Bavinck's Dogmatics and Calvin's Institutes

[Adam Olive]

Is anyone able to tell me whether Bavinck or the Institutes is larger and by how much? I would like to know their respective sizes. (If possible including Turretin would be good.) Someone might be able to do a Logos word count or something.

 

[reaganmarsh]

Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics has 3024 pages; Calvin's Institutes has 1822 pages.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Is anyone able to tell me whether Bavinck or the Institutes is larger and by how much? I would like to know their respective sizes. (If possible including Turretin would be good.) Someone might be able to do a Logos word count or something.

All word counts include footnotes and all languages BUT excludes all numbers (Scripture refs., etc.) Calvin is from the Battles 2 vol edition.
Results are from Logos 7's Concordance tool.

Calvin 758,623
Bavinck 1,402,649
Turretin 1,353,627

 

[Dachaser]

Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics has 3024 pages; Calvin's Institutes has 1822 pages.

I have not read Bavinck, how would he rate as a theologian?

 

[timfost]

I have not read Bavinck, how would he rate as a theologian?

Top notch.

 

[Jack K]

Bavinck is excellent. But if you were picking only one from your list as a must-read, it should be Calvin.

 

[greenbaggins]

You should read all three.

 

[Dachaser]

Bavinck is excellent. But if you were picking only one from your list as a must-read, it should be Calvin.

I have read calvin and Berkhof, isn't Berkhof like a reeders digest version of Bavinck?

 

[Adam Olive]

All word counts include footnotes and all languages BUT excludes all numbers (Scripture refs., etc.) Calvin is from the Battles 2 vol edition.
Results are from Logos 7's Concordance tool.

Calvin 758,623
Bavinck 1,402,649
Turretin 1,353,627

Thank you. Much appreciated.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

If helpful at all, I'll add that Bavinck is published in four large-ish volumes, Turretin in three large volumes, and Calvin in one or two volumes, depending on the edition.

The generally accepted opinion is that Turretin is the best of the seventeenth century theologians to write a full systematic theology, and Bavinck is the best of the twentieth-century theologians to write one. I'll leave off the question of whether Bavinck beats the other great nineteenth century dogmaticians (he ministered through the turn of the century).

 

[Dachaser]

If helpful at all, I'll add that Bavinck is published in four large-ish volumes, Turretin in three large volumes, and Calvin in one or two volumes, depending on the edition.

The generally accepted opinion is that Turretin is the best of the seventeenth century theologians to write a full systematic theology, and Bavinck is the best of the twentieth-century theologians to write one. I'll leave off the question of whether Bavinck beats the other great nineteenth century dogmaticians (he ministered through the turn of the century).

Is it true that Berkhok reads like an abridged edition of Bavinck, like reading his theology distilled justto the scriptures themselves?

 

[Jack K]

Berkhof and Bavinck are different kinds of reading, for different purposes. Berkhof is more like a highly valuable reference work. His volume sets right next to my desk and I pick it up regularly, usually for just 5-10 minutes at a time, to look up something or to see what language he uses on a particular topic. Bavinck is a few shelves down, and reads more like a theological book than a theological reference. I still don't read terribly large sections at a time, because it is heavy going, but my purpose is more devotional or more for general learning rather than to look something up.

Berkhof was a master summarizer. His Systematic Theology was distilled into his Manual, which he cut down still further into his Summary. I keep both of those books within arm's reach too, for when I want to check something basic and only want to take a minute or so.

 

[bookslover]

Is it true that Berkhok reads like an abridged edition of Bavinck, like reading his theology distilled justto the scriptures themselves?

Yes, I think it's fair to say that Berkhof is "boiled down" Bavinck. Berkhof's volume has been the standard systematic theology volume in the Reformed community for nearly 80 years now. (I wonder if the one-volume abridged Bavinck might someday replace Berkhof?)

 

[greenbaggins]

I actually hold a different theory. Berkhof was a student of Vos, and I believe he was the transcriber of Vos's RD. When you read Berkhof and Vos on the same topic, you get the feeling that Berkhof was channeling Vos at times. I think Berkhof was more influenced by Vos than he was by Bavinck.

