# What are the strengths/weaknesses of major systema



## RamistThomist (Aug 18, 2007)

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the major systematic theologies?

For example,
Wayne Grudem's text.
Strengths: Deals with current issues. Very warm and pastoral.
Weaknesses: Charismatic. Baptist (just kidding!)

And using the same method for Berkhof/Shedd/Dabney/etc.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Aug 18, 2007)

Here are some thoughts of mine...

Thomas Aquinas is exhaustive and exhausting – as one would expect from such an Aristotelian theologian. 

Calvin is unsurpassed in-depth, warmth and clarity – generally speaking (I have yet to meet anyone who can make sense of his teaching on the Lord's Supper). He rightly rejects the scholastic approach to theology, and his Trinitarian structure is sadly missing from later Reformed Theology. I prefer him to C Hodge, who draws on Turretin. 

John Owen is far too wordy but for those who want meat, well, he could give one indigestion. He is. of course, the Puritan par excellence. He covers the ground well, as far as it goes. Definitely my 17th cent. Favourite. 

Jonathan Edwards – excellent, always preoccupied with the glory of God. A great anti-dote to narcissism. 

B B Warfield is heavy-going, but manageable with a bit of perseverance. Unsurpassed! 

Karl Barth is far too wordy, but extremely stimulating, if not infuriating. He is not Reformed, though. I am reluctant to recommend any German speaking 20th / 21st cent. theologian. 

L Berkhof is dry dust – gold dust, though. Disappointing on the Holy Spirit. 

John Murray (4 vols.) is succinct and leaves one always satisfied. 

Bernard Reardon and Alister McGrath as well as G Bromiley and L Berkhof are excellent on historical theology. W Cunningham is wordy, but superb – arguably unsurpassed as a 19th century theologian! 

For younger Christians I would recommend:
Donald Macleod (A Faith To Live By) is probably the most accessible systematic theologian to the Christian in the pew. He is provocative, drawing widely on J Moltmann and other liberal theologians, but always seeks to take his reader back to Scripture. In Scotland he's proved to be divisive. 
M Lloyd-Jones is a must (anything by him) – I would have thought. Are PB members familiar with his 'God the Father, God The Son'? Very warm, comprehensible, and leaving the spiritual reader wanting to worship. I think that is where all theology ought to take us. 
R A Finlayson (Reformed Theological Writings) is delightful and interacts well – contextually. Sadly rather unknown.
S Ferguson – Know Your Christian Life (clear and devotional)
J I Packer – Knowing God (warm and elevating) 
B Milne – Know The Truth and T C Hammond – In understanding Be Men; both cover the ground well and leaving one wanting to read more. Most accessible. 
Call me old-fashioned, but I get little out of newer books. I tend to read widely, though and would be reluctant to recommend non-Reformed theologians without the strongest reservations.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 18, 2007)

Very well said. I will try:

Berkhof: Dry and dusty, but valuable in that he succinctly states major doctrines. 

Millard Erickson: 
Pros: Very competently interacts with Barth/Pannenberg/Moltmann. Deals with current philosophical issues. 
Cons: Not Reformed enough (is that possible?). Allows for remote possibility of salvation outside of preaching of Christ.

Donald Bloesch:
Pros: Very good on the Trinity, Prayer, Eschatology, and Semi-Pelagianism.
Weak: Epistemology, Sovereignty of God, the Supernatural. Influenced by Barth.

Robert Reymond: 
Pros: Deals with current issues from a Reformed perspective. Follows the structure of the WCF, making his book very smooth.
Cons: Got in trouble on Christology. While his section on eschatology is good, his section on millennial positons (and his conclusion) is quite weak. 

R.L. Dabney:
Pros: Reading Dabney is like reading Greg Bahnsen. You get the feeling he is about to decimate his opponent in the most grand fashion possible. Each chapter is short and succinct.
Cons: Because of said writing style, he borders on laborious. He also references verses instead of quoting them. 

Carl F.H. Henry:
Pros: Heroically deals specifically with the current crisis of civilization. Has the possibility to be relevant.
Cons: This is philosophical theology and thus hard to read. As such, he doesn't deal with all the loci of a regular theology.

R.J. Rushdoony:
Pros: Avoids being neo-platonic. In other words, deals with "earthy" stuff often avoided in many systematic theologies. He is very good on epistemology and the doctrine of God. He also deals with matter that the Bible spends a lot of time on, yet are passed up in modern theologies (sex, land, work).
Cons: This was originally lectures and there seems to have been little editing. It is not well-written. Many chapters are repeats.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Aug 18, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Carl F.H. Henry:
> Pros: Heroically deals specifically with the current crisis of civilization. Has the possibility to be relevant.
> Cons: This is philosophical theology and thus hard to read. As such, he doesn't deal with all the loci of a regular theology.
> 
> ...



Wow, I have not thoroughly read these two authors, but your short review here has made me interested in spending time studing both. Would you mind going into detail on their theological and philosophical methods or view? =]


----------



## bookslover (Aug 18, 2007)

Wayne Grudem's ST is very well-written and readable. But he gives away far too much to the charismatic movement. It's a good read, though.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 19, 2007)

CatechumenPatrick said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Carl F.H. Henry:
> ...



Wow, that's a tall order. I will get to it soon.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Aug 20, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Wow, that's a tall order. I will get to it soon.



