What do you think?
Rate this book
The IVP Pocket Reference Series
Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms
Beginning to study theology is like stepping into a conversation that has been going on for two thousand years.
How do you take part in this conversation—or even make sense of it—if you don't understand the vocabulary or know the contributions made by other participants?
The Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms is the perfect companion to your theological studies. Among its three hundred-plus definitions are
• English terms, from accommodation to wrath of God
•foreign terms, from a posteriori to via media
•theological movements and traditions, from the Alexandrian School to Wesleyanism
•theologians, from Anselm of Canterbury to Ulrich Zwingli
Here is an affordable and easily accessible resource for your theological readings, lectures and writing assignments. It's a must-have for every theological student.
How do you take part in this conversation—or even make sense of it—if you don't understand the vocabulary or know the contributions made by other participants?
The Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms is the perfect companion to your theological studies. Among its three hundred-plus definitions are
• English terms, from accommodation to wrath of God
•foreign terms, from a posteriori to via media
•theological movements and traditions, from the Alexandrian School to Wesleyanism
•theologians, from Anselm of Canterbury to Ulrich Zwingli
Here is an affordable and easily accessible resource for your theological readings, lectures and writing assignments. It's a must-have for every theological student.
122 pages, Paperback
First published March 31, 1999
74 people are currently reading
178 people want to read
About the author
Stanley J. Grenz
54 books33 followersStanley James Grenz was born in Alpena, Michigan on January 7, 1950. He was the youngest of three children born to Richard and Clara Grenz, a brother to Lyle and Jan. His dad was a Baptist pastor for 30 years before he passed away in 1971. Growing up as a “pastor’s kid” meant that he moved several times in his life, from Michigan, to South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Colorado.
After high school Stan began his undergraduate studies in 1968 with the idea that he would become a nuclear physicist. But God had other plans for him, and in 1971, while driving home to Colorado after a visit with his parents in Oklahoma, he received a definite call into full time Christian ministry.
In 1970-1971 Stan traveled in an evangelistic youth team where he met Edna Sturhahn (from Vancouver, BC), who then became his wife in December, 1971. Both Stan and Edna completed their undergraduate degrees at the University of Colorado and Stan went on to receive his M. Div from Denver Seminary in 1976, the same year in which he was ordained into the gospel ministry. During the years of study in Colorado he served as a youth pastor and an assistant pastor. From Denver, Stan and Edna moved to Munich, Germany where Stan completed his Doctor of Theology under the mentorship of Wolfhart Pannenberg. Their son, Joel was born in Munich in 1978.
During a two-year pastorate (1979-1981) in Winnipeg, MB, where daughter Corina was born, Stan also taught courses at the University of Winnipeg and at Winnipeg Theological Seminary (now Providence Seminary). His full time teaching career began at the North American Baptist Seminary in Sioux Falls, SD (1981-1990). Those years were followed by a twelve-year (1990-2002) position as Pioneer McDonald Professor of Baptist Heritage, Theology and Ethics at Carey Theological College and at Regent College in Vancouver, BC. From 1996 to 1999 he carried an additional appointment as Professor of Theology and Ethics (Affiliate) at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Lombard IL. After a one-year sojourn as Distinguished Professor of Theology at Baylor University and Truett Seminary in Waco, TX (2002-2003), he returned to Carey in August 2003. In fall 2004, he assumed an additional appointment as Professor of Theological Studies at Mars Hill Graduate School, Seattle WA.
Stan has authored or co-authored twenty-five books, served as editor or co-editor for two Festschriften, contributed articles to more than two dozen other volumes, and has seen to print more than a hundred essays and an additional eighty book reviews. He had plans to write many more books. Two more of his books will appear in print within the next year.
In addition to writing and lecturing all around the world, Stan loved preaching. He admitted to “breaking into preaching” in some of his lectures. He served as interim pastor of several congregations and as guest preacher in many churches. He loved the Church, both locally and worldwide.
Stan wholeheartedly supported and encouraged his wife Edna in her pastoral ministry, her studies and in the enlargement of her ministry gifts. At First Baptist Church, he played the guitar and trumpet in the worship team and sang in the choir. He was proud of his children and their spouses, Joel and Jennifer and Corina and Chris, and delighted in his new granddaughter, Anika. Stan was a friend and mentor to many, always encouraging people to strive to new heights.
As a theologian for the Church Stan wrote from the deep, interior vision of the sure hope that we would enter into the community of God in the renewed creation. He articulated the reality of this new community as the compass for Christian theology: 'Now the dwelling of God is with human beings, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.' (Rev. 21:3
After high school Stan began his undergraduate studies in 1968 with the idea that he would become a nuclear physicist. But God had other plans for him, and in 1971, while driving home to Colorado after a visit with his parents in Oklahoma, he received a definite call into full time Christian ministry.
In 1970-1971 Stan traveled in an evangelistic youth team where he met Edna Sturhahn (from Vancouver, BC), who then became his wife in December, 1971. Both Stan and Edna completed their undergraduate degrees at the University of Colorado and Stan went on to receive his M. Div from Denver Seminary in 1976, the same year in which he was ordained into the gospel ministry. During the years of study in Colorado he served as a youth pastor and an assistant pastor. From Denver, Stan and Edna moved to Munich, Germany where Stan completed his Doctor of Theology under the mentorship of Wolfhart Pannenberg. Their son, Joel was born in Munich in 1978.
During a two-year pastorate (1979-1981) in Winnipeg, MB, where daughter Corina was born, Stan also taught courses at the University of Winnipeg and at Winnipeg Theological Seminary (now Providence Seminary). His full time teaching career began at the North American Baptist Seminary in Sioux Falls, SD (1981-1990). Those years were followed by a twelve-year (1990-2002) position as Pioneer McDonald Professor of Baptist Heritage, Theology and Ethics at Carey Theological College and at Regent College in Vancouver, BC. From 1996 to 1999 he carried an additional appointment as Professor of Theology and Ethics (Affiliate) at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Lombard IL. After a one-year sojourn as Distinguished Professor of Theology at Baylor University and Truett Seminary in Waco, TX (2002-2003), he returned to Carey in August 2003. In fall 2004, he assumed an additional appointment as Professor of Theological Studies at Mars Hill Graduate School, Seattle WA.
Stan has authored or co-authored twenty-five books, served as editor or co-editor for two Festschriften, contributed articles to more than two dozen other volumes, and has seen to print more than a hundred essays and an additional eighty book reviews. He had plans to write many more books. Two more of his books will appear in print within the next year.
In addition to writing and lecturing all around the world, Stan loved preaching. He admitted to “breaking into preaching” in some of his lectures. He served as interim pastor of several congregations and as guest preacher in many churches. He loved the Church, both locally and worldwide.
Stan wholeheartedly supported and encouraged his wife Edna in her pastoral ministry, her studies and in the enlargement of her ministry gifts. At First Baptist Church, he played the guitar and trumpet in the worship team and sang in the choir. He was proud of his children and their spouses, Joel and Jennifer and Corina and Chris, and delighted in his new granddaughter, Anika. Stan was a friend and mentor to many, always encouraging people to strive to new heights.
As a theologian for the Church Stan wrote from the deep, interior vision of the sure hope that we would enter into the community of God in the renewed creation. He articulated the reality of this new community as the compass for Christian theology: 'Now the dwelling of God is with human beings, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.' (Rev. 21:3
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
July 26, 2021
Gatekeeping in Dictionary Form
A decent reference if you're looking for an alphabetized listing of common theological parlance. Not so good if you're looking for one uncolored by denominational agenda. IVP’s Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms is exactly as the title suggests, but unfortunately its use as an educational tool is compromised by a pervasive gatekeeping mentality common in evangelical circles.
