6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
Read the title: it is an introduction…,
This review is from: Systematic Theology (Hardcover)
Relying on the J.I. Packers’ introduction to the book and full of expectations built when reading Frame’s books on Cornelius van Til’s apologetics, I hoped I am purchasing a definite and in-depth exposition of the crucial and complex topics underpinning Reformed doctrine. But I am very disappointed. It is basically an elegant, non-controversial summary of the surface points you can get from other books and written on the introductory level. I should have read the full title but I didn’t.
I hoped that an experienced and famous theologian would directly explain, share and simply shed more light on the more sophisticated aspects of the Reformed doctrine rather than offering an endless list of redirections to his other books, such as those written by Bavinck, or Murray.
Take for example the chapter on the Guilt and Original Sin: rather than clearly stating the doctrine, explaining what it actually means that “we all sinned” and defending it against contra-arguments, the author uses a couple of weakening reframes (from Gruden) to eventually redirect us to what appears to be a difficult to get book on Imputation by John Murray. This approach is OK for Internet pages with live links, but the printed text should be to some extent self-contained.
I will keep the book cause I like a couple of other things about it, but again – this is an introductory level intro to the doctrine, without in-depth level detail on things controversial and difficult. I find Packer’s Concise Theology to go much deeper on some subjects, even though it is probably 10 times shorter.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 22 Jul 2015 15:01:54 BDT
K. Moss says:
Thank you for your review, but I am just wondering if you may be reviewing the (much) shorter 'Introduction' to systematic theology, instead of this one which is (at 1200 pages) something of a magnum opus? Clearly, I cannot know for sure, but my impression is that you may be referring to the less substantial introduction.
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jul 2015 18:09:28 BDT
J. Malecki says:
No, I meant full version. Also, in the meantime I went through Reymond, Clark, Oliphant, Banvick and Schwartley and would consider these authors much more appealing. But again, this is subjective and in fact you would have check or yourself. However, should I be allowed to take only one systematic theology to the desert island, I would go for Reymond or Horton. Thanks for asking.
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jul 2015 18:34:39 BDT
K. Moss says:
Thank you kindly for your comments. I already have the Bavinck and value it enormously - as well as Shedd's Dogmatic Theology which was a set text for my M.A. I will take a look at Reymond and Horton, based upon your recommendation. By the way, I did take a slight gamble and purchased Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology - a rather different kind of emphasis, but I have not regretted that decision in any way.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›