# Systematics



## Me Died Blue (Dec 12, 2004)

While I've read many articles and excerpts from larger works on basically every part of systematic theology, I've never read one larger text in full dealing with systematics. Where would some of you recommend starting? The _Institutes_? Dabney's _Systematic Theology_? Hodge's? Something by Owen?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 12, 2004)

Introduction = Berkhoff's Systemtic Theology.
After that - Calvin's Institutes.
Then - Robert Reymond (if you like a spion on contemprioary issues as well)
Then Hodge.
Then - Dabney - deep and thoughtful.
Then Turretin.

You can sprinkle through there John Brown's, Wilhelm A'Brakel, William Ames, and Bavinck.

[Edited on 12-13-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 12, 2004)

Thanks, Matt.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2004)

Read Grudem. Savor his arguments on spiritual gifts. Pray for the Holy Ghost to enlighten you. Respond in tongues. Sorry, I had to get that off my chest.

I will ad my with everybody else and recommend Berkhof, especially on the Doctrine of God and Creation. I am on my second round with the _Institutes_. I have also dabbled in Shedd's. He can be tough, but he writes well. However, I don't know too many people who will go for his traducianism. He has a good defense of hell, though. I hope to get reymond for Christ-mass.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 12, 2004)

Unfortunately, I have a copy of Grudem's from back in the days when I planned on joining a Sovereign Grace church. I say "unfortunately" since I now wish I had the money for it to spend on a better one!

Did Reymond have charismatic leanings also? Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else.


----------



## just_grace (Dec 12, 2004)

*Books...*

Do you put them before the Holy Spirit who leads us in to all Truth, even things Jesus did not utter on earth?
John's Gospel.

Why search for info when all has been given? And is being given.I believe in the Holy Spirit that dwells inside all true Christians.

I just bought the New Intepreters Bible on CD? its a help, thats all...

I am on fire for Christianity because it is very important. Maybe I should stop posting because I see a Church that is not close to God.

I know my state. You don"t have to tell me.

David


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2004)

David,
Do you read the Bible?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> Do you put them before the Holy Spirit who leads us in to all Truth, even things Jesus did not utter on earth?
> John's Gospel.
> 
> ...



I am at a complete loss as to what you're trying to say, David.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 12, 2004)

David, 

When is the last time the Holy Spirit taught you something outside of some sort of means (i.e., preaching, reading, a fellow brother/sister in Christ, etc.)?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2004)

I am not at a loss. An Eastern Orthodox acquaitance pesters me with this question all the time: "Why go to stale books when you can experience the Holy Spirit? Would you want to seek wisdom from infallible God or fallible men?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> David,
> 
> When is the last time the Holy Spirit taught you something outside of some sort of means (i.e., preaching, reading, a fellow brother/sister in Christ, etc.)?



Or even Prayer? For you have to assume temporary infallibility of your mind as you process what the Holy Spirit puts on your soul. BTW, Craig, what do you think of Palmer Robertson's _The Israel of God_? I picked it up today from my church library. It looks interesting.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I am not at a loss. An Eastern Orthodox acquaitance pesters me with this question all the time: "Why go to stale books when you can experience the Holy Spirit? Would you want to seek wisdom from infallible God or fallible men?



And this is a practical result of bad systematics. The rejection of the filioque doctrine practically leads to this.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 13, 2004)

> Do you put them before the Holy Spirit who leads us in to all Truth, even things Jesus did not utter on earth?



After reading through the Bible, we look to the pastors and teachers that God has given the church. The Holy spirit told us this in Ephesians 4. To discount them is to reject the truth, and to reject the Holy Spirit's counsel to the church He is building up through sound teaching of the men he has given us to understand the bible.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Dec 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Unfortunately, I have a copy of Grudem's from back in the days when I planned on joining a Sovereign Grace church. I say "unfortunately" since I now wish I had the money for it to spend on a better one!
> 
> Did Reymond have charismatic leanings also? Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else.



Chris

You must be thinking of somebody else. Dr Reymond is definately NOT charismatic.

He also takes the correct and biblical view of the 'Jerusalem Council' in Acts 15.  :bigsmile:

He is a visiting lecturer at the London Reformed Baptist Seminary which I attend, and as far as I am concerned that indicates his cessationist and non-charismatic position. The principal of the seminary would sooner die that have someone of the charismatic ilk to speak... 

JH


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 13, 2004)




----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 13, 2004)

Brother David,
When you said, "Do you put them before the Holy Spirit who leads us in to all Truth, even things Jesus did not utter on earth?"
...to which Bible verse were you referring?


