Reformed Systematic Theology Volume One | Book Review

[@victoryak86]

Great review of this systematic theology. Just got this set and very impressed so far. Solid theology along with deeply edifying. Can’t wait to dig in to it.

[@philtheo]

1. Beeke and Smalley's systematic theology is a great multi-volume systematic theology from a Reformed or specifically Puritan perspective. Beeke is of course *the* modern day Puritan. 2. That said, maybe I'm biased since I've had a lot more exposure to him, but I prefer the works of J.I. Packer more than Beeke and Smalley for a Puritan systematic theology. That's mainly because I think Packer says most of what needs to be said more concisely (as Packer has said of himself, Packer by name and packer by trade!) and with more memorable and beautiful style. Otherwise the bas toic or fundamental content or information is more or less similar, or so it seems to me. Regrettably Packer famously or infamously never wrote a systematic theology when he had the ability and opportunity to do so. He was under contract to write a systematic theology with a famous Christian publisher but unfortunately never was able to do so. Perhaps Packer should have done so, but in the end he maintained there were already better systematic theologies in existence (Packer often recommended Berkhof) and he maintained he had other priorities come up. Given this, we need to refer to multiple works to get a good sense of Packer's (Puritan) systemic theology. I'd recommend books like Concise Theology, 18 Words, A Quest for Godliness, "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God, God Has Spoken, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, and The Heritage of Anglican Theology (which is really about Puritan Anglicanism). These contain the most robust systematic theological work from Packer, I think. Other works like Knowing God and Keep in Step with the Spirit are also excellent but tilt more toward practical theology than systematic theology, in my judgment. 3. Still, though I personally prefer Packer, I think this systematic theology by Beeke and Smalley is nevertheless valuable. It has its significant advantages over Packer. For example, it's more comprehensive on the classical loci than Packer is. It's also more comprehensive in bringing together the thinking of all the Puritans in general, whereas Packer tends to focus primarily on representative Puritans, especially his beloved Richard Baxter and John Owen. And Beeke and Smalley is more up to date on the scholarship. These are just some advantages over Packer that I'm aware of. 4. Of course, Puritan systematic theology is distinguishable from Reformed systematic theology too. Or at least Puritan systematic theology is a subset of Reformed theology in general. As such, one would do well to read Reformed systematic theology. For classic Reformed systematic theology, I still like Calvin best of all and Turretin equally as well. But Bavinck has made a huge comeback in recent years, thanks to Gray Sutanto (from Indonesia) and others. I've yet to read Jonathan Edwards's own favorite systematic theology, Petrus van Mastricht, whose works are finally being translated into English. I need to read more Charles Hodges as well, though I wish there was an edition of Hodges that translated his often lengthy sections of Latin which stymie me! Among with Vos, Warfield is the standout at Old Princeton, though Warfield is like Packer in that he never wrote a single systematic theology (Warfield so prized Hodges he didn't think he could ever best his great teacher) and so one must read various works by Warfield to get a good sense of his theology. Fred Zaspel has helpfully arranged Warfield into something like a systemic theology; Zaspel on Warfield would be an excellent place to start with Warfield, but of course eventually one must read Warfield on his own. For contemporary works, my favorites are: Robert Letham (though he's more of a historical systematic theologian); Robert Reymond (though he tends toward overly Clarkian views for my tastes); I actually think Grudem is underrated by most Reformed Christians (though I wouldn't say Grudem is as intellectually on par with Letham or Reymond); and especially John Frame. I think Frame is the most intellectually astute and robust living systematic theologian. That is, Frame gets the closest to being a philosophical theologian at a time when philosophical theology is well underway. I say this even though I don't entirely agree with Frame and even though he has many Reformed detractors especially in or associated with Westminster California (e.g. Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark). 5. All that said, I think Reformed Christians are sorely lacking in a great philosophical systematic theology. William Lane Craig is currently working on one which should set the standard for evangelical Christians in general, but Craig is a famous Molinist in the vein of Alvin Plantinga, not Reformed. But there's hope, for there are some philosophically and theologically intelligent and knowledgeable Reformed professors who have the ability to write one. Specifically I'm hopeful that someone like James Anderson and/or Greg Welty will pick up the mantle and write a systematic philosophical theology from a Reformed/Calvinist perspective.

[@LukeK.-he2bv]

I was just wondering when you were going to post again

[@betterbiblereading]

“Wonder and you shall receive” 😂

[@dkalii98]

I was actually thinking the same thing, just a few days ago! Glad to see he's back!

[@LukeK.-he2bv]

I’m really curious where this work will rank 50 years from now. I think it is going to be hard to top. And I think as years go by, the former sys theo classics will still be appreciated but less and less readable and relevant. Your thoughts?

[@betterbiblereading]

Good question. I think at a lay-level, this set is going to be the gold standard for anyone who wants something more than a one-volume systematic theology. Obviously, people who aren't interested in "reformed" will go elsewhere but that represents pretty slim pickings in my opinion. For seminaries, this book is certainly adequate but it's hard to see Bavinck Turretin and Mastricht eclipsed from schools because of how useful they are. I think this set is best used supplementally with the previously mentioned ones, which is how we are using it in class.