 

[Dachaser]

I actually hold a different theory. Berkhof was a student of Vos, and I believe he was the transcriber of Vos's RD. When you read Berkhof and Vos on the same topic, you get the feeling that Berkhof was channeling Vos at times. I think Berkhof was more influenced by Vos than he was by Bavinck.

Berkhof ST is seen as being perhaps THE standard one to quote and use, correct?

 

[greenbaggins]

I would say Berkhof is a standard. I don't know about the standard. There are many standard ST's in Reformed theology: Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, Bavinck, and Berkhof might be the most often quoted today.

 

[Dachaser]

I would say Berkhof is a standard. I don't know about the standard. There are many standard ST's in Reformed theology: Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, Bavinck, and Berkhof might be the most often quoted today.

What about the ones by Dr Frame and Dr Horton?

 

[greenbaggins]

Frame's ST has some serious problems with it. Most notably, he defends Norman Shepherd's views on justification, which are false doctrine. He is also quite uneven in his treatment of some subjects. Horton is quite excellent, but a bit tougher slogging (which is why he published a more popular level version of it in his Pilgrim Theology). Horton espouses some views that are not mainstream Reformed, and which some find problematic. Horton is far better than Frame, but I doubt either will become standards in the same way that the others I mentioned are (simply because the ones I mentioned before are mainstream Reformed, with no idiosyncrasies).

 

[monoergon]

In what volume does Bavinck specifically address the topic of God's laws?

 

[bookslover]

Frame's ST has some serious problems with it. Most notably, he defends Norman Shepherd's views on justification, which are false doctrine. He is also quite uneven in his treatment of some subjects. Horton is quite excellent, but a bit tougher slogging (which is why he published a more popular level version of it in his Pilgrim Theology). Horton espouses some views that are not mainstream Reformed, and which some find problematic. Horton is far better than Frame, but I doubt either will become standards in the same way that the others I mentioned are (simply because the ones I mentioned before are mainstream Reformed, with no idiosyncrasies).

Lane, what do you find problematic about Horton's ST?

 

[Dachaser]

Frame's ST has some serious problems with it. Most notably, he defends Norman Shepherd's views on justification, which are false doctrine. He is also quite uneven in his treatment of some subjects. Horton is quite excellent, but a bit tougher slogging (which is why he published a more popular level version of it in his Pilgrim Theology). Horton espouses some views that are not mainstream Reformed, and which some find problematic. Horton is far better than Frame, but I doubt either will become standards in the same way that the others I mentioned are (simply because the ones I mentioned before are mainstream Reformed, with no idiosyncrasies).

Would there be any comtemporary reformed baptist ST, as I am reading through AH Strongs now, but he was 19th century?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Would there be any comtemporary reformed baptist ST, as I am reading through AH Strongs now, but he was 19th century?

I corrected your "AA" Strong to read AH Strong to avoid the confusion between him and AA Hodge.

You should consider Waldron:
https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Exposition-Baptist-Confession-Faith/dp/0852349173

 

[reaganmarsh]

You should consider Waldron:
https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Exposition-Baptist-Confession-Faith/dp/0852349173

An excellent and helpful book indeed!

 

[greenbaggins]

David, I am not an expert in modern Baptist systematics, so I imagine that Patrick's and Reagan's recommendation will be excellent.

Richard, you might notice that I carefully avoided saying that I found aspects of his theology problematic. I was merely pointing out that others might find his theology problematic at points. I believe his republication ideas have come under scrutiny from some, as have his ideas about the relationship of justification and sanctification. So far, I have not seen anything outside the pale of confessional thought, but I imagine others here on the PB would disagree with that assessment. The fact that others would find his theology problematic will probably ensure that Horton will not be seen by many as a "standard" ST.

 

[greenbaggins]

Nathan, Bavinck does not have a separate locus on the law of God. Most Reformed ST's, in fact, do not. Turretin and a'Brakel are exceptions in this regard.

 

[Pilgrim]

Would there be any comtemporary reformed baptist ST, as I am reading through AH Strongs now, but he was 19th century?

Among those who would identify as Reformed Baptist, the only one that comes to mind is Greg Nichols, who is publishing a multi-volume work. As far as I know, only vol one is in print to date. I don't really know much about the book, but I do know that some RBs disagree with him on some aspects of his covenant theology. But I think they would probably say it is an in-house controversy that probably doesn't quite rise to the level of the disagreement between Frame and Horton, for example. But that is just a guess.

Some have pointed out some significant issues with Strong, including his doctrine of Scripture, theistic evolution, and inclusivism, off the top of my head. I think it might have been the first major American Baptist ST, and that may go a long way toward explaining the significance of that text. But he is sort of a transitional figure from the more orthodox views among Baptists that preceded him, to the more liberal ones that followed. In other words, at best he left some doors open for the liberals to drive through, perhaps silimarly to E.Y. Mullins among Southern Baptists several decades later.

Here is what one theologian who is not a Calvinist but whose opinion I generally value had to say about him a while back:

“What about A.H. Strong?”, the American Baptists say. Well, I am one of those (like J. Murray and B.B. Warfield) who believes that he is more trouble than he is worth. He rejects inerrancy, accepts both evolutionary dogma and historical criticism, and, furthermore, lurches toward pantheism in his so-called ethical monism. Evangelicals should fish in better waters!"


Among full fledged recent baptistic ST texts, reading Erickson, Grudem (even with his problems) and maybe even the multi contributor SBC work edited by Daniel Akin would be better choices. (While several are not Calvinistic and some are anti-Calvinist, at least all of the contributors to the Akin book would defend inerrancy and I doubt any would teach that man is basically descended from apes. But it would be WAY down the list unless one is interested in trends in the SBC.) Robert Duncan Culver rejects covenant theology and is sort of a non covenantal historic premil, (I'm not sure that he can quite be called a Dispensational) but his soteriology is Calvinistic and he would also be a much better choice than Strong (or Akin, although Dever on the local church is much better from a strict Baptist POV). The new MacArthur book would be far better than Strong, I'm sure.

Among older works, J. P. Boyce's "Abstract of Systematic Theology" is a good shorter text. And don't forget John Gill.

There is a lot of work being done among Reformed Baptists of the "1689 Federalism" school, such as Richard Barcellos, the Renihans and a few others. Maybe we will see a full fledged ST text from that camp eventually.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Dachaser]

Among those who would identify as Reformed Baptist, the only one that comes to mind is Greg Nichols, who is publishing a multi-volume work. As far as I know, only vol one is in print to date. I don't really know much about the book, but I do know that some RBs disagree with him on some aspects of his covenant theology. But I think they would probably say it is an in-house controversy that probably doesn't quite rise to the level of the disagreement between Frame and Horton, for example. But that is just a guess.

Some have pointed out some significant issues with Strong, including his doctrine of Scripture, theistic evolution, and inclusivism, off the top of my head. I think it might have been the first major American Baptist ST, and that may go a long way toward explaining the significance of that text. But he is sort of a transitional figure from the more orthodox views among Baptists that preceded him, to the more liberal ones that followed. In other words, at best he left some doors open for the liberals to drive through, perhaps silimarly to E.Y. Mullins among Southern Baptists several decades later.

Here is what one theologian who is not a Calvinist but whose opinion I generally value had to say about him a while back:

“What about A.H. Strong?”, the American Baptists say. Well, I am one of those (like J. Murray and B.B. Warfield) who believes that he is more trouble than he is worth. He rejects inerrancy, accepts both evolutionary dogma and historical criticism, and, furthermore, lurches toward pantheism in his so-called ethical monism. Evangelicals should fish in better waters!"


Among full fledged recent baptistic ST texts, reading Erickson, Grudem (even with his problems) and maybe even the multi contributor SBC work edited by Daniel Akin would be better choices. (While several are not Calvinistic and some are anti-Calvinist, at least all of the contributors to the Akin book would defend inerrancy and I doubt any would teach that man is basically descended from apes. But it would be WAY down the list unless one is interested in trends in the SBC.) Robert Duncan Culver rejects covenant theology and is sort of a non covenantal historic premil, (I'm not sure that he can quite be called a Dispensational) but his soteriology is Calvinistic and he would also be a much better choice than Strong (or Akin, although Dever on the local church is much better from a strict Baptist POV). The new MacArthur book would be far better than Strong, I'm sure.

Among older works, J. P. Boyce's "Abstract of Systematic Theology" is a good shorter text. And don't forget John Gill.

There is a lot of work being done among Reformed Baptists of the "1689 Federalism" school, such as Richard Barcellos, the Renihans and a few others. Maybe we will see a full fledged ST text from that camp eventually.
Jesus giving up his divine attributes
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I have read Dr Erickson, and remember him being weak on person of Jesus, as he seemed to go into holding to Jesus giving up His divine attributes, and do know of the problems associated with both Strong and Dr Grudem, so wonder who would be the best one for Baptists who were studying from a reformed perspective?

Think that the one by Dr Macarthur would be good, but from a heavy Dispensational viewpoint still?

Robert Culver might be the way to go for me, as he seems to be premil and calvinistic in theology!

 

[Pilgrim]

I have read Dr Erickson, and remember him being weak on person of Jesus, as he seemed to go into holding to Jesus giving up His divine attributes, and do know of the problems associated with both Strong and Dr Grudem, so wonder who would be the best one for Baptists who were studying from a reformed perspective?

Think that the one by Dr Macarthur would be good, but from a heavy Dispensational viewpoint still?

Robert Culver might be the way to go for me, as he seems to be premil and calvinistic in theology!

Culver's systematic is a useful book that contains a ton of material. The subtitle is "Biblical and Historical" and as such it goes into more detail about the history of doctrines than many other texts do. It got a lot of glowing endorsements from well known Calvinistic men and others. I think he was almost 90 when it was published in 2005 and he had worked on it for about 30 years. He's very thorough in some areas and maybe not so much in others. (For example, he was not as thorough in covering baptism as I would have liked. But he was a minister in the Evangelical Free denomination, and they don't tend to emphasize that the way that Southern Baptists and similar folk do. And he probably goes into enough detail for most people, it was just that there were some issues I was working through that he didn't address.) He often follows W.G.T. Shedd when Shedd and Hodge differed (with Hodge being the "gold standard" Reformed work of the 19th Century.) He's not a presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetics and he's not a young earth creationist either. I like the book but most Reformed Baptists would consider it to be "too dispensational" to be a front line text. He was a cessationist but doesn't discuss that issue much even though it is a massive book. He has no interest in the rapture debate (but seems to disagree with pre-trib) and thinks it is not worth dividing over, but he basically agrees with the Progressive Dispensationalist Robert Saucy on Israel and the Church in contrast to Reymond, Berkhof and others. Because he was older (1916-2015) Culver had a much broader and deeper knowledge of the older "historic" premillennialism than most writers do today, For what it's worth.)

Most confessional Reformed Baptists have tended to recommend Berkhof or some other Reformed pedobaptist text and have supplemented it with Baptist material on ecclesiology. As noted above, Berkhof is a "safe" choice because nobody is going to say that he's unconfessional or "not Reformed" in some area, as opposed to Reymond, Horton, and Frame, all of whom have come under significant criticism for various reasons. All the same, it is a pity that Reymond's book is out of print, although at least it is available in ebook format.

 

[arapahoepark]

I have read Dr Erickson, and remember him being weak on person of Jesus, as he seemed to go into holding to Jesus giving up His divine attributes, and do know of the problems associated with both Strong and Dr Grudem, so wonder who would be the best one for Baptists who were studying from a reformed perspective?

Think that the one by Dr Macarthur would be good, but from a heavy Dispensational viewpoint still?

Robert Culver might be the way to go for me, as he seems to be premil and calvinistic in theology!

If you want to be honest don't read Baptists on Systematic theology.

 

[KMK]

Would there be any comtemporary reformed baptist ST, as I am reading through AH Strongs now, but he was 19th century?

Since RBs are in agreement with the Reformed in most areas, a RB ST would be rather redundant. There are plenty of theological works that deal with the differences between Reformed Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists without being STs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk