Create Catagory Dispensational in Systematic Theologies Guide

Page 3 of 4 (63 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >
This post has 62 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2015 3:56 PM

abondservant:
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.  

abondservant:
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.       

 

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2015 4:28 PM

MJ. Smith:
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 Big Smile  

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.   

Posts 485
elnwood | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2015 4:43 PM

MJ. Smith:

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.

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2015 5:04 PM

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 

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2015 5:14 PM

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.

    

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2015 5:51 PM

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.

 

Posts 36330
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2015 6:41 PM

elnwood:

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.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 485
elnwood | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2015 7:21 PM

MJ. Smith:

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.

Posts 36330
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2015 8:03 PM

Both Rahner and von Balthasar wrote Systematic theologies.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 36330
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2015 8:28 PM

John Brumett:

M.J. with all respect.  I could turn this argument around, I could't trust a Roman Catholic to understand Protestant Theology Big Smile  

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.   

John, please read my posts more carefully. I don't trust him because of his choice of "experts" in an area with which I am familiar. And I don't trust him because Vatican II can in many ways be seen as the Catholic Church getting over the Counter-Reformation and returning to its roots. To use it as a primary distinction implies a historical view including only the last 1/4 of Christian history. And while I have no experience in the particular school of theology represented by Grudem, Chafer, et. al. I was raised in the Campbell-Stone movement and attended college when that required some familiarity with Barth and Tillich (which Time magazine encouraged).So I do have some knowledge of the theologies of some parts of the Protestants ... although I can give a much longer list of groups I do not know than that I do know. I have some significant reasons to believe that Grudem is capable of respectable academic work. That doesn't excuse him for being questioned regarding apparent sloppiness.

And, no, I don't let people by claiming Luther removed books from the Bible - New or Old Testament. Not let people cut the Orthodox out of Patristics. ...

And as for Catholic-Protestant theologians: "Karl Barth and Hans Urs von Balthasar are two of the most important theologians of the last century. Although one being Reformed and the other Catholic, they kept a lifelong friendship which also influenced their theological work. The book argues for the crucial influence of von Balthasar's meeting with and study of Barth for the emergence of his own great theological trilogy, beginning with The Glory of the Lord, continuing with the Theo-Drama and concluding with the Theo-Logic. In particular it argues that it is von Balthasar's debate with Barth over the analogy of being which is to determine the shape of von Balthasar's subsequent theology, structured as it is around the transcendentals of being, the beautiful, the good and the true. - See more at: http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/karl-barth-and-hans-urs-von-balthasar-9780567031914/#sthash.A4vdNuRR.dpuf "

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 3271
LogosEmployee
Phil Gons (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jun 5 2015 10:17 PM

Sorry I'm late to this discussion. We're being very careful not to blur theological system or viewpoint on a particular theological issue with denomination. Dispensationalism is not a denomination. It's a theological system. We're classifying theological systems separately from denominations. If a given author chose to be a part of a Baptist church, we're classifying him as a Baptist. If he held to a particular version of dispensationalism, we'll classify that separately. That data isn't exposed in this tool, but may be exposed in some other tools in the future.

Posts 10893
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 6 2015 7:02 AM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):
We're classifying theological systems separately from denominations. If a given author chose to be a part of a Baptist church, we're classifying him as a Baptist.

As I stated in a previous post, a theological classification of "Baptist" is practically worthless because there are so many divergent theological streams within that classification. Besides, "Baptist" is not a denomination—Which denomination do you mean by "Baptist"—SBC, IFB, ABC, Conservative, Bible, GARBC, Free Will, Seventh-Day, Primitive,…? I know there are others, but their names do not come to mind at the moment.

Phil Gons (Faithlife):
That data isn't exposed in this tool, but may be exposed in some other tools in the future.

If you want a really useful tool, you will expose that data.

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 6 2015 8:22 AM

Jack Caviness:
Which denomination do you mean by "Baptist"—SBC, IFB, ABC, Conservative, Bible, GARBC, Free Will, Seventh-Day, Primitive,…?

...and you didn't even mention "Reformed Baptist" which fits two FL categories.

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 485
elnwood | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 6 2015 8:50 AM

MJ. Smith:

Both Rahner and von Balthasar wrote Systematic theologies.

Which works are you thinking of? Do they cover all the major fields of Systematic Theology in them?

Posts 2285
Mark | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 6 2015 9:02 AM

I have been following this thread as I find it interesting.  What FL seems to be attempting is something nearly impossible.  There are several/many different streams of just about every denomination.  Baptist is a denomination.  It has split into many streams.  Catholicism also has various streams.  In Poland for example, there is the Polish Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church.  Presbyterians are varied as well.  Even the so called Plymouth brethren have various streams. It is probably best to categorize people according to their denomination or movement as a general category (although even this can be difficult). And secondly it would be good to categorize people according to their theological system as best as possible.  Hopefully down the road those classifications can become more specific or can be user tweaked according to a user's own classification system.

I would like to see who belongs to what movement / denomination AND I would like to see who belongs to what theological system.  It helps me if there are broad categories and then those broad categories can be divided into subcategories.  

Posts 612
John Brumett | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 6 2015 10:55 AM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):
Sorry I'm late to this discussion. We're being very careful not to blur theological system or viewpoint on a particular theological issue with denomination. Dispensationalism is not a denomination. It's a theological system. We're classifying theological systems separately from denominations. If a given author chose to be a part of a Baptist church, we're classifying him as a Baptist. If he held to a particular version of dispensationalism, we'll classify that separately. That data isn't exposed in this tool, but may be exposed in some other tools in the future.

Phil, I understand.  but don't neglect certain dispensational authors that should be moved to the nondenominational category.  Please review the specific authors in this thread that I listed that should be moved.  Many authors listed here before teaching at DTS were from various demoninations but after graduating attended Bible Churches which are nondenominational.  I believe your own criteria mentions the demoniation those authors are associated with at the time of writing the systematic theologies.  Thanks, I do appreciate this project and the work you are doing!

Posts 11433
DMB | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 6 2015 11:23 AM

I've also been curiously following.  Being of the Stone-Campbell tradition (but not denomination), the distinctions here are similar to the late second century and dealing with the knowledgers ... there were so many variations, the non-knowledgers became exhausted, arguing exactly which group was which.  

Maybe someone already observed that the rulebook for asssignments is denomination, but the tool title is theology.  I'd say change the title of the tool to be more honest of its categories.

But actually, I think Phil's approach has far more value to the broader potential Logosian customer.  I've always argued a Baptist Logos (or Catholic, etc) is needed to 'break into' the huge area of everyday Christians, who simply want to purchase something reasonably close to their own faith tradition.

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 36330
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 6 2015 12:54 PM

elnwood:

Which works are you thinking of? Do they cover all the major fields of Systematic Theology in them?

Karl Rahner: Foundations of Christian Faith

von Balthasar: Trilogy

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 36330
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 6 2015 1:12 PM

Denise:

But actually, I think Phil's approach has far more value to the broader potential Logosian customer.  I've always argued a Baptist Logos (or Catholic, etc) is needed to 'break into' the huge area of everyday Christians, who simply want to purchase something reasonably close to their own faith tradition.

Faithlife and this thread have concluded several times that there is more than one way to slice the data and that at least three are needed. Perhaps users need to think more in terms of clusters and outliers in order to understand what the dataset is attempting. And to be reminded that this is the 10,000 foot view. Given that we can tailor the collection to which this is applied, the primary concerns at this point in development are (a) are these divisions that everyone can understand i.e. are they common divisions outside Logos and (b) are there any major groups that are omitted that should be added before this goes live (limited to other systematic theology resources available in Logos format, of course.). Logos can never meet a "most useful to me" criteria for all users.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 1187
EastTN | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 6 2015 2:34 PM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):

Sorry I'm late to this discussion. We're being very careful not to blur theological system or viewpoint on a particular theological issue with denomination. Dispensationalism is not a denomination. It's a theological system. We're classifying theological systems separately from denominations. If a given author chose to be a part of a Baptist church, we're classifying him as a Baptist. If he held to a particular version of dispensationalism, we'll classify that separately. That data isn't exposed in this tool, but may be exposed in some other tools in the future.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

Page 3 of 4 (63 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS