Theology/Denomination Tags

abondservant said:

...

Also I made a spread sheet to show what I'm about to suggest... But I would love to be able to list different theological perspecitves of individual authors as well... Are they dispensational  & Reformed? Are they presbyterians that dunk, or Baptists that sprinkle? Do they hold the pre-wrath rapture view? What about their ecclesiology?

...

Some of this should be easier to achieve using the new filter facility.  It allows you to search for Dispensational and Reformed for example by creating a collection rule that can be pasted into a Logos collection.  There is no category for mode of baptism at present, such as dunking or sprinkling, only Infant or Believers Baptism, which is quite different.  Some dunk babies and some sprinkle adults.  Some denominations dunk some adults and sprinkle others.  Finding evidence for individuals could be tough, but I'd be happy to add a suitably large category that had good supporting evidence.  This goes for many of the other types of categories you suggest as well.

MJ. Smith said:

abondservant said:

That's probably my protestant leanings coming out.

Probably. But somewhere in the last 2-3 years, I learned that Methodists use a quadrilateral: scripture, tradition, reason and experience - having added the experience to the Anglican 3 legged stool. And in the last 4-5 years, a Lutheran group put out a small book on confessional interpretation. I wish there were an easy way to track down some other major groups' practices.

Each aspect of the quadrilateral is debated, and many Anglicans talk about the quadrilateral as well now.  The original three legs are often attributed to Hooker, and seen as being equal, though "his relationship to the Reformation and particularly one of its cardinal themes of sola scriptura continues to be a hotly contested topic." (Chapman, M. D. (2012). Anglican Theology (p. 103-5). London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury.)

E.g. Should Scripture be primary, with tradition and reason simply assisting interpretation, or should they be equal?  Where does experience fit in?  I don't think it would be easy to argue that there is only one Anglican view.  Hooker's views are often claimed to be Evangelical by some and Anglo-Catholic by others.  Chapman tries to present a more balanced view:

"it is the figure of Hooker who is credited with the creation of the distinctive emphasis of Anglican moderation, of formulating the carefully balanced three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition and Reason as the sources of Anglican theology."

Chapman, M. D. (2012). Anglican Theology (p. 103-4). London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury.

"While Hooker did not fundamentally depart from the basic principles of the supremacy of Scripture, he nevertheless was clear that it was not self-authenticating"

Chapman, M. D. (2012). Anglican Theology (p. 116). London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury.

On interpreting Scripture more generally, I think this paragraph tries to do justice to how a number of different traditions use Scripture, before adding the authors' own view:

"Understanding Jesus’ kingdom theology enables interpreters to make good sense of his ethical demands. Interpreters have regularly puzzled over their stringency. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Sermon on the Mount. Did Jesus seriously expect his followers to view hatred as murder, to view lust as adultery, never to retaliate when abused, and actually to love their enemies (Mt 5:21–48)? We have already noted the traditional Catholic response: only select disciples are expected to follow these more austere rules. Lutherans often viewed Jesus’ ethics as “law” (rather than “gospel”) meant to point out the hopelessness of our sinful condition and drive us to our knees in repentance and faith in Christ. Against both these views note that Jesus addressed his words to all his disciples, as well as to the crowds of would-be followers who flocked to hear him (Mt 5:1). Anabaptists frequently took these commands as seriously applying to public life and to all people on earth, so they renounced all violence and became pacifists. Tolstoy adopted a similar response on a personal level, as do many Mennonites and others today. But Jesus nowhere teaches that his kingdom principles should form the basis for civil law. Nineteenth-century liberals often preached a “social gospel” of human progress and moral evolution apart from the personal transformation of conversion to Christ, but twentieth-century worldwide warfare squelched much of their optimism. Existentialists see in Jesus’ teaching precedent for decisive calls to ethical action without viewing any of his teaching as absolute. Dispensationalists have traditionally reserved Jesus’ kingdom ethic for the millennial age and have not found it directly relevant for Christians now. But this requires a greater disjunction between Israel and the Church than Scripture allows. Jesus’ choice of twelve disciples, for example, almost certainly was deliberate—to match the twelve tribes of Israel and portray the community of his followers as the new locus of God’s saving activity.

None of these approaches, furthermore, does justice to the interpretive framework of Jesus’ inaugurated eschatology. Most of Jesus’ teachings apply to all believers in all situations, unless Scripture itself clearly imposes certain limitations. When Jesus concludes the section of the Sermon on the Mount alluded to above, he declares: “Be perfect [whole, mature; Greek teleios], therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect [whole, mature]” (Mt 5:48). This remains the standard or ideal of discipleship for all Christians. We will not attain wholeness in this life, but we can arrive at a measure of maturity. Jesus’ standards should be our constant goal (“already but not yet”). He intended his ethic for all believers, not just a select few. But inasmuch as his ethic is primarily for believers, we dare not impose it on those outside the faith. We cannot expect unbelievers to follow or appreciate God’s will, though (through common grace) we are sometimes pleasantly surprised when they do. We must not try to coerce an unregenerate world to conform to his standards, though surely believers ought to use all legal measures available to foster an ethical society."

Klein, W. W., Blomberg, C., & Hubbard, R. L. (2004). Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (pp. 409–410). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

I think I've updated the spreadsheet to include all of the suggestions so far.  As always please feel free to suggest corrections, additions, etc.  I've updated all of the Faithlife collections at: https://faithlife.com/logos-library-theology-denomination-tags/documents 

Here's the latest copy of the spreadsheet:

2112.Denominations and Theology - 10 June 2014.zip

And a new Frequently Asked Questions guide, mainly based on previous postings on this thread:

0488.Theology and Denomination Tag Reference.doc 

abondservant said:

Also - Charles Ryrie of nebulous denominational affiliation (but certainly a dispensationalist as he was the former president of Dallas Theological Seminary) has a book published through B&H and so one of his titles is flagged as southern baptist.

IS Ryrie Southern Baptist? If so lets add him as an author, if not, we need to make an exception Publisher:(Broadman and Holman ANDNOT Author:Ryrie) or however that would look.

The book in question is his "Ryrie's Practical Guide to Communicating Bible Doctrine".

Also I noticed Kenneth O. Gangel is listed by name under Parachurch, and by publisher under Southern Baptist (and Baptist).

For Theology: Amillenial

The following people have books that are from an Amillenial perspective, that also have books (or journal entries) published in Logos.

geerhardus voss
G.K. Beale
Hendriksen, William
Hill, Charles E
Anthony Hoekema
Johnson, Dennis E
Mathison, Keith
Poythress, Vern
Riddlebarger, Kim
Venema, Cornelis
Sam Storms
Samuel Waldron

Here is where the list originated from.

Thanks for all your helpful posts, abondservant.  Maybe I need to remove the Southern Baptist tag from B&H.  When the project started, it was more of a rough and ready guide.  As it's becoming more of an exhaustive list, it can afford to be more particular.  Do you know if many non-Southern Baptist authors are published by B&H?

I've added Amillennial as a theology, though I'm not sure everyone on the above list falls under that category.  For example, Keith Mathison's "Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope" suggests that he is post-millennial.  I've added the authors I verified.  I'm open to suggestions for who else should be on this list, preferably with evidence as always.

abondservant said:

John Dominic Crossan - wiki lists him as Roman Catholic (though he's no longer a priest). He's also tied to the Jesus Seminar and their quest for the historical jesus. Which may be a good collection to make as well.

Frederic Farrar - Anglican - kind of surprised he wasn't listed. You have to click the links for the churches he pastored to see he was/is Anglican.

Also - can you add OR MyTag:(short name for the group/theology in question IE MyTag:Anglican to the Anglican Collection) to the collections?

If anyone has a link to a suitably long and reliable list of those connected with The Jesus Seminar, then I would happily add this.

The MyTag suggestion seems sensible and may well satisfy Lynden as well.  What do others think?

Randy W. Sims said:

Thanks for posting your rule to this thread, Lynden. It looks like the additions you made for SDA are as listed out below. (It's probably a bit easier for Andrew if we just list the additions as a list rather than posting the entire rule, if possible.)

...

Currently, the generated rules don't contain Subject or MyTag filters. Is this something that would be useful to a lot of collections or just limited use?

Really helpful, Randy.  Thanks!  It may be worth adding MyTag filters (see my response to abondservant above).  I'm happy to wait until others comment on this first though.

abondservant said:

I have spent a good deal of time tagging most of my library - The inclusion of tags in rules would be helpful to me.

ALSO Kevin DeYoung is changing denominations to PCA

This seems a little premature, given the info provided on the linked page, but I've made the change.  Thanks for the info and link.  Let me know if I haven't included any of the other suggestions you've made here.

abondservant said:

Thanks for the update - also I noticed there is a new collection for Assemblies of God made just five days ago.

Not sure what this was about.  I don't think it was anything to do with me...

MJ. Smith said:

Trying to build a mind map of the relationships embedded in the collections and found a problem requiring duplication of data. My intent in suggesting the 2 categories:

• Pre-schism
• Post-schism. pre-reformation

was to allow the pre-schism group to be included in both the Catholic and Orthodox streams (and certain Protestant groups that claim them as well) and for post-schism, pre-reformation to be included in Catholic and certain Protestant groups e.g. Anglicans but not to be included in Orthodox.

That doesn't appear to be the intent of the current structure. It could be supported by duplicate entries - often 3 to include the religious order in the current structure. If that is the intent, I need to work my way through which require multiple entries if I am to correctly edit the table.

See previous post, and let me know if this isn't covered by possibly adding a third column 'subgroup' to the spreadsheet.