Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology

[Reformed Covenanter]

Sorry, but give me the "boring" men of old who would drive me to my knees seeking understanding of truths versus those who would appeal to the hoi polloi all the while getting not a few matters wrong.

Could we not appeal to the hoi polloi while getting those matters right? A Presbyterian version of Wayne Grudem would be most welcome. Perhaps you could write it?

 

[Matthew1344]

I am with brother Rom on this. Better to read Berkhof, than Grudem.

I have read Louis Berkhof's ST twice, and still consider it to be the best (relatively) modern ST. However, I cannot read him all the time and need to read someone else.

Berkhof is thoroughly orthodox (especially from our Reformed perspective), but he's stunningly boring as a writer.

I think Louis Berkhof's boringness [if that is even a word] has been greatly exaggerated.

Never read berkhof. What is best book from him?

Matt, you might find his Manual of Christian Doctrine a good medium-length discussion of systematic theology. I had to consult it recently (having never read it before) and found it to be very clear and reasonably concise.

Thanks!

 

[MichaelNZ]

I've read only a small amount of Berkhof and Grudem's Systematic Theologies, but I find Grudem far easier to understand.

However, Berkhof's is available to download for free.

 

[Andres]

My pastor loves it.

Matthew, here are your own words from a previous thread:

i do not belong to a church that holds a confession. Actually i bet 95 % of my church doesnt know what a confession is.

I don't quote you to pick on you brother, but simply to show that, as wise brothers have noted, Grudem is NOT confessional. For so many champion & recommend his systematic, which isn't just non-confessional, but contra-confessional in several areas, is quite disappointing. So what if Grudem's style of writing is easy to read? You know who else is easy to read? 99% of the fluff on evangelical bookstores these days. Don't be lazy. Be willing to do the hard work and study solid, confessional writers. If you want to read a solid ST, read Berkhof. Read Bavinck. Read Beeke’s A Puritan Theology. If you need more recommendations, then search the archives on here or start a new thread.

As for the line of thinking that Grudem’s ST is the best recommendation for new converts due to it's "readability", I simply disagree. This isn't a case where we are on a deserted island with only a limited number of resources and so Grudem wins out. No, there are several easy-to-read sources that are better to give to new converts. First, the Westminster Standards themselves. Next, as Rom mentioned, Williamson and Vos' commentaries on the WCF and WLC. Next, someone mentioned that if Sproul had written a ST, they'd recommend that. Well, Sproul has written a three volume, lay-level commentary on the WCF, so why not recommend that? Again, if you are a confessional believer, which every member on this board is supposed to be, then there are numerous better options than Grudem’s contra-confessional ST.

 

[Rom]

I actually flipped through Grudem today - since I have it on Kindle format as well, it travels well . I'm even more convinced, particularly as you get to the sacraments, the chapter on Eschatology, Church Government - and most especially, the chapters on Spiritual Gifts, that I would never put it into the hands of a person at our church who was new to the faith or Confessional Presbyterianism. We often have (in our part of the world), folks who come from the 'Bible Belt', who need to be turned to what we see as the proper form of church governance (lots of Bible Churches, and Baptists), the proper view of the sacraments (for Baptists), a more accurate view of eschatology (trying to make them leave their 'left behind' theology, thanks DTS ), and a high view of Scripture (lots of Pentecostals out here as well). It is very unhelpful to have Grudem affirm all of their existing views, while we attempt to show them what we believe is Biblical. I think that is very unhealthy, personally to explain why their children should be baptized as Grudem affirms credo-baptism, etc., etc.

BTW, if you want an easy to read version of the (American version) of the Westminster Confession of Faith - the OPC has prepared one:
WCF and MESV in Parallel Columns.

I introduced a group of about 5 men who had never been in a Reformed Church before, to this edition of the Confession - after we had started with Grudem (and my own convictions started to change). They ate it up, and they thoroughly enjoyed studying through it. We loved it, and that was before I was ever "Reformed".

And if you are worried about Complementarianism, etc. - pick up separate books on that topic and hand them out. I believe Piper, and Grudem wrote separately on that. But so does Beeke (If I recall correctly), and others whom we would not disagree with.

 

[Rom]

Josh - my former pastor recommended Reymond's to me instead of Grudem when I first was investigating joining the PCA (at the time). I cannot say I've read as much of it, as I have of Grudem's - but what I did read seemed quite solid, and pretty approachable.

 

[Rich Koster]

In the past, in a former congregation, it was used as our Sunday School curriculum. One thing I appreciated about it was the way different viewpoints were listed and why he arrived upon his. While I think he was a little bit too generous with his comments about practices such as "slain in the spirit", the focus upon examining a believers fruit, rather than such an experience, was helpful.

 

[JonathanHunt]

If someone wanted a readable modern systematic, and was not as forgiving of Grudem as I am (being a baptist, he is easier for me to read both on baptism and polity) I would have to say Reymond. I wouldn't recommend Berkhof as a first-off read to most. He is very hard work. Excellent, but very difficult.

 

[reaganmarsh]

If we consider alternatives to Grudem, then in terms of ease of reading and overall sound theological content, I think of (SBC) John L. Dagg's "Manual of Theology". He writes for the non-specialist (though his book was used to train ministers), and achieves well the balance of faithfulness and accessibility.

I offer this suggestion as one who thoroughly enjoyed Grudem, even given our differences. We read him through at SBTS and I concur with our brother above who appreciated his simplicity, organization, and clear excitement for theology. I wish our people would read Bavinck, Reymond, Berkhof, Beeke, and Boyce. But reality is that they simply aren't doing so at present. So if someone will take up Grudem, I will work with them and do all in my power to steer them in the direction of even better theologians.

 

[rpeters]

Frame has put a new Systematic theology out, which may be inline with more Presbyterian thinking

 

[bookslover]

I wouldn't recommend Berkhof as a first-off read to most. He is very hard work. Excellent, but very difficult.

Jonathan, that's a good way to put it. Berkhof's not for beginners.

 

[Andres]

Frame has put a new Systematic theology out, which may be inline with more Presbyterian thinking

Lol...Frame may be worse than Grudem!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The late Dr. Robert Reymond has an excellent modern Systematic, if my anecdotal opinion is worth any interest to any. I'm rather surprised he hasn't been mentioned yet.

I would agree that there is much to commend in that volume, however, Dr Reymond's rejection of eternal generation means that it is a book that I do not recommend, as eternal generation is a fundamental doctrine. Dr Reymond himself may not have been hardened in his error, but in my book such an error is much too serious to allow me to recommend the volume. In fact, it could be much more dangerous than Dr Grudem's work precisely because the author was a Presbyterian clergyman and a professor at a Reformed seminary.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Matt, you might find his Manual of Christian Doctrine a good medium-length discussion of systematic theology. I had to consult it recently (having never read it before) and found it to be very clear and reasonably concise.

Thanks!

I took my own advice, as I managed to find a good second-hand copy of the book today. If you find Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology too difficult, then begin with his Summary of Christian Doctrine, then move on to his Manual, and then unto the ST itself.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

So what if Grudem's style of writing is easy to read? You know who else is easy to read? 99% of the fluff on evangelical bookstores these days. Don't be lazy.

Andrew, the point of communication is to be understood. That being the case, why is it wrong to commend a writer for writing with clarity? It is not a sign that one is being lazy by commending someone for writing in such a manner that they do not make things unnecessarily difficult to understand.

Be willing to do the hard work and study solid, confessional writers.

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? Indeed, it could be argued that those who adopt the mindset of only reading books by "our boys" are the ones who have really fallen into the lazy, slovenly mindset that you are warning against. Have you ever considered the breadth of authors that Samuel Rutherford and John Owen consulted?

 

[MW]

In fact, it could be much more dangerous than Dr Grudem's work precisely because the author was a Presbyterian clergyman and a professor at a Reformed seminary.

If I remember correctly, both of them affirm divine passions. One rejects the Westminster Confession outrightly and the other attempts to reinterpret it so as to exclude only bodily passions.

 

[DMcFadden]

My pastor loves it.

Matthew, here are your own words from a previous thread:

i do not belong to a church that holds a confession. Actually i bet 95 % of my church doesnt know what a confession is.

I don't quote you to pick on you brother, but simply to show that, as wise brothers have noted, Grudem is NOT confessional. For so many champion & recommend his systematic, which isn't just non-confessional, but contra-confessional in several areas, is quite disappointing. So what if Grudem's style of writing is easy to read? You know who else is easy to read? 99% of the fluff on evangelical bookstores these days. Don't be lazy. Be willing to do the hard work and study solid, confessional writers. If you want to read a solid ST, read Berkhof. Read Bavinck. Read Beeke’s A Puritan Theology. If you need more recommendations, then search the archives on here or start a new thread.

As for the line of thinking that Grudem’s ST is the best recommendation for new converts due to it's "readability", I simply disagree. This isn't a case where we are on a deserted island with only a limited number of resources and so Grudem wins out. No, there are several easy-to-read sources that are better to give to new converts. First, the Westminster Standards themselves. Next, as Rom mentioned, Williamson and Vos' commentaries on the WCF and WLC. Next, someone mentioned that if Sproul had written a ST, they'd recommend that. Well, Sproul has written a three volume, lay-level commentary on the WCF, so why not recommend that? Again, if you are a confessional believer, which every member on this board is supposed to be, then there are numerous better options than Grudem’s contra-confessional ST.

I do not understand the refusal to recommend a good book despite intramural disagreements.

I LOVE Sproul and have contributed to his ministry for years. But, by the standard being advocated by some, he would not pass muster either. First, he uses religious art in his church, including representations of members of the Trinity. Second, what is more offensive to my Presbyterian brethren: a Westminster grad like Grudem who accepts congregational polity in his systematic theology or a Presbyterian like Sproul who has pastored a church described as an "independent congregation in the Reformed tradition . . . Saint Andrew’s is not affiliated with a particular denomination"? And, then, for those of you who are EP, there is the matter of hymns and the proper observance of the Sabbath. If reading and recommending Sproul requires perfect agreement in all particulars, then he does not "qualify" either.

I fully support confessional Christianity and expect churches to hold their people (and certainly their leaders) to that standard. Presbyterian churches often require subscription by the leaders, 1689 congregations require varying degrees of confessional subscription, some other churches (e.g., conservative Lutheran groups) make confessional subscription a condition for membership. However tightly one draws the confessional circle, this does not mean that one may not read or cannot profit from systematic theologies of slightly different perspectives.

 

[Andres]

My pastor loves it.

Matthew, here are your own words from a previous thread:

i do not belong to a church that holds a confession. Actually i bet 95 % of my church doesnt know what a confession is.

I don't quote you to pick on you brother, but simply to show that, as wise brothers have noted, Grudem is NOT confessional. For so many champion & recommend his systematic, which isn't just non-confessional, but contra-confessional in several areas, is quite disappointing. So what if Grudem's style of writing is easy to read? You know who else is easy to read? 99% of the fluff on evangelical bookstores these days. Don't be lazy. Be willing to do the hard work and study solid, confessional writers. If you want to read a solid ST, read Berkhof. Read Bavinck. Read Beeke’s A Puritan Theology. If you need more recommendations, then search the archives on here or start a new thread.

As for the line of thinking that Grudem’s ST is the best recommendation for new converts due to it's "readability", I simply disagree. This isn't a case where we are on a deserted island with only a limited number of resources and so Grudem wins out. No, there are several easy-to-read sources that are better to give to new converts. First, the Westminster Standards themselves. Next, as Rom mentioned, Williamson and Vos' commentaries on the WCF and WLC. Next, someone mentioned that if Sproul had written a ST, they'd recommend that. Well, Sproul has written a three volume, lay-level commentary on the WCF, so why not recommend that? Again, if you are a confessional believer, which every member on this board is supposed to be, then there are numerous better options than Grudem’s contra-confessional ST.

I do not understand the refusal to recommend a good book despite intramural disagreements.

I LOVE Sproul and have contributed to his ministry for years. But, by the standard being advocated by some, he would not pass muster either. First, he uses religious art in his church, including representations of members of the Trinity. Second, what is more offensive to my Presbyterian brethren: a Westminster grad like Grudem who accepts congregational polity in his systematic theology or a Presbyterian like Sproul who has pastored a church described as an "independent congregation in the Reformed tradition . . . Saint Andrew’s is not affiliated with a particular denomination"? And, then, for those of you who are EP, there is the matter of hymns. If reading and recommending Sproul requires perfect agreement in all particulars, then he does not "qualify" either.

If someone asked me for a church recommendation in Sanford, FL, I would not recommend St Andrews. And depending on which subject matter is at hand, I would not always recommend Sproul's works for the reasons you've listed.

The issue isn't whether or not Grudem is 100% perfect in everything he has written in his ST (no fallible man will be) but rather the issue for me is that so many are singing the praises of Grudem's ST in spite of the fact that it's contra-confessional in many places and in spite of the fact that there are better options. But, never mind those issues because Grudem is "easy to read".

 

[DMcFadden]

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).

In my own teaching, I have used Grudem to teach several classes, supplementing him with works that come closer to my own thinking.

For me, it is similar to my preference of translation. Before the ESV, my Bible was the NIV and I used it in all preaching and teaching. As soon as the ESV became available, my only NIV is on my computer. If something better than the ESV surfaces, the ESV will be history. Grudem is my "go to" recommendation . . . for now. If a better choice appears, it will receive my support.

 

[Matthew1344]

My pastor loves it.

Matthew, here are your own words from a previous thread:

i do not belong to a church that holds a confession. Actually i bet 95 % of my church doesnt know what a confession is.

I don't quote you to pick on you brother, but simply to show that, as wise brothers have noted, Grudem is NOT confessional. For so many champion & recommend his systematic, which isn't just non-confessional, but contra-confessional in several areas, is quite disappointing. So what if Grudem's style of writing is easy to read? You know who else is easy to read? 99% of the fluff on evangelical bookstores these days. Don't be lazy. Be willing to do the hard work and study solid, confessional writers. If you want to read a solid ST, read Berkhof. Read Bavinck. Read Beeke’s A Puritan Theology. If you need more recommendations, then search the archives on here or start a new thread.

As for the line of thinking that Grudem’s ST is the best recommendation for new converts due to it's "readability", I simply disagree. This isn't a case where we are on a deserted island with only a limited number of resources and so Grudem wins out. No, there are several easy-to-read sources that are better to give to new converts. First, the Westminster Standards themselves. Next, as Rom mentioned, Williamson and Vos' commentaries on the WCF and WLC. Next, someone mentioned that if Sproul had written a ST, they'd recommend that. Well, Sproul has written a three volume, lay-level commentary on the WCF, so why not recommend that? Again, if you are a confessional believer, which every member on this board is supposed to be, then there are numerous better options than Grudem’s contra-confessional ST.

Thanks for the advice! I will def do that!

Right now I am reading "Knowing God" "Attributes of God" and "Pleasures of God". And also trying to learn more about the LBCF and WCF. As soon as I am done with those, Ill probably jump onto Burkhof. He seems to be a great read!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

If I remember correctly, both of them affirm divine passions. One rejects the Westminster Confession outrightly and the other attempts to reinterpret it so as to exclude only bodily passions.

Dr Grudem definitely does so (though he does so tentatively); I meant to mention that earlier. I will try to consult Dr Reymond's work again later today.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

so many are singing the praises of Grudem's ST in spite of the fact that it's contra-confessional in many places and in spite of the fact that there are better options. But, never mind those issues because Grudem is "easy to read".

Does anyone here deny that there are better options? I am currently reading Francis Turretin's Institutes, which is a much better option than any modern ST, but that does not stop me reading modern STs and finding them helpful in some/many respects.

As I said earlier, when it comes to modern STs, BIB is the rule: Berkhof is Best!

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

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?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

If I remember correctly, both of them affirm divine passions. One rejects the Westminster Confession outrightly and the other attempts to reinterpret it so as to exclude only bodily passions.

In fact, I have just looked for it now as Robert Reymond's book is on the shelf above my desk at home. Dr Reymond stated:

Thus whenever divine impassibility is interpreted to mean that god is impervious to human pain or incapable of empathizing with human grief it must be roundly denounced and rejected. When the Confession of Faith declares that God is "without ... passions" it should be understood to mean that God has no bodily passions such as hunger or the human drive for sexual fulfilment. ... We do, however, affirm that the creature cannot inflict suffering, pain, or any sort of distress upon him against his will. In this sense God is impassible.

R. L. Reymond, A new systematic theology of the Christian faith (Nashville, 1998), p. 179 (emphasis original).

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

 

[Logan]

I've mentioned before that I thoroughly enjoyed reading through Hodge's Systematic Theology, and he's about as confessional as one can get. Thorough, fair, bringing up various systems before rejecting them on the basis of Scripture and presenting the Scriptural doctrine. There are numerous quotes in German, Latin, and Greek that I had to skip though. I don't know how his "modernness" or readability compare to Grudem though, as I've never read the latter.

He's a little more structured than "Frankie" Turretin but I like Turretin too.

 

[RamistThomist]

So what if Grudem's style of writing is easy to read? You know who else is easy to read? 99% of the fluff on evangelical bookstores these days. Don't be lazy.

Andrew, the point of communication is to be understood. That being the case, why is it wrong to commend a writer for writing with clarity? It is not a sign that one is being lazy by commending someone for writing in such a manner that they do not make things unnecessarily difficult to understand.

Be willing to do the hard work and study solid, confessional writers.

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? Indeed, it could be argued that those who adopt the mindset of only reading books by "our boys" are the ones who have really fallen into the lazy, slovenly mindset that you are warning against. Have you ever considered the breadth of authors that Samuel Rutherford and John Owen consulted?

Agreed, Daniel. There is a lot of things I am guilty of, but this probably isn't it. I honed my Latin so I could better read Protestant Scholastics. I've read through volume 1 of Muller's PRRD at least two times through. I've read Volume 2 of Bavinck at least three times cover-to-cover, plus over 2,500 pages of the Church Fathers and the leading monographs from Oxford University on them. I've read through volumes 1 and 2 of Turretin of Turretin and all of Hodge. Yay, I speak as a fool.

I'm teaching myself French so I better understand Continental Philosophy and better respond to postmodern challenges to the Faith--and continue same challenges to modernity.

 

[Pilgrim]

How does James Montgomery Boice compare?

I've had that book for a while but also haven't read it through yet. It looks to be strong on inerrancy, soteriology, and the "basic" doctrines of the faith. But it is weak on ecclesiology and especially eschatology. By that I mean that the different views on baptism and eschatology are hardly given any treatment at all. So it is not a comprehensive text despite being over 700 pages long and organized along the lines of Calvin's institutes.

That being said, it might not be a bad place to start. It was aimed at the layman and may be equal to Grudem with regard to accessibility for those who aren't used to reading that kind of book. It would have to be supplemented with other material on baptism and eschatology.

 

[Pilgrim]

Does anyone know if his son, the Revd Elliot Grudem has any plans to publish any major theological writings? Elliot is a Presbyterian minister and a graduate of RTS; a Presbyterian version of his dad's ST would be most welcome!

The only thing I can recall offhand him having his name on is as the editor of a very condensed version of his father's work. As with Berkhof (Systematic Theology, Manual of Theology, and Summary of Christian Doctrine,) Grudem's work has basically been issued in 3 sizes: large, medium (Bible Doctrine) and small.

He is now affiliated with Acts 29 and evidently left Presbyterianism behind several years ago. It may be that Acts 29 lets Presbyterians affiliate, (and he was a church planter (or replanter) as a Presbyterian but the church he is serving now is baptistic. And he was at Mars Hill before that.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I am going to start marketing the Ellisville Presbyterian Church, ARP as "Vintage 1646"...

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Chris, thanks for those items of information.