What systematic theology texts are you most thankful for?

None! Although I own multiple ones and have read others as well I don't like them. They foster the system of establishing a doctrine based on a few verses and then interpreting everything using that framework.

Comepare Hodge to Chafer to Geisler...

But they do make good shelf adornments.

 

That reply shows that your books do indeed collect a lot of dust.
Try reading them.
As for me, I read Hodge, Warfield, and of course
being a good Calvinist; I read the man himself

 

I apologize if I didn't give proper reverence to the authors I spoke of, they are indeed giants.
I havn't read Bancroft, and I agree, Strong's is good stuff. I have noticed in some cases (not all) if you read to many different theologies you may find yourself in a situation of not knowing what to believe. I think it's best to always start with the essentials.

 

Certain books do gather dust but many don't. My Stanley Porter and Bruce Waltke books are currently getting the most use. And as for systematic theologies I have read multiple ones. Hodge is good, Van Til is quite erudite, Geisler is OK, Chafer is well - Chafer...And the list goes on.

I personally see systematic theology as an excrescense of biblical theology - though many may see it the other way around. A "systematic theology is gradually assimilated" from the Bible - not learned verbatim from someone else's book and then thrust ON the Bible...

I WOULD expect the Calvinist to be the biggest proponent of systematic theology because he approaches the Bible with a framework already eastablished. And thus the errors of Calvinism (heh heh a whole different topic!).

And I am quite thankful to the GIANTS upon whose shoulders I stand for they are many.

 

Yes, errors such as the sovereignty of God and sinfulness of man should be avoided like the plague.

 

Most recently, Grudem's is great for college kids who run into new ideas from friends, etc. I'm giving a copy to my daughter for Christmas.

Erickson's is also a good up to date ST.

I also have Strong, Theisen, and Bancroft's Elemental Theology from Bible college days.

I am really enjoying Grudem. Worth buying.

 

Daniel David is not qualified to discuss systematic theology. His views are all over the place.

Your honor, this was posted in self-defense:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/62/279/4.html#000045

[ November 25, 2004, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

I"m currently working my through Grudem's as well. I think it is GREAT. I would STRONGLY recommend that one to anyone. It's NOT a hard read by any stretch. I think anyone willing put burn the midnight oil will greatly benefit by a perusal of God's Word using the Grudem. I will be giving one away for Christmas as well this year. Also the bibliography on it & it's references to OTHER systematics is refreshing.

 

Great, I have a stalker on the Baptistboard. I sure hope I don't go senile when I am old.

 

I am new on this forum. Are you serious or pulling some ones chain?

 

While it would not be considered a book on Systematic Theology I think the Manual of Theology by John Dagg, is excellent. This was the first book on theology by a Southern Baptist.

I have read Conner and Mullins in my younger days but frankly I don't try to plow through books on Systematic Theology at my age but use them primarily as resource material.

I find Boyce to be useful though difficult to read because of the format. I have also found a relatively new book on Systematic Theology by Robert Reymond, a Presbyterian, to be useful.

I am in possession of A Body of Divinity by John Gill but the small print and sparsity of punctuation [apparently a trait of that age] make it impossible for me to read.

 

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Yes, errors such as the sovereignty of God and sinfulness of man should be avoided like the plague.


I am new on this forum. Are you serious or pulling some ones chain?

No he's kidding. He's evidently a very defensive Calvinist.

 

We are talking about ST texts. How in Heaven's Name did this other "stuff" get in this thread?

 

I think the work of T.P. Simmons is pretty good. I don't agree with his congregational idea of church government, or his near landmark view of the church, but the work is calvinistic and premillenial (which means he is a thinking person).

I cut my teeth on Ryrie's S.T. It is pretty good for the highschool / biblecollege level.

 

Frankly I think Ryrie should be avoided by all but the most mature students of Scripture, those who are really able to "rightly divide the word"!

 

Why? If it is just a basic introduction to S.T.?

 

I'd avoid Ryrie altogether!