Petrus Van Mastricht’s work "Theoretical-Practical Theology"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I finished volume two yesterday; it primarily focuses on theology proper. There is a lot of good polemic material against the Socinians and the Remonstrant Arminians therein. It will be great to see the translation brought to its completion in due course.

For those interested in such things, here is a link to the original manuscript letter where Jonathan Edwards made his remarks.
 
Robert @Reformed Bookworm , Daniel @Reformed Covenanter , I know you love to drink deeply of the Dutch/ Continental Reformed works. How does Van Mastricht compare with Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics and Vos' Reformed Dogmatics?

Good question, Stephen. Geerhardus Vos's work is much more simple than either Herman Bavinck's or PvM's - both of which are highly in-depth. It will be difficult to fully compare PvM with Bavinck until the former set is complete. Given his interaction with later liberalism and other philosophical movements, I do not think it is ever going to be possible for us to safely ignore Bavinck no matter how much earlier stuff is translated.
 
It will be difficult to fully compare PvM with Bavinck until the former set is complete.
Good point
Given his interaction with later liberalism and other philosophical movements, I do not think it is ever going to be possible for us to safely ignore Bavinck no matter how much earlier stuff is translated.
Yes. Bavinck obviously has two hundred more years of theological and philosophical material to reflect on than PvM.
 
Yes. Bavinck obviously has two hundred more years of theological and philosophical material to reflect on than PvM

Be that as it may, Mastricht is not found wanting. Mastricht's magnum opus spanned 15 volumes in the original printing. He may take second place to Bavinck in matters of philosophy, but he is quite thorough in his theology.
 
Be that as it may, Mastricht is not found wanting. Mastricht's magnum opus spanned 15 volumes in the original printing. He may take second place to Bavinck in matters of philosophy, but he is quite thorough in his theology.
Vos comes up quite short compared to Bavinck and Mastricht.
Yes, I was aware of Edwards quote, as noted above, of the excellent standard Mastrich sets.

I asked the question above comparing Mastricht, Vos and Bavinck. I was interested in your comments on Bavinck and Mastricht. Others like Lane rate Vos higher :) See his comments at https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/reformed-dogmatics-bavinck-vs-vos.94936/

One practical problem ordinary Christians face given that so much quality Reformed theological works are now available is which should one purchase first.
 
I understand. Vos is good, don't get me wrong. It is especially impressive when considering his age when writing it. I suppose it depends on what you are looking for. As much as I want you to buy Mastricht, if funds are short, go for Bavinck. You've got time to save up for Mastricht. Honestly, I would encourage you to go for Brakel before Bavinck. There is nothing quite like Brakel. Sorry to keep my responses short. It is my birthday, and I have a date with my lovely wife.
 
Van Mastricht has a very clear method which he applies quite consistently, and includes more specific application on each subdivision than just about anyone else (i.e., you'd have to go to specialized treatises to get richer or even comparable levels of application). As such, so far it seems a very well-rounded systematic, because it gives you focused exegesis, doctrinal development, polemical considerations, and practical application.

That being said, there's also a value to genius, which Bavinck has in spades. For profound exposition of beautifully apprehended truth, Bavinck is on a level with Calvin -- but with more philosophical engagement and more systematic preparation.
 
I was thinking of getting Van Mastricht to supplement Bavinck, now you make it a little more complicated by adding Brakel to the mix

And here I thought I was making it easier. :doh:

In all seriousness, you need Brakel. That should be at the top of your list. I told the same to @Grant Jones over and over. Ask him what his thoughts are now that he is working through it. When I say there is no systematic like it, I genuinely mean it. On top of a Systematic Theology, you get an exposition of the Law, the Lord's Prayer, and Christian ethics. If that weren't enough, you get as an appendix, "The Administration of the Covenant of Grace in the Old and New Testaments." It is some of the warmest devotional theology in print.

Brakel has become a dear friend. I keep a set in my office at home and work along with Logos. I know, I know. I have a problem. As @Grant Jones would say, "My precious!" To be fair, the one at work is for marketing purposes.
 
Last edited:
@Stephen L Smith
In all seriousness, you need Brakel.
upload_2019-10-17_21-32-25.gif

P.S. So far I have found Brakel’s ST to the be the Matthew Henry of Systematic Theologies. Brakel is more in laymen terms, but bear in mind that’s 17th century laymen! Further he ends each chapter with some of the most edifying application I have read. Truly the most unique ST I have have come across and I have browsed a few! Robert did not pay me to say this:cool:. Further, Brakel is easier to navigate than Bavinck if looking for a specific topic in my opinion.

P.P.S. Brakel does get a little cranky defending geocentricity, but no mere human gets it 100% right 100% of the time!
 
Last edited:
And here I thought I was making it easier.
Well your "my precious" works well in my country since we produced the "Lord of the Rings" movie :)

But it gets complicated. I mentioned in post 9 above, Lane @greenbaggins prefers Vos. He argued that Vos was a better exegete than Bavinck and was also better at the theological encyclopaedia. He listed some of Bavinck's strengths and argued that Bavinck and Vos nicely compliment each other. Lane says of Vos "my precious" :)

Thus, I was seriously thinking of getting Vos to compliment Bavinck, that is until the Mastricht discussion came along.

Ruben then made this comment
Van Mastricht has a very clear method which he applies quite consistently, and includes more specific application on each subdivision than just about anyone else (i.e., you'd have to go to specialized treatises to get richer or even comparable levels of application). As such, so far it seems a very well-rounded systematic, because it gives you focused exegesis, doctrinal development, polemical considerations, and practical application.
Ruben says of Mastricht "my precious" :)

No doubt you are saying this of Brakel :)

Truly the most unique ST I have have come across
Yes, Grant is saying of Brakel too "my precious" :)
 
Ruben says of Mastricht "my precious" :)

Not exactly! In that same post I praised Bavinck very highly. Van Mastricht has the undeniable and very important good qualities that he has; but so far as the volumes that have appeared, at any rate, I wouldn't turn to him over Turretin for the technicalities. What will prove most helpful and edifying is very dependent on what someone already knows, how they think, and what sorts of questions are uppermost. For some people, that means that Van Mastricht is the right author to read next; but for others, the right author is Bavinck -- or Vos -- or Berkhof -- or John Brown of Haddington -- or Thomas Watson -- or James Ussher.
 
What will prove most helpful and edifying is very dependent on what someone already knows, how they think, and what sorts of questions are uppermost. For some people, that means that Van Mastricht is the right author to read next; but for others, the right author is Bavinck -- or Vos -- or Berkhof -- or John Brown of Haddington -- or Thomas Watson -- or James Ussher.
This is very wise.
Not exactly! In that same post I praised Bavinck very highly.
Ruben, Robert @Reformed Bookworm Lane @greenbaggins just to clarify, I was not trying to pit theologians against one another. Just trying to work out what one would suit me best.

As such, so far it seems a very well-rounded systematic, because it gives you focused exegesis, doctrinal development, polemical considerations, and practical application.
A well rounded systematic is what I was looking for. I think I will get Van Mastricht to supplement Bavinck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top