What systematic theologies do you use?

[SeventhValley]

What systematic theologies do you all recommend?

 

[BelCantoBaptist]

What systematic theologies do you all recommend?

I recommend Lewis Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology 8 volume set. Avoid the abridged set.

 

[cubanito]

I have never read a systematic theology. Those that have endeavored to teach me systematic theology have encountered difficulty with me. There are certain errors common to all the systematic theologies I have been exposed to: Reformed or Dispensationalist. I am a thorn to every pastor that has tried to teach me, including the present 2 men. I am respectful, attentive, and obey whenever I am asked to stop talking (which is often). The problem is that I seem to make too much sense and often wind up leading a mutiny of the layman against what is being taught because most people wind up thinking that my positions are more Biblical and resonable than what is being taught.

I look foward to the next life where, free of sin and time constraints, I can better understand why I am so out of step with all my teachers. For now it seems to me that there are many errors that have become fixtures of systematic theology. I will cite only one: the attributes of God.

All attributes of God are partially communicable. The wholly artificial division in most (not all) systematic theologies between communicable and incommunicable are not only absurd, but subvert our being the Image of God.

I would say to be very careful of systematic theologies as I belief they are very often not Biblical and at times counter to the Bible.
JR

 

[DeaconDean]

1. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, three volumes.
2. James Petigru Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology
3. John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology
4. The Moody Handbook of Theology, Paul Enns
5. Introducing Christian Doctrines, Millard Erickson
6. John Gill's massive work: A Body of Practical Divinity, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, The Cause of God and Truth, Exposition of the Entire Bible

I have others for reference, but I use Boyce and Dagg for a Baptist perspective, and Hodge for the Reformed, Fundamentalist views.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[cubanito]

I am most crestfallen of thy answer, O Dean of Deacons. If it was not authorized by Queen James, you should not be reading it.

JR

 

[iambren]

Expositors Bible Commentary

 

[David Waffen]

I have no idea what systematic theology is - I rely on BIBLE theology. That's all you need. A bible and the Holy Spirit.

 

[iambren]

Not even a concordance??

 

[David Waffen]

No. Just bible doctrine

 

[dwackler2012]

BelCanto,

I am curious what are your viewpoints that seem to cause such an uproar with Ministers and their layman?

John Stott is a good author - commentaries
Dr. Lowrey on Revelation
Any books by Dr. James Strauss

 

[DeaconDean]

I am most crestfallen of thy answer, O Dean of Deacons. If it was not authorized by Queen James, you should not be reading it.

JR

I know, I know.

50 lashes for me with a wet noodle.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I have no idea what systematic theology is.

Question: "What is systematic theology?"

Answer: “Systematic” refers to something being put into a system. Systematic theology is, therefore, the division of theology into systems that explain its various areas. For example, many books of the Bible give information about the angels. No one book gives all the information about the angels. Systematic theology takes all the information about angels from all the books of the Bible and organizes it into a system called angelology. That is what systematic theology is all about—organizing the teachings of the Bible into categorical systems.

Theology Proper or Paterology is the study of God the Father. Christology is the study of God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Pneumatology is the study of God the Holy Spirit. Bibliology is the study of the Bible. Soteriology is the study of salvation. Ecclesiology is the study of the church. Eschatology is the study of the end times. Angelology is the study of angels. Christian Demonology is the study of demons from a Christian perspective. Christian Anthropology is the study of humanity. Hamartiology is the study of sin. Systematic theology is an important tool in helping us to understand and teach the Bible in an organized manner.

In addition to systematic theology, there are other ways that theology can be divided. Biblical theology is the study of a certain book (or books) of the Bible and emphasizing the different aspects of theology it focuses on. For example, the Gospel of John is very Christological since it focuses so much on the deity of Christ (John 1:1, 14; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). Historical theology is the study of doctrines and how they have developed over the centuries of the Christian church. Dogmatic theology is the study of the doctrines of certain Christian groups that have systematized doctrine—for example, Calvinistic theology and dispensational theology. Contemporary theology is the study of doctrines that have developed or come into focus in recent times. No matter what method of theology is studied, what is important is that theology is studied.


What is systematic theology?

That should help.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[cubanito]

I agree w you DD. Like any tool, the more powerful, the more dangerous. While totally in favor of the use and study of systematic theology I have met more than a few ESPECIALLY in my own Reformed PCA where systematic theology becomes nigh idolatrous.

I find it ironic that the "Semper Reformanda" site here, where I often participate, contains a few such "Frozen Chozen" types who semm more comfortabl with Calvin than the Bible. Again, it is a broad brush I paint with, but I think it does portray many in the Presbyterean camp.

JR

 

[DeaconDean]

I agree w you DD. Like any tool, the more powerful, the more dangerous. While totally in favor of the use and study of systematic theology I have met more than a few ESPECIALLY in my own Reformed PCA where systematic theology becomes nigh idolatrous.

I find it ironic that the "Semper Reformanda" site here, where I often participate, contains a few such "Frozen Chozen" types who semm more comfortabl with Calvin than the Bible. Again, it is a broad brush I paint with, but I think it does portray many in the Presbyterean camp.

JR

Don't be too harsh on them.

I was raised a Baptist, and until I went to seminary, I never knew what Reformed Theology was.

Yes, most Presbyterians are Refomed, and most adhere to Calvin's teachings. But even I disagree with Calvin sometimes.

I would agree with nearly 90% of what is wrote in "The Insitutes of Christian Religion".

I disagree with Calvin's viewpoint on baptism, but other than that, I'm Reformed.

And the problem is, most seem to be under the impression that "We" follow John Calvin. I've seen that accusation numerous times in the Soteriology and Genteral Theology section.

Many seem to forget other "Great" Refomed theologians like Charles Hodge or B.B. Warfield, or Zwingly, or Theodore Beza.

My seminary teacher urged me to read and study as many Systematic Theologies as possible. That is why I also have Thomas Aquintas', Jacobus Arminus, Paul Tilich, just to name a few. He said that in order to be well rounded, I needed to read what others said and even then, you might a little "nugget" that may be useful.

But I agree with you, sometimes even the SR area can be "stiff necked". But just since I've joined this forum in 2005, those of us who believe Reformed Theology have been under attack.

So I'm not that critical of them.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[cubanito]

1- You were given poor advise. If you want to be well rounded, eat lots of pepperoni Pizza, wash it down with Malta Hatuey (a non-alcoholic Cuban drink so malt heavy it is densly black) and have some fried Pillsbury dough with condensed milk and peanuts (known as Thai donuts). On my credentials as a physician, I assure you a few months of that will make you as well rounded as Bouncing Boy from the future justice league DC comics.

2- There must be peace in agreeing 90% with Calvin. Personally I disagree with myself 90% of the time, so I haven't the time for Calvin. As to Aquinas, the "Dumb Ox" never finished his Summa because he realised it was worthless. When the author stops writing because looking back he judges what he has written to be but straw it therefore is a guarantee that many would judge it a great systematic theology. Can you not see the irony of the Summa Theologica being lauded by so many and disdained by the author?

3- As a PCA member, I judge not them but my own house as too frozen. Unfortunately, the current changes in the PCA are not towards a deep examination of the Bible, but towards a bunch of heresies being tolerated like the Federalist Vision, theistic evolution and female pseudo officers to name a few. You know I am into the weird, but compromize with Rome (the Federalist) or the world (evolution, female leadership) is very irritating to me. When I espouse a heresy, I at least make it something so outlandish there is nothing to compromize with except possibly insanity.

Ah DD, there is so much more to the Bible than all the books in the world can hold, and yet people keep playing in the same old mud. You are correct that clergy ought be well versed in systematic theologies, but I am an uneducated know-nothing layman, and I am still trying to understand Genesis 1:1 better. Perhaps some day I might get to Genesis 1:2.

JR

 

[DeaconDean]

1- You were given poor advise. If you want to be well rounded, eat lots of pepperoni Pizza, wash it down with Malta Hatuey (a non-alcoholic Cuban drink so malt heavy it is densly black) and have some fried Pillsbury dough with condensed milk and peanuts (known as Thai donuts). On my credentials as a physician, I assure you a few months of that will make you as well rounded as Bouncing Boy from the future justice league DC comics.

I'm there already without that. It's called 27 years of marriage.

2- There must be peace in agreeing 90% with Calvin. Personally I disagree with myself 90% of the time, so I haven't the time for Calvin. As to Aquinas, the "Dumb Ox" never finished his Summa because he realised it was worthless. When the author stops writing because looking back he judges what he has written to be but straw it therefore is a guarantee that many would judge it a great systematic theology. Can you not see the irony of the Summa Theologica being lauded by so many and disdained by the author?

Your correct. But even I have found one or two things I could agree with in it.

3- As a PCA member, I judge not them but my own house as too frozen. Unfortunately, the current changes in the PCA are not towards a deep examination of the Bible, but towards a bunch of heresies being tolerated like the Federalist Vision, theistic evolution and female pseudo officers to name a few. You know I am into the weird, but compromize with Rome (the Federalist) or the world (evolution, female leadership) is very irritating to me. When I espouse a heresy, I at least make it something so outlandish there is nothing to compromize with except possibly insanity.

At least your not a member of the PCUSA.

Ah DD, there is so much more to the Bible than all the books in the world can hold, and yet people keep playing in the same old mud. You are correct that clergy ought be well versed in systematic theologies, but I am an uneducated know-nothing layman, and I am still trying to understand Genesis 1:1 better. Perhaps some day I might get to Genesis 1:2.

JR

I have studied that, and debated Genesis 1 and 2 over the years.

Old earth, young earth, gap theory.

I have a simple view of the creation account.

Perhaps I'll share something about Adam I haven't shared much here.

One day.

I know I'm still not welcome here, so I don't post much at all.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[David Waffen]

Question: "What is systematic theology?"

Answer: “Systematic” refers to something being put into a system. Systematic theology is, therefore, the division of theology into systems that explain its various areas. For example, many books of the Bible give information about the angels. No one book gives all the information about the angels. Systematic theology takes all the information about angels from all the books of the Bible and organizes it into a system called angelology. That is what systematic theology is all about—organizing the teachings of the Bible into categorical systems.

Theology Proper or Paterology is the study of God the Father. Christology is the study of God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Pneumatology is the study of God the Holy Spirit. Bibliology is the study of the Bible. Soteriology is the study of salvation. Ecclesiology is the study of the church. Eschatology is the study of the end times. Angelology is the study of angels. Christian Demonology is the study of demons from a Christian perspective. Christian Anthropology is the study of humanity. Hamartiology is the study of sin. Systematic theology is an important tool in helping us to understand and teach the Bible in an organized manner.

In addition to systematic theology, there are other ways that theology can be divided. Biblical theology is the study of a certain book (or books) of the Bible and emphasizing the different aspects of theology it focuses on. For example, the Gospel of John is very Christological since it focuses so much on the deity of Christ (John 1:1, 14; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). Historical theology is the study of doctrines and how they have developed over the centuries of the Christian church. Dogmatic theology is the study of the doctrines of certain Christian groups that have systematized doctrine—for example, Calvinistic theology and dispensational theology. Contemporary theology is the study of doctrines that have developed or come into focus in recent times. No matter what method of theology is studied, what is important is that theology is studied.


What is systematic theology?

That should help.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I don't need some man-made methodology to pervert the scriptures. I read them as they are and let God do the rest.

 

[DeaconDean]

I don't need some man-made methodology to pervert the scriptures. I read them as they are and let God do the rest.

You know, I could take offense at the remark:

man-made methodology to pervert the scriptures

Let me quote something for you:

When speaking about well-known, revered and highly regarded past or present leaders, theologians, saints (living or deceased) of other Nicene Christian denominations, please show a measure of respect. These public religious figures are respected by the members who belong to those denominations. Please avoid using inflammatory words or phrases in reference to these public religious figures.

You may disagree, but it can be shown that the Fundamentalist "group", was started and believed a great number of things as outlined by Charles Hodge. A well respected, and highly regarded Reformed, Presbyterian.

And who, besides you, say these men, pervert the scriptures?!?

And who, has said that the scriptures are wrong when it says "He will guide you to all truth"?

And, what is wrong with wanting to study deeper and get a richer, fuller, more "in-depth" view of all that the scriptures encompass?

Just because you have no use for systematic theology, please do not disrespect those of us who do make use of them.

After all, Paul was an "educated pharisee" before he was an apostle.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[cubanito]

I don't need some man-made methodology to pervert the scriptures. I read them as they are and let God do the rest.

The following will seem as a personal attack on David, but if you read further, you'll realize it is NOT.

Mr. Waffen, you are correct that you do not need someone to pervert the Scriptures for you, as you do a terribly perverse job of misundertasndaing and misaplying them yourself.

Save Christ and possible those in Heaven, we ALL pervert Scripture, despite the indwelling Spirit and even when we are being as honest and studious as we can.

One of those perversions is to think yourself above all teachers in the Church, and that is clearly laid out in multiple Scriptures. Mr. Waffen, I wrote caution against the frequent idlolatry of elevating a systematic theology, any single man (save Christ) or group of men (councils, the RC curia, the Watchtower Society ect) above Scripture.

Now a warning to the very many in our day that think it better to be a "biblicist" and eschew all forms of organised assemblies: you sir are making an idol of your own self.

It is very rare I do not "blow up" a Sunday school class by pointing out an error some teacher is saying, and backing it up from general or special revelation so vociferously that either the teacher admits his error or I am asked to be quiet. Often I start an insurrection and the class turns against what is being taught or breaks up into civil war. Several elders refer to these as "JR" moments, a term coined by the head of the religion dept at UM, Dr David Kling, and elder in my former Church when, again, I totally blew up his lesson plan with a Biblically based point that he had never heard or read. When I informed one of the elders at my current Church who is very tight lipped and mild mannered I had chosen to go to the other guys class he thanked me loudly and was visibly relieved.

Yes I am an arrogant, self centerd man, and have never been accused of following the herd. I am a very loose canon on board my Church, and plan to continue that. Somebody needs to blow up error, and I both like and am very good at it.

But I am also a member of a confessional Church, and have publicly stated many times my willing submission to authority. In those few better moments when my arrogance is not on hyperdrive, I account them better than myself, and thank them for their efforts. I have learned much from these men, as I have from others.

The path is very narrow, and we all sin often to the left or the right.

Mr Waffen, you seem to be off the path. Go back and read your Scriptures about the deference we ought show out God ordained elders.

JR

 

[DeaconDean]

Let me also add, that "systematic theology" was already a from being used by as early as AD 50-120, as seen in the Teachings of the Apostles (Didache), and by AD 180 as seen in the "Apostles Creed".

God Bless

Till all are one.