# Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology



## Reformed Covenanter

I am currently one-third of the way through Wayne Grudem's _Systematic Theology_ (2007 edition), having never read it before. What are your thoughts on this volume (or any of the earlier editions of the work)?


----------



## Matthew1344

My pastor loves it.


----------



## Leslie

My daughter, in her 40's, not at all theologically inclined, enthusiastically joined a study group going through this in 2 years. Anyone who can write well enough to inspire lay people (especially my daughter) to dig in is excellent in my book.


----------



## Matthew1344

yeah it is written to be easily understood.


----------



## kodos

I remember reading it early on in my understanding of the Doctrines of Grace. It was helpful for a season in my life, though I wouldn't recommend it to anyone at my church currently - there are better resources I would point them to, such as G.I Williamson's Commentary on the Confession, and Vos' Commentary on the Larger Catechism - which are works that I think are easy to read and are both Confessionally grounded.


----------



## Jake

I'm curious to see what is beneficial. When reading a systematic theology, I would prefer to read from a Reformed author. I've only been pointed to parts of Grudem's work by non-Reformed (though often predestinarian in orientation) men, such as the section on the continuation of spiritual gifts. Is there something that Grudem addresses better than others?


----------



## Matthew1344

kodos said:


> I remember reading it early on...


me too



kodos said:


> there are better resources


Yeah there is




kodos said:


> though I wouldn't recommend it to anyone at my church currently


But i would still recommend it to people along with the books that Rom said. Actually the other day I told some of my friends they should pick up calvins institutes along with grudems book.


----------



## kodos

Matthew1344 said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> 
> though I wouldn't recommend it to anyone at my church currently
> 
> 
> 
> But i would still recommend it to people along with the books that Rom said. Actually the other day I told some of my friends they should pick up calvins institutes along with grudems book.
Click to expand...


That's great - but I want to be clear that I wouldn't recommend it, because it would cause confusion where Grudem differs from what our Church believes. 

We disagree with Grudem on Polity, Sacraments, and the Ordinary Continuation of Extraordinary Spiritual Gifts (just off the top of my head). I remember the Chapter on Polity being particularly atrocious, and for a _Presbyterian_ to recommend Grudem's book would seem to be an odd thing, considering our denomination's very name is rooted in our polity


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Leslie said:


> My daughter, in her 40's, not at all theologically inclined, enthusiastically joined a study group going through this in 2 years. Anyone who can write well enough to inspire lay people (especially my daughter) to dig in is excellent in my book.





Matthew1344 said:


> yeah it is written to be easily understood.



One thing that has really struck me is that the book is not only well-written, but is also structured very clearly. Thus it compares favourable with Michael Horton's ST; the first 400 pages of Wayne Grudem has been a breeze; the first 400 pages of Michael Horton were so wearisome that I sold the book (only to buy it back a fortnight ago).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

kodos said:


> I wouldn't recommend it to anyone at my church currently





Jake said:


> I'm curious to see what is beneficial. When reading a systematic theology, I would prefer to read from a Reformed author.



I would not give it to those who lack discernment. I am reading it partly because I am in need of a mental challenge, and thought I would sharpen my thinking by reading a systematic theology that is generally well respected, but not one that I would entirely agree with.


----------



## Matthew1344

kodos said:


> Polity


Just real quick, what is this?




kodos said:


> That's great - but I want to be clear that I wouldn't recommend it, because it would cause confusion where Grudem differs from what our Church believes.


good call

I think for the most part our pastors at our church would agree with what he writes in his book. Dont know for sure though.


----------



## kodos

Matthew1344 said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polity
> 
> 
> 
> Just real quick, what is this?
Click to expand...


Church Government.


----------



## Pilgrim

I haven't read it through, although I have found it to be quite useful. But I think the points others have been made regarding how well written it is are valid. It also has a devotional quality that many other similar texts lack.


----------



## KMK

I have found it helpful, especially for understanding how the modern calvinistic mind works. It is difficult to interact in the modern world when all you read is the Puritans.


----------



## DMcFadden

Grudem is a Westminster (Phil) grad (he started at Fuller and transferred) who has written the most popular all-around conservative theology in this generation. There are several hundred thousands of the books in print as it is used in countless Bible colleges and seminaries. This is owing to his clarity, avoidance of technical terminology (e.g., he writes of the "clarity" of Scripture rather than its "perspicuity"), and irenic spirit.

Grudem is so good that he is praised by Reformed (Nicole, Poythress, Packer), Arminian (Coppedge), Baptist (Patterson, Breshears, Baptist Standard), Dispensational (Saucy), Charismatic Baptist (Piper), Foursquare (Hayford) and Vineyard (Deere) theologians.

Major differences from most PB brethren: polity (he is Baptist), eschatology (he is historic premill), and cessationism (he accepts on-going "charismatic" gifts).

Nevertheless, he is more accessible than just about any writer out there and sticks to a conservative, inerrantist, non-egalitarian, 5-point platform.

I have and will continue to recommend him enthusiastically (despite my many disagreements with him on specific points) because there is nobody out there (in my opinion) who can be read by the lay-person and college student so easily and profitably. Among the challenges Reformational Christians face in this age can be summarized by weak views of the authority of the Bible and a pervasive egalitarianism that erases biblical distinctions of gender. Grudem is strong on both of those points. And, Ken is spot on: if you want to engage the present culture, you need to be a bit more up-to-date with the controversies and bibliographies than 400-500 years ago.

If R.C. Sproul had written a sys theo, I would probably have preferred it to Grudem. However, there are only a few Sproul's and Grudems out there. As such, it will be a joy to continue being nourished by the rich fruit of his theology, even if it requires picking out the seeds.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pilgrim said:


> It also has a devotional quality that many other similar texts lack.



Yes, I have found this a significant advantage to the book.




KMK said:


> It is difficult to interact in the modern world when all you read is the Puritans.



So true; I think you have highlighted one of the main problems with neo-Puritanism. By all means read the Puritans, but it is a mistake to simply think that you can regurgitate Puritanism nowadays.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Does anyone know if his son, the Revd Elliot Grudem has any plans to publish any major theological writings? Elliot is a Presbyterian minister and a graduate of RTS; a Presbyterian version of his dad's ST would be most welcome!


----------



## Matthew1344

Online Messages 2005 - Christian Essentials Enrichment Class of Scottsdale Bible Church here is a link that has his systematic theology in outline form. and if you keep clicking, then you can get all of them up to 2014.


----------



## kodos

I'm sorry. I have Grudem in multiple formats. But I couldn't in good conscience recommend him to a lay-person finding their legs in a Confessional Presbyterian Church. To have him undermine many of the doctrines of your church seems odd. Now if you want to give him to someone more firmly rooted in the faith, great! My PCA Pastor wouldn't ever recommend him to anyone in the congregation and would always steer folks elsewhere. I think it was wise of him.

I will echo the praise for his writing style and approachability. It is no doubt a fine work.


----------



## TylerRay

DMcFadden said:


> I have and will continue to recommend him enthusiastically (despite my many disagreements with him on specific points) because there is nobody out there (in my opinion) who can be read by the lay-person and college student so easily and profitably. Among the challenges Reformational Christians face in this age can be summarized by weak views of the authority of the Bible and a pervasive egalitarianism that erases biblical distinctions of gender. Grudem is strong on both of those points. And, Ken is spot on: if you want to engage the present culture, you need to be a bit more up-to-date with the controversies and bibliographies than 400-500 years ago.
> 
> If R.C. Sproul had written a sys theo, I would probably have preferred it to Grudem. However, there are only a few Sproul's and Grudems out there. As such, it will be a joy to continue being nourished by the rich fruit of his theology, even if it requires picking out the seeds.



How does James Montgomery Boice compare?


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am currently one-third of the way through Wayne Grudem's _Systematic Theology_ (2007 edition), having never read it before. What are your thoughts on this volume (or any of the earlier editions of the work)?



Warm, scholarly rigorous. Sure, he bucks the trend in a few areas, but I appreciate him for that.

Here is where I contrast him with Horton (whom I;m currently reading and enjoying) beyond obvious differences. Grudem is dealing with broadly evangelical debates (even the semi-arminians he spars with still fall loosely within American evangelicalism). Horton is dealing with the debates that Eastern Orthodoxy, Radical Orthodoxy, and Continental Philosophy generated--and that's valuable in its own right.

I've used Grudem in teaching many Sunday School classes. His organization is probably the clearest of any.


----------



## RamistThomist

TylerRay said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have and will continue to recommend him enthusiastically (despite my many disagreements with him on specific points) because there is nobody out there (in my opinion) who can be read by the lay-person and college student so easily and profitably. Among the challenges Reformational Christians face in this age can be summarized by weak views of the authority of the Bible and a pervasive egalitarianism that erases biblical distinctions of gender. Grudem is strong on both of those points. And, Ken is spot on: if you want to engage the present culture, you need to be a bit more up-to-date with the controversies and bibliographies than 400-500 years ago.
> 
> If R.C. Sproul had written a sys theo, I would probably have preferred it to Grudem. However, there are only a few Sproul's and Grudems out there. As such, it will be a joy to continue being nourished by the rich fruit of his theology, even if it requires picking out the seeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does James Montgomery Boice compare?
Click to expand...


Grudem gives you A LOT more and deals with more recent controversies.


----------



## Matthew1344




----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

I am with brother Rom on this. Better to read Berkhof, than Grudem.

http://books.biblicaltraining.org/Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof.pdf


----------



## Matthew1344

Never read berkhof. What is best book from him?


----------



## bookslover

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am with brother Rom on this. Better to read Berkhof, than Grudem.
> 
> http://books.biblicaltraining.org/Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof.pdf



Berkhof is a good example of why so many people turn to Grudem. Berkhof is thoroughly orthodox (especially from our Reformed perspective), but he's stunningly boring as a writer. I think the average layman would give up on Berkhof after two or three pages.

Grudem likes women deacons and gives away too much to the charismatic movement - but if you want a clear and well-written presentation of basic Christian doctrine written with style and verve, Grudem is your man. As a Reformed person, you can always supplement him with other writings. (I have the first edition, published in December, 1994.)

His volume is 20 years old this year and, as far as I can tell, it's still a very steady seller.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

I fear explanations of things explained. 

Why is being boring a detriment other than to exemplify the sad state of affairs of this fallen world, wherein a Dominoe's Pizza mentality exists, such that if we cannot "get it" in thirty minutes or less it is free?

It is the same world that the word "awesome" now means "thank you for your well recited order" at a dining establishment.

Sorry, but give me the "boring" men of old who would drive me to my knees seeking understanding of truths versus those who would appeal to the _hoi polloi_ all the while getting not a few matters wrong.


----------



## Matthew1344

Ha 



> Sorry, but give me the "boring" men of old who would drive me to my knees seeking understanding of truths versus those who would appeal to the hoi polloi all the while getting not a few matters wrong.



Be nice, we all love those guys


----------



## bookslover

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I fear explanations of things explained.
> 
> Why is being boring a detriment other than to exemplify the sad state of affairs of this fallen world, wherein a Dominoe's Pizza mentality exists, such that if we cannot "get it" in thirty minutes or less it is free?
> 
> It is the same world that the word "awesome" now means "thank you for your well recited order" at a dining establishment.
> 
> Sorry, but give me the "boring" men of old who would drive me to my knees seeking understanding of truths versus those who would appeal to the _hoi polloi_ all the while getting not a few matters wrong.



I understand your point but, for most average people (and especially in our age, where you're lucky to get people - even Christian people - to read anything at all), "boring" will equal "not read." Grudem gives you the impression that he's truly interested and excited by theology, and wants you to be interested and excited by it, too. As I wrote, it's easy to supplement him with more Reformed stuff when needed, but I would heartily recommend Grudem to most people.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am with brother Rom on this. Better to read Berkhof, than Grudem.



I have read Louis Berkhof's ST twice, and still consider it to be the best (relatively) modern ST. However, I cannot read him all the time and need to read someone else. 




bookslover said:


> Berkhof is thoroughly orthodox (especially from our Reformed perspective), but he's stunningly boring as a writer.



I think Louis Berkhof's boringness [if that is even a word] has been greatly exaggerated.



Matthew1344 said:


> Never read berkhof. What is best book from him?



Matt, you might find his _Manual of Christian Doctrine_ a good medium-length discussion of systematic theology. I had to consult it recently (having never read it before) and found it to be very clear and reasonably concise.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Sorry, but give me the "boring" men of old who would drive me to my knees seeking understanding of truths versus those who would appeal to the hoi polloi all the while getting not a few matters wrong.



Could we not appeal to the _hoi polloi_ while getting those matters right? A Presbyterian version of Wayne Grudem would be most welcome. Perhaps you could write it?


