# Pastor asked me, "What are the Three Best Seminary Level Books on Reformed Theology."



## Ed Walsh (Apr 6, 2017)

Greetings,

I need a little quick help with a question a pastor just wrote to me. Here it is:

"What would be the three best theology books used in seminaries to gain an accurate and clear understanding of Reformed Theology? The term seems to be used more and more, but with varying explanations of what that really means."​Maybe this pastor's life is about to change.

Thanks

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 6, 2017)

What is Reformed Theology? https://www.amazon.com/Recovering-Reformed-Confession-Scott-Clark/dp/1596381108

Systematic Theology: it probably isn't possible to define the "perfect" one, but we can point to the strengths of several.
Calvin's _Institutes_ is the proto-ST, because it covers the field of Christian theology and life; it is _*originally*_ Reformed.
Berkhof is the 20th century classic, distilling Bavink and four centuries of Reformed reflection. Classically organized.
Both the above may be read on-line for free.

Morton Smith's ST or Robert Reymond's ST both attempt their presentations using the WCF as an organizing ideal. Each product results from decades of lecturing to seminary students. There are idiosyncrasies to both.
I wouldn't recommend Michael Horton's, unless the reader is already up-to-date on late-modern and post-modern theological trajectories, and is looking for a classically informed Reformed response. In which case he might be ideal.​
Biblical/Covenant Theology. This would deal with how the Reformed read the Bible, hermeneutics.
Geerhardus Vos, _Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments,_ classic 20th century treatment.
Herman Witsius, _The Economy of the Covenants, _17th c. classic.
Dennis Johnson, https://www.amazon.com/Him-We-Proclaim-Preaching-Scriptures/dp/1596380543 This book, it seems to me, would be valuable mainly for how it draws multiple strands together, then sets the project of Reformed theology in the setting of the church.​My introductory three: Clark, Johnson, and either Calvin's _Institutes _or some ST written by a Reformed man.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3 | Funny 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 6, 2017)

For me, the most reliable starting point along the lines of a standard systematic theology will always be Berkhof.
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/systematic-theology-louis-berkhof

As Bruce indicated, Calvin's _Institutes _is certainly the real deal on the matter of Reformed theology. I prefer the Allen 2 volume editions:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00085PCOQ

or, online at:
https://archive.org/details/institutesofchr01calv
https://archive.org/details/institutesofchr02calv
(Note that these are to the 2-volume 6th edition. Typical searching at archive.org just will not yield these results, rather only the 1st edition 3 volume versions, so bookmark these.)

Clark's book explains what is generally meant by "_Reformed_", but it is not a full treatment of theology as found in Berkhof. As far as I know it is not available freely online, only in Kindle or Paper formats.

Not knowing the Pastor's background, I hesitate to recommend my second choice: Francis Turretin — _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 3 vols. While not a systematic theology, it is as trustworthy regarding Reformed doctrine as is Berkhof, but it is not an easy read.

Lastly, given Berkhof's summaries of Bavinck, there is nothing like going to the four-volume source, Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics.

I cannot speak to seminary choices, other than to say that at TNARS and PRBS, the choices for systematic treatments are Calvin's Institutes, Hodge's standard 3 volumes, and Shedd's work.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 6, 2017)

Berkhof
Vos. Probably _Biblical Theology _but I am tempted to substitute his essays on redemptive history instead.
Bavinck, volume 1. Yes, he is difficult but his prolegomena is just too important.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 6, 2017)

Thanks to those who so far have taken the time to give thoughtful answers and suggestions. Patrick, you had so many embedded links I decided to give the pastor the URL to this PB page. Great suggestions all!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 7, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> For me, the most reliable starting point along the lines of a standard systematic theology will always be Berkhof.
> https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/systematic-theology-louis-berkhof
> 
> As Bruce indicated, Calvin's _Institutes _is certainly the real deal on the matter of Reformed theology. I prefer the Allen 2 volume editions:
> ...



Currently am reading through the AA Strong ST, He seems to be from the reformed baptist tradition, and how would you see him for theology?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Currently am reading through the AA Strong ST, He seems to be from the reformed baptist tradition, and how would you see him for theology?


I assume you mean AA *Hodge's *Outlines of Theology, which I consider a fine work in the Reformed tradition, his anti-paedo baptism notwithstanding.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 7, 2017)

Probably referring to AH Strong, http://www.reformedreader.org/strong.htm
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/strong

(to add to the confusion here, or perhaps to remove it, AA Hodge was a paedobaptist Presbyterian, not anti-p-b, as the _Outlines _clearly show)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 7, 2017)

Bruce,

Thanks for the correction.
-------------------------------------------
 *SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM *(AA Hodge, _Outlines of Theology_, Chapter 42)

*23*. *Who are the proper subjects of baptisms?*

"Confession of Faith" Chap. 28., Section 4; "Larger Catechism," Question 166; " Shorter Catechism," Question 95.

All those, and those only, who are members oft the visible church, are to be baptized. These are, 1st, they who make a credible profession of their faith in Christ; *2nd, the children of one or both believing parents*.
----------------------------------------------

That is what I get for posting before finishing my morning coffee. I hope the son of C. Hodge winked at my earlier nonsense above.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 7, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Probably referring to AH Strong, http://www.reformedreader.org/strong.htm
> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/strong
> 
> (to add to the confusion here, or perhaps to remove it, AA Hodge was a paedobaptist Presbyterian, not anti-p-b, as the _Outlines _clearly show)


You are correct, as he seemed to be holding to Baptism as Baptists like I would! have you ever read it, andif so, what is your opinion of him overall?


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 7, 2017)

The G. Vos Biblical Theology offers not only knowledge in that particular subject, but also a training of the mind; it encourages a discipline about how one thinks about a passage in its setting in redemptive history. This was life-changing for me, even with a solid background in covenant theology and after years of sitting under excellent, exegetical preaching.

I haven't allowed myself to get his Dogmatics (yet) but from what I've read of the fifth volume on Ecclesiology, I'd think these would be a major addition to theological training, particularly if paired with more recent scholarship.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 9, 2017)

How about this one:

_Concise Reformed Dogmatics_ by J. Van Genderen and W. H. Velema; translated from the Dutch by Gerrit Bilkes and Ed M. van der Maas (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008), xviii + 922pp. Dutch original published in 1992.

Ryan McGraw says that, in his opinion, this is currently the best one-volume systematics out there. I know, because I asked him (he attended worship at our church some time back).


----------



## Taylor (Apr 10, 2017)

Even though Calvin intended his _Institutes of the Christian Religion_ to be a _loci communes_ (_a la_ Melanchthon), it is yet a very valuable source for "systematic theology" and is _far_ more accessible than most people (who have not read it) assume. It is one of the most readable works of theology I have ever read. His rhetoric at times provides entertainment (I confess!), yet his spiritual and pastoral wisdom and insight are second to absolutely none. One will not only grow in knowledge, but grow in character from reading the _Institutes_.

That being said, for a proper systematic theology, I could not think of better than Mr. Berkhof.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Even though Calvin intended his _Institutes of the Christian Religion_ to be a _loci communes_ (_a la_ Melanchthon), it is yet a very valuable source for "systematic theology" and is _far_ more accessible than most people (who have not read it) assume. It is one of the most readable works of theology I have ever read. His rhetoric at times provides entertainment (I confess!), yet his spiritual and pastoral wisdom and insight are second to absolutely none. One will not only grow in knowledge, but grow in character from reading the _Institutes_.
> 
> That being said, for a proper systematic theology, I could not think of better than Mr. Berkhof.


The G Vos set and the one by Turrentin both look interesting also!


----------



## Taylor (Apr 10, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The G Vos set and the one by Turrentin both look interesting also!



I am not familiar with Vos. However, I am familiar with Turretin, and I can say that, compared to Calvin, he is _very_ difficult to digest, especially for someone just looking into Reformed systematic theological writings. Turretin's is a totally different style (not substance!) of theology (namely, Reformed scholasticism). In many cases, it takes a long time to process what he is saying. The precision of his work, I have found, requires a lot of time and a lot of brainpower to sufficiently soak in. Add to this the considerable length of the work (a good bit longer than Calvin), and you have a couple of years reading ahead of you if you decide to tackle all three volumes.

Does that make Turretin not worth it? Absolutely not. I would say it makes it more so. However, I would not recommend someone _start_ with Turretin if they are wondering about Reformed theology (not to mention the fact that few, if any, seminaries even use Turretin except in excerpt). I have been Reformed for a while now, and am seminary trained, yet I still have a hard time reading some chunks of Turretin. (Though, when I have time and energy, it is some of the best reading I can do!)

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## ZackF (Apr 10, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I am not familiar with Vos. However, I am familiar with Turretin, and I can say that, compared to Calvin, he is _very_ difficult to digest, especially for someone just looking into Reformed systematic theological writings. Turretin's is a totally different style (not substance!) of theology (namely, Reformed scholasticism). In many cases, it takes a long time to process what he is saying. The precision of his work, I have found, requires a lot of time and a lot of brainpower to sufficiently soak in. Add to this the considerable length of the work (a good bit longer than Calvin), and you have a couple of years reading ahead of you if you decide to tackle all three volumes.
> 
> Does that make Turretin not worth it? Absolutely not. I would say it makes it more so. However, I would not recommend someone _start_ with Turretin if they are wondering about Reformed theology (not to mention the fact that few, if any, seminaries even use Turretin except in excerpt). I have been Reformed for a while now, and am seminary trained, yet I still have a hard time reading some chunks of Turretin. (Though, when I have time and energy, it is some of the best reading I can do!)




The OP did say "scholarly" and so that's what I'd give him.


----------



## zsmcd (Apr 10, 2017)

Calvin - Institutes
Vos - Biblical Theology
Hodge - Commentary on WCF


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 10, 2017)

How about Shaw's exposition of the Westminster Confession? It is concise, and is an exposition of what many hold is the greatest statement of the Reformed faith ever produced. Not to mention, its title (_The Reformed Faith_) will show your pastor friend that it is exactly relevant to his question.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Apr 10, 2017)

ZackF said:


> The OP did say "scholarly" and so that's what I'd give him.



I would advise against making the mistake that "scholarly" equates "difficult/laborious to digest," and the conclusion that "easy to digest" must mean that a work is not scholarly. Surely we would not say that Berkhof is not scholarly. Heaven forbid we accuse Calvin of such (_how_ many Church and Apostolic Fathers does he interact with on the average page?)! There are many scholarly works of systematic theology that are _far_ more accessible than Turretin, especially for someone like the person described in the OP.

...that, and the fact that the OP did not actually say "scholarly." (Did you see something I did not?) It just said "used in seminaries," which is another mark against Turretin since, again, no seminary of which I am aware uses Turretin except in excerpt form.


----------



## ZackF (Apr 10, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I would advise against making the mistake that "scholarly" equates "difficult/laborious to digest," and the conclusion that "easy to digest" must mean that a work is not scholarly. Surely we would not say that Berkhof is not scholarly. Heaven forbid we accuse Calvin of such (_how_ many Church and Apostolic Fathers does he interact with on the average page?)! There are many scholarly works of systematic theology that are _far_ more accessible than Turretin, especially for someone like the person described in the OP.
> 
> ...that, and the fact that the OP did not actually say "scholarly." (Did you see something I did not?) It just said "used in seminaries," which is another mark against Turretin since, again, no seminary of which I am aware uses Turretin except in excerpt form.



You're probably right. I just equate seminary level with graduate with scholarly.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 10, 2017)

ZackF said:


> I just equate seminary level with graduate with scholarly.



Of course. Still, I would maintain that "scholarly" has nothing to do with difficulty of material.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 11, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> How about Shaw's exposition of the Westminster Confession? It is concise, and is an exposition of what many hold is the greatest statement of the Reformed faith ever produced. Not to mention, its title (_The Reformed Faith_) will show your pastor friend that it is exactly relevant to his question.



I read that book some years ago and found it fascinating and very informative. I should re-read it.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 11, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I would advise against making the mistake that "scholarly" equates "difficult/laborious to digest," and the conclusion that "easy to digest" must mean that a work is not scholarly. Surely we would not say that Berkhof is not scholarly. Heaven forbid we accuse Calvin of such (_how_ many Church and Apostolic Fathers does he interact with on the average page?)! There are many scholarly works of systematic theology that are _far_ more accessible than Turretin, especially for someone like the person described in the OP.
> 
> ...that, and the fact that the OP did not actually say "scholarly." (Did you see something I did not?) It just said "used in seminaries," which is another mark against Turretin since, again, no seminary of which I am aware uses Turretin except in excerpt form.


It seems that in both Reformed baptist and Presbyterian circles the most renown and best ST are older ones, what would you suggest for say within last few decades for each to read and study?


----------



## Taylor (Apr 11, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> It seems that in both Reformed baptist and Presbyterian circles the most renown and best ST are older ones, what would you suggest for say within last few decades for each to read and study?



Well, Berkhof isn't _that_ old. I would say it is the best (in terms of clarity and concision) of the twentieth century. In terms of expositions of Reformed theology, I would direct anyone to Berkhof.

I know Michael Horton wrote a systematic theology, but I had to use that for my first systematic theology course here at TEDS, and, to be honest, I was not a fan of it. I didn't notice anything with the content, but just with the style. But, to be fair, we used it for the prolegomena, which is the most difficult portion of systematic theology due to its abstraction. Horton could be good.

Grudem is good in terms of accessibility. As has been said on this board _ad nauseum_, however, you have to be careful with him. (Some people take issue with his dealings with charismaticism.) Furthermore, a lot of seminaries avoid his work because Grudem is a NT scholar, not a systematic theologian (as per his Ph.D.).

Millard Erickson's is good in terms of accessibility and length (it is comparable to Berkhof in terms of length). The problem I found with him is his method. I found him often guilty of "nose counting" Scripture. For example, in dealing with limited atonement, his argument is essentially: "We find 15 verses supporting limited atonement, but 18 supporting unlimited atonement, so unlimited atonement seems to be the biblical position" (this is not a direct quote). This, of course, is hardly systematic theology. His work is valuable in terms of its interaction with philosophy (Erickson's background involves a good bit of philosophy). Erickson is what I was required to use in most of my systematic theology courses. It's okay—just okay. (But, he is not Reformed.)

In the end, I would still just direct inquirers to Berkhof. Solidly Reformed, purely orthodox, nothing to "watch out for."


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 11, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Well, Berkhof isn't _that_ old. I would say it is the best (in terms of clarity and concision) of the twentieth century. In terms of expositions of Reformed theology, I would direct anyone to Berkhof.
> 
> I know Michael Horton wrote a systematic theology, but I had to use that for my first systematic theology course here at TEDS, and, to be honest, I was not a fan of it. I didn't notice anything with the content, but just with the style. But, to be fair, we used it for the prolegomena, which is the most difficult portion of systematic theology due to its abstraction. Horton could be good.
> 
> ...


Thanks! My required reading was Dr Grudem, and had most problems with his take on spiritual gifts, as was no longer in the AOG, nor took their positions, and also found Dr Erickson good for surveying the different positions held with the Christian church on different doctrines.


----------



## arapahoepark (Apr 11, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> It seems that in both Reformed baptist and Presbyterian circles the most renown and best ST are older ones, what would you suggest for say within last few decades for each to read and study?


I have found Reymond good as well. At least in his latest ST edition there is nothing too alarming.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Apr 25, 2017)

After your friend reads through some of the excellent suggestions on this thread to familiarize himself with the warp and woof of Reformed theology, he should read Joel Beeke's magisterial work _A Puritan Theology. _

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Apr 26, 2017)

I feel that Turretin is neglected because logical argumentation is a lost art. He writes in a scholastic method that is quite foreign to modern readers. However, his institutes are a gold mine.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2017)

reaganmarsh said:


> After your friend reads through some of the excellent suggestions on this thread to familiarize himself with the warp and woof of Reformed theology, he should read Joel Beeke's magisterial work _A Puritan Theology. _


I am working through that book right now, and it has been very uplifting!


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I feel that Turretin is neglected because logical argumentation is a lost art. He writes in a scholastic method that is quite foreign to modern readers. However, his institutes are a gold mine.


He is quite hard to read and understand, correct?


----------



## reaganmarsh (Apr 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am working through that book right now, and it has been very uplifting!



Me too! It is a remarkable book. I quite agree -- uplifting indeed!



Andrew P.C. said:


> I feel that Turretin is neglected because logical argumentation is a lost art. He writes in a scholastic method that is quite foreign to modern readers. However, his institutes are a gold mine.





Dachaser said:


> He is quite hard to read and understand, correct?



Turretin is tough sledding, but amply repays your efforts.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Apr 26, 2017)

1. Berkhof
2. Bavinck
3. Calvin

I'm not being glib here! Turretin is majestic, as is a tidal wave. He will prove difficult for one not familiar with our approaches. Even Hodge and Warfield will bewilder many. Berkhof has been the go-to "one stop showing center" in this regard.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> 1. Berkhof
> 2. Bavinck
> 3. Calvin
> 
> I'm not being glib here! Turretin is majestic, as is a tidal wave. He will prove difficult for one not familiar with our approaches. Even Hodge and Warfield will bewilder many. Berkhof has been the go-to "one stop showing center" in this regard.


I came into reformed theology from Pentecostal, and would say that there was indeed a big difference in the depth of those 2 theologies!


----------

