Create Catagory Dispensational in Systematic Theologies Guide

I'm confused. Dispensationalism is a particular position taken by theologians of a variety of theological traditions (denominations). Wouldn't it be equivalent to requesting that praedobaptism/baptism of faith, real presence/symbolic eucharist etc.?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730781#Comment_730781

M.J. No, Dispensationalism is a system that affect every area of their Systematic Theology not just one point.

Dispensationalist hold to:

1. A distinction between Israel and the Church

2. Literal Interpretation

3. The Glory of God as the Chief goal of human history

Dispensationalist have a unique view of Eschatology. All of the ones listed believe in the Pre-Tribulational and Pre-Millennial Return of Christ for the Church. They believe in Israel's right to the land and a future restoration of Israel in the Kingdom.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730785#Comment_730785

Another point: All of these individuals graduated or taught at Dallas Theological Seminary. The leading Dispensational School in the country.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730786#Comment_730786

I am not convinced by your arguments Luckily it is for Faithlife to determine not for me to argue.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730792#Comment_730792

Dispensationalism is a system of theology that affects every area of systematic theology. They have a unique prospective on angels, man, sin, salvation, the spiritual life, prophecy, Israel, ect.

For example the first President of Dallas Theology Seminary was Chafer and he is listed as Nondemonational. The second President of Dallas Theological Seminary was Walvoord and he is listed as Presberytarian. Their theology is almost identical. The same with the other DTS grads. It is helpful if like systematic theologies are classifed together. Right now They are scattered among 4 categories.

This is different then say putting together every person who Believes the Trinity. This is one area of systematic theology whereas the Dispensationalist this I listed are together 95 percent on every area of Systematic Theology.

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730885#Comment_730885

John,

I agree with you, the prominent theologians that hold to dispensationalism, should be grouped into a separate category. I know that there are many denominations that generally hold to a dispensationalist view of scriptures, but I would want those Systematic theologies separated from those that are coming from a dispensationalist point of view.

I know that trying to separate different theologians by classification, is something that is complex and sometimes subjective. But I believe in this case it is warranted.

Most Pentecostal and Charismatic theologians hold to dispensationalism as well as most Southern Baptist, perhaps a dual listing? I'm not sure what would be best here for classification purposes.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730885#Comment_730885

Hi John.

We've gathered a lot of data about systematic theologies (both in Logos and in print but not in Logos … yet). Denominational/traditional affiliation of the author is only one of those items, and it is the one we chose to use as a resource-level filter for this tool.

We've also gathered information on views/systems like dispensationalism. Some systematic theologies come from Calvinist perspectives, others from other perspectives such as unitarianism; others focus on covenantal issues. There is wide variety.

MJ's point about dispensationalism as a system applying to aspects of multiple denominational traditions that overlap was pretty much our perspective as the data was gathered and as we considered organizing principles for the Passage Guide section.

Anyway, we're considering using all the other data about systematic theologies and their authors in some sort of interactive resource down the road, and this information on views/systems like Calvinism, Arminiansm, Dispensationalism, etc., will be utilized there.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730958#Comment_730958

The problem with this is that all these theologians come from the same school (Dallas theological Seminary) and teach the same things. Dr. Walvoord was not teaching a Presbyterian form of Dispensationalism and Dr. Lightner a Baptist form of dispensationalism. They are both teaching Dispensationalism. There are no Charismatic dispensationalist listed. If you want to classify them according to Denominational Categories then place them all together under independant or under non-denominational. Independent would be better because the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary Chafer is listed under that category. By the way Chafer was a Presbyterian but please do not put him under that category.

Right now all these authors are scattered under 4 separate categories (independant, nondenominational, Presbyterian and Baptist) and the theologies are the same.

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730952#Comment_730952

Most Pentecostal and Charismatic theologians hold to dispensationalism as well as most Southern Baptist, perhaps a dual listing? I'm not sure what would be best here for classification purposes.

