Reading Systematic Theologies

[nwink]

If you have ever read essentially a whole systematic theology, why would you recommend the practice/discipline of reading a whole systematic theology? What would be the benefit to glean for those who've never done this before? What motivated or interested you to do it?

Not for bragging rights, but what all systematic theologies have you essentially read the whole thing of?

 

[Peairtach]

I've read the whole of Calvin's Institutes and the whole of Wayne Grudem.

I've just read large chunks of Dabney, but I've meant to read right through him for a while.

It hopefully gives one some degree of completeness of breadth of understanding of God and His works, as you are at least touching on all the loci of theology, as well as some depth in certain places depending on the systematician.

It can also be very enjoyable and an informal act of worship.

 

[py3ak]

There are at least three significant advantages. One is that it makes you think about the whole range of systematic theologies, rather than simply looking at your favorite areas. The second benefit is closely related to that, and it is that it enables you to see the harmony and relationship between different aspects of the truth. Sometimes discussions on other topics wind up shedding unexpected light on previous topics. The third is that it enables you more clearly to see how the governing principles and methodology of a particular thinker come into expression over the whole range of his theological thinking. Sometimes you almost learn more from someone's method than you do from his formal discussions.

 

[jogri17]

After you read two or three, you can just brease through the rest in order to find where they differ. As for me: Calvin in French, Calvin in English, Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics twice, and Reymond (spead read my way through). I've dipped into Berkhof rather heavily.

 

[py3ak]

After you read two or three, you can just brease through the rest in order to find where they differ.

I don't think I agree with that at all. Breezing through is likely to create misreadings and misunderstandings. And if the organization of a systematic is different, looking for disagreements is not an easy matter. Again, such an approach might find differing conclusions, but won't necessarily be able to identify the differing presuppositions that underlie them. If you only look at areas of disagreement, you might miss out on some of the finest bits of theology there are: people sometimes write most beautifully and clearly when they are not saying anything an orthodox person would disagree with. And we ourselves are in need of review: we don't just know and understand the truth sufficiently. Careful reading of additional works of systematics can refresh your memory, warm your heart, and give you richer insights. I enjoyed Augustine on the Trinity; I enjoyed it more after seeing it through the lens of Peter Lombard's Sentences.

 

[jogri17]

We'll agree to disagree... strongly.

 

[py3ak]

I never agree to disagree.

 

[hammondjones]

I've only read Millard Erickson's Christian Theology, and that was for school. Despite it being baptistic, premillennial, and only mildly Calvinistic, I actually really enjoyed reading it.
I'm hoping to get another one for my birthday.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

baptistic, premillennial, and only mildly Calvinistic

Don't forget Day-Age Theory espousing.

 

[py3ak]

This thread caused me to think back over the systematics I've read, and it made me realize why I believe in reading and rereading multiple systematic theologies completely through.

The first systematic I ever read was William Ames' Marrow of Theology. I can't admit to having gotten much out of it; but I don't think that had anything to do with the quality of the volume. At the time, I simply didn't have the background necessary to learn from it. As I go on reading, I find that I am able to get more out of each systematic (it helps that I don't make any effort to read systematics that aren't good), because I am acquiring a better grasp of the vocabulary, the issues, the arguments, and the methods. I don't think I would have been ready for Turretin without Calvin; after John Brown I can return to Turretin with clearer eyes and greater appreciation.

The more one knows, the better one's situation for profitable and enjoyable reading, whether it be a simple summary that gives crystalline expression to the great crossroads of doctrine, or a detailed treatment complete with a refutation of errors. That is also what makes profitable and delightful rereading possible; I was reviewing John of Damascus a few days ago, and was rather surprised to note that he touches on many issues, at least implicitly, which I missed on reading him before: since he didn't discuss them explicitly and I didn't know that it was a question, I didn't register his opinion on those matters.

If it were possible to begin with knowledge of all theological questions and vocabulary, one could presumably extract all the marrow from a book at one go; but not even Turretin has all questions, let alone the best expression of each answer.

 

[reaganmarsh]

Reading a whole ST is important because you are able to engage an author's perspective across the full loci of theology. It helps you to get inside his head and understand why he reasons from Scripture as he does. The benefit is that you are sharpened in your grasp of sacred Scripture and are better able to understand the greatness of God. My reading of ST has been for seminary, sermon prep, writing projects, biblical counseling purposes, and personal research.

