A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

[baron]

Just purchased book this afternoon. Reason why I bought it was only $9.00. Its the second edition revised and updated from 1998. So actually its not so new. Has anyone read this book or anything by the author who is Dr. Robert L. Reymond. Back flap says its of the Reformed Faith.

I generally use Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology is this one better?

 

[Marrow Man]

Robert Reymond is a writing from a Reformed Presbyterian tradition. He is generally a solid guy. He used to teach (not sure if he still does) at Knox Seminary. His systematic theology is generally ordered around the Westminster Confession of Faith, which makes it more valuable that Grudem if you are Presbyterian. One "negative" is that Dr. Reymond is a supralapsarian (or at least a modified supra). Also, it is not quite as readable as Grudem.

 

[torstar]

Just purchased book this afternoon. Reason why I bought it was only $9.00. Its the second edition revised and updated from 1998. So actually its not so new. Has anyone read this book or anything by the author who is Dr. Robert L. Reymond. Back flap says its of the Reformed Faith.

I generally use Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology is this one better?

It's more advanced than Grudem. A few areas of the Reformed faith are explored in-depth.

He has a few views that caused some response, you can look it up, typical of all systems. Just type in Reymond at the top of this page to search.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

I've read, underlined, highlighted, and studied my copy so much that I had to have it rebound.

Definitely worth your time!

 

[JM]

One "negative" is that Dr. Reymond is a supralapsarian (or at least a modified supra).

Brother, I was just about to post that Reymond was at least solid on soteriology.

For $9 bucks that's a steal.

 

[Marrow Man]

LOL. Otherwise he is pretty solid. As I said, I don't think he is a traditional supra, but somehow modifies the position. The book is not here at home (at the church) so I'm going from memory.

Yep, $9 is definitely worth it. I think I paid over $30 for mine new.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Plus, Reymond takes a strange view on Romans 7 that Paul is speaking of himself, pre-conversion, and not the Christian struggle with indwelling sin.

 

[Porter]

is this one better?

Yes!

His supralapsarianism is spot on and refreshing; He is Clarkian in that he affirms univocal knowledge against Van Til-ian analogical knowledge - another plus; He is wrong on baptism, Romans 7, ecclesiology, and eschatology but is absolutely solid everywhere else, a great read, and very quotable. A great mind in the Christian faith today.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Plus, Reymond takes a strange view on Romans 7 that Paul is speaking of himself, pre-conversion, and not the Christian struggle with indwelling sin.

Wasn't that Hoekema's view, as well? I'm going from memory here, but I thought he offered a similar interpretation.

 

[Jesus is my friend]

Robert Reymond is a writing from a Reformed Presbyterian tradition. He is generally a solid guy. He used to teach (not sure if he still does) at Knox Seminary. His systematic theology is generally ordered around the Westminster Confession of Faith, which makes it more valuable that Grudem if you are Presbyterian. One "negative" is that Dr. Reymond is a supralapsarian (or at least a modified supra). Also, it is not quite as readable as Grudem.

He is currently Pastoring here and there is quite alot of good preaching from his pulpit

Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church - Untitled

 

[puritanpilgrim]

Great book

 

[Theogenes]

I think it's a great book and recommend it highly!

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Avoid people like Barth, not to be confused with .

Your post was just outstanding.

 

[CovenantalBaptist]

***Caution****
I do not want to open a can of worms, but, I also feel it is necessary to provide a caution. I appreciate Raymond in many areas too and use his ST regularly, but, aside from his Clarkian views and supralapsarianism which I don't share, there is another very serious caution about his understanding of the Trinity. He denies Nicene orthodoxy and argues against the traditional orthodox view of the "Eternal Generation of the Son", and, despite good motives, there is the danger, as Rev. Winser has previously identified, by denying the eternal generation of the son of opening himself to the charge of Tritheism.

See PB discussion here, followed to Nicene Christianity thread here

 

[Reformed Baptist]

My ? I give it a . Some infralapsarians may be like , but we supralapsarians are like . Some read his portions on the Trinity and are like , while others read and . Lots of good theology but not much to about. Some may think Reymond is while others just think he's opening up a . Still others think that Reymond's theology is for them. Ultimately, you've gotta for yourself and not let everyone else do your for you. However, when you're needing some it's always good to and get some from men like , , , , , , , , , , and . Avoid people like Barth, not to be confused with , and a most excellent summary of doctrine always to reference is the Confession of Faith and Catechisms. Some current folks think they're too for this so they redefine the Standards, but they're really just , , and seeking the of men.

I think there were more smilies used in this post than any post I have ever seen in my whole life and my dad's life put together. :O

 

[bookslover]

***Caution****
I do not want to open a can of worms, but, I also feel it is necessary to provide a caution. I appreciate Raymond in many areas too and use his ST regularly, but, aside from his Clarkian views and supralapsarianism which I don't share, there is another very serious caution about his understanding of the Trinity. He denies Nicene orthodoxy and argues against the traditional orthodox view of the "Eternal Generation of the Son", and, despite good motives, there is the danger, as Rev. Winser has previously identified, by denying the eternal generation of the son of opening himself to the charge of Tritheism.

See PB discussion here, followed to Nicene Christianity thread here

That discussion is one of the best things about his book.