Blog

Top Ten Systematic Theologies

The genre of “Systematic Theologies” does not have a long history, relatively speaking. While this fact deserves its own blog post, it was not until post-Reformation that Christians began to publish such works. The closest book we have in the Bible to a systematic theology is undoubtedly the book of Romans. However, I don’t think enough can be said about the value of such works. Every Christian should have at least on (if not many) systematic theologies on their book-shelf.

The following is a list of my most recommended systematic theologies. As you will see there is not much lack for originality in the titles! I am not necessarily saying that these are the “best” (though all qualify), but the most important and highly recommended for all students of theology today.

10.  Institutes of Elenctic Theology (3-Volumes), Francis Turretin

A greatly neglected work from one of the systematizers of Reformed Theology. This served as the standard systematic theology among Reformed thinkers until it was replaced by Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology in the late 19th century. In many ways, including his writing style and precision, I don’t think it would be unfair to call him the St. Thomas Aquinas of Protestantism theology.

9. Systematic Theology, Louis Berkhof

One of the most succinct and to the point Systematic theologies available. Berkhof, who taught at Calvin Theological Seminary from 1906-1944, was a leading thinker of Reformed theology during much of the 20th century. If you are looking for original thought, Berkhof does not qualify. But if you are looking for someone who was an excellent organizer and teacher of Christian theology, he is the man.

8. Systematic Theology (4-Volumes), Lewis Sperry Chafer

Though dated like many of these recommendations, Chafer’s theology stands apart for two reasons. 1) It is immanently readable and pastoral in tone. You do not feel as if you are reading irrelevant theology with these volumes. They serve more like a theological devotional filled with a depth of understanding of the grace of God. 2) In my opinion, it is still the go-to Systematic Theology for reformed-dispensationalism. Yes, it will present a more classical dispensational understanding, yet it captures the essence of the way dispensationalists read Scriptures more than any other work.

7. A Theology Of Lordship (3-Volumes) by John Frame

Frame is one of the leading figures in Reformed theology today. His Theology of Lordship series come in three volumes: 1) The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 2) The Doctrine of God, 3) The Doctrine of the Christian Life. Unlike Berkolf, Frame is very unique in his approach to theological thought, providing it with a interesting, if not persuasive, paradigm of presuppositionalism and “A Theology of Lordship” (which is sometimes hard to follow). Some of the best stuff on the problem of evil and the attributes of God I have ever read. Interestingly, in the last volume on Christian living Frame spends nearly six-hundred pages on the ten commandments alone!

6. Systematic Theology (3-Volumes) Thomas C. Oden

This is not merely a token Arminian contribution, but truly a valuable contribution to the Systematic Theology genre. While I am not crazy about the structure, Oden makes number six due to his clear and consistent explanation of the Christian faith and his draw on the church fathers and all of Church history.

5. Systematic Theology, Charles Hodge

Charles Hodge’s systematic theology has been the standard theology in Reformed circles for much of the twentieth century. Again, dated in much of its polemics (esp contra Roman Catholicism), he writes with great clarity. His systemization of Reformed thought and Evangelical doctrine serves as a sort of ambiance for most of the more modern theological thinkers and discussion. It is hard to overstate the influence of this work.

4. Integrative Theology, Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest

This volume (now available as a 3-in-one) serves as a great conservative Evangelical theology. It would be hard to place this strictly in a Reformed camp, even though there is that thought and influence present, therefore I would just call it Evangelical and moderately Reformed. I think I would be safe saying that this is the most neglected modern theology out there. I love the structure and the comprehensiveness of this work. It covers each subject by explaining historically, then biblically, then practically. With this comes extensive dialogue with other positions. The fair and objective treatment of alternatives is what keeps me coming back.

3. Christian Theology, by Millard Erickson

Moderately Calvinistic and thoroughly Evangelical, Millard Erickson, the Baptist Theologian, provides what some would consider the standard Evangelical Systematic Theology of the late 20th century. Erickson has much unique thought, yet is very stable in his Evangelical presentation. I particularly enjoy his balance of thought and his contribution in the area of the constitution of man.

2. Institutes of Christian Religion (2-Volumes), John Calvin

First, get the two volumes set, not the less-expensive one-volume. It may save you money to get the one-volume, but it will be at the expense of your eyes! Whether you are Calvinist or Arminian, one cannot overstate the value that this work has had on Christian thought. I know you are thinking that this is too out of date and ivory tower, but bite your tongue! Reading Calvin is incredible. His thought and his pastoral style are convicting as the are profound which make this hard and easy to read!

1. Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem

This decision was fairly easy. Grudem has been my go-to and send-to systematic theologian for over a decade. Clarity. That is the best way to put it. He writes so clear and makes theology interesting. We have used this text for The Theology Program for years. Students agree…it is fun to read. Calvinistic in his thought, Grudem is very balanced and informed about other options. He gives his opinion with conviction and grace. Great work!

87 Responses to “Top Ten Systematic Theologies”

  1. Michael,

    Have you ever gotten a chance to read Bavinck’s Theology? It’s pretty good. Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology is a good read as well. Thanks for the list.

  2. Yeah, both are good. Really thought about Banvick’s, but I wanted to make the list a little more practical. Once I decided against putting him on the list, I figured I needed to add the discription paragraph.

  3. I’m amazed that you don’t have Geisler’s Systematic Theology set on here. Compared to Grudum’s (which I also have along with several others you don’t list), it is a far more comprehensive and accessible work. In my opinion, of course. I’m quite frankly shocked to see Grudum in the Top 5 of anyone’s list.

  4. Well, I suppose there’s no greater form of clarity than supplying only one side of an argument.

    CMP, if you were writing a list of Top Ten Introductions to Systematic Theology for Conservative Calvinists, then perhaps Grudem would find a place. But, seriously, he is so one-sided it is just ridiculous.

    I would highly recommend McGrath’s Christian Theology: An Introduction. This work and its companion volume, The Christian Theology Reader are of greater help if you are looking for something that gets your feet wet on core doctrines as well as worldview-movements that have influenced or challenged Christian thought. Grudem may have a bibliography, but that’s not as immersive as actually introducing someone to the bibliographical texts, which McGrath does briefly in the main work, and more extensively in the companion volume.

    And, even if it is limited specifically to the New Testament and ethical discourse, I’m always willing to throw out a reference to Hays’ Moral Vision of the New Testament.

  5. Have you had a chance to read Frame’s latest volume in the Lordship series yet?

  6. Yes McGrath’s does require honorable mention but it is not comprehensive enough to make my list. His reader is a Reader, not a systematic theology. So it does not qualify.

    Giesler is a philosopher, not a theologian and his ST only confirms this to me. While volume one is of great value (prolegommena) the other two are not worth reading or even referencing in my opinion.

  7. Fair enough. I disagree, but I find value in the rest of your list. I’ve been meaning to grab a copy of the Integrative Theology since I’ve heard great things about it, but I went for Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis instead (it was within the budget) and I’m already regretting that decision. :(

  8. Truth Unites... and Divides January 20, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    Read both McGrath’s theology book and Grudem’s.

    Completely agree with CMP’s assessment of both.

  9. I realize it isn’t Calvinist, but Stanley Grenz’s Theology for the Community of God should be considered, especially since it does a good job of interacting with multiple evangelical streams of theological thought.

  10. Grudem’s ST is awesome! It really turned the lights on for me when it came to Sys. Theo. Almost every chapter follows the Protestant tradition which began with the Reformers. The only chapters were he really goes off the mark are his chapters on spiritual gifts and miracles. You’ve got to be a dyed-in-the-wool Arminian not to like Grudem’s ST, as even men like Paige Patterson plugs it on the cover.

    I’ve read part of Bavinck and find him much more helpful than other old theologians, like Hodge, who is difficult to read at times.

  11. My go-to systematic theologies are Grudem’s, Erickson’s, and Integrative Theology by Lewis and Demarest (this last one a favorite at my alma mater, Denver Seminary, for obvious reasons).

    Integrative Theology functions as sort of my encyclopedia of theology, in that it is the first place I go most of the time in order to get a well-organized overview and to find out what I don’t know. It’s a great resource.

  12. Michael, thanks for the list. Just thought I would mention that John Frame’s “Theology of Lordship” series has recently added the fourth and final volume: The Doctrine of the Word of God.

  13. I recently was deciding between Erickson, Oden and Pannenberg. I ended up going with Thomas Oden’s (all 3 volumes for 41 bucks at christianbook.com right now!) and I couldn’t be happier.

  14. So VERY pleased to see you include my favorite systematic, Integrative Theology! I’ve read this through and through (several times) highlighting a different color each pass through. It’s tremendous. Demarest and Lewis, along with Erickson, is eseential for every shelf (and heart).

  15. I caution everyone to realize that this list is not, as I said in the preface, meant to demonstrate what I believe to be the “best” in a general sense. When someone comes to the Credo House and is first being introduced to theology, what do I think is the best? That is why Grudem is number one. Then I think that they need to have Institutes, Erickson and so on.

    If this was meant to be the “most influential” I would include Barth’s Dogmatics. If it were meant to be the most provocative, I would include Grenz and Pannenberg . If it were to be “easiest to read” then I would include Ryrie. If it were to be a Reformed list, then I would include Muller.

    Hope that helps qualify the post here.

  16. I absolutely love the accessibility of Grudem’s work. It has been the go-to book for me as well. What fantastic is that an entire 118 lecture series of Grudem himself teaching through his book at Scottsdale Bible Church is available as a free podcast through iTunes or on the web.

  17. Only have Grudem’s, and haven’t finished it or even looked at it for a while. Enjoyed it even though I am Arminian. I quite like Grudem’s work (and other Calvinists such as Wilson).

    I think Grudem may be a little weak in creation but have only browsed it as not up to there yet.

    Would be interested in reading Finney’s Systematic Theology.

  18. R. L. Dabney’s Systematic Theology is well worth mentioning as well. He even rightly criticizes Turretin by name on his Calvinism, which is rare boldness for a Reformed theologian. Dabney was very perceptive and refined. He’s superior to Berkhof, Frame, Erickson, Chafer, Oden and Grudem, I think.

  19. Michael, was Garrett not Calvinist enough for you? Just curious. God bless you my friend.

  20. Michael Patton,

    Going outside of your list here, what are the best systematics you would recommend from the Ariminian perspective? If I am not mistaken, you have only one listed–the one by Oden.

  21. Good questions Cheryl.

    It is a hard question. Oden, is really the only “great” one. There are not too many out there worth considering. The great and respected systematic theologians have always been somewhat Calvinistic in my opinion. Finney’s would come in second in my worst list (with Tillich coming in first and Geisler third). All of them would be Arminian (though Geisler would never claim such!).

    Having said that, here is my Arminian List:

    1. Systematic Theology (3-Volumes) Thomas C. Oden

    2. Systematic Theology by Stanley M. Horton

    3. Theology for the Community of God by Stanley J. Grenz.

    4. A Compendium Of Christian Theology by William Burt Pope (1880).

    5. Introduction To Christian Theology by H. Orton Wiley.

    6. Systematic Theology (2 vols.) by John Miley

    7. Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective (Three Volumes in One) by J. Rodman Williams

    8. Arminianism, Myths and Realities by Roger Olson could go here, but it is not a systematic theology so it would be lower on the ranking though a decent book.

    9. Theological Institutes by Richard Watson(1851)

    10. I suppose I would have to put Geisler here.

    11. Finney. I guess I have to mention him, though most Arminians would not like association with him since it is a straw man.

    Finally, I always enjoy anything by Mildred Bangs Wynkoop. Though too particular and small to be called a systematic theology, Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology might make the list.

    Hope that helps. Any Arminian who can contribute here would be great.

  22. Thanks Michael.

  23. Your welcome. I updated it some more.

    Here is a list that Theological Researcher put together.

  24. I thought CMP’s original ist was the top 10 ST’s in general. I wasn’t aware they were just the top 10 from the Calvinistic perspective?

  25. Dr. Michael, they were not meant to be Calvinist. It just happens to be that there are many Calvinists who make the list.

  26. I think those getting irritated that there aren’t more Arminian SysTheos mentioned are ignoring the fact that the SysTheos are overwhelmingly Reformed as it is. It’s not like Michael went out and just tried to find Calvinist SysTheos. These are the ones that are primarily used in seminaries because it’s the lion’s share of what’s out there AND worth reading. He could have included numerous other Calvinist theologies instead of Oden, but that wasn’t the point. If you want more solid Arminian theologies written then start getting your people interested in theology. The amount of people even within the laity of Arminian churches who are interested in theology is ridiculously lower proportionately than those in Reformed churches, where almost everyone there is interested in it; and that may have something to do with what Arminians write and what publishers are willing to publish as well.

  27. Yes, I was being sarcastic :). As a bilbiophile, I’m loving these “best of” blogposts.

    Care to comment on the creation perspective of each of your top 10? This appears to be the major weakness with some ST’s, where all the sudden science seems to become more important than exegesis or historical theology. I thought Grudem explained each view well on creation, but then used science to determine the one he agreed with most.

  28. Truth Unites... and Divides January 21, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    “The amount of people even within the laity of Arminian churches who are interested in theology is ridiculously lower proportionately than those in Reformed churches, where almost everyone there is interested in it; and that may have something to do with what Arminians write and what publishers are willing to publish as well.”

    Waaaa. Waaaaa.

    I’m not even Arminian and you hurt my feelings. My hurt feelings trump your harsh Calvinistic “truth.”

    Waaa. Waaaaa.

  29. You know, according to what has been said on this site in the past, the purpose of teaching theology should be to present all sides and let the reader make up their mind which one is correct.

    However, practically speaking, it is Calvinism that gets taught here–repeatedly, both now and in the past. Look at the categories list–38 posts on Calvinism. Arminianism isn’t even a category.

    I realize that is the postition of Michael and most of the other contributors here. But given the stated goal of teaching theology, it has certainly come to seem out of balance to me.

    And the abundance of posts on the subject has started bringing out some very snarky and condescending comments from people too.

    Maybe it is just plain time for me to move on and quit trying to read and participate here.

  30. Cheryl, I don’t really have any control over what commentors say or hold. We do seek to be balanced to a certain degree in the ministry here. The blog, however, will be somewhat different since it is a blog. Paul Copan does blog here, but he does not write much about this subject. I would certainly enjoy more posts from him that came from his Arminian theology, but most do not even hint at it and he does not blog enough.

    I am a Calvinist and don’t seek to neuter that for the sake of balance. Same thing with complementarianism, a 66 book canon, traducianism, premillenialism, and inerrancy. I will often defend these things as they touch my life and thought.

    When I write an objective blog that seeks to be more educational, then you will see the balance coming out more. Perhaps I will attempt to insert more of those type of posts more often. I am sorry that you have been offended as of late.

  31. I’d swap Erickson and Grudem. Here’s my vastly oversimplified reason – Grudem says “Here’s a very brief glimpse of what some people believe, they’re wrong, here’s what you should believe.” Erickson takes a fair look at the major views, analyses the strengths and weaknesses of each, then presents his position. Grudem tells me what to believe, Erickson gives me the pertinent info and allows me to make up my own mind. For example, Grudem has a page or two on various theories of the atonement, Erickson has a chapter. But Grudem is probably more readable. They compliment each other, but I always reach for Erickson first.

  32. BTW: Cheryl, Tim, our executive director did mention this to me yesterday, saying that we are looking too Calvinistic. He suggested that I try to get Paul to post something relevant to this issue. I have issued the Pauline request! Hopefully soon.

  33. Cheryl said

    “according to what has been said on this site in the past, the purpose of teaching theology should be to present all sides and let the reader make up their mind which one is correct.”

    I think this, and how theological categories are arranged and competing positions explained, should set the precedent for how to gauge what is a good systematic work vs. not I wonder if some of the backlash here to Michael’s list is because we want a work to already align with our theological slant. But to me, that would defeat the purpose of having a systematic work. I like Michael’s list and would add Robert Culver’s work to it.

  34. Would Walter Martin’s “Essential Christianity” or C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” qualify as systematic theologies, or are they too “general audience” material to belong on your list?

  35. Cheryl:

    Hang in there! I must admit that I too become frustrated not so much with the content being discussed but the attitude when discussing such. May God give us grace and a heart of love to not become overly insensitive to our brothers and sisters in Christ.

    You hit the nail on the head however that one can receive all the exegisis one wants from those who appear to have the superior knowledge but the direct application to one’s heart and life only happens when one can accept and trust that this knowledge is the truth that God would have us to live by. When this is not done in love we tend to not accept what is being offered.

  36. “Tim, our executive director did mention this to me yesterday, saying that we are looking too Calvinistic. He suggested that I try to get Paul to post something relevant to this issue. I have issued the Pauline request! Hopefully soon.”

    With the score at 38-0 in favor of the Calvinist posts it’s sure going to take some catching up!

    I also agree with Cheryl that some of the comments here, and on other posts regarding this subject, are inappropriate with what one would expect to find on a site whose goal it is to teach quality Christian theology, systematic or otherwise.

