# Reformed Dogmatics - ed. by Beardslee - Buy if you ever find it!



## crhoades (Nov 28, 2005)

All,

Thought I'd share a recent treasure I picked up from Archives Bookshop in Pasadena (if you ever have a chance to visit this store - do so!)

Reformed Dogmatics
J. W. Beardslee, ed. and trans., (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965

Containing:
Johannes Wollebius, Compendium of Christian Theology 
Gisbertus Voetius, Select Theological Disputations 
Turretin - on Predestination from his Institutes

I ran across this title from reading Mueller's Post-Reformation Dogmatics as well as R. Scott Clark's Syllabus on Reformed Scholasticism I searched all over the web and could not find it used anywhere. I stumbled across it while at Archives! 

From some skimming and selected reading - the Wollebius and Voetius look like an untapped treasure trove. Wollebius's Compendium is a miniature systematic theology in itself. It astounds me that there is so much that has not been translated.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 3, 2007)

Here is a review by John Frame.


----------



## crhoades (Jan 3, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Here is a review by John Frame.


 
I love Frame but this made me chuckle...A few will get it. Sic et non strikes back!



> Does Voetius abandon the Christ-centered ethic of the Reformation for a legalistic ca&shy;suistry? Does Turretin see predesti&shy;nation as a kind of universal mech&shy;anism in abstraction from the grace of God in Christ? *I doubt if either question can be answered yes or no, but these writings will surely be a help to their resolution.*


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 3, 2007)

Multi-perspectivalism, anyone?

I'd be interested in hearing more about your impression of the former two pieces in the work once you get more familiar with them, Chris.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 3, 2007)

Gives new meaning to "He who Frames the question wins the debate."


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 3, 2007)

This is an important access point into the Reformed orthodox, but Heppe's presentation is high stylized. It does not follow the order that one finds in the actual texts from which the quotations are lifted. He lifts them selectively to suit his agenda relative to the 19th German ecumenical situation. Use Heppe, but use him carefully, as a starting point, not as a stopping point for study. 

There were other such collections of Reformed sentences, e.g. A. Schweizer's, that were similarly colored by the editor's needs. 

One also wants to be a little cautious with the English translations of the Latin quotations. They're generally sound but I've found a few places that need modification.

The study of Reformed orthodoxy has progressed since the days when this first appeared in English. 

Heppe is best read with Muller's PRRD to hand.

rsc


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 3, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Gives new meaning to "He who Frames the question wins the debate."



BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, HISS!


----------



## crhoades (Jan 3, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> This is an important access point into the Reformed orthodox, but Heppe's presentation is high stylized. It does not follow the order that one finds in the actual texts from which the quotations are lifted. He lifts them selectively to suit his agenda relative to the 19th German ecumenical situation. Use Heppe, but use him carefully, as a starting point, not as a stopping point for study.
> 
> There were other such collections of Reformed sentences, e.g. A. Schweizer's, that were similarly colored by the editor's needs.
> 
> ...


 
Pretty sure you meant all of these comments to refer to Heppe's _Reformed Dogmatics_, not the one edited by Beardslee. Just a clarifier to those who read this thread. I know, I know...your eyes are probably strained from grading papers at the end of last semester...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 3, 2007)

Yes. Exactly. Sorry for the confusion.

The introductory essay in Beardslee is quite dated and not to be trusted. See Muller, Trueman/Clark etc.

rsc



crhoades said:


> Pretty sure you meant all of these comments to refer to Heppe's _Reformed Dogmatics_, not the one edited by Beardslee. Just a clarifier to those who read this thread. I know, I know...your eyes are probably strained from grading papers at the end of last semester...


----------

