Berkhof vs. Grudem

Hey all,

I've already got Grudem's Systematic Theology - would it be valuable to have Berkhof's as well? Or is there enough overlap in theological position and/or method to make it somewhat redundant? Just wondering since it's on special.

Thanks,
Jason

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Steve Adams

when you see how thorough Berkof is Grudem will seem more like a "Theological Survey" rather than a systematic theology.

nancy

John Kight

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204409#Comment_204409

I have both and both are wonderful, but I tend to use Grudem's more often.

George Somsel

Hey all,

I've already got Grudem's Systematic Theology - would it be valuable to have Berkhof's as well? Or is there enough overlap in theological position and/or method to make it somewhat redundant? Just wondering since it's on special.

Thanks,
Jason

I don't have Grudem and that quite deliberately. I found that he has a tendency to interpret matters somewhat idiosyncratically. I am referring specifically to his views on male / female relations. He attempts to equate the gender usage in the GNT with physical genders which anyone who has any knowledge of the original languges knows is not a valid process. If his interpretation of the text is thus faulty, I have no confidence in his other interpretations.

Chris Lohroff

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204440#Comment_204440

Hey all,

I've already got Grudem's Systematic Theology - would it be valuable to have Berkhof's as well? Or is there enough overlap in theological position and/or method to make it somewhat redundant? Just wondering since it's on special.

Thanks,
Jason

I don't have Grudem and that quite deliberately. I found that he has a tendency to interpret matters somewhat idiosyncratically. I am referring specifically to his views on male / female relations. He attempts to equate the gender usage in the GNT with physical genders which anyone who has any knowledge of the original languges knows is not a valid process. If his interpretation of the text is thus faulty, I have no confidence in his other interpretations.

With this "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" mentality I'm surprised you've found any systematics worth reading (have you?). I suppose you dismiss Köstenberger, Ware, Mohler, Sproul, Moo, Piper, and Carson as well? After all, they are also complimentarians and must therefore, by your logic, be untrustworthy in all other theological matters as well.

Regarding the question asked, yes, I think you would find Berkhof to be useful as well. I've been considering picking up a copy for the last several months and was excited to see it offered during the 12 days sale and gladly picked it up.

James Matichuk

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204578#Comment_204578

The difference between the two is: Berkhof's Systematic Theology is a systematic theology; Grudem's Systematic Theology is called a systematic theology.[6]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204578#Comment_204578

With this "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" mentality I'm surprised you've found any systematics worth reading (have you?). I suppose you dismiss Köstenberger, Ware, Mohler, Sproul, Moo, Piper, and Carson as well? After all, they are also complimentarians and must therefore, by your logic, be untrustworthy in all other theological matters as well.

Whether they are complementarians or not isn't the question. The question is whether they reveal an abysmal lack of understanding of the Greek. To be quite frank, I don't have any of those you mention. I do have Aquinas, Calvin, Hodge, Barth. I wish I had Berkhouwer, but at the time it was on prepub I couldn't afford to buy it. I'm not a systematics guy to begin with. My interest is in biblical theology. I do, quite naturally, have my own theology, but that is a different story.

I should probably also note that we used Berhof when I was in seminary and at that time I purchased Berkhouwer -- in Dutch because it was cheaper.

Rich DeRuiter

I do not have Grudem, but I do have Berkhoff.

Berkhoff is thorough but very heavily committed to a classical Reformed perspective. The work is very scholarly, deals with a wide variety of theological perspectives, and is still a standard in many circles. I've seen copies translated into Spanish (by TELL) in many places in Latin America. Louis Berkhoff was a member of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), of which I am a member, and as you might expect, this book was required in the CRC seminary (Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, MI). So, I have spent quite a bit of time with it. This book is dated, and does not represent the current views of the CRC in every respect and many of the issues he deals with are no longer as controversial as they were at the time he wrote this. But most of what he deals with are still issues somewhere. It's still valuable, IMHO, because it is so thorough, and deals with a wide spectrum of perspectives on many of the loci.

Gudem is a contemporary evangelical. I have another book he wrote (in print, not in Logos), and while I appreciate his work, the level of scholarship isn't as rigorous as Berkhoff. But neither is he as dated.This work is quickly becoming a standard, and I'd probably buy it, if I felt I needed more than one systematic theology.

If I were to buy one systematic theology, I'd buy Berkhof (which I did). But I acknowledge my theological and denominational predisposition toward him.

Chris Lohroff

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204585#Comment_204585

Thanks for the clarification, George... and thanks for looking past my (inappropriate) tone to what I was trying to say. Having just taught this chapter in our bible doctrine class at church, it seemed to me he relied more on the OT than the NT to support his position. I'm not sure which specific items you are referring to which point out his abysmal lack of understanding of the Greek, but my sense is, after studying the topic pretty extensively, that most of the guys I listed get to the same conclusion using the same paths Grudem takes.

Thanks again for taking the high road with your response. Wayne Grudem's ST has been instrumental in transforming my life over the past 2 years and for some reason I felt I needed to defend him. I apologize for that.

Chris Lohroff

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204591#Comment_204591

Gudem is a contemporary evangelical. I have another book he wrote (in print, not in Logos), and while I appreciate his work, the level of scholarship isn't as rigorous as Berkhoff. But neither is he as dated.This work is quickly becoming a standard, and I'd probably buy it, if I felt I needed more than one systematic theology.

(Woohoo for Grand Rapids... although I went to Hope [:O])

Your assessment of Grudem is correct. He intentionally writes most of his books for a broader audience. This is why he opts for more accessible terms like "independence" rather than "aseity." It is also why his ST is better suited for laypeople like myself.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204592#Comment_204592

Thanks for the clarification, George... and thanks for looking past my (inappropriate) tone to what I was trying to say. Having just taught this chapter in our bible doctrine class at church, it seemed to me he relied more on the OT than the NT to support his position. I'm not sure which specific items you are referring to which point out his abysmal lack of understanding of the Greek, but my sense is, after studying the topic pretty extensively, that most of the guys I listed get to the same conclusion using the same paths Grudem takes.

Thanks again for taking the high road with your response. Wayne Grudem's ST has been instrumental in transforming my life over the past 2 years and for some reason I felt I needed to defend him. I apologize for that.

First, I don't attempt to maintain that Grudem has nothing good to say (especially since I have read his systematics). I simply don't trust him on the basis of his attempt to use Greek improperly to establish his complementarian view. I happened to be able to listen in to a debate regarding the use of gender neutral language with regard to translating the NT and found that his understanding of Greek was lacking which is why I mentioned the Greek. It may be that he uses the OT, but I find that a problem as well. In Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, etc. I take Paul's exhortations to women to be silent in church to be sociologically motivated -- it was a male dominated society and as a bishop could not be one who was addicted to alcohol so also could women not act in such a manner as to bring disrepute upon the church. Times have changed. Women are not under the same subjection today.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204595#Comment_204595

(Woohoo for Grand Rapids... although I went to Hope )

We're going to have to get together to play basketball sometime. [:D] I went to Calviin.

Chris Lohroff

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204597#Comment_204597

Then I withdraw my prior apology as my harsh tone was appropriate! [:D]

Are you still in West Michigan?

Sadly, my basketball days are long over... and even before they were I wasn't much of a player.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204597#Comment_204597

(Woohoo for Grand Rapids... although I went to Hope )

We're going to have to get together to play basketball sometime. I went to Calviin.

Likewise. I probably wouldn't have lasted more than about 5 min in tryouts before they threw me off the floor. I could do OK if they let me stand out at midcourt and throw the long bombs, but if I got underneath the "trees" would most likely shove it down my throat. No, I'm not in western Michigan and haven't been for many years -- all over the place.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204596#Comment_204596

Women are not under the same subjection today.

The Apostle Paul may have a disagreement with that. [6] ( my last tantrum before retiring for the night )

Addressing the thread topic; I like Grudem's explanations but think Berkhof is much richer.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204608#Comment_204608

Women are not under the same subjection today.

The Apostle Paul may have a disagreement with that. ( my last tantrum before retiring for the night )

Addressing the thread topic; I like Grudem's explanations but think Berkhof is much richer.

I think you're probably correct that Paul had a disagreement with that though I don't think he would now. Making women 2nd class citizens may have been the order of the day then, but not now.

Steve Adams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204608#Comment_204608

why aren't women under the same guidelines...did the Bible change? Did I miss something?

It's not a cultural issue as Paul pointed out. It's a creation issue. Adam was created first and Eve was created as his helper. Eve was deceived and then Adam sinned therefore Eve must come under Adam. I haven't seen Scripture change, just culture. Good thing there is one constant in this life, the Written Word of God.

nancy

who enjoys that her husband is head of the house

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204625#Comment_204625

Nancy, to answer your question would probably set off a firestorm between complementarians and egalitarians. There are many resources out there that are written from both perspectives which you could consult. I'll just post a link to one of the big ones that would say women aren't underneath the same guidelines (EDIT: that particular terminology isn't ideal but it fits with what's been said)

http://www.logos.com/product/2960/discovering-biblical-equality

Steve Adams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204628#Comment_204628

Kevin,

I know both sides of the argument. I was once ordained in the AG Int'l but I could not stay that way when confronted with the "husband of one wife" requirement for elders nor the created order.

If women are no longer under their husbands, do you then take the same step with that scripture and say that men are no longer subjected to Christ? After all, it is the same passage.

I am submissive to my husband as head of the home and yet equal with him as far as salvation is concerned. We are brothers and sisters in the Lord but just as in church the elders and pastors are over the congregation, for their benefit, so too in our microcosm of a picture of the church, in our home, Roberto is head.

nancy

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204652#Comment_204652

why aren't women under the same guidelines...did the Bible change? Did I miss something?

It's not a cultural issue as Paul pointed out. It's a creation
issue. Adam was created first and Eve was created as his helper. Eve
was deceived and then Adam sinned therefore Eve must come under Adam. I
haven't seen Scripture change, just culture. Good thing there is one
constant in this life, the Written Word of God.

If women are no longer under their husbands, do you then take the same step with that scripture and say that men are no longer subjected to Christ? After all, it is the same passage.

I am submissive to my husband as head of the home and yet equal with him as far as salvation is concerned. We are brothers and sisters in the Lord but just as in church the elders and pastors are over the congregation, for their benefit, so too in our microcosm of a picture of the church, in our home, Roberto is head.

nancy

[Y][Y][Y]

nancy

who enjoys that her husband is head of the house

[:D]

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204652#Comment_204652

Nancy,

This thread is not the place to hash out how I (or anyone else) handles interpreting what the Bible says about family structure and what women can do in ministry. This issue definitely one the wedge issues in Christianity today and I have no interest in hijacking this thread with it. However, I would be willing to carry the discussion on via email. Drop me a line at beckerkr At Gmail dot com if you would like.

Jason

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/204658#Comment_204658

Thanks for all the comments everyone. Just as a follow-up - I notice the print version has included his Introduction to Systematic Theology, which doesn't appear to be included in the Logos version. Anyone find that portion particularly useful?

Thanks,
Jason