# What is the Best One-Volume Systematic Theology?



## bookslover (Dec 3, 2018)

Generally speaking, what do you think is the best one-volume ST?

See the poll above.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 3, 2018)

Berkhof is the most widely read among Reformed seminaries for a reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Guido's Brother (Dec 3, 2018)

Still hard to beat Berkhof.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheInquirer (Dec 3, 2018)

If you had to force me to have one, I would choose Berkhof.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 3, 2018)

*Berkhof*, like others have already said, is a classic standard. However, despite this, I find Berkhof to be very, very dry reading. I use Berkhof more as a reference text than as an enjoyable read. Plus, his one-volume_ Systematic Theology_ lacks a section on methodology and bibliology (unless you get the combined edition which includes his _Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology_). However, as one other has said above, it is "hard to beat" Berkhof when it comes to standard Reformed orthodoxy. He is great.

*Reymond* is, in my opinion, a much more enjoyable read than Berkhof and has the advantage of including a good prolegomena section on the nature of Scripture and revelation. I also love the fact that Reymond is one of the few who writes from an explicitly presuppositional perspective, albeit Clarkian. [EDIT: I ended up voting for this one because I think Reymond is at the same time in-depth, comprehensive, and easy/enjoyable to read. I know some folks here have a problem with his Trinitarian theology, and I understand that. However, he is up front in the preface of the book about where and how he differs with the Reformed populous. He is not, in my opinion, trying to deceive anyone.]

I have not read *van Genderen and Velema*, so I cannot comment on it, although I have heard really good things about it.

*Grudem* is by far the most accessible of your list. Despite his views on the_ charismata_ (which, frankly, I don't find to be as bad as many make it out to be, even though I am in general a cessationists), this would be the first systematics text I would give to a lay person, almost without exception. I remember thoroughly enjoying reading it in college.

I hate saying this, but I do not think *Horton* is a good writer at all. Others my disagree, but I found his systematics text to be very cumbersome, lengthy, and written_ way_ too much like a novel. Now, I felt this way when I had to use it my very first semester of seminary, so my opinions may change if I decide to read it again now that I have finished seminary four years later. However, I have close friends who share the same opinion of his writing.

*Frame* is fantastic when it comes to prolegomena and theology proper. He also has the advantage of writing from an explicitly Van Tilian presuppositional perspective (as he studied with and was close friends with Van Til). Frame is also a great writer who really has a gift of making difficult concepts fairly easy to grasp. However, the main issue I have with his_ Systematic Theology_ is its severe imbalance. Namely, if you look at the text, his prolegomena is 768 pages long, taking up a whopping 69% of the entire work! By comparison, his section on the Holy Spirit gets only 11 pages. This, in my opinion, is not good. Again, Frame is excellent when it comes to prolegomena, theology proper, and philosophy, but I would not necessarily recommend his_ Systematic Theology_ for anything else beyond that, if only because he doesn't write at length on any other topic.

_Others I would recommend...
_
*Robert Duncan Culver* has written an excellent systematics work. Culver is mildly Dispensational, but he is quite reasonable, in my opinion, in that he interacts and describes many viewpoints with clarity and fairness. The advantage of Culver is twofold. First, he is very easy to read; he reads almost like a conversation. Second, Culver is extremely comprehensive. At nearly 1,000,000 words, his_ Systematic Theology_ covers almost everything there is to cover, and with depth. Were it not for the girth of this one-volume book (and it is_ huge_), I would recommend this work most to everyone—lay person or seminary student.

*Robert Lewis Dabney* is difficult to describe with enough praise. I remember the first time I discovered Dabney, I thought his_ Systematic Theology_ was kind of strange in the way it was set up (i.e., as lectures). However, I think Dabney is one of the most comprehensive and powerful thinkers in American Presbyterianism. His breadth of knowledge—from theology, to languages, to politics, to economics, to architecture, etc.—is just so incredible it is mind-blowing. What's more is that often when I have been frustrated by the fact that other theologians do not answer a question I have adequately or very well, I have found Dabney to be more than satisfactory both in the length of his explanation but also in the profundity and clarity of his writing (he was a great writer, in my opinion). A lot of evangelicals do not like Dabney because, unlike them, he was a sinner, but they can go pound sand, as far as I am concerned. 

