# systematic,covenantal theology??



## nonconformist (Apr 27, 2005)

how does covenantal theology fit into systematics as a whole to help us understand the bible in our minds? how do you guys see the bible in your mind to help you categorize,organize and remember scripture and facts as a whole while also making it simple? i read the other thread about seeing it as a theme,example(kingdom of god)(escatology) etc etc?

[Edited on 04-23-2005 by noncomformist]


----------



## Robin (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by noncomformist_
> how does covenantal theology fit into systematics as a whole to help us understand the bible in our minds? how do you guys see the bible in your mind to help you categorize,organize and remember scripture and facts as a whole while also making it simple? i read the other thread about seeing it as a theme,example(kingdom of god)(escatology) etc etc?
> [Edited on 04-23-2005 by noncomformist]



The core theme of the Bible - which all of it is based upon is Genesis 3:15. It is one story....proceeding from this declaration. This declaration emerges from the acts of God (Genesis) to create a kingdom where He dwells in the midst of His creation. The covenants are the relational expressions God imposes on His creatures. All of Scripture speaks eschatalogically, revealing moments where God's Kingdom is "breaking in" on history - and the story of Redemption.

Systematics is a way to catagorize the traits of God's self-revelation.

Robin


----------



## nonconformist (Apr 27, 2005)

i agree i just started reading a systematics maybe i am just anxious and getting a little ahead of myself as i am really enjoying the books


----------



## Robin (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by noncomformist_
> i agree i just started reading a systematics maybe i am just anxious and getting a little ahead of myself as i am really enjoying the books



Uh, oh....who's systematics? 



Robin


----------



## nonconformist (Apr 27, 2005)

> Uh, oh....who's systematics?


 i am almost afraid to admit it i am not sure how liked he is on this boardrushdoony. please dont hate me I am already being seen at my church as the "evil" one that fell into the "error" of "reformed replacement theology".


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2005)

Rushdoony is fine. His strongpoints are on biblical law and apologetics. Even his followers, of whom I am one, admit that systematics are not his strongpoint. But that is no big deal. Always balance your systematics diet. Everyone is limited in sight, although many do not like that. 

For a good, covenantal approach to systematics, I highly recommend the first four or five tapes in Greg Bahnsen's "Systematic Theology" series at Covenant Media Foundation. Also look into getting Bahnsen's tape series on "Covenant Theology." 

No, Rushdoony is not liked by many on this board. I, however, have benefited on his stuff in church history, education, law, apologetics and so on. He is a little weak on the Confession. But I can ignore and disregard what I find lacking in someone while appreciating their strongpoints. So, that doesn't bother me...


----------



## nonconformist (Apr 27, 2005)

> I highly recommend the first four or five tapes in Greg Bahnsen's "Systematic Theology" series at Covenant Media Foundation. Also look into getting Bahnsen's tape series on "Covenant Theology."


 thanks i will defenitely get them


----------



## nonconformist (Apr 27, 2005)

> Always balance your systematics diet. Everyone is limited in sight, although many do not like that.


 that makes sense


----------



## cornelius vantil (Apr 28, 2005)

Rushdooney is good stuff! Jacob is right you benefit greatly from him


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 28, 2005)

I would recommed the good old standard - Berkhof. Or you might want to look at C. Hodge.


----------



## Robin (Apr 28, 2005)

With all affection and respect....Bahnsen is NOT balance! Especially if you're reading Rushdoony. 

Berkof; BB Warfield; Hodge; Calvin; hey, even check-out Finney and learn what NOT to do! These are not lightweight reads --- but worthwhile. Horton has a couple of superb works on covenant and eschatology, too.

R.

Sorry....theonomist-guys....Paul isn't a theonomist. :bigsmile:


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 28, 2005)

> Sorry....theonomist-guys....Paul isn't a theonomist.



Is too!



> With all affection and respect....Bahnsen is NOT balance! Especially if you're reading Rushdoony.



