Joel R. Beeke's New Systematic Theology

[bookslover]

Makes sense. It can look intimidating. I think those reservations will subside once people start reading it. In typical Dr. Beeke fashion, it is warmly written, easy to digest, and a treasure of great quotes.

I'm almost a hundred pages in. It's easy to read and thoughtfully written. My only complaint is that he insists on using the King James Version, which is really annoying. It could put some people off from reading the book, which would be a shame. As for me, when I read one of his quotes from the KJV, I silently correct the 17th-century grammar in my head ("them which" gets corrected to "those who," etc.).

 

[Hamalas]

I'm almost a hundred pages in. It's easy to read and thoughtfully written. My only complaint is that he insists on using the King James Version, which is really annoying. It could put some people off from reading the book, which would be a shame. As for me, when I read one of his quotes from the KJV, I silently correct the 17th-century grammar in my head ("them which" gets corrected to "those who," etc.).

I was a bit surprised that the publishers of the ESV would agree to publish such a substantial work that uses a different translation!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I bought mine April 5th at the Reformation Indy Conference.

 

[bookslover]

I was a bit surprised that the publishers of the ESV would agree to publish such a substantial work that uses a different translation!

They also use the ESV, per the copyright page, but I haven't seen much of it, yet!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You may download an extract of the book from here.

 

[Taylor]

I was a bit surprised that the publishers of the ESV would agree to publish such a substantial work that uses a different translation!

They didn’t have anything to lose or gain, I wouldn’t think. If they used the ESV, they wouldn’t have pay for permission, and using the KJV doesn’t require paying anyone for permission, either.

 

[Brian R.]

I'm almost a hundred pages in. It's easy to read and thoughtfully written. My only complaint is that he insists on using the King James Version, which is really annoying. It could put some people off from reading the book, which would be a shame. As for me, when I read one of his quotes from the KJV, I silently correct the 17th-century grammar in my head ("them which" gets corrected to "those who," etc.).

Some of us love Dr. Beeke for his loyalty to the KJV!

 

[J.L. Allen]

I got mine today! I sent a text out to a bunch of friends in my excitement. To some of y’all actually.

 

[TheInquirer]

You all convinced me - ordered.

 

[JTB.SDG]

I asked Dr. Beeke that question: since he's Dutch Reformed and Smalley is Reformed Baptist, how will the section on baptism play out? He responded that the two of them have only talked about that once so far but, as it won't be discussed until Volume 4, they have plenty of time to hash that out.

Maybe he'll have him "converted" by that time.

 

[greenbaggins]

I'm almost a hundred pages in. It's easy to read and thoughtfully written. My only complaint is that he insists on using the King James Version, which is really annoying. It could put some people off from reading the book, which would be a shame. As for me, when I read one of his quotes from the KJV, I silently correct the 17th-century grammar in my head ("them which" gets corrected to "those who," etc.).

Richard, as you are well aware, I am not a KJV advocate, if one means that one must only use the KJV. However, I ask the question: why would it be annoying? It doesn't annoy you when you read the Puritans, and they use the KJV, does it? If not, why should it annoy you that the president of PURITAN Reformed Theological Seminary uses the KJV? It is a highly venerable and still incredibly important translation that has stood the test of time better than most other publications of any sort. Beeke's point in using the translation is to underline his historical connection with not only the Nadere Reformatie, but also the Puritans.

 

[greenbaggins]

There is a quotation from the ESV on page 48.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

It doesn't annoy you when you read the Puritans, and they use the KJV, does it? If not, why should it annoy you that the president of PURITAN Reformed Theological Seminary uses the KJV? It is a highly venerable and still incredibly important translation that has stood the test of time

I hope this does not start a KJV bird fight. Birds can be quite vicious when they fight due to ther sharp "Beeke"s

 

[bookslover]

Richard, as you are well aware, I am not a KJV advocate, if one means that one must only use the KJV. However, I ask the question: why would it be annoying? It doesn't annoy you when you read the Puritans, and they use the KJV, does it? If not, why should it annoy you that the president of PURITAN Reformed Theological Seminary uses the KJV? It is a highly venerable and still incredibly important translation that has stood the test of time better than most other publications of any sort. Beeke's point in using the translation is to underline his historical connection with not only the Nadere Reformatie, but also the Puritans.

I also correct the KJV grammar in my head when I read the Puritans.

I'm not sure how venerable it should be, Lane. I've just finished reading the late Derek Kidner's commentaries on the Book of Psalms and the Book of Proverbs (both highly recommended, by the way). In both of those commentaries, Kidner is constantly correcting the KJV from the Hebrew.

Beeke is also now the general editor, as you know, of the series of commentaries known as Lectio Continua (might not be the exact title), in which preachers preach through books of the Bible and those sermon series are published as commentaries. Beeke has decreed that the pastors who agree to contribute to the series may only use the KJV or the NKJV.

Why should not each pastor be allowed to preach from whatever translation he usually uses in his own pulpit? Sounds a little fanatical to me!

 

[bookslover]

There is a quotation from the ESV on page 48.

Yes, they're in there, but they seem pretty sparse, so far!

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Sounds a little fanatical to me!

I am sorry but this is an absurd comment. How about for the sake of consistency? There are other commentary series that only allow one base translation. I don't see an issue If they agree to be a part of a series knowing beforehand that the core translation is set. Plus, it is not as if they are censored from interacting with the original languages along with proposing their own translations of words or phrases within the exegetical section.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You have to remember that there are is a significant body of opinion that will likely not read, buy, or will, at least, heavily criticise any book that is not primarily based on the KJV. Many of these same people like Joel Beeke's material partly because he cites the KJV. By relying on any other translation, he would likely lose the support of these people.

Beeke has decreed that the pastors who agree to contribute to the series may only use the KJV or the NKJV.

I am glad that he at least accepts other contributors using the NKJV.

 

[bookslover]

I am sorry but this is an absurd comment. How about for the sake of consistency? There are other commentary series that only allow one base translation. I don't see an issue If they agree to be a part of a series knowing beforehand that the core translation is set. Plus, it is not as if they are censored from interacting with the original languages along with proposing their own translations of words or phrases within the exegetical section.

I once heard a sermon by Martyn Lloyd-Jones during which he either had to explain or correct the KJV four or five times during the course of his sermon. Why burden yourself with all that extra work when you don't have to? Why take up precious sermon time with explanations and/or corrections when you could be spending that time preaching the Word?

 

[Brian R.]

I once heard a sermon by Martyn Lloyd-Jones during which he either had to explain or correct the KJV four or five times during the course of his sermon. Why burden yourself with all that extra work when you don't have to? Why take up precious sermon time with explanations and/or corrections when you could be spending that time preaching the Word?

But MLJ also corrects the RSV, which I think they had in their pews, on multiple occasions. I've heard preachers question/correct the ESV, NASB, and NKJV from their pulpits, even preachers who preferred those modern translations.

So needing to "fix" the English text really isn't a strike against the KJV.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

I once heard a sermon by Martyn Lloyd-Jones during which he either had to explain or correct the KJV four or five times during the course of his sermon. Why burden yourself with all that extra work when you don't have to? Why take up precious sermon time with explanations and/or corrections when you could be spending that time preaching the Word?

I have listened to hundreds of MLJ sermons. On numerous occasions, I have heard him prefer the King James' rendering of texts. I don't want to derail this thread into a translations battle. Either way, to charge Dr. Beeke with fanaticism over his preference of a translation is absurd. You didn't respond to any of my points. I will leave it at that in hopes that this thread will get back to the topic at hand.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

But MLJ also corrects the RSV, which I think they had in their pews, on multiple occasions.

From what I remember of Iain Murray's two-volume biography, I think that it was the Revised Version that they initially had in Westminster Chapel. I am nearly also sure that MLJ changed the pew Bible to the AV (probably because the RV was no longer widely circulated).

 

[PaulCLawton]

Richard, as you are well aware, I am not a KJV advocate, if one means that one must only use the KJV. However, I ask the question: why would it be annoying? It doesn't annoy you when you read the Puritans, and they use the KJV, does it? If not, why should it annoy you that the president of PURITAN Reformed Theological Seminary uses the KJV? It is a highly venerable and still incredibly important translation that has stood the test of time better than most other publications of any sort. Beeke's point in using the translation is to underline his historical connection with not only the Nadere Reformatie, but also the Puritans.

Dr. Beeke's 13 "Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV"

 

[PaulCLawton]

I asked Dr. Beeke that question: since he's Dutch Reformed and Smalley is Reformed Baptist, how will the section on baptism play out? He responded that the two of them have only talked about that once so far but, as it won't be discussed until Volume 4, they have plenty of time to hash that out.

I can't say I understand this response, is the only place where the Reformed and so-called Reformed Baptist positions differ on the proper recipients of the sacrament itself?

 

[bookslover]

From what I remember of Iain Murray's two-volume biography, I think that it was the Revised Version that they initially had in Westminster Chapel. I am nearly also sure that MLJ changed the pew Bible to the AV (probably because the RV was no longer widely circulated).

Makes sense. MLJ was definitely a KJV man.

 

[bookslover]

I can't say I understand this response, is the only place where the Reformed and so-called Reformed Baptist positions differ on the proper recipients of the sacrament itself?

I guess we'll have to wait until Volume 4 is published to find out!

 

[Jack K]

As we might expect, for a limited time the volume is available at 50% off list price from the fine folks at Westminster Bookstore, who are a true blessing to the church.

 

[bookslover]

As we might expect, for a limited time the volume is available at 50% off list price from the fine folks at Westminster Bookstore, who are a true blessing to the church.

As well as 50% off from Reformation Heritage Books - or 3 copies for $75!

 

[J.L. Allen]

As well as 50% off from Reformation Heritage Books - or 3 copies for $75!

Gotta love that bulk buy option.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Gotta love that bulk buy option.

Yes, sir! We had a ton of preorders. The response to it's release has been really encouraging. We are planning something pretty cool with Dr. Beeke and Paul Smalley to celebrate it's release. I will post it on the PB when I get the green light.

 

[bookslover]

Yes, sir! We had a ton of preorders. The response to it's release has been really encouraging. We are planning something pretty cool with Dr. Beeke and Paul Smalley to celebrate it's release. I will post it on the PB when I get the green light.

Yes, indeed. My man at RHB told me that they had nearly 700 pre-orders, an amount second only to the number of pre-orders for the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible.