# Robert Reymond Systematic



## 3John2 (Dec 19, 2006)

A few years ago I had a friend recommend some systematics to me. He recommended me to start out with the Grudem which I have been using. Recently at a local bookstore I was shocked to find Robert Reymonds there. I say shocked because it's a charismatic bookstore abounding with fluff like John "Willowboy" Osteen, Joyce Meyer, etc. Anyways I was wondering has anyone here used it? If so would you recommend it?


----------



## ADKing (Dec 19, 2006)

No. Reymond is unorthodox on the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. Francis Turretin's 3 volume Elenctic Theology is still unsurpassed in my opinion.


----------



## beej6 (Dec 19, 2006)

I'm not making light of your concern, Rev. King, but does that make the whole of Reymond's systematic worthless?


----------



## ADKing (Dec 19, 2006)

beej6 said:


> I'm not making light of your concern, Rev. King, but does that make the whole of Reymond's systematic worthless?



Not necessarily worthless, no, if used with discernment. But would I _recommend_ it? Especially to laymen? No. I would rather recommend something that is more orthodox (not that I agree with _everything_ in Turretin either!) and still remains the standard against which modern systematic theologies should be judged.


----------



## 3John2 (Dec 19, 2006)

Turretin was on the list but he said he was a "hard read" & more than likely I was not ready for it. No prob there there I'm only 38 so I figure perhaps by the time I'm 60 or 70 I'll be ready I'm in no hurry here! He recommended Grudem or Berkhof & told me perhpas Grudem might be more accesible & I AM enjoying it thoroughly. Was just curious about the Reymond.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 19, 2006)

I use Reymonds work often.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 19, 2006)

3John2 said:


> Turretin was on the list but he said he was a "hard read" & more than likely I was not ready for it. No prob there there I'm only 38 so I figure perhaps by the time I'm 60 or 70 I'll be ready I'm in no hurry here! He recommended Grudem or Berkhof & told me perhpas Grudem might be more accesible & I AM enjoying it thoroughly. Was just curious about the Reymond.



I would get Berkhof before Reymond. Calvin's Institutes are also much less difficult than you might imagine. A.A. Hodge's _Outlines of Theology_ is also very good.


----------



## crhoades (Dec 19, 2006)

I'll sell my copy of Reymond's Systematic for $20 +S&H. Any takers?


----------



## bookslover (Dec 19, 2006)

ADKing said:


> No. Reymond is unorthodox on the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. Francis Turretin's 3 volume Elenctic Theology is still unsurpassed in my opinion.




Actually, Reymond is _quite_ orthodox on the doctrine of eternal generation, by questioning its legitimacy. His is a very fine presentation, and can be added to the list of Reformed thinkers who have been increasingly willing to question the reality of this doctrine. B. B. Warfield, Loraine Boettner, John Murray, and Wayne Grudem, for example, have been quite sharp in their criticisms. 

And, even John Calvin: _...it is foolish to imagine a continuous act of begetting, since it is clear that three persons have subsisted in God from eternity._ (Institutes 1.13.29) (Volume 1, page 159)

Here, just to pick one out of the group, is Boettner (since I have him to hand):

_The following Scripture verses are commonly given as the principal support of this doctrine: John 3:16; 5:26; 10:38; 14:11; 17:21; Hebrews 1:3.

The present writer feels constrained to say, however, that in his opinion the verses quoted do not teach the doctrine in question. He feels that the primary purpose of these and similar verses is to teach that Christ is intimately associated with the Father, that He is equal with the Father in power and glory, that He is, in fact, full Deity, rather than to teach that His Person is generated by or originates in an eternal process which is going on within the Godhead. Even though the attempt is made to safeguard the essential equality of the Son by saying that the process by which the Son is generated is eternal and necessary, he does not feel that the attempt is successful. If, as even Augustine, for instance, asserts, the Father is "Fons Trinitatis" - the fountain or source of the Trinity - from whom both the Son and the Spirit are derived, it seems that in spite of all else we may say we have made the Son and the Spirit dependent upon another as their principal cause, and have destroyed the true and essential equality between the Persons of the Trinity. As we have stated before, when the Scriptures tell us that one Person within the Trinity is known as the "Father" and another as the "Son," they intend to teach, not that the Son is originated by the Father, nor that the Father existed prior to the Son, but that they are the same in nature._ (Loraine Boettner, *Studies in Theology* [Phillipsburg: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947, pp. 121-122] [chapter originally published in the _Evangelical Quarterly_ in 1938 and 1939])

Boettner then quotes the Calvin passage I've written out above.

Boettner and Reymond are right: a Person of the Trinity who has to be "generated" - dependent on another Person of the Trinity for His Personhood - isn't really an equal member of that same Trinity. Along with denying to the Second Person His self-existence as God, the doctrine also strongly implies the ontological subordination of the Second Person to the First (or of the Son to the Father, if you prefer).

This is a doctrine that stands in need of serious questioning.

In any case, Reymond's book is a fine ST - and quite vast. It takes quite awhile to get through it.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 19, 2006)

I was a little puzzled when I found this doctrine in Bavinck. Not sure what I think of it, I would need to learn more. It's so easy to get into heresy about the Trinity, I probably am a heretic on it somewhere. Not a modalist or an Arian, however, I know better than those.

Calvin's writing is amazingly readable. I'm told that this is a characteristic of Renaissance writers. Luther is this way also.