There are also a number of Calvinists who are also dispensationalists (although JFM calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist").

Maybe someone could program a dynamic 3D Larkin-esque chart to show the various streams for the guide, although it might require a new dataset [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731131#Comment_731131

The problem with this is that all these theologians come from the same school (Dallas theological Seminary) and teach the same things.

So should there be a Princeton Theological Seminary theologies? The Princeton Theology, The Princeton Modernist Theology ....

From Wikipedia:

"During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Princeton Theological Seminary received widespread attention for its defense of Calvinistic Presbyterianism, a tradition which became known as Princeton Theology and greatly influenced Evangelicalism during the period. In response to the increasing influence of theological liberalism in the 1920s and the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy at the institution, several theologians left to form the Westminster Theological Seminary under the leadership of J. Gresham Machen."

It is not at all uncommon to have theologians who share beliefs in some areas of theology to be spread across multiple theological schools whether those schools of thought are identified by denomination or academic tags. If I recall correctly, dispensationalism traces through the Plymouth Brethren and has spread from those roots.

Given the position of Chafer in the chart below, I would expect DTS to be in the dispensational thread. His cofounder of DTSS William Griffith Thomas appears to identified himself as Anglican with dispensational beliefs. And it appears that Chafer would identify himself as Congregationalist with dispensational beliefs. Or am I missing something?

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730958#Comment_730958

We've gathered a lot of data about systematic theologies (both in Logos and in print but not in Logos … yet). Denominational/traditional affiliation of the author is only one of those items, and it is the one we chose to use as a resource-level filter for this tool.

We've also gathered information on views/systems like dispensationalism. Some systematic theologies come from Calvinist perspectives, others from other perspectives such as unitarianism; others focus on covenantal issues. There is wide variety.

MJ's point about dispensationalism as a system applying to aspects of multiple denominational traditions that overlap was pretty much our perspective as the data was gathered and as we considered organizing principles for the Passage Guide section.

Anyway, we're considering using all the other data about systematic theologies and their authors in some sort of interactive resource down the road, and this information on views/systems like Calvinism, Arminiansm, Dispensationalism, etc., will be utilized there.

MJ's comments notwithstanding, by not classifying Dispensationalist theologians you have made the tool less useful for me.

Within 10 miles of where I sit, I can name Arminian Baptists and Double-Predestination Baptist, and every gradation between. We have Dispensational Baptist and Covenant Amil Baptists, Very Liberal Baptists and KJV Only Baptists. The only common theological position we all hold is Believer's Baptism. Given all that, Baptist is an absolutely useless theological category.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731191#Comment_731191

Mj;

We have a Reformed category which includes multiple denominations. Why not a dispensational category?

Here is a quote from Wickapedia article on Reformed:

The biggest Reformed association is the World Communion of Reformed Churches with more than 80 million members in 211 member denominations around the world.^[

I am trying to simply things so that similar theologies can be place in the same categories.

Some theological systems are more easily tied to a particular denomination. But dispensational theology transcends these categories.

Example say you have a baseball player from Ohio who plays for the Texas Rangers. How would you classify him. The fact that he is from Ohio is not as important as the fact that now he is a Texas Ranger and plays on that team.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731140#Comment_731140

So should there be a Princeton Theological Seminary theologies? The Princeton Theology, The Princeton Modernist Theology ..

M.J. You are actually making my point I don't want to further scatter like theologies into many categories but place all the dispensation writers under one category so as a Dispensationist I can use this good tool. I want to make this more user friendly [:D] Right now all the dispensational writers are under 4 different categories. From a practical standpoint these writers have the same theology and should all be under the same category.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731222#Comment_731222

We are going to have serious problems meeting everyones' needs because of some very basic differences in experience:

those who come from traditions that hold together wide differences / those who split over every small detail
those who view theological trends over centuries / those who view theological trends over decades

I want Logos to stick to a classification that is commonly used outside religious circles to give the view from 10,000 feet. Beyond that the user should create their own collections.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731291#Comment_731291

I want Logos to stick to a classification that is commonly used outside religious circles to give the view from 10,000 feet.