Well I am mainly interested in what you already mentioned: I.e., What does Carl Henry deal with in his systema that is outside of the loci of regular theology, and what makes it philosophical theology, exactly? As for Rushdoony, what are his views on epistemology and why is it a pro of his systema? How is his discussion on the "earthy" topics of Scripture, such as sex, land, work, ect? 
Thanks for responding--I think during this upcoming fall semester I will take some time to study some of Henry and Rushdoony's work.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 20, 2007)

CatechumenPatrick said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, that's a tall order. I will get to it soon.
> ...



It's not that he deals with stuff outside the original loci, rather, he was combatting the Neo-Orthodox view that denied the rationality of God's revelation. So he devotes roughly 3 volumes (800 pages) defending the clarity, coherency, and Christ-centricity of God's revelation. The last three volumes deal with the nature of God and ethics. 



> As for Rushdoony, what are his views on epistemology and why is it a pro of his systema? How is his discussion on the "earthy" topics of Scripture, such as sex, land, work, ect?
> Thanks for responding--I think during this upcoming fall semester I will take some time to study some of Henry and Rushdoony's work.



Rushdoony is Van Tillian to the core (epistemology). He was one of the best organizers of Van Til's thought. As to his earthy stuff, they are good if erratic. I have a link for you that will give you about 30 free Rushdoony lectures.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Aug 20, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> CatechumenPatrick said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 20, 2007)

Start with Henry's smaller works. he says the same things and they are easier to read. infintely easier to read.

Rushdoony wrote the first book on Van Til. It is good. He was a profound thinker. Frame's book is the most critical--and focuses on Van Til the theologian. Bahnsen was more systematic and dealt with apologetical issues.

Rushdoony combined both and dealt with stuff he thought important. Some chapters are dense and quite thorough.

here are some free rush mp3s, some of which deal with apologetics.
http://www.chalcedon.edu/freeaudio.php


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 20, 2007)

This is from my amazon review of Carl Henry;

enry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation, and Authority. 6 Volumes.
Seeing the incomplete rubble of humanism and a shattered epistemological foundation, Henry attempts to provide a consistently Christian perspective to God, authority, reason, the limits and benefits of systematic theology, etc. Henry argues in the opening books that we are facing the rise of a new Dark Ages. Humanism cannot maintain a long-term vision for civilization, but neither can the modern church, given their inane infatuation with the world and their faulty epistemology (assuming that the church shares a Foundationalistic or Postmodern epistemology). Therefore, the Church must reorient herself around vigorous thinking and a firm commitment to Scripture.

*Focus*
Henry's main sparring partner is Karl Barth. Barth was arguable the most influential voice of the 20th century (if not always the best voice). Therefore, when Barth speaks people listen. Henry listened and responded with 6 volumes. This is where reading Henry gets difficult. Many readers will hear Al Mohler or David Wells (rightly) praise Henry as a clear theological voice in this century. That is true, but one must also know the context in which Henry wrote, otherwise nothing is clear.

Another difficulty in reading Henry is the deep, philosophical well from which he draws. I began Henry with *no* philosophical background whatsoever. I was lost on many of his discussions. Without a basic philosophical framework in mind, I thought Henry was skipping from topic to topic. So, before beginning Henry I would recommend a basic philosophical overview (Colin Brown or Richard Tarnas). While slow going at first, it will pay dividends later.

Also, it wouldn't hurt to know what Barth is saying either. I do not share Barth's worldview. I think it is dangerous and a wolf in sheep's clothing. That being said, Barth appears in almost every chapter. Begin with a small Barthian book (*Humanity of God*, perhaps).

While I can't give a full overview of what Henry said, here are some questions/issues he wrestles with:
*Is human language adequate/sufficient to deal with religious phenomena? Henry takes the affirmative and deals with Langdon Gilkey.
*Can man actually do a systematic theology? If so, what constitutes biblical categories?
*How does God reveal himself to man? When God reveals himself to man, he uses propositions that have corresponding truth-value.
*Is natural theology adequate, or even viable? No. While I agree with Henry's conclusions, I think Greg Bahnsen via Van Til does a better job here. Interestingly enough, and Henry didn't develop this point: deny natural theology and natural law goes out the window. If natural law is not an option, then what is? Think Greg Bahnsen.
*On the practical level, how are evangelicals to do theology and face the crisis of the future? Evangelicalism lacks the intellectual nerve to write a modern day *City of God.* In other words, the Secular West is falling at an alarming rate (as was Rome) and we need, but lack, an Augustine to answer the crisis. (I will address this in my conclusion.)

Henry's Method for Theology is as following:

Divine revelation is the source of all truth, the truth of Christianity included; reason is the instrument for recognizing it; Scripture is its verifying principle; logical consistency of a negative test for truth and coherence a subordinate test. The task of Christian theology is to exhibit the content of biblical revelation as an orderly whole."


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Aug 20, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Start with Henry's smaller works. he says the same things and they are easier to read. infintely easier to read.
> 
> Rushdoony wrote the first book on Van Til. It is good. He was a profound thinker. Frame's book is the most critical--and focuses on Van Til the theologian. Bahnsen was more systematic and dealt with apologetical issues.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the responses and the mp3s, I will definitely be listening to them soon.


----------