I've read Grudem, J.P. Boyce, Ames, most of Erickson, most of Calvin, Dagg, and Berkhof, large chunks of C. Hodge, most of D. Akin's Theology for the Church, plus various old & new volumes on a single subject (ie, Christology or ecclesiology), and some of Bray, and Beeke's Puritan Theology. My reading in the "partially completed" volumes is on a particular subject (ie baptism or election).

I agree that rereading is important as I tend to forget a writer's particular contributions after a while. I also have realized in recent years that a good grounding in the Confessions and Catechisms is incredibly helpful, critical even, in studying ST.

I highly commend the practice!

 

[EKSB SDG]

My pastor is currently leading a Men’s Systematic Bible Study using Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology.
We’ve only been at it for a few months, so there’s definitely no bragging rights here.

Your question as to “why” read and study a systematic theology is a good one. I think the answer is fairly straight-forward: To better understand God’s Word, to deepen our knowledge of and love for our Triune God, and to better equip us to be faithful servants.

This “why” question was something that we spent a lot of time discussing during our first meeting. Here’s the ‘warning’ that my pastor gave us at the outset:

WARNING

“Big theological brains and heart disease” from the book “Dangerous Calling” by Paul David Trip

Dangers of Academized Christianity

Academized Christianity, which is not constantly connected to the heart and puts its hope in knowledge and skill, can actually make students dangerous. It arms them with powerful knowledge and skills that can make the student think that they are more mature and godly than they actually are. It arms students with weapons of spiritual warfare that if not used with humility and grace will harm the people they are meant to help.

1) SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS; James 1:22-25
Because sin blinds, and those blinded by sin tent to be blind to their blindness, it is dangerous to handle the truths of the Word without asking students to look into the mirror of the World and see themselves as they actually are. Students who don’t do this will enter ministry convinced that they are prepared to fix the world but will fail to recognize that they need fixing just as much a s anyone to whom they have been called to minister.

2) THEOLOGICAL SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS; Hebrews 5:12-14
For students who have not been required to confess that it is easier to learn theology than to life it, it is tempting to think maturity is more a matter of knowing that a matter of living. They think that godliness is more a matter of what you intellectually grasp that a matter of how you live your life. So, puffed up with knowledge, they smugly think they are ok.

3) DYSFUNCTIONAL PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE WORD; John 5:39-40
Somewhere in his theological education, the student loses his devotional relationship not only to the Word but also to the God of the Word. Study of the Word becomes more a world of correct ideas than a world of submission to the Lord, who those ideas introduce and define.

4) LACK OF PERSONAL NEEDINESS; 2 Timothy 2:24f
Since the student has come to think of himself as more mature than he actually is because of the knowledge he has gained, he doesn’t approach God’s Word with a tenderness and neediness of heart. His study of the Word brings him again and again to his desk, but it seldom brings him to his knees.

5) IMPATIENCE WITH OTHERS; 1 Tim 6:11-12
I have written and said many times that no one gives grace better than the person who is deeply persuaded that he needs it himself. Self-righteous people tend to be critical, dismissive, and impatient with others.

6) WRONG PERSPECTIVE ON MINISTRY; Matthew 9:36-38
Because of all this, ministry is driven more by theological correctness than by worship of and love for the Lord Jesus Christ. The sermon becomes more of theological lecture than an exposition of the grace of the gospel and a plea to run after the Savior. Sadly, it is often driven more by the passion for ideas than by love for people and for Christ.

7) NO LIVING COMMUNION WITH Christ; John 15:5
It can finally all degenerate into a Christ-less Christianity that puts its hope in theology and rules and somehow forgets that if theology and rules had the power to transform the heart of idolaters, Jesus would never have had to come, live, die and rise again. It ends with the means becoming the end and Christianity devoid of power against the world, the flesh and the Devil.

Systematic Theology

Theology: The study of God and the things of God.

Systematic theology approaches the whole Bible as the complete revelation of God and therefore strives to understand all that the Bible says on a given topic. This sets Systematic Theology apart from other disciplines such as Old Testament Theology, New Testament Theology and Biblical Theology, which approach the Scriptures as an unfolding revelation. So Systematic Theology strives to understand God’s whole plan, purpose and teaching revealed in Scripture.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Not for bragging rights, but what all systematic theologies have you essentially read the whole thing of?

