# Choosing a ST: Turretin or Bavinck?



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 16, 2018)

Hi,

I'm fairly new here in PB and have been blessed by the discussions. I think that is one of the reasons why I registered. I have read a lot in the forums about which ST to have and what is the best ST to have and all the other possible combinations, and I have gained a lot of knowledge from these threads just by reading your discussions.

However, I have not seen this question yet (if there is a thread regarding this, maybe you could point me to the thread please?), if you were to choose just one of these two heavyweights, which would you choose and why? Institutes of Elenctic Theology or Reformed Dogmatics. I also do somewhat consider Vos' Reformed Dogmatics, but if it was for a 3rd ST, I'd like to choose from the two above.

To give you more of an idea of what I have and read, I am about to finish Calvin's Institutes (currently to start on the chapter on the Lord's Prayer) and would have Berkhof's ST next.

Thank you all in advance for your answers and thoughts.

Grace and peace.


----------



## timfost (Apr 16, 2018)

Bavinck


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 16, 2018)

timfost said:


> Bavinck



Why would you choose Bavinck?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 16, 2018)

Turretin gives you more analytical discussions about things like doctrine of God, God's foreknowledge, etc. Bavinck gives you more scope and interacts with more current philosophical movements. Although I am something of a Neo-Calvinist at times, I am leaning towards Turretin.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Apr 16, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> Why would you choose Bavinck?



Jacob took the words right out of my mouth when he said "Bavinck gives you more scope and interacts with more current philosophical movements."

Although I have not read either work in their entirety, Bavinck is very balanced and can make a technical subject devotional (e.g. Supra/infralapsarianism). The Prolegomena can also be used as an encyclopedia which covers much more than Turretin could due to where they fall in history.

However, you definitely can't go wrong either way.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 16, 2018)

Turretin.

See attached Table of Contents for teasers of the richness of its content.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 16, 2018)

I would go with Francis Turretin as he is more relevant to understanding the intellectual climate in which our confessional standards were written. Herman Bavinck is the best ST post-1800, who interacts skilfully with theologians past and (in his day) present, which makes it a tough call. In truth, I think that you need to read both of them.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 16, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> I also do somewhat consider Vos' Reformed Dogmatics



I might actually be worth reading these volumes before moving on to either Turretin or Bavinck. It is generally wise to start with the easier material and then work your way up to the harder works. Geerhardus Vos's _Reformed Dogmatics_, while very good, is a bit more basic than either Turretin or Bavinck. You can also purchase the Kindle editions of the 5 volumes for a very small fee.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 16, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Turretin.
> 
> See attached Table of Contents for teasers of the richness of its content.



I have checked the file table of contents and was really amazed and got excited just by looking at it. I think the question and answer format made it more appealing to me as it connects to how I think.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 16, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I might actually be worth reading these volumes before moving on to either Turretin or Bavinck. It is generally wise to start with the easier material and then work your way up to the harder works. Geerhardus Vos's _Reformed Dogmatics_, while very good, is a bit more basic than either Turretin or Bavinck. You can also purchase the Kindle editions of the 5 volumes for a very small fee.



Don't you think there will be a bit of redundancy if I read Vos' ST after I read Berkhof's ST (since I already have it)?

*Also, I find it hard to read electronically. It makes me sleepy. The experience with books is different - just my personal opinion.*


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 16, 2018)

timfost said:


> However, you definitely can't go wrong either way.



I wish I could have both. hahaha. But at this time, I am opting to just have one of the two.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 16, 2018)

Reymond. Heh.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 16, 2018)

If you need to understand the technicalities of the mainstream Reformed position over against objectors of many kinds, Turretin is the way to go. He defines the true state of the question between the Reformed and other points of view with great clarity and detail. There are theologians in Reformed churches who have disagreed with one point or another, but as a general rule in so doing they have become idiosyncratic.

If you need to follow a great, warm, and creative mind through the broad scope of Christian doctrine as it impressed itself upon an enormous intellect in dialogue with his own and to some extent all preceding ages, Bavinck is unmatched.

If you need a simple, clear, endlessly-referenceable distillation of Reformed dogmatics with particular emphasis on the Dutch line, Berkhof is the clear winner.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 17, 2018)

py3ak said:


> If you need to understand the technicalities of the mainstream Reformed position over against objectors of many kinds, Turretin is the way to go. He defines the true state of the question between the Reformed and other points of view with great clarity and detail. There are theologians in Reformed churches who have disagreed with one point or another, but as a general rule in so doing they have become idiosyncratic.
> 
> If you need to follow a great, warm, and creative mind through the broad scope of Christian doctrine as it impressed itself upon an enormous intellect in dialogue with his own and to some extent all preceding ages, Bavinck is unmatched.
> 
> If you need a simple, clear, endlessly-referenceable distillation of Reformed dogmatics with particular emphasis on the Dutch line, Berkhof is the clear winner.



It makes want to have both.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 17, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> I wish I could have both. hahaha. But at this time, I am opting to just have one of the two.


You can spend years digesting Turretin, and once he has whetted your appetite to know more, digging deeper with other resources after encountering his succinct and dense treatments of so many points of doctrine. It will be money well spent. Next to the Bible, his three-volume _Institutes_ is my most treasured set of volumes pertaining to theology.

Turretin is not an easy read. If you are comfortable with Berkhof's _Systematic Theology_, you should be grounded sufficiently to tackle Turretin.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheInquirer (Apr 17, 2018)

As already noted, Turretin and Bavinck are just different,they complement each other due to differing styles, format, era, contemporary issues they address, etc. If you are short on cash, I might go Turretin and then the 1 volume Bavinck. I love Bavinck but there is a lot of interaction with philosophy to wade through.

They are both advanced reading. I would definitely make Berkhof your next stop.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 17, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> and would have Berkhof's ST next.


I would say Berkhof next (Eerdmans Ed is best) then Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics , then when you are able Vos' Reformed Dogmatics [Bavinck and Vos compliment and reinforce each other nicely].

In both Iain Murray's and George Marsden's biography's, it is stated that Jonathan Edwards regarded van Mastricht's work as superior to that of Turretin. So I am a little cautious of Turretin given we have both Bavinck and Vos.


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 17, 2018)

I actually read a section from their STs from The Reformed Reader. He posted Turretin's and Bavinck's explanation on the kingdom(s).

*Turretin, Institutes (Author slightly edited for length)*
_One kingdom of Christ is natural or essential. He is king over all creatures with glory and majesty equal to that of the Father and the Holy Spirit. This kingdom extends over all creatures and is founded on the decree of providence. This kingship is exercised by Christ inasmuch as he is God and the Logos. This kingship belongs to Christ by nature, which is why this kingdom is his natural kingdom.

The other kingdom of Christ is mediatorial and economical (that is, having to do with the economy of salvation). He exercises this kingship in a peculiar manner as God-man; it has everything to do with the church. It is founded upon the decree of election. It is called his mediatorial kingship because it is a dominion peculiar to the Mediator according to grace and salvation. God constituted Christ as King over the church._ (*Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2:14.XVI.)*

*Bavinck, Dogmatics*
_“The kingship of Christ is twofold. On the one hand, it is a kingship of power (Ps 2.8-9; 72.8; 110.1-3; Matt 28.18; 1 Cor 15.27; Eph 1.21-22; Phil 2.9-11, etc). In order that Christ may truly be king over his people, the king who redeems, protects, and preserves them, he must have power in heaven and on earth, over Satan and the world. It is a kingship of power, subordinate to, and a means for, his kingdom of grace” (p. 371).

“On the other hand, the kingship of Christ is a kingship of grace (Ps. 2.6; Is 9.5-6; Jer 30.9; Ezek 37.24; Luke 1.33; John 18.33ff; Eph 1.22, etc). …For it is a kingdom of grace in which Christ rules by his word and Spirit. …It is the living Christ exalted to sit at the right hand of God who consciously and endowed with all powers gathers his church, defeats his enemies, and guides the history of the world to the day of his parousia”_ *(**Dogmatics**,* *IV, p. 372)*.

Not sure if it was because he edited it for length, as what he has stated, but it was kind of easier for me to understand Turretin than Bavinck, at least in this post. What is really obvious for me as a difference is the jargon Turretin used compared to Bavinck. Turretin was kind of fluid in statements, while Bavinck, I felt there're too many immediate stops and again that's at least in this post.

So I didn't want to depend on these just yet and would like to hear from you guys before buying.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 17, 2018)

More importantly, Turretin helps you *think* through an issue. He will spend pages telling you what the question is and is not asking.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 17, 2018)

Read Vos first, then Bavinck, then Turretin, as going from the easiest to toughest read. Vos is actually the best of the three, in my opinion, though they are all three tremendously good stuff, and you wouldn't really go wrong reading them in any order. The only thing is that you'd better have a decent background in philosophy to read Turretin. If you don't, you won't know what he is talking about, many times. Turretin is the most precise, Bavinck the most comprehensive, and Vos the most incisive.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 17, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Read Vos first, then Bavinck, then Turretin, as going from the easiest to toughest read. Vos is actually the best of the three, in my opinion, though they are all three tremendously good stuff, and you wouldn't really go wrong reading them in any order. The only thing is that you'd better have a decent background in philosophy to read Turretin. If you don't, you won't know what he is talking about, many times. Turretin is the most precise, Bavinck the most comprehensive, and Vos the most incisive.


Would Turretin though be firmly based in his time, and most of his discussion involve what was going on in theology of that time? My first exposure to reformed theology was the ST of Hodge, and found him hard to follow at times, due to him taking time to discuss current issues of the time?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 17, 2018)

Great insights! Is it true that Vos' is very good in Biblical Theology that it shows in his RD?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 17, 2018)

Vos's _Reformed Dogmatics_ is much easier to read than his _Biblical Theology_.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 17, 2018)

While Bavinck's "Grace restores nature" scheme is impressive, Turretin is the most powerful thinker the Reformed tradition has produced.


