What is Reddit's opinion of
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
18 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
Because God can do anything and chose to become human. Philippians 2 would suggest He opted to put aside some of His divinity in a very humble way. Yeah it is hard for me to even understand that. Because humility is divine. As is glory.
But no I don’t think it’s illogical. I think it’s paradoxical. You know - “the more I’ve learned the more I don’t know.” Is that illogical? No. It just takes a second of reflection. Or does it take longer to truly appreciate?
Anyway I’m not too smart. Go read something like Wayne Grudem systematic theology. It starts, if I remember correctly, with Christology. Or maybe that’s just the part I read first. But yeh it’ll probably address most of your questions about God in a better way than Reddit. https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/0310286700
Which makes me wonder- why are you here? Probably to cast doubt in the minds of Christians more than to ever learn something. Says a lot about you. Says a lot about atheism. Atheists believe this life is the only you’ll get. And you want to spend it trying to mock others? What a waste. I don’t want to mock you. I want you to find God because He’s good. Way better than I deserve or could even describe. And you can know Him! To know Jesus is to know God. Study Jesus
Grudem is pretty helpful on this subject to define categories. Conveniently, Amazon has the relevant parts scanned, beginning on page 47.
I highly recommend Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. I grew up Arminian and this book was instrumental in my switch to reformed theology. It can be dense, but it has a great index (by topic and by verse) and footnotes. You can read it like a book (I'm a bit of a nerd, so I read the first third of the book like that) or use it as a reference. Grudem also tries to give a fair treatment to viewpoints he doesn't hold, which I really appreciate.
I just reread my phrasing, and I admit that it's probably a bit confusing. Let me try again.
The phrasing Peter uses is similar to the whole "President Clinton" thing Grudem uses. Someone who knew him when he was in college can say, "I knew President Clinton when he was in college." But they don't literally mean they knew Clinton when he was both in college and the President of the United States. As far as I know, he hasn't gone back to college since graduating (and before he was president). What they mean is:
> You know President Clinton? I knew him back before he was President of the United States. We were in college together.
From what I understand (and what Grudem explains), the structure of the Greek that Peter used follows a similar pattern to how we can speak of someone using their current title in a past tense when they didn't have that title. So when Peter says, "in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison" I would say that he is saying this:
> There are spirits that are in prison now. Christ proclaimed righteousness to these spirits through Noah while the spirits were still alive.
Hopefully that makes it more clear.
I've seen your posts and I see your desire to learn, so I'll offer this advice: If you want to understand, I would recommend two things. First, read the Bible cover to cover and understand that if a verse is going to be used alone, the interpretation must take into account its context with other verses in that chapter, book, and the whole Bible as well as the intended audience and how they would have understood the words used. Second, get a good Systematic Theology. I highly recommend Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. Note that a Systematic Theology is no substitute for the Bible (which is why I didn't recommend it first), but it can help as you wrestle through tough scripture.
Finally got the Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem. Got it for around $25 (hardback), it sure does beats lifeway's $55 price tag.
Check out a book called Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem. It's a huge book that he calls an intro to Biblical doctrine. I'm going through it myself and the first few chapters address the canon and inerrancy, and authority of scripture. I've been a believer for most of my life and have always known in my soul that I believe the Bible is God's very words and that it is inerrant, but this really helped me to see more clearly the "why". I found the part on the canon of the Bible very fascinating and how the early church was tasked with compiling the Bible we know today. In short, the books written by the apostles (Peter, Paul, James, etc) were given authority to write the words and have them counted as God's very words. Jesus told them before He ascended in John 14:26; "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Other books, such as Hebrews where the human author is unknown accepted to be "self attesting". Grudem says to that " the words of these books would have been self-attesting, that is, the words would have borne witness to their own divine authorship as Christians read them." He says this about Hebrews, " The majestic glory of Christ shines forth from the pages of the epistle to the Hebrews so brightly that no believer who reads it seriously should ever want to question its place in the canon." Jesus said it Himself in John 10:27, " My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me."
Do you know any difference between that edition and the Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem?
Systematic Theology has a large breakdown of most religions and gives their background and what they believe.
https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/0310286700
I would disagree with the person who suggested the early church fathers. The translations of their writings are not the easiest to understand (at least the ones Ive read). Good, systematic verse-by-verse study of the Bible is essential. Also, there are several good helps that can give you the historical and cultural background of the Bible. I will post a link to a set of books I recommend for Bible background. I will also post a systematic theology book that is good at condensing the basic doctrines of Christianity. Lastly, I am doing a youtube channel teaching through the book of John and through the old Testament which may be helpful to you:
Amazon wishlist of good Bible study books:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/9MUR926QU6C4?&sort=default
Systematic Theology Book:
​
My youtube channel:
Here is an excellent systematic theology that will show you what the Bible teaches about itself. Hope this helps.
https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/0310286700
Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology defines God's immutability as follows:
> God is unchanging in his being, perfections, purposes, and promises, yet God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and feels differently in response to different situations. (p. 163)
Note that this is just one definition, and the various systems of thought within Christianity may have slight variations. There are also side debates on what it means for God to "change his mind" or to have knowledge of future events.
What I think is most crucial to Christianity is that God is unchangeable in his essence (he has always been God and will never cease to be God) and his attributes (he is always loving, just, merciful, independent, truthful, all-knowing, and so on, and these attributes are perfectly expressed at all times). This allows God the freedom to act differently in response to human decisions, yet his actions are always in accordance with his attributes and ultimate purpose for the universe, and his omnipotence ensures that his actions will have the desired effect. The Holy Spirit, being a member of the Trinity, would also possess these qualities.
Mormonism deviates from this significantly by asserting that at one time God was just a man, thereby denying immutability of being. The doctrine of eternal progression, as far as I understand it, means that the Mormon God's attributes are always improving, and that God today is better than what he was yesterday. What's left looks nothing like the God of Christianity or Judaism. If Mormon God can change in one direction, what guarantee do we have that he won't change in the other direction and start getting worse? What's to stop Mormon God from being de-exalted back to a man?
When asking questions about the nature of God, it's important to realize that Christianity and Judaism disagree on nearly every point with Mormonism. Claiming to be a restoration of the Christian church doesn't give Mormonism the right to rewrite the definition of God for standard Christianity.
For a long and technical read I would have to say that Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine (linked at the end) would be the closest I have found. For a short Phrase you could say "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him" (linked Christian Hedonism below)
now for the middle. I see a completely holy, just, and self glorifying God. He extends mercy to those He loves by taking the just punishment of their sins onto himself and He calls those people his bride.
Genesis 2:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. This uniting I believe is sex and what will be called marriage. So if sex is marriage then what is the purpose of marriage?
Ephesians 5:21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
So sex is a gift from God to help us better understand the intimacy and mutual service between Him and His church.
Op, since my comment is long, I'll make it into a few parts.
1/3
. . . . .
First, I will like to thank you for resoponding to my comment, and waiting later on for my answer.
> Honestly, not a big fan of Wayne Grudem. Apart from his Systematic Theology that revitalise millennial's fervour and passion upon Calvinistic theory of salvation (man can only be saved by God's effort alone), I don't really have high regard on his other views (but probably this is coming from a Reformed/Presbyterian perspective). I might go back to Abraham Kuyper or Nicholas Wolterstorff to understand how Scripture can be applied to politics.
Likewise. I’m not aware of it [Systematic Theology] being overly controversial, but Grudem himself has been controversial lately by espousing unorthodox beliefs that God the Son is eternally submissive to God the Father, making many who read his works turn away from it- ourselves included.
Onto Grudem's work:
Yes, I think there is something inherently wrong with the idea of systematic theology.
Allow me to state first that I have great respect for many of the Church’s systematic theologians. Thomas Aquinas comes to mind. That guy was a stud. Augustine, Barth-1 Erasmus, Origen, Tillich, all make my list of “dudes I respect” (hrm…no women here…sad), and all engaged in certain systematic pursuits. I think there’s a lot to be said for systematic theology, but I do have a problem with it: too often it smacks of proof-texting, ignorance of context and genre and other literary concerns, and the inability to give the other side a fair shake annoys me to no end.