----------



## Matthew1344

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am with brother Rom on this. Better to read Berkhof, than Grudem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read Louis Berkhof's ST twice, and still consider it to be the best (relatively) modern ST. However, I cannot read him all the time and need to read someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Berkhof is thoroughly orthodox (especially from our Reformed perspective), but he's stunningly boring as a writer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Louis Berkhof's boringness [if that is even a word] has been greatly exaggerated.
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never read berkhof. What is best book from him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Matt, you might find his Manual of Christian Doctrine a good medium-length discussion of systematic theology. I had to consult it recently (having never read it before) and found it to be very clear and reasonably concise.*
Click to expand...


Thanks!


----------



## MichaelNZ

I've read only a small amount of Berkhof and Grudem's Systematic Theologies, but I find Grudem far easier to understand. 

However, Berkhof's is available to download for free.


----------



## Andres

Matthew1344 said:


> My pastor loves it.



Matthew, here are your own words from a previous thread:


Matthew1344 said:


> i do not belong to a church that holds a confession. Actually i bet 95 % of my church doesnt know what a confession is.



I don't quote you to pick on you brother, but simply to show that, as wise brothers have noted, Grudem is NOT confessional. For so many champion & recommend his systematic, which isn't just non-confessional, but contra-confessional in several areas, is quite disappointing. So what if Grudem's style of writing is easy to read? You know who else is easy to read? 99% of the fluff on evangelical bookstores these days. Don't be lazy. Be willing to do the hard work and study solid, confessional writers. If you want to read a solid ST, read Berkhof. Read Bavinck. Read Beeke’s A Puritan Theology. If you need more recommendations, then search the archives on here or start a new thread.

As for the line of thinking that Grudem’s ST is the best recommendation for new converts due to it's "readability", I simply disagree. This isn't a case where we are on a deserted island with only a limited number of resources and so Grudem wins out. No, there are several easy-to-read sources that are better to give to new converts. First, the Westminster Standards themselves. Next, as Rom mentioned, Williamson and Vos' commentaries on the WCF and WLC. Next, someone mentioned that if Sproul had written a ST, they'd recommend that. Well, Sproul has written a three volume, lay-level commentary on the WCF, so why not recommend that? Again, if you are a confessional believer, which every member on this board is supposed to be, then there are numerous better options than Grudem’s contra-confessional ST.


----------



## kodos

I actually flipped through Grudem today - since I have it on Kindle format as well, it travels well . I'm even more convinced, particularly as you get to the sacraments, the chapter on Eschatology, Church Government - and most especially, the chapters on Spiritual Gifts, that I would never put it into the hands of a person at our church who was new to the faith or Confessional Presbyterianism. We often have (in our part of the world), folks who come from the 'Bible Belt', who need to be turned to what we see as the proper form of church governance (lots of Bible Churches, and Baptists), the proper view of the sacraments (for Baptists), a more accurate view of eschatology (trying to make them leave their 'left behind' theology, thanks DTS  ), and a high view of Scripture (lots of Pentecostals out here as well). It is very unhelpful to have Grudem affirm all of their existing views, while we attempt to show them what we believe is Biblical. I think that is very unhealthy, personally to explain why their children should be baptized as Grudem affirms credo-baptism, etc., etc.

BTW, if you want an easy to read version of the (American version) of the Westminster Confession of Faith - the OPC has prepared one:
WCF and MESV in Parallel Columns.

I introduced a group of about 5 men who had never been in a Reformed Church before, to this edition of the Confession - after we had started with Grudem (and my own convictions started to change). They ate it up, and they thoroughly enjoyed studying through it. We loved it, and that was before I was ever "Reformed".

And if you are worried about Complementarianism, etc. - pick up separate books on that topic and hand them out. I believe Piper, and Grudem wrote separately on that. But so does Beeke (If I recall correctly), and others whom we would not disagree with.


----------



## kodos

Josh - my former pastor recommended Reymond's to me instead of Grudem when I first was investigating joining the PCA (at the time). I cannot say I've read as much of it, as I have of Grudem's - but what I did read seemed quite solid, and pretty approachable.


----------



## Rich Koster

In the past, in a former congregation, it was used as our Sunday School curriculum. One thing I appreciated about it was the way different viewpoints were listed and why he arrived upon his. While I think he was a little bit too generous with his comments about practices such as "slain in the spirit", the focus upon examining a believers fruit, rather than such an experience, was helpful.


----------



## JonathanHunt

If someone wanted a readable modern systematic, and was not as forgiving of Grudem as I am (being a baptist, he is easier for me to read both on baptism and polity) I would have to say Reymond. I wouldn't recommend Berkhof as a first-off read to most. He is very hard work. Excellent, but very difficult.


----------



## reaganmarsh

If we consider alternatives to Grudem, then in terms of ease of reading and overall sound theological content, I think of (SBC) John L. Dagg's "Manual of Theology". He writes for the non-specialist (though his book was used to train ministers), and achieves well the balance of faithfulness and accessibility.

I offer this suggestion as one who thoroughly enjoyed Grudem, even given our differences. We read him through at SBTS and I concur with our brother above who appreciated his simplicity, organization, and clear excitement for theology. I wish our people would read Bavinck, Reymond, Berkhof, Beeke, and Boyce. But reality is that they simply aren't doing so at present. So if someone will take up Grudem, I will work with them and do all in my power to steer them in the direction of even better theologians.


----------



## rpeters

Frame has put a new Systematic theology out, which may be inline with more Presbyterian thinking


----------



## bookslover

JonathanHunt said:


> I wouldn't recommend Berkhof as a first-off read to most. He is very hard work. Excellent, but very difficult.



Jonathan, that's a good way to put it. Berkhof's not for beginners.


----------



## Andres

rpeters said:


> Frame has put a new Systematic theology out, which may be inline with more Presbyterian thinking



Lol...Frame may be worse than Grudem!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> The late Dr. Robert Reymond has an excellent modern Systematic, if my anecdotal opinion is worth any interest to any. I'm rather surprised he hasn't been mentioned yet.



I would agree that there is much to commend in that volume, however, Dr Reymond's rejection of eternal generation means that it is a book that I do not recommend, as eternal generation is a fundamental doctrine. Dr Reymond himself may not have been hardened in his error, but in my book such an error is much too serious to allow me to recommend the volume. In fact, it could be much more dangerous than Dr Grudem's work precisely because the author was a Presbyterian clergyman and a professor at a Reformed seminary.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Matt, you might find his Manual of Christian Doctrine a good medium-length discussion of systematic theology. I had to consult it recently (having never read it before) and found it to be very clear and reasonably concise.





