Systematic Theology - What's your Choice?

[Mikey]

What are peoples favourite or go-to Systematic Theology book(s)?

I'm just started on MacArthur's Essential Christian Doctrine and recently ordered Robert Letham's Systematic Theology, which looks quite extensive for a single volume ST.

 

[Van]

Background material from Bible Hub:

Key Divisions

Systematic theology typically divides doctrines into distinct yet interrelated categories:

1. Bibliology - The study of Scripture’s nature, authority, and formation.

2. Theology Proper - The study of God’s being, attributes, and triune nature.

3. Christology - The study of the Person and work of Jesus Christ, including His incarnation, deity, humanity, atoning death, and resurrection.

4. Pneumatology - The study of the Holy Spirit’s Person and work, encompassing topics like regeneration, sanctification, and spiritual gifts.

5. Anthropology - The study of humanity’s origin, nature, and purpose, including discussions of sin and God’s plan for redemption.

6. Soteriology - The study of salvation, focusing on grace, faith, and the atoning work of Christ that leads to justification, sanctification, and glorification.

7. Ecclesiology - The study of the Church, examining its nature, mission, governance, and ordinances.

8. Eschatology - The study of last things, covering the second coming of Christ, resurrection of the dead, final judgment, and the new heavens and new earth.

In exploring these areas systematically, one sees the unity of God’s plan, from creation to redemption to the eventual restoration of all things (Revelation 21:1-4).​

 

[Kai]

I never thought it unwise to compare more than one theological system with differing schools of thought. During Bible study, we initially used Ryrie's Basic Theology and later incorporated Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem. The latter seems to be one of the more popular ones out there these days.

 

[Van]

The key or foundation of our understanding of each of the above aspects of our theology must be our understanding of specific teachings of scripture.

Rather than indoctrination, where we accept the viewpoints of others, our effort to "Know what we believe" must come from our own study of His word.

Which is NOT to say we should not consider what others, such as Ryrie understood about one or all of the above topics.

 

[kyredneck]

Systematic Theology

Now that I have time available, I am wanting to further my education into God's word. Some 35 years back I attended a few classes at an IFB (local church) college, but was unable to continue as life got in the way. I would like to begin with a course on Systematic Theology, and this is an...

www.baptistboard.com

 

[Mikey]

Thanks @kyredneck i didn't see that thread.

I see that Millard Erickson's Christian Theology is quite popular. And perhaps the only Systematic Theology to rival Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology in terms of popularity.

I've used Grudem's but haven't read any of Erickson's.

​

 

[Deacon]

What are peoples favourite or go-to Systematic Theology book(s)?

I'm just started on MacArthur's Essential Christian Doctrine and recently ordered Robert Letham's Systematic Theology, which looks quite extensive for a single volume ST.

I find MacArthur too dogmatic for my tastes... I've passed on most of his books to others who are more tolerant than I.

Letham's text is nice. He's quite readable; he provides good examples. It is organized quite differently from any other ST text I've read.
He's very Reformed in his theology, citing the Westminster Catechism of Faith (WCF) quite a few times before completing a topic
He references great theologians throughout church history, as well prominent Systematic Theologians.

My own background is science. I tend judge a text on how it deals with the topic of Creation/Evolution.
Letham begins his discussion, "Creation and evolution. Space precludes anything more than a cursory summary of a huge topic." (p. 286)
Someone once said a good book begins by re-stating the obvious.

He's not a 7/24 Creationist... after discussing the theory, he lists 9 weaknesses of the theory.
But he's not hung up on any particular scientific theory either...
In the Appendix on the exegesis of Genesis 1, he writes:
We have no need to accept current scientific theories uncritically, prone as they are to revision at some future point. The closer the commitment to current paradigms, the greater the danger when they are jettisoned or relativized. Notwithstanding, we need to be cautious about our exegetical theories when the evidence may not be as clear cut as we might suppose, and weaknesses are present in all of them. Here we face the great danger of identifying our own understanding with the truth of God. Scientific theories are at root provisional, liable to be improved or abandoned by further evidence; so it is with biblical exegesis. As the WCF puts it, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves” (WCF, 1.7). (p. 929)

After going over many different Creationist theories, he concludes:
The exegesis of Genesis 1 is far from cut and dried. No proposal on the chapter is free from problems. It is true that some interpretations have been devised expressly with a view to seeking an accommodation with Darwinian evolution or with geology. However, the twenty-four-hour-day theory, while having a pedigree throughout the history of the church, was by no means the only one in the field. (p. 932)

I wouldn't say his text my first go-to ST but it has value.

Rob

 

[Mikey]

I find MacArthur too dogmatic for my tastes... I've passed on most of his books to others who are more tolerant than I.

Letham's text is nice. He's quite readable; he provides good examples. It is organized quite differently from any other ST text I've read.
He's very Reformed in his theology, citing the Westminster Catechism of Faith (WCF) quite a few times before completing a topic
He references great theologians throughout church history, as well prominent Systematic Theologians.

My own background is science. I tend judge a text on how it deals with the topic of Creation/Evolution.
Letham begins his discussion, "Creation and evolution. Space precludes anything more than a cursory summary of a huge topic." (p. 286)
Someone once said a good book begins by re-stating the obvious.

He's not a 7/24 Creationist... after discussing the theory, he lists 9 weaknesses of the theory.
But he's not hung up on any particular scientific theory either...
In the Appendix on the exegesis of Genesis 1, he writes:
We have no need to accept current scientific theories uncritically, prone as they are to revision at some future point. The closer the commitment to current paradigms, the greater the danger when they are jettisoned or relativized. Notwithstanding, we need to be cautious about our exegetical theories when the evidence may not be as clear cut as we might suppose, and weaknesses are present in all of them. Here we face the great danger of identifying our own understanding with the truth of God. Scientific theories are at root provisional, liable to be improved or abandoned by further evidence; so it is with biblical exegesis. As the WCF puts it, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves” (WCF, 1.7). (p. 929)

After going over many different Creationist theories, he concludes:
The exegesis of Genesis 1 is far from cut and dried. No proposal on the chapter is free from problems. It is true that some interpretations have been devised expressly with a view to seeking an accommodation with Darwinian evolution or with geology. However, the twenty-four-hour-day theory, while having a pedigree throughout the history of the church, was by no means the only one in the field. (p. 932)

I wouldn't say his text my first go-to ST but it has value.

Rob

Thanks for the summary.

Yeah the Essential Christian Doctrine was on sale around $15, I probably wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't so cheap. I like MacArthur but expect to disagree on a few points.

have you any experience with Beeke & Smalley's Essentials of Reformed Systematic Theology - the abridged single volume based on the 4 volume set?

 

[Deacon]

have you any experience with Beeke & Smalley's Essentials of Reformed Systematic Theology - the abridged single volume based on the 4 volume set?

I only have volume 1 of the 4 volume set, "Revelation and God;" ...it relates to science.
They approach science often through the works of Vern Poythress, another Reformed Systematic Theologian from nearby Westminster Theological Seminary. Many, if not all, of Poythress' works are available free, digitally on his website [LINK]

Rob

 

[Deacon]

Letham begins his discussion, "Creation and evolution. Space precludes anything more than a cursory summary of a huge topic." (p. 286)
Someone once said a good book begins by re-stating the obvious.

I found the quote I was looking for:

Amy Adams (playing Dr. Louise Banks) response in the movie, Arrival (2016),

“It’s the kind of thing you write as a preface. Dazzle them with the basics.”

A good "first-encounter" movie on the complications involved with translation.

Rob

 

[Van]

3. Christology - The study of the Person and work of Jesus Christ, including His incarnation, deity, humanity, atoning death, and resurrection.

Do these various recommended sources of Biblical Doctrine actually explain "Christology?"
In short, who and what was the man called Jesus? Does the bible teach he was "100%" man? What verse or verses? Does the bible teach He was "100%" divine? What verse or verses.

Is is orthodoxy to say Jesus was 100% a physical man, and 100% a Divine Spirit?

Do we know what we believe, or do these opinion books simply leave us confused, but at a higher level?

 

[Mikey]

Do these various recommended sources of Biblical Doctrine actually explain "Christology?"
In short, who and what was the man called Jesus? Does the bible teach he was "100%" man? What verse or verses? Does the bible teach He was "100%" divine? What verse or verses.

Is is orthodoxy to say Jesus was 100% a physical man, and 100% a Divine Spirit?

Do we know what we believe, or do these opinion books simply leave us confused, but at a higher level?

So Van do you disagree that Jesus Christ truly man and truly God?

 

[Van]

So Van do you disagree that Jesus Christ truly man and truly God?

What are the verses you cite that teach Jesus is "truly man" or "100% man?" Ditto for "truly Divine" or "100% Divine? Perhaps "MacArthur's Essential Christian Doctrine" cites the verses that form the basis of our viewpoints?

Or, if you are actually seeking God's revelation:
100% man

Galatians 4:4, Luke 2:52, 1 John 1:1, Matthew 26:12, Matthew 4:2, John 19:28, John 4:6, John 11:35.​

And there are many more, this quick list was lifted from Ryrie.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

I find MacArthur too dogmatic for my tastes... I've passed on most of his books to others who are more tolerant than I.

Letham's text is nice. He's quite readable; he provides good examples. It is organized quite differently from any other ST text I've read.
He's very Reformed in his theology, citing the Westminster Catechism of Faith (WCF) quite a few times before completing a topic
He references great theologians throughout church history, as well prominent Systematic Theologians.

My own background is science. I tend judge a text on how it deals with the topic of Creation/Evolution.
Letham begins his discussion, "Creation and evolution. Space precludes anything more than a cursory summary of a huge topic." (p. 286)
Someone once said a good book begins by re-stating the obvious.

He's not a 7/24 Creationist... after discussing the theory, he lists 9 weaknesses of the theory.
But he's not hung up on any particular scientific theory either...
In the Appendix on the exegesis of Genesis 1, he writes:
We have no need to accept current scientific theories uncritically, prone as they are to revision at some future point. The closer the commitment to current paradigms, the greater the danger when they are jettisoned or relativized. Notwithstanding, we need to be cautious about our exegetical theories when the evidence may not be as clear cut as we might suppose, and weaknesses are present in all of them. Here we face the great danger of identifying our own understanding with the truth of God. Scientific theories are at root provisional, liable to be improved or abandoned by further evidence; so it is with biblical exegesis. As the WCF puts it, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves” (WCF, 1.7). (p. 929)

After going over many different Creationist theories, he concludes:
The exegesis of Genesis 1 is far from cut and dried. No proposal on the chapter is free from problems. It is true that some interpretations have been devised expressly with a view to seeking an accommodation with Darwinian evolution or with geology. However, the twenty-four-hour-day theory, while having a pedigree throughout the history of the church, was by no means the only one in the field. (p. 932)

I wouldn't say his text my first go-to ST but it has value.

Rob

Of what use is a Systematic Theology of which you agree 100%?

I actually get a good bit looking at those of whom I disagree including old-earth creationists, covenant theologians, arminians, and even (say it ain't so!) the likes of Leighton Flowers from time to time!

I disagree with Wayne Grudem's "Continuationist" position but his Systematic Theology is often the one in my library that I am reaching for.

 

[Kai]

Of what use is a Systematic Theology of which you agree 100%?

I actually get a good bit looking at those of whom I disagree including old-earth creationists, covenant theologians, arminians, and even (say it ain't so!) the likes of Leighton Flowers from time to time!

Frankly, I think it might be problematic if someone did agree with 100% with a single published systematic theology!

Speaking of Leighton Flowers, I recently came across an older thread, and it was mentioned that he used to be a member of this site, which I thought was just fascinating. I'll have to go back and try to track down his handle.

 

[Deacon]

Of what use is a Systematic Theology of which you agree 100%?

I actually get a good bit looking at those of whom I disagree including old-earth creationists, covenant theologians, arminians, and even (say it ain't so!) the likes of Leighton Flowers from time to time!

I disagree with Wayne Grudem's "Continuationist" position but his Systematic Theology is often the one in my library that I am reaching for.

Leighton Flowers, rang a bell but I had to look him up! Of course - The Potter's Promise!
Mac's arguments tend towards antiquated obsolescence in the area of creation.
Grudem... he has become more dogmatic (Reformed) in his opinions over time too.

I passed most of my home library on to my new church after moving, including a few systematic theology texts (I'm the librarian).
But I still have Grudem's single volume ST on my shelf and his multi-volume ST in Logos.

Many of the books on my shelves offer diverse opinions on topics - I keep the books in the church library rather tame.

Rob