# Which Systematic Theology to study first?



## monoergon (Nov 3, 2016)

I am going to buy my first systematic theology; I'm considering three options:

1. Geerhardus Vos - _Reformed Dogmatics, Five Volume Set_ (link)

2. Herman Bavinck - _Reformed Dogmatics, 4 Volume Set_ (link)

3. Charles Hodge - Systematic Theology (3 volume set) (link)

- Which one do you recommend for a first systematic theology?

- Which one is easier to understand and which of these theologians writes more clearly?

Thanks


----------



## Beezer (Nov 3, 2016)

All are highly recommended, but I recommend this one first. I find Hodges' writing style clear and easy to follow and for the price (~$100 less than the other two) you can't beat it.

3. Charles Hodge - Systematic Theology (3 volume set) (link)


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 3, 2016)

Agreed, and you can also find his work online for free...

Him and Berkoff were the 2 main theologies read while accepting reformed views regarding Sotierology!

I have the abridged one volume of #2, kave not yet gotten around to read it...


----------



## LilyG (Nov 3, 2016)

I'm working through Vos' Reformed Dogmatics right now and highly recommend it for a first. Surprisingly easy read, simple, logical format. Way easier than Bavinck.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 3, 2016)

Hodge is slightly more to the point than Bavinck, but the scope and magnificence of Bavinck can't be doubted. But I would probably start with Hodge first.

The format to Vos is beginning to appeal to me in its simplicity.

I would also get Richard Muller's _Dictionary_ and just reread it over and over again.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Nov 3, 2016)

If you have never read a Systematic Theology before, all of these are heavyweights. Instead, I would recommend Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology. It's more recent and it is written in more easily understood English. By reading Berkhof, you also get the best of Bavinck. Berkhof was more or less summarizing Bavinck.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 3, 2016)

Guido's Brother said:


> If you have never read a Systematic Theology before, all of these are heavyweights. Instead, I would recommend Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology. It's more recent and it is written in more easily understood English. By reading Berkhof, you also get the best of Bavinck. Berkhof was more or less summarizing Bavinck.



And make sure to get the Eerdmans, not the Banner of Truth edition, as the former has an essay attached.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 3, 2016)

An online version of Berkhof, without his _prolegomena_ is available here:

https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/systematic-theology-louis-berkhof


----------



## Hamalas (Nov 3, 2016)

Is English your second language? That could affect your decision.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 4, 2016)

Charles Hodge would be my pick. I used to keep four systematics handy, Hodge, Hoeksema, Kersten, and Calvin. I found that comparing them would open my eyes, and make me think through issues in a new way. Hodge goes through the themes that should be covered in a Systematics in an orderly, logical fashion.

Today I look at Jeffrey Khoo's *Theology For Every Christian *which is a compendium of Oliver Buswell's Systematics in addition to consulting Hodge. His treatment is warm. Frequently I am interacting with people here in South and Southeast Asia who come from Buswell's perspective.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 4, 2016)

In all honesty, I'd suggest starting with one that is more precise. 

Francis Turretin's _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_

The others aren't bad, per se, but it's important to strive for biblical accuracy. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Logan (Nov 4, 2016)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology



Don't you think he is considerably more nuanced and laborious to read, especially for someone whose first language is not English or Latin? I mean, Turretin is great but I wouldn't consider it introductory or the easiest to understand.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 4, 2016)

Andrew P.C. said:


> In all honesty, I'd suggest starting with one that is more precise.
> 
> Francis Turretin's _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_
> 
> ...


That was the Systematics that Hodge used during his teaching days at Princeton. If I remember correctly, Charles Hodge wrote his own systematics upon his retirement.


----------



## monoergon (Nov 4, 2016)

Thank you all for the recommendations. I will probably study Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. Vos' Reformed Dogmatics is too expensive for me; if it were cheaper, I would probably study it first. 

Turretin will probably be a bit too advanced for a first study of a Systematic Theology.

I wish Berkhof would have dedicated a few more sections on the law of God; I came from a dispensationalist background and the subject of God's laws are fundamental for me. I think Charles Hodge dedicated more sections on the subject of the law(s) of God in his 3rd vol.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 4, 2016)

brjesusfreak said:


> Thank you all for the recommendations. I will probably study Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. Vos' Reformed Dogmatics is too expensive for me; if it were cheaper, I would probably study it first.
> 
> Turretin will probably be a bit too advanced for a first study of a Systematic Theology.
> 
> I wish Berkhof would have dedicated a few more sections on the law of God; I came from a dispensationalist background and the subject of God's laws are fundamental for me. I think Charles Hodge dedicated more sections on the subject of the law(s) of God in his 3rd vol.



Dr Horton would be a nice Theology for you also....


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 4, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> brjesusfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you all for the recommendations. I will probably study Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. Vos' Reformed Dogmatics is too expensive for me; if it were cheaper, I would probably study it first.
> ...



