Systematic Theology recommendations?
Hi Everyone,
Just wondering what your suggestions would be regarding the above. I'm looking into Anthony Thiselton's new systematic theology and I am enjoying what I have read so far.
What I am not interested in:
1. Anything pre 1900.
2. Titles which have an eisegesis feel to them (I know this is subjective but this is my feeling toward all theologies I have read so far except Thiselton's).
3. Calvinism vs. Arminianism arguments.
Look forward to your suggestions.
Cheers
Logos 6 Gold, Logos 7 Reformed Diamond
Alienware R2 17 i7-4720HQ 3.6GHz 16GB RAM 1TB HDD 256GB SSD GTX970 3GB DDR5
Comments
-
I like Thomas Oden (3 volumes, copious references to historical positions) and Millard Erickson (one volume, but copious references to competing opinions, represented fairly).
If you list some of the ones to thought employed eisegesis, it might help us to know what you want though. Systematic theology, in contrast to biblical theology, will not draw transparently from texts, so examples may help to see what you mean.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is excellent IMHO! He is very much Reformed but does a tremendous job in presented a fair view across the board.
Logos 10 - OpenSuse Tumbleweed, Windows 11, Android 16 & Android 14
0 -
-
Frank Sauer said:
Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is excellent IMHO! He is very much Reformed but does a tremendous job in presented a fair view across the board.
You WON'T get a balanced view reading Grudem's Systematic Theology. The best way to absorb a balanced perspective it to read books written from different viewpoints.
in Christ!
http://www.TrinityExamined.com
0 -
James said:
1. Anything pre 1900.
. . . that pretty much counts the Bible out . . . [;)] jk, jk!!!
I agree with those who recommended Oden (many historical references/thinking compiled under categories) and Erickson. I am not debating, just saying, I am NOT Reformed, Millard is, and I gave his volume to my best man at my wedding. He is clear and as balanced as anyone could be and still hold a position.
A nice little one volume is Jack Cottrell's The Faith Once for All. He is is a clear thinker, and writer. I don't always agree, and he is opinionated, but I respect his clarity of thought and writing. He would be Arminian side, I suppose. He is a cogent systematic thinker.
Two that I can't say ANYTHING about, but intrigue me: Karkkainen and Sonderegger (but only volume one, right now)
Peace.
I like Apples. Especially Honeycrisp.
0 -
Friedrich said:
A nice little one volume is Jack Cottrell's The Faith Once for All. He is is a clear thinker, and writer. I don't always agree, and he is opinionated, but I respect his clarity of thought and writing. He would be Arminian side, I suppose. He is a cogent systematic thinker.
In addition to the title above, for a non Calvinist perspective I recommend Thomas Oden, Grace for All: The Arminian Dynamics of Salvation and Life in the Son by Shank.
In Christ!
http://www.TrinityExamined.com
0 -
Thanks everyone for your suggestions so far. I thought I'd throw this question out there too - Is anyone aware of a Systematic Theology book which actually provides a sensible amount of evidence for their claims?
For instance - If I read a claim that Romans 9:13 is proof for the doctrine of Rebrobation, I'd expect to see:
1. Exegetical evidence
2. Linguistic evidence
3. Steel man argument showing why this is the most probable argument over others.
While I've more or less given up on expecting point 3, I'd still expect to see at least the first two from scholars.
* Personal Doubts* - A great struggle of mine coming from mathematics is that theology is not clear cut. Why is it so difficult to find a most probable theology framework?
Cheers,
Logos 6 Gold, Logos 7 Reformed Diamond
Alienware R2 17 i7-4720HQ 3.6GHz 16GB RAM 1TB HDD 256GB SSD GTX970 3GB DDR5
0 -
In my opinion, an accurate understanding of Romans 9:13 requires an examination of near and far contexts and a comparison of Scripture with Scripture.
For a "most probable theology framework" my recommendation is to spend more time studying the Bible than any theology book.
