Talk:Dogmatic theology

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Update

Exactly which part is supposed to be no longer up to date?Vodyanoi 10:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are very few citations in the defintion/discussion sections that would allow one to explore the claimed sources of defintion. This makes it of limited use for exposition. Under references there are only links to two web sites, a Catholic site, the other a conservative protestant site. There are no citations of critically reviewed publications, thus it is very difficult to verify the encyclopedic content. Though I think Barth is profoundly verbose and prone to error, he did write a weighty and well read tome on Dogmatics but it is not even mentioned in the references or discussion.

I am not going to get into an argument about it, but furthermore, there is the claim of theology as science, ("...has attained the rank of an independent science") which strains, if not violates the definition of the term "science." This (dogmatics) is a useful subject as one explores and formulates a Christian ethic that possesses a methodological approach, but theology is not science and cannot be. It is not based on the classical defintion of science, namely a formal theory of knowledge that provides the ability to form testable hypotheses or predictions about and manipulate the physical world. (The Wiki link to Science is pretty good.) Theology by its nature is metaphysical and we do everyone a disservice to call it a science (a mistake Barth made also). I am not removing that sentencce but it should be reconsidered. 32tdr (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment about "science", but rather than remove that term I've added a reference to Karl Barth who very deliberately uses it. Matthew C. Clarke 04:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like there may be a problem arising in English translations of Barth. The German term Wissenschaft means science, but it also means academic discipline -- and theology is definitely the latter, if not the former. Wegesrand (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Origin of the term" needs rewriting

Was this text lifted from Theodora? It is ugly. Anyone qualified to rewrite it?

 Matthew C. Clarke  04:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dogmatic 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/20121219024241/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretazione-dogmi_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretazione-dogmi_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]