Horton is unique. I like him more than most people like him, I think. He is good on some sections but he can't replace Hodge or Turretin. I tried to read Turretin as one of my first and I couldn't do it. I read him 12 years later and he nearly changed my life.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 5, 2016)

I have read Dr Grudem and Dr Erickson , and while both not strictly reformed, good to overview past views on differing issues in theology!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 5, 2016)

I'd suggest William Ames' _Marrow of Theology_. It's precise, and online in an updated format for free here. It was my first systematic.
My second was Calvin's Institutes, but I would hold that one off for later on. I would go with Charles Hodge second, while simultaneously reading Bavinck's _Doctrine of God_. Then I would read Berkhoff, and then Turretin.
Turretin's is the best, and Calvin is most practical. The others lay a good foundation (outside of _the bible, and the WCF_).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 5, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Dr Horton would be a nice Theology for you also....



His _The Christian Faith_ reads more like a theological novel than a standard systematic theology. I have not read _Pilgrim Theology_, but it might be a good one for a first ST.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 5, 2016)

On another note, in order to really let the material you read sink in, write a 1 page summary of every section of the work you read. Summarizing on paper solidifies your thinking about the subject matter especially if this is your first read through on a systemtic.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2016)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> On another note, in order to really let the material you read sink in, write a 1 page summary of every section of the work you read. Summarizing on paper solidifies your thinking about the subject matter especially if this is your first read through on a systemtic.



That's the most important thing I've ever done in reading, except I do more of an analytical outline of each section


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> > On another note, in order to really let the material you read sink in, write a 1 page summary of every section of the work you read. Summarizing on paper solidifies your thinking about the subject matter especially if this is your first read through on a systemtic.
> ...



I've also found it helpful to do this on google drives. That lets me call together anyting I've written by search words.


----------



## monoergon (Nov 5, 2016)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> On another note, in order to really let the material you read sink in, write a 1 page summary of every section of the work you read. Summarizing on paper solidifies your thinking about the subject matter especially if this is your first read through on a systemtic.



Good advice; I'll do that.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 6, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Horton would be a nice Theology for you also....
> ...



Yeah, I don't mind most of the content but I can't stand the format. One important part of studying a systematic theology is learning to think systematically and I don't think his does a good job of that. But then again, that may not be his intent.

Turretin is probably the best single work out there for training your mind to think biblically, precisely, and carefully but it's a challenge even for those whose first language is English since even the highly educated among us aren't trained to make carefully reasoned distinctions any more. There's a thought-process barrier as well as a language barrier. For a first ST I'd second the Hodge and Berkhof recommendations though at some point I think everyone should try and spend some time working with Turretin even if they can only get through parts of it.

Wilhelmus 'a Brackel's A Christian's Reasonable Service is another choice that is warm, pastoral and relatively easy to follow. John Brown of Haddington's is an exceptional single volume ST as well.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 6, 2016)

TheOldCourse said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Dachaser said:
> ...



I see Horton as useful in rebutting and sidelining various modern challenges to the faith that have arisen since Hegel. But no, I certainly wouldn't go to him to learn to think systematically. That's what Turretin is for.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 6, 2016)

TheOldCourse said:


> Turretin is probably the best single work out there for training your mind to think biblically, precisely, and carefully but it's a challenge even for those whose first language is English since even the highly educated among us aren't trained to make carefully reasoned distinctions any more. There's a thought-process barrier as well as a language barrier.
> .


Princeton students worked through Turretin in Latin. Many of our brethren abroad still have mastery of Latin and may wish to tackle him in the original.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 7, 2016)

Agreed, but he would be useful in refuting modern day departments from the faith,as would Dr grudem theology would be also...


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 8, 2016)

In line with what Dr Macmahon suggested, here are some outlines I've done on various texts. The outlines help in case I have to teach stuff in sunday school or bible study or I need to recall quickly. (This is an old blog; I no longer blog there)

https://patristicevangelism.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/augustine-spirit-and-the-letter/
https://patristicevangelism.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/aquinas-on-sin/


----------



## Shimei (Nov 9, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> An online version of Berkhof, without his _prolegomena_ is available here:
> 
> https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/systematic-theology-louis-berkhof



You can also get the mobi version and pdf here: Louis Berkhof - Systematic Theology 

God bless,
William


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 9, 2016)

Shimei said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > An online version of Berkhof, without his _prolegomena_ is available here:
> ...


The online version I linked to also includes pdf and epub versions. BTW, nice site you have there, William.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 9, 2016)

Based on the posters needs, he would be not be a good choice for him starting out then?

Still think Dr Grudem ST would be good for s starter in theology, just make sureto read with discernment his take on spiritual gifts for today!


----------



## Shimei (Nov 9, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Shimei said:
> 
> 
> > Ask Mr. Religion said:
> ...



Thank you Mr. Religion. 



Dachaser said:


> Based on the posters needs, he would be not be a good choice for him starting out then?
> 
> Still think Dr Grudem ST would be good for s starter in theology, just make sureto read with discernment his take on spiritual gifts for today!



