Nevertheless, it is always the task of
the dogmatic theologian and the preacher to translate the language of the New Testament into that of the contemporary world.
It is the duty of
the dogmatic theologian to understand and, as far as possible, to retrieve the doctrinal formulas of the past — at the very least, to show their point.
I say this because I realize that in what I have written it is not simply a matter of
a dogmatic theologian commenting on the work of a disciplined historical critic; there are issues involved here which are neither purely theological nor historical; they touch the manner in which we understand our existence and our need, an existence and an understanding that we allow it possible that Christ has redefined for us.
Thus, for example, B. Marcozzi, Schmaus, Colombo, Carles, and Catholic exegetes of the present day more or less generally; exegetes seem to be more progressive or less embarrassed than
dogmatic theologians.
Not exact matches
It was because of the book Feminist and Womanist Essays in Reformed
Dogmatics that I first became a feminist
theologian.
And, writing for
theologians, Karl Barth said in his Church
Dogmatics (T & T Clark International) that we must not become too engrossed in the demonic as there is the imminent danger that we might become a little demonic!
So long as he operates as
theologian at all, whether his work is
dogmatic or eristic, it all depends upon and serves God's revelation of himself in Jesus Christ.
Attacks by Christian
theologians such as Barth upon this whole enterprise are justified in so far as there was for a long time a tendency to regard the discussion with unbelief as a kind of prolegomenon to
dogmatics itself.
We need not recall here the history of what led up to the declaration of Humani Generis (which is doctrinal in character, even if it does not constitute a
dogmatic definition), starting with the pronouncement of the local synod at Cologne in 1860 rejecting evolution in any form, the censure passed on the works of
theologians favourable to evolution, such as M. D. Leroy (1895) and P. Zahm (1899), the decree of the Biblical Commission in 1909, the tacit toleration of works favourable to evolution by
theologians such as Ruschkamp (1935), Messenger (1931), Perier (1938), down to Pius XII's Allocution to the Papal Academy of Sciences in 1941.
By the late 17th centuries
theologians were producing manuals in
dogmatic, moral and pastoral theology.
It's one thing for a
theologian to introduce ambiguity on a minor
dogmatic point.
First of all, there is very little theology in America today:
dogmatic theology has virtually disappeared, biblical scholarship is largely archeological and philological, church history barely maintains its existence as a discipline; and, in terms of German influences, Bultmann has replaced Barth as the guiding light of the younger
theologians.
For Brueggemann, the Old Testament
theologian must heed the text and its meaning whether or not it conforms to
dogmatic teachings.
Furthermore, what the
theologian will learn from the philosopher about the Trinity is its
dogmatic import, its religious meaning, its soteriological value; he will not learn about its critical structuration, its formal coherence, or its judicative modality (CR, p. 110).
If apologetics no longer worked effectively,
theologians could try
dogmatics.
«The Road Ahead in Theology» (September 19, 1962) declared that
theologians ought to become more sensitive to the proper use of religious language and that there is a demand for a natural theology that will eschew
dogmatic revelation claims and seek a responsible and reasonable Christian faith able to win its way in the marketplace of ideas.