Systematic Theologies

Grudem is good. I recommend Millard T. Erickson's "Christian Theology." Charles Hodge's 3 vol Systematic Theology is good, but even better in the abridged one volume version (I am selling a copy, btw). J.L. Dagg's "Manual of Theology" as well as James P. Boyce's "Abstract of Systematic Theology" are worth reading. "Foundations of the Faith" by James M. Boice (now deceased) is excellent reading, too. Robert Reymond has a good one too, the name of which escapes me at the moment.

 

I like Garrett who was a prof at SWBTS

 

What no Ryrie,Bancroft,Giesler,Berkhoff,Calvin,Chafer,Strong,or Derickson?

 

I like reading Systematic theology texts because they incoroporate contemporary culture, philosophy and science into the study.
It's interesting to see how the texts age over time.
Some age like a good wine, others like bad potatos.

I agree, Tom, I like Erickson's Systematic Theology a lot.

Grudem's is also highly recommended if for nothing else, the cross referencing with other text's.

Other lesser known texts???
I have Oliver Buswell's Systematic Theology (1962).
It's from a conservative Reformed point of view.

Rob

 

I've found Grudem's to be helpful; although a word of caution is in order for a few of his views.

I also love Berkhof's and Dabney's, but they require more work.

Someone mentioned Reymond's. I've only read parts of it, but what I've read has been good.

Calvin's Institutes certainly deserves mention; it happens to be my favorite.

 

But those are the parts I like the best!

Rob

 

Reymond's theology is based on teh WCF and is thus, very hard to use, IMO. The index of the first edition is virtually useless.

It has some good stuff, and some bad stuff.

It is entitled A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith.

 

Allow me to add Lewis and Demarest's "Integrative Theology." While Church Historians may have some bones to pick with their historical treatments, it is a very useful volume nontheless.

If Oden's 3 volume work is still cheap on CBD it's well worth it for his historical treatment.

I also highly recommend any volume from Crossway's series "Foundations of Evangelical Theology." This series includes "The Cross and Salvation" by Bruce Demarest on Soteriology. "No One Like Him" by John Feinberg on Theology Proper. Lastly, "To Know and Love God" by David Clark on Prolegomena.

 

I enjoy systematic theologies as well. I keep a list in my files of the works that I hope to have in my personal library:

Systematic Theology by Berkhof

Christian Theology by Erickson

Systematic Theology by Grudem

Integrative Tehology by Lewis and Demarest

Systematic Theology by Hodge

Institutes in Elenctic Theology by Turretin

Institutes of Christian Religion by Calvin

Studies in Theology by Boettner

The Works of Warfield by BB Warfield

A New Systematic Theology of Christian Faith by Raymond

Systematic Theology by Dabney

Dogmatic Theology by Shedd

Systematic Theology by Strong

Lectures in Systematic Theology by Thiessen

Systematic Theology by Chafer

Body of Divinity by Gill

 

Possible problems may relate to Fore-times and End-times. Grudem's an old-earth creationist.

Enjoy these quotes regarding my hobby of studying biblical creation.

"Now it is urged that if the word "day" be taken in the sense of "an indefinite period of time," a sense which it undoubtedly has in other parts of Scripture, there is not only no discrepancy between the Mosaic account of the creation and the assumed facts of geology, but there is a most marvelous coincidence between them." Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, p 571

“Since the material which is narrated in stages of six “days” in chapter one is all summarized as having taken place “in the day that Jahweh God made the earth and the heavens” in [Genesis] 2:4, it would seem quite obvious and clear that the author uses the word “day” in a figurative sense, just as we often do in modern English, and as the Hebrew prophets did in such expressions as “the day of the Lord,” etc.” Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion 1962, p 141.

“At the present, the view which I find most satisfactory is a variation of the age-day theory.” …”While the age-day theory seems the most plausible conclusion at present, we cannot be dogmatic. The age of the universe is a topic which demands continued study and thought.” Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 1983, p. 382.

“What shall we conclude about the length of days in Genesis 1? It does not seen at all easy to decide with the information we now have. It is not simply a question of “believing the Bible” or “not believing the Bible,” nor is it a question of “giving in to modern science” or “rejecting the clear conclusions of modern science.” p. 297…“Both “Old Earth” and “Young Earth” theories are valid options for Christians who believe in the Bible today.” Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology 1994, p. 298.

“At a minimum, it would be wise if both sides [old-earth and young-earth creationism] could agree on the following: (1) The age of the earth is not a test for orthodoxy. (2) Neither view is proven with scientific finality, since there are unproven (if not unprovable) presuppositions associated with each. (3) The fact of Creation (vs. evolution) is more important than the time of Creation. (4) Their common enemy (naturalistic evolution) is a more significant focus than their intramural differences.” 2:471
“In summary, there are numerous ways that one can account for long periods of time and still accept a literal understanding of Genesis 1-2. That is, one does not have to give up the normal historical-grammatical way of interpreting the Bible in order to embrase these views. Therefore, there is no necessary conflict between Genesis and the belief that the universe is millions or even billions of years old.” 2:646. Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology 2003,

Rob

 

Who's got money for Grudem? Haven't read it yet.

Erickson is excellent and very up to date. Strong's is great. I love all those little quotes and illustrations. But it is only for the strong--of eyesight!!

I read Finney through once for a class--and boy was I disappointed. Never mind the Arminianism--this guy was a lawyer? He left out Bibliology completely. My opinion of Berkhof, also read for a class, is slightly better. Calvin's Institutes? Somewhere between Finney and Berkhof--the man didn't know how to write a clear and plain statement.