So do I. I don't think you understand what I am asking. I am not asking to create additional categories except 1. Dispensational writers are listed under 4 current categories Baptist, Independent, Nondenominational and Presbyterian. I simply want these authors that I mentioned earlier to be moved to one catagory Dispensationalist. Is that making things more complex?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731357#Comment_731357

Here is an example for the book in logos 5 views of sanctification:

We have the Wesylen perspective which is a category in logos

We have the Reformed perspective which is a category in logos

We have the Pentecostal perspective which is a category in logos

We have the Keswick perspective- as far as I know they are no Keswick systematic theologies in Logos

and then the Augustinian-Dispensational perspective by John Walvoord who is currently classifies as Presbyterian His catrgory as in the book should be Dispensational

His current book in logos is called what we believe.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731357#Comment_731357

I want Logos to stick to a classification that is commonly used outside religious circles to give the view from 10,000 feet.

So do I. I don't think you understand what I am asking. I am not asking to create additional categories except 1. Dispensational writers are listed under 4 current categories Baptist, Independent, Nondenominational and Presbyterian. I simply want these authors that I mentioned earlier to be moved to one catagory Dispensationalist. Is that making things more complex?

I do understand what you want. But when I go to theological sources in my library they are described as having a distinctive eschatology not a complete systematic theology. And those proposing dispensational views call themselves Baptist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Nondenominational ... they don't ask the Yellow Pages for a Dispensationalist title. To my mind, Restorationist, Plymouth Brethren, Congregationalist, Holiness movement are more complete theological streams.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731291#Comment_731291

I want Logos to stick to a classification that is commonly used outside religious circles to give the view from 10,000 feet.

I am not sure I can agree that this view is most helpful. I'd like to understand how you see the thought expressed in your tag line bearing upon the matter. Aren't theologians so defined inevitably to be found mostly in religious circles?

Is theology really best treated in nonreligiously affiliated institutions and settings?

I am still trying to understand the usefulness of the new Systematic Theologies guide as it is presently constituted. I'm at a disadvantage because I am temporarily unable to update the desktop application to support it.

When the new tool was announced I imagined something different, more topically arranged.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731370#Comment_731370

I want Logos to stick to a classification that is commonly used outside religious circles to give the view from 10,000 feet.

I am not sure I can agree that this view is most helpful. I'd like to understand how you see the thought expressed in your tag line bearing upon the matter. Aren't theologians so defined inevitably to be found mostly in religious circles?

. . .

When the new tool was announced I imagined something different, more topically arranged.

As I see the issue, most of us, myself very much included, know "our segment" of theology so well that we can't see the forest for the trees. We want to make distinctions that are important in our corner but often draw a blank stare in other circles. There are a few other segments that we know well enough to see the forests - often because they are the forests we separated from i.e. we learned our theology in contrast to these forests. The rest is so unknown to us as to be unable to distinguish even basic ecosystems - broad leaf, evergreen, rain .... What Logos is attempting to do is give us a map of the forests - broad strokes that we can quickly learn to understand whether it falls into our tree, forest or ecosystem knowledge.

That is why I am willing to let Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine tradition), Oriental Orthodox (Syriac tradition) and Assyrian Church (Nestorian Syriac) be merged although they are historically distinct and current world events are making us more aware of them and the distinctions. That is why I think the Restorationist need their own category (their theology is very Lockean and hence quite distinctive). It is why I think there needs to be more explicit treatment of the Puritans, Congregationalist and Holiness movements

When Logos announced this I was thinking more along the lines of a history of thought approach. What they have done is a much more manageable and less subjective project although there are some very good computer generated spheres of influence applications which I would love to see in Logos when I trust the underlying data. But then I had different expectations of the reference capability of the concordance - I'd expected the base data for sphere of influence studies.

