# New systematic theology of the christian faith -Dr. Robert L



## Reena Wilms (Mar 15, 2004)

Who known this author ? ( i read somewhere that he teaches at Knox seminary). And who read this Systematic theological book from Dr. Robert L. Reymond ? Tomorow i will get this book!

(I edited his name).


[Edited on 3-15-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 15, 2004)

He teaches at Knox about 40 minutes from my house. I have heard him preach a few times at churches in the area. He is a good professor and a poor preacher. His systematic is a good work, and it is set up a bit differently than most. it seems more of like a polemic rather than a systematic theology book. When I read it, I don't feel like I am reading Calvin, Turretin, Dabney or Hodge. I feel like I am reading a VERY LONG Westminster Theological Journal Articles on various subjects. In many ways, though, it is good, and very helpful. it deals allot with contempoary subjects (i.e. Open Theism), etc.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 15, 2004)

I love Reymond's work. This systematic is an excellent -quick- resource.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 15, 2004)

I like Reymond a lot. But there's nothing quite like mixing it up with all your favorite Systematicians.


----------



## Learner (Apr 13, 2004)

*Reymond*

Dr.Reymond's book is top of the line as far as I am concerned.Of course it is my first systematic theology,but I
have many other books on theology which are not as extensive as his.I refer to it often.It helped prep me for an encounter with some J.W's 2 months ago.

Tim


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 13, 2004)

Great systematic, he uses and comments on the WCF in his format.
Blessings!:wr50:


----------



## JonathonHunt (Apr 13, 2004)

Reymond's systematic is recommended reading at the London Reformed Baptist Seminary. I know he is a presbyterian, but we baptists have to use Presbyterian systematics - I only know of one baptist systematic (by Dagg - and that is a touch ancient!)

The principal of the seminary remarked (and I appreciate this too) that a great strength of Dr Reymond's style is that he starts with scripture and proves the doctrine from it, rather than starting with a statement of doctrine and then pulling together the scriptural support.

I have heard him give addresses at the Metropolitan Tabernacle's annual school of theology, and he is a fantastic speaker from an academic point of view.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 13, 2004)

I may be a touch outdated... but I actually prefer Berkhof's writing style over that of Reymond. 

Berkhof's will stand the test of time.
Reymond's will be around for just a season.
(My guess!)


----------



## sundoulos (Apr 21, 2004)

Is this the Same man who pastored a Presbyterian church in Tacoma, Wa back in the late 70's? Is/was his father a teacher at Covenant Seminary?


----------



## mjbee (Apr 21, 2004)

I appreciate these comments/reviews. I had that book in my hand at the store not long ago and almost bought it.


----------



## JonathonHunt (Apr 22, 2004)

I just got my details of who the guest lecturer at Seminary is next month. And... its Robert Reymond boys and girls... giving three lectures on the attributes of God.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 21, 2006)

Find Robert Reymond's Systematic free on the web here.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> disagree with his take on presuppositionalism and his bad arguments against preterism....otherwise, good source.



Ditto. His critique of natural theology was spot on and his section on Introduction to the Doctrine of God was quite good. He put natural theology on the mat and beat it silly. 

From what I read of it, he tried to dismiss postmillennialism in a paragraph (doesn't quite work that way; although his optimistic amillennialism would rankle a few people!) and, well, his take on Van Til. We have to agree to disagree on this one.

He is a polemical source and that is his strength. I wouldn't make this my foundation work. The format is user-friendly and he interacts with recent challenges to the faith. That is to be appreciated. 

I find myself going back to Berkhof and Bavinck, though.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by sundoulos_
> Is this the Same man who pastored a Presbyterian church in Tacoma, Wa back in the late 70's? Is/was his father a teacher at Covenant Seminary?



I don't know about Tacoma, but Dr. Reymond taught at Covenant before he moved on to Knox.

http://www.theopedia.com/Robert_Reymond


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by sundoulos_
> Is this the Same man who pastored a Presbyterian church in Tacoma, Wa back in the late 70's? Is/was his father a teacher at Covenant Seminary?



