suspect that if they started writing before their conversion, that would be negligible. In fact, any founder of a new church is likely to have converted at some point, when the newly founded church split off from their old denomination. Whether, for example, the Wesleys, or Count Zinzendorf, or John Nelson Darby, or Stone and Campbell wrote any substantial works before their conversion would be a matter of research.

David Ames said:

abondservant said:

they should be whatever tradition they were when they wrote that particular title

Question: What denomination are ones writings in during the last few years before one officially / publicly switches?

The one they were in or the one that their ideas were moving towards?

If they are merely changing for the view, then their original denomination.

If the theological underpinnings of their point of view shifted dramatically (like the Bible Answer Man becoming orthodox); then I still think they have to be listed as whatever the author was when he wrote. Its never going to be perfect.

Blair Laird said:

I think it's a difficult thing because authors can change their denomination over time. This means that something previously is written might be viewed differently if they change their denomination affiliation. Each book would need to be treated on its own rather than the author to be accurate. I am not sure what percentage of authors change denominations over time but I know it could cause an issue in tagging. I was curious if the possibility was taken into considerations. Perhaps it's such a low percentage that it is a non-issue 

It's a good thing I'm not an author, because I've gone through at least four denominations in my lifetime: was baptized in an Episcopalian church, raised in a Congregational church, made my first adult decision to join a church in a Presbyterian church, attended a transdenominational seminary with Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Reformed leaning Catholic, Christian & Missionary Alliance, and a Mennonite on the faculty (and probably others I'm forgetting), and am now a Mennonite/Anabaptist with an appreciation for the good things that many other traditions have contributed to my ecumenical faith. I think it's important to be deeply rooted and grounded in one particular tradition that you worship in, but be able to dialogue freely with and learn from others, and not necessarily limit your viewpoints to just the statement of faith of your particular denomination. Some denominations are less doctrinaire anyway and encompass people with a variety of beliefs on certain points of theology. John Stott, for example, was an Anglican Evangelical all his life, but admitted some agnosticism about his belief on hell as a perpetual state of torment, allowing for the possibility of annihilationism.

Rosie Perera said:

It's a good thing I'm not an author, because I've gone through at least four denominations in my lifetime: was baptized in an Episcopalian church, raised in a Congregational church, made my first adult decision to join a church in a Presbyterian church, attended a transdenominational seminary with Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Reformed leaning Catholic, Christian & Missionary Alliance, and a Mennonite on the faculty (and probably others I'm forgetting), and am now a Mennonite/Anabaptist with an appreciation for the good things that many other traditions have contributed to my ecumenical faith. I think it's important to be deeply rooted and grounded in one particular tradition that you worship in, but be able to dialogue freely with and learn from others, and not necessarily limit your viewpoints to just the statement of faith of your particular denomination.

My goodness, what an experience.. that is awesome.. you certainly bring a lot to the table as far as ecumenical dialogue. I was raised as a Mormon until I was a teenager, fell away then joined a bapticostal non-denominational church who was sort of anti reformed theology. It was kinda difficult for me because I was learning theology through reformed resources and taking classes from rts About a year ago I converted over to Greek Orthodoxy. The Mennonites seem to be a fascinating group. I have been running a dialogue group between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants for the past few years so that has afforded me the opportunity to learn more about other faiths in a better way than just reading. I totally agree with your sentiment of being deeply rooted but being able to dialogue freely with others. I attended an oneness pentecostal service last night because their church is right next door to me. The pastor knows I am Greek Orthodox but I told him our differences won't change the fact that I desire to be a good neighbor. I also want to make myself available for anyone who has questions I get to brush up on the Father's writings on Modal Monarchianism. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for a formal debate if one of their elders come down

I found my given name in there too.

Maybe from when I was going to write for the academic blog? or something along those lines.

I MAY be in there for writing a book one day too. who knows

Hi Blair:

Very interesting subject. 

In your opinion what are some of the best resources in L9 to "to brush up on the Father's writings on Modal Monarchianism", and the concept itself?

Not trying to violate guidelines, but to share, I found very interesting information.

At one point it seems that Ireneaus thought that "Jesus and the Holy Spirit were like the arms (or hands) of God that He used to bring believers close to His heart" [very rough paraphrase, and have been unable to find the source of it again].

It makes me think that if such is the case, then inherent members of God (not different modern term persons) is that which we perceive as Hypostasis.

What makes all this more interesting, is that originally, Hypostasis when needed to be translated to Latin, the word used was Personae (meaning the mask that an actor wore).

Seems that Tertullian was not very convinced, but since Jesus is the image of God, he agreed.

I was baffled because one old trinity definition (that I agree with) was: Love relation between Divine Substantive Realities (hypostasis), and all of a sudden somewhere, somehow Personae turned into modern Person concept.

Talking to a Reformed acquaintance, he told me that he believes it was Athanasius the one that changed the trinity definition to include modern concept person in it instead of the original Personae (mask worn by actor) one.

Do you know of any resources in L9 that go in deep into all of this?

Thanks ahead of time for input.