*Benedict Pictet*, nephew of the great Francis Turretin, also wrote an excellent little book called_ Christian Theology_. The advantage of this book is, first, that it is fairly comprehensive for its size, covering every major_ loci_ of systematic theology, and second, that it is short and cuts right to the point of each doctrine. There is a chance I might be teaching theology at a small Bible college in the next few years. If that, Lord willing, be the case, I have strongly considered using this as my text for its faithfulness and its brevity. It is a great primer on Christian doctrine.

I hesitated including* W. G. T. Shedd* in this list because his_ Dogmatic Theology_ was not originally one volume, but three. But, since it has been combined recently into a very nicely edited edition by Presbyterian & Reformed, I will include it. Shedd is probably the best writer in this list. He is quite a good read, if only for his literary quality. Like many systematics texts, Shedd is missing some_ loci_, such as a discussion of ecclesiology, but his work is still fantastic. He was a penetrating thinker and, as I said, a great writer. His work, however, should be reserved for more advanced readers in theology. In my opinion, this is not a good systematics for lay people or beginners.

Reactions: Informative 5


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 3, 2018)

I voted Berkhof with Dabney closing in second. Berkhof is quite a dry read. I like to revisit Thomas Watson's Body of Divinity if there is a correlating topic to add some warmth. I also thoroughly enjoy the one volume 1541 French edition of Calvin's Institutes published by the Banner. Shedd has also been on my list for a while.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 3, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> *Benedict Pictet*, nephew of the great Francis Turretin, also wrote an excellent little book called_ Christian Theology_.


I was not aware of this volume. I am going to check it out. Thanks for sharing.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 3, 2018)

I also don't think one would be at a loss of time if they read John Brown of Haddington's Systematic Theology. This volume is saturated in Scripture and strong on Covenant Theology. He includes "26,000 proof texts." The weaknesses of it are that he doesn't interact with others and it is not the most penetrating but it is solid. It is hard to turn down such a work that is beautifully published for only $15.

https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...w-of-natural-and-revealed-religion-brown.html

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Dec 3, 2018)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I also don't think one would be at a loss of time if they read John Brown of Haddington's Systematic Theology. This volume is saturated in Scripture and strong on Covenant Theology. He includes "26,000 proof texts." The weaknesses of it are that he doesn't interact with others and it is not the most penetrating but it is solid. It is hard to turn down such a work that is beautifully published for only $15.
> 
> https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...w-of-natural-and-revealed-religion-brown.html



I second this, for sure.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 3, 2018)

Vos's Reformed Dogmatics was originally one volume, and has been translated into 5 rather short volumes. I like Vos better than Berkhof, but Berkhof would have to be the best of the ones on your list.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 3, 2018)

Culver, then maybe Vos.

Berkhof is good for basic view.

Shedd is great, but woefully unbalanced (one page on heaven, not really any analysis on the church).

I used to love Horton, but I think Horton took the "overcoming onto-theology" paradigm in an unhelpful direction.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 3, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> _Others I would recommend...
> _
> *Robert Duncan Culver* has written an excellent systematics work. Culver is mildly Dispensational, but he is quite reasonable, in my opinion, in that he interacts and describes many viewpoints with clarity and fairness. The advantage of Culver is twofold. First, he is very easy to read; he reads almost like a conversation. Second, Culver is extremely comprehensive. At nearly 1,000,000 words, his_ Systematic Theology_ covers almost everything there is to cover, and with depth. Were it not for the girth of this one-volume book (and it is_ huge_), I would recommend this work most to everyone—lay person or seminary student.



Culver is also one of my favorites. Berkhof remains my first choice.

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/robert-culver’s-systematic-theology.94660/#post-1154852


----------



## bookslover (Dec 3, 2018)

Thanks for all these opinions, guys. I wish I'd remembered Shedd and Culver when I was putting the poll together. For what it's worth, Reformed author and educator Ryan McGraw thinks that the van Genderen and Velema volume is the best 1-volume ST these days.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 3, 2018)

bookslover said:


> I wish I'd remembered Shedd and Culver when I was putting the poll together.



Added to the poll.


----------



## Roger D Duke (Dec 3, 2018)

Hello all,

As just an aside, I read and went by Systemats when I was a lay-person before I had training the the languages and such. Then when I got there and Biblical theology I had to unlearn much. Cart before the horse idea.

My two cents worth.

sdg!

rd

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Roger D Duke (Dec 3, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Culver, then maybe Vos.
> 
> Berkhof is good for basic view.
> 
> ...



What does it take to be a Puritan Board Doctor?

rd


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 3, 2018)

I will second (or third) Robert on John Brown of Haddington. His and Dabney's are the only one volume STs that I regularly return to. Berkhof is great but it's ultimately more a distillation of other STs that I would tend to go to instead.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 3, 2018)

Roger D Duke said:


> What does it take to be a Puritan Board Doctor?



The "rankings" under our usernames are based on the number of posts we have. I am not sure what the mark is for becoming a "Doctor." I hit 500 not too long ago and it made me a "Sophomore." I think 1,000 may be a "Junior." I'm not sure after that. That is in @Ask Mr. Religion's department.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 3, 2018)

Puritan Board Freshman 0

Puritan Board Sophomore 500 posts

Puritan Board Junior 1000 posts

Puritan Board Senior 2000 posts

Puritan Board Graduate 3000 posts

Puritan Board Post-Graduate 4000 posts

Puritan Board Professor 5000 posts

Puritan Board Doctor 6000 posts


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 3, 2018)

Roger D Duke said:


> What does it take to be a Puritan Board Doctor?
> 
> rd


 
I have no idea how any of that works. I've been on the board for 14 years, though.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 3, 2018)

Added Dabney, Vos to poll.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 3, 2018)

Reymond.
And/or Berkhof.

Grudem has his ESS issues in addition to his charismatic beliefs.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 3, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Vos's Reformed Dogmatics was originally one volume, and has been translated into 5 rather short volumes. I like Vos better than Berkhof, but Berkhof would have to be the best of the ones on your list.


Lane, in terms of one volume works, what do you think of Bavinck's "Our reasonable faith" or his one volume "Reformed dogmatics"?


----------



## Roger D Duke (Dec 3, 2018)

What, no Baptists ST? I guess for obvious reasons. LOL!

sdg!

rd


----------



## TheInquirer (Dec 3, 2018)

> What, no Baptists ST? I guess for obvious reasons. LOL!



Well, I am a Baptist and have Gill and Boyce that I have consulted regularly over the last few months and honestly, they just don't hold up to the others. 

Grudem is a Baptist.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 3, 2018)

Roger D Duke said:


> What, no Baptists ST? I guess for obvious reasons. LOL!
> 
> sdg!
> 
> rd



Culver and Grudem are Baptist. I was going to add Gill, but this thread is about one-volume systematics texts, and his is two volumes.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 3, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Added Dabney, Vos to poll.



Thanks for those additions, though it must be said that Vos is 5 volumes, not 1. (Am I being cranky?) LOL


----------



## Taylor (Dec 3, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Culver...



I’m curious: Why do you rank Culver first? I certainly don’t disagree, I’m just curious as to your personal reasoning.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 3, 2018)

Of the ones listed, I voted for Geerhardus Vos. I have never been that big a fan of Vos's other writings, but I really enjoyed the _Reformed Dogmatics_. Perhaps it is because they were translated out of Dutch into English? Now someone needs to translate his English writings into English.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 3, 2018)

Louis Berkhof - Generally good, but not the most pleasant to read. Given the price of the Vos volumes (if only they had been published as one volume), it will probably remain the standard relatively modern Reformed ST.

Robert Reymond - I cannot recommend it owing to the errors on Christology and the Trinity. I also disagree with the presuppositionalism. 

J. van Genderen and W. H. Velema - That is one that I have not read as of yet, but maybe next year (dv).

Wayne Grudem - Stylistically the best modern ST, but suffers from various theological problems discussed by others above. 

Michael Horton - As I have said before, it reads like a theological novel. It is very good on the whole, but it is never going to be a standard ST. 

John Frame - I have not read it, nor do I ever intend to do so. Even though I read STs for fun, I have no desire to read so much by someone as blatantly odd as John Frame. 

Robert D. Culver - I recently acquired a copy and I hope to read it next year.

W.G.T. Shedd - I own an original 19th-century edition. It is actually the best one on the list. However, it should not be there as it is a two-volume work.

Robert L. Dabney - I thought it was pretty good, though he is not the best on the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 3, 2018)

A. A. Hodge's _Outlines of Theology_ is, as Edward Donelly once remarked, one that is easily overlooked. It certainly ought to be a contender.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 4, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Thanks for those additions, though it must be said that Vos is 5 volumes, not 1. (Am I being cranky?) LOL


It was one volume at one time.
https://archive.org/download/GeerhardusVosDogmatiekI1910


----------



## py3ak (Dec 4, 2018)

Berkhof, hands down. He is a great success as a writer; he accurately and succinctly conveys a great deal of information, with hardly a wasted word. He mostly reflects a great tradition, without much in the way of personal idiosyncrasy.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 4, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I’m curious: Why do you rank Culver first? I certainly don’t disagree, I’m just curious as to your personal reasoning.



In a lot of systematic theologies there is a tendency to turn the book into a "proof-text manual" and very little analysis beyond that. That's why the older, greater systematic theologies weren't one volume, but multi-volume.

Culver brings something new to the table.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 4, 2018)

Culver has great reviews for his systematic on Amazon. The only criticism being for small print making for difficult reading, and a dispensational slant according to a couple of reviewers.
Curious as to why no mention of Dr Morton Smith, though it is two volumes, his work also has been highly esteemed. It is out of print and commands ridiculous prices, but I found both volumes for $60 in fine condition last year. It shows up at a reasonable price from time to time.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 4, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> Curious as to why no mention of Dr Morton Smith, though it is two volumes, his work also has been highly esteemed. It is out of print and commands ridiculous prices, but I found both volumes for $60 in fine condition last year. It shows up at a reasonable price from time to time.



His ST is very good. I actually drove to Greenville Seminary on my day off a few weeks ago for the express purpose of getting a copy. All that they have there (which is maybe ten) is all that are left, period, aside form used copies, which seem rare. The director of admissions there, Mr. Groff, told me they want to reprint it, but they’ve lost the document files!

I highly commend his ST.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 4, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> Culver has great reviews for his systematic on Amazon. The only criticism being for small print making for difficult reading, and a dispensational slant according to a couple of reviewers.
> Curious as to why no mention of Dr Morton Smith, though it is two volumes, his work also has been highly esteemed. It is out of print and commands ridiculous prices, but I found both volumes for $60 in fine condition last year. It shows up at a reasonable price from time to time.



The print size in Culver makes me think that the publisher said, "This thing is going to be one volume only - no matter how small we have to make the print!"

It's interesting that it's getting respectful reviews in the Reformed community even though it's mildly dispensational.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 4, 2018)

I really like Culver. He would be my favorite in many ways because on some questions I'm closer to his views than I am to the others. But I'd be hard pressed to say it's the best when he basically skips the doctrine of scripture, dismisses six day creation with little more than a wave of the hand, (John Whitcomb was a student of his) and perhaps some other omissions that I've forgotten about despite it being a massive book. He doesn't interact much with charismaticism either. But he interacts more with Roman Catholicism, liberalism, and Lutheranism than many other texts do, especially those coming from a low church evangelical perspective.

Culver is baptistic, being a former professor at TEDS and Grace Seminary in Winona Lake, IN. He was a minister in the Evangelical Free Church.

On eschatology, much of what he says is basically the same thing taught by older covenantal premils like the Bonars, Spurgeon, Ryle, etc. (They taught that national Israel would be restored to the land, as did some of the older postmils. Unlike them, Culver rejects federal theology.) He also disagrees with traditional dispensationalists on their postponed kingdom teaching. In some ways he is sort of a proto-progressive dispensationalist and said that he came to his conclusions about 2-3 decades before Bock, Blaising, and Saucy started writing. But he had little use for the labels. He doesn't take a position on the rapture. If I recall correctly he leans against pre-trib and maybe toward post-trib, but I can't remember where.

