Which should I read?

[Notthemama1984]

I have to read Bavinck's abridged Domatics and Horton's "Christian Life" by Jan. 1st.

I am going to start one tomorrow. Which should I read first?

 

[Covenant Joel]

I haven't read Horton, so I suppose my recommendation is hardly balanced in terms of opinion, but I'm a huge fan of Bavinck. I've read the 4-volume Dogmatics, and I would think that a distillation of that would be well worth your time.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I have to read both, so I am just letting someone else choose which I read first.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Read Bavinck first.

Horton is good, but it might help you to first read someone who isn't as enamored of Lutheran theology.

Having read Horton cover to cover I can safely say that his work was very refreshing, but I found myself rolling my eyes at how hard he seems to work to make it seem like Lutherans and Reformed folks are really on the same sheet of music and they we've been walking down the halls of history holding hands.

 

[N. Eshelman]

I haven't read Horton yet (I am sure it's good), but there is NO reason to read that without first reading:
Bavinck
Brakel
Berkhof
Hodge
Turretin
Calvin

In my humble opinion.

 

[Notthemama1984]

there is NO reason to read that without first reading:

Except that it is a required reading for an upcoming class.

 

[N. Eshelman]

there is NO reason to read that without first reading:

Except that it is a required reading for an upcoming class.

Guess my NO was a bit emphatic, eh?

 

[Andres]

I voted Bavinck for two very important reasons: chronologically (it was written first) and alphabetically (B comes before H).

 

[Brother John]

Bavinck

 

[Notthemama1984]

Not a lot of love for Horton I see

 

[SolaScriptura]

Not a lot of love for Horton I see

You're misinterpreting me. Horton is a gifted theologian. In his theology text he goes to great pains to interact with Roman, Eastern, Neo-Orthodox, and Liberal theologians. In fact, he tries wherever possible to cite them positively. (But he does note areas of disagreement.) In my opinion he interacts far better, and definitely far more extensively, with these non-Evangelical streams of theology than with Evangelical. As such, I'd recommend his text for someone wanting to interact primarily with those systems. Of course, as is noted in many places, Horton's version of Reformed theology is somewhat Lutheranized. I'm not saying that as a good or bad thing. It is what it is. As such, I simply think it would be helpful to read a more "traditional" Reformed theologian before reading one that adds nuance to the system.

Frankly, I'm still waiting for a thoroughly Reformed "version" of Grudem's Systematic Theology. In terms of layout, format, etc., I contend it is my ideal for what an introductory systematic should be. Maybe I'll have to get a PhD, become respectable, and then write it myself.

 

[Romans922]

Why read Horton when you can read Bavinck?

 

[Notthemama1984]

When I said no love I did not mean to imply hate.

I just expected the poll to be closer to 50/50.

---------- Post added at 09:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 AM ----------

Why read Horton when you can read Bavinck?

because my prof said to