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 17, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Read Vos first, then Bavinck, then Turretin, as going from the easiest to toughest read. Vos is actually the best of the three, in my opinion, though they are all three tremendously good stuff, and you wouldn't really go wrong reading them in any order. The only thing is that you'd better have a decent background in philosophy to read Turretin. If you don't, you won't know what he is talking about, many times. Turretin is the most precise, Bavinck the most comprehensive, and Vos the most incisive.



While I wish I could get all three, and I really do, would Calvin's Institutes and Berkhof's ST be enough as preparation/overview for Bavinck/Turretin?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 17, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> While I wish I could get all three, and I really do, would Calvin's Institutes and Berkhof's ST be enough as preparation/overview for Bavinck/Turretin?



Berkhof is a preparation for anything. Calvin is mandatory reading, but some of his arguments meander and they are easy to lose track of.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 17, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> While I wish I could get all three, and I really do, would Calvin's Institutes and Berkhof's ST be enough as preparation/overview for Bavinck/Turretin?


Yes I believe so. But make sure you have the Berkhof edition that includes his "introduction to systematic theology".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 17, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Read Vos first, then Bavinck, then Turretin, as going from the easiest to toughest read. Vos is actually the best of the three, in my opinion, though they are all three tremendously good stuff, and you wouldn't really go wrong reading them in any order. The only thing is that you'd better have a decent background in philosophy to read Turretin. If you don't, you won't know what he is talking about, many times. Turretin is the most precise, Bavinck the most comprehensive, and Vos the most incisive.


Do you think the best plan of attack would be to read Berkhof FIRST as he would give the background necessary for Bavinck and Vos. The Eerdmans edition of Berkhof's Systematic Theolgy includes his prolegomena. Actually in this Eerdmans edition, Richard Muller argues that the absence of a prolegomena in Vos etc did create unfortunate theological distortions. Would it be fair to say Bavinck is superior in this respect?

I note that Vos wrote his Reformed Dogmatics when he was fairly young. It is a pity he did not revise it later in life after he had read Bavinck, and after his own wonderful Biblical Theology had been published. To have Vos' work with a prolegomena, and including his Biblical Theology would be a treat indeed. I guess I am a bit like John Bunyan - I am in a dream but will wake soon

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 18, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Yes I believe so. But make sure you have the Berkhof edition that includes his "introduction to systematic theology".



Oh. This is the one I have.





The Banner of truth edition.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 18, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> Oh. This is the one I have.


You can get the introduction to the ST but it is an extra cost to you. RHB have it for half price https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...ic-theology-westminster-discount-berkhof.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 18, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Berkhof is a preparation for anything. Calvin is mandatory reading, but some of his arguments meander and they are easy to lose track of.


Isn't it held that Berhof was summary of Bavinck thought, while Hodge was a summary of Turrentin's?
And Calvin is easier to read for me in his commentaries, as His Institutes to me was at times hard to follow his train of thought. Again, maybe due to him relating to the times and situations he was writing into?


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 18, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> While I wish I could get all three, and I really do, would Calvin's Institutes and Berkhof's ST be enough as preparation/overview for Bavinck/Turretin?



Chris, sure that would be sufficient. However, Vos is my favorite theologian of all time, so I don't think anything beats Vos. 



Stephen L Smith said:


> Do you think the best plan of attack would be to read Berkhof FIRST as he would give the background necessary for Bavinck and Vos. The Eerdmans edition of Berkhof's Systematic Theolgy includes his prolegomena. Actually in this Eerdmans edition, Richard Muller argues that the absence of a prolegomena in Vos etc did create unfortunate theological distortions. Would it be fair to say Bavinck is superior in this respect?
> 
> I note that Vos wrote his Reformed Dogmatics when he was fairly young. It is a pity he did not revise it later in life after he had read Bavinck, and after his own wonderful Biblical Theology had been published. To have Vos' work with a prolegomena, and including his Biblical Theology would be a treat indeed. I guess I am a bit like John Bunyan - I am in a dream but will wake soon



I don't think any "background" is necessary for reading Vos. Just plunge right in. His RD is not difficult to read at all. I would HIGHLY disagree with Muller (where did he say that?) if he thinks that Vos distorted Reformed theology. Yes, I could wish that Vos wrote a prolegomena, and revised it later. But if the price of that had been no writing of _Biblical Theology_, that would have been too high a price to pay.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 18, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Actually in this Eerdmans edition, Richard Muller argues that the absence of a prolegomena in Vos etc did create unfortunate theological distortions.



Stephen, was that a typo? It seems from the context that you are talking about Louis Berkhof, rather than Geerhardus Vos.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 18, 2018)

Given that there are financial restrictions involved, it might be best just to go for whoever is cheapest at the moment. That will give you time to both read either Turretin or Bavinck while saving up to by the other set.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 18, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Chris, sure that would be sufficient. However, Vos is my favorite theologian of all time, so I don't think anything beats Vos.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think any "background" is necessary for reading Vos. Just plunge right in. His RD is not difficult to read at all. I would HIGHLY disagree with Muller (where did he say that?) if he thinks that Vos distorted Reformed theology. Yes, I could wish that Vos wrote a prolegomena, and revised it later. But if the price of that had been no writing of _Biblical Theology_, that would have been too high a price to pay.


So you would view Vos as being the best ST author among reformed authors?
And who would you rate as being also very good in say past 50 years or so?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Isn't it held that Berhof was summary of Bavinck thought, while Hodge was a summary of Turrentin's?
> And Calvin is easier to read for me in his commentaries, as His Institutes to me was at times hard to follow his train of thought. Again, maybe due to him relating to the times and situations he was writing into?



Sort of, though Berkhof doesn't develop Bavinck's Grace Restores Nature scheme.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 18, 2018)

Vos is tops. Recently, no one author stands out, but I really like Ferguson, Sproul, Fesko, Van Til, and Gaffin for modern theologians.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 18, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sort of, though Berkhof doesn't develop Bavinck's Grace Restores Nature scheme.


Turrentine was one of the main theologians Hodge admired and used, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 18, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Vos is tops. Recently, no one author stands out, but I really like Ferguson, Sproul, Fesko, Van Til, and Gaffin for modern theologians.


You would agree that Vos ST would be better than his Biblical theology? As in the sense that if one had to choose which to purchase and use?


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 18, 2018)

Comparing his RD to his BT is like comparing apples and oranges. I can't think why any pastor worth his salt would want to be without either one.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Turrentine was one of the main theologians Hodge admired and used, correct?



Yes. Turretin is sort of in a class by himself. Yes, he's hard, but if you read him you will grow as a thinker.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 18, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yes. Turretin is sort of in a class by himself. Yes, he's hard, but if you read him you will grow as a thinker.


I am mindful of the ole Clint eastwood line though in Magnum Force, to the effect that ' a man has got to know his limitations".


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am mindful of the ole Clint eastwood line though in Magnum Force, to the effect that ' a man has got to know his limitations".



Then you are done growing as a Christian, if you take that mindset.


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 18, 2018)

I am leaning towards Turretin now, but would like to read a few pages of Bavinck's too, to be sure, before I make a purchase (I really overthink a lot of things, including purchases  ). But I know, and based on what you have shared, that whichever I choose between the two, they're both worth it.

Though I somewhat like Vos', maybe some other time.

You guys have been awesome!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 18, 2018)

I checked a pdf sample of Turretin's and it shows that it is in outline format. Is it really like that?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 19, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> I checked a pdf sample of Turretin's and it shows that it is in outline format. Is it really like that?


Not really.

Go here:
https://www.logos.com/product/30296/institutes-of-elenctic-theology
Click the _See Inside_ button.

As the ToC I provided earlier indicates, each of the twenty topics discussed include various questions that are answered. The Roman Numeral numbering used is not to imply the volumes are in some outline format with numerous and varying indentations. The numbering helps to quickly reference content, as in XIX.XIII (topic 19, question 13) answers the question "_Is baptism absolutely necessary to salvation?_"

This _elenctic_ method (persuasion by bringing to shame) is well accorded by the numbering system used. Another example of elenctics can be found in Aquinas' Summa.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 19, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> I am leaning towards Turretin now, but would like to read a few pages of Bavinck's too,



Go here to see a sample of Bavinck:
https://www.logos.com/product/49461/reformed-dogmatics-vol-2-god-and-creation

Click the _See Inside_ button.

You could search out other volumes similarly at the site.


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 19, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Go here to see a sample of Bavinck:
> https://www.logos.com/product/49461/reformed-dogmatics-vol-2-god-and-creation





Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Go here:
> https://www.logos.com/product/30296/institutes-of-elenctic-theology
> Click the _See Inside_ button.



Thank you for these! I will look at them and hope I don't get persuaded to buy both.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 19, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> I would HIGHLY disagree with Muller (where did he say that?) if he thinks that Vos distorted Reformed theology.


See the preface to the New Edition to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology. Eerdmans 1996 ed. He was saying that the unfortunate tendency to print Berkhof's Systematic Theology without his prolegomena has had unfortunate theological consequences. He said "the historical and doctrinal confusion that I have elsewhere called the 'myth of decretal theology' has fond some justification in the trancated systematic theology ...." [he goes on to mention Vos in the same regard].



greenbaggins said:


> Yes, I could wish that Vos wrote a prolegomena, and revised it later. But if the price of that had been no writing of _Biblical Theology_, that would have been too high a price to pay.


As you will know, James T. Dennison Jr, wrote a mini biography in the 'Letters of Vos'. He argues that Vos spent approx the last 15 years of his life in quiet seclusion. It looks like Vos loved peace and quiet (as do I). I know he worked on his Biblical Theology in the last few years of his life, but I think that approx 15 years may have given him enough time to revise his RD, as Bavinck had done. In fairness to Vos he spent time caring for his very ill wife which would have been dificult.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Apr 19, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm fairly new here in PB and have been blessed by the discussions. I think that is one of the reasons why I registered. I have read a lot in the forums about which ST to have and what is the best ST to have and all the other possible combinations, and I have gained a lot of knowledge from these threads just by reading your discussions.
> 
> ...


I have not had time to review the other responses. I have a large ST collection in my library. My favorites are as follows:
My #1 - Wilhelmus a Brakel's - "The Christian's Reasonable Service"
Then: Berkhof's ST, William Ames - Marrow of Theology, John Brown's ST, James Ussher - Body of Divinity, Watson's - Body of Divinity. Everyone needs Calvin's Institutes. Also, Reformation Heritage is coming out with the legendary Dogmatics by Petrus Van Mastricht. This was Jonathan Edwards favorite set of books outside of the Scriptures. This is a major victory for the Christian community.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 19, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> I would HIGHLY disagree with Muller (where did he say that?) if he thinks that Vos distorted Reformed theology.





Stephen L Smith said:


> See the preface to the New Edition to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology. Eerdmans 1996 ed. He was saying that the unfortunate tendency to print Berkhof's Systematic Theology without his prolegomena has had unfortunate theological consequences. He said "the historical and doctrinal confusion that I have elsewhere called the 'myth of decretal theology' has fond some justification in the trancated systematic theology ...." [he goes on to mention Vos in the same regard].



For the record, here is what Muller had to say in the Preface to Berkhof's work as relates to Vos:

*If the loss of its prolegomenon did not in any way undermine the prestige of the Systematic Theology as a textbook, it certainly obscured the true architecture of Berkhof’s thought*. *It also most probably contributed to a misunderstanding of orthodox Reformed teaching*. Among other problems, *the historical and doctrinal confusion* that I have elsewhere called “_the myth of decretal theology_” has found some justification in the truncated Systematic Theology, *as it may also have in other works* of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century' Dutch Reformed theology published without prolegomena — notably, the works of *Vos*, Kuyper, and Ten Hoor.

Orthodox Reformed theology has often been argued to “begin” with the doctrine of God and then to follow an order that was not only logical but also deductive, deriving all further doctrines from the divine nature, specifically from the eternal decrees? *Of course, none of the theologians just noted ever claimed that their theology was derived deductively from the decrees, and none actually taught theology without prolegomena*: the prolegomena simply belonged to a distinct course and, when published, were published separately from the system proper — as was clearly the case with Berkhof’s _Dogmatics_. (A different curricular structure did in fact produce prolegomena in the same volume with the series of doctrinal loci in Berkhof’s shorter Summary and in his predecessor W. Heyns’s Manual.)

As can easily be seen from Berkhof’s Introduction, moreover. Reformed theology assumes that a whole series of issues must be addressed before one comes to the doctrine of God. not the least of which is the identification of Scripture as the _principium cognoscendi_ or "cognitive foundation." and God as the _principium essendi_ or “essential foundation" of theology. As Berkhof makes clear. Christian theology cannot be based on “_a priori speculation_" and is. therefore, never to be systematic in the sense of a speculative or deductive philosophical system. Rather. Reformed theology rests on biblical revelation as its only cognitive foundation or _principium _in a way that is more inductive than deductive. The organization or "distribution" of the topics of theology that Berkhof preferred can be called “synthetic" — and it does begin the formal body of Christian doctrine with the acknowledgment that God is the foundation or principium of all that is — but it can never claim to deduce the doctrinal content of theology from the idea of God.

We can only hope that the publication of Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, now complete with its prolegomenon, will increase its usefulness and extend its time of service to the world of theology. It remains the best modem English-language introduction to doctrinal theology of the Reformed tradition.​
*Src*: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0802838200
An electronic version of the book is available for purchase at Google Play. It is DRM protected and not downloadable. Only can be read online after purchase ($43). Unfortunately, the content is just a scan of the book's 974 pages with Berhof's prolegomenon. It is the only ebook version I have been able to locate. Still worth the price if you want electronic access that can easily be copied and pasted using tools like ABBY FineReader's Screenshot Reader.​
Muller's "*may also have*" qualifier hardly implies Vos actually suffered from the same issues as did Berkhof sans a prolegomenon, not to mention "*none of the theologians just noted ever claimed that their theology was derived deductively from the decrees, and none actually taught theology without prolegomena".*

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## JimmyH (Apr 19, 2018)

I am a neophyte in the discipline of theology, but being ambitious, I have Bavink, Turretin, Berkhoff and I find them a bit 'over my head' at my current level of learning. Depending on where you are in your studies Vos RD might be a worthwhile purchase, it has been for me.
It is in 5 volumes so you can pick and choose if you don't want the whole set immediately. I recommend it simply because I found I more easily understood what I've read so far than the aforementioned theologies.
The first review on this page https://www.amazon.com/Reformed-Dog...show_all_top?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews describes the contents better than I can. I would only reiterate, as the reviewer states, that this was originally a hand written manuscript used by Vos in his teaching at seminary in the 1880s. Perhaps this is why I find it so understandable. It was basically notes he used to teach his students.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 19, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> I am a neophyte in the discipline of theology, but being ambitious, I have Bavink, Turretin, Berkhoff and I find them a bit 'over my head' at my current level of learning. Depending on where you are in your studies Vos RD might be a worthwhile purchase, it has been for me.
> It is in 5 volumes so you can pick and choose if you don't want the whole set immediately. I recommend it simply because I found I more easily understood what I've read so far than the aforementioned theologies.
> The first review on this page https://www.amazon.com/Reformed-Dog...show_all_top?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews describes the contents better than I can. I would only reiterate, as the reviewer states, that this was originally a hand written manuscript used by Vos in his teaching at seminary in the 1880s. Perhaps this is why I find it so understandable. It was basically notes he used to teach his students.


I understand your feelings as being at time overwhelmed, as I was trying at same time to read and digest and get a handle on theology from the viewpoints of Pentecostal, Baptist, Presbyterian Reformed, and to this current time, still find it somewhat hard to fully grasp the nuanced differences in theology between myself as a baptist and the Reformed Presbyterian brethren viewpoints on some issues.
Add to the mixture some Dispensational theology, and have a weird brew.


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 19, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Go here:
> https://www.logos.com/product/30296/institutes-of-elenctic-theology



I have read most of the sections in both Turretin's and Bavinck's ST and when I was reading them, I personally felt like I was reading KJV vs NIV.

I love KJV while my mind does not easily understand NIV because the words were, for me, too simple. I felt I was reading NIV with Bavinck and I can say I can easily understand Turretin compared to Bavinck.

That's the only illustration I can think of. 

While there are terms that you don't easily understand with Turretin, it kind of helped me with really focusing and understanding because it directs me to think and research which greatly works for me.

So now I am sure that I will get Turretin plus the recommendation to get Berkhof's Introduction to Systematic Theology.

Thanks for your insights everyone!



Reformed Bookworm said:


> My #1 - Wilhelmus a Brakel's - "The Christian's Reasonable Service"



I have read lots of recommendation with a Brakel's, and would love to look at it next time. For now, my goal is to go through these three books first (Calvin's Institutes, Berkhof's Systematic Theology, and Turretin's Institutes) and learn as much as I can.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 20, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> I have read lots of recommendation with a Brakel's, and would love to look at it next time.


Get all volumes here:
http://www.abrakel.com/p/christians-reasonable-service.html


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 20, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Get all volumes here:
> http://www.abrakel.com/p/christians-reasonable-service.html


Thanks, Patrick!


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 20, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Get all volumes here:
> http://www.abrakel.com/p/christians-reasonable-service.html


I am starting to work through the ST of John Gill, would he and Brakel give a good understanding of reformed of that era?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am starting to work through the ST of John Gill, would he and Brakel give a good understanding of reformed of that era?



Turretin gives a better understanding, and then, of course, there is the debate on whether Gill, a baptist, is Reformed.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am starting to work through the ST of John Gill, would he and Brakel give a good understanding of reformed of that era?


Gill lived another 60 years after Brakel died, writing his Body of Divinity a half century or so after Brakel. Gill likely knew of Brakel's work as they were contemporaries until Gill turned age 14 (when Brakel died). Yet, I do not think Gill mentions Brakel in his systematic work. Brakel will provide a solid understanding of Dutch Reformed and Puritan theological views.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 20, 2018)

If you want to approach from a different angle, there is Herman Witsius. He doesn't cover prolegomena like Turretin does.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 20, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Muller's "*may also have*" qualifier hardly implies Vos actually suffered from the same issues as did Berkhof sans a prolegomenon, not to mention


Thank you for posting this. It does give fuller light to the discussion. I struggle with the rest of your logic. As you noted, Muller goes on to say -


Ask Mr. Religion said:


> As can easily be seen from Berkhof’s Introduction, moreover. Reformed theology assumes that a whole series of issues must be addressed before one comes to the doctrine of God. not the least of which is the identification of Scripture as the _principium cognoscendi_ or "cognitive foundation." and God as the _principium essendi_ or “essential foundation" of theology. As Berkhof makes clear. Christian theology cannot be based on “_a priori speculation_" and is. therefore, never to be systematic in the sense of a speculative or deductive philosophical system. Rather. Reformed theology rests on biblical revelation as its only cognitive foundation or _principium _in a way that is more inductive than deductive.


I think this gets to the heart of the issue. When we study theology, an important component is Revelational epistemology, and the doctrine of scripture. These are discussed in a good prolegomenia. This is why I find Bavinck's RD very helpful (vol 1 in this case). A prolegomenia is missing in Vos. Further, with the rise of mysticism in certain sections of the church, a Revelational epistemology is more important than ever.

Please note: I am NOT denying the importance to the church of Vos' RD. Vos was a top rate theologian. It seems to me the idea is to read Bavinck's prolegomenia alongside Vos' RD.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 20, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Turretin gives a better understanding, and then, of course, there is the debate on whether Gill, a baptist, is Reformed.


Gill is usually listed as being a Reformed baptist, at least as expressed in His ST.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 20, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Gill lived another 60 years after Brakel died, writing his Body of Divinity a half century or so after Brakel. Gill likely knew of Brakel's work as they were contemporaries until Gill turned age 14 (when Brakel died). Yet, I do not think Gill mentions Brakel in his systematic work. Brakel will provide a solid understanding of Dutch Reformed and Puritan theological views.


Some seem to label Gill as being a hyper-Calvinist, would see him in that light?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 20, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Please note: I am NOT denying the importance to the church of Vos' RD. Vos was a top rate theologian. It seems to me the idea is to read Bavinck's prolegomenia alongside Vos' RD.


I think Muller implies that Vos had a prolegomena, it was simply not published with his 5 volume work, but existed separately. I am unaware of whether Muller has a reference to the same elsewhere in his writings. It could possibly be teased out of his Biblical Theology text, as well as his Shorter Writings, or in other communications, e.g.,
https://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=603&issue_id=122

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Some seem to label Gill as being a hyper-Calvinist, would see him in that light?


It all depends upon what someone defines as Hyper-Calvinist, it seems. Gill's belief in eternal justification seems to be one litmus test often applied to the Hyper label assigned to him.

Curt Daniel's unpublished dissertation on Gill is worth a read:
https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/6780/331663_VOL1.pdf

Note that there are plenty of criticisms afoot concerning Daniel's views of what makes a Hyper-Calvinist, especially considering his own flirtations with Amyraldianism. Nevertheless, his dissertation is a good piece of research into the whole topic of Hyper-Calvinism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Gill is usually listed as being a Reformed baptist, at least as expressed in His ST.



I know he is listed as Reformed Baptist, but that doesn't necessarily make him Reformed. He is probably a good example of Calvinistic Baptist Soteriology


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 21, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I know he is listed as Reformed Baptist, but that doesn't necessarily make him Reformed. He is probably a good example of Calvinistic Baptist Soteriology


I agree with much of his theology based upon upon what I have been reading so far, except for his Eternal justification, more Hyper views.


----------



## Unworthy_Servant (Apr 23, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I know he is listed as Reformed Baptist, but that doesn't necessarily make him Reformed. He is probably a good example of Calvinistic Baptist Soteriology



This isn't meant to be a jab at you, but I think a lot of Presbyterians misunderstand Reformed Baptists (RB). Our heritage comes out of the Church of England (CoE), in which the founding RBs were priests in, such as Hanserd Knollys, Henry Jessey and Benjamin Coxe. They recognized the Doctrine of Sponsors in the CoE was inconsistent with scripture, and came to an understanding of believer's baptism, but were strictly Reformed in their theology. Most Presbyterians are quick to put RBs out of the "Reformed" camp, but have you ever read the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith? It's emphatically Reformed Orthodox. They were coming out of Cambridge University, which at the time was under the leadership of William Perkins. Thus, they were all well trained Reformed ministers and not merely Five Point Calvinists, or schismatic Anabaptists as some falsely caricature.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Shanny01 (Apr 23, 2018)

My own take on Gill is influenced by the argumentation of Tom Nettles that Gill himself was not a hyper-calvinist himself but rather the men who followed after him took his views to the extreme and their logical conclusion (i.e. Eternal Justification to preaching the gospel only to those who showed signs of faith and repentence). Gill certainly held erroneous views however I have much respect for the man who in a time of doctrinal degredation defended orthodox views of the Trinity,  strongly predestinarian theology, and Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone no matter his inconsistency on some topics.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 24, 2018)

Shanny01 said:


> My own take on Gill is influenced by the argumentation of Tom Nettles that Gill himself was not a hyper-calvinist himself but rather the men who followed after him took his views to the extreme and their logical conclusion (i.e. Eternal Justification to preaching the gospel only to those who showed signs of faith and repentence). Gill certainly held erroneous views however I have much respect for the man who in a time of doctrinal degredation defended orthodox views of the Trinity,  strongly predestinarian theology, and Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone no matter his inconsistency on some topics.


So Gill would have had the problem that John Calvin had, in the sense that many wrong attribute to Him Calvinistic theology that was not really defined down as of yet during his own time of the Institutes for example?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 24, 2018)

Unworthy_Servant said:


> This isn't meant to be a jab at you, but I think a lot of Presbyterians misunderstand Reformed Baptists (RB). Our heritage comes out of the Church of England (CoE), in which the founding RBs were priests in, such as Hanserd Knollys, Henry Jessey and Benjamin Coxe. They recognized the Doctrine of Sponsors in the CoE was inconsistent with scripture, and came to an understanding of believer's baptism, but were strictly Reformed in their theology. Most Presbyterians are quick to put RBs out of the "Reformed" camp, but have you ever read the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith? It's emphatically Reformed Orthodox. They were coming out of Cambridge University, which at the time was under the leadership of William Perkins. Thus, they were all well trained Reformed ministers and not merely Five Point Calvinists, or schismatic Anabaptists as some falsely caricature.


This is why I really feel that there should be an understanding that the Covenant theology held by Presbyterians and reformed baptist are under reformed, but that there are some significant differences between the two of them.


----------



## ChrisJuloya (Apr 26, 2018)

So I did purchase Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology plus Berkhof's Introduction to Systematic Theology. Thank you all for your feedback!

Grace and peace to you all. Have a Christ-filled weekend!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 26, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Vos is my favorite theologian of all time, so I don't think anything beats Vos.


I understand the esteemed Rev. Lane Keister will soon complete the authorised biography of Vos. I understand the manuscript is now with the Vos Fan Publishing Company 

I can say I would *love *to see a solid biography of Vos produced. Two of my favourite biographies - Iain Murrays outstanding biography of Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Dallimore's wonderful biography of Whitefield - are both 1,200 pages long. I think a long biography of Vos would be difficult. Dennison, in his fine biographical essay on Vos (letters of Vos), argues that Vos was a private and quiet man and difficult to get to know. It appears it was hard to know his private thoughts, feelings, and reasons for why he made a decision. Further there are few (if any) family or friends of Vos alive now who could give valuable insights to Vos' life etc. Still, a quality biography of Vos, even if a little brief, would be a tremendous blessing to the church.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 27, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> So I did purchase Turretin's _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_ plus Berkhof's _Introduction to Systematic Theology_.



You will be greatly enriched by both of these acquisitions throughout your walk of faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ChrisJuloya (May 1, 2018)

I have a question to those who have gone through several systematic theology books, what are your ways to study them?

I will be studying it with a friend so I'm trying to look for study guides, specifically Berkhof's ST.

Would you have any systems/process that you follow or study guides for this (Berkhof's) ST?

Thank you!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 1, 2018)

I have not run across any readily available study guides for Berkhof's ST. Duncan Rankin at RTS teaches courses that has Course Notes from the book, but they are not available online that I have been able to locate.

Sample Syllabus from one of his courses:
http://www.rts.edu/SharedResources/Documents/Houston/ST2--Houston--Fall 2016.pdf

Maybe you can reach out to him and see if he would provide you copies of his various course notes for personal use only.

Your might just start with the book's TOC to break down study approaches:
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/toc/systematic-theology/louis-berkhof

Create notes in each of the sections from the TOC as you read the book.

Thirdmill has some study guides on various topics from Berkhof, e.g.,
http://elearning.thirdmill.org/mod/page/view.php?id=6828
http://elearning.thirdmill.org/mod/page/view.php?id=6829&lang=es

For that matter, the Thirdmill courses are worth a look for the overall study of systematic theology:
http://elearning.thirdmill.org/

Pratt, the editor of the _Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible_ (NIV translation), is a driving force behind the Thirdmill site offerings, so you will be exposed to solid Reformed doctrine. They plan to have the entire bible available online someday: http://thirdmill.org/studybible/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 1, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> I have a question to those who have gone through several systematic theology books, what are your ways to study them?
> 
> I will be studying it with a friend so I'm trying to look for study guides, specifically Berkhof's ST.
> 
> ...


What I have done is to compare/contrast different authors in same doctrines area, such as how Berkhof/Grudem/ and Erickson for example approached the concept of the Trinity.


----------



## ChrisJuloya (May 4, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I have not run across any readily available study guides for Berkhof's ST. Duncan Rankin at RTS teaches courses that has Course Notes from the book, but they are not available online that I have been able to locate.
> 
> Sample Syllabus from one of his courses:
> http://www.rts.edu/SharedResources/Documents/Houston/ST2--Houston--Fall 2016.pdf
> ...



Thank you for all your help! You guys have been really awesome!


----------



## Dachaser (May 4, 2018)

ChrisJuloya said:


> Thank you for all your help! You guys have been really awesome!


One suggestion, as when geting into ST books, we can get so much into their views, that we start to neglect the scriptures themselves. I fell into that trap when first coming over into reformed thinking, and need to stay grounded in the bible first and foremost at all times.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JM (May 5, 2018)

I own the 4 volume set of Bavinck's works and the abridgement. Both are excellent and the abridgement is the copy I lend out to new and zealous believers. 

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (May 8, 2018)

JM said:


> I own the 4 volume set of Bavinck's works and the abridgement. Both are excellent and the abridgement is the copy I lend out to new and zealous believers.
> 
> Yours in the Lord,
> 
> jm


What would be the major differences between those 2?


----------



## Dachaser (May 8, 2018)

My experiences with many who would see themselves as being non calvinist is that while they despise election as we would define the term, many of them actually would not go so far as say Finney did in how God uses us to save ourselves.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What would be the major differences between those 2?



The 4 volume set spends hundreds upon hundreds of pages dissecting dead German philosophers. I imagine the abridged version spares one from those horrors.


----------



## Dachaser (May 8, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The 4 volume set spends hundreds upon hundreds of pages dissecting dead German philosophers. I imagine the abridged version spares one from those horrors.


That would be a common situation in many of the older works, as the authors spent considerable time and effort to attack against a theology or a group that would not be that well known today, apart from theologians and those into Historical theology and church History.


----------