I don't understand this sentence. I have only heard Bahnsen mention Rushdoony a few times in his lectures, and in no ways theological. I hope you are not putting Bahnsen in the same category as Finney?????? You are speaking of one of the finest logicians of the last century. To listen to him improves one's critical thinking skills, regardless of the agreement.

read Berkhof. Read Warfield, and while you are reading Calvin, check out Bahnsen's tapes on Calvin. They are pretty good.


----------



## openairboy (Apr 28, 2005)

I haven't read Rush's "Systematic Theology", but, as mentioned, he is very, very helpful, especially if you are just getting into issues of philosophy and history. He read and indexed 7 books a week, I heard. I say that because he provides copious footnotes and will springboard you into a lifetime of learning and material that you would normally not be exposed to, especially historical materia.

Personally, although Berkhof is the standard, I find that it is like reading a tech manual. If you enjoy plowing through a Chilton's car manual, then you will love Berkoff. That's my opinion.

openairboy

[Edited on 4-28-2005 by openairboy]


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 28, 2005)

> Personally, although Berkhof is the standard, I find that it is like reading a tech manual. If you plowing through a Chilton's car manual, then you will love Berkoff. That's my opinion.



Can't argue with you there! Hodge is even tougher. He assumes you know Greek, Hebrew and Latin.


----------



## crhoades (Apr 28, 2005)

If you want a nice mix of Covenantal and Systematics, read Calvin's Institutes.

As far as Rushdoony goes... I have his systematics, institutes, etc. His systematics is uneven and I wouldn't recommend it as a primary text. It helps to add it to others. 

Side note, Rushdoony clearly rejects the covenant of works in the systematics. I know we don't agree with that, but it makes for interesting reading on how he arrives there.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 28, 2005)

I agree with the footnotes thing on Rushdoony. Even if his whole argument is wrong, he and Gary North provide fascinating footnotes that do springboard your studies. Bear in mind that Rush and North spent a lifetime honing their writing skills. Their logic is impeccable at times.

Berkhof is great on the doctrine of God but he can get tedious elsewhere.


----------



## Robin (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > Sorry....theonomist-guys....Paul isn't a theonomist.
> ...



Whoa-there, Jacob...no way am I equating Finney w/ Bahnsen! (It IS wise to know the strategies of the Enemy.) All I'm saying is (and having been a theonomist/Bahnsen fan for some time) Bahnsen is a fine apologist and logician. Yes, learning from his style of arguing (critical thinking) is to great advantage. That comes with a cost, though. Jesus and Paul don't comport with Theonomy's trajectory. Jesus' Kingdom is NOT of this world. That's important. (And in case conclusions are being jumped to -- I am not a pacifist!) Rushdoony makes similar theocratic mistakes. Plus (probably another thread?) the tally is coming-in and there is strong evidence that Theonomy is fueling the FV-bent. Design-wise, it must in the end... (Sorry.)

Nanner, Nanner.... In all politeness, if you can...prove that Paul was a theonomist, OK? Meanwhile, please explain why Paul says to obey the government (Romans 13) as he is living under the reign of Nero at the time? (As much as I hate the IRS and wish chpt 13 wasn't there) we never see Paul being a civil-activist against one of the most evil governments in history (Rome.) Hmmm 

R.

(I'm just trying to stretch your thinking, my brothers....) Christ gives us ample teaching on our weapons in the Church-Militant. 2 Cor. 10:3-5


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 28, 2005)

Theonomists do not advocate overthrow of the government. Bahnsen spends 20+ pages warning his readers against it. I do not want the social structure to break down (although there are worse things). I want godly civil magistrates, etc. When we have tyrants in office (Clinton, Neocons, etc.) I view it as God chastening his people, and when his people repent of their sins and cry out for deliverance, then God responds Sic Semper Tyrannus. Only then will we see the tyrants fall by God's hands.

I am tired of people lumping me (and Hermonta, Chris Rhoades, Chris Blum, every other theonomist) in the same camp with Paul Hill. 

