click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Top Ten Systematic Theologies
by C Michael PattonJanuary 20th, 2011
81 Comments
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!
Similar Posts:
- My Top Ten (!) Books of the Year
- 10 Books Every Christian Should Have (Michael’s List)
- Top Ten Books (Sam Storms)
- Top Ten Most Influential Books I have Ever Read (Beside the Bible)
- Top Fifteen Must Have Books on Apologetics
81 Comments
Like or Dislike:
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
1
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
Have you had a chance to read Frame’s latest volume in the Lordship series yet?
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
Read both McGrath’s theology book and Grudem’s.
Completely agree with CMP’s assessment of both.
Like or Dislike:
2
[...] 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 [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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).
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, was Garrett not Calvinist enough for you? Just curious. God bless you my friend.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks Michael.
Like or Dislike:
0
Your welcome. I updated it some more.
Here is a list that Theological Researcher put together.
Like or Dislike:
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Michael, they were not meant to be Calvinist. It just happens to be that there are many Calvinists who make the list.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
1
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
One of my favorite theology profs cites Shedd a lot in his class notes and lectures. I will have to check him out.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0
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).
Like or Dislike:
0
““Why do Calvinists feel this need to bash Arminianism all the time?”
This really goes both ways.
Like or Dislike:
0
bethyada,
People have critiqued Finney’s theology as really a book of ethics because, as a Pelagian, he places a heavy emphasis on behavior and living right. If you’re studying Finney, then you have to read it; but if you’re looking to understand theology, I would read someone else.
Like or Dislike:
0
“This really goes both ways.”
Not on this blog! NEVER anywhere on a proclaimed theology blog have I seen anything like the bias here, whether it was intended by CMP or not.
It’s a real turn off to me.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I keep thinking about something you said in comment # 46 where you spoke of keeping a distance between yourself and RMM.
I don’t think there has been any way for any of us to be aware that you were doing that. After all, this blog has always been listed under the heading of RMM or Credo House. So it is only natural that any of us would assume that the blog is truly part of their ministry and an extension of it and therefore an expression of RMM even if all of you posting there do not agree on everything. (Except of course it was obvious that your personal posts pertained to you only.)
I think that has probably been something that none of us were aware of before now.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you Michael and cherylu for your follow up comments to my question (# 45).
Like or Dislike:
0
Wayne Grudem is interesting, because his text helps to identify some of the false teaching in Reformed Theology, and also because he contradicts himself. Since you have selected Wayne Grudem’s text as your number one choice, perhaps you could help explain what appears to be a major inconsistency in his teaching for me. He would not answer my request for clarification.
Reformed Theology is all about the need of man to be regenerated before he will have the ability to turn to God and express saving faith. If a man has not been regenerated, supposedly it will be impossible for him to have spiritual perception, let alone any faith in God or actions that would please God.
Yet, when writing his chapter on “Regeneration”, Wayne Grudem states, “This sovereign work of God in regeneration was also PREDICTED in the prophecy of Ezekiel. Through him God promised A TIME IN THE FUTURE when he would give new spiritual life to his people” (pg. 699). Then he quotes Ezekiel 36:26-27, “A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you…”
QUESTION 1: Is regeneration the predicted future event spoken of by Ezekiel?
If the work of regeneration is a FUTURE work of God PREDICTED by Ezekiel, then neither Ezekiel or any other man prior to Ezekiel was regenerated. This one fact is contradicts essential Reformed presuppositions that there can be no faith without regeneration. Ezekiel lives near the very end of the OT timeline, well after the men of faith listed in Hebrews 11. There were men of faith before Ezekiel predicted the work of God in regeneration would come to men.
QUESTION 2: How do you reconcile this fact which he states to the tenets of Reformed Doctrine?
Like or Dislike:
0
Cont…
(And on page 973 he states, “Ezekiel here speaks of a “spiritual” washing THAT WILL COME IN THE DAYS OF THE NEW COVENANT when God puts his Spirit within His people”. I would add, Jesus said the New Covenant was “in his blood”. And the writer to the Hebrews speaks often of the New Covenant and contrasts it to the Old.)
