# What is Your Favorite PRESBYTERIAN Systematic Theology and Why?



## N. Eshelman (Jan 22, 2010)

We all read these guys: Berkhoff, Bavinck, and Brakel (or at least SHOULD). 

They are wonderful Systematic Theologies. 

What is your favorite Presbyterian Systematic Theology? Why?


----------



## Jake (Jan 22, 2010)

I'm going through Berkhof's now.. it is the first systematic I have read.


----------



## yeutter (Jan 22, 2010)

Hodge, straight forward, solid


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 22, 2010)

Nate, let's see . . . some of those guys were not "Presbyterian," but Reformed. And, Lewis S. Chafer was Presbyterian, but NOT Reformed. Hmmm.

I don't get why anyone would prefer Berkhof to Bavinck. Both of them are great, but Berkhof is a bit . . . derivitive of Bavinck, don't you think?
On one of these "cold" 55 degree days that Nate was complaining about on another thread, a Brakel will warm your heart quicker than Hodge.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jan 22, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> Nate, let's see . . . some of those guys were not "Presbyterian," but Reformed. And, Lewis S. Chafer was Presbyterian, but NOT Reformed. Hmmm.
> 
> I don't get why anyone would prefer Berkhof to Bavinck. Both of them are great, but Berkhof is a bit . . . derivitive of Bavinck, don't you think?
> On one of these "cold" 55 degree days that Nate was complaining about on another thread, a Brakel will warm your heart quicker than Hodge.


 
Dennis, 

The 3Bs were all in the Dutch Reformed tradition. I mean, other than the Dutch Masters, what Presbyterian Systematics do you like? 

I like Berkhof the least of the three. Brakel is one. Bavinck two. Berkhof three. 

BTW, I have Brakel at home AND at my study- so I can be warm in both places.


----------



## dudley (Jan 22, 2010)

I like Charles Hodge an American Reformed Protestant theologian from the 19th century. Hodge was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Princeton, then called the College of New Jersey in 1815. In1819 he graduated from the Princeton Theological seminary, where he became an instructor in 1820. In 1821, he had been ordained as a Presbyterian minister. I like him because he is straight forward and I also liked his discussions in Church Polity which I believe he wrote in 1878


----------



## Michael (Jan 22, 2010)

Um....Dabney!


----------



## Ne Oublie (Jan 22, 2010)

Outlines of Theology, A.A. Hodge. because it was the first Systematic that I heard of and I grew to like the format. 
Robert L.Reymond's because it is current to our time and issues as well as having the benefit of the others.
I liked Morton H.Smith as well, the Southern side, succinct and informative.
Have not read Charles Hodge, not sure I will(reading Brakel), want to read Dabney's next.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 22, 2010)

I like Dabney's Systematic Theology. It is very comprehensive and Dabney does not waste words.

However I have recently started reading W.G.T. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology and am really enjoying it. I like the fact Shedd is not slavishly following Scottish Common-Sense Realism like Hodge.


----------



## puritanhope (Jan 23, 2010)

My favorite Presbyterian Systematic Theology would have to be the Westminster Confession of Faith. Why? Well, because it's the Systematic Theology on which all other Presbyterian Systematic Theologies are based! 

Miss you! The wife and I prayed for your congregation in LA tonight. I hope things are going well.

God bless,
Bryan Buie


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jan 23, 2010)

puritanhope said:


> My favorite Presbyterian Systematic Theology would have to be the Westminster Confession of Faith. Why? Well, because it's the Systematic Theology on which all other Presbyterian Systematic Theologies are based!
> 
> Miss you! The wife and I prayed for your congregation in LA tonight. I hope things are going well.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks Bryan! Interesting comment concerning the WCF too.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 23, 2010)

I have read some of Berkhof and others. For reading I prefer Dabney. It is like sitting in on his lectures. Go figure.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 23, 2010)

Yes, to second what has been said...

The Westminster Standards are the best biblical systematic theology ever written. The most concise, pure, documented by Scripture.

The Three Forms of Unity would be a close second.


----------



## jrdnoland (Jan 23, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> We all read these guys: Berkhoff, Bavinck, and Brakel (or at least SHOULD).
> 
> They are wonderful Systematic Theologies.
> 
> What is your favorite Presbyterian Systematic Theology? Why?