The print is quite small, but even though I have a hard time with small print, I don't really find it to be difficult reading. I think this is due to the quality of the paper, which is much better than Reymond and some others. It is a fairly thick yellowish paper, somewhat similar in color to what is used in the Westminster Reference Bible and later printings of the RHB KJV Study Bible. 

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 4, 2018)

For my money, (and speaking as a total amateur) Berkhof is probably still the best one vol ST from a confessional standpoint because it is harder to argue that something in it is "Not Reformed" the way you can with Reymond, Horton, Frame, etc. If you can only get one, that's probably still the one to get. 

What about the one volume abridgement of Bavinck?


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 4, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Lane, in terms of one volume works, what do you think of Bavinck's "Our reasonable faith" or his one volume "Reformed dogmatics"?



Both are excellent summaries of Bavinck's thought. As for me, I would rather read the 4-volume work than either of the single volumes, and I still think Vos is better than either of two you mention.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 4, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Both are excellent summaries of Bavinck's thought. As for me, I would rather read the 4-volume work than either of the single volumes


Thank you. I was thinking the same.



greenbaggins said:


> I still think Vos is better than either of two you mention.


Ah Lane, further to our earlier discussion of the clear relationship between mentioning Vos and 'growing' in sanctification, you had to add a comment about Vos again

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 4, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> I still think Vos is better than either of two you mention.



I've seen you say this several times in several places. Would you mind fleshing out your reasoning for this? I'm just curious. I have read some of Vos'_ Reformed Dogmatics_ and I love it, especially the catechistic format. He, along with Dabney, is the one who really convinced me of paedobaptism.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 4, 2018)

Berkhof's Prolegomena:

https://www.monergism.com/introductory-volume-systematic-theology-ebook

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 4, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> He, along with Dabney, is the one who really convinced me of paedobaptism.


Taylor, I was thinking of our conversation on this recently. I don't want to derail the thread, but if you want to help us who are 'struggling' on the issue (as discussed recently), perhaps one way could be to critique Sam Renihan's recent book "From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists" or the 1689 Federalist blog https://contrast2.wordpress.com/. Just a thought.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 4, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I've seen you say this several times in several places. Would you mind fleshing out your reasoning for this? I'm just curious. I have read some of Vos'_ Reformed Dogmatics_ and I love it, especially the catechistic format. He, along with Dabney, is the one who really convinced me of paedobaptism.



Hmm, where to start? I have read it in its entirety, and I can safely say that no other theologian says so much in so little space. His clarity of thought, precision of expression, and economy of words are all quite striking. The catechetical format is another bonus, since it provides an easy index to specific questions. This feature, in particular, sets it apart from and above Berkhof. In other words, it's VERY easy to find one's way around Vos, or to find what you're looking for.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 4, 2018)

@greenbaggins, if you are such a big fan of Geerhardus Vos's _Reformed Dogmatics_, why am I the only one who has voted for it?


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 4, 2018)

Daniel, it wasn't on the poll the times before when I checked it. It is now, and I have cast my vote for it. So there!

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## JM (Dec 4, 2018)

John Gill's Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 5, 2018)

Just to be mischievous, here's another one:

_Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology_ by Thomas C. Oden (New York: HarperOne, 2009). Originally published in three volumes (1987, 1989, 1992).


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 5, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> His ST is very good. I actually drove to Greenville Seminary on my day off a few weeks ago for the express purpose of getting a copy. All that they have there (which is maybe ten) is all that are left, period, aside form used copies, which seem rare. The director of admissions there, Mr. Groff, told me they want to reprint it, but they’ve lost the document files!
> 
> I highly commend his ST.


Do you mind me asking what they are charging for this? I would like to try to get a set if they aren't sold out.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 5, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Just to be mischievous, here's another one:
> 
> _Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology_ by Thomas C. Oden (New York: HarperOne, 2009). Originally published in three volumes (1987, 1989, 1992).