However, in footnote #14 on page 769, Wayne Grudem states,
“I do not mean to say that believers’ experience of regeneration in the old covenant was exactly the same as that of new covenant believers. While considerations listed in the following discussion indicate a less-powerful work of the Holy Spirit in the old covenant, defining the nature of the differences is difficult, since Scripture gives us little explicit information about it. BUT THE FACT THAT THERE WAS ANY SAVING FAITH AT ALL IN THE OLD COVENANT BELIEVERS REQUIRES US TO THINK THAT THERE WAS SOME KIND OF REGENERATING WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT in them, enabling them to believe.”
As I heard recently on this website “Calvinism shapes your theology”. I would contend that false presuppositions “require” Mr. Grudem to think that there was “some kind of regenerating work” in the OT to enable men to believe.
QUESTION 3: How many different kinds of regeneration are there? How many different ways can a man be “made alive with Jesus Christ”?
QUESTION 4: Can a man be born again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” before Jesus Christ even is raised from the dead? (1Pet. 1:3)
Sincerely trying to understand how you would reconcile these discrepancies,
Melani
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Michael Patton,
Does any of these systematic theologies (dare I say even the Arminian ones) see the following in Eph 2:1 -
“And you are (present, active) to trespasses and sins”
Its not “you were dead in trespasses and sins” – in fact, the unregenerate are alive to trespasses and sins!
But Ephesians is talking about the present state of believers: they are dead to sin and alive to Christ. In fact, it is only when they became dead to sin that they could be made alive to Christ (ref Rom 7).
Like or Dislike:
0
Melani, OT believers were regenerated by the Holy Spirit through their faith in God’s promises of a coming Messiah. Your questions for Grudem are fair, but I think you are taking his Ezekiel example out of context. You will not find any better answers on how OT believers were saved, Arminian or otherwise, unless you claim the unorthodox belief that none were saved (or saved outside of Christ).
Like or Dislike:
0
I almost agree with Ryan, but I think the passage is more definitive than that.
Paul is praying that the Ephesians would know about the power that God worked in them (Eph. 1:18). This was the same power that God worked in Jesus Christ when he raised Him from the dead and seated him in the heavenly (Eph. 2:20). Every man was born “in sins”, and he lives “in sin”, and is defiled by sin. When a man puts his trust in Jesus Christ, he is baptized by Jesus, baptized into the likeness of His death (Rom. 6:5).
(Wayne Grudem writes about our death with Jesus Christ: “It is as if the Holy Spirit REPRODUCES JESUS’ DEATH and resurrection in our lives WHEN WE BELIEVE IN CHRIST” (pg. 842).
Paul continues giving us incredible detail. The body, where sin dwells, is crucified with Christ, as itemized by Paul in Romans 6:6. In Colossians, Paul states that the man is now “dead being in his sins and the UNCIRCUMCISION OF HIS FLESH” (Col 3:13). This is the point where Paul picks up in Ephesians 2:1. “And you, dead being, the sins and the transgressions of you”. Formerly, before his death together with Jesus Christ, he was living and walking in the lusts of his flesh (Eph. 2:3), then the flesh with its passions and lusts was crucified (Gal. 5:24). Paul adds one more critical detail in Col. 2:11, “And in Him you were CIRCUMCISED with a CIRCUMCISION MADE WITHOUT HANDS, in the removal of the body of flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism” (Col. 2:11, 12). (The body of flesh was put to death by crucifixion and then removed by circumcision.) Now we pick up in Eph. 2:4—“But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, made us alive together with Jesus Christ… raised us up with Christ and seated us in the heavenly with Christ.” (Eph. 2:4-6). The same power that raised up Christ, and seated Him in the heavenly, worked in us to bring us back to life, thereby saving us (Eph. 2:5). (See also Rom. 6:4; Gal. 2:20; Col. 3:3, 7)
Like or Dislike:
0
Dear Dr. Michael,
Do you really believe that OT believers were regenerated by the Holy Spirit THROUGH THEIR FAITH in God’s promises? Or do you mean some OT individuals were regenerated by the Holy Spirit so that they would be ENABLED TO BELIEVE in God’s promises? Do you believe that faith precedes regeneration?
You stated, “Your questions for Grudem are fair, but I think you are taking his Ezekiel example out of context.”
I do not see how you can say that I am taking Wayne Grudem’s quote out of context. He begins by pointing out NT passages which refer to the new birth, and then he states, “This sovereign work of God in regeneration WAS also PREDICTED in the prophecy of Ezekiel. Through him God PROMISED A TIME IN THE FUTURE WHEN HE WOULD GIVE NEW SPIRITUAL LIFE TO HIS PEOPLE.” (pg. 699).
To place regeneration in the Old Testament indicates that you believe that men were being born again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead before Jesus Christ ever rose from the dead (1Pet.1:3). How can that be?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Michael,
You stated, “You will not find any better answers on how OT believers were saved, Arminian or otherwise, unless you claim the unorthodox belief that none were saved (or saved outside of Christ).”
I believe that the Bible teaches OT believers were awaiting redemption of their SOULS from Sheol /death (Ps. 49:15; Hos. 13:14). God kept them safe from the place of torment, “because in His forbearance He passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom 3:25). However of Christ it was predicted, “Thou wilt not Abandon my SOUL to Hades” (Ps:16:10; Acts 2:27). Instead we see the veil was rent in two, which signified that the way into the Holy Place had been disclosed, and Jesus Christ, declared High Priest with an oath, entered the tabernacle made without hands, through His own blood, and obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:8, 11, 12). “… having been made perfect, Jesus BECAME the source of eternal salvation (Heb. 5:9). Only Jesus blood could take away sin (Heb. 10:4). OT believer’s redemption was in Christ’s blood, which would take away their sins too. They too were justified (rendered innocent) in Christ’s blood (Rom 5:9). Baptized by Christ, into Christ’s body, they were cleansed and purified so they too could be indwelt by Christ (giving them the gift of eternal life – 1Jn 5:11, 12), clothed with Christ, and made priests by Jesus the High Priest. At this time OT believers were saved by His life (Rom. 5:10), made alive with Jesus Christ and saved (Eph. 2:5), saved by regeneration (Titus 3:5) when they received their new eternal life source.
Like or Dislike:
0
Great recommendations. I own each of these and have found each of them to be helpful in certain ways. Grudem is probably closest to the theological convictions I have (Reformed, Continuationist, Baptistic, Classic Premill), but I’ve gained a lot from the other works.
I have to second Lisa’s recommendation about Robert D. Culver’s “Systematic Theology.” It’s excellent! Plus, he’s one of the kindest men I have met…
Calvin, of course, is great too… I’m still working through Barth, so, I’ll have to reserve my opinion until I finish more…
Like or Dislike:
0
Ryan,
Although you’ve apparently ignored what I’ve said to you about the Greek, I would just like to know if you take the same phrase in v. 5 as a simple dative “being dead to sin,” and if so, how kai is meant to function here in this context?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, would you recommend systematic theologies which are products of collaboration– each chapter is written by a different author like “A Theology for the Church” (ed. Daniel Akin?
I think Swindoll and Zuck edited one too (Understanding Christian Theology).
Like or Dislike:
0
I thought I’d also mention that Michael Horton just came out with a SysTheo called “The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way.”
Like or Dislike:
0
I really only have extensive experience with Calvin, Hodge, Turretin, and (to a lesser degree) Berkhof. I have recently been reading some Bavinck – he’s wonderful. He takes the time to write beautifully and thoroughly. It seems like beauty and thoroughness are too often jettisoned for the sake of brevity. Theology ought to be beautiful, reflecting his ultimate subject.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge you said earler:
“Well, to be fair, I’d have to think about that, as the many Arminian churches to which I’ve belonged 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).”
Without a doubt feeding the hungry and clothing the needy are direct commands from Jesus, in fact according to Jesus not doing so will cause him to say depart from me. So you’re saying that following the words and direct commands of Jesus himself is classified as full blown Pelagianism? Do we read the same bible?
Like or Dislike:
0
David,
Huh? I’m talking about the churches that I’ve gone to that were heavily involved in social work as a replacement to teaching people theology. The assumption is that everyone will eventually learn on their own, having natural revelation and their own consciences as their guide. Hence, church became a social meeting where we discussed what projects we should be doing within the community rather than solidifying our works in the faith. And that’s the point. Our works are to testify of the truth, not against it (i.e., we don’t need to know God in truth as long as we clothe and feed the poor). A good work points to Christ through the truths being taught. To take Christ’s commands out of their context (i.e., one that assumes the faith community and truths being taught already) and say that this is the primary work of the church is to ignore the rest of the Gospels, NT, canon that tells us that we need faith in the truth and the works that it produces, not just the latter.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Hodge #20: I agree with you.
