Talk:Dogmatic theology

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

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

"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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

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