In Christ!
http://www.TrinityExamined.com
0 -
Frank Sauer said:
Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is excellent IMHO! He is very much Reformed but does a tremendous job in presented a fair view across the board.
I will also say Gregg Allison's companion book Historical Theology complements Grudem in every aspect historically so this might also be one to consider.
0 -
James said:
I thought I'd throw this question out there too - Is anyone aware of a Systematic Theology book which actually provides a sensible amount of evidence for their claims?
Offhand, not one from this side of 1900.
James said:For instance - If I read a claim that Romans 9:13 is proof for the doctrine of Rebrobation, I'd expect to see:
1. Exegetical evidence
2. Linguistic evidence
3. Steel man argument showing why this is the most probable argument over others.
Whereas I would expect, in a systematic theology, the author to say either that reprobation is (or is not) the case, and then to provide and analyze a number of arguments and objections on both sides. The discussion of Romans 9:13 would thus be secondary to the discussion of reprobation. Thus the theologian's conclusion would require (among other things) reconciling all passages of Scripture which could be taken to support reprobation or to deny it. In short, the focus would be on the doctrine, not on any particular Scripture passage/prooftext.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
What about Daniel Akin's "A Theology for the Church".
http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Church-Dr-Daniel-Akin/dp/1433682133/L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
Into Grace said:Frank Sauer said:
Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is excellent IMHO! He is very much Reformed but does a tremendous job in presented a fair view across the board.
You WON'T get a balanced view reading Grudem's Systematic Theology. The best way to absorb a balanced perspective it to read books written from different viewpoints.
in Christ!
Accurate. However, at the end of each chapter Grudem does provide a very good listing of authors and page numbers of works from various traditions. That feature alone makes Grudem worth consulting, even if you're not reformed.
Let's be honest, you will not find any theology unstained by the author's bias. Read broadly.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
abondservant said:
What about Daniel Akin's "A Theology for the Church".
http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Church-Dr-Daniel-Akin/dp/1433682133/I found it helpful on certain topics, but not a very good systematic. I would categorize it more as a topical theology.
0 -
I have not read much of it but personally Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theological Trilogy (16 vols.) is about the best work out there in my mind.
-Dan
PS: Here is a sample from the preface to, Epilogue a purchase of it ($11.95) may help you decide if the fuller set it worth your time.
Foreword
This Epilogue to my trilogy has been written to afford the weary reader something like an overview of the whole enterprise. It was after all a large project (now swollen to sixteen volumes). The reason it grew to such an ungainly size is because it sought to treat such sweeping topics as “aesthetics”, “theo-drama”, and “theo-logic” in a manner sufficient to such large themes. But this overview does not mean to offer the reader a kind of Reader’s Digest of the whole, that is, a condensed, summary version of the trilogy. Rather, it wants to explain why the trilogy has tried to present theology from the perspective of the Platonic transcendentals instead of, as used to be done, in the traditional tractate style (loci theology, as it was called). Meaning simply this: How might we make the smoothest transition from a true (and thereby religious) philosophy to biblical revelation? Hence the title of part 2 of the Epilogue, “Threshold”, where we will try to effect this transition.
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Epilogue, trans. Edward T. Oakes (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 9.
0 -
SineNomine said:
Offhand, not one from this side of 1900.
SineNomine, what comes to mind pre-1900?
SineNomine said:Whereas I would expect, in a systematic theology, the author to say either that reprobation is (or is not) the case, and then to provide and analyze a number of arguments and objections on both sides.
This is fine to have present, but I largely only encounter strawman arguments at best. Why is it not sensible to try to make sense of what the text actually means in this case? It certainly would stop a lot of proof texting. Perhaps I am missing the point of an ST?
Logos 6 Gold, Logos 7 Reformed Diamond
Alienware R2 17 i7-4720HQ 3.6GHz 16GB RAM 1TB HDD 256GB SSD GTX970 3GB DDR5
0 -
James said:
* Personal Doubts* - A great struggle of mine coming from mathematics is that theology is not clear cut. Why is it so difficult to find a most probable theology framework?
