Choosing a ST: Turretin or Bavinck?

[greenbaggins]

While I wish I could get all three, and I really do, would Calvin's Institutes and Berkhof's ST be enough as preparation/overview for Bavinck/Turretin?

Chris, sure that would be sufficient. However, Vos is my favorite theologian of all time, so I don't think anything beats Vos.

Do you think the best plan of attack would be to read Berkhof FIRST as he would give the background necessary for Bavinck and Vos. The Eerdmans edition of Berkhof's Systematic Theolgy includes his prolegomena. Actually in this Eerdmans edition, Richard Muller argues that the absence of a prolegomena in Vos etc did create unfortunate theological distortions. Would it be fair to say Bavinck is superior in this respect?

I note that Vos wrote his Reformed Dogmatics when he was fairly young. It is a pity he did not revise it later in life after he had read Bavinck, and after his own wonderful Biblical Theology had been published. To have Vos' work with a prolegomena, and including his Biblical Theology would be a treat indeed. I guess I am a bit like John Bunyan - I am in a dream but will wake soon

I don't think any "background" is necessary for reading Vos. Just plunge right in. His RD is not difficult to read at all. I would HIGHLY disagree with Muller (where did he say that?) if he thinks that Vos distorted Reformed theology. Yes, I could wish that Vos wrote a prolegomena, and revised it later. But if the price of that had been no writing of Biblical Theology, that would have been too high a price to pay.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Actually in this Eerdmans edition, Richard Muller argues that the absence of a prolegomena in Vos etc did create unfortunate theological distortions.

Stephen, was that a typo? It seems from the context that you are talking about Louis Berkhof, rather than Geerhardus Vos.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Given that there are financial restrictions involved, it might be best just to go for whoever is cheapest at the moment. That will give you time to both read either Turretin or Bavinck while saving up to by the other set.

 

[Dachaser]

Chris, sure that would be sufficient. However, Vos is my favorite theologian of all time, so I don't think anything beats Vos.



I don't think any "background" is necessary for reading Vos. Just plunge right in. His RD is not difficult to read at all. I would HIGHLY disagree with Muller (where did he say that?) if he thinks that Vos distorted Reformed theology. Yes, I could wish that Vos wrote a prolegomena, and revised it later. But if the price of that had been no writing of Biblical Theology, that would have been too high a price to pay.

So you would view Vos as being the best ST author among reformed authors?
And who would you rate as being also very good in say past 50 years or so?

 

[RamistThomist]

Isn't it held that Berhof was summary of Bavinck thought, while Hodge was a summary of Turrentin's?
And Calvin is easier to read for me in his commentaries, as His Institutes to me was at times hard to follow his train of thought. Again, maybe due to him relating to the times and situations he was writing into?

Sort of, though Berkhof doesn't develop Bavinck's Grace Restores Nature scheme.

 

[greenbaggins]

Vos is tops. Recently, no one author stands out, but I really like Ferguson, Sproul, Fesko, Van Til, and Gaffin for modern theologians.

 

[Dachaser]

Sort of, though Berkhof doesn't develop Bavinck's Grace Restores Nature scheme.

Turrentine was one of the main theologians Hodge admired and used, correct?

 

[Dachaser]

Vos is tops. Recently, no one author stands out, but I really like Ferguson, Sproul, Fesko, Van Til, and Gaffin for modern theologians.

You would agree that Vos ST would be better than his Biblical theology? As in the sense that if one had to choose which to purchase and use?

 

[greenbaggins]

Comparing his RD to his BT is like comparing apples and oranges. I can't think why any pastor worth his salt would want to be without either one.

 

[RamistThomist]

Turrentine was one of the main theologians Hodge admired and used, correct?

Yes. Turretin is sort of in a class by himself. Yes, he's hard, but if you read him you will grow as a thinker.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes. Turretin is sort of in a class by himself. Yes, he's hard, but if you read him you will grow as a thinker.

I am mindful of the ole Clint eastwood line though in Magnum Force, to the effect that ' a man has got to know his limitations".

 

[RamistThomist]

I am mindful of the ole Clint eastwood line though in Magnum Force, to the effect that ' a man has got to know his limitations".

Then you are done growing as a Christian, if you take that mindset.

 

[ChrisJuloya]

I am leaning towards Turretin now, but would like to read a few pages of Bavinck's too, to be sure, before I make a purchase (I really overthink a lot of things, including purchases ). But I know, and based on what you have shared, that whichever I choose between the two, they're both worth it.

Though I somewhat like Vos', maybe some other time.

You guys have been awesome!

 

[ChrisJuloya]

I checked a pdf sample of Turretin's and it shows that it is in outline format. Is it really like that?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I checked a pdf sample of Turretin's and it shows that it is in outline format. Is it really like that?

Not really.

Go here:
https://www.logos.com/product/30296/institutes-of-elenctic-theology
Click the See Inside button.

As the ToC I provided earlier indicates, each of the twenty topics discussed include various questions that are answered. The Roman Numeral numbering used is not to imply the volumes are in some outline format with numerous and varying indentations. The numbering helps to quickly reference content, as in XIX.XIII (topic 19, question 13) answers the question "Is baptism absolutely necessary to salvation?"

This elenctic method (persuasion by bringing to shame) is well accorded by the numbering system used. Another example of elenctics can be found in Aquinas' Summa.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I am leaning towards Turretin now, but would like to read a few pages of Bavinck's too,

Go here to see a sample of Bavinck:
https://www.logos.com/product/49461/reformed-dogmatics-vol-2-god-and-creation

Click the See Inside button.

You could search out other volumes similarly at the site.

 

[ChrisJuloya]

Go here to see a sample of Bavinck:
https://www.logos.com/product/49461/reformed-dogmatics-vol-2-god-and-creation

Go here:
https://www.logos.com/product/30296/institutes-of-elenctic-theology
Click the See Inside button.

Thank you for these! I will look at them and hope I don't get persuaded to buy both.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I would HIGHLY disagree with Muller (where did he say that?) if he thinks that Vos distorted Reformed theology.

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].

Yes, I could wish that Vos wrote a prolegomena, and revised it later. But if the price of that had been no writing of Biblical Theology, that would have been too high a price to pay.

As you will know, James T. Dennison Jr, wrote a mini biography in the 'Letters of Vos'. He argues that Vos spent approx the last 15 years of his life in quiet seclusion. It looks like Vos loved peace and quiet (as do I). I know he worked on his Biblical Theology in the last few years of his life, but I think that approx 15 years may have given him enough time to revise his RD, as Bavinck had done. In fairness to Vos he spent time caring for his very ill wife which would have been dificult.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Hi,

I'm fairly new here in PB and have been blessed by the discussions. I think that is one of the reasons why I registered. I have read a lot in the forums about which ST to have and what is the best ST to have and all the other possible combinations, and I have gained a lot of knowledge from these threads just by reading your discussions.

However, I have not seen this question yet (if there is a thread regarding this, maybe you could point me to the thread please?), if you were to choose just one of these two heavyweights, which would you choose and why? Institutes of Elenctic Theology or Reformed Dogmatics. I also do somewhat consider Vos' Reformed Dogmatics, but if it was for a 3rd ST, I'd like to choose from the two above.

To give you more of an idea of what I have and read, I am about to finish Calvin's Institutes (currently to start on the chapter on the Lord's Prayer) and would have Berkhof's ST next.

Thank you all in advance for your answers and thoughts.

Grace and peace.

I have not had time to review the other responses. I have a large ST collection in my library. My favorites are as follows:
My #1 - Wilhelmus a Brakel's - "The Christian's Reasonable Service"
Then: Berkhof's ST, William Ames - Marrow of Theology, John Brown's ST, James Ussher - Body of Divinity, Watson's - Body of Divinity. Everyone needs Calvin's Institutes. Also, Reformation Heritage is coming out with the legendary Dogmatics by Petrus Van Mastricht. This was Jonathan Edwards favorite set of books outside of the Scriptures. This is a major victory for the Christian community.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I would HIGHLY disagree with Muller (where did he say that?) if he thinks that Vos distorted Reformed theology.

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].

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.​

Src: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0802838200
An electronic version of the book is available for purchase at Google Play. It is DRM protected and not downloadable. Only can be read online after purchase ($43). Unfortunately, the content is just a scan of the book's 974 pages with Berhof's prolegomenon. It is the only ebook version I have been able to locate. Still worth the price if you want electronic access that can easily be copied and pasted using tools like ABBY FineReader's Screenshot Reader.​

Muller's "may also have" qualifier hardly implies Vos actually suffered from the same issues as did Berkhof sans a prolegomenon, not to mention "none of the theologians just noted ever claimed that their theology was derived deductively from the decrees, and none actually taught theology without prolegomena".

 

[JimmyH]

I am a neophyte in the discipline of theology, but being ambitious, I have Bavink, Turretin, Berkhoff and I find them a bit 'over my head' at my current level of learning. Depending on where you are in your studies Vos RD might be a worthwhile purchase, it has been for me.
It is in 5 volumes so you can pick and choose if you don't want the whole set immediately. I recommend it simply because I found I more easily understood what I've read so far than the aforementioned theologies.
The first review on this page https://www.amazon.com/Reformed-Dog...show_all_top?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews describes the contents better than I can. I would only reiterate, as the reviewer states, that this was originally a hand written manuscript used by Vos in his teaching at seminary in the 1880s. Perhaps this is why I find it so understandable. It was basically notes he used to teach his students.

 

[Dachaser]

I am a neophyte in the discipline of theology, but being ambitious, I have Bavink, Turretin, Berkhoff and I find them a bit 'over my head' at my current level of learning. Depending on where you are in your studies Vos RD might be a worthwhile purchase, it has been for me.
It is in 5 volumes so you can pick and choose if you don't want the whole set immediately. I recommend it simply because I found I more easily understood what I've read so far than the aforementioned theologies.
The first review on this page https://www.amazon.com/Reformed-Dog...show_all_top?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews describes the contents better than I can. I would only reiterate, as the reviewer states, that this was originally a hand written manuscript used by Vos in his teaching at seminary in the 1880s. Perhaps this is why I find it so understandable. It was basically notes he used to teach his students.

I understand your feelings as being at time overwhelmed, as I was trying at same time to read and digest and get a handle on theology from the viewpoints of Pentecostal, Baptist, Presbyterian Reformed, and to this current time, still find it somewhat hard to fully grasp the nuanced differences in theology between myself as a baptist and the Reformed Presbyterian brethren viewpoints on some issues.
Add to the mixture some Dispensational theology, and have a weird brew.

 

[ChrisJuloya]

Go here:
https://www.logos.com/product/30296/institutes-of-elenctic-theology

I have read most of the sections in both Turretin's and Bavinck's ST and when I was reading them, I personally felt like I was reading KJV vs NIV.

I love KJV while my mind does not easily understand NIV because the words were, for me, too simple. I felt I was reading NIV with Bavinck and I can say I can easily understand Turretin compared to Bavinck.

That's the only illustration I can think of.

While there are terms that you don't easily understand with Turretin, it kind of helped me with really focusing and understanding because it directs me to think and research which greatly works for me.

So now I am sure that I will get Turretin plus the recommendation to get Berkhof's Introduction to Systematic Theology.

Thanks for your insights everyone!

My #1 - Wilhelmus a Brakel's - "The Christian's Reasonable Service"

I have read lots of recommendation with a Brakel's, and would love to look at it next time. For now, my goal is to go through these three books first (Calvin's Institutes, Berkhof's Systematic Theology, and Turretin's Institutes) and learn as much as I can.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have read lots of recommendation with a Brakel's, and would love to look at it next time.

Get all volumes here:
http://www.abrakel.com/p/christians-reasonable-service.html

 

[ChrisJuloya]

Get all volumes here:
http://www.abrakel.com/p/christians-reasonable-service.html

Thanks, Patrick!

 

[Dachaser]

Get all volumes here:
http://www.abrakel.com/p/christians-reasonable-service.html

I am starting to work through the ST of John Gill, would he and Brakel give a good understanding of reformed of that era?

 

[RamistThomist]

I am starting to work through the ST of John Gill, would he and Brakel give a good understanding of reformed of that era?

Turretin gives a better understanding, and then, of course, there is the debate on whether Gill, a baptist, is Reformed.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I am starting to work through the ST of John Gill, would he and Brakel give a good understanding of reformed of that era?

Gill lived another 60 years after Brakel died, writing his Body of Divinity a half century or so after Brakel. Gill likely knew of Brakel's work as they were contemporaries until Gill turned age 14 (when Brakel died). Yet, I do not think Gill mentions Brakel in his systematic work. Brakel will provide a solid understanding of Dutch Reformed and Puritan theological views.

 

[RamistThomist]

If you want to approach from a different angle, there is Herman Witsius. He doesn't cover prolegomena like Turretin does.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Muller's "may also have" qualifier hardly implies Vos actually suffered from the same issues as did Berkhof sans a prolegomenon, not to mention

Thank you for posting this. It does give fuller light to the discussion. I struggle with the rest of your logic. As you noted, Muller goes on to say -

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.

I think this gets to the heart of the issue. When we study theology, an important component is Revelational epistemology, and the doctrine of scripture. These are discussed in a good prolegomenia. This is why I find Bavinck's RD very helpful (vol 1 in this case). A prolegomenia is missing in Vos. Further, with the rise of mysticism in certain sections of the church, a Revelational epistemology is more important than ever.

Please note: I am NOT denying the importance to the church of Vos' RD. Vos was a top rate theologian. It seems to me the idea is to read Bavinck's prolegomenia alongside Vos' RD.