Talk:Systematic theology

message: There is a categorical difference between the aims of Systematic Theology and Dogmatics . All that I have read here has nothing to do with Systematic Theology, but everything to do with Dogmatics. Systematic Theology is a way of academically occupying oneself with the idea of a 'Theory of Faiths'. This must include all branches of western theologies like Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Dogmatics. These are special or contextual theologies, but not Systematic Theology. Using only 'Scripture' (which canon is actually the correct one anyway?) and ignoring the understanding of Catholic and Orthodox dogmatics puts this whole discussion only in the light of protestant Dogma. This dogmatic understanding of some seminarian schools, which sometimes calls their dogmatics 'Systematic Theology', misrepresents and misunderstands the discipline as a mere categorisation of some dogmatic themes. It is interesting that Hodge's 'definition' actually does not mention anything about dogma; only about thinking. Systematic Theology is actually a 'theory of Faith'. It should also include its relationship to other faiths and philosophy. Dogmatic themes like the “Doctrine of God”, etc., is also studied, but from other points of reference, and in other religions there are also systematic theological studies. We do not own the term 'Systematic Theology', nor do we have a patent on it's definition. Is Wiki only for the westernised or American audience? The internet is knowingly a world wide web belonging to nobody in particular, but to all of mankind (sadly only to those who can afford to get it).
The Oxford Dictionary states: theology = 
1 the study of God and religious belief. 
2 religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed.
Note that this understanding allows more scope than mere Anglo-Saxon Protestant Dogmatics; the study of God and religious belief (which should include all religions actually); religious beliefs and theory (of faith) when systematically developed (which should include all religions actually).
And do not try to categorise this to “Comparative Religions”, it was attempted before – unsuccessfully put into the speculative corner of heretics studying religions. It has become a 'discipline' because western protestant dogmatics usurped the definition of Systematic Theology.
I propose we either rename this whole article as "Western conservative evangelical Dogmatics" or allow the discussion of real Systematic Theology as it is offered by most reputable Universities not affiliated to some confessional institutions. -- LandoSr 10:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree. But I don't think anyone was trying to suggest in composing this article that Western Philosophy, non-Western philosophy, and all the rest have no place in a discussion of Systematic theology. Well, maybe the entry about divided truth might suggest it. That rot aside, quite simply, the article is an underdeveloped one. You are quite right to want to see more, but I get the sense that this article is in a backwater--probably for the reasons you touch upon. As the saying goes: one who knows only one religion knows no religion. The trend today is to respond to globalization by wilfully ignoring the rest of the world. This article reflects that. MerricMaker 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think LandoSr's second approach is the right one. Despite the alleged inaccuracy, many confessional institutions do commonly refer to dogmatics as systematics, so that perspective should still be represented here as well. --Flex 14:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've started trimming out the stuff that suggests that only Christians care to examine theology systematically and adding material which is more inclusive. Join in, kids. MerricMaker 14:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic Theology is not Dogmatics 

message: Just to add something here - people keep taking Augustine out of the Protestant category and leaving him only in the Catholic one. That's obviously very biased, seeing as how Protestants also claim Augustine one of them. Luther, Calvin, etc. all claimed to be resurrecting Augustine's theology. People are of course entitled to whatever opinion they want with regards to where Augustine would have stood with the Reformation debate, but those opinions don't belong on wikipedia. LEAVE HIM IN BOTH CATEGORIES.
Augustine was recently classified as a Roman Catholic. There was no such thing as the Roman Catholic church during Augustine's life. The Catholics did indeed bestow sainthood on him, but as a figure he predates the Roman Church, I'm removing the categorization. MerricMaker 02:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont follow this argument. Clearly there was a Roman Church, possibly as early as the 1<SUP>st</SUP> century, so to say that Augusttin predates the Roman Church is very confusing. By the time of Augustine you are also well in the Constantine program of the unified Christian church for the Roman Empire, which it makes quite a bit of sense to interpret as the Catholic Church. The important part wasn't in Rome, true enough, but in Alexandria, Antioch, Byzanthium and Jerusalem (honoris causa). As one of the Latin and Western church fathers, Augustine's connection to the Western half of the Empire seems to be pretty well established. And the way he reflected the invasion of Rome by the barbarians in <I>De Civitate Dei</I> is clear indication that he thought Rome mightily important. If you mean that the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages with its elaborate claims to papal power was not fully developed, OK, but that was the church of the Middle Ages. At minimum some criterion should be specified what makes the Roman Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church then.
--68.93.134.232 04:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this then: early figures like Paul, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and that crowd existed before one needed to clarify about branches of Christianity. You were either Christian or you weren't. If we want to look at things this way everyone (except for Arius and other heretic-types) before the schism would be considered Catholic because there just wasn't anything else one could be. Why not say that if the theologian is foundational to all three major groups (Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants) we don't specify their affiliation due to their importance historically and conceptually? If we want to find out their denomination we can just click on their own article. Maybe we should only specify them as they themselves defined themselves. If they claim allegiance to the Pope, they're Catholic. If their only creed is Jesus, leave the denomination blank. 150.199.110.146 23:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Augustine

message: Every single person on the list is either Roman or Reformed.  That's WAY too narrow:
*Arminian
*Orthodox
*Coptic
*Pentecostal
What else...--LanceHaverkamp 18:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly, people classify them as Roman Catholic or Reformed. It's a matter of incorrect classification, not an absence of people from more than two traditions. MerricMaker 07:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant systematic theologians

message: I have a theory, which I'd happily see disproved.  My theory is that the only reason why the list of Notable Systematic Theologians in this article exists is so that readers can notice that their favourite theologian is not present - and either get cross or do something about it.  (Okay, there's the minor subsidiary use: noticing that one of their favourite theologians has been miscategorised - and either getting cross or doing something about it.)
Given that
* it will never be a complete list;
* it is a matter of controversy whether many of the names on the list belong to people aptly described as 'systematic theologians';
* there is already a separate list of Christian theologians,
I'd strongly suggest deleting it.
What does anyone else think?
--mahigton (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What use is the list of notable systematic theologians? 

message: Is there some reason Soren Kierkegaard doesn't fall under this category and end up in the list?
::207.216.83.226 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kierkegaard 

message: Yves Congar did not consider himself a systematic theologian in the sense of Karl Rahner, but rather an ecclesiologst and a historical theologian. Even though, he wrote on a wide range of topics. Should he really be listed as a systematic theologian? Taram (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Congar

message: I am aware of no evidence that the Wilfrid Sellars who is cited as a systematic theologian here wrote anything on Theology. 
At the very least, nothing is cited on his wikipedia page 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfrid_Sellars
Does anyone have contrary evidence?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.186.220.133 (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sellars 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Systematic theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150401000036/http://www.gcfweb.org:80/institute/theology/introduction-2.php to http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/theology/introduction-2.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In this article some theologians are listed, and they are not unanimously considered as "systematic" theologians, for example : John Wesley and Roger E. Olson and certainly others. We should be consistent here: If they are, some evidences should be given in their articles, (even though, it's only to mention there is not a total consensus on the question), and then, their article should be tagged with :Category:Systematic_theologians. Otherwise they should be removed from the list of this article.---Telikalive (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Systematic" theologians ? 

message: Why does this article only get a rating of "Low Importance" from Wikipedia: WikiProject Christianity, and all tasks forces within this WikProject? I would have thought it would have been of at least high importance. YTKJ (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject ratings

message: Is there any info on the analogues for systematic theology in other religions? 73.73.127.102 (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Christian equivalents? 

message: The 'History' section of the page reads: "The establishment and integration of varied Christian ideas and Christianity-related notions, including diverse topics and themes of the Bible, in a single, coherent and well-ordered presentation is a relatively late development." It then offers John of Damascus as an example. But isn't there a case that Origen's On First Principles is a much earlier instance of a systematic theology? 131.111.5.135 (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origen's 'On First Principles'