Dr. Robert L. Reymond authored A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Thomas Nelson, 1998; Second Edition-Revised & Expanded, 2001). This is simply an excellent one volume systematic. I have referred to it at various times and have never been let down.
I am now beginning to read through it, stopping along the way to post my thoughts. The preface to the first edition is good reading in its own right. Of course Reymond makes his case for yet another systematic, and he makes his case well. He gives three reasons for writing:
- Since the contents of this volume are largely comprised of lectures he gave at Covenant and Knox Theological seminaries, Dr. Reymond has succumbed to the hundreds of times his students have encouraged him to put his systematics lectures in print.
- Teachers in the Reformed tradition at the seminary level have had to rely largely on Louis Berkhof’s “revered (and trustworthy) but somewhat dated Systematic Theology for our one-volume English textbook.” Reymond adds that teachers then would often supplement Berkhof with readings from the Hodges (Charles and A.A.), B.B. Warfield, John Murray and G.C. Berkouwer.
- Primarily because he “love(s) the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and…the church for which he died.”
Dr. Reymond’s third reason for writing is worth exploring. He gives further explanation of the third reason (on xx and xxi) as:
But the church—his church—for many years now has been regaled, both in its seminary classrooms and from multitudes of its pulpits, with subbiblical portrayals of what the true gospel of God is. I refer to the Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, semi-semi-Pelagian, Arminian, apostate, and name-it-and-claim-it “gospels” which abound on every hand. To all these false “gospels” the Reformed faith is the only antidote. For me the Reformed faith is not simply a creed the church may relegate now or at some time to the dustbin of history; for me, its propagation is both a passion and a mission. Because I believe that the Reformed expression of the gospel is the eternal truth of the one living and true God, I believe that my representation of the gospel of Christ can serve as a corrective to these other “gospels,” which are really not the everlasting gospel at all. I hope, of course, that my effort here will contribute to the education of the church at a time when evidence exists all about us that the church has literally “lost her evangelical mind” and is floundering in anti-intellectualism and unbiblical thought. (emphasis in the original)
Is Dr. Reymond’s 1997 assessment of the church on target?
You can get a copy of this book (hardcover, 1210 pages) at Monergism Books or Westminster Bookstore for about $29 plus shipping. I highly encourage it.
Filed under: Books, Systematic Theology, Theology
yes
I received my copy of Reymond’s Systematics as a parting gift from the elders at the church I grew up in back in ‘99 right before I left for the army. It’s been the one extra-biblical volume that’s shaped my theology the most. I even took it with me to Afghanistan.
I do wish Reymond was still teaching at Covenant. I was just skimming through it the other day at the school bookstore. I’ll have to pick up a copy.
They had a huge discount on Herman Bavinck’s 4 volume Reformed Dogmatics that I recently purchased. I wonder how they compare to Reymond’s?
Both are great systematics, but Bavinck is in the Dutch Reformed tradition and Reymond in the American Presbyterian Reformed tradition, which makes their method of doing theology very different. But if you have appreciated Reymond, definitely add Bavinck to your library!
I love both works. Paul Helm has some interesting comments re systematics and current efforts to diminish the need for such as too “static.”
BTW, is Reymond off base to refer to “Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, semi-semi-Pelagian, Arminian, apostate, and name-it-and-claim-it “gospels”” as “false and other gospels?”
no
no
No…as long as we don’t pronounce an anathema against those who don’t have 5 petals on their tulip…
*Clarification*
I was speaking with specific reference to Arminian brothers and sisters.
Interesting thoughts. I wonder though, what then are we to do with the narrative structure of Scripture? Should it be seen as only the container of what might be thought of as ‘the real meat’?
Drew, narrative has its place, but must be understood properly. Paul Helm is very helpful here. He says,
and…
I suggest you read Helm.
Helm’s Deep at http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/
Well said by Helm.
I believe I understand the gist of the idea presented here, but what gives me pause is that it seems the majority (at least a vitally large percentage) of Scripture is in fact composed of narrative. Paul seemed to delight in examining these historical accounts in constructing his theologies (Genesis 12, for example). Helm’s statements are extremely applicable when interacting with history in general, but when we examine the large amounts of narrative and historical accounts contained within God’s Word then I think the rules change a little bit. As I understand it, our theology is the description of our relationship with God as we see it portrayed and explained within Scripture. A systematic approach to studying God’s word is a wonderful thing, but it rests essentially on the study of God’s story from Genesis to Revelation. When we look at Scripture as a story it begs us to take part in it, but when we see Scripture as merely truth statements then our relationship with God becomes simple facts to be memorized.
As good ol’ B.B. Warfield states,
“Biblical theology is not, then, a rival of systematics; it is not even a parallel product of the same body of facts provided by exegesis; it is the basis and source of Systematics. Systematic Theology is not a concatenation of a scattered theological data furnished by the exegetic process; it is a combination of the already concatenated data given it by Biblical Theology. [Warfield, 'The Idea of Systematic Theology' in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 7 1987]
Also,
“biblical theology reminds the systamatician that the Bible is more than a repository of things to know. If our theological labors are to provide direction for walking in the way of truth, they need to do more than merely describe the world. They must also generate an identity for those who are called to live the life of faith within the world. This is one of the particular advantages of story over other forms of discourse. Story seeks to depict not merely a way of SEEING the world, but also a way of BEING within it.” [Dr. Michael Williams 'Systematic Theology as a Biblical Discipline, Presbyterion,...not sure of the issue number]
Each approach has its dangers and potential pitfalls, but it does not seem very wise to exalt one at the exclusion of the other. Each is uplifted and supported by being incorporated with the other. To split them would be a false dichotomy. Rather than opposing one another, each encourages the other.
I think the thing to be emphasized is that a proper Biblical/Narrative theology necessitates a proper Systematic Theology to truly understand the fullness of God’s revealed Word. However, one does have to admit that Systematic theology has taken a back seat to Narrative theology in recent years, as illustrated by the success of books such as “The Drama of Doctrine” by Van Hoozer. Even Wright’s “New Perspectives on Paul” smacks of over-emphasizing Narrative theology to the detriment of Systematic theology, in that Wright’s arguments hinge the various ways Christ’s atonement for sin is presented in the narrative, rather than in established, historical doctrine. This leads to the conclusion that the present push towards an emphasis on Narrative theology does not stem from a past imbalance between the two, but rather a reaction against the established, historical doctrine found in a proper Systematic theology. It can even be said that this parallels the current attempts to reject or revise the accepted creeds and catechisms of the faith.
TG, well said. Drew, I think the point is that it is well nigh difficult to see how the narrative alone or even primarily can carry the mail. To look at Helm again, he gives a good example in analysis 20:
Also TG, check out Helm on down (analysis 18, etc.) as he does an excellent job of interacting with Vanhoozer and the drama doctrine.
Yet nonetheless, God gave his story and left the systematics to his people. Each is a right and good study, but while the historical narratives of Scripture are able to stand without man’s dogmatic studies, the reverse cannot be said. In this sense, I would have to say that the narrative not only carries the mail, but even delivers it to be studied and reflected on by its recipients.
TG – I would refer you once more to the above Warfield quote on the relation between Systematic and Bibilical Theology. Again, I think it is a misconception to view one as being a rival to the other. If one is done properly then it will yield nothing but good fruit in it’s counterpart. If we are to truly delight in one, then we will also delight in the other. This holds each accountable to the other, but does so in such a way that neither will have the desire (nor the ability) to undermine the other.
I think you are misunderstanding my point Drew. I was not setting them up as competitors, but rather one being the product of the other. As I said, a proper Biblical/Narrative theology necessitates a proper Systematic theology, but also that a proper Systematic theology draws on the whole of the narrative. In turning to Reymond, he says, “systematic theology is that methodological study of the Bible that views the Holy Scriptures as a completed revelation, in distinction from the disciplines of OT, NT, and biblical theology, which approach the Sciptures as an unfolding revelation.” In that light, everything that we understand about Christianity is understood in light of a proper Systematic theology, which then in turn allows us to understand the narrative properly. If we do not understand, at some basic level, aspects of the Trinity, the OT would seem quite seperate from the NT when it speaks of the Holy Spirit or Christ as equally divine as the Father. If we do not understand that Systematic doctrine of the Trinity, the narrative looses meaning because of its apparent contradictory manner. So, we must understand the Scriptures systematically, at some level, before we can understand and see the full import of the narrative, not only because that is what a closed canon demands, as Reymond points out, but also because God-given logic and reason require it. Again, this does not position Systematics against Biblical theology, but merely reinforces the premise that a proper Biblical theology necessitates a proper Systematic Theology, and that a proper Systematic theology cannot develop apart from the whole of the narrative.
I am emphasizing this because systematics has fallen so far out of favor because of a desire to be free from another’s authority regarding spiritual matters. The very idea of a systematic theology is antithetical to the post-modern mind, because it involves a learned individual appealing to absolute Truth. This notion of accesible truth, which thus can by systematized and also catechized goes against the backbone of post-modernism, which holds that each individual interprets truth for herself/himself. It is for this reason that narrative theology has taken such a lofty place in today’s church, because by nature, a narrative is something that can be seen and interpreted through an individual’s experience, and thus becoming relavent to that individual, but relative to everyone else. And so, one must return to the premise that a proper Biblical theology necessitates a proper Systematic theology, because systematics establishes the tracks, or guard rails across which we may not safely go theologically.
Drew, I don’t think I nor others are saying that biblical theology is a problem. We need to clearly define terms. Narrative and story are quite loaded terms. For instance, in Why We’re Not Emergent (ch. 3) the authors write:
We need to be careful to define what we are talking about. Got to go for now, more later.
Tom, your comment in this thread yesterday was impeccably written and argued. All I can say is, Amen!
Les, “Why We’re Not Emergent” is one of the most fair and thorough treatments of the movement I’ve read to date. Any honest reading of it will reveal the author’s attempt to accurately represent the leaders of the movement (using many quotes) and only then do they expose error. A recently released book that I would like to pick up, which looks just as good, is entitled “Reforming or Conforming: Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church”.
http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/5879/nm/Reforming_or_Conforming_Post_Conservative_Evangelicals_and_the_Emerging_Church_Paperback_/?utm_source=lkeister&utm_medium=lkeister
Interesting discussion guys…just a few thoughts.
I think Helm misses the boat regarding Vanhoozer and does not understand his project and the nature of The Drama of Doctrine. Rather than moving away from systematic theology, Vanhoozer is trying to connect systematic theology to Scripture and make is truly relevant to daily life. I think it is a wonderful project, and I would caution you against interacting with Vanhoozer without having read and struggled with the book. I am considering beginning a serious of posts on the Drama of Doctrine on my blog, so I welcome your interaction.
I agree that both biblical theology and systematic theology are needed disciplines. That is why I am so excited about movements to reconcile these two disciplines, a movement that is exhibited in the work of Michael Horton is his book Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama, Vanhoozer’s book The Drama of Doctrine (also keep your eye out for his forthcoming book on the Trinity from Cambridge U Press!), and professors at Covenant Seminary such as Michael Williams and our own Robert Peterson (see his book on Divine Election that weaves together biblical and systematic theology).
I totally agree that many Emergent folks exhibit a narrative theology gone wild! The critiques are definitely warranted.
But that is why we should be all the more ready and willing to produce biblical theologies that are faithful to Scripture. And for this, we have such a wonderful tradition, especially with those Dutch theologians! If you ain’t Dutch, you ain’t much!
Just kidding, but seriously, if you haven’t read Ridderbos or Vos, you’re in for a treat!
Wes said:
“Rather than moving away from systematic theology, Vanhoozer is trying to connect systematic theology to Scripture and make is (sic) truly relevant to daily life.”
Wes, if what you say here is true, can you help me understand why a lot of folks who promote Vanhoozer’s book in one breath are often the same ones who, with the next breath, say that Systematic Theology is an antiquated and overly dogmatized hermeneutical approach compared to narrative theology? I’m not saying you’ve said this, but I’ve met people who have.
Also, do you see any differences between the currently emerging take of narrative theology and Vos’ Biblical Theology?
I think it unfair to say that Helm “missed the boat regarding Vanhoozer”. In reading Helm’s critigue of Vanhoozer (I’ll admit, I have not read “The Drama of Doctrine” in its entirety because I failed to connect
with his primary thesis due to my non-dramatic background, more on that later), he seems to really hit the nail on the head as to Vanhoozer’s usefulness: it is a metaphor that attempts to elucidate the Bible and Christ’s act of redemption, albeit, one that is weaker than the language/metaphors used in Scritpure, and one that sufficiently muddies the waters more than it makes them clear. Helm does not totally discount Vanhoozer, but merely points out, as could be said of many other authors, that he drums up a long, tortuous thesis about a principle already clear and understandable.
I find Helm’s critique on tense especially helpful when considering Vanhoozer’s value. We are not “engaging in the drama of Redemption”, for that “drama” was already played out on the Cross and in God’s work in all believers’ hearts.
If, as Helm does allow, Vanhoozer is strictly speaking of sanctification, then perhaps the metaphor of drama is not appropriate because it connotes acting, or in other words, hypocrisy. The Pharisees were superb actors, in that their outer actions or character did not truly reflect their inner character. As Helm points out, the metaphors in Scripture of sanctification being an arduous journey or struggle are sufficient and perspicuous enough for all, for they are all things that one can relate to. Which brings me back to my failure to connect with Vanhoozer.
His metaphor, implicitly, requires some prior participation or understanding of dramatic theory/practice for the reader to ingest and assent to what he is saying. Now, that is not to say his metaphor is beyond the grasp of the non-dramatic, for I certainly was able to “grasp” the conclusions he was making, but the applicability of the metaphor is certainly weak.
Vos on Biblical Theology:
Vos would disagree Drew. Systematics are not “people” produced but are from the scriptures themselves as Vos rightly points out.
Poythress on Vos on Biblical Theology:
As you can see, if Poythress is correct, Biblical theologian Vos sees his discipline dependent on systematic theology.
That is not to say that the two should not be better co-joined. They should. But the trend has been to bash the systematics in favor of the biblical.
The next excerpt is long enough for a post in iteslf but is necessary to make the point. Again Poythress:
Now that is enough to chew on for today.
See this article at http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2008Kinds.htm
Nathan, because they have misunderstood Vanhoozer, who is a professor of systematic theology.
Tom, this is exactly how Vanhoozer gets misunderstood. He states several times is his book that playing our role in the drama of redemption is precisely the opposite of play-acting, it is becoming who we truly are in Christ. And yes, the decisive action has been accomplished in the life and work of Christ, but redemption is still happening every day, and God has gloriously allowed us to play a part in the advance of his kingdom. Just read Acts!
Les, great to see some quotes from Vos. He was a pretty bright guy!
One parting word. Wes, I am critical of Vanhoozer because of the people his line of thinking (note, I did not say specific thoughts) tends to attract, those who are of the more emergent/ing streak. This shows a bias I have against Vanhoozer, which is probably unfair. However, let me explain why I, and some others (probably) react the way we do to Vanhoozer. People from both sides of the theological spectrum make conclusions about what Vanhoozer says in his book. According to you, many of those who postulate, on either side, misunderstand Vanhoozer. Yet, when Vanhoozer’s proponents make their defense, it is almost always directed at those on the more conservative-end of the spectrum. This in turn begets more suspicion and the cycle continues.
Also, I, and I am sure many others, prefer the utmost clarity in more contemporary works of theology. Now, that is not to say nuance cannot be appreciated, but merely if something is so easily misunderstood by a large group of learned individuals, it must not be very clear or beneficial in the first place. I am not saying either of those things are specifically true about Vanhoozer, but rather, those are the perceptions I have about his work.
Perhaps someday I will approach Vanhoozer’s boook again, but by the time that occurs, it will most likely not be so en vogue, and the point of the new attempt would be moot.
I understand your perceptions, Tom, but I would encourage you to avoid making too many assumptions without interacting with the work yourself.
I agree that Vanhoozer’s work can be hard to understand at times, and it will take awhile for his insights to trickle down to more practical application, but I still think his work has great value, and I hope to explore more in my own PhD studies.
If you are interested, I am starting a series of summary posts on The Drama of Doctrine at Wilderness Wonderings (wesvanderlugt.wordpress.com), and I would welcome your interaction with the actual content of the book there.
Just to clarify, I have interacted with the book, as I stated in one of my previous comments, just not the entirety of the work (ie-I read significant portions, but not the whole thing, and not linearly), because of lack of time.
[...] to work through Dr. Robert Reymond’s systematic theology. Previous posts may be found here, here and [...]