Bavinck's Dogmatics and Calvin's Institutes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pilgrim said:
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.
Click to expand...
Would you recommend then should continue to use Berkhof and calvin, and supplement them with my Baptist materials in areas where would disagree with the Presbyterian reformed views on things such as baptism and how to run the church?
 
KMK said:
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
Click to expand...
Could you recommend a few of them?
 
Dachaser said:
would that be due to there not being a standard Baptist ST yet?
Click to expand...
There is not much of a standard 'Reformed Baptist' one. Baptists, in and of themselves, tend to be all over the place theologically especially today with people like Grudem promoting EFS and others promoting other weird things.
 
arapahoepark said:
There is not much of a standard 'Reformed Baptist' one. Baptists, in and of themselves, tend to be all over the place theologically especially today with people like Grudem promoting EFS and others promoting other weird things.
Click to expand...

Grudem is not a Baptist. He is Third Wave Charismatic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Dachaser said:
he would still hold to much of reformed theology still though, correct?
Click to expand...

Are you referring to Grudem? If so, I don't see how he is relevant to the discussion. Don't lump everyone who is a credobaptist into the 'Baptist' category. Otherwise we might as well lump N.T. Wright into the Presbyterian category simply because he is a paedobaptist.
 
KMK said:
Are you referring to Grudem? If so, I don't see how he is relevant to the discussion. Don't lump everyone who is a credobaptist into the 'Baptist' category. Otherwise we might as well lump N.T. Wright into the Presbyterian category simply because he is a paedobaptist.
Click to expand...
Good point, but just thought that he did hold with reformed theology overall still...
 
Dachaser said:
Good point, but just thought that he did hold with reformed theology overall still...
Click to expand...

He is Calvinistic, but he is not 'Reformed'. (Unless your definition of Reformed includes anyone who is Calvinistic)
 
If you define 'Reformed' as those who hold to the reformed confessions, then yes.
 
KMK said:
Grudem is not a Baptist. He is Third Wave Charismatic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
True. I suppose I framed it wrong. I mean that texts that are used by Baptists and their seminaries, those who are Reformed Baptists exempted, as a sort of standard systematic texts tend to have a fair amount of flaws. So I argue it is better to get theology from a paedobaptist Reformed text typically.
 
greenbaggins said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Lane. Do you happen to know what people find problematical about Reymond's ST?
 
Richard, Reymond is a fine ST. Some people find his treatment of the eternal generation of the Son to be problematic; his supralapsarianism, and also the relative lack of interaction with more recent scholarship (he does interact with some, but some feel that it is not enough). Personally, I would only really have trouble with the first one, as he seems to reject the church's formulations of the eternal generation of the Son without putting much in its place. It has, however, been a while since I have read Reymond, so I may not be remembering him accurately.
 
arapahoepark said:
I have actually found much profit in it. Seems to be the best modern systematic theology in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, Trent. You might want to be on the lookout for Reymond's book What is God?: An Investigation of the Perfections of God's Nature (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2007). It's basically a 350-page exposition and meditation on Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 4 ("What is God?"). It consists of eleven chapel addresses he gave at Knox Seminary. It's excellent.
 
greenbaggins said:
Richard, Reymond is a fine ST. Some people find his treatment of the eternal generation of the Son to be problematic; his supralapsarianism, and also the relative lack of interaction with more recent scholarship (he does interact with some, but some feel that it is not enough). Personally, I would only really have trouble with the first one, as he seems to reject the church's formulations of the eternal generation of the Son without putting much in its place. It has, however, been a while since I have read Reymond, so I may not be remembering him accurately.
Click to expand...
His theology has some problems with eternal begetting/subordination?
 
Last edited:
arapahoepark said:
No. Unlike Grudem he does not favor EFS. He is a staunch opponent. He instead thinks that some of the fathers paved the way for subordination.
Click to expand...
Mainly referring to an Eastern tendency (though not found in Gregory of Nazianzus or Athanasius) to make the Father the arche/aitia of the Godhead.
 
Dachaser said:
Would you recommend then should continue to use Berkhof and calvin, and supplement them with my Baptist materials in areas where would disagree with the Presbyterian reformed views on things such as baptism and how to run the church?
Click to expand...

Berkhof is good because most Reformed students have read him. I think one needs to go beyond Berkhof in a lot of areas, but as a foundational text he is the classic.
 
Dachaser said:
Will read....
Click to expand...

Yes, James Petigru Boyce, the founding president of SBTS, is who I intended by that remark. His Abstract of Systematic Theology is very good. You also should read John Leadley Dagg. His Manual of Theology and Manual of Church Order are both helpful, well-reasoned works by one of the very few SBC writing theologians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Calvin's "Institutes"
Replies
15
Views
3K
Peairtach
Peairtach
J.L. Allen
Bahnsen Project - Calvin's Institutes
Replies
1
Views
674
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
PuritanCovenanter
  • Locked
Try to win Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics (4 volumes).
Replies
0
Views
1K
PuritanCovenanter
PuritanCovenanter
C
  • Locked
Calvin's Institutes (Beveridge) for $16.99
Replies
3
Views
2K
JM
JM
B
  • Locked
James Henley Thornwell on Calvin's "Institutes"
Replies
1
Views
1K
bookslover
B
Back
Top