What is Your Favorite PRESBYTERIAN Systematic Theology and Why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll forgive you if you bail me out next time I get in over my head in an argument.
 
Nathan, this question is highly suggestive of an interesting fact -- while there are literally several dozen Systematic Theology works from the Continent in the late 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries, I can barely even account for a small handful of such works from the British Presbyterians of the same period. In truth, the only fully developed High Orthodox system I can account for off the top of my head from a Presbyterian is Edward Leigh's Body of Divinity. Dudley Fenner was an advocate of Presbyterianism and composed a systematic work modeled on Ramist logic, and Cartwright composed a treatise touching on all the principle points of Divinity, but I wouldn't call it a system of Theology. Among the Scotsmen, you have John Brown's lectures, which were mentioned above, and Samuel Rutherford's lectures which were later combined and published under the name Examen Arminianismi. The works of men such as Watson, Boston, Binning and Ridgely, who made expositions, sermons or lectures on the Catechisms approach the concept of a system (some more than others), and there were several such works. Can you think of any Presbyterian systems pre-1800s?

Edit
John Downame? I have not read his system, The Summe of Sacred Divinity. Was he Presbyterian; it seems likely that he was.

Let me add this: Of all of the Presbyterian Systematics... how many of the small handful have an ecclesiology in them? It seems to me that Presbyterians (who claim jus divinum of presbyterianism) only a handful of the handful have an ecclisiology!
 
Nathan, this question is highly suggestive of an interesting fact -- while there are literally several dozen Systematic Theology works from the Continent in the late 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries, I can barely even account for a small handful of such works from the British Presbyterians of the same period. In truth, the only fully developed High Orthodox system I can account for off the top of my head from a Presbyterian is Edward Leigh's Body of Divinity. Dudley Fenner was an advocate of Presbyterianism and composed a systematic work modeled on Ramist logic, and Cartwright composed a treatise touching on all the principle points of Divinity, but I wouldn't call it a system of Theology. Among the Scotsmen, you have John Brown's lectures, which were mentioned above, and Samuel Rutherford's lectures which were later combined and published under the name Examen Arminianismi. The works of men such as Watson, Boston, Binning and Ridgely, who made expositions, sermons or lectures on the Catechisms approach the concept of a system (some more than others), and there were several such works. Can you think of any Presbyterian systems pre-1800s?

Edit
John Downame? I have not read his system, The Summe of Sacred Divinity. Was he Presbyterian; it seems likely that he was.

Let me add this: Of all of the Presbyterian Systematics... how many of the small handful have an ecclesiology in them? It seems to me that Presbyterians (who claim jus divinum of presbyterianism) only a handful of the handful have an ecclisiology!

Nathan, you know, you're right. I can't remember EVER reading any with an "ecclisiology" in them. :lol:
 
No. I was asking if we couldn't amplify your statement about British Presbyterians producing few systems, to be simply a statement about the British in general.

I had a philosophy professor tell me that the British theologians/philosophers tended to focus on particulars, while the Continental theologians/philosphers focused on broader and big picture themes. Perhaps the lack of many Presbyterian ST's could be explained by that cultural difference.

But there might be more going on that just that. The English Presbyterians were not very prominent in England. And in Scotland, many of the colleges used continental resources. David Lackman makes a point about that in his study of the Marrow controversy. :2cents:
 
Does anyone have a link to a Brakel's work on Amazon or elsewhere?

Also, I have to admit that I have never thought of a confession as a systematic theology. Although it is certainly systematic in its structure, considering the entirety of Scripture, I have always distinguished creeds and confessions from systematic theologies because of their difference in detail. I've been of the understanding that what makes a s.t. a s.t. is the very painstaking effort that its author undergoes in order to think God's thoughts after him.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: Does a confession have the same purpose as a theology? Or is it that they are identical in purpose but merely different in length/depth?

Then again, I could be just splitting hairs. :duh:
 
Jeremy, no, they do not have the same purpose. A systematic theology is a private work representing the manner most agreeable to the individual as to the method and order of teaching the various loci of theology; whereas a Confession is a public, ecclesiastical statement (by no means designed to be comprehensive like a system of theology) whereby we jointly confess aspects of the faith.
 
Jeremy, no, they do not have the same purpose. A systematic theology is a private work representing the manner most agreeable to the individual as to the method and order of teaching the various loci of theology; whereas a Confession is a public, ecclesiastical statement (by no means designed to be comprehensive like a system of theology) whereby we jointly confess aspects of the faith.

Most likely the best description of the difference I have heard. Bravo!
 
Jeremy, no, they do not have the same purpose. A systematic theology is a private work representing the manner most agreeable to the individual as to the method and order of teaching the various loci of theology; whereas a Confession is a public, ecclesiastical statement (by no means designed to be comprehensive like a system of theology) whereby we jointly confess aspects of the faith.

Thanks for the clarification. Do you think that a confession should derive from a systematic theology, given the purpose of the latter? After all, if my understanding is right, then a s.t., though different in-depth and purpose from a confession, is not carried out merely for its own sake. It's also undertaken for the sake of the church--and contemporized for the modern church. (I'm not saying you were denying any of this, just building off of what you wrote, which was great.)

Then again, now that I think of it, perhaps it might just as well be the other way around: The systematic theology is derived from the confession and what the Church has historically taught, fleshing it out and defending it. After all, it's not "Revelation and I" but "Revelation, the Church, and I." A systematic theology undertaken without any connection to the Church's teachings might be risky.
 
Of the Presbyterian systems, I would have to say I like Hodge the best, if only for the reason that he was heavily dependent on Turretin. I've been wanting to get hold of Morton Smith's ST, though. I think I would enjoy that. The jury's still out on Douglas Kelly's volume, but it looks excellent.
 
Bavinck hands down......straight forward, clear and honest and Hodge because he's from Philly lol
 
Rev. Keister,

What is your opinion on W.G.T. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology?

Shedd is exceptionally clear and very helpful in many areas. However, I think he is wrong in his advocation of Traducianism, and this has reverberations throughout his theology. Of course, I don't agree with Hodge on everything either. Shedd is well worth owning and reading carefully.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top