Perhaps no well-reviewed work of systematic theology annoys me more than Wayne Grudem’s aptly titled Systematic Theology. Grudem goes about creating his system by the aforementioned proof-texting route without paying much attention to the context. What is laudable about his book is also what is condemnable: Grudem’s conciseness. The book is so concise, in fact, that Grudem didn’t find room to offer any serious reflection on Scripture. There is a reason that Barth had to stretch Church Dogmatics out into 13 volumes while only covering a few of the very large categories-2 — because careful theology requires careful exegesis. Of course, to criticize Grudem for this is to ignore what he’s trying to do. Grudem’s aims were accessibility — Systematic Theology prefers to live on the bookshelves of lay people rather than professional clergy with an eye toward serious theological reflection. I get that. Unfortunately, it doesn’t make it less frustrating.3
So, here’s the thing. I’d rather take a cue from the greatest theologian of the 20th century (Mr. Barth), and focus on the paradox here. To me, what is most interesting and compelling about Christianity are the paradoxes. For example, Jesus Christ himself represents the most incredible paradox: God and Man in one. Serious reflection on this idea requires pages and pages and pages of thought to work out.
Another example of a paradox is systematic theology itself. Here we have a human attempting to systematize, categorize, and make easily referenced that which defies and even denies systematization. As Paul says in 1 Cor 13:12: “For now we see in a mirror dimly…” Sure, we understand some attributes of God. We can offer some kind of mental assent to God’s infinitude and the paradoxes inherent within (e.g., love and justice | eternal and temporal | etc.). But, at the end of the day, we only have a faint impression of his fullness. The best Christian thinkers are like Monet in his later periods, stricken with cataracts that alter his perception of color — we are painting a half-blind impression of the fullness of God.
So what’s wrong with systematic theology?
Infinitude defies finite system.
But, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try…
For example:
I am all for democracy-seeing that I live in a coountry that has its principles founded upon democracy. No matter how much I detest Grudem's ideals, there are some I support:
Wayne Grudem in Politics-According to the Bible, says that the Bible supports some kind of democracy.
> The Bible gives indirect but significant support to the idea that government should be chosen by the people (some kind of democracy)
> (1)The equality of all people in the image of God (Gen. 1:27; Gen. 9:6; James 3:9)
> (2) Accountability of rulers to the people helps prevent a misuse of their power.
> (3) If government is to serve for the benefit of the people (Rom. 13:4), the government does not exist ultimately for the good of the king or the good of the emperor or the good of the ruling council, but for the good of the people themselves.
> (4) Government seems to work best with the consent of those who are governed. (See: Ex. 4:29-31; 1 Sam. 7:5- 6; 1 Sam. 10:24; 2 Sam. 2:4; 1 Kings 1:39; 1 Kings 12:1; Acts 6:3. By contrast see: 1 Kings 12:15-16; Exod. 3:9-10; Judges 14:4; 2 Kings 25:1-21; Matt. 2:16-17; Luke 13:1; Acts 12:1-2.)
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thety are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (Declaration of Independence)
As mentioned earlier, I like his views on democracy, not much so his views on Systematic Theology.
TLDR:
That said, Grudem’s Systematic Theology is a comprehensive work, and few people are going to agree with every portion of it. For example, I take issue with his lack of engagement with other serious theologians. I could offer a much longer, more detailed review of Grudem’s work. But such criticisms must be developed more fully elsewhere.
I will say that Grudem’s text is handy for getting some basics out of the way or finding passages that might speak to a particular issue. With this small criticism, his debating style is sub-par, [which is quite an essential part of the Christian faith]. I disagree with that small portion of the work, but otherwise, I still value the work as a whole- which is a sentiment we both share.
> I might go back to Abraham Kuyper or Nicholas Wolterstorff to understand how Scripture can be applied to politics.
Abraham Kuyper is a nice resource to check out, and his works- as explained here and here- offers a nice change to many Neo-theologies that seemed to gain a great deal of traction over the decades. However, I feel that some of his views rejects some of the most prominent doctrines in Christianity.
Here is an excellent systematic theology that will show you what the Bible teaches about itself. Hope this helps.
https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/0310286700
Grudem's "Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine" is amazing -- despite his political views.
Start with this book
Popular alternatives to Systematic Theology: An Int...