For what you're describing, I would think Erickson would be your best bet. My undergrad was in Math and I taught PreCal and Calculus for a couple of years before full time ministry, so I probably have similar thought processes. The problem you are having is that math is based on axioms and mutually agreed upon steps. You can do those with theology, but the difficulty is in agreeing on what texts mean (the axioms). Surely you learned in Analysis that one of the difficulties is that some statements are not well-defined enough to be proven or disproven and one of the difficulties in theology is forming well defined statements. The Bible is self-consciously not a list of axioms, but primarily a narrative (I do not agree with all of this article, but it will give you a sense of the problem).You might also like Barth's Church Dogmatics (although that is a heavy undertaking), at least "Dogmatics As Science" in 1.1.
"The question of being unscientific in this respect arises with regard to the parties in mediaeval and the older Protestant dogmatics in which it seems to have been more a matter of satisfying the formal need of the general scholar or teacher for completeness than of the consistency and exactitude of the scholar or teacher in the Church. But it arises even more in respect of certain enterprises in modern dogmatics which do not seem to be concerned with the Church’s task as such but with all kinds of accommodations respecting its possibility in relation to this or that general view. What seem to have been the loftiest peaks of learning in our field, both ancient and modern, always seem to have been most exposed to the danger of being unscientific in the form of the ever-threatening transition to pure gnosis.
Karl Barth, Geoffrey William Bromiley, and Thomas F. Torrance, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1, vol. 1 (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 281."
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
James said:
Two things: a particular systematic theology--left incomplete by the author's death, but nonetheless quite lengthy--and a style of argumentation, which I think is unsurpassed in the analysis of theological questions: the medieval quaestio. (The link makes obvious the particular systematic theology that came to my mind.)
If anyone knows of any post-1900 systematic theologies written in the format of a quaestio that Faithlife offers, please give them in this thread.
James said:SineNomine said:Whereas I would expect, in a systematic theology, the author to say either that reprobation is (or is not) the case, and then to provide and analyze a number of arguments and objections on both sides.
This is fine to have present, but I largely only encounter strawman arguments at best. Why is it not sensible to try to make sense of what the text actually means in this case? It certainly would stop a lot of proof texting. Perhaps I am missing the point of an ST?
You might be missing the point of a systematic theology; FL might also define a systematic theology in a way other than mine. If I understand you correctly, and it's quite possible (even likely) that I don't, you understand theology (as a discipline) to consist essentially in the interpretation of Scripture. I understand theology to consist essentially in the study of God (and therefore also of His works).
With theology understood in this latter way, to my mind, a systematic theology is a work that endeavours to set out and explain truths about God and His works in an orderly and non-contradictory manner. So when I write that I think that Scriptural interpretation is in a way secondary to the discussion of theological questions, it's because I think that the genres of work in which Scriptural interpretation is primary are the Bible Commentary and (often) the sermon/homily. The fact that I accept as possessing authentic theological authority more things than just the Old and New Testaments (whatever canon you happen to hold to) may be relevant here, but now I am straying toward the realms of ChristianDiscourse and private messages.I certainly hold that interpreting Scripture is a large part of doing theology, and thus Scripture should be extensively considered in a good systematic theology, but to my mind the interpretation of Scripture is not, by genre, what a systematic theology consists of.
But perhaps I have not explained myself well so far. This last part should be clear enough: I loathe straw man arguments too. That's why I like the Summa Theologiae so much.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
What about Understanding Theology by RT Kendall... I recently got it through a package upgrade and haven't had time to read it but on the quick glanse it looks well organized
0 -
Hi James:
Very late but if you are following then I hope to be of some help:
Old systematics (I have not gone over so not sure how helpful):
https://www.logos.com/product/30296/institutes-of-elenctic-theology
https://www.logos.com/product/21085/loci-communes-1543
https://www.logos.com/product/28179/theological-commonplaces-by-johann-gerhard
https://www.logos.com/product/136743/plain-theology-for-plain-people
Now I have to agree with the comment:
TCBlack wrote:
“Let's be honest, you will not find any theology unstained by the author's bias. Read broadly.”