I won't list them all, but, by golly, I am going to brag that I have read all of Robert Culver's Systematic Theology. If you have this then you know why I am bragging, too.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Personally I think it is spiritually helpful to balance Puritan theology with Dutch theology
Let me explain:
Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics is the ultimate Dutch Reformed theology. Vos balances this with his Biblical theology - historic-redemptive approach.
The great Puritan theologies (some examples include Lloyd-Jones 'Great Doctrines of the Bible' and Beekes 'Puritan Theology: Doctrine for life') give that spiritual balance to the Dutch tradition

 

[RamistThomist]

Not for bragging rights, but what all systematic theologies have you essentially read the whole thing of?

Bavinck, volumes 1-3
Berkhof
Calvin
Grudem
Erickson
Reymond
Carl Henry, volumes 1-3
Hodge volume 1
Dabney

Careful reading of additional works of systematics can refresh your memory, warm your heart, and give you richer insights. I enjoyed Augustine on the Trinity; I enjoyed it more after seeing it through the lens of Peter Lombard's Sentences.

I agree with this. I didn't get a whole lot out of many of the earlier stuff I've read, but when I came back to it after reading a lot of other disciplines, I was able to glean more.

 

[Steve Paynter]

I agree with those who have argued that reading a complete systematic theology helps avoid just sticking with one's hobby-horses, and that it also helps to see how a particular thinkers methodology works out over the entire spectrum of doctrines.

However, there is another important reason ... but this only applies to systematic theologies that are in enough depth. This reason for reading a systematic theology right through is that: it will high-light the relationships and dependencies between different doctrines.

For example, the first systematic theology I read was Louis Berkhof's. He engages with doctrines in enough depth that ... for example ... you can see him prepare for paedobaptism in his doctrine of predestination, long before he gets to covenant theology or ecclesiology.

One comes to understand that one must get ones Christology right if one is to get one's doctrine of the atonement right.

In contrast, another systematic theology I've read all the way through is Wayne Grudem's. It has lots of good properties, but by and large he doesn't work with the doctrines in enough depth to enable one to trace out the linkages between doctrines.

It is also good, of course, to read historical and biblical theologies, and these bring out other kinds of linkages between doctrines that are missed in systematic theologies. The historical development of ... say ... the doctrine of the Trinity ... helps one to understand why each facet of that doctrine was developed ... in other words, to understand what error or inadequacy ... was being addressed by that clarification of the doctrine. This helps one keep balanced in one's own articulations of the trinity.

Biblical theologies can help one understand the biblical plot, that is, the movement of redemptive-history and how progressive revelation works. It can help one understand the specific teachings of different biblical writers, and it helps one treat different genres differently, and in keeping with their place in the biblical narrative.

 

[JM]

Not for bragging rights, but what all systematic theologies have you essentially read the whole thing of?

I won't list them all, but, by golly, I am going to brag that I have read all of Robert Culver's Systematic Theology. If you have this then you know why I am bragging, too.

I've had my eye on that one for a while. Time to set Gill down and pick up something else to read.

 

[ThyWord IsTruth]

Why read a Systematic Theology? Because it encompasses the WHOLE counsel of God in a orderly, intelligent manner.
God has progressively revealed Himself and His plan of redemption from Genesis to Revelation. In order to have an accurate picture of the WHOLE we must read it all, digest and compartmentalize all the information which takes years to do. All Christians should do this but why not read Systematics of those men of God, that have done this before and put it to paper.
It is a quicker way to get the WHOLE counsel of God. With one rule in mind: test it with the scriptures.

 

[hammondjones]

baptistic, premillennial, and only mildly Calvinistic

Don't forget Day-Age Theory espousing.

Oh yeah, that, too. I had put that out of my head. Imagine how much I'd like reading one that I more than broadly agreed with.

 

[One Little Nail]

Have only read A.A.Hodges Outlines of Theology in my mid 20's, found it immeasurably helpful, I highly recommend it as
a first read of a Systematic Theology,it helped to give a broad overview of the more important Bible Doctrines.
found it helped me have a better understanding of the Word whenever I would read the Scriptures,
though I will say that I tried to read Berkhof's Summary & found I could't understand this in the 2nd year of my walk
you really do need The Lord to give you the necessary understanding to gain anything from a Sys Theol
Sys Theol is Doctrine though and needed for a proper grounding in the Faith.

1Tim 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.