What is the Best One-Volume Systematic Theology?

[bookslover]

Strong is fantastic. In fact, Culver gets most of his inspiration from him. Unfortunately, unless I am mistaken, Strong’s ST is more than one volume.

And the font size is even dinkier than in Culver!

Wasn't Strong considered "hyper" in some theological area?

 

[Taylor]

Wasn't Strong considered "hyper" in some theological area?

I’m not sure. He did hold to a kind of inclusivism. He thought that since the Patriarchs were saved by believing in the true God, yet having little to no knowledge of Christ, then being saved without being an explicit Christian, yet somehow trusting in the true God, is at least theoretically possible. Whether he believed it was actually possible, I’m not sure. He only mentions this in something of a passing comment, and doesn’t seem to develop it further.

 

[Dachaser]

Strong is fantastic. In fact, Culver gets most of his inspiration from him. Unfortunately, unless I am mistaken, Strong’s ST is more than one volume.

AH Strong, was for years the main Baptist ST used, until supplemented by the ones by Dr Erickison and Grudem.

 

[Dachaser]

I’m not sure. He did hold to a kind of inclusivism. He thought that since the Patriarchs were saved by believing in the true God, yet having little to no knowledge of Christ, then being saved without being an explicit Christian, yet somehow trusting in the true God, is at least theoretically possible. Whether he believed it was actually possible, I’m not sure. He only mentions this in something of a passing comment, and doesn’t seem to develop it further.

The main area that he seems to have problems would be in origins, as he seemed to hold with Theistic Evolution in a sense.

 

[Pilgrim]

Strong is fantastic. In fact, Culver gets most of his inspiration from him. Unfortunately, unless I am mistaken, Strong’s ST is more than one volume.

I'm not sure I buy that unless you have a specific quote in mind. While he quotes Strong many times, my impression is that Culver (despite being baptistic) is much more influenced by Shedd than Strong. He leans on him heavily at certain points (traducianism, a nuanced view of limited atonement, and more.)

While it is an important work, there are things to beware of in Strong, perhaps moreso than normal for writers of that era, most if not all of whom accepted theistic evolution. Admittedly I'm basing this on a post by Paul Martin Henebury although I want to say I've seen problems with Strong discussed elsewhere. Henebury is a dispensationalist, but he doesn't slight authors just because he disagrees with them, as can be seen with his laudatory comments about the Reformed ST texts that he mentions.

“What about A.H. Strong?”, the American Baptists say. Well, I am one of those (like J. Murray and B.B. Warfield) who believes that he is more trouble than he is worth. He rejects inerrancy, accepts both evolutionary dogma and historical criticism, and, furthermore, lurches toward pantheism in his so-called ethical monism. Evangelicals should fish in better waters!

For what it's worth, Henebury gives a full review of Culver here.

Interestingly, while Culver quotes Reymond (1998) many times, I've yet to find Grudem (1994) in the book even though it was published earlier. (I've found things in the text that aren't in the index, so maybe he's in there somewhere!) Culver's ST was written over about a 30 year period, and you can see that some sections are a bit more "dated" than others, but other sections include citations from this century. My guess is that he didn't think that Grudem added much to what he already had moreso than some thought he may have had that Grudem didn't rate as a theologian. Regardless, Culver not interacting with charismaticism in any detail at all is probably one of the weaknesses of the book given the fact that more and more of evangelicalism is continuationist if not full blown charismatic.

 

[Dachaser]

I'm not sure I buy that unless you have a specific quote in mind. While he quotes Strong many times, my impression is that Culver (despite being baptistic) is much more influenced by Shedd than Strong. He leans on him heavily at certain points (traducianism, a nuanced view of limited atonement, and more.)

While it is an important work, there are things to beware of in Strong, perhaps moreso than normal for writers of that era, most if not all of whom accepted theistic evolution. Admittedly I'm basing this on a post by Paul Martin Henebury although I want to say I've seen problems with Strong discussed elsewhere. Henebury is a dispensationalist, but he doesn't slight authors just because he disagrees with them, as can be seen with his laudatory comments about the Reformed ST texts that he mentions.



For what it's worth, Henebury gives a full review of Culver here.

Interestingly, while Culver quotes Reymond (1998) many times, I've yet to find Grudem (1994) in the book even though it was published earlier. (I've found things in the text that aren't in the index, so maybe he's in there somewhere!) Culver's ST was written over about a 30 year period, and you can see that some sections are a bit more "dated" than others, but other sections include citations from this century. My guess is that he didn't think that Grudem added much to what he already had moreso than some thought he may have had that Grudem didn't rate as a theologian. Regardless, Culver not interacting with charismaticism in any detail at all is probably one of the weaknesses of the book given the fact that more and more of evangelicalism is continuationist if not full blown charismatic.

The Charismatic camp of the Church really does not have that many really good works produced on theology, as much of it seems to be more line with the Surprised by the Spirit type of pop theology. That much of modern day Evangelicalism seems to be heading towards Charismatic Chaos would to me be an indictment of just how poorly the theology has been developed in that group of believers.

 

[Taylor]

I'm not sure I buy that unless you have a specific quote in mind. While he quotes Strong many times, my impression is that Culver (despite being baptistic) is much more influenced by Shedd than Strong. He leans on him heavily at certain points (traducianism, a nuanced view of limited atonement, and more.)

Perhaps I overstated with the word "most." However, what I meant by "inspiration" is not that Culver received a lot of his content or ideas from Strong, but simply that Culver (it at least seems to me in reading his systematic theology) saw himself as standing in the ancestral line, as it were, of A. H. Strong—i.e., big works of Baptist systematic theology. Yes, theologically Culver probably has a bit in common with Shedd.

The Charismatic camp of the Church really does not have that many really good works produced on theology, as much of it seems to be more line with the Surprised by the Spirit type of pop theology.

J. Rodman Williams' work Renewal Theology has been around for quite a while now.

 

[Dachaser]

Perhaps I overstated with the word "most." However, what I meant by "inspiration" is not that Culver received a lot of his content or ideas from Strong, but simply that Culver (it at least seems to me in reading his systematic theology) saw himself as standing in the ancestral line, as it were, of A. H. Strong—i.e., big works of Baptist systematic theology. Yes, theologically Culver probably has a bit in common with Shedd.



J. Rodman Williams' work Renewal Theology has been around for quite a while now.

Have you read that volume then?

 

[Taylor]

Have you read that volume then?

Which volume? Williams? Not all the way through, no. But I have read portions for reference.

 

[Dachaser]

Which volume? Williams? Not all the way through, no. But I have read portions for reference.

What was interesting to me was that even while was being trained at the AOG school did not use a Pentecostal textbook for Systematic Theology.