A Really Good REFORMED Systematic Theology

Last updated on: July 25, 2020 at 11:06 am by Roger E. Olson

A Really Good REFORMED Systematic Theology 2020-07-25T11:06:56-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A Really Good Reformed Systematic Theology

I’m sure many people will think it ironic that I, Roger Olson, an outspoken Arminian, recommend the same systematic theology/dogmatics as does Michael Horton! The relatively new, one volume systematic theology/dogmatics is Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction by two Dutch theologians: Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink (Eerdmans, 2017). Thanks to the publisher who sent me the 806 page (including bibliographies) volume free!

At first I set it aside thinking: How can I use a systematic theology recommended by Richard Mouw, Michael Horton, Charles Van Engen, and John Bolt—all well-known Calvinist theologians? For some years I have been using Emil Brunner’s Dogmatics which Wipf & Stock graciously reprinted for my use (and for my students’ use). However, students really struggled with especially Volume 1: The Christian Doctrine of God. Unlike Volume 3: The Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith and the Consummation, Volume 1 is quite academic. Not that Volume 3 is not scholarly, but it is much more pietistic in its approach.

So I have been looking for a good one volume, contemporary systematic theology that is both evangelical and at least somewhat academic (or at least scholarly) for my use in an upper level systematic theology seminary course. I finally, almost reluctantly, took this off the shelf and began to read it. I was immediately captivated, drawn in and by the end deeply impressed by it.

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

First, then, “Reformed?” Yes, but not Calvinist. At least not Calvinist as that concept is generally understood in the U.S. Not a hint of TULIP—as a system. By the time I finished reading it (and I have now read it through three times!) I wondered if Michael Horton read it all! Well, I’m sure he did, but I’m not sure why he recommended it. But if he read it carefully, he was generous to recommend it. It would be like me recommending a volume of Reformed theology. Oh, but wait! That’s what I’m doing. Maybe….

Yes, the authors are “Dutch Reformed,” but not in the same sense as, say, Louis Berkhof. Rather, in the same sense as, say, Hendrikus Berkhof—who they quote and refer to many times. Years ago I read both the first and second editions of Hendrikus Berkhof’s Christian Faith and loved it—except for the Christology. These two authors also acknowledge (at least to me by emails) that they do not consider Berkhof’s Christology adequate.

(Sidebar: I happen to know that Baptist theologian Bernard Ramm used Berkhof’s The Christian Faith as his textbook for systematic theology students at the end of his teaching career.)

This is decidedly revisionist Reformed theology, ecumenical Reformed theology, non-Calvinist Reformed theology. The authors might not like that description, but I cannot find in it what most Americans mean by “Calvinism.” Reformed, yes—in terms of the theme of covenant tying it all together. Reformed, yes—in terms of standing in the Reformed tradition of theology laid out by great Dutch names such as Kuyper, Berkouwer, and Berkhof. Lots of mention of Reformed confessions—Heidelberg, Belgic, Westminster, but hardly any mention of the Canons of Dort!

I speak now as a classical Arminian and say that this system is not incompatible with my theological orientation even if, here and there, there are points of divergence. For example, in the chapter on “Justification and Transformation” (15) the authors lean toward monergism but not in a heavy-handed way. Throughout the volume they are extremely gentle and generous—even toward those with whom they disagree.

Second, contemporary? Absolutely. These authors interact with numerous twentieth and twenty-first century theologians including Catholics such as Karl Rahner. They discuss the theological theories of Karl Barth, Jürgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Eberhard Jüngel and numerous others. I wish they interacted more with liberation theologians. And at least for many Americans their mentions of Dutch theologians such as Abraham van Beek can be a bit distracting (although I have read Beek and like his work!).

Third, evangelical? Definitely. These authors elevate scripture as the supreme source and norm for Christian belief, faith and practice but without promoting inerrancy. They explicate a high Christology, incarnational all the way, and they promote belief in the necessity of conversion without providing a template for how that must be experienced or witnessed.

Fourth, systematic? Somewhat. The Trinity comes into play in every chapter and the concept of “covenant” ties most of the chapters together. But there is no one forced theme artificially unifying the volume as a tight system in some architectonic way.

Fifth, readable? Well, that depends on who is reading! My students (mostly third year seminary students) have not complained about it. So far all of them who have expressed opinions have pronounced it very readable if not invigorating. It is somewhat academic and certainly scholarly, but it is not filled with jargon and mind-bending concepts such as evil as the absence of the good are explained very clearly. (Lots of references to Augustine and other church fathers.)

Sixth, firm but generous? Yes. That is one of the hallmarks of this systematic theology. The authors make their own orthodoxy visible while handling views with which they disagree irenically.

Finally, back to why I, a passionate Arminian, find this systematic theology congenial and useable—as a textbook for students. In the chapter on creation the authors also discuss providence and do not promote divine determinism or attribute evil to God’s plan, purpose or will. They affirm God’s all-comprehending governance such that nothing at all can happen that is not at least permitted by God, but they do not attribute evil to God’s plan or design or will. In several chapters they touch on free will and at least do not deny it—while in good Reformed fashion affirming God’s sovereign grace in salvation. Any good Arminian will do the same. Yes, the authors lean too close to monergism for this Arminian’s comfort, but I can easily work with and around that in class discussions. Their monergism, such as it is, is very light and not heavy.

Years ago I read G. C. Berkouwer’s and Hendrikus Berkhof’s systems and came away informed and inspired but not satisfied. Berkouwer was still too scholastic for my taste. And he seemed to me to revel in paradox too easily. Berkhof was much better, a kind of narrative approach to theology, but his Christology was totally unsatisfying. This volume—Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction does it for me. I am more than happy to finish my forty year career of teaching Christian theology to students using it as my primary textbook for upper level systematic theology students.

I still don’t know why or how Michael Horton could recommend it. (I just had to throw that in here but with a wink and a smile.)

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).

Uncategorized

Previous Post

July 22, 2020

Something Interesting about Many Comments Here (And a Question)

Next Post

July 30, 2020 Why an Income Tax is the Only Fair Tax

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What Christian group believes in the "Plain Dress" tradition?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Seventh-day Adventists Methodists Amish Presbyterians