Teaching from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (2nd ed.)

[kb1275]

I will be helping teach through Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (2nd ed.) at my church, and am curious what I should be watching out for. I've already come across his chapter and discussion on ESS, which caused me to pause and dive deep into that so that I am prepared to explain why I disagree with his teaching on that.

I am personally reformed baptist, so I have no issue with his chapter on baptism. I believe I will with his on the gifts (him being charismatic, and me being cessationist), as well as him being premillennial and I amillennial.

That being said, curious if anyone else is familiar with Grudem and his leanings in his ST. It was always referenced as a standard in circles I frequented growing up, but I've noticed him mentioned less often lately, and maybe for good reason.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Are they absolutely opposed to you teaching from another systematic?
Admittedly I'm not a Baptist, but there are any number of Baptists that I'd recommend before Grudem.
James P. Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology is a well-regarded Calvinistic Baptist systematic, for example.

 

[dsanch1120]

Some may have issues with his old-age earth viewpoint. In his sanctification section, I think, he describes sanctification as us cooperating with God. I still appreciate Grudem from time to time and likely will continue to

 

[TheInquirer]

Using other systematic texts to reference would be helpful. For Reformed Baptist tools, you could use the confession along with James Renihan’s book that provides commentary (To the Judicious and Impartial Reader).

For Systematic works, Berkhof would be a nice supplement to correct many of Grudem’s errors.

 

[paranymph]

Grudem says, "(1) I now affirm the doctrine of God’s impassibility in the sense of 'incapable of suffering harm,' a meaning that I had mistakenly failed to consider in the first edition (chapter 11)." That's not the meaning of impassibility.
From https://ivpbooks.com/blog/systematic-theology-why-a-second-edition.html

Also, related to baptism, he isn't going to give you the covenantal argument that the Particular Baptists used, and that is crucial.

 

[RamistThomist]

I will be helping teach through Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (2nd ed.) at my church, and am curious what I should be watching out for. I've already come across his chapter and discussion on ESS, which caused me to pause and dive deep into that so that I am prepared to explain why I disagree with his teaching on that.

I am personally reformed baptist, so I have no issue with his chapter on baptism. I believe I will with his on the gifts (him being charismatic, and me being cessationist), as well as him being premillennial and I amillennial.

That being said, curious if anyone else is familiar with Grudem and his leanings in his ST. It was always referenced as a standard in circles I frequented growing up, but I've noticed him mentioned less often lately, and maybe for good reason.

He is good on the areas where evangelicals were good (or at least active) in the late 20th century: inerrancy, the supernatural, etc. In terms of the doctrine of God, it would be one of the last places I would go. He is slightly better than Ware, though.

He actually cited Scripture passages rather than alluding to the verses. Putting a hymn at the end of each chapter was a good move. And the book is very well-written, something that usually does not apply to systematic theologies.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Grudem is supremely readable. His is unquestionably one of the best *written* systematic theology texts ever produced. There's a reason why his was (is?) far and away the most popular text in Bible colleges and seminaries for decades (with only those with egalitarian leanings and sympathies balking at his "problematic" doctrine of God, and there were few at that). (The dumbest thing he did was on the same page that he first introduces the term "eternal subordination of the Son" he has a footnote in which he explains that this is not to be confused with the ancient heresy of subordinationism... should've been a clue not to use a word in his coined term that originates with an ancient heresy, even though his view is more or less that of EO trinitarianism, which no one balks about.) For most of its publication, the biggest criticisms were with his "open but cautious" view of the spiritual gifts... but so good was deemed his text that even ardently cessationist schools held their nose and used the text, except for those sections. Nothing produced by conventional Reformed authors comes close to its readability - Beeke's fine work is very readable but Grudem does in 1 vol what Beeke takes to do in 4.

My suggestion is if you use Grudem as your base text, supplement with others.

 

[RamistThomist]

even though his view is more or less that of EO trinitarianism, which no one balks about.)