Paul wanted Roman Christians to obey the government as to clear them of slander charges of being seditious.



> Jesus' Kingdom is NOT of this world.



For some reason this disproves theoinomy. Anyway, Jesus said that ALL power (Universal Affirmative) in heaven AND earth belongs to him. It makes just as much sense to see it as his authority is not derivative of this world.

SOrry, didn't mean to hijack the thread.

BTW, Robin, you will be proud of me. I finished reading Clowney's book, Biblical Theology and Preaching.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 28, 2005)

If you would like a good book on covenant theology that still remains bound by systematic theology then read Vos' Biblical Theology and Robertson's Christ of the Covenants. Another classic that emphasizes both covenantal and systematic themes is Witsius' Economy of the Covenants. 

I second or third Berkhof. I keep going back to him in my studies. He's very well rounded and interacts with reformed views from all the different camps.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 28, 2005)

I do like Vos, come to think of it. How similar are Vos and Ridderbos in their approach to biblical theology?


----------



## turmeric (Apr 28, 2005)

I looked at Finney's systematics once in a used book store - couldn't bring myself to buy it though it was cheap - $8. It didn't look terribly systematic.
Muy, muy heretical of course...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 28, 2005)

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done
On earth as it is in heaven ...

Bahnsen is my hero. Read and listen to everything you can by him.

Vos' chapters on Biblical Theology and Covenant Theology in _Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation_ are very good and helpful.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 28, 2005)

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it:

Read Calvin. Then read Calvin. Then, you should go ahead and read Calvin.

Get the hint?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 28, 2005)




----------



## nonconformist (Apr 29, 2005)

thanks guys and girls, great books and advice from different angles and perspectives very much appreciated, it looks like i have a lot of homework to dothis board rocks


----------



## Robin (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I do like Vos, come to think of it. How similar are Vos and Ridderbos in their approach to biblical theology?



Complementary....Vos is "hard" so heads-up on that. Just hang-in and you'll get it after a while....Ridderbos "Paul, An Outline of His Theology" par excellance' !!!!

Hey, Jacob, I am very proud of you! You GO guy!! 

(You're no ordinary theonomist...and won't be one much longer, if you keep driving in this direction--hehehehe!)

Covenant is the Key to understanding the Kingdom....

R.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it:
> 
> Read Calvin. Then read Calvin. Then, you should go ahead and read Calvin.
> ...




Ummm, you're confusing all of us Fred. Just read Calvin!


----------



## nonconformist (Apr 29, 2005)

> btw rushdoony condemned revolution very hard in (the institutes of biblical law)


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 15, 2005)

One of the great weaknesses of 20th century Reformed theology is that it was mostly idiosyncratic. 

R. J. Rushdoony was an outstanding example of this trend. He was very intelligent but quirky. He was social theorist who reacted to mainline liberalism and evangelical antinomianism by helping to formulate a sub-Reformed ethical and social theory called Reconstructionism. Neither he nor Bahnsen provide a good entry point to Reformed theology. 

If one is interested in Van Til or presuppositional apologetics, one should simply read his _Defense of the Faith_. It isn't that complicated if read slowly and carefully. 

There are lots of entry points into Reformed theology, but the first place to begin is with the public, ecclesiastically sanctioned summaries of Reformed theology, piety, and practice, i.e., the Reformed Confessions (Westminster, Belgic, Heidelberg, WLC etc). 

These should be the measuring stick for Reformed theology by which one measures the private systematic works. 

After the confessions, one would do well to read a standard confessional Reformed theologian who was a member in good standing of a confessional Reformed denomination, something that cannot be said of RJR. 

Louis Berkhof is not the most exciting, perhaps (I think he's terrific), but he's very reliable and there are three different levels at which to read him: the Summary (a small paperback), the Manual (for college students) and the Systematic Theology (for elders, ministers, sem students). 

Depending upon the reader, Mike Horton's _Putting Amazing_ is a great place to start. 