Usually, not many people have clear what the underlying issues really are in the different positions. To that effect to enlarge the conceptual framework so you can do an analysis of the different resources I would think of using:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1889638056/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i7
By looking at the above, you will really see why there seems to be irreconcilable differences among certain groups / traditions / denominations.
Peace and grace.
0 -
SineNomine said:
But perhaps I have not explained myself well so far. This last part should be clear enough: I loathe straw man arguments too. That's why I like the Summa Theologiae so much.
SineNomine, interesting, many important points, but there are so many areas that need to be checked when talking about God, His works, and His people (not to mention His messenger, His ways, etc.)
If a picture is worth many words, then to spark imagination:
If we are to be not just hearers (in our case readers also), but also doers, then we must systematically explore other areas.
FL systematic theology mobile ed course talks of 3 primary tasks of theology:
1 Evaluate doctrine, 2 develop doctrine, 3 communicate doctrine.
4 I would add help make things happen as per God's will in the areas that are key:
a exalt Jesus Christ, b prepare the sheep for service, 3 look for the lost.
Now we all know that a good theory / construct is a very practical thing, so we must be careful about such:
The whole counsel of God is needed not to reach wrong conclusions. example: some say that when Jesus said He was going to be with us to the end it was addressed only to the Apostles.
But then we have:
John 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.
So theoretically we have that in line with the above verse, is very possible to have Jesus manifest in modern time to a believer. Systematically we need to ascertain that:
Quote out of L8 will follow:
"Jonathan Edwards, some of you have heard of him. He was a Congregational minister in New England 200 years ago. Listen to this little note from his prayer diary:
“Once, as I rode out into the woods for my health, in 1737 … I had a view that was for me extraordinary. [The inward eyes of my heart were opened and I saw the] glory of the Son of God … and his wonderful, great … pure and sweet grace and love.The person of Christ appeared ineffably excellent with an excellency great enough to swallow up all thought and conception, which continued as near as I could judge [as a condition of me, for] about an hour, which kept me the greater part of the time in a flood of tears and weeping aloud. I felt an ardency of soul to be … full of Christ alone; to love him with a holy and pure love; to trust in him; to live upon him; to serve … him.”
Now I don’t know about you, but when I read a statement like that, this is what I think. “Is this guy in the same religion I’m in?” Maybe I’m in the international league, and he’s in the big leagues or something. Don’t be discouraged. He was experiencing the presence of God at a heightened degree, and the presence of God is something you cannot push buttons and experience to the same degree when you go before him in your private prayer or when you come together and go before him corporately, but what the Scripture teaches is we expect far too little of this. We expect so little reality in our lives."
Keller, T. J. (2013). The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive. New York City: Redeemer Presbyterian Church.
Most of us would agree that Jonathan Edwards is a trustworthy and credible source. The chances of him making up stuff are nil. So in his description of his experience, he validates the above verse, Jesus manifested Himself to J. Edwards in the modern era (pre 1900 though).
So systematics goes beyond Scriptures to check for positive evidence for doctrine.
Now we are commanded to be more than hearers and readers, we must move into doers, systematical efforts also pay off in such attempts:
Be warned, I am trying to enrich the conversation and to enlarge the conceptual framework, not trying to start polemics.
As such the above is for further research, reflection and constructive comment and action.
Peace and grace.
0 -
Here’s one that gives different views, which is nice. It’s called a handbook so it gets easily overlooked because of that:
https://www.logos.com/product/125778/the-moody-handbook-of-theology-revised-and-expanded
DAL
0 -
I study under both Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demerest. I agree that this is a great way to experience and think about theological questions.
0 -
Dan Francis said:
Integrative Theology is one I really like.
-Dan
This was not even on my radar. It sounds very interesting. Thanks for recommending it.
0 -
Hi James,
Thanks for starting this thread - I've enjoyed reading the answers. Certainly, I'd agree with those who have suggested Erikson, he is probably one of the most neutral systematic theologians out there.
Before I give my other suggested, I should say that I'm a card-carrying Reformed Christian so that is going to influence my choice of Systematic Theologies. Still, I hope you find them helpful. :-)
First, Louis Berkhof's two-volume set. Berkhoff has a really succinct style offering excellent summaries of the biblical data and thorough overviews of the historical development of a doctrine:
https://www.logos.com/product/6690/introduction-to-systematic-theology
https://www.logos.com/product/6689/systematic-theology
Second, John Frame's single-volume edition. To call it a systematic theology is probably a little inaccurate since it is really a summary of all of Frame's theological contributions so far, so it is a little lopsided in what it covers. However, he has been one of the leading lights in the doctrine of God and his multi-perspectival approach to theology is well worth engaging with.
https://www.logos.com/product/49812/systematic-theology-an-introduction-to-christian-belief
Third, though only just outside of your 1900 qualification (but only by 1 year!) I'd also recommend Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics. Bavinck is a phenomenal mind and is worth reading for his trinitarian approach to theology. I also because of his position as a Reformed theologian seek to do reformed theology in the midst of liberalism, and his Dutch background, it means he often in engages with sources, thinks about things differently, and develops ideas that I found helpful and stimulating.
Finally, for their historical significance to the systematic theology project and their enduring legacy don't overlook Aquinas' Summa Theologica and Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I enjoy reading both together as they make for interesting discussion partners.
https://www.logos.com/product/4248/summa-theologica
https://www.logos.com/product/16036/institutes-of-the-christian-religion
Best wishes, Liam
Carpe verbum.
0 -
Here’s another one from a different perspective: https://www.logos.com/product/26936/the-christians-reasonable-service
DAL
0 -
Mine will mostly have a reformed backing but my favorites are:
Geisler's 4-volume Sys-Theo (great for apologetics!), Horton's Christian Faith, MacArthur's Biblical Doctrine, Grudem, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Multi-Volume Set), Understanding Christian Theology (Zuck/Swindoll), and Garrett's Systematic Theology (2 Volume).
Other noteable mentions: Lightner's Handbook of Evangelical Theology, Sproul's Everyone's a Theologian & Essential Truths, Moody Handbook, Erickson's Christian Theology and Culver's Systematic Theology.
Sorry I know that is a lot but those are usually where I start and it changes overtime
0 -
James,
No one has mentioned Gunton.
He wrote on many theological topics. I used his book on Atonement for 4th year @ Theological College, (Seminary) one of the best books I have read. He is modern, but he develops the theology of the Atonement by looking at select Fathers and theologians. Although I have not read al his works, this one is especially good. His method will show you a method for doing theology, and how theological thinking develops by looking at scripture and these theologians.
0 -
I really enjoyed MacArthur and Mayhue’s Biblical Doctrine.
Erickson’s Christian Theology was one we used in class.
Grudem's is considered the "gold standard", although it can be one-sided and not fully comprehensive.
Ryrie's Basic Theology is a good introduction.
Moody Handbook of Theology is another goodie.
Akin's A Theology for the Church is also good.
Garrett's Systematic Theology is quite comprehensive.
Those are from evangelical authors. If you want outside of that, that can be arranged as well. :-)
All of what I mentioned are in Logos or FL eBooks.
Dr. Nathan Parker
0 -
abondservant said:
What about Daniel Akin's "A Theology for the Church".
http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Church-Dr-Daniel-Akin/dp/1433682133/This one is also on FL eBooks now.
Dr. Nathan Parker
0 -
