- Hardcover: 1210 pages
- Publisher: Thomas Nelson Inc; 2nd Revised & enlarged edition (July 1, 1998)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0849913179
- ISBN-13: 978-0849913174
- Product Dimensions: 6.5 x 1.8 x 9.2 inches
- Shipping Weight: 3.6 pounds
- Average Customer Review: 40 customer reviews
Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
#916,885 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #18510 in Christian Theology (Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith Hardcover – July 1, 1998
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Read reviews that mention
Showing 1-8 of 40 reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Also, I never found Berkhof to be exactly dry or cold, but he didn't write with the same expression of Piety that Reymond did. Sure this book doesn't necessarily have a Joel Beeke type of vibe, but Reymond never forgot that we are discussion a God we love and trust with out souls.
Regardless. Watch out for Reymond on the Trinity. This thing almost got 4 stars because of that. If you wanna know about the Trinity you're better off reading Loraine Boettner material on it. Otherwise this is an outstanding work that I will come back to for years to come.
Some unique parts:
1) Reymond got into trouble with his peculiar Christology. While I am not comfortable with his questioning the eternal generation of the Son,
2) Reymond's defense of supralapsarianism borders on extreme overkill. But to his credit he does present the doctrine in the clearest of terms. All I can say in response is that Reymond's supralapsarianism makes creation an ancillary doctrine.
Some comments and criticisms:
1) His take on eschatology was quite good and in line with recent Reformed and Evangelical discussions on the kingdom, already-not yet, etc. Unfortunately, his discussion of millennial positions is quite weak. He assumes amillennialism from the outset and attacks other positions along the lines of "Well, the rest of the NT is amillennial."
2) He rebuts theonomy by an appeal to Robert Lewis Dabney. Granted, the section of Dabney does seem to rebut theonomy, but Dabney is an odd man to whom one could appeal, is he not? Dabney used the same arguments as theonomists in order that Dabney could justify slavery (although to his credit Dabney critiqued the unbiblical form of slavery present).
Reymond says that theonomists are wrong for wanting to execute groups x,y, and z. Perhaps they are. He should have *argued* WHY they were wrong. His appeal to Dabney is flawed, for on pages 869-870, Dabney appeals to Old Testament case laws for the opposite conclusion of Reymond! So which is it, Dr Reymond, do we appeal to Dabney or do we not appeal to Dabney?
3) After giving a masterful defense of justification by faith alone, Reymond then brazenly suggests that most of the Church before Luther is probably in hell. I can only hope he wasn't serious. At this point he moved from justification by faith alone to justification by faith in faith alone.
There is something else to note in that last point, and it requires reading between the lines. I would caution Calvinists to carefully interact with Reymond here. When Reymond says that most of the Church throughout history is in hell because they didn't believe in sola fide via the imputation of Christ alone, what he is actually admitting is that NO ONE taught this in the early church (okay, assuming past the apostles--and even then in New Testament scholarship that is by no means a granted point). On one hand Christ promises the gates of hell will never prevail over the church, yet on the other hand we see the entire church from India to Ireland simultaneously abandoning the faith on the "article by which the church stands or falls." Reymond is enaging in very dangerous (but in a way, honest) reading of history.
Reymond interacts with the latest scholarship and offers insightful approaches to old discussions. While aware of its quirks, this volume will surely aid the theological student.