Which Theology out of these?

[arapahoepark]

So out of these that I have on my kindle which one should I work entirely through first? Second?

Robert Reymond's
Michael Bird's Evangelical Theology
A Brakel, Christians Reasonable Faith
Dabney Systematic Theology
Berkhof's Systematic Theology
Ame's Marrow of Theology

 

[reaganmarsh]

Hi,

I'd suggest the following order:

Ames -- classic, concise, clear, trustworthy.
a'Brakel -- devotional, deep, rock-solid.
Berkhof -- a bit dry, but faithful.
Dabney -- a bit deeper than Berkhof, with some quirks.
Reymond -- good overall, though some issues on the Trinity.
Bird -- I've not read Bird yet, but you might wish to consult this link when you do. It looks interesting.

Hope this helps.

 

[Dachaser]

So out of these that I have on my kindle which one should I work entirely through first? Second?

Robert Reymond's
Michael Bird's Evangelical Theology
A Brakel, Christians Reasonable Faith
Dabney Systematic Theology
Berkhof's Systematic Theology
Ame's Marrow of Theology

Of those, would sugges that you start with Berkhof, as he would do a clear and concise summery of Reformed theology!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

William Ames; it is a relatively concise and easy to read introduction to 17th century Reformed scholastic thought.

 

[arapahoepark]

I also forgot to mention Thomas Watson's Body of Divinity...

 

[Dachaser]

Of those, would suggest that you start with Berkhof, as he would do a clear and concise summery of Reformed theology!

 

[py3ak]

If you read a' Brakel, Ames, Berkhof, and Watson you'll be in good shape to either skip or detect the issues with Bird, Dabney, and Reymond.

 

[au5t1n]

If you're new to these waters, I'd start with Watson's trilogy and Robert Shaw's exposition of the Confession (Shaw is also available on Kindle for free or cheap). Then move onto Berkhof or consult him as a reference while reading other works.

 

[arapahoepark]

If you read a' Brakel, Ames, Berkhof, and Watson you'll be in good shape to either skip or detect the issues with Bird, Dabney, and Reymond.

Dabney has issues?

 

[py3ak]

Yes, he does. If you were to get into the "Discussions" you'd find some pretty patent matters, but even in the Lectures on Systematic Theology you'll notice than an impatience with the question of the ordering of the decrees doesn't bode well for a real commitment to precision. And that can affect the way issues are framed or other theologians represented. He's a surprisingly good poet, though.

 

[Dachaser]

If you're new to these waters, I'd start with Watson's trilogy and Robert Shaw's exposition of the Confession (Shaw is also available on Kindle for free or cheap). Then move onto Berkhof or consult him as a reference while reading other works.

I started out the hard way, as my introduction to Reformed thinking was through both Berkhof and Hodge!

 

[arapahoepark]

Also what are the problems with Reymond on the Trinity?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Out of these, A' Brakel is my favorite. Actually Turrentin is my overall favorite, but I don't know if he is available on Kindle.

 

[Ed Walsh]

So out of these that I have on my kindle which one should I work entirely through first? Second?

Wow, I didn't know Ames was available in electronic format. Where did you get it, please tell?

Theology is the doctrine or teaching of living to God.…
Men live to God when they live in accord with the will of God,
to the glory of God, and with God working in them.
--William Ames​

Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (p. 41). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.​

 

[arapahoepark]

Wow, I didn't know Ames was available in electronic format. Where did you get it, please tell?

Theology is the doctrine or teaching of living to God.…
Men live to God when they live in accord with the will of God,
to the glory of God, and with God working in them.
--William Ames​

Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (p. 41). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.​

I am actually unsure if there is a mobi format but, I just have it as pdf right now.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I am actually unsure if there is a mobi format but, I just have it as pdf right now.

I found it for free on Monergism.
https://goo.gl/bWFHKk

 

[JOwen]

A Brakel, Christian's Reasonable Service

 

[RamistThomist]

Also what are the problems with Reymond on the Trinity?

In one of his editions he denied the eternal generation of the Son.

 

[Dachaser]

Out of these, A' Brakel is my favorite. Actually Turrentin is my overall favorite, but I don't know if he is available on Kindle.

He is just on Logos now, isn't he?

In one of his editions he denied the eternal generation of the Son.

So he would not see God the Son as being eternal, just as God the Father then?

 

[RamistThomist]

He is just on Logos now, isn't he?


So he would not see God the Son as being eternal, just as God the Father then?

He would see Jesus as eternal and fully God the Son, etc. Rather, he denies--as I have read him on this, and I could be wrong--that Jesus was eternally generated. But in my copy of Reymond I think he modified that view.

 

[Dachaser]

He would see Jesus as eternal and fully God the Son, etc. Rather, he denies--as I have read him on this, and I could be wrong--that Jesus was eternally generated. But in my copy of Reymond I think he modified that view.

Jesus was His humanity, and that was born when he became a man, so there was no eternal Jesus as to His humanity, just His deity, correct? Jesus is God/Man, but Just His divine nature was eternal?

 

[RamistThomist]

Jesus was His humanity, and that was born when he became a man, so there was no eternal Jesus as to His humanity, just His deity, correct? Jesus is God/Man, but Just His divine nature was eternal?

What do you mean "Jesus was his humanity"? The divine Logos took to himself a human nature. Reymond wouldn't dispute that.

 

[Dachaser]

What do you mean "Jesus was his humanity"? The divine Logos took to himself a human nature. Reymond wouldn't dispute that.

Before the Incarnation, there was just God the Son, the Logos/word of God, and when he took on human flesh/humanity, He was born as Jesus of Nazarath, so His humanity started within womb of mary, not eternal, but His divinity always was/has been/is!

 

[RamistThomist]

Before the Incarnation, there was just God the Son, the Logos/word of God, and when he took on human flesh/humanity, He was born as Jesus of Nazarath, so His humanity started within womb of mary, not eternal, but His divinity always was/has been/is!

Reymond wouldn't disagree with any of that. He simply denied (at one point) that eternal generation was God the Son's mode of origination.

 

[Dachaser]

Reymond wouldn't disagree with any of that. He simply denied (at one point) that eternal generation was God the Son's mode of origination.

Thanks for the clarrification! So if the Son was not eternally begotten from/of the Father, would be a created being?

 

[RamistThomist]

Thanks for the clarrification! So if the Son was not eternally begotten from/of the Father, would be a created being?

Not necessarily. Reymond claims Calvin's use of "autotheos" means that the Son is God of himself. The main criticism of Reymond is that his position is incoherent in explaining how the Son can be "Son" without some sort of eternal generation.

 

[Dachaser]

Not necessarily. Reymond claims Calvin's use of "autotheos" means that the Son is God of himself. The main criticism of Reymond is that his position is incoherent in explaining how the Son can be "Son" without some sort of eternal generation.

So He would see them as just "both always were there?"

 

[RamistThomist]

yes