What Logos is delivering will get me using more of the unfamiliar theological books in my library because it gives me a context (forest level) in which to read snippets.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731369#Comment_731369

But when I go to theological sources in my library they are described as having a distinctive eschatology not a complete systematic theology.

Also Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"The theology of dispensationalism consists of a distinctive eschatological end times perspective, as all dispensationalists hold to premillennialism and most hold to a pretribulation rapture. Dispensationalists believe that the nation of Israel is distinct from the Christian Church, and that God has yet to fulfill his promises to national Israel. These promises include the land promises, which in the future world to come result in a millennial kingdom and Third Temple where Christ, upon his return, will rule the world from Jerusalem for a thousand years. In other areas of theology, dispensationalists hold to a wide range of beliefs within the evangelical and fundamentalist spectrum."

Dispensationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To my mind, Restorationist, Plymouth Brethren, Congregationalist, Holiness movement are more complete theological streams.

I think I agree.

Writing in the following thread has bearing on the present discussion: NEW Dispensational Theology Base Package

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731375#Comment_731375

Okay, it took me a while but I have the solution - which would be very useful but doable for Logos AND would provide the dispensational category. Treat the historical/denominational classification as one way to categorize theologians. Then classify theologians by movement - not all would belong to a particular movement; some would belong to more than one. Example classes

dispensationalism
fundamentalism
liberation theology
feminism
constructive theology
Oxford movement
liberal theology
neo-orthodoxy
process theology
apophatic theology
pietism ....

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731379#Comment_731379

Then classify theologians by movement - not all would belong to a particular movement; some would belong to more than one

At time being I think this arrangement would be more helpful to me. I am currently more interested in comparing the treatment of scripture along this type of classification than I am denominationally.

Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731381#Comment_731381

Then classify theologians by movement - not all would belong to a particular movement; some would belong to more than one

At time being I think this arrangement would be more helpful to me. I am currently more interested in comparing the treatment of scripture along this type of classification than I am denominationally.

Time for me to add my thoughts: I agree with JAL. This type of classification is far more helpful to me than denominational classifications could ever be.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731379#Comment_731379

Then classify theologians by movement - not all would belong to a particular movement; some would belong to more than one. Example classes

A much better arrangement than the present one.

fundamentalism

I trust that you mean the original Biblical Fundamentalism, as expressed in The Fundamentals—rather then the modern Cultural Fundamentalism based on tradition and preacher peer pressure.

Matt Hamrick

It amazes me there is pressure now for Dispensational stuff, yet John Nelson Darby's collected works sits stagnant for 3 years. He is the father of dispensation is he not? Yet, there are no bids on the Collected Work of John Nelson Darby.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731381#Comment_731381

Then classify theologians by movement - not all would belong to a particular movement; some would belong to more than one

At time being I think this arrangement would be more helpful to me. I am currently more interested in comparing the treatment of scripture along this type of classification than I am denominationally.

I think we have finally gotten to the root of the problem that Logos faces -- several of the categories I offered I would normally associate with a form of Bible criticism rather than theology. When I would apply them to theology it would rarely be systematic theology -- exceptions: Karl Barth as neo-orthodox, Teilhard de Chardin as process theology ...

We have put Logos in a curious situation - asking that the "Systematic Theologies" section of the Passage Guide be arrangable by Bible Criticism categories more appropriate to commentaries or Bible monographs.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730958#Comment_730958

Rick, I was looking through my collection and what is available in Logos that I don't own. I would REALLY, REALLY like to hasve two similar sections - one for catechisms and one for creeds and confessions. I also noted that there are several documents in the Early American History collection that would belong in these categories. As Logos does not thoroughly tag these mass purchase items, thought needs to be given to (a) either include them or (b) provide an easy way for the users to add them.

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731379#Comment_731379

Okay, it took me a while but I have the solution - which would be very useful but doable for Logos AND would provide the dispensational category. Treat the historical/denominational classification as one way to categorize theologians. Then classify theologians by movement - not all would belong to a particular movement; some would belong to more than one. Example classes

dispensationalism

fundamentalism

liberation theology

feminism

constructive theology

Oxford movement

liberal theology

neo-orthodoxy

process theology

apophatic theology

pietism ....

I would rather see these worked in as a sub-category under the present scheme of things.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731528#Comment_731528

I have a few days off starting tomorrow and am eager to get my desktop configured with this new tool so I may better assess the benefit.

We have put Logos in a curious situation - asking that the "Systematic Theologies" section of the Passage Guide be arrangable by Bible Criticism categories more appropriate to commentaries or Bible monographs.

When I first saw the Systematic Theologies Guide mentioned I imagined it would be arranged along the generally recognized departments of systematic theology. Wikipedia proposes the following Categories:

Theology proper – The study of the character of God
Bibliology – The study of the bible
Christology – The study of Christ
Pneumatology – The study of the Holy Spirit
Soteriology – The study of salvation
Theological anthropology – The study of the nature of humanity.
Hamartiology - The study of sin
Angelology – The study of angels
Ecclesiology – The study of the church
Eschatology – The study of the end times

A topical arrangement is suggested by the summary paragraph in the Contemporary usage section of the same Wikipedia article.

"In all three senses, Christian systematic theology will often touch on some or all of the following topics: God, trinitarianism, revelation, creation and divine providence, theodicy, theological anthropology, Christology, soteriology,ecclesiology, eschatology, Israelology, Bibliology, hermeneutics, sacrament, pneumatology, Christian life, Heaven, and interfaith statements on other religions."

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731661#Comment_731661

When I first saw the Systematic Theologies Guide mentioned I imagined it would be arranged along the generally recognized departments of systematic theology.

You can see this view by clicking "Subject" in the upper-right. (It's then subdivided by denomination.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731684#Comment_731684

You can see this view by clicking "Subject" in the upper-right. (It's then subdivided by denomination.)

Thanks Bradley. FWIW - I had been holding back from posting because I don't currently have access to the tool and thus my awareness is limited to what I see in the forum discussions.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731373#Comment_731373

Please move John Walvoord and his book "What We Believe" to the non-denominational category.

Dr. Walvoord has been attending Bible Churches in the Dallas, TX area since the 1950's. He attended Northwest Bible Church which is non-denominational and then later Reinhardt Bible Church which is non-denominational. His book "What We Believe" was written in 1990 nearly 40 years after he left the Presbyterian Church. I believe the criteria of the classification is the author's denominational association at the time of writing. Presbyterians have distanced themselves from Dispensational Teaching since the 1940's because of Dispensation strong contrast between law and grace.

Here is a quote from Dr. Walvoord's autobiography:

What had been happening in regard to fundamentalism and dispensationalism in the Presbyterian Church up to the 1950s brought about a turning point in my life. It was very personal, yet it made me realized the confusion about prophetic issues and the teachings of dispensationalism. In the 1930s and 1940s the leaders in the southern Presbyterian denomination never confront me or call me a heretic as a result of my dispensationalism, although they were progressively turning against that view. While a pastor in the Rosen Heights church, I was a member of the Fort Worth Presbytery. By 1950, I had become heavily involved with the seminary and decided to move to Dallas. But the Presbytery in Dallas didn't like the school and ruled that DTS doctrinal focus wasn't acceptable to their way of thinking. Because I had no intention of leaving the school, I would have to resign from membership in the Presbytery. I asked for a letter of transfer to the independent fundamental churches of America. But instead of giving me that letter, the Presbytery simply struck my name from the role and refused to issue the document as they normally did for transferring pastors. They tried to get me upset, but I wouldn't budge or be intimidated. They even offered me the pastorate of a large Presbyterian Church in another area if I would leave the seminary. This confusion turmoil went on for a year, but they finally gave in and send a letter of dismissal with approval. Whether I was Presbyterian in Church government didn't make that much difference because, after all, the school (Dallas Theological Seminary) wasn't Presbyterian.

