• started a discussion

    Important Non-Protestant Stuff Missing from Existing LST Articles

    Add more at your leisure.

    1. The articles in LST dealing with revelation do not even mention the crucial terms "public revelation" and "private revelation", which are the terms used by Catholics to make what is from a Catholic perspective a fundamental distinction between types of revelation.
    2. The term "natural revelation" is mentioned once in passing and "supernatural revelation" never occurs. These latter two terms are the ones used by Catholics (rather than the ones in the articles), so the present articles on revelation are rather unhelpful to Catholics, and the terminology in the articles is rather unhelpful for any non-Catholic who may ever be interested in looking up how Catholics address revelation.
  • started a discussion

    ToC Issues

    With the LST open, the ToC on the left set, under "Attributes of the Church" deals with

    1. Universal
    2. Unity
    3. Holiness
    4. Apostolic

    This is is the order used in the resource itself.

    In the resource's actual ToC, we find:

    1. Unity
    2. Holiness
    3. Universal
    4. Apostolic

    This is the traditional order, used in the Nicene Creed (unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam, in Latin), and is probably the one that should actually be used in the LST itself.

    (Interestingly, the links in the resource's actual ToC do point to the correct headings, even though those headings are in the wrong order in the resource itself.)

    I would request that the discrepancy noted above be fixed, preferably in favour of the traditional order. Thanks!

  • [This is a test post to see if I've correctly set group permissions for posting] In "Church-based Theological Education: Creating a New Paradigm" (http://www.cc-amesdsm.org/download/paradigmPapers/1_Creating%20a%20New%20Paradigm.pdf), Jeff Reed, CEO and Founder of BILD Interational, says (in a footnote): > Harvey Conn argues persuasively in Eternal Word, Changing Worlds, 1984, both correcting and building upon the work of Charles Kraft, that our systematic theology categories are far more culturally specific than any of us are aware, and that these categories are not appropriate to many cultures in which we need to enter today. Careful and disciplined biblical theology, together with a thorough examination of the culture in which one ministers, are the needed ingredients in building a relevant “belief framework in culture,” or doing theology in culture in a way which relates to the predominant world views of those being ministered to. I haven't read the work cited, though I have much respect for the work of Dr. Kraft. Do you see ways in which the LSTO categories are inappropriate to cultures outside contemporary Western society?
    1. This is a test answer. :-) - Probably we'd need people from such cultures to give insight into that. - Wayne Grudem briefly discusses this (actually the related question whether the structure predetermines the outcome of theological questions) in the intro to his ST and argues that since ST summarizes all the bible has to say on any topic, the structure is irrelevant. But this opens the can of worms whether his definion of ST is sufficient/correct...
    2. Ultimately, I would say that if (and only if) it is true that the discipline of theology itself possesses an intrinsic internal structure (i.e., an order), then it is possible to create an STO that transcends cultural limitations. With regard to the LSTO, I would suggest that its ontology is in vastly more danger of finding itself inappropriate for non-Protestant Christians than for, say, non-Americans.
  • started a discussion

    Identifying Missing Concepts

    The Lexham Survey of Theology/Systematic Theology Ontology currently includes 234 concepts, organized into eight major branches that reflect the traditional structuring of systematic theological writing and inquire. Our purpose was to include all the major beliefs common to a broad range of Christian groups, without taking particular positions on disputed issues or attempting to capture every minor point.

    Are there any concepts that you would argue should be added to the ontology to ensure that it is a reasonably complete account of Christian systematic theology? Are there areas with significant discussion in the theological literature that fall outside these concepts?