New MacArthur Systematic Theology

How come John MacArthur's new Systematic Theology book that came out today is not appearing in my systematic theology section of the passage guide and when I tell it to search all systematic theologies on a verse that I know appears in MacArthur's book, it is not there either. I purchase these books with the assumption that they will operate correctly and appear in the proper sections and perform searches right. Is there something that I am missing?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rick Brannan (Logos)

How come John MacArthur's new Systematic Theology book that came out today is not appearing in my systematic theology section of the passage guide

Because the data underneath the systematic theology section is based on the shipping version of the resource, there is a slight lag between publication of the resource and inclusion in the systematic theology guide section. It should show up on the May 2 release unless we're able to slip it in on the Monday (April 17) resource release.

Keith Pang

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/896770#Comment_896770

Hope to see it integrated soon!

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/896770#Comment_896770

How come John MacArthur's new Systematic Theology book that came out today is not appearing in my systematic theology section of the passage guide

Because the data underneath the systematic theology section is based on the shipping version of the resource, there is a slight lag between publication of the resource and inclusion in the systematic theology guide section. It should show up on the May 2 release unless we're able to slip it in on the Monday (April 17) resource release.

So, we have the resource but it is completely not searchable until Logos releases that capability? I just performed a basic search for "regeneration" within my systematic theology section and MacArthur's book is in that collection but it returned no results from that resource. Is this because of the same lag time that you are referring? This lag time seems to be a little bit silly. What good is the resource if you cannot search it? If that is the case, I should have just purchased the hardback book. It seems that Logos would make sure that the book was ready to go when they released it and charged their customer for the resources!!!

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/896790#Comment_896790

I appreciate what you're saying, but the extra data that drives the systematic theology section is not built as part of the resource, it is an extra dataset. The guide section for systematic theologies (and for biblical theologies, and for confessional documents, and for grammars) require these extra datasets that involve a lot of processing time and capability. It isn't simply a reference search, it is data derived from the resource by a separate process which extracts, evaluates, and classifies the context in which each Bible reference occurs. If you're interested in the underlying process, I presented a paper at BibleTech 2015 on how the process works for Grammars. The Systematic Theologies data is generated using the same basic process, only different vocabularies, training data, and rules. Here's the paper: https://rwbrannan.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/2015bibletech-grammar-xrefs.pdf . More information is available in the dataset documentation resource: https://ref.ly/logosres/cidbdocsystheoref;art=art2

I'm actually running the processes to generate the dataset right now on my laptop at home. But this is not a simple thing, it involves a tremendous amount of data in order for the classifiers to function properly. I'm crossing my fingers that I'll be able to slip it in on Monday and will be monitoring the process all weekend.

The resource that was shipped to users is fully searchable. I just did a search for "doctrine" and located 462 instances. You can use the search menu, or right-click context menu, just as with any other resource (once it is indexed, of course, but that should happen automatically).

I'm sorry it's not currently functioning with the guide section as you'd expected. I'm doing my best to try to slip something in the next resource update, but can't make any guarantees it will be completed on time.

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/896797#Comment_896797

Thank you for your answer, Rick, and for your hardwork to help us Pastors study better.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/896850#Comment_896850

I've been informed that I was able to get things done on time, and the resource publishing team was able to stage the new resource properly in order to ship it today.

Our normal process is to have things done and staged on Thursday, then ship on Monday. So big thanks to the folks involved who made this thing happen today.

Since I didn't have time to consult anyone on what doctrinal affiliation should be associated with John MacArthur, I classed the resource as "Nondenominational," which seemed appropriate. If you think it should be different, please let me know in a reply to this post.

Keith Pang

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/897067#Comment_897067

Very cool! Thanks

David Pugh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/897067#Comment_897067

I'd ask that it be classified as "reformed." Though broadly reformed, it's a better description.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/897097#Comment_897097

I'd ask that it be classified as "reformed." Though broadly reformed, it's a better description.

More like Baptist-Calvinist since he believes in "once saved, always saved."

DAL

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/897097#Comment_897097

I'd ask that it be classified as "reformed." Though broadly reformed, it's a better description.

I stayed away from "reformed" due to (my understanding of) his position on infant baptism. I'll bring the question to the Faithlife Systematic Theology group where some classification has been discussed before.

Phil Gons (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/897097#Comment_897097

I'd ask that it be classified as "reformed." Though broadly reformed, it's a better description.

David, we're making a distinction between denomination and theological system. It's an easy to conflate the two, but they are separate.

One's denomination is defined by the denomination of their church. Grace Community Church is nondenominational, so that is the correct designation.

Now, GCC lines up pretty closely with (some) Baptist views on governance/polity and baptism, but that doesn't make them part of a Baptist denomination. It means that hold to certain theological positions that align with those of some Baptist churches. They also hold to many theological positions that align with Calvinism. But, again, Calvinism / Reformed theology is a theological system, not a denomination.

In the future, we'll need theological system/position metadata, which will give you what you're looking for, I think.

David Pugh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/897164#Comment_897164

Copy Phil. Appreciate your thorough response and understand now where you're headed in grouping by denomination and then (in the future) tagging with theological system metadata. Thank you and also to Rick Brannan for making this so useful!

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/897164#Comment_897164

Phil,

Any chance this might happen sooner than later? The Systematic Theology section is one of the more useful new tools in the PG and the interactive. its tools like these that really make my studying fun with unintended discoveries.

Best,

John Brumett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/897234#Comment_897234

I believe non-denominational is the best category since Ryrie and Chafer are also listed there. MacArthur is a dispensationalist but that is not listed as a separate category. All of them believe in a Pretribulational Rapture.

Robert Kostenbauder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/897164#Comment_897164

I think you could probably use MacArthur own description taken from the Preface of the book.

"While many would label us fundamentalists, this term can be historically and pejoratively misleading. For almost four decades, we have periodically considered what one word would best describe us. Futurists, normalists, and sovereigntists have been considered but set aside because none of these adequately capture the one, most essential element of our theology. While not a perfect term, we have chosen biblicists, because at the core of our convictions lies an unshakable trust in God’s inerrant and infallible Bible, rightly interpreted."

Would this be adequate.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/897245#Comment_897245

we have chosen biblicists

Fine, but nearly every "conservative" would consider themselves such... Again, the current designation is for denomination. Since he is "non-denominational," (which is quite broad), that is where it fits best.

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/897067#Comment_897067

I've been informed that I was able to get things done on time, and the resource publishing team was able to stage the new resource properly in order to ship it today.

Our normal process is to have things done and staged on Thursday, then ship on Monday. So big thanks to the folks involved who made this thing happen today.

Since I didn't have time to consult anyone on what doctrinal affiliation should be associated with John MacArthur, I classed the resource as "Nondenominational," which seemed appropriate. If you think it should be different, please let me know in a reply to this post.

Thanks, Rick

Pastor Michael Huffman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/897145#Comment_897145

I'd ask that it be classified as "reformed." Though broadly reformed, it's a better description.

I stayed away from "reformed" due to (my understanding of) his position on infant baptism. I'll bring the question to the Faithlife Systematic Theology group where some classification has been discussed before.

I would keep him where he is; although, as John's own admission he is more Baptist than anything. He is also a dispensationalists, which is a far cry from Reformed on that matter. So, if he is moved at all, I would think that he would fir better under Baptist.

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/898368#Comment_898368

MacArthur's Systematic Theology does not show in the systematic theologies interactive

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/907341#Comment_907341

Biblical Doctrine by MacArthur does still not appear in the systematic theology interactive

Bump