'"Dogmatic" theology is rational, but its axioms must be fluid rather than fixed'
(LeRon Shults, Christology and Science, 134 – a terrific book, one that I will review soon)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(305)
-
▼
November
(21)
- Over-realised eschatology thinking
- The nature of biblical propositions
- Quote of the Day
- Creation or Evolution
- The St Mellitus College Collect
- Gentiles as the return from exile people
- The Church of the Holy Sepulchre showdown
- Godpod 39
- Gordon Wenham
- Spot the difference competition
- Exegetical comment of the day
- What happens to the Land in the NT?
- Separated at Birth?
- News
- Your collective Wisdom
- Apologetic strategy of the day
- Separated at Birth?
- Barker's visit
- Margaret Barker to visit St Paul’s Theological Centre
- Link of the day
- Separated at Birth?
-
▼
November
(21)
General links
Christ Sein, Küng
Existiert Gott?, Küng
Der Anfang aller Dinge, Küng
Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire, Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat
The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, John R. Franke
Shadow Sides. God in the Old Testament, Eric Peels
The Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight
Gebete des Lebens, Karl Rahner
Jesus and the Victory of God, N.T. Wright
Universal Salvation? The Current Debite, ed. by Robin Parry and C. H. Partridge
Chess links
"Theological" blogs
- A new kind of conversation
- Adversaria
- Ben Witherington
- Café Apocalypsis
- Codex
- Connexions
- Earliest Christian History
- Evangelical Textual Criticism
- Faith and Theology
- Hermeneutica
- Higgaion
- Jason Clark
- Jesus Creed
- Jim West
- Euangelion
- Nate's incoherent babble
- On Journeying with those in Exile
- Open source Theology
- Jim Davila
- Primal Subversion
- Sean the Baptist
- Shadows Of Divine Things
- Soylent Green
- Loren Rosson III
- Simon
- Theological Intentions
- Theological Thought
- Theology and Biblical Studies
- The Stuff of Earth
- More on the Biblioblogs list ...
9 comments:
Dogmatic theology (God)is defined by the Church (that is, if you assume that the axiom of how the Church understands itself is universal, but I would question on what basis the Church is defined. There are different ways of understanding what the Church is and all of that is based on faith, not reason)...
The second part "axioms must be fluid"...does that mean that cultural forms vary their expression of the Church dogmatic God? or does the individual understand God in a different way than another because of their presuppositions, or their understanding of faith?
I really don't buy that one can just swallow hook, line and sinker something just because soem authority says it is true. One may agree or disagree with an authority, as we should question authorities and not blindly accept authoritie's authority, in areas of "faith".
Chris, do you stand by these words? This is one of the silliest quotes I have ever read.
Dogmatics reminds me of Barth and 'tradition" and the trasnscendent,which is based on philosophy/theology, whereas, wouldn't John understand the history of the tradition amd the grounding of faith in the historical/political realm.
I think it is interesting that the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic represent different cultural contexts of understanding the same tradition.
LeRon Shults seems like a cool cat, but his name always reminds me of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. There must be some sort of guilt by association.
Hi Angie, thanks for your comment. The second part of the axiom includes the kind of fluidity you mention, but Shults explicates it with regard modern scientific developments, which themselves make for a fluid set of axioms.
Hi John,
Um, well, yes I think I do stand by those words!
*Waits with baited breath for refutation of the proposition*!!
RT,
Yea, flippin eck, that does sound guilty. I will burn his books instantly!
... and none too easy to understand at times, but still very enjoyable reading.
I ought to point out, John, that the context in which the proposition is found is rather important...
If `Faith leads to Understanding` it has to be dogmatic in the sense that the Holy Spirit is Truth. This can get a little circular. However if all that is good true and noble is of God according to a Dogmatic Constitution of the Vatican Council then this is a way out of axioms. Some Dogmatism wants to put God in a box but God is not able to be bound in such a manner. I am always reminded of the Celtic idea of the Holy Spirit as a Wild Goose who i fyou to close will bite you. I submit for those who wish to put God into dogma
I look forward to the review!
Post a Comment