# Berkhof, Bavinck, Vos



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 7, 2018)

There has been much discussion on the merits of Berkhof's Systematic Theology before, but I was wondering about the situation where someone has not the time to read Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics or Vos' Reformed Dogmatics, but would like to read a useful summary of *both. *Is Berkhof, at his best, a helpful summary of both Bavinck and Vos. I cettainly have seen a real Bavinck influence in Berkhof, but what about a Vosian influence?

Just wondering.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> There has been much discussion on the merits of Berkhof's Systematic Theology before, but I was wondering about the situation where someone has not the time to read Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics or Vos' Reformed Dogmatics, but would like to read a useful summary of *both. *Is Berkhof, at his best, a helpful summary of both Bavinck and Vos. I cettainly have seen a real Bavinck influence in Berkhof, but what about a Vosian influence?
> 
> Just wondering.



It's not as obvious. When Vos wrote his ST, he hadn't quite developed his biblical theology method.

Berkhof is still good, though. Lot more succinct than Bavinck.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 7, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Lot more succinct than Bavinck



And poetic, to boot!


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 7, 2018)

I read Vos and Berkhof side by side when I was teaching a class on systematic theology in Sunday School a couple of years ago. I could have sworn that Berkhof was channeling Vos. It is quite possible, incidentally, that Berkhof was Vos's student. In fact, my theory is that Berkhof was the one who took down the notes from Vos's class and had them published. By the way, I am not sure that Vos is much longer than Berkhof: yes there are five volumes, but several of them are quite short, and I don't think any of them are longer than 400 pages, and at least one is under 200, I think.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 8, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> I read Vos and Berkhof side by side when I was teaching a class on systematic theology in Sunday School a couple of years ago. I could have sworn that Berkhof was channeling Vos. It is quite possible, incidentally, that Berkhof was Vos's student. In fact, my theory is that Berkhof was the one who took down the notes from Vos's class and had them published. By the way, I am not sure that Vos is much longer than Berkhof: yes there are five volumes, but several of them are quite short, and I don't think any of them are longer than 400 pages, and at least one is under 200, I think.


Of all of the ST from the reformed position that I have read so far, the one by Berkhof was the easiest one to get a grasp on what he was really saying regarding Reformed theology.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 8, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> When Vos wrote his ST, he hadn't quite developed his biblical theology method.


Although Berkhof perhaps made use of his Biblical theology too.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 8, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> In fact, my theory is that Berkhof was the one who took down the notes from Vos's class and had them published.


When I asked my question, I had in mind people who have done little theological reading but I want to encourage them to read a sound systematic theology. Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics and Vos' Reformed Dogmatics would be too much for them, hence recommending Berkhof. But it does seem to me that reading Berkhof (including his 'Introduction to Systematic theology') gives someone the best of both Bavinck and Vos - especially for those who read little theology.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 9, 2018)

Berkhof was a much easier primer on reformed theology for someone like me, who came over from a strictly Dispensational viewpoint background.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 9, 2018)

Stephen, if you are looking for a primer, I would go one level below all of these, and use Sproul's book _Everyone's A Theologian_, or Bavinck's book _Our Reasonable Faith_, or Berkhof's Primer. Berkhof's ST, while excellent, is still one level above what I would give a beginner.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 9, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Stephen, if you are looking for a primer, I would go one level below all of these, and use Sproul's book _Everyone's A Theologian_, or Bavinck's book _Our Reasonable Faith_, or Berkhof's Primer. Berkhof's ST, while excellent, is still one level above what I would give a beginner.


Thanks for the suggestions. I did not realise that Bavinck's Our Reasonable Faith was pitched at an easier level than Berkhof's ST. I have also recommended Dr Lloyd-Jones "Great Doctrines of the Bible" as it is great theology from a very pastoral perspective. Many of these lectures are online. That said one needs to read his material on the Holy Spirit with discernment.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 9, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Thanks for the suggestions. I did not realise that Bavinck's Our Reasonable Faith was pitched at an easier level than Berkhof's ST. I have also recommended Dr Lloyd-Jones "Great Doctrines of the Bible" as it is great theology from a very pastoral perspective. Many of these lectures are online. That said one needs to read his material on the Holy Spirit with discernment.


He was open to the modern Charasmatic Movement, correct?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 9, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> He was open to the modern Charasmatic Movement, correct?


No. Read Iain Murray's MLJ Messanger of grace.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jun 9, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> When I asked my question, I had in mind people who have done little theological reading but I want to encourage them to read a sound systematic theology. Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics and Vos' Reformed Dogmatics would be too much for them, hence recommending Berkhof. But it does seem to me that reading Berkhof (including his 'Introduction to Systematic theology') gives someone the best of both Bavinck and Vos - especially for those who read little theology.



My first exposure to theology in a topical manner was Thomas Watson's "A Body of Divinity." For me, it was a great primer into theology. I also don't think one would go wrong by using William Ames "Marrow of Theology" or James Ussher's "Body of Divinity" as a primer before jumping into Berkhof or a larger ST. It wasn't an option but I find Wilhelmus À Brakel's "Christian's Reasonable Service" such a joy to read.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jun 9, 2018)

A few other shorter volumes: Hodge has an "Outlines of Theology", which is a condensed version of his 3 volume set. Berkhof also has his stuff condensed in a volume called "Manuel of Christian Doctrine."


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 10, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> Hodge has an "Outlines of Theology", which is a condensed version of his 3 volume set.


I take it this is a little more advanced than the 'Manual of Christian Doctrine'?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 10, 2018)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Thomas Watson's "A Body of Divinity."


I love this work. You can now get it as one full volume https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...the-westminster-shorter-catechism-watson.html


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jun 10, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I take it this is a little more advanced than the 'Manual of Christian Doctrine'?



That's right, a good bit more advanced; but very accessible as I remember.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 12, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> That's right, a good bit more advanced; but very accessible as I remember.


was that the one that dropped all of his addressing of the roman Catholic church theology that was in his long Theology?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 12, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> No. Read Iain Murray's MLJ Messanger of grace.


Wasn't he the one who took John Stott to task for his views on sinner being destroyed, and their disagreements on church unity?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Wasn't he the one who took John Stott to task for his views on sinner being destroyed, and their disagreements on church unity?



Lloyd-Jones, sort of. The original break was over church issues and unity.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Lloyd-Jones, sort of. The original break was over church issues and unity.


One was more inclusive then the other?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> One was more inclusive then the other?



Stott and Packer were. Lloyd-Jones was made of rock-hard material. The other two gentlemen were godly men and giants, but it was MLJ who held the line.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Stott and Packer were. Lloyd-Jones was made of rock-hard material. The other two gentlemen were godly men and giants, but it was MLJ who held the line.


What was the specific Groups or churches that they were in disagreement over?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What was the specific Groups or churches that they were in disagreement over?



I can't remember. Iain Murray goes over it in _Evangelicalism Divided_.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I can't remember. Iain Murray goes over it in _Evangelicalism Divided_.


I was just curious if it involved reformed/Non reformed coming together.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I was just curious if it involved reformed/Non reformed coming together.



Much of it involved the Anglican church which includes both Reformed and non-Reformed.


----------

