Anyone's Theology 100% correct?

[Barney]

Recently purchased Louis Berkhof's systematic theology. Not looked at it yet but was going to start reading the Covenant theology part (if there is one). Still learning the basics of the Reformed faith. It seems to me that even the classic Reformed theologians are not without their doubters on some parts of their theology. Is any one 100% correct theologically?
In my situation, if I'm reading Berkhoff, is there anything I need to be careful with?...

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/louis-berkhof.17712/post-222445 Post in thread 'Louis Berkhof'

 

[Taylor]

No theologian is infallible, but Berkhof is about as solid and vanilla Reformed as they come.

 

[Barney]

Thanks for the reassurance. Life isn't plain sailing so I shouldn't be surprised when Theology isn't.
Never heard the phrase 'vanilla' before. What does it mean? Standard?

 

[Logan]

Anyone's Theology 100% correct?

Only yours and mine. And I have my doubts about yours.

 

[Barney]

Only yours and mine. And I have my doubts about yours.

Ha ha! Good one that. When my wife and I first met, she made the statement that everyone is crazy in their own way. And how correct she is

 

[Taylor]

Never heard the phrase 'vanilla' before. What does it mean? Standard?

Pretty much. Basically what I mean is that Berkhof was not innovative, imaginative, or novel. He has no quirkiness or weirdness about him. It’s just plain Reformed theology (i.e., the best kind).

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

No one is perfect, but Francis Turretin is pretty close.

 

[Zach]

No one is perfect, but Francis Turretin is pretty close.

We distinguish...

 

[Jack K]

Academia tends to celebrate scholars who are innovative or brilliantly insightful, who point out things we never noticed before. While there certainly is much to appreciate about this, it does not describe Berkhof. He is much more interested in being clear than he is in being brilliant. This makes any of his systematic works (his ST, his Manual, or his Summary) an excellent starting point and reference for traditional Reformed theology. It's hard to think of anything at all to watch out for unless you're a Baptist.

He does have a section on the covenants, but he doesn't spend a lot of time discussing them in particular. You'll get a solid overview of covenant theology but not the in-depth study you might get from writers for whom that topic is their chief interest.

 

[Barney]

Pretty much. Basically what I mean is that Berkhof was not innovative, imaginative, or novel. He has no quirkiness or weirdness about him. It’s just plain Reformed theology (i.e., the best kind)

That's good to hear. I'll steadily read through it starting this week. Many thanks for your sound advice.
I'm also going to read all the confessions, creeds, and articles through the links at the bottom of PB's home page.

 

[Barney]

Academia tends to celebrate scholars who are innovative or brilliantly insightful, who point out things we never noticed before. While there certainly is much to appreciate about this, it does not describe Berkhof. He is much more interested in being clear than he is in being brilliant. This makes any of his systematic works (his ST, his Manual, or his Summary) an excellent starting point and reference for traditional Reformed theology. It's hard to think of anything at all to watch out for unless you're a Baptist.

He does have a section on the covenants, but he doesn't spend a lot of time discussing them in particular. You'll get a solid overview of covenant theology but not the in-depth study you might get from writers for whom that topic is their chief interest.

That's all good to hear.
Regarding Covenant theology, I've ordered Michael Horton's book on it to read after Berkhoff.

 

[MountainPilgrim]

I'm also going to read all the confessions, creeds, and articles through the links at the bottom of PB's home page.

That's a great place to start. I think we too often tend to forget the richness our confessions, etc. provide. Further and deeper study is certainly of great benefit, but I think familiarization with the standards of the Reformed tradition should be the first step in establishing a solid foundation upon which we can build as we continue to learn and grow.

You've been provided with several really good resources in this forum and others, which would surely prove worthy of your time and effort to read, but my vote is that you start with our confessions, etc., and then move on to more in-depth study once you are familiar with their contents.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Liam @Barney, here is a page the PB offers to applicants who are interested in being members, but who need to do a little study on Reformed and confessional issues before joining. There are some good resources for further learning. Hope it’s helpful to you! (You can skip down to #4 and begin reading and checking out resources from there.)

Application Rejection FAQ

FAQ for the common reasons for applications to be rejected

www.puritanboard.com

 

[Joshua]

I lack the omniscience to know such a thing. God -as defined of theology- most assuredly has it all correct. He speaks correct into existence.

 

[smalltown_puritan]

Is any one 100% correct theologically?

I think there is a helpful distinction between someone not being wrong about something, and someone being 100% correct. The absence of error does not necessitate exhaustive knowledge (which is what 100% correct would mean if taken to its fullest end). This is one of the things that is so amazing about the active obedience of our Saviour: not only did Christ entirely keep the Law perfectly in that He never once transgressed the Law, but also that in that He obeyed the Law to its fullest extent.

So can a theological work or a sermon be without error? Sure! But theologians and ministers (and all Christians) are still pursuing that same thing set before us in Philippians 3:10, 'That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death'.

And yes, read Berkhof!

 

[Paul1976]

Here is one other point to consider that isn't specific to Berkhof. I don't think it's necessarily beneficial to shy away from reading good thinkers who are (likely) wrong on some points. In fact, I've often found myself learning more from reading someone I ended up disagreeing with. Let me provide a few examples. C.S. Lewis has a number of areas where everyone here would sharply disagree with him. I've also found some wonderful insights from him, and rarely read books that prompt me to think as much as I do when reading him. I could point to many others, although most would be less serious disagreements than I have with Lewis.

I also think that there is immense value to not only reading a side of an issue where you agree but reading the other side as well. I was brought up as an Arminian who thought I accepted a non-existent intermediate position between Calvinism and Arminianism. Years ago, I set out to understand the three positions (I'm including the non-existent middle ground position in the three) and expected to end up in the middle-ground position. The most helpful books were not reformed. First, an Arminian convinced me of the non-existence of the middle ground position (admittedly, plenty of Calvinists make the case equally well). Next, it was while reading some middle ground material that the necessity of Calvinism really started to click.

If your position is correct, and you're reading solid theologians you agree with also, there isn't any reason to fear being exposed to a different view, especially as you mature theologically.

 

[reformed grit]

Forgive me, Barney L, of things I wouldn't have you read, but for example, as a Reformed Christian, I've read the Koran (in English), and the Book of Mormon and other Mormon lit. more than once, along with various lit. of other religions. It hasn't actually been that handy though, since most folk of other religions that I've talked with haven't read much of their own literature. Mormon missionaries, for example, have usually been too young to have bothered reading through the Book of Mormon, in my experience. It's usually familial affiliations and relational friendships that influence them more than theological tomes. Unless one is trying to reach across a theological or spiritual divide, I recommend sticking to sound theological fare.