Relative to Calvin, its probably better to start with a contemporary confessional theology and work back to Calvin, though I read Calvin for the first time as a university student and it was glorious. There were questions I did not understand well because I didn't know what they were. Having skipped Berkhof for Calvin I had to catch up later. 

For a systematic presentation of confessionally faithful Reformed covenant theology one cannot do better than Herman Witsius' _Economy of the Covenants_ (2 vols) publ. by P&R. Witsius faithfully reflects the Reformed consensus on covenant theology which is reflected in the Westminster Standards.

Please be aware that, apart from Berkhof, few 20th century Reformed theologians adhered completely to classic Reformed covenant theology. Most either rejected the covenant of works or the covenant of redemption or confused the covenant of works with the covenant of grace or all three. 

After reading Berkhof and Calvin, Mike Horton's newest, _Lord and Servant_ is outstanding. 

If you can find a copy of Beardslee's Reformed Dogamtics, the text of Wolleb's Compendium of Christian Theology is translated there. My students say that its one of the best assignments I give. I recommend it highly.

My own reading list is at: http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Books.html

Happy Reading.


rsc


----------



## AdamM (May 16, 2005)

Chet, in addition to the very good recommendations from Dr. Clark, I would add "The Christian's Reasonable Service" by Wilhelmus A'Brakel. Unfortunately, A'Brakel is not well known in the US as compared to some other Dutch theologians, but his work is solidly orthodox and extremely helpful. The four-volume set is available from Reformation Heritage Books and there is also a version you can get on CD.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2005)

Dr. Clark that was a great list!
I was thinking as I just finished reading Van Til's Doctrine of Scripture: The nature of VanTillian theology demands that it be systematic and covenantal. I think it is own page 67 in DoS, "Man has the obligation to view all facts as covenantally related," or something like that.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2005)

One question, though:


> Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). There is no question whether you should own and read Berkhof cover to cover. The only question is: which edition? The 1996 edn contains his long-neglected Introduction to Systematic Theology. This introduction makes this edn superior to all editions published without it.



How much am I missing in not having the Introduction?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 16, 2005)

Jacob,

Thanks for the good word. 

Berkhof's Introductory volume was published (or not) separately for decades until Richard Muller (God bless him) had it reprinted with the rest of the ST in 1996. This is the edition of the ST one should get.

That introduction is invaluable. One of the reasons contemporary Reformed theology is so confused is that we have forgotten some of the crucial distinctions made in that vol. 

The most basic distinction, which Van Til preserved materially in his Creator/creature distinction but mentioned formally only a few times, was the archetypal/ectypal distinction, i.e., the distinction between the way God knows things and the way we know them. 

God has original (archetypal) knowledge and we have analogical (ectypal) knowledge. Van Til was very faithful to this, but he did not direct us back to Junius, Wollebius et al. who formulated it.

As a consequence, there are many Reformed folk about who materially deny this fundamental distinction, who believe they are Reformed. See the recent essay by Willem van Asselt in the Westminster Theol. Journal. Sorry to refer to my work (again) but I've also written about this in the recent festschrift for Bob Strimple. 

The cash value of this distinction is that it helps prevent two things: 1) fundamentalism, wherein the human intellect (understanding) is said to achieve identity with the divine intellect and 2) liberalism (skepticism) wherein the analogy between God's understanding and ours destroyed. 

In our circles, no. 1 is a bigger problem. 

Ironically, Berkhof only discusses this distinction briefly. He took for granted that everyone knew it. Even he had a little trouble with it, however, as he fudges the question of analogy (he rails against analogical knowledge as skepticism). He was tainted with a mild rationalism. 

Richard Muller has led the recovery of these categories chiefly in his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics.

Best,

rsc


----------



## Myshkin (May 16, 2005)

Dr. Clark,

I have read the the intro. of Berkhof a couple of times, and can't determine if Berkhof took a presuppositional/apologetic philosophy approach, or the classical philosophy approach. Knowing this would help me in applying the distinctions you mentioned to a particular situation I am in right now.

Also, your foreword in the republishing of Murray's "Free Offer of the Gospel" was very helpful to me in the last few years in understanding that denying this distinction was the reason I was ignorantly involved in the first error you mentioned; and this involvement was in a so-called
"reformed" environment that seemed to worship one of the men you mention in your foreword. Please know as encouragement that your work here has been fruitful in my life when I most needed correction, guidance, and support against those I had to contend with.

Welcome to the Puritan Board also.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 16, 2005)

Allan,

Thanks for the encouragement. The essay in the Strimple vol. elaborates the foreword.

It does not appear that Berkhof was a presuppositonalist. There was some tension between the Calvin seminary and old Westminster on apologetics, despite the fact that CVT (if memory serves) taught at CTS for a year and R B Kuiper taught at WTS and later served as president of CTS.

Both Berkhof and CVT were Kuyperians, but Berkhof seems to have followed the old Princeton apologetic -- though there's nothing about the evidentialism of old Princeton that would have necessitated Berkhof's criticism of analogy. 

Berkhof seems to have assumed, like G. Clark and H. Hoeksema, that unless the human and divine intellects intersect, we can have no certainty. Indeed, even J Frame seems to take this view in his recent vol. on the Doctrine of God. 

If intersection replaces analogy, then the only path to certaint is divinity, if only temporarily. The consequence of such an approach is to confuse the Creator with the creature. 

Classic Reformed theology held that God is free to and able to overcome the Creator/creature distinction and able to communicate with us truly and even infallibly without divinizing us.

Best,

rsc


----------



## crhoades (May 16, 2005)

Paul, check your email...need ya man! Thanks!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 16, 2005)

Before the thread get's further side tracked, I thought I would add a few more works to the recommendations here. These are classics, all by one author, Thomas Boston. 

Human Nature in it's Four-Fold State.
The Covenant of Works. 
The Covenant of Grace. 
And of course we can never overlook The Marrow of Modern Divinity by Edward Fisher with notes by Thomas Boston.
These are more devotional in nature but just as systematic and covenantal as the technical volumes recommended above.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 16, 2005)

Dear Paul,

Never believe what you hear from seminary students! That's a joke, of course, but one should be careful about reasoning back from what sem students say to what Profs are supposed to have said. 

Evidence? 10 years of final exams! 

Mike Horton is fully committed to the transcendental argument (TAG) and Van Til's apologetic. I believe that Scott Oliphant and Lane Tipton (a former student of mine) who teach apologetics in Phila are as well. 

As to whether our understanding of Van Til agrees with all others, I can't say.

I can say, however, that we are willing to correct Van Til with the Reformed tradition. For that reason, some have accused me of not being sufficiently "Van Tillian." My reponse: Rubbish. No pilgrim theologian (read Muller) is incorrigible, not Calvin, not Van Til. That said, CVT's defense of the Creator/creature distinction against Clark and Hoeksema was completely traditional and quite correct in my view.

As to my understanding of Van Til, see my essay in the Strimple Festschrift. 

As to Frame's use of CVT see the above cited article. I don't think tri-perspectivalism can be squared with Van Til's doctrine of analogy.

rsc


----------



## Robin (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Please be aware that, apart from Berkhof, few 20th century Reformed theologians adhered completely to classic Reformed covenant theology. Most either rejected the covenant of works or the covenant of redemption or confused the covenant of works with the covenant of grace or all three.
> rsc



Dr. Clark -- welcome and thank you so much for your valued input!!

Hey, have you heard much about Vincent Cheung's systematic?

http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/

He's got statements on anthropology that sound curious (p. 104) where he denies that the imago dei can be reflected in man's physical body (but only the intellect.) 

If we confuse the imago Dei, that would contribute to problems we have with the Federal Vision ideas (among other things), right?

(Meanwhile - going through Berkof for the 3rd time under Dr. Riddlebarger.)

With respect,

Robin


----------



## JM (Mar 25, 2006)

Herman Bavinck Reformed Dogmatics.


----------

