Choosing a ST: Turretin or Bavinck?

[Stephen L Smith]

Muller's "may also have" qualifier hardly implies Vos actually suffered from the same issues as did Berkhof sans a prolegomenon, not to mention

Thank you for posting this. It does give fuller light to the discussion. I struggle with the rest of your logic. As you noted, Muller goes on to say -

As can easily be seen from Berkhof’s Introduction, moreover. Reformed theology assumes that a whole series of issues must be addressed before one comes to the doctrine of God. not the least of which is the identification of Scripture as the principium cognoscendi or "cognitive foundation." and God as the principium essendi or “essential foundation" of theology. As Berkhof makes clear. Christian theology cannot be based on “a priori speculation" and is. therefore, never to be systematic in the sense of a speculative or deductive philosophical system. Rather. Reformed theology rests on biblical revelation as its only cognitive foundation or principium in a way that is more inductive than deductive.

I think this gets to the heart of the issue. When we study theology, an important component is Revelational epistemology, and the doctrine of scripture. These are discussed in a good prolegomenia. This is why I find Bavinck's RD very helpful (vol 1 in this case). A prolegomenia is missing in Vos. Further, with the rise of mysticism in certain sections of the church, a Revelational epistemology is more important than ever.

Please note: I am NOT denying the importance to the church of Vos' RD. Vos was a top rate theologian. It seems to me the idea is to read Bavinck's prolegomenia alongside Vos' RD.

 

[Dachaser]

Turretin gives a better understanding, and then, of course, there is the debate on whether Gill, a baptist, is Reformed.

Gill is usually listed as being a Reformed baptist, at least as expressed in His ST.

 

[Dachaser]

Gill lived another 60 years after Brakel died, writing his Body of Divinity a half century or so after Brakel. Gill likely knew of Brakel's work as they were contemporaries until Gill turned age 14 (when Brakel died). Yet, I do not think Gill mentions Brakel in his systematic work. Brakel will provide a solid understanding of Dutch Reformed and Puritan theological views.

Some seem to label Gill as being a hyper-Calvinist, would see him in that light?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Please note: I am NOT denying the importance to the church of Vos' RD. Vos was a top rate theologian. It seems to me the idea is to read Bavinck's prolegomenia alongside Vos' RD.

I think Muller implies that Vos had a prolegomena, it was simply not published with his 5 volume work, but existed separately. I am unaware of whether Muller has a reference to the same elsewhere in his writings. It could possibly be teased out of his Biblical Theology text, as well as his Shorter Writings, or in other communications, e.g.,
https://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=603&issue_id=122

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Some seem to label Gill as being a hyper-Calvinist, would see him in that light?

It all depends upon what someone defines as Hyper-Calvinist, it seems. Gill's belief in eternal justification seems to be one litmus test often applied to the Hyper label assigned to him.

Curt Daniel's unpublished dissertation on Gill is worth a read:
https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/6780/331663_VOL1.pdf

Note that there are plenty of criticisms afoot concerning Daniel's views of what makes a Hyper-Calvinist, especially considering his own flirtations with Amyraldianism. Nevertheless, his dissertation is a good piece of research into the whole topic of Hyper-Calvinism.

 

[RamistThomist]

Gill is usually listed as being a Reformed baptist, at least as expressed in His ST.

I know he is listed as Reformed Baptist, but that doesn't necessarily make him Reformed. He is probably a good example of Calvinistic Baptist Soteriology

 

[Dachaser]

I know he is listed as Reformed Baptist, but that doesn't necessarily make him Reformed. He is probably a good example of Calvinistic Baptist Soteriology

I agree with much of his theology based upon upon what I have been reading so far, except for his Eternal justification, more Hyper views.