    #29 is a prime example.

  37. The only thing I could do is turn the comments off. We simply don’t have the support staff or volunteers to handle all the comment moderation. Very rarely, if you have noticed, do I have time to engage in the comments. I get literally hundreds of emails each day with new comments, from new and old posts.

    I am sorry that so much get by that are uncharitable. Please accept my apologies for those and for the many that will come in the future.

    Also, please note. When I do jump in and moderate, I get accused of prejudice against this or that person because we let so and so go in the past. This charge of inconsistency is true, yet unavoidable.

    If there are any voluteers who would like to be in charge of moderating the tone of the comments, I am open to suggestions. Otherwise, I would just suggest reading the posts and commenting without engaging in the threads. I am truly sorry.

  38. Hodge,

    One of my favorite theology profs cites Shedd a lot in his class notes and lectures. I will have to check him out.

  39. Lisa,

    I was surprised by Shedd’s understanding of the finer points of certain theologies that are not his own. It really is a great work. You can probably get a cheap copy on ebay or ABE books.

  40. Cheryl,

    All theologies look at different sides, but in the end, regardless of how aesthetically pleasing it might be presented or not, the theology of the author will slant everything in his direction. This is unavoidable, and why I think it’s better to have a bias out in the open than masquerading as an objective party.

  41. Cherylu #30 said:
    “You know, according to what has been said on this site in the past, the purpose of teaching theology should be to present all sides and let the reader make up their mind which one is correct.

    However, practically speaking, it is Calvinism that gets taught here–repeatedly, both now and in the past. Look at the categories list–38 posts on Calvinism. Arminianism isn’t even a category.”

    If you have ever taken any of the TTP courses you will see that CMP gives all sides a fair shake in an irenic manner. This ministry is an oasis of peace compared to some of the theological battlefields out there in http land.

  42. I would echo Hans post.

    TTP really does justice to presenting all sides even if Michael has opinion of certain doctrines. And I always see his threads bearing love and honesty even if he is a calvanist he is first and more important a Christian and brother.

  43. Truth Unites... and Divides January 21, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    “why I think it’s better to have a bias out in the open than masquerading as an objective party.”

    Hodge, I fully agree. Here’s an example:

    “[Arminian] Ergun Caner has stated that Calvinists are worse than Muslims. This week [Arminian] Norman Geisler has added to this vitriolic rhetoric calling Calvinists theological racists. Wait a minute, I thought it was Calvinists who are the mean nasty people?

    Geisler said: “These people [meanie Calvinists] teach that Christ only loved the elect and only died for the elect. And I think that’s some kind of theological racism.””

    From: Here.

  44. I was thinking about what cherylu said—— “You know, according to what has been said on this site in the past, the purpose of teaching theology should be to present all sides and let the reader make up their mind which one is correct”, and I was wondering——–is that really correct (with all due respect to you cherylu)? I thought that the purpose of Reclaiming the Mind was to yes, present all sides——accurately, fairly, irenically——–but then not to simply let one make up his/her own mind up, but rather to be graciuosly persuasive of what is believed to be the truth. Isn’t that right Michael? Otherwise it seems to me that theology is then being presented as a mere preference from a buffet, rather than as the verities of Divine revelation. What do you think Michael?

  45. Bruce, it just depends on intentions. RMM is not associated tightly with any formal theological persuasion as a ministry. I have been asked to join many counsels and forums that have a particular slant that mirrors my views. I have declined them all respectfully.

    In TTP, our goal is to educate people in a disarming environment, giving people the best of the Christian options, while remaining Protestant Evangelical. It is a different venue.

    Here on the blog, it is a blog. I even try to keep arms distance between this blog and RMM, often thinking that I should disassociate them all together. Not so much because I am going to be ungracious, but because I have made it my intents to be brutally honest about many personal struggles that I have. Because of this, I don’t want my own struggles to be interpreted as that of the ministry. Though it is almost impossible to disassociate myself from the ministry…I have decided to take that risk.

    Therefore, her on the blog, you are going to get ME. I will always focus on the essentials. You will never see me elevating something such as Calvinism to the point of a cardinal doctrine. However, I am a Calvinist and not a neutral one at that. My life experiences and biblical studies have only strengthened my convictions about these matters. Therefore they are going to come across here, even if they are not as strong in our curriculum.

  46. Michael,

    It must be in discussions about your curriculum I remember the statements I referenced being made. I was under the impression that it was both here on the blog and in the formal curriculum that they applied. Maybe that is just because both ministries have seemed to be very intertwined, I don’t know.

    Actually, now that I think about it some more, I think it was probably more in reference of what to look for in a seminary.

    At any rate, wherever it was, I took it to be your understanding of how theology is to be taught.

  47. Michael, as an Arminian and non-cessationist all I can say is I find your posts fine, you do not need to modify them, and the discussion is very reasonable in the comments. I wouldn’t modify your blog particularly if I were you. If you say something that others think is wrong, they can say so.

    You are not going to please everyone, so write what you want to write.

    All I think you need to do is represent you opponents honestly. The rare times you don’t do this do not reflect dishonesty, more likely lack of depth on the particular issue.

    Unrelated, I have a question about you disdain for Finney’s ST. Is this because you have read it and found it wanting? Or because you find Finney’s ideas otherwise objectionable? I haven’t read it but have heard some of the material is very good.

  48. Hodge,
    Let’s be a tad bit more honest here then your simple statement that the Arminian laity aren’t interested in theology. Many of those Arminian’s who actually know what Arminianism and Calvinism are, are greatly interested in theology. The sad fact is that too many churches in general as well as the laypeople don’t care about theology. They may say things that if you were to catagorize them would be similar to the thoughts of Arminianism, but ultimately their thoughts are random and disjointed with nothing approching the coherence of Classical Arminianism, Calvinism, or even Open Theism for that matter. I hesitate to catagorize these individuals under any of these umbrellas because their thinking is too disorganized to catagorize.

  49. I wondered at that too, Michael T, and why it is such a big issue. I like what Roger Olson said regarding that:

    “Why do Calvinists feel this need to bash Arminianism all the time? No real Arminian ever takes credit for his or her salvation and Arminianism has been around for centuries. If it were a “slippery slope” that leads inevitably to taking credit for one’s salvation we would see that happening all over the place among evangelical Arminians. It never happens among real Arminians. So long as Arminianism forbids taking any credit for our salvation–what’s the big problem? Why do Calvinists keep insisting that Arminianism is such-and-such that it is not? I am not threatened by Calvinism so long as it does not misrepresent Arminianism. I am opposed to it, but I’m not threatened by it–as if I felt some pressing need to put it in the worst light possible even to the extent of distorting what Calvinists actually believe.”

    I think most people in the church believe that way, that it doesn’t matter which camp we chose to be in as long as we are getting the essentials right. I don’t consider belonging to either the Calvinist or Armianian camp essential to my own salvation.

  50. Michael,

    Well, to be fair, I’d have to think about that, as the many Arminian churches to which I’ve belonged (“Arminian” because the pastors are knowledgeably Arminian) tend to have a lack of interest in theology, and more of an interest either in getting people saved, in a revivalistic sense, or in doing social work (although the latter group might be classified as full blown Pelagian or semi-Pelagian). But it does seem to me that when these people are introduced to the finer distinctions, they come out on the Arminian side (in terms of Wesleyian Arminian theology, not classical), as much of their sermons and programs have already assumed it. I would also put many of the baptist/southern baptist churches to which I’ve belonged in the classical Arminian camp, which is interesting, since they’re the ones who often claim they’re neither Calvinist nor Arminian. But it still stands that not a whole lot of Arminian theologians are writing SysTheos for the church. There are a few, but even Michael had to stretch his list to fit in works that either weren’t SysTheos or weren’t Arminian (Finney, as a Pelagian, being one).

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Maybe the Worst Top 10 List Ever | Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth - January 20, 2011

    […] kind of objective data like sales or something like that) but Michael Patton has posted perhaps the worst top 10 list I’ve ever seen with regard to systematic theology texts.  Atop his list at #1 is Wayne Grudem’s Systematic […]

  2. Recommended Resources « The Beacon - February 22, 2011

    […] together a list of recommended systematic theologies.  By and large, I also liked the list that C. Michael Patton put together as […]

  3. “Safe” Theology | Political Jesus - March 30, 2011

    […] Grudem’s Systematic Theology is my least favourite book.  Indeed, several weeks ago, when Parchment and Pen posted their list of top ten theology books, the blogosphere cried out in horror that they had made […]

Leave a Reply