Matthew1344 said:


> Thanks!



I took my own advice, as I managed to find a good second-hand copy of the book today. If you find Louis Berkhof's _Systematic Theology_ too difficult, then begin with his _Summary of Christian Doctrine_, then move on to his _Manual_, and then unto the ST itself.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Andres said:


> So what if Grudem's style of writing is easy to read? You know who else is easy to read? 99% of the fluff on evangelical bookstores these days. Don't be lazy.



Andrew, the point of communication is to be understood. That being the case, why is it wrong to commend a writer for writing with clarity? It is not a sign that one is being lazy by commending someone for writing in such a manner that they do not make things _unnecessarily difficult_ to understand.



Andres said:


> Be willing to do the hard work and study solid, confessional writers.



Do you seriously think that Jacob and myself, who, despite being confessional have found Dr Grudem's work helpful in some respects, are not willing to do hard work and study solid, confessional writers? Indeed, it could be argued that those who adopt the mindset of only reading books by "our boys" are the ones who have really fallen into the lazy, slovenly mindset that you are warning against. Have you ever considered the breadth of authors that Samuel Rutherford and John Owen consulted?


----------



## MW

Reformed Covenanter said:


> In fact, it could be much more dangerous than Dr Grudem's work precisely because the author was a Presbyterian clergyman and a professor at a Reformed seminary.



If I remember correctly, both of them affirm divine passions. One rejects the Westminster Confession outrightly and the other attempts to reinterpret it so as to exclude only bodily passions.


----------



## DMcFadden

Andres said:


> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My pastor loves it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, here are your own words from a previous thread:
> 
> 
> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i do not belong to a church that holds a confession. Actually i bet 95 % of my church doesnt know what a confession is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't quote you to pick on you brother, but simply to show that, as wise brothers have noted, Grudem is NOT confessional. For so many champion & recommend his systematic, which isn't just non-confessional, but contra-confessional in several areas, is quite disappointing. So what if Grudem's style of writing is easy to read? You know who else is easy to read? 99% of the fluff on evangelical bookstores these days. Don't be lazy. Be willing to do the hard work and study solid, confessional writers. If you want to read a solid ST, read Berkhof. Read Bavinck. Read Beeke’s A Puritan Theology. If you need more recommendations, then search the archives on here or start a new thread.
> 
> As for the line of thinking that Grudem’s ST is the best recommendation for new converts due to it's "readability", I simply disagree. This isn't a case where we are on a deserted island with only a limited number of resources and so Grudem wins out. No, there are several easy-to-read sources that are better to give to new converts. First, the Westminster Standards themselves. Next, as Rom mentioned, Williamson and Vos' commentaries on the WCF and WLC. *Next, someone mentioned that if Sproul had written a ST, they'd recommend that. Well, Sproul has written a three volume, lay-level commentary on the WCF, so why not recommend that? * Again, if you are a confessional believer, which every member on this board is supposed to be, then there are numerous better options than Grudem’s contra-confessional ST.
Click to expand...


I do not understand the refusal to recommend a good book despite intramural disagreements.

I LOVE Sproul and have contributed to his ministry for years. But, by the standard being advocated by some, he would not pass muster either. First, he uses religious art in his church, including representations of members of the Trinity. Second, what is more offensive to my Presbyterian brethren: a Westminster grad like Grudem who accepts congregational polity in his systematic theology or a Presbyterian like Sproul who has pastored a church described as an "independent congregation in the Reformed tradition . . . Saint Andrew’s is not affiliated with a particular denomination"? And, then, for those of you who are EP, there is the matter of hymns and the proper observance of the Sabbath. If reading and recommending Sproul requires perfect agreement in all particulars, then he does not "qualify" either.

I fully support confessional Christianity and expect churches to hold their people (and certainly their leaders) to that standard. Presbyterian churches often require subscription by the leaders, 1689 congregations require varying degrees of confessional subscription, some other churches (e.g., conservative Lutheran groups) make confessional subscription a condition for membership. However tightly one draws the confessional circle, this does not mean that one may not read or cannot profit from systematic theologies of slightly different perspectives.


----------



## Andres

DMcFadden said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My pastor loves it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, here are your own words from a previous thread:
> 
> 
> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i do not belong to a church that holds a confession. Actually i bet 95 % of my church doesnt know what a confession is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't quote you to pick on you brother, but simply to show that, as wise brothers have noted, Grudem is NOT confessional. For so many champion & recommend his systematic, which isn't just non-confessional, but contra-confessional in several areas, is quite disappointing. So what if Grudem's style of writing is easy to read? You know who else is easy to read? 99% of the fluff on evangelical bookstores these days. Don't be lazy. Be willing to do the hard work and study solid, confessional writers. If you want to read a solid ST, read Berkhof. Read Bavinck. Read Beeke’s A Puritan Theology. If you need more recommendations, then search the archives on here or start a new thread.
> 
> As for the line of thinking that Grudem’s ST is the best recommendation for new converts due to it's "readability", I simply disagree. This isn't a case where we are on a deserted island with only a limited number of resources and so Grudem wins out. No, there are several easy-to-read sources that are better to give to new converts. First, the Westminster Standards themselves. Next, as Rom mentioned, Williamson and Vos' commentaries on the WCF and WLC. *Next, someone mentioned that if Sproul had written a ST, they'd recommend that. Well, Sproul has written a three volume, lay-level commentary on the WCF, so why not recommend that? * Again, if you are a confessional believer, which every member on this board is supposed to be, then there are numerous better options than Grudem’s contra-confessional ST.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not understand the refusal to recommend a good book despite intramural disagreements.
> 
> I LOVE Sproul and have contributed to his ministry for years. But, by the standard being advocated by some, he would not pass muster either. First, he uses religious art in his church, including representations of members of the Trinity. Second, what is more offensive to my Presbyterian brethren: a Westminster grad like Grudem who accepts congregational polity in his systematic theology or a Presbyterian like Sproul who has pastored a church described as an "independent congregation in the Reformed tradition . . . Saint Andrew’s is not affiliated with a particular denomination"? And, then, for those of you who are EP, there is the matter of hymns. If reading and recommending Sproul requires perfect agreement in all particulars, then he does not "qualify" either.
Click to expand...


If someone asked me for a church recommendation in Sanford, FL, I would not recommend St Andrews. And depending on which subject matter is at hand, I would not always recommend Sproul's works for the reasons you've listed. 

The issue isn't whether or not Grudem is 100% perfect in everything he has written in his ST (no fallible man will be) but rather the issue for me is that so many are singing the praises of Grudem's ST in spite of the fact that it's contra-confessional in many places and in spite of the fact that there are better options. But, never mind those issues because Grudem is "easy to read".


----------



## DMcFadden

Teachers recommend books for a variety of reasons. You clearly believe that there are "better options." That is a reasonable and defensible position to hold. However, some of us do not agree. For some audiences and some purposes, I judge Grudem the very best option currently available in English, even though his work does not agree with me theologically on numerous points (e.g., creation, eschatology, spiritual gifts).

In my own teaching, I have used Grudem to teach several classes, supplementing him with works that come closer to my own thinking.

For me, it is similar to my preference of translation. Before the ESV, my Bible was the NIV and I used it in all preaching and teaching. As soon as the ESV became available, my only NIV is on my computer. If something better than the ESV surfaces, the ESV will be history. Grudem is my "go to" recommendation . . . for now. If a better choice appears, it will receive my support.


----------



## Matthew1344

Andres said:


> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My pastor loves it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, here are your own words from a previous thread:
> 
> 
> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i do not belong to a church that holds a confession. Actually i bet 95 % of my church doesnt know what a confession is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't quote you to pick on you brother, but simply to show that, as wise brothers have noted, Grudem is NOT confessional. For so many champion & recommend his systematic, which isn't just non-confessional, but contra-confessional in several areas, is quite disappointing. So what if Grudem's style of writing is easy to read? You know who else is easy to read? 99% of the fluff on evangelical bookstores these days. Don't be lazy. Be willing to do the hard work and study solid, confessional writers. If you want to read a solid ST, read Berkhof. Read Bavinck. Read Beeke’s A Puritan Theology. If you need more recommendations, then search the archives on here or start a new thread.
> 
> As for the line of thinking that Grudem’s ST is the best recommendation for new converts due to it's "readability", I simply disagree. This isn't a case where we are on a deserted island with only a limited number of resources and so Grudem wins out. No, there are several easy-to-read sources that are better to give to new converts. First, the Westminster Standards themselves. Next, as Rom mentioned, Williamson and Vos' commentaries on the WCF and WLC. Next, someone mentioned that if Sproul had written a ST, they'd recommend that. Well, Sproul has written a three volume, lay-level commentary on the WCF, so why not recommend that? Again, if you are a confessional believer, which every member on this board is supposed to be, then there are numerous better options than Grudem’s contra-confessional ST.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the advice! I will def do that!

Right now I am reading "Knowing God" "Attributes of God" and "Pleasures of God". And also trying to learn more about the LBCF and WCF. As soon as I am done with those, Ill probably jump onto Burkhof. He seems to be a great read!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> If I remember correctly, both of them affirm divine passions. One rejects the Westminster Confession outrightly and the other attempts to reinterpret it so as to exclude only bodily passions.



Dr Grudem definitely does so (though he does so tentatively); I meant to mention that earlier. I will try to consult Dr Reymond's work again later today.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Andres said:


> so many are singing the praises of Grudem's ST in spite of the fact that it's contra-confessional in many places and in spite of the fact that there are better options. But, never mind those issues because Grudem is "easy to read".



Does anyone here deny that there are better options? I am currently reading Francis Turretin's Institutes, which is a much better option than any modern ST, but that does not stop me reading modern STs and finding them helpful in some/many respects.

As I said earlier, when it comes to modern STs, BIB is the rule: Berkhof is Best!



DMcFadden said:


> You clearly believe that there are "better options." That is a reasonable and defensible position to hold. However, some of us do not agree. For some audiences and some purposes, I judge Grudem the very best option currently available in English, even though his work does not agree with me theologically on numerous points



EDIT - Question for Dennis: You recommend Wayne Grudem very highly, but are you saying that all older STs do not constitute better options than Dr Grudem's work?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> If I remember correctly, both of them affirm divine passions. One rejects the Westminster Confession outrightly and the other attempts to reinterpret it so as to exclude only bodily passions.



In fact, I have just looked for it now as Robert Reymond's book is on the shelf above my desk at home. Dr Reymond stated:

Thus whenever divine impassibility is interpreted to mean that god is impervious to human pain or incapable of empathizing with human grief it must be roundly denounced and rejected. When the Confession of Faith declares that God is "without ... passions" it should be understood to mean that God has no _bodily_ passions such as hunger or the human drive for sexual fulfilment. ... We do, however, affirm that the creature cannot inflict suffering, pain, or any sort of distress upon him _against_ his will. In this sense God is impassible. 

R. L. Reymond, _A new systematic theology of the Christian faith_ (Nashville, 1998), p. 179 (emphasis original).

I am citing from the first edition here; does anyone know if Dr Reymond modified this teaching in the later edition of his ST?


----------



## Logan

I've mentioned before that I thoroughly enjoyed reading through Hodge's Systematic Theology, and he's about as confessional as one can get. Thorough, fair, bringing up various systems before rejecting them on the basis of Scripture and presenting the Scriptural doctrine. There are numerous quotes in German, Latin, and Greek that I had to skip though. I don't know how his "modernness" or readability compare to Grudem though, as I've never read the latter.

He's a little more structured than "Frankie" Turretin but I like Turretin too.


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what if Grudem's style of writing is easy to read? You know who else is easy to read? 99% of the fluff on evangelical bookstores these days. Don't be lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew, the point of communication is to be understood. That being the case, why is it wrong to commend a writer for writing with clarity? It is not a sign that one is being lazy by commending someone for writing in such a manner that they do not make things _unnecessarily difficult_ to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be willing to do the hard work and study solid, confessional writers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that Jacob and myself, who, despite being confessional have found Dr Grudem's work helpful in some respects, are not willing to do hard work and study solid, confessional writers? Indeed, it could be argued that those who adopt the mindset of only reading books by "our boys" are the ones who have really fallen into the lazy, slovenly mindset that you are warning against. Have you ever considered the breadth of authors that Samuel Rutherford and John Owen consulted?
Click to expand...


Agreed, Daniel. There is a lot of things I am guilty of, but this probably isn't it. I honed my Latin so I could better read Protestant Scholastics. I've read through volume 1 of Muller's PRRD at least two times through. I've read Volume 2 of Bavinck at least three times cover-to-cover, plus over 2,500 pages of the Church Fathers and the leading monographs from Oxford University on them. I've read through volumes 1 and 2 of Turretin of Turretin and all of Hodge. Yay, I speak as a fool.