Early on, I came across this nacre of doctrinaire clumsiness:
atheism. A system of belief that categorically asserts that there is no God. Atheism usually affirms as well that the only form of existence is the material universe and that the universe is merely the product of chance or fate.
If this is the kind of willful distortion coming down from the top in evangelical institutions, it’s no wonder why interfaith discourse is so heavily deformed in this country. The trinity of authors here have of course misdefined atheism.
Very few atheists say, “God definitely does not exist.” The vast majority say, “It’s unlikely that gods exist, and I see no good reasons for believing they do.” Just as most Christians don’t sashay around claiming Amun-Ra, Hermes, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or unicorns don’t exist, neither are most atheists in the business of making the positive claim that no gods exist. It’s just not something they concern themselves with, just as most people don’t concern themselves with belief in unicorns or other cryptids.
As many an atheist are wont to emphasize, positive disaffirmation is a spectrum’s length away from nonbelief. Most inclusively, then, atheism is simply the linguistic placeholder we use to denote the nonbelief in personal deities. Often enough, it is a conscious conclusion based on thoughtful consideration of the facts and evidence available.
Likewise, atheists do not necessarily have an ideological bias toward materialism. It’s just that the evidence to date seems to point to a material or entirely natural universe, an understanding of which isn’t bolstered by the postulation of hidden forces existing outside of it. To persuade a materialist to accept some form of dualism, supernaturalism, or paraphysical causality, advocates of those views would need to produce probative evidence, or at least a soundly reasoned case, in their favor. The burden of proof lies with those positing alternate dimensions of reality to demonstrate how their more expansive metaphysics improves upon current knowledge and understanding of the physical features of our world. At any rate, atheists are usually not in the habit of making universal or absolutist claims, but of simply voicing skepticism in the face of unchecked fanaticism.
Another area in which the authors' doctrinal commitments seep through is in the various definitions connected to Christology (the nature of the Jesus of Scripture). One example is adoptionism:
adoptionism. The theory that asserts that God adopted Jesus as his Son...This theory fails to reflect scriptural texts that point to Jesus' eternal relationship with the Father (e.g., Jn 17:5).
If only it were so simple. Of course, in order to defend your favorite theology as “biblical” or “scriptural,” you have to advertise a univocal, monolithic view running throughout the Christian New Testament, a view which fails to hold up under any modicum of scrutiny or grasp of Christian history.
Examination of early Christian documents reveals that as stories about the historical Jesus developed, a diverse spectrum of thought began to take shape. The surviving exchanges and the manuscript tradition of the canonical gospels and other New Testament texts provide a window into these 1st-4th century conversations. The gospel narratives, for example, originated in different communities from different authors speaking to different issues to address different needs. These men had their own perspectives, their own experiences, their own concerns and desires, their own theologies. And this kaleidoscope of inspirations is what we see preserved in the Christian New Testament.
It should also be emphasized that none of the Greek writers thought they were writing (what was later to become known as) ‘Scripture’ or imagined that their writings would one day be canonized and subsequently compared, contrasted, and hyper-scrutinized alongside other period texts. How could they? Such foresight was alien to them. As we might expect, once these disparate texts were smashed together and consolidated many centuries later, the multivocality came along for the ride. Given this scenario, it should not be surprising in the least that the gospel writers, in several respects, did not agree with each other; they expressed different views about Jesus, God, and the linkages therein.
As a result, adoptionist Christologies, widespread in early Christian thought, along with docetic and separationist Christologies and others, all made it into the eventual Bible. Moreover, when we compare later manuscripts with earlier manuscripts, we find dozens of examples of where those holding anti-adoptionist, anti-docetic, anti-separationist perspectives, and everything in between, altered the words in an effort to bludgeon the texts into an artificial conformity. (Ostensibly, antiquity’s concern for internal harmony was anticipatory of modern-day evangelicals.) Were it not for this diversity of voices, there would have been no motivation to amend the texts in the first place.
