Before L9 dropped, we were told FL was looking into denominational tags. Did that make it into L9?
Partially - see it partially implemented in the revised Commentary Section of the Passage Guide and in the Authors section of the Factbook denomination entry. It is in the code but tagging still needs to be completed. Pointing out errors in how a person is classified is very useful to Sean right now.
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
I think it's a difficult thing because authors can change their denomination over time.
Blair, you are too much like me. Get over it. [;)] Yes, you are absolutely correct. However, a group of users got together and classified a large number of authors to their satisfaction. They believed they had proven that it was possible. I thought they had proven what standards would satisfy them. Given the standards that it is appropriate to hold computer-generated, mid-range AI to, I believe you and I are right that there are authors who are difficult to impossible to classify and "they" are right that it can be done sufficiently well to be helpful and well-received.
Meanwhile I will consider the classification plight of 3 scholars who changed denominations after retirement in order to retire to the monastery of their choice.
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.
We're very grateful for the work of the forum users who contributed a lot of data on authors and their denominational associations.
In addition to MJ's point about grouping commentaries, we now have Factbook pages for a large number of denominations (specific organizations) and denomination groups (less formal groupings of affiliated denominations, like Baptists and Methodism). We've also built a fair amount of hierarchical organization of denominations and denomination groups: currently the See Also section of a denomination group shows links to the narrower specific denominations, and when breadcrumbs are added (coming soon), you'll be able to go the other direction, from a specific denomination to its broader denomination group. As MJ suggests, we're still both correcting and adding denominational affiliations for authors. Like everything else in Factbook, this will be ongoing work for the foreseeable future: Factbook really won't ever be "done" because we keep adding resources, authors, new connections between data, etc.
We're also adding subject references to resources to indicate book-level primary subjects: so for my library the Factbook page for Baptists shows a few resources under Books from Your Library that are broadly about the Baptists. We still have a lot more annotation to do here, but these new denomination concepts will be used for subject references to help in discovering new content.
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.
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.
I get to brush up on the Father's writings on Modal Monarchianism.
I wasn't aware this was ever a particular concern in the East. Of course, there are lots of Western fathers who wrote extensively on it, and the great Eastern writings on the doctrine of God are clearly in no way modalist, and in many ways it may be both a more effective argument and being a better neighbor to talk about how the wonderful things on the doctrine of God from the Eastern Fathers instead of going into attack mode with Tertullian...
I get to brush up on the Father's writings on Modal Monarchianism. I wasn't aware this was ever a particular concern in the East. Of course, there are lots of Western fathers who wrote extensively on it, and the great Eastern writings on the doctrine of God are clearly in no way modalist, and in many ways it may be both a more effective argument and being a better neighbor to talk about how the wonderful things on the doctrine of God from the Eastern Fathers instead of going into attack mode with Tertullian...
I think being a good neighbor is first a foremost for sure. I had an elder asking me some questions last night and challenging my position. I chose not to get too deep into the weeds. He started off by claiming they were different because they were baptized in the name of Jesus and believed in one God. I quickly responded that we are baptized in the name of Jesus as well and we also believe in one God. He did not seem to think what I said was true but I left it at that and told him to verify it. I believe he thought because I was Trinitarian that I was a polytheist. The difference between me and them is not the number of Gods but persons. We are not baptized in Jesus' name alone either. Anyhow, I think I should be prepared in case I get pushed into a corner. Defensive measure 😁
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.
I reliably recommend https://ref.ly/logosres/trntynntrdtrngd on the subject of the Trinity.
Hi SineNomine:
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are really distinct: they are three hypostases or persons; each exists or subsists in a proper manner
Emery, G. (2011). The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God. (M. Levering & T. J. White, Eds., M. Levering, Trans.) (Vol. 1, p. 83). Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press.
I thought the reason why the perceived Divine Substantive Realities were named Hypostases, was precisely because it was incorrect to apply anthropomorphism to God.
God is not a Being that we have experience of what the particularities are because we are not Him.
To say God is a Person is precisely what we should not do, because He is more than that, He is the creator of Persons. Our contextual experience as living beings does not permit us to know for sure what being God is like.
We perceive Divine Substantive Realities that (to our limited perceptual capacity) seem to be persons, but obviously are not:
The Holy Spirit is one, but is atop millions of believers guiding and helping each. Hardly a person, but perfectly a Divine Substantive Reality.
And is that mystery what I think Blair is talking about.
From what I understand Hypostases does not equal person.
As some critics would say, It seems that an uninspired person (Athanasius) made Hypostases equal to person, violating the original intent of the Hypostases concept.
Is there a L9 resource that goes into deep about the definition of "person" in the trinity definition?
Yes. https://ref.ly/logosres/trntynntrdtrngd?ref=Page.p+83 (Same book: I suggest you read all of chapter four, the first page of which you quoted from. As you know, that chapter is called "Three 'Persons' or 'Hypostases'".)
Yes SineNomine, I will read, thanks for sharing it.
I found a promising book also:
https://www.logos.com/product/17537/person-grace-and-god
I also found some information. It seems that Boethius was the one giving a definition of person.
For a person, according to the classical definition of Boëthius, is nothing else than an individual substance of a rational nature, ‘persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia’. Nor is it to be wondered at that the subsistence of a being endowed with reason should enjoy the privilege of a special name: it is a free agent, and master of its own actions and responsible author of its own destiny; it is the sole kind of being that is conscious of its own individuality; and accordingly it realizes in a way beyond all other things that fullness and independence of being and action which constitute the characteristic of subsistence.
Mercier. (1916–1917). A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy. (T. L. Parker & S. A. Parker, Trans.) (Eighth Edition, Vol. 1, p. 485). London; St. Louis: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd.; B. Herder.
The problem I see here, is that a presupposition is that is talking about "created persons", how can you then apply such definition to the Hypostases of Divine Nature precisely involved in the creation of persons (humans)?
By the way FL, very good the improvement of the Factbook, just by hovering over the person keyword in the dictionaries section, gives a brief look, and is obvious that there was a massive problem in the translation of the greek term Hypostases.
