What is Your Favorite PRESBYTERIAN Systematic Theology and Why?

[N. Eshelman]

We all read these guys: Berkhoff, Bavinck, and Brakel (or at least SHOULD).

They are wonderful Systematic Theologies.

What is your favorite Presbyterian Systematic Theology? Why?

 

[Jake]

I'm going through Berkhof's now.. it is the first systematic I have read.

 

[yeutter]

Hodge, straight forward, solid

 

[DMcFadden]

Nate, let's see . . . some of those guys were not "Presbyterian," but Reformed. And, Lewis S. Chafer was Presbyterian, but NOT Reformed. Hmmm.

I don't get why anyone would prefer Berkhof to Bavinck. Both of them are great, but Berkhof is a bit . . . derivitive of Bavinck, don't you think?
On one of these "cold" 55 degree days that Nate was complaining about on another thread, a Brakel will warm your heart quicker than Hodge.

 

[N. Eshelman]

Nate, let's see . . . some of those guys were not "Presbyterian," but Reformed. And, Lewis S. Chafer was Presbyterian, but NOT Reformed. Hmmm.

I don't get why anyone would prefer Berkhof to Bavinck. Both of them are great, but Berkhof is a bit . . . derivitive of Bavinck, don't you think?
On one of these "cold" 55 degree days that Nate was complaining about on another thread, a Brakel will warm your heart quicker than Hodge.

Dennis,

The 3Bs were all in the Dutch Reformed tradition. I mean, other than the Dutch Masters, what Presbyterian Systematics do you like?

I like Berkhof the least of the three. Brakel is one. Bavinck two. Berkhof three.

BTW, I have Brakel at home AND at my study- so I can be warm in both places.

 

[dudley]

I like Charles Hodge an American Reformed Protestant theologian from the 19th century. Hodge was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Princeton, then called the College of New Jersey in 1815. In1819 he graduated from the Princeton Theological seminary, where he became an instructor in 1820. In 1821, he had been ordained as a Presbyterian minister. I like him because he is straight forward and I also liked his discussions in Church Polity which I believe he wrote in 1878

 

[Michael]

Um....Dabney!

 

[Ne Oublie]

Outlines of Theology, A.A. Hodge. because it was the first Systematic that I heard of and I grew to like the format.
Robert L.Reymond's because it is current to our time and issues as well as having the benefit of the others.
I liked Morton H.Smith as well, the Southern side, succinct and informative.
Have not read Charles Hodge, not sure I will(reading Brakel), want to read Dabney's next.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I like Dabney's Systematic Theology. It is very comprehensive and Dabney does not waste words.

However I have recently started reading W.G.T. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology and am really enjoying it. I like the fact Shedd is not slavishly following Scottish Common-Sense Realism like Hodge.

 

[puritanhope]

My favorite Presbyterian Systematic Theology would have to be the Westminster Confession of Faith. Why? Well, because it's the Systematic Theology on which all other Presbyterian Systematic Theologies are based!

Miss you! The wife and I prayed for your congregation in LA tonight. I hope things are going well.

God bless,
Bryan Buie

 

[N. Eshelman]

My favorite Presbyterian Systematic Theology would have to be the Westminster Confession of Faith. Why? Well, because it's the Systematic Theology on which all other Presbyterian Systematic Theologies are based!

Miss you! The wife and I prayed for your congregation in LA tonight. I hope things are going well.

God bless,
Bryan Buie

Thanks Bryan! Interesting comment concerning the WCF too.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I have read some of Berkhof and others. For reading I prefer Dabney. It is like sitting in on his lectures. Go figure.

 

[Scott1]

Yes, to second what has been said...

The Westminster Standards are the best biblical systematic theology ever written. The most concise, pure, documented by Scripture.

The Three Forms of Unity would be a close second.

 

[jrdnoland]

We all read these guys: Berkhoff, Bavinck, and Brakel (or at least SHOULD).

They are wonderful Systematic Theologies.

What is your favorite Presbyterian Systematic Theology? Why?

