Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology

[RamistThomist]

I am currently one-third of the way through Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (2007 edition), having never read it before. What are your thoughts on this volume (or any of the earlier editions of the work)?

One difference from the earlier editions is his view of baptism and how it relates to church membership. (I can't recall if he also changed his views on the terms of communion or not.) Earlier he taught open membership, where for example, a Presbyterian could join a Baptist church without being immersed. But upon further review he changed his mind and now affirms the traditional Baptist view. He goes into this in some detail in his ST and perhaps elsewhere. He notes that churches like the Evangelical Free Churches (which If I recall correctly he may have been affiliated with at one time, having been on the faculty at their seminary) which take an open view on the baptism question too often end up deemphasizing baptism altogether, with members who haven't been baptized by anyone's definition.

Something else of note is his view of the Apostle's Creed. He believes that the phrase "He descended into hell" is indefensible. A journal article of his where he argues that position can be found here.

I first had the recent edition, gave it away, but found a first edition (I think) at a book sale. I'll look into that.

 

[DMcFadden]

EDIT - Question for Dennis: You recommend Wayne Grudem very highly, but are you saying that all older STs do not constitute better options than Dr Grudem's work?

Do I consider Grudem a better "option" for a student today? Yes. Are there better theologians or theologies than Grudem in the past? Absolutely!!! Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Gerhard, a' Brakel, Bavinck, Dabney, Hodge, Shedd, Barth, Moltmann, Carl F.H. Henry, et. al. are "better" systematic theologians. I observed that teachers use books for different reasons. And, Grudem is my most recommended book for a systematic theology, not the best theologian, or my favorite theologian, or the one I agree with the most.

Issues (not in order) such as orthodoxy, price, comprehensiveness, bibliography, readability, likelihood of future usefulness and repeated reference, handling of biblical texts, compactness, reputation, interaction with current controversies and other points of view, balance in handling controversial subjects, and fairness in evaluating those with whom one disagrees, and the like enter into my thinking when recommending a book.

Barth is a "greater" theologian and certainly more comprehensive (at 9,000 pages), but he is not conservative enough, difficult to read, and exceedingly verbose. Turretin and a'Brakel are wonderful but they do not deal with current controversies and cannot provide the kind of additional bibliographic help I want in a book used for students.

Somebody commented that this is not a "desert island" type situation so why limit oneself to one source such as Grudem. Indeed, why? Grudem is a GREAT entry to the subject of theology. He should be augmented, supplemented, and contradicted by any number of solid confessional sources (depending on one's confessional commitments).

 

[MW]

I am citing from the first edition here; does anyone know if Dr Reymond modified this teaching in the later edition of his ST?

The second edition contains the same wording and pagination. The book, What is God, discussing unchangeableness, also argues the point.

 

[Andres]

Do you seriously think that Jacob and myself, who, despite being confessional have found Dr Grudem's work helpful in some respects, are not willing to do hard work and study solid, confessional writers?

Daniel, No I do not think that of yourself, Jacob, or anyone else on this board. I did not intend to imply this and I apologize if I did. I am quite sure that you two men and many others on here are far more knowledgable than myself and have likely studied more difficult books than myself. My intention with that comment was in reaction to the comments that kept coming up regarding Grudem - yes, we disagree with him, but he's more readable than the other authors we do agree with.

Teachers recommend books for a variety of reasons. You clearly believe that there are "better options." That is a reasonable and defensible position to hold. However, some of us do not agree. For some audiences and some purposes, I judge Grudem the very best option currently available in English, even though his work does not agree with me theologically on numerous points (e.g., creation, eschatology, spiritual gifts).

Then we shall agree to disagree and I will continue to have nothing but the utmost respect for you brother.

 

[DMcFadden]

Andrew, I always read your posts with great appreciation and benefit. Mutual respect indeed.

 

[bookslover]

EDIT - Question for Dennis: You recommend Wayne Grudem very highly, but are you saying that all older STs do not constitute better options than Dr Grudem's work?

Do I consider Grudem a better "option" for a student today? Yes. Are there better theologians or theologies than Grudem in the past? Absolutely!!! Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Gerhard, a' Brakel, Bavinck, Dabney, Hodge, Shedd, Barth, Moltmann, Carl F.H. Henry, et. al. are "better" systematic theologians. I observed that teachers use books for different reasons. And, Grudem is my most recommended book for a systematic theology, not the best theologian, or my favorite theologian, or the one I agree with the most.

Issues (not in order) such as orthodoxy, price, comprehensiveness, bibliography, readability, likelihood of future usefulness and repeated reference, handling of biblical texts, compactness, reputation, interaction with current controversies and other points of view, balance in handling controversial subjects, and fairness in evaluating those with whom one disagrees, and the like enter into my thinking when recommending a book.

Barth is a "greater" theologian and certainly more comprehensive (at 9,000 pages), but he is not conservative enough, difficult to read, and exceedingly verbose. Turretin and a'Brakel are wonderful but they do not deal with current controversies and cannot provide the kind of additional bibliographic help I want in a book used for students.

Somebody commented that this is not a "desert island" type situation so why limit oneself to one source such as Grudem. Indeed, why? Grudem is a GREAT entry to the subject of theology. He should be augmented, supplemented, and contradicted by any number of solid confessional sources (depending on one's confessional commitments).

Hear, hear, Dennis! Well said.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel, No I do not think that of yourself, Jacob, or anyone else on this board. I did not intend to imply this and I apologize if I did. I am quite sure that you two men and many others on here are far more knowledgable than myself and have likely studied more difficult books than myself. My intention with that comment was in reaction to the comments that kept coming up regarding Grudem - yes, we disagree with him, but he's more readable than the other authors we do agree with.

Thanks for your explanation, Andrew.

 

[nick]

I liked reading it while I was at a New Calvinism Baptist church. Highly recommended to me by my pastor (1 of 2 times I spoke with the pastor in my 7 years of being a member... mega-churches... *sigh*). Before that, I also enjoyed reading Charles Stanley's Handbook For Christian Living while at a free-will Baptist church. That paired well with the Left Behind novels I was reading at the time. Still have both Grudem's and Stanley's books, and I still have fond memories of how the Lord used the contents to further reform me.

Praise God he used them in my life, but I wouldn't recommend them to anyone now. I've been reading through William Plumer's Theology for the People (also free online) with my pastor and a group of people from church. A lot easier to read than Grudem if you ask me.



PS: Left Behind got... left behind. *rimshot*

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I've been reading through William Plumer's Theology for the People (also free online)

You can get the original pagination from the following link: https://archive.org/details/truthsforpeople00plum

 

[Abeard]

Has anyone read Douglas Kelly's systematic?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Has anyone read Douglas Kelly's systematic?

I have read the first volume. With all due respect to Dr Kelly, it read a bit like a calendar of historical sources (especially patristic sources), rather than a standard systematic theology. This approach is quite useful for those eager to explore the Early Church Fathers, but I would have preferred to have read more of his own musings. I have since given the first volume away, and do not think that I will read the second volume.

I really wish that Derek Thomas would write a systematic theology. His School of Theology lectures are superb; I have never encountered anyone who can explain difficult concepts with such simplicity and clarity.

 

[DMcFadden]

Has anyone read Douglas Kelly's systematic?

I have read the first volume. With all due respect to Dr Kelly, it read a bit like a calendar of historical sources (especially patristic sources), rather than a standard systematic theology. This approach is quite useful for those eager to explore the Early Church Fathers, but I would have preferred to have read more of his own musings. I have since given the first volume away, and do not think that I will read the second volume.

I really wish that Derek Thomas would write a systematic theology. His School of Theology lectures are superb; I have never encountered anyone who can explain difficult concepts with such simplicity and clarity.

I had not bothered with Kelley's second volume either. But check out these recommendations:

One of those rare books that will shape both scholarly and pastoral theology for generations to come.
Richard Pratt ~ President, Third millennium Ministries, Orlando, Florida

Nothing less than remarkable.
William Edgar ~ Professor of Apologetics, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

A joy to witness... a model to which others should aspire.
Carl R. Trueman ~ Paul Woolley Professor of Historical Theology and Church History, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Unless Trueman is like Packer (who evidently has never met a book he didn't like), this is high praise. I think it might be worth a look.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Unless Trueman is like Packer (who evidently has never met a book he didn't like), this is high praise.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

In his book The Message of the Person of Christ, Robert Letham says that he is working on a systematic theology. At long last, we may have found a worthy successor to Louis Berkhof. No disrespect to anyone else, but I suspect that Bob's work will result in the systematic theology for the modern era.

 

[py3ak]

In his book The Message of the Person of Christ, Robert Letham says that he is working on a systematic theology. At long last, we may have found a worthy successor to Louis Berkhof. No disrespect to anyone else, but I suspect that Bob's work will result in the systematic theology for the modern era.

No systematic theology would deserve to become the standard if it neglected the Protestant Scholastics as badly as his volume on the Trinity did.

 

[Pilgrim]

Most ST texts that I can think of offhand that have been published in the past 50 years have some kind of idiosyncrasy or something that, in the eyes of many, would prevent them from being recommended without qualification to the "people in the pews." Grudem's have been noted here. When it was published, Horton was hailed as the long awaited replacement for Berkhof, but given the focus that Jacob notes above, it's not necessarily suited for the kinds of questions the average layman is going to have and addresses issues that he is not likely to ever deal with unless he is flirting with EO or some other non-evangelical thought. I think he sometimes strawmans opposing views as well. The issues with Frame have been gone over here ad nauseum over the past decade.

Going further back, something like A.A. Hodge's "Outlines of Theology" is still very useful with regard to the basics, in my opinion. Going back much further, Thomas Watson's "Body of Divinity" is still quite useful and is easy to read for a Puritan text.

With regard to Reymond, I was under the impression that his teaching on Trinitarian issues was improved if not fixed in the second edition. If I recall correctly the foul he committed in the first edition went beyond the eternal generation issue. But I may be mistaken. He also teaches that in some sense God is the author of sin, which is not generally the Reformed view.

With regard to what book to read, it largely depends on the one who is asking. Some people are better able to eat the meat and spit out the bones than others.

 

[bookslover]

Packer never wrote a systematic theology which, in my view, is unfortunate (due to the clarity with which he expresses himself). Perhaps some enterprising soul will transcribe his systematics lectures so they can be published one day.

 

[Pilgrim]

Packer never wrote a systematic theology which, in my view, is unfortunate (due to the clarity with which he expresses himself). Perhaps some enterprising soul will transcribe his systematics lectures so they can be published one day.

While certainly not a systematic text, there is his "Concise Theology" which contains the articles he wrote for the Reformation Study Bible.

 

[RamistThomist]

In his book The Message of the Person of Christ, Robert Letham says that he is working on a systematic theology. At long last, we may have found a worthy successor to Louis Berkhof. No disrespect to anyone else, but I suspect that Bob's work will result in the systematic theology for the modern era.

No systematic theology would deserve to become the standard if it neglected the Protestant Scholastics as badly as his volume on the Trinity did.

I didn't notice it until now, and even though I've read his book on the Trinity half a dozen times, he doesn't deal with the Protestant scholastics. Interestingly enough, Michael Horton interacts and builds upon Turretin throughout his more scholarly works.

 

[RamistThomist]

Most ST texts that I can think of offhand that have been published in the past 50 years have some kind of idiosyncrasy or something that, in the eyes of many, would prevent them from being recommended without qualification to the "people in the pews." Grudem's have been noted here. When it was published, Horton was hailed as the long awaited replacement for Berkhof, but given the focus that Jacob notes above, it's not necessarily suited for the kinds of questions the average layman is going to have and addresses issues that he is not likely to ever deal with unless he is flirting with EO or some other non-evangelical thought. I think he sometimes strawmans opposing views as well. The issues with Frame have been gone over here ad nauseum over the past decade.

Going further back, something like A.A. Hodge's "Outlines of Theology" is still very useful with regard to the basics, in my opinion. Going back much further, Thomas Watson's "Body of Divinity" is still quite useful and is easy to read for a Puritan text.

With regard to Reymond, I was under the impression that his teaching on Trinitarian issues was improved if not fixed in the second edition. If I recall correctly the foul he committed in the first edition went beyond the eternal generation issue. But I may be mistaken. He also teaches that in some sense God is the author of sin, which is not generally the Reformed view.

With regard to what book to read, it largely depends on the one who is asking. Some people are better able to eat the meat and spit out the bones than others.

Here is how I look at it:

1) If you are debating RCC or EO, do NOT go to Grudem. Go to Charles Hodge or Turretin (or to a lesser degree AA Hodge).
2) If you want mighty soul-stirring passages with an occasional thrust against Rome, Watson is the best.
3) If you want to attack feminism and evangelical arminianism, then Grudem is the best.
4) If you want to interact with postmodernism from a systematic theology perspective and actually offer serious critiques that aren't staw-men, then Michael Horton is the best.
5) If you want a good summary, then Berkhof is probably the best.
6) If you want the complete triumph of Reformed thought, Bavinck is the best.
Honorable mention: Dabney.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

In his book The Message of the Person of Christ, Robert Letham says that he is working on a systematic theology. At long last, we may have found a worthy successor to Louis Berkhof. No disrespect to anyone else, but I suspect that Bob's work will result in the systematic theology for the modern era.

No systematic theology would deserve to become the standard if it neglected the Protestant Scholastics as badly as his volume on the Trinity did.

I didn't notice it until now, and even though I've read his book on the Trinity half a dozen times, he doesn't deal with the Protestant scholastics. Interestingly enough, Michael Horton interacts and builds upon Turretin throughout his more scholarly works.

Seriously? That is some going!

I will wait until Bob's ST comes out before speculating as to his interaction with the Protestant scholastics; he is, nonetheless, one of the best living Reformed theologians, and is a real blessing to the church (and yes, I disagree with him on creation and psalmody). Although I repeat my stated wish that Derek Thomas would write an ST.

 

[bookslover]

Most ST texts that I can think of offhand that have been published in the past 50 years have some kind of idiosyncrasy or something that, in the eyes of many, would prevent them from being recommended without qualification to the "people in the pews." Grudem's have been noted here. When it was published, Horton was hailed as the long awaited replacement for Berkhof, but given the focus that Jacob notes above, it's not necessarily suited for the kinds of questions the average layman is going to have and addresses issues that he is not likely to ever deal with unless he is flirting with EO or some other non-evangelical thought. I think he sometimes strawmans opposing views as well. The issues with Frame have been gone over here ad nauseum over the past decade.

Going further back, something like A.A. Hodge's "Outlines of Theology" is still very useful with regard to the basics, in my opinion. Going back much further, Thomas Watson's "Body of Divinity" is still quite useful and is easy to read for a Puritan text.

With regard to Reymond, I was under the impression that his teaching on Trinitarian issues was improved if not fixed in the second edition. If I recall correctly the foul he committed in the first edition went beyond the eternal generation issue. But I may be mistaken. He also teaches that in some sense God is the author of sin, which is not generally the Reformed view.

With regard to what book to read, it largely depends on the one who is asking. Some people are better able to eat the meat and spit out the bones than others.

Here is how I look at it:

1) If you are debating RCC or EO, do NOT go to Grudem. Go to Charles Hodge or Turretin (or to a lesser degree AA Hodge).
2) If you want mighty soul-stirring passages with an occasional thrust against Rome, Watson is the best.
3) If you want to attack feminism and evangelical arminianism, then Grudem is the best.
4) If you want to interact with postmodernism from a systematic theology perspective and actually offer serious critiques that aren't staw-men, then Michael Horton is the best.
5) If you want a good summary, then Berkhof is probably the best.
6) If you want the complete triumph of Reformed thought, Bavinck is the best.
Honorable mention: Dabney.

What?! No Lewis Sperry Chafer?? LOL