JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
Wow, I just saw this on Amazon. It's a combination of Vos' 5 volumes into one; going for $59. Coming out in October:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, I am waiting for a review copy from the publisher. I am curious to see if they stepped up the quality in the single edition.
I wish they'd done it that way in the first place. (grumble, grumble)
Is the quality not good in the 5-volume version? I have that set and they look pretty spiffy to me.
Publishers are at the mercy of the printer. They typically dictate when the book is ready.And I notice that they're doing what seems to happen so often: not only do you have to wait until October, you have to wait until the end of October. Publishers do this a lot. Maybe they hate us. LOL
And I notice that they're doing what seems to happen so often: not only do you have to wait until October, you have to wait until the end of October. Publishers do this a lot. Maybe they hate us. LOL
Publishers are at the mercy of the printer. They typically dictate when the book is ready.
Either way, couldn't they at least have pushed it back one more day to make it a Reformation Day release?
The bindings are glued and won't hold up to the test of time. There were some other issues that I can't recall.
I have these volumes in Logos, so I've only briefly browsed the set in our bookstore.
I would respectfully disagree, but I do respect your input. It is a reference volume, not a one and done read—the binding needs to hold up over time and after many uses. Sewn bindings also open and lay flatter with greater ease, no matter the size.While it is true they are glued, this matters much less in smaller volumes like the Vos volumes than they would in, say, the one-volume edition.
I would have to say it is still my favorite.
I have raised the question before - does the fact that Vos does not have a Prolegomena create a theological problem? It can lead to the impression (rightly or wrongly) he does not build his theology on a Revelational epistemology.I believe it's my favorite systematic as well Lane.
Patrick clarified further:See the preface to the New Edition to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology. Eerdmans 1996 ed. He was saying that the unfortunate tendency to print Berkhof's Systematic Theology without his prolegomena has had unfortunate theological consequences. He said "the historical and doctrinal confusion that I have elsewhere called the 'myth of decretal theology' has fond some justification in the trancated systematic theology ...." [he goes on to mention Vos in the same regard].
I should emphasise that I am not seeking to detract from Vos' excellent work, but to add, I believe, theology should include a Prolegomena, such as in Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics.For the record, here is what Muller had to say in the Preface to Berkhof's work as relates to Vos:
If the loss of its prolegomenon did not in any way undermine the prestige of the Systematic Theology as a textbook, it certainly obscured the true architecture of Berkhof’s thought. It also most probably contributed to a misunderstanding of orthodox Reformed teaching. Among other problems, the historical and doctrinal confusion that I have elsewhere called “the myth of decretal theology” has found some justification in the truncated Systematic Theology, as it may also have in other works of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century' Dutch Reformed theology published without prolegomena — notably, the works of Vos, Kuyper, and Ten Hoor.
Orthodox Reformed theology has often been argued to “begin” with the doctrine of God and then to follow an order that was not only logical but also deductive, deriving all further doctrines from the divine nature, specifically from the eternal decrees? Of course, none of the theologians just noted ever claimed that their theology was derived deductively from the decrees, and none actually taught theology without prolegomena: the prolegomena simply belonged to a distinct course and, when published, were published separately from the system proper — as was clearly the case with Berkhof’s Dogmatics. (A different curricular structure did in fact produce prolegomena in the same volume with the series of doctrinal loci in Berkhof’s shorter Summary and in his predecessor W. Heyns’s Manual.)
As can easily be seen from Berkhof’s Introduction, moreover. Reformed theology assumes that a whole series of issues must be addressed before one comes to the doctrine of God. not the least of which is the identification of Scripture as the principium cognoscendi or "cognitive foundation." and God as the principium essendi or “essential foundation" of theology. As Berkhof makes clear. Christian theology cannot be based on “a priori speculation" and is. therefore, never to be systematic in the sense of a speculative or deductive philosophical system. Rather. Reformed theology rests on biblical revelation as its only cognitive foundation or principium in a way that is more inductive than deductive. The organization or "distribution" of the topics of theology that Berkhof preferred can be called “synthetic" — and it does begin the formal body of Christian doctrine with the acknowledgment that God is the foundation or principium of all that is — but it can never claim to deduce the doctrinal content of theology from the idea of God.
We can only hope that the publication of Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, now complete with its prolegomenon, will increase its usefulness and extend its time of service to the world of theology. It remains the best modem English-language introduction to doctrinal theology of the Reformed tradition.
I wish they'd done it that way in the first place. (grumble, grumble)