To recap, where did this mishmash of views come from? They originated with the texts—and any associated oral tradition from which they derived—ideological dissimilarity notwithstanding. Because the New Testament documents, taken together, are inconsistent, conflicting, and contradictory on several matters of theological importance, of course there are passages in one book which suggest against adoptionism, just as there are passages in others which gesture toward adoptionism. This is what happens when you consolidate texts from different authors. For this reason, doctrine is ultimately best organized by text, not by denomination.
This is also why "prooftexting"–mining for verses in an effort to extrapolate a biblical-wide perspective–is irretrievably flawed in approach. Pointing to passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 or 2 Peter 1:20-21 as denoting biblical ‘infallibility’ or ‘divine inspiration’ is a naïve and dishonest way of using the Bible to validate theological beliefs. How could the authors of one text make any claim for texts that had not yet been written and for texts they had no clue would one day accompany their own? Nowhere in the Bible does it mention which books it should include (its authors had no forethought of ‘canon’).
Prooftexting thus fails as a hermeneutical device, not least because you are using the words of one author to interpret the words of another, while papering over the local context within the text itself — i.e., the specific purpose for which the author is writing — all while ignoring the complex, arduous, and interesting history of the formation of the biblical canon, itself the product of a long line of human decisions. There can be no substitute for, and no escape from, working out meaning and context for oneself given the vast trove of resources at our disposal today.
Closing Thoughts
Instead of suppressing these facts or deeming them a problem, those in thrall to evangelical tradition might try accepting the Bible for what it is instead of forcing it to be something it isn't. The Bible isn't a book, it's a library (the very word 'Bible' means "library"). And hence contrary to the reflexively tendentious language plastered up and down this handy dictionary, the Bible is not an ideological monolith. It contains a wealth of competing ideas and mutually exclusive viewpoints. That such diversity of voice and dialectic tension were preserved demonstrates that the editors of the biblical texts were not overly concerned with conveying a single, consistent message or doctrine.
To push against this fact is like a library patron complaining that something she read in a book from one part of the library contradicts something she read in a book from another part of the library. We would probably question this person’s mental maturity. Just as we expect to see different perspectives from books of different genres written by different authors at different times in different places for different purposes, so we should not be surprised or otherwise disturbed by the presence of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the biblical texts. Like so much of evangelical scholarship, this resource is contaminated with theological insularity. Gatekeeping in dictionary form.
Note: This review is republished from my official website. Click through for additional footnotes and imagery.
A decent reference if you're looking for an alphabetized listing of common theological parlance. Not so good if you're looking for one uncolored by denominational agenda. IVP’s Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms is exactly as the title suggests, but unfortunately its use as an educational tool is compromised by a pervasive gatekeeping mentality common in evangelical circles.
Early on, I came across this nacre of doctrinaire clumsiness:
atheism. A system of belief that categorically asserts that there is no God. Atheism usually affirms as well that the only form of existence is the material universe and that the universe is merely the product of chance or fate.
If this is the kind of willful distortion coming down from the top in evangelical institutions, it’s no wonder why interfaith discourse is so heavily deformed in this country. The trinity of authors here have of course misdefined atheism.
Very few atheists say, “God definitely does not exist.” The vast majority say, “It’s unlikely that gods exist, and I see no good reasons for believing they do.” Just as most Christians don’t sashay around claiming Amun-Ra, Hermes, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or unicorns don’t exist, neither are most atheists in the business of making the positive claim that no gods exist. It’s just not something they concern themselves with, just as most people don’t concern themselves with belief in unicorns or other cryptids.
As many an atheist are wont to emphasize, positive disaffirmation is a spectrum’s length away from nonbelief. Most inclusively, then, atheism is simply the linguistic placeholder we use to denote the nonbelief in personal deities. Often enough, it is a conscious conclusion based on thoughtful consideration of the facts and evidence available.
Likewise, atheists do not necessarily have an ideological bias toward materialism. It’s just that the evidence to date seems to point to a material or entirely natural universe, an understanding of which isn’t bolstered by the postulation of hidden forces existing outside of it. To persuade a materialist to accept some form of dualism, supernaturalism, or paraphysical causality, advocates of those views would need to produce probative evidence, or at least a soundly reasoned case, in their favor. The burden of proof lies with those positing alternate dimensions of reality to demonstrate how their more expansive metaphysics improves upon current knowledge and understanding of the physical features of our world. At any rate, atheists are usually not in the habit of making universal or absolutist claims, but of simply voicing skepticism in the face of unchecked fanaticism.
Another area in which the authors' doctrinal commitments seep through is in the various definitions connected to Christology (the nature of the Jesus of Scripture). One example is adoptionism:
adoptionism. The theory that asserts that God adopted Jesus as his Son...This theory fails to reflect scriptural texts that point to Jesus' eternal relationship with the Father (e.g., Jn 17:5).
If only it were so simple. Of course, in order to defend your favorite theology as “biblical” or “scriptural,” you have to advertise a univocal, monolithic view running throughout the Christian New Testament, a view which fails to hold up under any modicum of scrutiny or grasp of Christian history.
Examination of early Christian documents reveals that as stories about the historical Jesus developed, a diverse spectrum of thought began to take shape. The surviving exchanges and the manuscript tradition of the canonical gospels and other New Testament texts provide a window into these 1st-4th century conversations. The gospel narratives, for example, originated in different communities from different authors speaking to different issues to address different needs. These men had their own perspectives, their own experiences, their own concerns and desires, their own theologies. And this kaleidoscope of inspirations is what we see preserved in the Christian New Testament.
It should also be emphasized that none of the Greek writers thought they were writing (what was later to become known as) ‘Scripture’ or imagined that their writings would one day be canonized and subsequently compared, contrasted, and hyper-scrutinized alongside other period texts. How could they? Such foresight was alien to them. As we might expect, once these disparate texts were smashed together and consolidated many centuries later, the multivocality came along for the ride. Given this scenario, it should not be surprising in the least that the gospel writers, in several respects, did not agree with each other; they expressed different views about Jesus, God, and the linkages therein.
As a result, adoptionist Christologies, widespread in early Christian thought, along with docetic and separationist Christologies and others, all made it into the eventual Bible. Moreover, when we compare later manuscripts with earlier manuscripts, we find dozens of examples of where those holding anti-adoptionist, anti-docetic, anti-separationist perspectives, and everything in between, altered the words in an effort to bludgeon the texts into an artificial conformity. (Ostensibly, antiquity’s concern for internal harmony was anticipatory of modern-day evangelicals.) Were it not for this diversity of voices, there would have been no motivation to amend the texts in the first place.
To recap, where did this mishmash of views come from? They originated with the texts—and any associated oral tradition from which they derived—ideological dissimilarity notwithstanding. Because the New Testament documents, taken together, are inconsistent, conflicting, and contradictory on several matters of theological importance, of course there are passages in one book which suggest against adoptionism, just as there are passages in others which gesture toward adoptionism. This is what happens when you consolidate texts from different authors. For this reason, doctrine is ultimately best organized by text, not by denomination.
This is also why "prooftexting"–mining for verses in an effort to extrapolate a biblical-wide perspective–is irretrievably flawed in approach. Pointing to passages like 2 Timothy 3:16 or 2 Peter 1:20-21 as denoting biblical ‘infallibility’ or ‘divine inspiration’ is a naïve and dishonest way of using the Bible to validate theological beliefs. How could the authors of one text make any claim for texts that had not yet been written and for texts they had no clue would one day accompany their own? Nowhere in the Bible does it mention which books it should include (its authors had no forethought of ‘canon’).