 

[Unworthy_Servant]

I know he is listed as Reformed Baptist, but that doesn't necessarily make him Reformed. He is probably a good example of Calvinistic Baptist Soteriology

This isn't meant to be a jab at you, but I think a lot of Presbyterians misunderstand Reformed Baptists (RB). Our heritage comes out of the Church of England (CoE), in which the founding RBs were priests in, such as Hanserd Knollys, Henry Jessey and Benjamin Coxe. They recognized the Doctrine of Sponsors in the CoE was inconsistent with scripture, and came to an understanding of believer's baptism, but were strictly Reformed in their theology. Most Presbyterians are quick to put RBs out of the "Reformed" camp, but have you ever read the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith? It's emphatically Reformed Orthodox. They were coming out of Cambridge University, which at the time was under the leadership of William Perkins. Thus, they were all well trained Reformed ministers and not merely Five Point Calvinists, or schismatic Anabaptists as some falsely caricature.

 

[Shanny01]

My own take on Gill is influenced by the argumentation of Tom Nettles that Gill himself was not a hyper-calvinist himself but rather the men who followed after him took his views to the extreme and their logical conclusion (i.e. Eternal Justification to preaching the gospel only to those who showed signs of faith and repentence). Gill certainly held erroneous views however I have much respect for the man who in a time of doctrinal degredation defended orthodox views of the Trinity, strongly predestinarian theology, and Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone no matter his inconsistency on some topics.

 

[Dachaser]

My own take on Gill is influenced by the argumentation of Tom Nettles that Gill himself was not a hyper-calvinist himself but rather the men who followed after him took his views to the extreme and their logical conclusion (i.e. Eternal Justification to preaching the gospel only to those who showed signs of faith and repentence). Gill certainly held erroneous views however I have much respect for the man who in a time of doctrinal degredation defended orthodox views of the Trinity, strongly predestinarian theology, and Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone no matter his inconsistency on some topics.

So Gill would have had the problem that John Calvin had, in the sense that many wrong attribute to Him Calvinistic theology that was not really defined down as of yet during his own time of the Institutes for example?

 

[Dachaser]

This isn't meant to be a jab at you, but I think a lot of Presbyterians misunderstand Reformed Baptists (RB). Our heritage comes out of the Church of England (CoE), in which the founding RBs were priests in, such as Hanserd Knollys, Henry Jessey and Benjamin Coxe. They recognized the Doctrine of Sponsors in the CoE was inconsistent with scripture, and came to an understanding of believer's baptism, but were strictly Reformed in their theology. Most Presbyterians are quick to put RBs out of the "Reformed" camp, but have you ever read the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith? It's emphatically Reformed Orthodox. They were coming out of Cambridge University, which at the time was under the leadership of William Perkins. Thus, they were all well trained Reformed ministers and not merely Five Point Calvinists, or schismatic Anabaptists as some falsely caricature.

This is why I really feel that there should be an understanding that the Covenant theology held by Presbyterians and reformed baptist are under reformed, but that there are some significant differences between the two of them.

 

[ChrisJuloya]

So I did purchase Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology plus Berkhof's Introduction to Systematic Theology. Thank you all for your feedback!

Grace and peace to you all. Have a Christ-filled weekend!

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Vos is my favorite theologian of all time, so I don't think anything beats Vos.

I understand the esteemed Rev. Lane Keister will soon complete the authorised biography of Vos. I understand the manuscript is now with the Vos Fan Publishing Company

I can say I would love to see a solid biography of Vos produced. Two of my favourite biographies - Iain Murrays outstanding biography of Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Dallimore's wonderful biography of Whitefield - are both 1,200 pages long. I think a long biography of Vos would be difficult. Dennison, in his fine biographical essay on Vos (letters of Vos), argues that Vos was a private and quiet man and difficult to get to know. It appears it was hard to know his private thoughts, feelings, and reasons for why he made a decision. Further there are few (if any) family or friends of Vos alive now who could give valuable insights to Vos' life etc. Still, a quality biography of Vos, even if a little brief, would be a tremendous blessing to the church.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So I did purchase Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology plus Berkhof's Introduction to Systematic Theology.

You will be greatly enriched by both of these acquisitions throughout your walk of faith.

 

[ChrisJuloya]

I have a question to those who have gone through several systematic theology books, what are your ways to study them?

I will be studying it with a friend so I'm trying to look for study guides, specifically Berkhof's ST.

Would you have any systems/process that you follow or study guides for this (Berkhof's) ST?

Thank you!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have not run across any readily available study guides for Berkhof's ST. Duncan Rankin at RTS teaches courses that has Course Notes from the book, but they are not available online that I have been able to locate.

Sample Syllabus from one of his courses:
http://www.rts.edu/SharedResources/Documents/Houston/ST2--Houston--Fall 2016.pdf

Maybe you can reach out to him and see if he would provide you copies of his various course notes for personal use only.

Your might just start with the book's TOC to break down study approaches:
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/toc/systematic-theology/louis-berkhof

Create notes in each of the sections from the TOC as you read the book.

Thirdmill has some study guides on various topics from Berkhof, e.g.,
http://elearning.thirdmill.org/mod/page/view.php?id=6828
http://elearning.thirdmill.org/mod/page/view.php?id=6829&lang=es

For that matter, the Thirdmill courses are worth a look for the overall study of systematic theology:
http://elearning.thirdmill.org/

Pratt, the editor of the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (NIV translation), is a driving force behind the Thirdmill site offerings, so you will be exposed to solid Reformed doctrine. They plan to have the entire bible available online someday: http://thirdmill.org/studybible/

 

[Dachaser]

I have a question to those who have gone through several systematic theology books, what are your ways to study them?

I will be studying it with a friend so I'm trying to look for study guides, specifically Berkhof's ST.

Would you have any systems/process that you follow or study guides for this (Berkhof's) ST?

Thank you!

What I have done is to compare/contrast different authors in same doctrines area, such as how Berkhof/Grudem/ and Erickson for example approached the concept of the Trinity.

 

[ChrisJuloya]

I have not run across any readily available study guides for Berkhof's ST. Duncan Rankin at RTS teaches courses that has Course Notes from the book, but they are not available online that I have been able to locate.

Sample Syllabus from one of his courses:
http://www.rts.edu/SharedResources/Documents/Houston/ST2--Houston--Fall 2016.pdf

Maybe you can reach out to him and see if he would provide you copies of his various course notes for personal use only.

Your might just start with the book's TOC to break down study approaches:
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/toc/systematic-theology/louis-berkhof

Create notes in each of the sections from the TOC as you read the book.

Thirdmill has some study guides on various topics from Berkhof, e.g.,
http://elearning.thirdmill.org/mod/page/view.php?id=6828
http://elearning.thirdmill.org/mod/page/view.php?id=6829&lang=es

For that matter, the Thirdmill courses are worth a look for the overall study of systematic theology:
http://elearning.thirdmill.org/

Pratt, the editor of the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (NIV translation), is a driving force behind the Thirdmill site offerings, so you will be exposed to solid Reformed doctrine. They plan to have the entire bible available online someday: http://thirdmill.org/studybible/

Thank you for all your help! You guys have been really awesome!

 

[Dachaser]

Thank you for all your help! You guys have been really awesome!

One suggestion, as when geting into ST books, we can get so much into their views, that we start to neglect the scriptures themselves. I fell into that trap when first coming over into reformed thinking, and need to stay grounded in the bible first and foremost at all times.

 

[JM]

I own the 4 volume set of Bavinck's works and the abridgement. Both are excellent and the abridgement is the copy I lend out to new and zealous believers.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Dachaser]

I own the 4 volume set of Bavinck's works and the abridgement. Both are excellent and the abridgement is the copy I lend out to new and zealous believers.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

What would be the major differences between those 2?

 

[Dachaser]

My experiences with many who would see themselves as being non calvinist is that while they despise election as we would define the term, many of them actually would not go so far as say Finney did in how God uses us to save ourselves.

 

[RamistThomist]

What would be the major differences between those 2?

The 4 volume set spends hundreds upon hundreds of pages dissecting dead German philosophers. I imagine the abridged version spares one from those horrors.

 

[Dachaser]

The 4 volume set spends hundreds upon hundreds of pages dissecting dead German philosophers. I imagine the abridged version spares one from those horrors.

That would be a common situation in many of the older works, as the authors spent considerable time and effort to attack against a theology or a group that would not be that well known today, apart from theologians and those into Historical theology and church History.