Wayne Grudem

[evangelist6589]

Anyone read him? He is Reformed not Calvinistic so I wont agree with all his views, but he is a scholar (not a pastor)in both theology and Biblical studies. However most of his books seem to be geared in the area of theology, as he does not write many commentaries. I have a book of his coming for my birthday which is a abridged version of his systematic theology text.

 

[Greektim]

Anyone read him? He is Reformed not Calvinistic so I wont agree with all his views, but he is a scholar (not a pastor)in both theology and Biblical studies. However most of his books seem to be geared in the area of theology, as he does not write many commentaries. I have a book of his coming for my birthday which is a abridged version of his systematic theology text.

He's reformed but not a calvinist?

 

[preachinjesus]

He's reformed but not a calvinist?

There is a difference. It's a nuanced difference.

 

[evangelist6589]

There is a difference. It's a nuanced difference.

Calvinistic can hold to premillennialism.

 

[preachinjesus]

Calvinistic can hold to premillennialism.

Only historic premillennialism since Calvin, the namesake of the theology, held this position.

 

[RLBosley]

He's reformed but not a calvinist?

There is a difference. It's a nuanced difference.

I'm pretty sure "Reformed" demands Calvinism. The opposite is not necessary though in the strictest sense. I think Evan got his labels switched.

 

[12strings]

Evan,

If my memory is correct, Wayne Grudem is a 5-point Calvinist (soteriologically), who accepts a limited continuationist view of sign gifts, who holds to a Baptist view of Baptism, but, I believe, favors a more elder-led model of baptist polity. As a Credo-Baptist, he is not what many would call FULLY reformed.

His Systematic Theology has become one of the most widely used in recent years due to its readability by non-theologians. That said, it is very good. He states his own positions and defends them more definitively than Erickson, but also acknowledges more alternate views than Berkoff does.

It's definitely a good book to have around, both for study, and even for some devotions.

And to answer your first question, I think it's safe to say most serious theologians have read at least some of grudem, even if only to disagree with him.

 

[Greektim]

My question was rhetorical. Of course he is a calvinist. I like him. One commendable feature of his syst theo book is that it ends each section with a practical point and hymn implying that doctrine is cause for worship.

 

[12strings]

...implying that doctrine is cause for worship.

Yeah, silly guy, that Wayne...he should know that doctrine is only for head knowledge and academia... :laugh:

 

[evangelist6589]

Only historic premillennialism since Calvin, the namesake of the theology, held this position.

Wrong. Plenty of Calvinistic hold to dispensational theology.

 

[evangelist6589]

Evan,

If my memory is correct, Wayne Grudem is a 5-point Calvinist (soteriologically), who accepts a limited continuationist view of sign gifts, who holds to a Baptist view of Baptism, but, I believe, favors a more elder-led model of baptist polity. As a Credo-Baptist, he is not what many would call FULLY reformed.

His Systematic Theology has become one of the most widely used in recent years due to its readability by non-theologians. That said, it is very good. He states his own positions and defends them more definitively than Erickson, but also acknowledges more alternate views than Berkoff does.

It's definitely a good book to have around, both for study, and even for some devotions.

And to answer your first question, I think it's safe to say most serious theologians have read at least some of grudem, even if only to disagree with him.

I have his systematic theology but only in digital file and these are WORTHLESS for reading through. I am getting his condensed 200 page book. I would also prefer his systematic theology in printed form but I am lacking space for more books of this size. But no doubt a scholarly work.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have read and used both him and erickson, and find that each one has strenght/weaknesses compared to the other...

Erickson seems to read more like a baptist theology though..

 

[Yeshua1]

He's reformed but not a calvinist?

Think that he is referring to the issues of how he views eschatology...

 

[Yeshua1]

Only historic premillennialism since Calvin, the namesake of the theology, held this position.

have to ask Dr Macarthur about that though!

something about being a "leaky Dispy"

 

[evangelist6589]

have to ask Dr Macarthur about that though!



something about being a "leaky Dispy"

There are dozens of Calvinistic baptist Churches. Check out Steve Lawson whom is a full Calvinist but also a DISP.

 

[Rippon]

There are dozens of Calvinistic baptist Churches. Check out Steve Lawson whom is a full Calvinist but also a DISP.

Not "whom" -- who.

 

[JonC]

Not "whom" -- who.

Like the Doctor. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Rippon]

Like the Doctor. :smilewinkgrin:

Yeah, like the Doctor. i like that reference. Even evan would recognize that Dr. Whom would sound strange.

 

[padredurand]

Wayne Grudem? Didn't he coach the Oakland Raiders? :laugh:

 

[Winman]

Wayne Grudem? Didn't he coach the Oakland Raiders? :laugh:

No, he played hockey.