Blessed Hope The Autobiography of John F. Walvoord with Mal Couch AMG Publishers, 2001 page 81-82

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/732811#Comment_732811

Please move John Walvoord and his book "What We Believe" to the non-denominational category.

Thanks for the note, John. I've made sure that those doing the classification are aware of this post.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/732832#Comment_732832

Thanks for the note, John. I've made sure that those doing the classification are aware of this post.

Thanks Rick [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733175#Comment_733175

Please move Dr. Lightener from the Baptist category to the non-denominational category. His theology is clearly Dispensational.

I personally sat under Dr. Lightner's teaching at Dallas Theological Seminary and he has taught many times at the Bible Church that I Pastor in the Dallas area. While Dr. Lightner attended a Baptist School before attending Dallas Theological Seminary in the mid to late 60's. when he arrived on the faculty at DTS he became a member of Mesquite Bible Church which is non-denominational and dispensational.

Most Bible Church in the Dallas Fort-Worth area we started by individuals from DTS. These churches are nondenominational and dispensational.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733177#Comment_733177

Dr. John Feinberg and Dr. Paul Feinberg's Theology is Dispensational. They have both spoken at the Pre-Trib Study group which is an organization created for the defense of the Pre-Trib Rapture and Dispensationalism.

Here is a link to their papers presented at this conference:

http://www.pre-trib.org/articles

Dr. John Feinberg

Dr. Paul Feinberg

elnwood

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733177#Comment_733177

I think that if you're going to classify a PERSON by their denominational background, you can attach what denomination they are a part of (Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, etc.).

But if you're going to classify SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGIES, you need a different schema altogether, and "dispensational" is a necessary category.

For example, when Grudem categorizes systematic theologies, he uses the following: 1. Anglican (Episcopalian), 2. Arminian (Wesleyan or Methodist), 3. Baptist, 4. Dispensational, 5. Lutheran, 6. Reformed (or Presbyterian), 7. Renewal (or charismatic/Pentecostal), 8. Roman Catholic: Traditional, and 9. Roman Catholic: Post-Vatican II.

The Presbyterian Church in the United States passed a report in 1944 denouncing dispensationalism, and that was the beginning of the end of dispensationalism in Presbyterianism. There are (almost?) no dispensationalist theologians in Presbyterianism today. So classifying Chafer or Walvoord's Systematic works as "Presbyterian," though they were at one time, is clearly unhelpful.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733248#Comment_733248

For example, when Grudem categorizes systematic theologies, he uses the following: 1. Anglican (Episcopalian), 2. Arminian (Wesleyan or Methodist), 3. Baptist, 4. Dispensational, 5. Lutheran, 6. Reformed (or Presbyterian), 7. Renewal (or charismatic/Pentecostal), 8. Roman Catholic: Traditional, and 9. Roman Catholic: Post-Vatican II.

I certainly would not trust Grudem on this topic if he thinks there are two Roman Catholic theologies - it implies a very short perspective on theological history and an American bias towards division.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733285#Comment_733285

I counted myself as a dispensationalist for a time, and in truth, I am probably still largely dispensational in my eschatology. However I am wandering through covenant theology at the moment and decidedly calvinistic (though perhaps more in line with calvins teachings than what is put out as calvinism today) in my soteriology.

That said - should I ever write a book, you'd have a hard time classifying me as anything concrete.

Calvinistic Covenant Dispensationalst? Check.

The point being that people and their systematic beliefs are seldom ever as cleanly cut as we would like. Most people don't fit neatly into a single box.

