Correction: Borowski, Michael. 2023. Doctrine and Change in Western Dogmatics: The Examples of Michael Seewald and Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Religions 14: 524

Following the request of the Academic Editor, the title should be corrected to the following:

• Doctrine and Change in Western Dogmatics: The Examples of Michael Seewald and Kevin J. Vanhoozer

There was an error in the original publication (Borowski 2023). Apparently, an original abstract was swapped for some reason with the first paragraph of the original article. That introduction has now been dropped in the current version of the article, which is fine. A correction has been made to Abstract:

“This paper argues that there is some ambiguity in Western conservative dogmatics on how much change and development is conceptually possible. It hence explores the potential for change within trends of Christianity related to conservative doctrine, arguing that the authority of doctrine is not as static as often perceived. To make this case, this paper (1) argues that both dogma and doctrine refer to somewhat binding beliefs, hence representing forces that ensure continuity in Western conservative dogmatics—forces that can be assessed only with regards to the faith traditions they stem from. By way of example, this paper (2) summarizes some perspectives on those concepts, as well as the potential for change, in the recent works of two Western theologians (i.e., the work of the German Roman Catholic theologian Michael Seewald and the US-American Evangelical theologian Kevin J. Vanhoozer).”

There were errors in the original publication in two sentences.

A correction has been made to the first sentence of Section 2.3:

“So far, we have been making the case that the popular charges against Roman Catholic dogma might easily disguise the problem that both the center and borders of any account of Christian doctrine on the conservative protestant side faces similar problems.”

A correction has been made to the fourth sentence of Section 3.2:

“And other than in the case of Seewald, according to Vanhoozer, a much wider body of literature must be included, as Vanhoozer has addressed the issue of developing doctrine over decades.”

There were some redundant words in the original publication.

A correction has been made to Section 1, 3rd paragraph, second sentence. “strands of” should be erased:

“This paper hence explores the potential for change within trends of Christianity related to conservative doctrine, arguing (b) that the authority of doctrine is not as static as often perceived, even from within those conservative strands of the Christian religion but that such explorations must consider the traditions of the various strands of religion.”

A correction has been made to Section 1, 3rd paragraph, fourth sentence. “By way of example” should be erased:

“For exploring the possibilities for change within faith traditions, this paper then (2) summarizes some perspectives on those concepts, as well as the potential for change, in the recent works of two Western conservative theologians (i.e., the work of the German Roman Catholic theologian Michael Seewald and the US-American Evangelical theologian Kevin J. Vanhoozer).”

A correction has been made to Section 2.2, 4th paragraph, fourth sentence. “as well” should be erased:

“In the ecclesiastic dimension, we could imagine a spectrum of two extremes, for instance, between the notion that doctrine can be revised considering the current needs on the one hand, and that one must believe those doctrines to be part of that community.”

The author states that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.