I love Grudem's Systematic Theology (haven't graduated from the little league  ). What I appreciate about your comment was the discernment needed. Grudem lists multiple views, for and against arguments. I like to reference his material when I am debating someone. It kinda gives a more indepth outline of the opposing argument, and often better articulated from the book than most people can muster themselves. Interesting that you also mentioned Grudem's continuationist position. It was rather apparent once in those pages of the book. 

Lastly, I plan to tackle Berkhof here in the months to come. An OPC church got me interested in it because they are doing a slow moving study on the book. I heard it is THE book on Systematic Theology. 

God bless,
William


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 9, 2016)

Shimei said:


> Lastly, I plan to tackle Berkhof here in the months to come. An OPC church got me interested in it because they are doing a slow moving study on the book. I heard it is THE book on Systematic Theology.



Berkhof is trustworthy when it comes to Reformed doctrine. Very few have found anything to quibble about in his very terse work. Berkhof was _channeling _Bavinck, whose work was not yet available in English. So if you want the full course meal, Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics is something to consider down the road.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 9, 2016)

Think that one can profit from using His ST, but again, make sure to read especially his views on spiritual gifts/Holy Spirit!

While in school. my main textbook was Dr Milliard Erickson , and that one also is good for summary of various theological viewpoints of major doctrines!

I am a reformed baptist, so would see things from his viewpoint more than the Reformed Presbyterian Bethren!


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 9, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Based on the posters needs, he would be not be a good choice for him starting out then?
> 
> Still think Dr Grudem ST would be good for s starter in theology, just make sureto read with discernment his take on spiritual gifts for today!



And his views on the Trinity.


----------



## Justified (Nov 9, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> > Based on the posters needs, he would be not be a good choice for him starting out then?
> ...


 Just a wee bit more serious than one's views on the spiritual gifts.


----------



## Taylor (Nov 9, 2016)

I am surprised no one has yet suggested reading Finney's writings on systematic theology!


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 10, 2016)

Isn't that in the Heresies postings?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 10, 2016)

I have read his ST, where is he misunderstanding the nature of the Trinity?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 10, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> I have read his ST, where is he misunderstanding the nature of the Trinity?



http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/89987-A-Trinity-and-Complementarian-Debate


----------



## reaganmarsh (Nov 10, 2016)

Berkhof is very helpful, but he's dry as a bone (to my taste, anyway). A PCA pastor friend told me that seminarians at RTS called it "the big blue sleeping pill." 

I'd recommend Ames, then Calvin, then a'Brakel, then Hodge, then Turretin. 

I recently received a review copy of vol 4 of Vos, and his format looks terrific. Haven't gotten to read it yet, though. It might be suitable as a second ST; but I'd start with Ames.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 10, 2016)

That would be though a discussion involving wether Jesus is subordinate to his father eternally, but not alter the nature of the trinity, as Grudem does affirm the Trinity of God in the biblical sense!


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 10, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> That would be though a discussion involving wether Jesus is subordinate to his father eternally, but not alter the nature of the trinity, as Grudem does affirm the Trinity of God in the biblical sense!



There is more to Trinitarianism than simply saying "3 Persons/1 God." Eternality is a predicate of God's essence, so if the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, then it is hard to see how he is homoousios.


----------



## Toasty (Nov 10, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> > That would be though a discussion involving wether Jesus is subordinate to his father eternally, but not alter the nature of the trinity, as Grudem does affirm the Trinity of God in the biblical sense!
> ...



Does the Son's submission only refer to His humanity?


----------



## Toasty (Nov 10, 2016)

What do you think of the works by Robert Reymond and Dabney?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 10, 2016)

Not really, as my son and I are both fully human, yet he is subordinate to me in the family dynamic!

The scriptures do seem to infer that Jesus etrnally is agreeing that the Father is head of the trinity, and the Holy Spirit is agreeable to be subordiante to boith father/Son...

God has no problem in allowing that among His 3 Persons, so why would we then?

As subordination does not mean inferior, just differing roles in the Godhead, but all Three equally God still!


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 10, 2016)

Robert Raymond aware of, but who is Dabney?


----------



## reaganmarsh (Nov 10, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Robert Raymond aware of, but who is Dabney?



See here: https://www.monergism.com/systematic-theology-r-l-dabney


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 10, 2016)

Thanks...

Seems that 19th Century was a golden age for theology....


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 10, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Not really, as my son and I are both fully human, yet he is subordinate to me in the family dynamic!
> 
> The scriptures do seem to infer that Jesus etrnally is agreeing that the Father is head of the trinity, and the Holy Spirit is agreeable to be subordiante to boith father/Son...
> 
> ...



Relation is a predicate of essence, so saying he is ontologically subordinate is highly problematic.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 10, 2016)

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-rejoinder-to-wayne-grudem#.WCTrcvorKUk
http://reformedforum.org/eternal-relations-trinity-brief-summary-current-controversy/


----------