Nathan is this the Brakel version? I found it online as a pdf.

http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/B/Brakel%20-%20Christian%27s%20Reasonable%20Service%20%28Systematic%20Theology%29.pdf

I also have Wayne Grudems' version of Systematic Theology.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The one Presbyterian systematic theology I keep going back too is Robert Shaw's Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith. He explains all the doctrinal battles, the doctrinal players, and shows how the Confession fits with Scripture and historic theology. Of course there's alot that has happened since he wrote it, but most is still very relevant. There's nothing new under the sun. Some other Prebyterian systematic theologians I keep refering back to, though they haven't written a whole systematic theology yet, is Donald Macleod and John Murray.

 

[KMK]

I am in no position to judge between systematic theologies but I have recently enjoyed John Brown of Haddington.

 

[DMcFadden]

We all read these guys: Berkhoff, Bavinck, and Brakel (or at least SHOULD).

They are wonderful Systematic Theologies.

What is your favorite Presbyterian Systematic Theology? Why?

Nathan is this the Brakel version? I found it online as a pdf.

http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/B/Brakel%20-%20Christian%27s%20Reasonable%20Service%20%28Systematic%20Theology%29.pdf

I also have Wayne Grudems' version of Systematic Theology.

Grudem is a great read for a contemporary theologian. However, he is also a Charismatic-Reformed Baptist, not a Presbyterian (despite his WTS M.Div.).

 

[DMcFadden]

Nate, let's see . . . some of those guys were not "Presbyterian," but Reformed. And, Lewis S. Chafer was Presbyterian, but NOT Reformed. Hmmm.

I don't get why anyone would prefer Berkhof to Bavinck. Both of them are great, but Berkhof is a bit . . . derivitive of Bavinck, don't you think?
On one of these "cold" 55 degree days that Nate was complaining about on another thread, a Brakel will warm your heart quicker than Hodge.

Dennis,

The 3Bs were all in the Dutch Reformed tradition. I mean, other than the Dutch Masters, what Presbyterian Systematics do you like?

I like Berkhof the least of the three. Brakel is one. Bavinck two. Berkhof three.

BTW, I have Brakel at home AND at my study- so I can be warm in both places.

Wow! You have a Brakel at home AND at church??? I guess it made sense when you were in Grand Rapids. But, 55 degree days in the dead of winter are really not THAT cold, Nate.

Actually, I have him on my shelf at home and on my computer so he can keep me warm everywhere!

 

[jambo]

Berkhof, Bavinck and Hodge. I will own up and admit I have never read Brakel

 

[Dragoon]

As weird as it sounds I have enjoyed Lewis S. Chafer, systematic theology even if I do not agree with much of it. I found his writing style to be easy to read and very enlightening of what dispensationist of that time (and many still) believe.

 

[Prufrock]

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.

 

[Sven]

Nate,

One of my all time favorite Presbyterian Systematics is John Dick's Lectures on Theology. John Brown's has my high regard, as well as Hodge's. A. A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology are excellent too.

 

[JOwen]

Charles Hodge. Why? Because he is as solid as they come. Plus, as one who will be moving to my new charge in New Jersey this year, I feel a new kinship with him.

 

[Peairtach]

The only systematic theologies I've read are Calvin's Institutes, the WCF and catechisms, Grudem, Berhkof, Hodge and Dabney.

Grudem's easy to read although erroneous in many places viz. the gifts of the Spirit, church government, the millennium, baptism, etc.

I like Dabney because of his razor sharp and apparently thorough analysis of the various questions/possibilities and opinions. The problem with Dabney is that you feel you could spend hours meditating on and unpacking what he is saying in a relatively few words.

 

[py3ak]

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.

Paul, doesn't that generalization largely hold with regard to continental theologians and British theologians, period? I mean, is the number of congregational systems substantially larger than the number of presbyterian systems?

 

[Prufrock]

Ruben, my brain must be fried tonight -- I'm not sure I understand your question. I can't account for too many British systems of the period *at all*, let alone from the Presbyterians (in distinction from the Episcopals or Independents); whereas there are seemingly countless scores from the Continental reformed.

 

[py3ak]

Paul, that was exactly the point I was looking to have validated. For some reason, the British were much less productive of whole systems than the Continentals. It sounds like a topic for a Reformed sociology student to do a thesis on.

 

[Prufrock]

Ah, I think I see part of the confusion: "I mean, is the number of congregational systems substantially larger than the number of presbyterian systems?" Was the bold portion supposed to read "continental" instead of "congregational"?

 

[py3ak]

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.

 

[Prufrock]

All right, I follow now. Sorry I'm being so slow!