Volume 1 on the doctrine of God is actually very good.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 5, 2018)

For those wanting to read Berkhof after reading this thread (free):

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


----------



## Taylor (Dec 5, 2018)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Do you mind me asking what they are charging for this? I would like to try to get a set if they aren't sold out.



They changed me $75, if I remember correctly. If you are able, I would highly encourage it.


----------



## Connor Longaphie (Dec 6, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Generally speaking, what do you think is the best one-volume ST?
> 
> See the poll above.


I think i would choose the new banner translation of Calvin's original french copy of the institutes


----------



## bookslover (Dec 8, 2018)

I think a translation of the very last edition of the _Institutes_ - the 1560 French edition - could be useful. Perhaps he did a little more tweaking after the last Latin edition of 1559.

Richard Muller would probably know if this is true or not.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 13, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Culver and Grudem are Baptist. I was going to add Gill, but this thread is about one-volume systematics texts, and his is two volumes.


How about the ST done by Strong?


----------



## Taylor (Dec 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> How about the ST done by Strong?



Strong is fantastic. In fact, Culver gets most of his inspiration from him. Unfortunately, unless I am mistaken, Strong’s ST is more than one volume.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 13, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Strong is fantastic. In fact, Culver gets most of his inspiration from him. Unfortunately, unless I am mistaken, Strong’s ST is more than one volume.



The printing that I have is one volume


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 13, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Strong is fantastic. In fact, Culver gets most of his inspiration from him. Unfortunately, unless I am mistaken, Strong’s ST is more than one volume.





Reformed Bookworm said:


> The printing that I have is one volume



Yes, it is sometimes found in a single volume, e.g.,
https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Complete-Augustus-Hopkins/dp/1503308936/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 13, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Yes, it is sometimes found in a single volume, e.g.,
> https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Complete-Augustus-Hopkins/dp/1503308936/


This is the particular publishing I have. I would warn that the font size and type do not make for the most pleasant reading experience. It will suffice if you want it in a hardcover. 


Systematic Theology (Three Volumes in One) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0817001778/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_tjReCb4YT2Y9P

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Dec 13, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Strong is fantastic. In fact, Culver gets most of his inspiration from him. Unfortunately, unless I am mistaken, Strong’s ST is more than one volume.



And the font size is even dinkier than in Culver!

Wasn't Strong considered "hyper" in some theological area?


----------



## Taylor (Dec 14, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Wasn't Strong considered "hyper" in some theological area?



I’m not sure. He did hold to a kind of inclusivism. He thought that since the Patriarchs were saved by believing in the true God, yet having little to no knowledge of Christ, then being saved without being an explicit Christian, yet somehow trusting in the true God, is at least theoretically possible. Whether he believed it was _actually_ possible, I’m not sure. He only mentions this in something of a passing comment, and doesn’t seem to develop it further.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 14, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Strong is fantastic. In fact, Culver gets most of his inspiration from him. Unfortunately, unless I am mistaken, Strong’s ST is more than one volume.


AH Strong, was for years the main Baptist ST used, until supplemented by the ones by Dr Erickison and Grudem.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 14, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I’m not sure. He did hold to a kind of inclusivism. He thought that since the Patriarchs were saved by believing in the true God, yet having little to no knowledge of Christ, then being saved without being an explicit Christian, yet somehow trusting in the true God, is at least theoretically possible. Whether he believed it was _actually_ possible, I’m not sure. He only mentions this in something of a passing comment, and doesn’t seem to develop it further.


The main area that he seems to have problems would be in origins, as he seemed to hold with Theistic Evolution in a sense.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 14, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Strong is fantastic. In fact, Culver gets most of his inspiration from him. Unfortunately, unless I am mistaken, Strong’s ST is more than one volume.



I'm not sure I buy that unless you have a specific quote in mind. While he quotes Strong many times, my impression is that Culver (despite being baptistic) is much more influenced by Shedd than Strong. He leans on him heavily at certain points (traducianism, a nuanced view of limited atonement, and more.)

While it is an important work, there are things to beware of in Strong, perhaps moreso than normal for writers of that era, most if not all of whom accepted theistic evolution. Admittedly I'm basing this on a post by Paul Martin Henebury although I want to say I've seen problems with Strong discussed elsewhere. Henebury is a dispensationalist, but he doesn't slight authors just because he disagrees with them, as can be seen with his laudatory comments about the Reformed ST texts that he mentions.



> “What about A.H. Strong?”, the American Baptists say. Well, I am one of those (like J. Murray and B.B. Warfield) who believes that he is more trouble than he is worth. He rejects inerrancy, accepts both evolutionary dogma and historical criticism, and, furthermore, lurches toward pantheism in his so-called ethical monism. Evangelicals should fish in better waters!



For what it's worth, Henebury gives a full review of Culver here.

Interestingly, while Culver quotes Reymond (1998) many times, I've yet to find Grudem (1994) in the book even though it was published earlier. (I've found things in the text that aren't in the index, so maybe he's in there somewhere!) Culver's ST was written over about a 30 year period, and you can see that some sections are a bit more "dated" than others, but other sections include citations from this century. My guess is that he didn't think that Grudem added much to what he already had moreso than some thought he may have had that Grudem didn't rate as a theologian. Regardless, Culver not interacting with charismaticism in any detail at all is probably one of the weaknesses of the book given the fact that more and more of evangelicalism is continuationist if not full blown charismatic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 14, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> I'm not sure I buy that unless you have a specific quote in mind. While he quotes Strong many times, my impression is that Culver (despite being baptistic) is much more influenced by Shedd than Strong. He leans on him heavily at certain points (traducianism, a nuanced view of limited atonement, and more.)
> 
> While it is an important work, there are things to beware of in Strong, perhaps moreso than normal for writers of that era, most if not all of whom accepted theistic evolution. Admittedly I'm basing this on a post by Paul Martin Henebury although I want to say I've seen problems with Strong discussed elsewhere. Henebury is a dispensationalist, but he doesn't slight authors just because he disagrees with them, as can be seen with his laudatory comments about the Reformed ST texts that he mentions.
> 
> ...


The Charismatic camp of the Church really does not have that many really good works produced on theology, as much of it seems to be more line with the Surprised by the Spirit type of pop theology. That much of modern day Evangelicalism seems to be heading towards Charismatic Chaos would to me be an indictment of just how poorly the theology has been developed in that group of believers.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 14, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> I'm not sure I buy that unless you have a specific quote in mind. While he quotes Strong many times, my impression is that Culver (despite being baptistic) is much more influenced by Shedd than Strong. He leans on him heavily at certain points (traducianism, a nuanced view of limited atonement, and more.)



Perhaps I overstated with the word "most." However, what I meant by "inspiration" is not that Culver received a lot of his content or ideas from Strong, but simply that Culver (it at least seems to me in reading his systematic theology) saw himself as standing in the ancestral line, as it were, of A. H. Strong—i.e., big works of Baptist systematic theology. Yes, theologically Culver probably has a bit in common with Shedd.



Dachaser said:


> The Charismatic camp of the Church really does not have that many really good works produced on theology, as much of it seems to be more line with the Surprised by the Spirit type of pop theology.



J. Rodman Williams' work_ Renewal Theology_ has been around for quite a while now.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 15, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Perhaps I overstated with the word "most." However, what I meant by "inspiration" is not that Culver received a lot of his content or ideas from Strong, but simply that Culver (it at least seems to me in reading his systematic theology) saw himself as standing in the ancestral line, as it were, of A. H. Strong—i.e., big works of Baptist systematic theology. Yes, theologically Culver probably has a bit in common with Shedd.
> 
> 
> 
> J. Rodman Williams' work_ Renewal Theology_ has been around for quite a while now.


Have you read that volume then?


----------



## Taylor (Dec 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Have you read that volume then?



Which volume? Williams? Not all the way through, no. But I have read portions for reference.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 15, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Which volume? Williams? Not all the way through, no. But I have read portions for reference.


What was interesting to me was that even while was being trained at the AOG school did not use a Pentecostal textbook for Systematic Theology.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------