 
Nathan is this the Brakel version? I found it online as a pdf.

http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/B/Brakel%20-%20Christian%27s%20Reasonable%20Service%20%28Systematic%20Theology%29.pdf

I also have Wayne Grudems' version of Systematic Theology.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 23, 2010)

The one Presbyterian systematic theology I keep going back too is Robert Shaw's Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith. He explains all the doctrinal battles, the doctrinal players, and shows how the Confession fits with Scripture and historic theology. Of course there's alot that has happened since he wrote it, but most is still very relevant. There's nothing new under the sun. Some other Prebyterian systematic theologians I keep refering back to, though they haven't written a whole systematic theology yet, is Donald Macleod and John Murray.


----------



## KMK (Jan 23, 2010)

I am in no position to judge between systematic theologies but I have recently enjoyed John Brown of Haddington.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 23, 2010)

jrdnoland said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > We all read these guys: Berkhoff, Bavinck, and Brakel (or at least SHOULD).
> ...



Grudem is a great read for a contemporary theologian. However, he is also a Charismatic-Reformed _Baptist_, not a Presbyterian (despite his WTS M.Div.).


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 23, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Nate, let's see . . . some of those guys were not "Presbyterian," but Reformed. And, Lewis S. Chafer was Presbyterian, but NOT Reformed. Hmmm.
> ...


 
Wow! You have a Brakel at home AND at church??? I guess it made sense when you were in Grand Rapids. But, 55 degree days in the dead of winter are really not THAT cold, Nate.

Actually, I have him on my shelf at home and on my computer so he can keep me warm everywhere!


----------



## jambo (Jan 23, 2010)

Berkhof, Bavinck and Hodge. I will own up and admit I have never read Brakel


----------



## Dragoon (Jan 23, 2010)

As weird as it sounds I have enjoyed Lewis S. Chafer, systematic theology even if I do not agree with much of it. I found his writing style to be easy to read and very enlightening of what dispensationist of that time (and many still) believe.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 23, 2010)

Nathan, this question is highly suggestive of an interesting fact -- while there are literally several dozen Systematic Theology works from the Continent in the late 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries, I can barely even account for a small handful of such works from the British Presbyterians of the same period. In truth, the only fully developed High Orthodox system I can account for off the top of my head from a Presbyterian is Edward Leigh's _Body of Divinity_. Dudley Fenner was an advocate of Presbyterianism and composed a systematic work modeled on Ramist logic, and Cartwright composed a treatise touching on all the principle points of Divinity, but I wouldn't call it a system of Theology. Among the Scotsmen, you have John Brown's lectures, which were mentioned above, and Samuel Rutherford's lectures which were later combined and published under the name _Examen Arminianismi_. The works of men such as Watson, Boston, Binning and Ridgely, who made expositions, sermons or lectures on the Catechisms approach the concept of a system (some more than others), and there were several such works. Can you think of any Presbyterian systems pre-1800s?

*Edit*
John Downame? I have not read his system, _The Summe of Sacred Divinity._ Was he Presbyterian; it seems likely that he was.


----------



## Sven (Jan 23, 2010)

Nate,

One of my all time favorite Presbyterian Systematics is John Dick's Lectures on Theology. John Brown's has my high regard, as well as Hodge's. A. A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology are excellent too.


----------



## JOwen (Jan 23, 2010)

Charles Hodge. Why? Because he is as solid as they come. Plus, as one who will be moving to my new charge in New Jersey this year, I feel a new kinship with him.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 25, 2010)

The only systematic theologies I've read are Calvin's Institutes, the WCF and catechisms, Grudem, Berhkof, Hodge and Dabney.

Grudem's easy to read although erroneous in many places viz. the gifts of the Spirit, church government, the millennium, baptism, etc.

I like Dabney because of his razor sharp and apparently thorough analysis of the various questions/possibilities and opinions. The problem with Dabney is that you feel you could spend hours meditating on and unpacking what he is saying in a relatively few words.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 25, 2010)

Prufrock said:


> Nathan, this question is highly suggestive of an interesting fact -- while there are literally several dozen Systematic Theology works from the Continent in the late 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries, I can barely even account for a small handful of such works from the British Presbyterians of the same period. In truth, the only fully developed High Orthodox system I can account for off the top of my head from a Presbyterian is Edward Leigh's _Body of Divinity_. Dudley Fenner was an advocate of Presbyterianism and composed a systematic work modeled on Ramist logic, and Cartwright composed a treatise touching on all the principle points of Divinity, but I wouldn't call it a system of Theology. Among the Scotsmen, you have John Brown's lectures, which were mentioned above, and Samuel Rutherford's lectures which were later combined and published under the name _Examen Arminianismi_. The works of men such as Watson, Boston, Binning and Ridgely, who made expositions, sermons or lectures on the Catechisms approach the concept of a system (some more than others), and there were several such works. Can you think of any Presbyterian systems pre-1800s?
> 
> *Edit*
> John Downame? I have not read his system, _The Summe of Sacred Divinity._ Was he Presbyterian; it seems likely that he was.


 
Paul, doesn't that generalization largely hold with regard to continental theologians and British theologians, period? I mean, is the number of congregational systems substantially larger than the number of presbyterian systems?


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 25, 2010)

Ruben, my brain must be fried tonight -- I'm not sure I understand your question. I can't account for too many British systems of the period *at all*, let alone from the Presbyterians (in distinction from the Episcopals or Independents); whereas there are seemingly countless scores from the Continental reformed.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 25, 2010)

Paul, that was exactly the point I was looking to have validated. For some reason, the British were much less productive of whole systems than the Continentals. It sounds like a topic for a Reformed sociology student to do a thesis on.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 25, 2010)

Ah, I think I see part of the confusion: "I mean, is the number of *congregational* systems substantially larger than the number of presbyterian systems?" Was the bold portion supposed to read "continental" instead of "congregational"?


----------



## py3ak (Jan 25, 2010)

No. I was asking if we couldn't amplify your statement about British Presbyterians producing few systems, to be simply a statement about the British in general.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 25, 2010)

All right, I follow now. Sorry I'm being so slow!


----------



## py3ak (Jan 25, 2010)

I'll forgive you if you bail me out next time I get in over my head in an argument.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jan 25, 2010)

Prufrock said:


> Nathan, this question is highly suggestive of an interesting fact -- while there are literally several dozen Systematic Theology works from the Continent in the late 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries, I can barely even account for a small handful of such works from the British Presbyterians of the same period. In truth, the only fully developed High Orthodox system I can account for off the top of my head from a Presbyterian is Edward Leigh's _Body of Divinity_. Dudley Fenner was an advocate of Presbyterianism and composed a systematic work modeled on Ramist logic, and Cartwright composed a treatise touching on all the principle points of Divinity, but I wouldn't call it a system of Theology. Among the Scotsmen, you have John Brown's lectures, which were mentioned above, and Samuel Rutherford's lectures which were later combined and published under the name _Examen Arminianismi_. The works of men such as Watson, Boston, Binning and Ridgely, who made expositions, sermons or lectures on the Catechisms approach the concept of a system (some more than others), and there were several such works. Can you think of any Presbyterian systems pre-1800s?
> 
> *Edit*
> John Downame? I have not read his system, _The Summe of Sacred Divinity._ Was he Presbyterian; it seems likely that he was.


 
Let me add this: Of all of the Presbyterian Systematics... how many of the small handful have an ecclesiology in them? It seems to me that Presbyterians (who claim jus divinum of presbyterianism) only a handful of the handful have an ecclisiology!


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 25, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > Nathan, this question is highly suggestive of an interesting fact -- while there are literally several dozen Systematic Theology works from the Continent in the late 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries, I can barely even account for a small handful of such works from the British Presbyterians of the same period. In truth, the only fully developed High Orthodox system I can account for off the top of my head from a Presbyterian is Edward Leigh's _Body of Divinity_. Dudley Fenner was an advocate of Presbyterianism and composed a systematic work modeled on Ramist logic, and Cartwright composed a treatise touching on all the principle points of Divinity, but I wouldn't call it a system of Theology. Among the Scotsmen, you have John Brown's lectures, which were mentioned above, and Samuel Rutherford's lectures which were later combined and published under the name _Examen Arminianismi_. The works of men such as Watson, Boston, Binning and Ridgely, who made expositions, sermons or lectures on the Catechisms approach the concept of a system (some more than others), and there were several such works. Can you think of any Presbyterian systems pre-1800s?
> ...


 
Nathan, you know, you're right. I can't remember EVER reading any with an "ecclisiology" in them.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 25, 2010)

py3ak said:


> No. I was asking if we couldn't amplify your statement about British Presbyterians producing few systems, to be simply a statement about the British in general.


 
I had a philosophy professor tell me that the British theologians/philosophers tended to focus on particulars, while the Continental theologians/philosphers focused on broader and big picture themes. Perhaps the lack of many Presbyterian ST's could be explained by that cultural difference. 

But there might be more going on that just that. The English Presbyterians were not very prominent in England. And in Scotland, many of the colleges used continental resources. David Lackman makes a point about that in his study of the Marrow controversy.


----------



## Der Pilger (Feb 3, 2010)

Does anyone have a link to a Brakel's work on Amazon or elsewhere?

Also, I have to admit that I have never thought of a confession as a systematic theology. Although it is certainly systematic in its structure, considering the entirety of Scripture, I have always distinguished creeds and confessions from systematic theologies because of their difference in detail. I've been of the understanding that what makes a s.t. a s.t. is the very painstaking effort that its author undergoes in order to think God's thoughts after him.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: Does a confession have the same purpose as a theology? Or is it that they are identical in purpose but merely different in length/depth?

Then again, I could be just splitting hairs.


----------



## Prufrock (Feb 3, 2010)

Jeremy, no, they do not have the same purpose. A systematic theology is a private work representing the manner most agreeable to the individual as to the method and order of teaching the various loci of theology; whereas a Confession is a public, ecclesiastical statement (by no means designed to be comprehensive like a system of theology) whereby we jointly confess aspects of the faith.


----------



## nasa30 (Feb 3, 2010)

Prufrock said:


> Jeremy, no, they do not have the same purpose. A systematic theology is a private work representing the manner most agreeable to the individual as to the method and order of teaching the various loci of theology; whereas a Confession is a public, ecclesiastical statement (by no means designed to be comprehensive like a system of theology) whereby we jointly confess aspects of the faith.


 
Most likely the best description of the difference I have heard. Bravo!


----------



## Der Pilger (Feb 3, 2010)

Prufrock said:


> Jeremy, no, they do not have the same purpose. A systematic theology is a private work representing the manner most agreeable to the individual as to the method and order of teaching the various loci of theology; whereas a Confession is a public, ecclesiastical statement (by no means designed to be comprehensive like a system of theology) whereby we jointly confess aspects of the faith.


 
Thanks for the clarification. Do you think that a confession should derive from a systematic theology, given the purpose of the latter? After all, if my understanding is right, then a s.t., though different in-depth and purpose from a confession, is not carried out merely for its own sake. It's also undertaken for the sake of the church--and contemporized for the modern church. (I'm not saying you were denying any of this, just building off of what you wrote, which was great.)

Then again, now that I think of it, perhaps it might just as well be the other way around: The systematic theology is derived from the confession and what the Church has historically taught, fleshing it out and defending it. After all, it's not "Revelation and I" but "Revelation, the Church, and I." A systematic theology undertaken without any connection to the Church's teachings might be risky.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 3, 2010)

Of the Presbyterian systems, I would have to say I like Hodge the best, if only for the reason that he was heavily dependent on Turretin. I've been wanting to get hold of Morton Smith's ST, though. I think I would enjoy that. The jury's still out on Douglas Kelly's volume, but it looks excellent.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 3, 2010)

Rev. Keister,

What is your opinion on W.G.T. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 3, 2010)

bump


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Feb 3, 2010)

Dabney - clarity.

Robert L. Reymond - I can understand it on the first read  - though I wish he wasn't so amill


----------



## Roldan (Feb 4, 2010)

Bavinck hands down......straight forward, clear and honest and Hodge because he's from Philly lol


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 4, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Rev. Keister,
> 
> What is your opinion on W.G.T. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology?


 
Shedd is exceptionally clear and very helpful in many areas. However, I think he is wrong in his advocation of Traducianism, and this has reverberations throughout his theology. Of course, I don't agree with Hodge on everything either. Shedd is well worth owning and reading carefully.


----------



## Kiffin (Feb 5, 2010)

If the Apostle Paul was a Presbyterian, I would have to say Romans .


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Feb 5, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> If the Apostle Paul was a Presbyterian, I would have to say Romans .


 
He was, and you may.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Feb 5, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> If the Apostle Paul was a Presbyterian, I would have to say Romans .


 
Of course he was.


----------