Prooftexting thus fails as a hermeneutical device, not least because you are using the words of one author to interpret the words of another, while papering over the local context within the text itself — i.e., the specific purpose for which the author is writing — all while ignoring the complex, arduous, and interesting history of the formation of the biblical canon, itself the product of a long line of human decisions. There can be no substitute for, and no escape from, working out meaning and context for oneself given the vast trove of resources at our disposal today.
Closing Thoughts
Instead of suppressing these facts or deeming them a problem, those in thrall to evangelical tradition might try accepting the Bible for what it is instead of forcing it to be something it isn't. The Bible isn't a book, it's a library (the very word 'Bible' means "library"). And hence contrary to the reflexively tendentious language plastered up and down this handy dictionary, the Bible is not an ideological monolith. It contains a wealth of competing ideas and mutually exclusive viewpoints. That such diversity of voice and dialectic tension were preserved demonstrates that the editors of the biblical texts were not overly concerned with conveying a single, consistent message or doctrine.
To push against this fact is like a library patron complaining that something she read in a book from one part of the library contradicts something she read in a book from another part of the library. We would probably question this person’s mental maturity. Just as we expect to see different perspectives from books of different genres written by different authors at different times in different places for different purposes, so we should not be surprised or otherwise disturbed by the presence of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the biblical texts. Like so much of evangelical scholarship, this resource is contaminated with theological insularity. Gatekeeping in dictionary form.
Note: This review is republished from my official website. Click through for additional footnotes and imagery.
November 17, 2025
I love the work of Stanley Grenz. Though he died at a relatively young age, he left behind a wealth of work and a theological legacy. This is a great dictionary with a unique focus on historical theological concepts, people, and events, as well as key ideas in philosophical theology.
May 12, 2020
Read a while ago for a class. It's a dictionary. Nothing more to be said.
February 26, 2022
Precise guide. Love this resource. Great grab book for any average biblical layperson.
January 24, 2025
As the old joke about the phone book goes, there's lots of information but not much plot.
January 12, 2014
A helpful short reference booklet that is a great resource for novice and scholar alike. It is part of a series published by IVP Academic. After perusing it I decided to work on a similar idea: a "Pocket Dictionary of Ellen G. White" and came up with 350 entries based upon my work in the nine volumes of "Testimonies for the Church." My friend, Jud Lake, has agreed to co-author the volume and we hope to have it done later this year. Some times perusing books can lead to other great ideas: just like the C. S. Lewis Encyclopedia was an inspiration for George R. Knight to pursue a similar Encyclopedia about Ellen White that has just come out.
May 28, 2009
This is a great resource for anyone who wants to learn the basic terms for theological discussions.
Just a reference.
I had to basically read it from start to finish for my Christian Theology 2 class at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary so let me warn you, it gets quite boring when you start to actually read it.
Why would they make us read it when it is a dictionary anyways?
Just a reference.
I had to basically read it from start to finish for my Christian Theology 2 class at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary so let me warn you, it gets quite boring when you start to actually read it.
Why would they make us read it when it is a dictionary anyways?
February 19, 2008
This is a helpful little book to keep in your bag for those times when you hear a phrase, term, name, movement etc... that you may not have heard before or are not familiar with. It is by no means exaustive or very thorough, but it give you enough to grasp the idea and stay with the sermon, lecture, or even talkative friend.
May 9, 2008
This is an awesome reference. I've got extra copies if anyone wants one. It's small and super-handy.
October 12, 2011
I read this. I forget what I thought about it because it was so long ago. It apparently didn't change my life. I hope that helps.
May 10, 2012
Handy little book, easy to understand definitions.
March 3, 2016
Simple intro level explanations.. again I have nothing to contrast this with.
April 11, 2016
This was a good reference book. Although I would have liked more words included in this dictionary; for I still need to purchase another dictionary for further edification.
August 3, 2014
Good definitions. Nice plot.
August 7, 2016
A fine quick reference to have by your side when reading theological books.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews