# G.C. Berkower's systematics?



## Archlute (Sep 10, 2007)

Has anybody read them before? I just picked up the two volumes concerning the Church and the sacraments respectively, and although having only had time to skim, have found them to be quite good. I especially liked his take against apostolic succession, as well as why the minimalizing of our confessions is not the way to advancing ecumenicity regarding partaking of the Lord's Supper among the various church bodies.

The rest of them (about a dozen volumes) are on sale at a great price nearby, and I wanted to know if they are all worth the purchase. I had heard that there were some problems with his volume on the doctrine of Scripture, but other than that I know nothing about the rest. They were endorsed in his day by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and C.F. Henry, among others.


----------



## MW (Sep 10, 2007)

They are valuable to have for two reasons, neither of which endorse them as a responsible manual of reformed theology. First, they bring reformed theology into dialogue with modern thought. That is good in the sense that it makes the person think about their system and how it can be communicated to those of varying opinion. Secondly, they often show certain core tensions which exist, not in reformed theology itself, but in the way it is sometimes discussed. This means we have to dig deeper into our heritage to find a consensus. There is a third benefit for British-based Presbyterianism, and that is the fact the works introduce us to the life and thought of the Dutch school. That said, he can be disappointing at times as well as quite illuminating.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 10, 2007)

I have his works on Election and Faith and Sanctification. I haven't read the latter. The former--won't endorse it en toto--but he has some helpful discussions on Roman Catholic and Arminian views of election. It was worth the read, if nothing else. I was warned against that book, but then I read a John Murray review of said book and it was somewhat sympathetic.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Sep 10, 2007)

Dr. Curt Daniel says he didn't endorse inerrancy & he viewed the eternality of election to be referring to its "depth" rather than its being before time. He recommends you read him with a box of salt in one hand and a Bible in the other.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 10, 2007)

Joel Beeke, _A Reader's Guide to Reformed Literature: An Annotated Bibliography of Reformed Literature_:



> A word of warning: Avoid G.C. Berkouwer, _Holy Scripture_, translated by Jack Rogers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). Berkouwer qualifies inerrancy by disassociating it from historical and scientific exactness. He neglects to spell out the dangerous consequences of tolerating arbitrary rejection of selected Scriptures. (p. 15)
> 
> Two twentieth-century monographs on providence are noteworthy: Gerrit C. Berkouwer, _The Providence of God_, translated by Lewis B. Smedes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), asks thought-provoking questions about providence in relation to knowledge, sustenance, government, concurrence, history, miracles, and theodicy. Benjamin B. Farley, _The Providence of God_ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) is the best study of the development of the doctrine of providence throughout history from a Reformed perspective. (p. 29)
> 
> ...



Derek Thomas and John Tweeddale, _The Essential Commentaries for a Preacher's Library_ (2006 ed.), p. 132:



> Berkouwer, G.C. _Studies in Dogmatics_. 12 Volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.
> 
> _Modified reformed theology from a Dutch perspective. Tends towards neo-orthodoxy._


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 10, 2007)

An assessment by a retired PCA pastor (and personal friend) who studied under Berkower in Holland:

Berkouwer: A Hole in the Dike?


----------



## bookslover (Sep 10, 2007)

It was explained to me some years ago that the earlier volumes tend to be better than the later ones, in that, when he began writing, he was a critic of neo-orthodoxy but later came to accept it, or some of it. So, I suppose one needs to take the volumes on a case-by- case basis.

Does anyone have a photo of Berkhouwer that can be posted? I don't think I've ever seen a photo of the guy. And, what are his dates?


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 11, 2007)

bookslover said:


> It was explained to me some years ago that the earlier volumes tend to be better than the later ones, in that, when he began writing, he was a critic of neo-orthodoxy but later came to accept it, or some of it. So, I suppose one needs to take the volumes on a case-by- case basis.
> 
> Does anyone have a photo of Berkhouwer that can be posted? I don't think I've ever seen a photo of the guy. And, what are his dates?



*Dates:* (1904-96) Although some give the dates as 1903-1995 and say he died aged 92. I am unable to confirm which is correct.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 11, 2007)

Thanks, all. That's of great help in assessing the set as a whole. It looks like there are a few volumes that would be of interest. 

I did appreciate his interaction with modern theological trends (for the 1960's at least) in the two volumes that I had purchased. It is always a challenge to move from merely restating classical Reformed thought, to actually using it to engage modern issues. The first approach is helpful for edifying the body of Christ, but the second is necessary for pushing the kingdom out into the world. I have found Horton's _Covenant and Eschatology_ to be on this latter level, and I found some of that in Berkouwer as well.

Thanks again


----------