----------



## crhoades (Dec 13, 2004)

For what it's worth, Reymond is not a Van-Tillian. His prolengomena follows after Clark. If this matters to someone then get Van Til's Introduction to Systematic Theology and read Reymond for the rest.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 13, 2004)

I like Dabney. I am slowly working my way through it. Does anyone know where I can find Buswell's Systematic Theology? I use to read out of it years ago. He seemed a little existential but I appreciated some of his insights.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 13, 2004)

I am an idiot, forgive me, but did Augustine or anyone do something that would be considered _Sytematic Theology_. I am 16, forgive me.


----------



## daveb (Dec 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> I am an idiot, forgive me, but did Augustine or anyone do something that would be considered _Sytematic Theology_. I am 16, forgive me.



I would think City of God would be close to a systematic although I am not familiar with all of his works.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 13, 2004)

Wouldn't _Enchridion _be a systematic of sorts? _City of God_ would be more of a philosophical apologetic.


----------



## daveb (Dec 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Wouldn't _Enchridion _be a systematic of sorts? _City of God_ would be more of a philosophical apologetic.



Thanks for the clarification Fred. Yes, CoG is an apologetic to be sure. I did find that it covers many topics that a systematic does, although that is not its purpose/goal. Enchridion could be a better match for a systematic, but I've never read it and thus cannot comment.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 13, 2004)

What tradition would the anonymous [o]Theologica Germanicus[/i] fall in?


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 13, 2004)

Thanx guys for the response. I wish I knew where I could get a real nice and fancy hardback _City of God_ (and _Institutes of the Christian Religion_ for that matter).


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> What tradition would the anonymous _Theologica Germanicus_ fall in?



Mystic. And that would be Theologica Germanica (Latin agreement, gender, number case  )

[Edited on 12/14/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2004)

Thanks Fred,
I actually did think about that. What are the advantages of both historical and systematic theology??


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> Thanx guys for the response. I wish I knew where I could get a real nice and fancy hardback _City of God_ (and _Institutes of the Christian Religion_ for that matter).



For the _Institutes_, check out McNeill's two-volume hardback version of Battles' translation here.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> ...



Appreciate that! I might pick that up soon.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 15, 2004)

Mark,
I implore you to start reading Calvin now and reread him and never stop reading him. Battles is the superior edition but Beveridge is easier on the pocketbook.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 15, 2004)

Here is good advice:

Pick one theologian and make him your life long hobby. Read him, study him, get as much as you can from him.












Oh, by the way, pick someone _other_ than Calvin. Everybody has to pick Calvin, plus one.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Here is good advice:
> 
> Pick one theologian and make him your life long hobby. Read him, study him, get as much as you can from him.
> ...



LOL, I think we had this discussion over coffee when I was in Jackson. That is still challenging advice I have yet to commit myself to. John Piper said that we are to pick one dead theologian, preferably from another century; is John Murray too recent?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



John Murray was 20th century, man. That was, like, a millennium ago. Anyways, he lived in the 20th century but he was born in the 19th century and thought/wrote like he was from the Second Reformation. One might not agree with him on every point, but he brought historic Reformed Scottish theology into the modern era. He is definitely worth studying, In my humble opinion. You might enjoy reading the biography of him by Iain Murray called _Life of John Murray_. His _Collected Writings_ touch on so many important issues. Also, see: http://www.datarat.net/DR/prayer.html

But as for me -- besides Calvin -- Robert Dabney is my favorite theologian.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 15, 2004)

Jacob,

The Israel of God is a must read for understanding the meaning of "Israel" in Scripture. You've done a good thing by getting that book.

I enjoy Robert Reymond's systematics text. Although Hodge is kinda dry, his is good as well.


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 15, 2004)

One thing to remember is that the opinion of one or two theologians, no matter how prominate, do not replace the Church. It is the Church that is the bulwark of the Truth. It is the Church that sets doctrine for the flock. I have great respect for Calvin, Luther, Beza, Owen, Edwards, Hodge, Warefield, Dabney, Thornwell, etc, etc. and they played an important role in furthering the Kingdom, but we should never look at them as some type of "guru".

I would also recommend that you get yourself a good book or books on Church History and the development of Church Doctrine. Its fascinating to read the Institutes and see that what Calvin dealt with 500 years ago, we are still dealing with today. As Christians, we tend to forget our history causing us to constantly repeat it!


----------



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

Who said:

"Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it."

I cannot remember and Wayne sparked me to think about it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 15, 2004)

One of the people who said it was George Santayana. I don't know if he stole it from somebody.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Here is good advice:
> 
> Pick one theologian and make him your life long hobby. Read him, study him, get as much as you can from him.
> ...



I just wonder who Fred personally has in mind in saying this...hmm...well, I'm sure a quick browse through the Theological Forum reveals that!


----------



## Len (Dec 16, 2004)

This might be too vague a question since I can't remember exactly what was said, but I remember some time ago reading a review of sorts of Dr. Reymond's systematic that seemed to take issue with how he presented the Trinity. Could anyone perhaps enlighten me here?


----------