You're thinking of Rob Rayburn. The similarity of the names is striking.

As far as I know, Rob Rayburn is still pastoring Faith (PCA) in Tacoma. We have been there; last time was c. 10+ years ago.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jaybird0827_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by sundoulos_
> ...



Yes, he is still there.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Find Robert Reymond's Systematic free on the web here.



Thanks! That's great. His section on Paradox is spot-on. I almost hate to post a link to it for fear that some with a Vantilian bent will decide not to read him. But truth trumps paradox so here it is:
http://www.biblecentre.net/theology/books/rr/nst102.html#t38


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 22, 2006)

I am of a vantillian bent and I read Reymond.


----------



## bookslover (Oct 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> He teaches at Knox about 40 minutes from my house. I have heard him preach a few times at churches in the area. He is a good professor and a poor preacher. His systematic is a good work, and it is set up a bit differently than most. it seems more of like a polemic rather than a systematic theology book. When I read it, I don't feel like I am reading Calvin, Turretin, Dabney or Hodge. I feel like I am reading a VERY LONG Westminster Theological Journal Articles on various subjects. In many ways, though, it is good, and very helpful. it deals allot with contempoary subjects (i.e. Open Theism), etc.



I've dipped into it and read sections here and there - this is a *huge* book! I think his take-down of eternal generation was right on the money.


----------



## PresReformed (Oct 18, 2006)

Reymond's work is an excellent modern Systematic Theology. I disagree with the position he takes in appendix F though. He takes the same positon as Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Paul in Romans 7.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 18, 2006)

I read through most of Reymond's systematic last year. It is a good resource especially, as someone already said, for polemics. His section on refuting Rome and the papacy is superb.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 18, 2006)

How exactly does he take down eternal generation? I have seen this mentioned before, usually with concern.


----------



## bookslover (Oct 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> How exactly does he take down eternal generation? I have seen this mentioned before, usually with concern.



Reymond writes (p. 325) - 

_...[the] Fathers taught that the Son derives his essential being or existence as God from the Father (see their "out of the being of the Father") through an "always continuing and yet ever complete" [citing Berkhof's ST] act of begetting on the Father's part. In sum, the Father alone has being from himself; the Son eternally derives his being from the Father._ 

Reymond then notes four lines of alleged exegetical evidence cited by the Fathers. I'll list them, and give Reymond's responses to them in italics - 

1. The very titles "Father" and "Son" were said to imply that the Father generates the Son.

_...the titles "Father" and "Son" must not be freighted with the Western ideas of source of being and superiority on the one hand and of subordination and dependency on the other. Rather, they should be viewed in the biblical sense as denoting sameness of nature and, in Jesus' case, equality with the Father with respect to his deity (see John 10:30-36). _ 

2. The term "monogenes" (John 1:14, 18; 3:16; 1 John 4:9) was thought to teach that the Father begat the Son.

_It is the general consensus among twentieth-century scholars that "monogenes" does not mean "only begotten," alluding to some form of generation, but rather "one and only" (see Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38) or "one of a kind" or "unique." Warfield, for example, writes: "The adjective 'only begotten' conveys the idea, not of derivation and subordination, but of uniqueness and consubstantiality: Jesus is all that God is."_ 

3. John 5:26, expressly declaring that the Father who has life in himself "gave to the Son also to have life in himself," was thought to teach that the Father communicates the divine essence to the Son.

_A consensus has by no means been reached among theologians and commentators that the words of John 5:26 refer to an ontological endowment. It is entirely possible, indeed, much more likely, that they refer to an aspect of the INCARNATE Son's messianic investiture. John 5:22-23 refers to his designated authority to judge, which is clearly an aspect of his messianic role, and so is the similar thought of John 5:27. Accordingly, 5:26, paralleling 5:27, seems to be giving the ground upon which the Son is able to raise the dead, namely, it is one of the prerogatives of his messianic investiture._ 

4. 1 John 5:18b - "the one who was begotten by God keeps him" - was said explicitly to teach that the Son was generated by the Father.

