tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post7937189121816151810..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: 1.1 Grudem: Definitions in TheologyKen Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-53132223964322083332012-08-11T07:02:22.980-04:002012-08-11T07:02:22.980-04:00Vanhoozer's definition is very close to what I...Vanhoozer's definition is very close to what I am saying. By saying that theology is "second order" he is saying it is thought <i>about</i> Scripture. Think of it in terms of Kant, the content of our theology draws primarily from the Bible, but the logical consistency and coherent articulation significantly involve our minds organizing the content, heavily influenced by Christian tradition.Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-23920096140001830632012-08-10T22:40:03.549-04:002012-08-10T22:40:03.549-04:00Dr. Schenck,
You said, "Systematic theology i...Dr. Schenck,<br />You said, "Systematic theology is the organization of Christian belief into an overall system according to some ideological organizing principle. Since the Bible is not arranged ideologically, the organizing principle inevitably is governed from outside the Bible."<br /><br />I don't know if that is a fair assessment. In the 1980s Kevin Vanhoozer wrote, “Systematic theology attempts to give a coherent articulation of the Christian vision or world view, as presented through Scripture's literary forms. At the same time, theology is conscious of its second-order status as a discourse. Because it stresses logical consistency, theology is prone to lose noncognitive aspects of Scripture's communication (such as its force).”<br /><br />Do you believe “coherent articulation”/“logical consistency” is an ideological organizing principle from outside the Bible? Do you disagree with Vanhoozer? If so, what do you believe are the implications of believing “coherent articulation”/“logical consistency” to be an extra-Biblical ideology?Christopher C. Schrockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14649459385162811269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-41836938332971999652012-08-10T20:06:30.661-04:002012-08-10T20:06:30.661-04:00There were englightenment figures among the founde...There were englightenment figures among the founders as well as traditional orthodox Christians(e.g. John Witherspoon).John C. Gardnernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-50584180346806089662012-08-10T12:40:08.006-04:002012-08-10T12:40:08.006-04:00Politicalization of "faith claims" becom...Politicalization of "faith claims" becomes a danger because it claims "Truth" that is sanctioned by "God" (on biblical principles"), which was not what our Founders were promoting. Our Founders were promoting enlightenment principles of equality, fraternity, and justice.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-27243406938977686582012-08-10T10:08:58.166-04:002012-08-10T10:08:58.166-04:00Thanks for this review. I have heard the term Sys...Thanks for this review. I have heard the term Systematic Theology before but never had much understanding of it. Theologies in general are an interesting topic unto themselves so I look forward to your posts on the topic.Scott Fhttp://donttakemyword.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-54286718515135603822012-08-10T08:57:04.539-04:002012-08-10T08:57:04.539-04:00There seems to have been a definate move to use &q...There seems to have been a definate move to use "Kingdom" as the over-riding principle of interpretation. I believe this is so, as it can be "sold" on many levels. <br />"The Kingdom" is future oriented, orients around "a King" (lordship, discipliship, etc.), is "historicized" or "literalized" for today (so it is "bibilcal"), and can be a point to politically activate believers (under the assumption that the Kingdom is now, but not yet and If you TRUELY BELIEVE...you will die for the sake of the Kingdom. What is the difference then, of radical Islam in their dying for their faith?)<br /><br />The dangers are many, but perhaps no one cares about those "dangers", as one can be blinded by "enthusia". That is sad. But, it is useful for the Church's purposes, as well as the State's. But, is this the kind of "State" America was meant to become (be)?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com