One can be baptist, and reformed (in their soteriology). One can be baptist, reformed (in their soteriology), and charismatic (third wave I'd suspect) in their pneumatology. One can be Baptist, Reformed, Charismatic, and also call themselves a dispensationalist.

This kind of a la carte theology is not all bad, just hard to quantify.

A wise man once told me that if you take all of one mans theology, you've probably got some pretty serious errors. But if you take ALL of the bible, and then a little of this theology (where it makes sense to do so) and a little of that theologians theology, and compile your own "mugwump" view you'll be better off.

I see denominational headings first, followed by theological positions second. Though the theological positions are probably both more interesting and more difficult to nail down.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733311#Comment_733311

One can be Baptist, Reformed, Charismatic, and also call themselves a dispensationalist.

Lets deal with the current authors in question.

Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie, Lightner, Enns, ect- all reject the continuation of the sign gifts. Not one of them are charismatic.

These current writers in Dispensationalism are more united then divided in their theology. I sure you can break up reformed into various categories but there are common beliefs that make those writers Reformed.

This kind of a la carte theology is not all bad, just hard to quantify

Not with these men!

Certainly people can accept or reject certain parts of a theological position but these authors who have written on dispensationalism are united in their systematic theology. That is why I seek a separate classification to make it easier for everyone to identify their theology.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733285#Comment_733285

I certainly would not trust Grudem on this topic if he thinks there are two Roman Catholic theologies - it implies a very short perspective on theological history and an American bias towards division.

M.J. with all respect. I could turn this argument around, I could't trust a Roman Catholic to understand Protestant Theology [:D]

Just because he may not classify Roman Catholicism as you like it doesn't mean as a Protestant he does't understand the distinctions with Protestantism.

elnwood

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733285#Comment_733285

I certainly would not trust Grudem on this topic if he thinks there are two Roman Catholic theologies - it implies a very short perspective on theological history and an American bias towards division.

The Systematic Theology Grudem uses for Roman Catholic: Traditional is Ludwig Ott, and for Roman Catholic: Post-Vatican II, Richard McBrien.

Richard McBrien was a theologian at Notre Dame, and was president of the Catholic Theological Society. His Systematic, though, was denied an Imprimatur for his Systematic Theology, and has been criticized by the USCCB. So I think Grudem is correct in dividing these Roman Catholic theologians, as Roman Catholicism itself is divided on them.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733345#Comment_733345

Please list Henry Thiessen Lectures in Systematic Theology as Dispensational. Here is a quote from a web sight dealing with his bio.

"Thiessen was a popular but demanding instructor, firmly committed to dispensationalism. Sadly, this brought him into conflict with Dr. Gordon H. Clark, professor of philosophy and equally committed to Covenant theology.

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2013/08/henry-thiessen-wheaton-gordon-clark-and.html

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733350#Comment_733350

Please move Paul P. Enns Moody Handbook of Theology from Baptist to non-denominational. Paul P. Enns was a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary which is a non-denominational school. He is a dispensationalist.

Even thought he is involved in the Southern Baptist church his view of church government is broader than Southern Baptist.

Here is a quote from the Moody Handbook of Theology:

The presbyterian form of church government has strong support for its view of the plurality of the elders; there are many New Testament examples. The New Testament, however, reveals no organization beyond the local church.
The congregational form of church government finds biblical support for all the people being involved in the decision-making of the church. It can safely be said that elements of both the presbyterian and congregational forms of church government find support in Scripture.

Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 359.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733352#Comment_733352

Please move William Evens who wrote "The Great Doctrines of the Bible" frorm Presbyterian to the non-denominational category. William Evens is Dispensational. The reviser and updater of the book Maxwell S. Coder graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary and is Dispensational also.

He believes in a Pre-Trib Rapture

The word popularly applied to the translation of the church at the end of the present age comes from a Latin verb rapio, to seize or to snatch away. The first clear revelation of the rapture of believers is found in John 14:3, where Christ promised to come again and receive His followers unto Himself. Some see this prefigured in the translation of Enoch prior to the destruction of the antediluvian world, Heb. 11:5.
The central passage dealing with the rapture is 1 Thess. 4:13–18. The Lord will descend from heaven, the dead in Christ will rise first, then all living believers will be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air, to be with Him forever after. This revelation expands the outline of events given by Christ in John 14:3 by adding a number of previously unrevealed details. The change which is to take place in Christians in the twinkling of an eye at the rapture is described in 1 Cor. 15:35–54. It will be accomplished by the power with which Christ will “subdue all things unto himself,” Phil. 3:20, 21.

William Evans and S. Maxwell Coder, The Great Doctrines of the Bible, Enl. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 312.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733345#Comment_733345

The Systematic Theology Grudem uses for Roman Catholic: Traditional is Ludwig Ott, and for Roman Catholic: Post-Vatican II, Richard McBrien.

Richard McBrien was a theologian at Notre Dame, and was president of the Catholic Theological Society. His Systematic, though, was denied an Imprimatur for his Systematic Theology, and has been criticized by the USCCB. So I think Grudem is correct in dividing these Roman Catholic theologians, as Roman Catholicism itself is divided on them.

Catholics make a number of divisions in systematic theology - Thomist, Augustian ic a common division; Franciscan, Jesuit, Benedictine, Neo-Thomist ... are common distinctions. Many well-respected theologians have been censured, denied imprimaturs etc.- it says little about whether their over-all perspective is Catholic - sometimes it is a small sliver of their overall theology, sometimes it is a misunderstanding, someitmes it is religious politics. Ludvig Ott is hardly a major theologian - he is a professor who assembled the standard reference book of dogmatics If you want a theologian who represents traditional conservative Catholicism, the first name that should come to mind is Thomas Aquinas - who is a systematic theologian. As for McBrien's Catholicism is still a popular book for laity and for individuals considering conversion. But again, McBrien is basically a popularizer with his primary interest being ecclesiology, one I like very much at times. But again, he is not an influential theologian. If Grudem wanted to represent 20th century theology he should chose among the major theologians of the era - Karl Rahner, Henri du Lubac, Yves Congar or Hans Urs von Balthasar. And, yes, a lay employee of the Seattle Symphony provided lectures in the parishes to be sure we knew our Urs von Balthasar ... and yes, three of those four were associated with the "New theology" which Pope Pius XII condemned.

Unfortunately your defense of Grudem left me with even more a suspicion of probable ignorance on his part. To me it sounds as unwise as if I were to try to understand Jack Cottrell without reading Thomas Campbell and Locke. Or to try to understand Wesley without reading any Moravians or Pietists. I can't imagine trying to cover basic Catholic systematic theology without starting at the great systematic Summa Theologica.

elnwood

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733364#Comment_733364

Unfortunately your defense of Grudem left me with even more a suspicion of probable ignorance on his part. To me it sounds as unwise as if I were to try to understand Jack Cottrell without reading Thomas Campbell and Locke. Or to try to understand Wesley without reading any Moravians or Pietists. I can't imagine trying to cover basic Catholic systematic theology without starting at the great systematic Summa Theologica.

It's not really Grudem's purpose to cover Catholic systematic theology. In fact, he doesn't even attempt to. His purpose is to write an evangelical systematic theology with evangelical presuppositions.

Grudem lists representative systematic works at the end of each chapter to show how other systematics cover the same material .He doesn't interact at all with Lugwig or Ott in his text; they're strictly cited as references.

As far as I know, Rahner, Lubac, Congar or von Balthasar have not written a comprehensive systematic theology to serve as a reference in that respect. Perhaps he could have cited relevant sections in Aquinas' Summa Theologica, but it's not really organized the way modern systematics are, so it doesn't really serve his purpose.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/733372#Comment_733372

Both Rahner and von Balthasar wrote Systematic theologies.