Thoughts on Wayne Grudem

[AThornquist]

With some of the logic in this thread, there is no way I could recommend a Presbyterian or Reformed systematic theology to a new believer; I would feel terrible if it contributed to them becoming paedobaptist, among other things. If I am going to wait for systematic theology that has everything right, I am going to be waiting for a long, long time.

 

[Peairtach]

His worst error is that he believes that true prophecy can have error. But he is looking at things through the lens of Pentecostalism/Charismatic experience, where "prophecy" does have error.

Just further confirmation - if needed - of the erroneousness of Pentecostalism.

Although he's Pentecostal he takes a good line on the baptism with the Spirit i.e. that all experience it at regeneration.

But he's easy to read for those who aren't used to reading systematics.

 

[Steve Curtis]

I've never thought that Grudem was Pentecostal. Charismatic, perhaps, but not Pentecostal. In fact, in the very treatment of the baptism of the Spirit occurring at regeneration, it would seem that he excludes himself from Pentecostalism.

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm just curious, is their a reason why the admin. have not commented about your signature (or the lack thereof?).

---------- Post added at 09:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 PM ----------

I would not recommend it to anyone.These "errors' are not slight but major,and dangerous.

I totally agree... adult only baptism and promotional of pure congregationalism is a major and dangerous error.

Come on brother. you walked right into that one.

I knew when I posted someone would do this ...I just was not sure who it would be,lol. Of course Adult only baptism is error. We both know it is believers baptism even if the believer is not yet an adult. The NT. is full of the command and teaching of this as you know....we do not even have to turn back to Gen17 to find a command for believers baptism, as the NT is very clear on baptism. I think we might have a few threads discussing this issue in the archives

 

[bookslover]

Best systematic theology except for : Church gov't, baptism, gifts of the spirit.

He also holds to a historic premil eschatology.

That's a good reason to like him!

 

[Marrow Man]

If I am going to wait for systematic theology that has everything right, I am going to be waiting for a long, long time.

No need to wait at all, my friend, as that ST was written about 450 years ago -- Calvin's Institutes.

 

[JML]

No need to wait at all, my friend, as that ST was written about 450 years ago -- Calvin's Institutes.

There is also John Gill's Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity. Plus Gill is a Baptist.

 

[Marrow Man]

On a more serious note, I think the point above is that we can benefit greatly from theologians and STs even if we don't agree with every single jot and tittle of their writing. Sometimes this trends toward the ridiculous. A year or so ago I bought a copy of James Ussher's A Body of Divinity from Solid Ground Christian Books. I genuinely like SGCB and especially what they do with reprinting classic reformed books. However, they found it necessary to put a disclaimer in the book stating how they disagreed with Ussher's views on baptism. Really? Was it necessary for Baptists to make it clear that they didn't agree with paedo-baptism?

I'm just glad they didn't find it necessary to deface Thornwell's four volume work on theology in the same way.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

Come on guys! The fact that there are people that say this book is in serious error over sign gifts, baptism, and historic premil is disheartening. Sounds like when Paul mentioned people that spent tons of time arguing over genealogy. The book is so thick that even if you rip those pages out, you have plenty of book left to read. I have only found 1 book that I can recommend if we are requiring 100% agreement as the basis. So throw all your theologies away because they could be wrong. Just read the Bible. It's the only way to be sure you will be agreeing 100% of the time.


And whats so terribly bad about being historic premil, credo, and moderate non-cessacionist

 

[jayce475]

Come on guys! The fact that there are people that say this book is in serious error over sign gifts, baptism, and historic premil is disheartening. Sounds like when Paul mentioned people that spent tons of time arguing over genealogy. The book is so thick that even if you rip those pages out, you have plenty of book left to read. I have only found 1 book that I can recommend if we are requiring 100% agreement as the basis. So throw all your theologies away because they could be wrong. Just read the Bible. It's the only way to be sure you will be agreeing 100% of the time.


And whats so terribly bad about being historic premil, credo, and moderate non-cessacionist

I don't think it's very fair to speak about these three in the same light as if they are similar. They're not. I, and many others, are premil and Reformed. One can be credo and Reformed, if one is willing to accept our Reformed Baptist brethren as Reformed. No one can be a "moderate non-cessationist", whatever nuance that may take and still be Reformed, as Charismatism is contrary to our Confessions as it undermines the sufficiency of Scripture. You may be of a different opinion, but many of us do view Charismatism as serious error at the very least, so yes, it is terribly bad.

I don't know about the personal experiences of others, but I have often found systematics to be quite influential in shaping the thinking of many of the brethren around me. Therefore, I would hesitate to recommend it to one whom I think may be influenced as such and if someone insists on reading it, I find it needful to warn him about the compromising remarks on worship and the Charismatism within the book. Many who are here on the Puritanboard are mature Christians or church ministers and so will not be easily misled by the book, but there are many younger sheep out there lacking discernment and the last thing we need is for them to pick up Grudem and start speaking in tongues. Next thing we know, they're jumping around in a Charismatic church that claims to preach the 5 points of Calvinism.

We do have the confessions and catechisms which systematize and summarize theology wonderfully and are suitable for the instruction of younger ones. There are plenty of books that expound upon them as well. Do we really need Grudem?

---------- Post added at 12:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 AM ----------

On the whole, much like Knowing God, I think Grudem's Systematic will go down as one of the most positively influential, popular books of our generation for the glory of Christ.

Really? And you are certain that it is not responsible for the creation of many a New Calvinist who marries charismatism with TULIP?

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Best systematic theology except for : Church gov't, baptism, gifts of the spirit.

He also holds to a historic premil eschatology.

Well, he's got that part right. ;-)

 

[Rom]

After my conversion, I was introduced to Grudem's Systematic through a Evangelical (Semi-Pelagian?) coworker of mine (I hesitate to use the word Arminian, as his theology didn't seem to account for what Arminians believe, prevenient grace and all that). He had railed against Calvinism (I was too immature to know what Calvinism was right after conversion!) and he had Grudem's Systematic on his desk. Evidently, he never read it - as I pointed out shortly after showing him the chapters on Predestination, Conversion, etc.

So I will always have fond memories of Grudem's work. That said, I've drifted more into a Presbyterian/Covenant Theology framework - and he doesn't do a very good job on covering/explaining the Covenants. I also disagree with his eschatology, and I've drifted more into the infant baptism camp.

His ST is light, and highly readable. Newcomers to a Calvinistic background will find it easy reading and very understandable. I continue to recommend it to my friends. However, I picked up Horton's ST recently, and boy - do I feel at home with it. It's great, and fits my current perspective much better.

But Grudem's teaches the BIG TRUTHS in such a great way that the lay-person will find very understandable. Especially when it comes to controversial issues where modern evangelicals split from the Reformed tradition (Predestination, etc.).

 

[MLCOPE2]

And whats so terribly bad about being historic premil, credo, and moderate non-cessacionist

I wasn't pointing out his position as an erroneous one, I was just pointing out the fact that his is a different position than most reformed folk hold.