To the degree he is aware of the Filioque, Grudem holds to it. As to whether he reads the monarchia of the Father in the same way that *some* EO guys read it, that's not clear (Largely because they aren't clear). Before Basil the Great, the monarchia of the Father meant the taxis, or order in the Trinity. It had nothing to do with roles or relationships. All of the Fathers said the persons are distinguished by their eternal relations of origins, full stop. That's what person means when applied to the Trinity. All of the Eastern Fathers would have agreed with the West on that point.

You are correct that no one balks at EO trinitarianism, but only because Reformed people don't know anything about it, and Reformed manuals from the 20th century really weren't that good on the doctrine of God.

 

[dsanch1120]

In terms of the doctrine of God, it would be one of the last places I would go. He is slightly better than Ware, though.

Genuinely curious, what specifically makes you say this, and what are the issues with Ware? Is it mostly with eternal subordination or are there other issues? I remember a former pastor (DTS grad) had me read a Ware book on Jesus a while back

 

[RamistThomist]

Genuinely curious, what specifically makes you say this, and what are the issues with Ware? Is it mostly with eternal subordination or are there other issues? I remember a former pastor (DTS grad) had me read a Ware book on Jesus a while back

Ware's book is a disaster. I reviewed it here.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance (Ware)

Ware, Bruce. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationship, Roles, and Relevance. Crossway, 2005. Thesis: “examine the ways in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relate to one another, how they relate to us, and what difference this makes in our lives (Ware 14-15 emphasis original). Ware...

puritanboard.com

 

[dsanch1120]

Ware's book is a disaster. I reviewed it here.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance (Ware)

Ware, Bruce. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationship, Roles, and Relevance. Crossway, 2005. Thesis: “examine the ways in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relate to one another, how they relate to us, and what difference this makes in our lives (Ware 14-15 emphasis original). Ware...

puritanboard.com

Thank you, I had read a different one by him, but that is good to know. Grudem, I assume, is in a similar camp?

 

[RamistThomist]

Thank you, I had read a different one by him, but that is good to know. Grudem, I assume, is in a similar camp?

In recent years, Grudem moved closer to orthodoxy by affirming eternal generation. He still has an errant doctrine of God, having no yet rejected ESS. But yes, he is better than Ware.

 

[sgemmen9]

Stated above, but do you have the choice to pick something else? Rather than getting into differences, there are alternatives that offer similar simplicity with better theology.

 

[kb1275]

I deeply appreciate all of the responses. I am meeting with my pastor about the class that we have slated for September. I will ask him if he will consider a different text. If not, I will let him know that we should be supplementing some material for certain chapters.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Don’t poo poo Ware too much. While Reformed theologians were largely sitting on their thumbs, Ware wrote the best rebuttles of open theism.

 

[RamistThomist]

Don’t poo poo Ware too much. While Reformed theologians were largely sitting on their thumbs, Ware wrote the best rebuttles of open theism.

They were decent. But that underscores the irony: both he and the open theists do not have the historic, received view of God and the Trinity. Ware wrote God's Lesser Glory. Change "Glory" to "Authority" and you could apply that same title to Jesus, at least on Ware's view.

 

[TheInquirer]

For what its worth, a friend of mine who got his PhD in systematic theology and currently teaches at a major Reformed institution, once told me Grudem’s approach is more “bible doctrine” and not really the discipline of systematic theology. Additionally, Grudem was not well respected in the systematic theology camp. I do not know if his opinion has changed since the second edition came out but I would guess not.

 

[paranymph]

For what its worth, a friend of mine who got his PhD in systematic theology and currently teaches at a major Reformed institution, once told me Grudem’s approach is more “bible doctrine” and not really the discipline of systematic theology. Additionally, Grudem was not well respected in the systematic theology camp. I do not know if his opinion has changed since the second edition came out but I would guess not.