_...it is not at all certain that 1 John 5:18b teaches that the Father eternally generates the Son. Raymond E. Brown, for example, discusses five interpretations that have been proposed by scholars, opting himself for the idea that "the one who was begotten of God" refers to the Christian whom God enables to keep himself. Even those who contend that the phrase refers to Jesus (the majority view) must and do acknowledge that it is not certain that John had an essential begetting in mind or that he was referring to the eternal generation of the Son. Thus, Scripture provides little or no warrant for the speculation that the Nicene Fathers made the bedrock for the distinguishing properties of the Father and the Son. In fact, when they taught that the Father is the "source" (arche), "fountain" (pege) and "root" (rhiza) of the Son and that the Son in turn is God "out of" (ek) God, that is, out of the being of the Father, they were virtually denying to the Son the attribute of self-existence, an attribute essential to deity, and were implying that the same divine essence, paradoxically, can be both "unbegotten" and "begotten" depending upon whether it is the Father or the Son which is being considered._ 

_...[The Fathers'] utilization of the language, if not also in some measure the thought modes, of the earlier Origen...suggests the Son's subordination to the Father not only in modes of operation but in modes of subsistence as well. Nonetheless, in spite of these deficiencies, the church continues to employ the Nicene terminology to this very day._

Reymond's discussion is found on pages 324-330. He cites Warfield, John Murray (by strong implication from a long quote from Murray) and especially Calvin as rejecters of the doctrine of eternal generation. Reymond shows that Calvin defended the full self-existence of the Son as God against Servetus and Valentinus Gentilis.

Here's the Calvin quote (one of my favorites on this subject) - 
_...what is the point in disputing whether the Father always begets? Indeed, it is foolish to imagine a continuous act of begetting, since it is clear that three persons have subsisted in God from eternity._ (Institutes, 1.13.29)

Reymond quotes John Murray, writing in 1963, regarding the phrase "very God of very God" - 

_No doubt this expression is repeated by orthodox people without any thought of suggesting what the evidence derived from the writings of the Nicene fathers would indicate the intent to have been [Christians reciting that phrase of the creed, assuming that it is merely a "literary convention...denot(ing) the superlative degree," as Reymond points out earlier - RZ]. This evience shows that the meaning intended is that the Son derived his deity from the Father and that the Son was not therefore "autotheos". It was precisely this position that Calvin controverted with vigour. He maintained that as respects personal distinction the Son was of the Father [that is, the Second Person is related to the First Person as Son - RZ] but as respects deity he was self-existent (ex se ipso). This position ran counter to the Nicene tradition...It is...to the credit of Calvin that he did not allow his own more sober thinking [in contrast to that of the Fathers - RZ] to be suppressed out of deference to an established pattern of thought when the latter did not commend itself by conformity to Scripture and was inimical to Christ's deity._ 

******

This post is already too long, but let me point out that Reymond is not the only one challenging this doctrine. After Calvin's day, the twentieth century saw exegetes and theologians becoming increasing unhappy with this doctrine and speaking out against it. Loraine Boettner, nearly 70 years ago, in his _Studies in Theology_, flatly says that the biblical "evidence" proves no such thing (as Reymond demonstrates above). And just in the last ten years, Wayne Grudem, John Frame, and Reymond have voiced varying levels of unhappiness with "eternal generation".

Our Theology Proper tells us that all three Persons of the divine Trinity are _exactly equal in essence as God and in every attribute as God_, save for the personal distinctions, which denote the economic divisions, if you will, of the work of salvation in history (the Son, _as God_ is a completely full and equal member of the Trinity; _as Son_, he carries out his part, in time and space history (as Francis Schaeffer used to say) of the plan of salvation for the elect).

Yet the Fathers, as seen above, wanted to say that the Son, _as God_, derives his deity, his very essence, from the Father. WRONG!

A trinitarian doctrine that says that one of the Persons is dependent (the "eternally continuous generation") on another of the Persons for his very essence is not the Bible's trinitarian doctrine.

If you get the chance, read Reymond's entire section.

Well, it is now 12:40 AM, Thursday, October 19, 2006 - so I'm going to bed.


----------