----------



## matthew11v25 (Dec 20, 2006)

Reymond is highly recommended on Monergism.com!!!

http://www.monergismbooks.com/newsystematic3179.html


----------



## ADKing (Dec 20, 2006)

bookslover said:


> Actually, Reymond is _quite_ orthodox on the doctrine of eternal generation, by questioning its legitimacy. His is a very fine presentation, and can be added to the list of Reformed thinkers who have been increasingly willing to question the reality of this doctrine. B. B. Warfield, Loraine Boettner, John Murray, and Wayne Grudem, for example, have been quite sharp in their criticisms.
> 
> And, even John Calvin: _...it is foolish to imagine a continuous act of begetting, since it is clear that three persons have subsisted in God from eternity._ (Institutes 1.13.29) (Volume 1, page 159)





You have an interesting definition of the word orthodox. Historic, Nicean, catholic orthodoxy says otherwise. The eternal generation of the Son has historically been viewed as an essential of the faith. The Athanasian creed is quite clear on this matter. To debate the particulars of this ineffable mystery is one thing; to deny it outright is inexcusable (anathema according to the Athanasian creed). Asserting something is orthodox does not make it so. 

However Calvin is to be understood in the referenced section must be consistent with the fact that Calvin insisted on the docrtine in creeds he helped formulate (in the Italian church in Geneva against Servetus and his heresies). I do not have the reference handy but it was published some time ago in _Kerux_ the Journal of Northwest Theological Seminary.


----------



## Archlute (Dec 20, 2006)

I have found much in Reymond to be of help. Turretin is great as well, but his works can sometimes be not as edifying if taken in large doses since they were written, after all, as the Institutes of _Elenctic_ Theology. In other words, their _primary_ intent is not meant to be a positive systematic presentation of doctrine, but rather a confutation of the various errors of the day that surrounded those doctrines. So, while there is an element of positive presentation, and you can learn a great deal about various heresies, but it can become tiresome if not supplemented by more devotional material.

What I find to be of help in Reymond is the fact that he is a more recent writer, and therefore he interacts with modern debates regarding creation, justification, eschatology, and the like.

For what it's worth, one has to examine the "catholic creeds" with scrutiny. While I've always appreciated much in the Athenasian creed, it does tend to smack of works salvation in several of its phrases, no matter how often I've heard defenders try to reinterpret those as meaning something more Protestant than they otherwise seem to present themselves. Even our own confession admits the fallibility of these creeds (WCF 1.10).

There are some good studies in Reymond, but no systematic text will satisfy in every way.


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 20, 2006)

I'm pleased with Reymond and I refer to it often. I would get Berkhof first. Always keep an eye out for a good deal on Turretin.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 23, 2006)

Archlute said:


> For what it's worth, one has to examine the "catholic creeds" with scrutiny. While I've always appreciated much in the Athenasian creed, it does tend to smack of works salvation in several of its phrases, no matter how often I've heard defenders try to reinterpret those as meaning something more Protestant than they otherwise seem to present themselves. Even our own confession admits the fallibility of these creeds (WCF 1.10).



Just so. And that's why I believe that that statement in 1.10 is one of the wisest things the Westminster divines did as they constructed the Confession. Even the writers of confessions, catechisms, and creeds can screw up!

As I think I noted in my other post (above), increasing numbers of Reformed writers in the 20th century have become increasingly unhappy with the doctrine of eternal generation. After all: God has always existed in three Persons; that's the definition of God, as revealed in the Scriptures. What is there to "generate"?

I'm as an admirerer of the Westminster Standards as the next dude (we've been going through the LC in our adult Sunday School class), but the bottom line must always be: the Bible trumps confessions and catechisms (no matter whose). If a doctrine isn't _biblical_, it doesn't matter if its in a confession.

As an aside, I think the WCF's first chapter, on Scripture, is one of the most stunningly written things I've ever read. It's, quite frankly, brilliant.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 23, 2006)

I think we're taking "generate" too literally. It describes the relationship, In my humble opinion, rather than describing an event. Technically, God not being locked in time, he does not suffer "events." I'm just guessing here, please straighten me out, someone.


----------



## ADKing (Dec 23, 2006)

To all those who may be concerned, this will be my last post on the subject so as not to conduct a long debate about the matter. However, there has been rhetoric used that suggests that we should discard fundamental doctrines of the historic Christian faith because the Bible trumps creeds. Now, it is true that creeds _may_ be in error. Many have been. However, with respect to the eternal generation of the Son we are dealing with a docrtine that has been a staple of the entire catholic Christian faith since the 4th century. Irrespective of some contemporary writers, this language of calling into question fundamentals of the faith is more in keeping with the heresies of the ages and modern theological liberals than historic Christianity or Reformed theology. This same argument could be used to attack the doctrine of the Tinity itself (which in fact, articles have been written showing how Reymond undermines Trinitarian theology) or the deity of the Son. Remeber, _toleration_ of heresies (such as the idea that the Virgin birth of our Lord was a theory) as one acceptable view was the first step the liberals in the PCUSA used in the 1920s. 

All Christians should be very concerned about what is being said on this "Puritan" board relating to these things. If popular opinion is that the Athanasian creed is now wrong and the Christian church of all ages has been wrong and the eternal generation of the Son is _not_ a fundamental of the faith, then I fear for the state of Christ's church and the souls of those propogating such error. 

Most sincerely,


----------