That is another issue. "Systematic" theology incorporates historical theology, philosophy, and other systematics along with exegesis. Bavinck is a great example of this (though, obviously, he is writing a Dogmatics). Many see Grudem as a clear writer because he mostly focuses on citing Bible verses. This can have its place, but it doesn't deal systematically with theological questions.

 

[Ulster Fry]

That is another issue. "Systematic" theology incorporates historical theology, philosophy, and other systematics along with exegesis. Bavinck is a great example of this (though, obviously, he is writing a Dogmatics). Many see Grudem as a clear writer because he mostly focuses on citing Bible verses. This can have its place, but it doesn't deal systematically with theological questions.

One could argue, though, in defence of the likes of Grudem, is that they are doing systematic theology in the manner defended by B.B. Warfield. For Warfield, systematic theology is the systematising of the doctrines gleaned by biblical theology, which is itself informed by exegesis. The role of philosophy and history in this regard is more peripheral. Like I said in the other thread, this method is going to lead to a different doctrine of God than the likes of Thomas Aquinas. There has clearly been a change in opinion in the Reformed world in just the last decade as to how systematics should be done.

I came across Warfield's essay (also easy to find online) when reading this particular essay by John Frame. He makes a good case for this side of the argument (Frame is also the best educated philosopher in the Reformed tradition by some distance): https://frame-poythress.org/in-defe...-scriptura-and-history-in-theological-method/.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

For what its worth, a friend of mine who got his PhD in systematic theology and currently teaches at a major Reformed institution, once told me Grudem’s approach is more “bible doctrine” and not really the discipline of systematic theology. Additionally, Grudem was not well respected in the systematic theology camp. I do not know if his opinion has changed since the second edition came out but I would guess not.

I get the criticism here to an extent-- but this also kind of bugs me. Grudem does a great job of drawing out teaching very explicitly from Scripture and showing ordinary Christians how to apply it to their lives, and how to study for themselves. The more "populist" side of me sometimes gets a little sick of academics poo pooing those who would stoop to the level of the ordinary folks.

Again, I know there are legitimate criticisms of Grudem, but I honestly wouldn't take the respect of academics as necessarily worth anything in itself. It's not as if Grudem hasn't done his academic diligence anyway-- he was educated at some of the best schools out there.

 

[TheInquirer]

I get the criticism here to an extent-- but this also kind of bugs me. Grudem does a great job of drawing out teaching very explicitly from Scripture and showing ordinary Christians how to apply it to their lives, and how to study for themselves. The more "populist" side of me sometimes gets a little sick of academics poo pooing those who would stoop to the level of the ordinary folks.

Again, I know there are legitimate criticisms of Grudem, but I honestly wouldn't take the respect of academics as necessarily worth anything in itself. It's not as if Grudem hasn't done his academic diligence anyway-- he was educated at some of the best schools out there.

I think the issue wasn’t quite that. My understanding was Grudem was doing something other than what the long standing discipline had done while calling it “systematics.” Yes it is more accessible for the lay reader, but it does lead to some of the major problems in his work. It isn’t just writing style, it is his faulty method from my understanding.

I am admittedly getting far out of my lane on this topic - I’ll let others better versed on the discipline comment if they choose.

 

[RamistThomist]

The more "populist" side of me sometimes gets a little sick of academics poo pooing those who would stoop to the level of the ordinary folks.

I don't fault Grudem for writing well. I fault him for getting the Trinity wrong.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I don't fault Grudem for writing well. I fault him for getting the Trinity wrong.

That’s fine, but I don’t think that was really the issue in the above post.

Also, in the 2nd edition he’s certainly much better in this area. It seems to me if one were simply to substitute the concept of order within the Trinity for subordination in his 2nd edition he’s on pretty good ground.

Of course he doesn’t do that, but reading him charitably I like to think he’s circling that same concept.

 

[paranymph]

I get the criticism here to an extent-- but this also kind of bugs me. Grudem does a great job of drawing out teaching very explicitly from Scripture and showing ordinary Christians how to apply it to their lives, and how to study for themselves. The more "populist" side of me sometimes gets a little sick of academics poo pooing those who would stoop to the level of the ordinary folks.

Again, I know there are legitimate criticisms of Grudem, but I honestly wouldn't take the respect of academics as necessarily worth anything in itself. It's not as if Grudem hasn't done his academic diligence anyway-- he was educated at some of the best schools out there.

Grudem's type of book has its place. The problem is calling it a Systematic Theology. I read the first edition many years ago and recall that he wrote it with his parents in mind to try to communicate doctrine to that level (lay-person). I think it is a problem, then, that it's now being used as a seminary textbook (it was for me). In other words, what was intended to teach doctrine to a lay-person is now being used to teach pastors in the church.

Better the approach of someone like Horton who wrote The Christian Faith and then simplified it for laymen in Pilgrim Theology.

 

[RamistThomist]

It seems to me if one were simply to substitute the concept of order within the Trinity for subordination in his 2nd edition he’s on pretty good ground.

Of course he doesn’t do that, but reading him charitably I like to think he’s circling that same concept.

It goes deeper than that. A right view of the Trinity will have a more determinative shaping of one's theology. That's why simply substituting an orthodox view for him is problematic.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Maybe I'm being naive, but are normal systematics so impossible to understand that they need to be "dumbed down"? When I was newly Reformed I didn't have any difficulty understanding A. A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology, and Berkhof is written at a similar level.
We're not asking folks to read Duns Scotus in the original Latin here.
I get that these texts might be difficult for a middle or high schooler, but for a seminary student taking a masters-level class?

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

It goes deeper than that. A right view of the Trinity will have a more determinative shaping of one's theology. That's why simply substituting an orthodox view for him is problematic.

Just to clarify-- though I'm sure this has been fleshed out more elsewhere, when you say his view is not orthodox, are you saying it is heretical? Or simply that it is deficient and not as strong as the traditional Nicene/orthodox statement of the doctrine?

Maybe I'm being naive, but are normal systematics so impossible to understand that they need to be "dumbed down"? When I was newly Reformed I didn't have any difficulty understanding A. A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology, and Berkhof is written at a similar level.
We're not asking folks to read Duns Scotus in the original Latin here.
I get that these texts might be difficult for a middle or high schooler, but for a seminary student taking a masters-level class?

I don't think Grudem's ST is about being dumbed down as much as it is about presenting an ST in a way which fits the biblicist tendencies of Evangelicalism (which I don't think are entirely bad, though they can be unhelpful of course). As I reflect it almost strikes me as an ST done by someone who deep down is a biblical theologian. I don't see why that kind of ST can't have its place as a good primer, though of course there are benefits to others which have more broad historical/philosophical reflection as part of their method.

 

[TheInquirer]

Maybe I'm being naive, but are normal systematics so impossible to understand that they need to be "dumbed down"?

Most are I think for the average lay elder or whoever might be teaching in substitute for a well-educated pastor. Beeke is a step in the right direction but hopefully they put out a 1 volume to compete with Grudem.

And this is I think the major problem with Grudem - because it is written so clearly it is used heavily by people who don't know any better and spread his errors.

 

[RamistThomist]

Just to clarify-- though I'm sure this has been fleshed out more elsewhere, when you say his view is not orthodox, are you saying it is heretical? Or simply that it is deficient and not as strong as the traditional Nicene/orthodox statement of the doctrine?

It would not pass muster at Nicea, and that is a big problem. That doesn't mean he is a full-orbed heretic, though. The Nicene Fathers admitted that differences of language could convey the same thought. I'm not persuaded, though, that Grudem intends only a difference of language. Other ESS guys, like Wilson, are semi-Arians, so that's different.