I'm teaching myself French so I better understand Continental Philosophy and better respond to postmodern challenges to the Faith--and continue same challenges to modernity.


----------



## Pilgrim

TylerRay said:


> How does James Montgomery Boice compare?



I've had that book for a while but also haven't read it through yet. It looks to be strong on inerrancy, soteriology, and the "basic" doctrines of the faith. But it is weak on ecclesiology and especially eschatology. By that I mean that the different views on baptism and eschatology are hardly given any treatment at all. So it is not a comprehensive text despite being over 700 pages long and organized along the lines of Calvin's institutes. 

That being said, it might not be a bad place to start. It was aimed at the layman and may be equal to Grudem with regard to accessibility for those who aren't used to reading that kind of book. It would have to be supplemented with other material on baptism and eschatology.


----------



## Pilgrim

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Does anyone know if his son, the Revd Elliot Grudem has any plans to publish any major theological writings? Elliot is a Presbyterian minister and a graduate of RTS; a Presbyterian version of his dad's ST would be most welcome!



The only thing I can recall offhand him having his name on is as the editor of a very condensed version of his father's work. As with Berkhof (Systematic Theology, Manual of Theology, and Summary of Christian Doctrine,) Grudem's work has basically been issued in 3 sizes: large, medium (Bible Doctrine) and small.

He is now affiliated with Acts 29 and evidently left Presbyterianism behind several years ago. It may be that Acts 29 lets Presbyterians affiliate, (and he was a church planter (or replanter) as a Presbyterian but the church he is serving now is baptistic. And he was at Mars Hill before that.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I am going to start marketing the Ellisville Presbyterian Church, ARP as "Vintage 1646"...


----------



## Pilgrim

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am currently one-third of the way through Wayne Grudem's _Systematic Theology_ (2007 edition), having never read it before. What are your thoughts on this volume (or any of the earlier editions of the work)?



One difference from the earlier editions is his view of baptism and how it relates to church membership. (I can't recall if he also changed his views on the terms of communion or not.) Earlier he taught open membership, where for example, a Presbyterian could join a Baptist church without being immersed. But upon further review he changed his mind and now affirms the traditional Baptist view. He goes into this in some detail in his ST and perhaps elsewhere. He notes that churches like the Evangelical Free Churches (which If I recall correctly he may have been affiliated with at one time, having been on the faculty at their seminary) which take an open view on the baptism question too often end up deemphasizing baptism altogether, with members who haven't been baptized by anyone's definition. 

Something else of note is his view of the Apostle's Creed. He believes that the phrase "He descended into hell" is indefensible. A journal article of his where he argues that position can be found here.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Chris, thanks for those items of information.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am currently one-third of the way through Wayne Grudem's _Systematic Theology_ (2007 edition), having never read it before. What are your thoughts on this volume (or any of the earlier editions of the work)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One difference from the earlier editions is his view of baptism and how it relates to church membership. (I can't recall if he also changed his views on the terms of communion or not.) Earlier he taught open membership, where for example, a Presbyterian could join a Baptist church without being immersed. But upon further review he changed his mind and now affirms the traditional Baptist view. He goes into this in some detail in his ST and perhaps elsewhere. He notes that churches like the Evangelical Free Churches (which If I recall correctly he may have been affiliated with at one time, having been on the faculty at their seminary) which take an open view on the baptism question too often end up deemphasizing baptism altogether, with members who haven't been baptized by anyone's definition.
> 
> Something else of note is his view of the Apostle's Creed. He believes that the phrase "He descended into hell" is indefensible. A journal article of his where he argues that position can be found here.
Click to expand...


I first had the recent edition, gave it away, but found a first edition (I think) at a book sale. I'll look into that.


----------



## DMcFadden

Reformed Covenanter said:


> EDIT - Question for Dennis: You recommend Wayne Grudem very highly, but are you saying that all older STs do not constitute better options than Dr Grudem's work?



Do I consider Grudem a better "option" for a student today? Yes. Are there better theologians or theologies than Grudem in the past? Absolutely!!! Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Gerhard, a' Brakel, Bavinck, Dabney, Hodge, Shedd, Barth, Moltmann, Carl F.H. Henry, et. al. are "better" systematic theologians. I observed that teachers use books for different reasons. And, Grudem is my most recommended book for a systematic theology, not the best theologian, or my favorite theologian, or the one I agree with the most.

Issues (not in order) such as orthodoxy, price, comprehensiveness, bibliography, readability, likelihood of future usefulness and repeated reference, handling of biblical texts, compactness, reputation, interaction with current controversies and other points of view, balance in handling controversial subjects, and fairness in evaluating those with whom one disagrees, and the like enter into my thinking when recommending a book.

Barth is a "greater" theologian and certainly more comprehensive (at 9,000 pages), but he is not conservative enough, difficult to read, and exceedingly verbose. Turretin and a'Brakel are wonderful but they do not deal with current controversies and cannot provide the kind of additional bibliographic help I want in a book used for students.

Somebody commented that this is not a "desert island" type situation so why limit oneself to one source such as Grudem. Indeed, why? Grudem is a GREAT entry to the subject of theology. He should be augmented, supplemented, and contradicted by any number of solid confessional sources (depending on one's confessional commitments).


----------



## MW

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am citing from the first edition here; does anyone know if Dr Reymond modified this teaching in the later edition of his ST?



The second edition contains the same wording and pagination. The book, What is God, discussing unchangeableness, also argues the point.


----------



## Andres

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Do you seriously think that Jacob and myself, who, despite being confessional have found Dr Grudem's work helpful in some respects, are not willing to do hard work and study solid, confessional writers?



Daniel, No I do not think that of yourself, Jacob, or anyone else on this board. I did not intend to imply this and I apologize if I did. I am quite sure that you two men and many others on here are far more knowledgable than myself and have likely studied more difficult books than myself. My intention with that comment was in reaction to the comments that kept coming up regarding Grudem - yes, we disagree with him, but he's more readable than the other authors we do agree with.



DMcFadden said:


> Teachers recommend books for a variety of reasons. You clearly believe that there are "better options." That is a reasonable and defensible position to hold. However, some of us do not agree. For some audiences and some purposes, I judge Grudem the very best option currently available in English, even though his work does not agree with me theologically on numerous points (e.g., creation, eschatology, spiritual gifts).



Then we shall agree to disagree and I will continue to have nothing but the utmost respect for you brother.


----------



## DMcFadden

Andrew, I always read your posts with great appreciation and benefit. Mutual respect indeed.


----------



## bookslover

DMcFadden said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT - Question for Dennis: You recommend Wayne Grudem very highly, but are you saying that all older STs do not constitute better options than Dr Grudem's work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I consider Grudem a better "option" for a student today? Yes. Are there better theologians or theologies than Grudem in the past? Absolutely!!! Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Gerhard, a' Brakel, Bavinck, Dabney, Hodge, Shedd, Barth, Moltmann, Carl F.H. Henry, et. al. are "better" systematic theologians. I observed that teachers use books for different reasons. And, Grudem is my most recommended book for a systematic theology, not the best theologian, or my favorite theologian, or the one I agree with the most.
> 
> Issues (not in order) such as orthodoxy, price, comprehensiveness, bibliography, readability, likelihood of future usefulness and repeated reference, handling of biblical texts, compactness, reputation, interaction with current controversies and other points of view, balance in handling controversial subjects, and fairness in evaluating those with whom one disagrees, and the like enter into my thinking when recommending a book.
> 
> Barth is a "greater" theologian and certainly more comprehensive (at 9,000 pages), but he is not conservative enough, difficult to read, and exceedingly verbose. Turretin and a'Brakel are wonderful but they do not deal with current controversies and cannot provide the kind of additional bibliographic help I want in a book used for students.
> 
> Somebody commented that this is not a "desert island" type situation so why limit oneself to one source such as Grudem. Indeed, why? Grudem is a GREAT entry to the subject of theology. He should be augmented, supplemented, and contradicted by any number of solid confessional sources (depending on one's confessional commitments).
Click to expand...


Hear, hear, Dennis! Well said.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Andres said:


> Daniel, No I do not think that of yourself, Jacob, or anyone else on this board. I did not intend to imply this and I apologize if I did. I am quite sure that you two men and many others on here are far more knowledgable than myself and have likely studied more difficult books than myself. My intention with that comment was in reaction to the comments that kept coming up regarding Grudem - yes, we disagree with him, but he's more readable than the other authors we do agree with.



Thanks for your explanation, Andrew.


----------



## nick

I liked reading it while I was at a New Calvinism Baptist church. Highly recommended to me by my pastor (1 of 2 times I spoke with the pastor in my 7 years of being a member... mega-churches... *sigh*). Before that, I also enjoyed reading Charles Stanley's _Handbook For Christian Living_ while at a free-will Baptist church. That paired well with the _Left Behind_ novels I was reading at the time. Still have both Grudem's and Stanley's books, and I still have fond memories of how the Lord used the contents to further reform me.

Praise God he used them in my life, but I wouldn't recommend them to anyone now. I've been reading through William Plumer's _Theology for the People_ (also free online) with my pastor and a group of people from church. A lot easier to read than Grudem if you ask me.



PS: _Left Behind_ got... left behind. *rimshot*


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

nick said:


> I've been reading through William Plumer's Theology for the People (also free online)



You can get the original pagination from the following link: https://archive.org/details/truthsforpeople00plum


----------



## Abeard

Has anyone read Douglas Kelly's systematic?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Abeard said:


> Has anyone read Douglas Kelly's systematic?



I have read the first volume. With all due respect to Dr Kelly, it read a bit like a calendar of historical sources (especially patristic sources), rather than a standard systematic theology. This approach is quite useful for those eager to explore the Early Church Fathers, but I would have preferred to have read more of his own musings. I have since given the first volume away, and do not think that I will read the second volume.

I really wish that Derek Thomas would write a systematic theology. His School of Theology lectures are superb; I have never encountered anyone who can explain difficult concepts with such simplicity and clarity.


----------



## DMcFadden

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Abeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone read Douglas Kelly's systematic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the first volume. With all due respect to Dr Kelly, it read a bit like a calendar of historical sources (especially patristic sources), rather than a standard systematic theology. This approach is quite useful for those eager to explore the Early Church Fathers, but I would have preferred to have read more of his own musings. I have since given the first volume away, and do not think that I will read the second volume.
> 
> I really wish that Derek Thomas would write a systematic theology. His School of Theology lectures are superb; I have never encountered anyone who can explain difficult concepts with such simplicity and clarity.
Click to expand...


I had not bothered with Kelley's second volume either. But check out these recommendations:



> One of those rare books that will shape both scholarly and pastoral theology for generations to come.
> Richard Pratt ~ President, Third millennium Ministries, Orlando, Florida
> 
> Nothing less than remarkable.
> William Edgar ~ Professor of Apologetics, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
> 
> A joy to witness... a model to which others should aspire.
> Carl R. Trueman ~ Paul Woolley Professor of Historical Theology and Church History, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania



Unless Trueman is like Packer (who evidently has never met a book he didn't like), this is high praise. I think it might be worth a look.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

DMcFadden said:


> Unless Trueman is like Packer (who evidently has never met a book he didn't like), this is high praise.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

In his book _The Message of the Person of Christ_, Robert Letham says that he is working on a systematic theology. At long last, we may have found a worthy successor to Louis Berkhof. No disrespect to anyone else, but I suspect that Bob's work will result in *the* systematic theology for the modern era.


----------



## py3ak

Reformed Covenanter said:


> In his book _The Message of the Person of Christ_, Robert Letham says that he is working on a systematic theology. At long last, we may have found a worthy successor to Louis Berkhof. No disrespect to anyone else, but I suspect that Bob's work will result in *the* systematic theology for the modern era.



No systematic theology would deserve to become the standard if it neglected the Protestant Scholastics as badly as his volume on the Trinity did.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

Most ST texts that I can think of offhand that have been published in the past 50 years have some kind of idiosyncrasy or something that, in the eyes of many, would prevent them from being recommended without qualification to the "people in the pews." Grudem's have been noted here. When it was published, Horton was hailed as the long awaited replacement for Berkhof, but given the focus that Jacob notes above, it's not necessarily suited for the kinds of questions the average layman is going to have and addresses issues that he is not likely to ever deal with unless he is flirting with EO or some other non-evangelical thought. I think he sometimes strawmans opposing views as well. The issues with Frame have been gone over here ad nauseum over the past decade. 

Going further back, something like A.A. Hodge's "Outlines of Theology" is still very useful with regard to the basics, in my opinion. Going back much further, Thomas Watson's "Body of Divinity" is still quite useful and is easy to read for a Puritan text. 

With regard to Reymond, I was under the impression that his teaching on Trinitarian issues was improved if not fixed in the second edition. If I recall correctly the foul he committed in the first edition went beyond the eternal generation issue. But I may be mistaken. He also teaches that in some sense God is the author of sin, which is not generally the Reformed view.

With regard to what book to read, it largely depends on the one who is asking. Some people are better able to eat the meat and spit out the bones than others.


----------



## bookslover

Packer never wrote a systematic theology which, in my view, is unfortunate (due to the clarity with which he expresses himself). Perhaps some enterprising soul will transcribe his systematics lectures so they can be published one day.


----------



## Pilgrim

bookslover said:


> Packer never wrote a systematic theology which, in my view, is unfortunate (due to the clarity with which he expresses himself). Perhaps some enterprising soul will transcribe his systematics lectures so they can be published one day.



While certainly not a systematic text, there is his "Concise Theology" which contains the articles he wrote for the Reformation Study Bible.


----------



## RamistThomist

py3ak said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In his book _The Message of the Person of Christ_, Robert Letham says that he is working on a systematic theology. At long last, we may have found a worthy successor to Louis Berkhof. No disrespect to anyone else, but I suspect that Bob's work will result in *the* systematic theology for the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No systematic theology would deserve to become the standard if it neglected the Protestant Scholastics as badly as his volume on the Trinity did.
Click to expand...



I didn't notice it until now, and even though I've read his book on the Trinity half a dozen times, he doesn't deal with the Protestant scholastics. Interestingly enough, Michael Horton interacts and builds upon Turretin throughout his more scholarly works.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> Most ST texts that I can think of offhand that have been published in the past 50 years have some kind of idiosyncrasy or something that, in the eyes of many, would prevent them from being recommended without qualification to the "people in the pews." Grudem's have been noted here. When it was published, Horton was hailed as the long awaited replacement for Berkhof, but given the focus that Jacob notes above, it's not necessarily suited for the kinds of questions the average layman is going to have and addresses issues that he is not likely to ever deal with unless he is flirting with EO or some other non-evangelical thought. I think he sometimes strawmans opposing views as well. The issues with Frame have been gone over here ad nauseum over the past decade.
> 
> Going further back, something like A.A. Hodge's "Outlines of Theology" is still very useful with regard to the basics, in my opinion. Going back much further, Thomas Watson's "Body of Divinity" is still quite useful and is easy to read for a Puritan text.
> 
> With regard to Reymond, I was under the impression that his teaching on Trinitarian issues was improved if not fixed in the second edition. If I recall correctly the foul he committed in the first edition went beyond the eternal generation issue. But I may be mistaken. He also teaches that in some sense God is the author of sin, which is not generally the Reformed view.
> 
> With regard to what book to read, it largely depends on the one who is asking. Some people are better able to eat the meat and spit out the bones than others.



Here is how I look at it:

1) If you are debating RCC or EO, do NOT go to Grudem. Go to Charles Hodge or Turretin (or to a lesser degree AA Hodge).
2) If you want mighty soul-stirring passages with an occasional thrust against Rome, Watson is the best.
3) If you want to attack feminism and evangelical arminianism, then Grudem is the best.
4) If you want to interact with postmodernism from a systematic theology perspective and actually offer serious critiques that aren't staw-men, then Michael Horton is the best.
5) If you want a good summary, then Berkhof is probably the best.
6) If you want the complete triumph of Reformed thought, Bavinck is the best.
Honorable mention: Dabney.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Baroque Norseman said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In his book _The Message of the Person of Christ_, Robert Letham says that he is working on a systematic theology. At long last, we may have found a worthy successor to Louis Berkhof. No disrespect to anyone else, but I suspect that Bob's work will result in *the* systematic theology for the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No systematic theology would deserve to become the standard if it neglected the Protestant Scholastics as badly as his volume on the Trinity did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice it until now, and even though *I've read his book on the Trinity half a dozen times*, he doesn't deal with the Protestant scholastics. Interestingly enough, Michael Horton interacts and builds upon Turretin throughout his more scholarly works.
Click to expand...


Seriously? That is some going! 

I will wait until Bob's ST comes out before speculating as to his interaction with the Protestant scholastics; he is, nonetheless, one of the best living Reformed theologians, and is a real blessing to the church (and yes, I disagree with him on creation and psalmody). Although I repeat my stated wish that Derek Thomas would write an ST.


----------



## bookslover

Baroque Norseman said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most ST texts that I can think of offhand that have been published in the past 50 years have some kind of idiosyncrasy or something that, in the eyes of many, would prevent them from being recommended without qualification to the "people in the pews." Grudem's have been noted here. When it was published, Horton was hailed as the long awaited replacement for Berkhof, but given the focus that Jacob notes above, it's not necessarily suited for the kinds of questions the average layman is going to have and addresses issues that he is not likely to ever deal with unless he is flirting with EO or some other non-evangelical thought. I think he sometimes strawmans opposing views as well. The issues with Frame have been gone over here ad nauseum over the past decade.
> 
> Going further back, something like A.A. Hodge's "Outlines of Theology" is still very useful with regard to the basics, in my opinion. Going back much further, Thomas Watson's "Body of Divinity" is still quite useful and is easy to read for a Puritan text.
> 
> With regard to Reymond, I was under the impression that his teaching on Trinitarian issues was improved if not fixed in the second edition. If I recall correctly the foul he committed in the first edition went beyond the eternal generation issue. But I may be mistaken. He also teaches that in some sense God is the author of sin, which is not generally the Reformed view.
> 
> With regard to what book to read, it largely depends on the one who is asking. Some people are better able to eat the meat and spit out the bones than others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is how I look at it:
> 
> 1) If you are debating RCC or EO, do NOT go to Grudem. Go to Charles Hodge or Turretin (or to a lesser degree AA Hodge).
> 2) If you want mighty soul-stirring passages with an occasional thrust against Rome, Watson is the best.
> 3) If you want to attack feminism and evangelical arminianism, then Grudem is the best.
> 4) If you want to interact with postmodernism from a systematic theology perspective and actually offer serious critiques that aren't staw-men, then Michael Horton is the best.
> 5) If you want a good summary, then Berkhof is probably the best.
> 6) If you want the complete triumph of Reformed thought, Bavinck is the best.
> Honorable mention: Dabney.
Click to expand...


What?! No Lewis Sperry Chafer?? LOL


----------

