I have already read it and consider it to be Protestant scholasticism, wholly concerned
with dogmatic theology.
Not exact matches
Dogmatics are for the sake of Scripture study, not vice versa, and so
with all technical branches of
theology.
This
theology was «church
dogmatics» - it had to do
with the reiteration of the self - understanding of ecclesial existence.
That being said, the renewal of interest ought not to be overstated: much doctrinal
theology in English remains preoccupied
with keeping up a conversation
with other fields of inquiry (often literary and cultural theory) and is so eager to do so that it often neglects the descriptive or
dogmatic tasks of systematics.
If
dogmatic theology really does prove beyond dispute that a God
with characters like these exists, she may well claim to give a solid basis to religious sentiment.
Andrew Dickson White, founding president of Cornell, for instance, published A History of the Warfare of Science
with Theology in Christendom (1896) in which he projected into the past a supposed opposition of
dogmatic Christianity to scientific progress.
In times past, various ecumenical seminars have been held, growing mostly out of Kung's ecumenical interests — his seminar
with Jürgen Moltmann on «Contemporary Christology,» one
with Heiko Oberman on «The Concept of Justification in Luther and the Council of Trent,» and another
with Eberhard Jungel on «Natural
Theology in Barth's Church
Dogmatics.»
Its metaphysics is equally compatible and equally incompatible
with the sensibilities of any number of faiths, and of any number of schools within individual faiths; but, if it has anything resembling a
theology, it is of the mystical, rather than the
dogmatic, kind, and so its doctrinal content is nebulous.
Most noted for his work at the intersection of
theology and science, for which he was feted in 1978
with the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, and as co-editor of the English version of Karl Barth's monumental Church
Dogmatics, Thomas Forsyth Torrance was the greatest British....
Third, Brueggemann rejects a systematic (or
dogmatic) approach to Old Testament
theology, not only because of the obvious pluralism of the texts within the canon and the cultures that interpret the Bible, but also because this approach tends to fall in line
with the church's views of scripture.
Although he had been interested in science from a young age, it was while teaching
dogmatic theology in the United States that he became increasingly fascinated
with the connections between his own subjects and those of science and philosophy.