I noticed that I missed your prior question from #15:
Yes, I see Eph 2:5 reflecting the same idea as Eph 2:1, “dead to sin.” I think I agree with T.K. Abbott’s comments from the International Critical Commentary on Ephesians & Colossions where he writes:
I would read it as follows: “…even we being dead to sin, He made us alive…”
Like or Dislike:
0
@Hodge (cont’d…)
Is not it a necessity that we become dead to sin (thus we died with Christ) so that then we can be resurrected with Christ? It is a normal progression and the consistent message of the Scriptures that we are BOTH to die with Christ (and the death is always TO sin and to the law) so that we can be raised with Christ. If there is not first a death to sin there cannot be a resurrection.
What consistently comes first? It is death to sin, to transgression, to the law. This is so that we can be joined to another. We are joined to Christ as He is raised from the dead.
The dative reflects that we are made to be dead to sin by Jesus’ death.
Like or Dislike:
0
I wonder why Dr. Robert Duncan Culver’s “Systematic theology: Biblical and Historical” is not included.
http://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Culver-Robert-Duncan/dp/1845500490
I thought it would be placed somewhere between Grudem’s and Erickson’s.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] together a list of recommended systematic theologies. By and large, I also liked the list that C. Michael Patton put together as [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] 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 [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Just to jump in here concerning top systematic Arminian theologies…
I second Oden’s primary status and at the current price for the three volume set it is definitely worth getting.
H. Ray Dunning’s “Grace Faith and Holiness” is considered a standard now by Wesleyan-Arminians (replacing Wiley which served a previous generation).
I would also recommend Roger Olson’s “The Mosaic of Christian Belief.” Although not strictly an Arminian systematic theology…Olson certainly approaches theology from an Arminian perspective.
Lastly, for those Arminians out there who want a good systematic theology from a Calvinistic perspective I would recommend Erickson’s. He is great at showing multiple sides to issues. As for Berkhoff…well, I would have to say that I haven’t read him since my first year of sys theo at Moody many years ago (I actually preferred Hodge’s three volume work which it was meant to replace.)
Like or Dislike:
0
How could you not include Herman Bavinck’s four volume “Reformed Dogmatics”?? Bavinck’s work is one of the BEST systematics ever produced not only within the Reformed camp, but conservative evangelicalism in general.
Like or Dislike:
0
To mbaker:
I have never met a Calvist (or an Arminian) who considers belonging to a specific Calvinist (or Arminian) camp as essential to salvation. The issue is not about what is essential to salvation, but about important doctrines.
I grew up in an Arminian environment, and started attending a Presbyterian church in my 20′s based on my admiration for the writings of Francis Schaeffer and the work of L’Abri Fellowship. It was another 10 years before I actually became a Calvinist. For me it was a profound experience, as I learned to appreciate more about God’s sovereignty and what Christ accomplished for me on the cross. It was both humbling and comforting to learn that God chose me despite my sin, and is committed to transforming me into the image of his son. So for me, urging an Arminian to consider a Calvinist position is about trying to share the joy and security and worship that comes with a recognition that my salvation is completely in God’s hands.
I don’t feel the need to debate the point with every Arminian I meet. I’m happy to meet another believer and to share the things we have in common. I also think that we’ll all find the many problems in our theological systems (Calvinish and Arminian) when we get to heaven. But if the discussion does come up, I would urge the Arminian to consider the implications of the total sovereignty of God for salvation and security, and worship, among other things.
Like or Dislike:
0
Great list, and I second the comments about adding Bavink to the list! :0)
Like or Dislike:
0
Does anyone have an opinion on Thiessen’s Lectures on Systematic Theology? Which camp does his work fall in – Calvinist or Arminian? Thanks
Like or Dislike:
0
I realize this thread/post is really old. But, I thought I would comment on the Arminian side perhaps it will help someone. I do not understand why no one has mentioned Wiley’s 3 volume set on Christian Theology. I see some referenced his intro to CT. Yet the complete set is like 1500 pages. It surprisingly is available on amazon currently for 30 dollars a volume. Also, why is there criticism of Geisler for being just a philosopher, yet Frame is in the top ten? Looking at the other comments it appears Geisler’s problem is rather he is too Arminian. Anyway, all should check out Wiley. He is known for being too intellectual for people to read. Just saying that to say he is no slouch, though it is dated being 70 years old.
More Comments: