What do you think?
Rate this book
Christian Theology
Leading evangelical scholar Millard Erickson offers a new, thoroughly revised edition of his bestselling systematic theology text.
1182 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1983
515 people are currently reading
1777 people want to read
About the author
Millard J. Erickson
48 books44 followersMillard J. Erickson (PhD, Northwestern University) has served as a pastor and seminary dean and has taught at several schools, including Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Western Seminary (Portland and San Jose), and Baylor University. He has also held numerous visiting professorships, both in the United States and internationally, and is the author of many books. Erickson lives in Mounds View, Minnesota.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews
May 25, 2021
For most of those who are reading this review, I am guessing that Grudem is your go-to text for systematic theology. It is time to change that. Grudem is good, he was one of my undergrad textbooks and I have read him cover to cover at least twice. But this book is far better. While both texts are born from a Calvinist perspective, this one carries the day for two reasons.
First, it does a much better job of fairly and accurately presenting all sides of an argument before Erickson weighs in on which he prefers and why. For example, he will present views on inerrancy, each one delivered fairly and accurately, before sharing his view (which is very close to my own, although I prefer to simply say inspired, and authoritative rather inerrant). He presents six or seven views on creation. He shared multiple atonement theories. Grudem's treatment of alternate views is at best cursory and often closer to nonexistent.
Second, although Erickson does come from a Calvinistic perspective, he is not afraid to take a firm stand on a minority view when he feels it is warranted. For example, he denies limited atonement (the L in the Calvinist's Tulip) and he takes a cautious step towards being post-trib.
The book is structured well and so it is a great book to have on your shelf. You can pull it out and quickly reference the topic you need for quick reference. Also, it is quite readable. Even though it is about as exhaustive as a single volume work can get, there is no point at which the casual reader's eyes will start to glaze over. So get this book, put it on your shelves, and use it often.
First, it does a much better job of fairly and accurately presenting all sides of an argument before Erickson weighs in on which he prefers and why. For example, he will present views on inerrancy, each one delivered fairly and accurately, before sharing his view (which is very close to my own, although I prefer to simply say inspired, and authoritative rather inerrant). He presents six or seven views on creation. He shared multiple atonement theories. Grudem's treatment of alternate views is at best cursory and often closer to nonexistent.
Second, although Erickson does come from a Calvinistic perspective, he is not afraid to take a firm stand on a minority view when he feels it is warranted. For example, he denies limited atonement (the L in the Calvinist's Tulip) and he takes a cautious step towards being post-trib.
The book is structured well and so it is a great book to have on your shelf. You can pull it out and quickly reference the topic you need for quick reference. Also, it is quite readable. Even though it is about as exhaustive as a single volume work can get, there is no point at which the casual reader's eyes will start to glaze over. So get this book, put it on your shelves, and use it often.
August 9, 2018
Starts unevenly. Gets better. I wish he'd said more on some things, less on others. Generally solid, though, but certainly not the SysTheo I'd recommend as a go-to.
August 24, 2011
Although it took me most of the summer to read, I think this now replaces Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology as my 'go to' book for quick theological study. Erickson is very detailed in his study and makes some really complex issues approachable.
Read
May 1, 2023A YEAR AND A HALF LATER
April 17, 2014
My first systematic theology finally completely read from cover to cover! What a refreshing feeling closing this after reading the last page after several months of wrestling with Millard J. Erickson's treatment in Christian Theology. Let me begin by saying obviously I don't agree with all of Erickson's thought--who would? As a systematic theology, the systematizer does the painstaking job at putting his theology into a coherent system, and as such, it reflects Erickson's system, and not someone else's system. Even still, I find so much fruit in reading through systematic theology from cover to cover, and so getting into the mind of the systematizer, knowing his system from in and out. Erickson challenged me, brought new depth of insight onto beautiful and powerful doctrines, and encouraged me all the way.
Erickson is thoroughly evangelical and unapologetically Baptistic. Having studied under Wolfhart Pannenberg for his post-doctorate degree, his systematic reflects a robust philosophical angle that systematic theologies have hitherto left uncharted. This is especially true in his first section dealing with the nature of reality, knowledge, truth, and his treatment of Divine inspiration and the inerrancy of the Bible. He wrestles with the philosophies of the modernist and post-modernist world in a vigorous way that leaves the reader equipped with a system that is philosophically durable as it is theologically evangelical.
Erickson's treatment of Christology and theology proper is extensive and thorough--grappling with the Nicene Church Fathers and wrestling down the post-modern theologians. In fine, he offers a bold and tenable understanding of doctrines such as the incarnation that are thoroughly orthodox, yet tenable and evangelical. Erickson's helpful analogies aid the reader in getting into the heart of his system, and proved to be workable and orthodox, especially in understanding Christ's dual natures and dual wills post incarnation. Erickson's development of explaining the Kenosis of Christ was especially helpful, and gave me a running analogy that I'll utilize in the future.
Erickson's treatment on divine foreknowledge is more philosophical than theological, as he calls his position "Moderate Calvinism" albeit it is merely a modified Molinistic model whereby he appeals to God actualizing a world wherein God's knowledge of what creature would do given any circumstance, thereby allowing for a greater libertarian sense of freedom. Hence, Erickson puts God's knowledge of what free creatures would do (counter-factuals) right in between His knowledge of what any free creature will do and could do. Thus, Erickson still denies that humans have true power of contrary choice on an equal level--a philosophical presupposition he charges is simply untenable unless one resorts to a type of open theism of temporal ontology--but he nevertheless states that although a free creature could do option B over option A in any given circumstance, God actualizes the world where He knows the free creature would always choose option A over option B, etc.
Erickson sets up his understanding of divine sovereignty and human freedom quite nicely insofar as it flows right into his understanding of the atonement which he concedes is universal, albeit salvation is still particular because the application of the universal atonement is only applicable to the elect. Erickson allows this by taking on Augustus H. Strong's view of God's predestination, namely, sublapsarianism which states that God's causal decree to provide salvation is logically antecedent to His decree to save some and not others. Erickson's understanding of eschatology is rather short, given the extensive treatment on other doctrines, but he holds to the traditional understanding of premillenialism, that is to say historic and post-tribulational.
Much more could be said about Eickson's Christian Theology, but suffice it to say I am very pleased and thrilled to have dove into this systematic, and look forward to reading more in the near future. My goal is to finish Calvin's Institutes and then pick up Berkhof's Systematic Theology next. Erickson's systematic will serve as an excellent resource to utilize for all future theological projects forthcoming; grateful to have read this and to always have this sitting on the shelf henceforth.
Brent McCulley
Erickson is thoroughly evangelical and unapologetically Baptistic. Having studied under Wolfhart Pannenberg for his post-doctorate degree, his systematic reflects a robust philosophical angle that systematic theologies have hitherto left uncharted. This is especially true in his first section dealing with the nature of reality, knowledge, truth, and his treatment of Divine inspiration and the inerrancy of the Bible. He wrestles with the philosophies of the modernist and post-modernist world in a vigorous way that leaves the reader equipped with a system that is philosophically durable as it is theologically evangelical.
Erickson's treatment of Christology and theology proper is extensive and thorough--grappling with the Nicene Church Fathers and wrestling down the post-modern theologians. In fine, he offers a bold and tenable understanding of doctrines such as the incarnation that are thoroughly orthodox, yet tenable and evangelical. Erickson's helpful analogies aid the reader in getting into the heart of his system, and proved to be workable and orthodox, especially in understanding Christ's dual natures and dual wills post incarnation. Erickson's development of explaining the Kenosis of Christ was especially helpful, and gave me a running analogy that I'll utilize in the future.
Erickson's treatment on divine foreknowledge is more philosophical than theological, as he calls his position "Moderate Calvinism" albeit it is merely a modified Molinistic model whereby he appeals to God actualizing a world wherein God's knowledge of what creature would do given any circumstance, thereby allowing for a greater libertarian sense of freedom. Hence, Erickson puts God's knowledge of what free creatures would do (counter-factuals) right in between His knowledge of what any free creature will do and could do. Thus, Erickson still denies that humans have true power of contrary choice on an equal level--a philosophical presupposition he charges is simply untenable unless one resorts to a type of open theism of temporal ontology--but he nevertheless states that although a free creature could do option B over option A in any given circumstance, God actualizes the world where He knows the free creature would always choose option A over option B, etc.
Erickson sets up his understanding of divine sovereignty and human freedom quite nicely insofar as it flows right into his understanding of the atonement which he concedes is universal, albeit salvation is still particular because the application of the universal atonement is only applicable to the elect. Erickson allows this by taking on Augustus H. Strong's view of God's predestination, namely, sublapsarianism which states that God's causal decree to provide salvation is logically antecedent to His decree to save some and not others. Erickson's understanding of eschatology is rather short, given the extensive treatment on other doctrines, but he holds to the traditional understanding of premillenialism, that is to say historic and post-tribulational.
Much more could be said about Eickson's Christian Theology, but suffice it to say I am very pleased and thrilled to have dove into this systematic, and look forward to reading more in the near future. My goal is to finish Calvin's Institutes and then pick up Berkhof's Systematic Theology next. Erickson's systematic will serve as an excellent resource to utilize for all future theological projects forthcoming; grateful to have read this and to always have this sitting on the shelf henceforth.
Brent McCulley
July 21, 2023
Not my favorite systematic theology, but it's still a solid and helpful work from a Baptist perspective. I read most in 2004-05 for Systematic Theology at Bob Jones Seminary. In 2023, I finished up the last few chapters that weren't assigned in seminary.
March 6, 2022
3.5. Erickson was generally good. On several positions he would try to find middle ground between different theological systems, didn’t appreciate that. Would recommend other books on systematics before this one, but still good general stuff.
November 14, 2024
I try to do one systematic theology a year, and this year I worked through Moderate Millard's Christian Theology. Erickson writes from a Baptist perspective and intentionally has written for the late 20th/early 21st century, rather than trying to write some timeless classic. Overall I liked it. I think my favourite thing about it was that he gets outside the echo-chamber, explaining and critiquing theologies outside of evangelicalism, particular 20th century stuff. The stuff on original sin was a bit off (I knew that coming into it), the Calvinism was nicely moderate but at times I reckon veered into elements of Molinism, and the surprise egalitarianism at the end shocked me. His thoughts on classical theology and Thomas Aquinas were interesting given some of the discussions about that presently.
October 31, 2013
Erickson has done a reasonably good job with this book. It is an introductory survey of the major topics of systematic theology. On the positive side, he has done a phenomenal job in structuring this book so that it is easy to find information. He has reading questions at the beginning of each section that tell you what you are going to encounter, and he uses headings and sub-heading effectively to break up information into logical groups. His writing style is also approachable and is able to take sometimes highly esoteric matters and refine them so they make sense in the allotted space. As this is a survey, he can only skim the surface. It is difficult to balance the correct depth of information in a survey textbook.
On the negative side, Erickson, although he seems conservative most of the time, sometimes imposes some inaccurate information or conclusions onto the text. The primary issue is he seems to have swallowed the lie that there are two "branches" of Christianity--a conclusion I vehemently oppose. The information is there that the Roman Catholic Church began as an amalgam of various forms of paganism with Christian trappings. Yet, either because he's been taught it and never questioned it or, perhaps, he wants to be PC, Erickson treats the Catholic Church as if it were a viable, legitimate "branch" or form of Christianity. In a similar manner, he also refers to other religions with Christian trappings such as the Mormons, thereby implying their doctrine valid from a Christian perspective. Both the Mormons and Roman Catholics have internally consistent (and sometimes ingenius) doctrines and dogmas. However, these are so far removed from biblical Christianity that they should be (and generally are, at least in the case with the Mormons) considered separate religions. I would not have expected this from Erickson, and it is somewhat disappointing. Such things "poison the well" for me because it makes me think that, if he is wrong in one area, might not he be wrong in others, maybe things I will not recognize. This shatters my trust and makes me feel I should question everything he says.
I give him a so-so rating. The book is not throwaway, but should be read more critically than you would expect for a Christian survey.
On the negative side, Erickson, although he seems conservative most of the time, sometimes imposes some inaccurate information or conclusions onto the text. The primary issue is he seems to have swallowed the lie that there are two "branches" of Christianity--a conclusion I vehemently oppose. The information is there that the Roman Catholic Church began as an amalgam of various forms of paganism with Christian trappings. Yet, either because he's been taught it and never questioned it or, perhaps, he wants to be PC, Erickson treats the Catholic Church as if it were a viable, legitimate "branch" or form of Christianity. In a similar manner, he also refers to other religions with Christian trappings such as the Mormons, thereby implying their doctrine valid from a Christian perspective. Both the Mormons and Roman Catholics have internally consistent (and sometimes ingenius) doctrines and dogmas. However, these are so far removed from biblical Christianity that they should be (and generally are, at least in the case with the Mormons) considered separate religions. I would not have expected this from Erickson, and it is somewhat disappointing. Such things "poison the well" for me because it makes me think that, if he is wrong in one area, might not he be wrong in others, maybe things I will not recognize. This shatters my trust and makes me feel I should question everything he says.
I give him a so-so rating. The book is not throwaway, but should be read more critically than you would expect for a Christian survey.
March 10, 2012
This was the first systematic text I read. Admittedly, nine years ago I really couldn't evaluate Erickson's positions. I read his text in conjunction with Grudem's and the differences became apparent. Erickson studied under Wolfhart Pannenburg and as a result he is able to competently grasp many tough philosophical issues. (This is largely absent from Grudem).
Since he is an evangelical, the reader can guess his positions on most topics. However, for the Calvinist reader a few things might be more interesting.
1. He holds to inerrancy, albeit in a modified (and more sane) form.
2. He mitigates Calvinism on two fronts: he places faith before regeneration and he denies limited atonement.
2. Pace Pannenberg, he holds to a weird, intellectual view of the afterlife.
The book is not without problems but it is a rich reflection on evangelical issues. It is unique in the sense that he is an evangelical familiar with Pannenberg and reflects on these tough issues.
Since he is an evangelical, the reader can guess his positions on most topics. However, for the Calvinist reader a few things might be more interesting.
1. He holds to inerrancy, albeit in a modified (and more sane) form.
2. He mitigates Calvinism on two fronts: he places faith before regeneration and he denies limited atonement.
2. Pace Pannenberg, he holds to a weird, intellectual view of the afterlife.
The book is not without problems but it is a rich reflection on evangelical issues. It is unique in the sense that he is an evangelical familiar with Pannenberg and reflects on these tough issues.
December 16, 2020
Systematic Theologies are hard to review, so I feel it necessary to review this book based off its author’s intent to provided a concise introductory theology that is accessible to readers. First, I would not argue this is concise by any means. Second, for introductory book there is quite a bit of discussion about views that are not pertinent. Third, this book should be titled “Baptist Christian Theology.” As a Baptist I am not arguing that this is a bad thing, but Ericksons baptists convictions and biases flow throughout the book and make it difficult for him to correctly or consistently represent the views of those that disagree with him. Throughout the book he sprinkles in bits and pieces of historical theology, but they are not well put together thoughts within the overall structure of the book. The places that his biases come out the most are on means of salvation, Baptist, and eschatology. I say this because he does very little to break down the opposing viewpoints, but simply propagates his own. This style is very different from that of Wayne Grudem and John Frame. With that being said I encourage you to pick up Grudem and Frame well before investing in this resource.
February 7, 2026
Millard J. Erickson is an American evangelical theologian, ordained Baptist minister, professor, and author best known for his influential textbook Christian Theology. Amazingly it appears he is still living at age 93. Just recently I pulled this "heavy" textbook back out when my study group was going over the book of Revelations and the last days. Very helpful and informative to that particular discussion. Curing seminary I read the whole textbook (1,200+ pages). Many lines are highlighted or underlined throughout. AS he stated in his preface, this volume was intended to serve as a text for an introductory seminary course in systematic theology. Even though it does not cover all of the so-called technical problems that would come up with scholars, it does deal with issues which lay persons will raise in the circles in which evangelical students will minister.
August 14, 2022
As a textbook, I found this theology rather uninspiring and difficult to comprehend. Many times Erickson would give all the common views for a certain area of theology without giving each view’s challenges or refraining from describing which view he considered most likely. He also makes some arbitrary decisions on the views he does support, often unwittingly contradicting a previous point by holding an incompatible stance elsewhere. When there are strong theologies out there by the likes of Berkhof, Bavinck, Grudem, and MacArthur, I’d gravitate more to those texts rather than this.
March 7, 2024
What a happy day to mark this done! Almost a year of study!
I have had several tell me that they are greater fans of Grudem’s work, but I personally so thoroughly enjoyed Erickson’s work. It was comprehensible while also being thought provoking and accurate. I believe that even a newer believer interested in theology and discussion would not have too terrible of a time understanding its contents.
Big fan of Erickson <3
I have had several tell me that they are greater fans of Grudem’s work, but I personally so thoroughly enjoyed Erickson’s work. It was comprehensible while also being thought provoking and accurate. I believe that even a newer believer interested in theology and discussion would not have too terrible of a time understanding its contents.
Big fan of Erickson <3
June 22, 2024
This took a while but finally did it. Not sure if a systematic theology can be any more interesting, they might just all be boring. I found this one well structured and fair towards all the views presented, despite disagreeing about some of them with the author.
October 23, 2024
How could I give this anything but 5 stars? Erickson attempts the impossible task of taking all of Christian Theology on in one volume, while not just giving his perspective but also being fairly inclusive of many other Christian and secular perspectives on nearly every topic.
My favorite section has to be Part 10 on Salvation. This was pure theological gold, Erickson’s best work in this volume. I see that this section was expanded for the Third Edition so I’m glad I found this edition.
My favorite section has to be Part 10 on Salvation. This was pure theological gold, Erickson’s best work in this volume. I see that this section was expanded for the Third Edition so I’m glad I found this edition.
March 7, 2016
Overall, it's a decent theology, but I don’t think it deserves as widespread usage as it receives in conservative Baptist seminaries today. In general, I think I prefer Grudem and others (even McCune if you want a very baptist and dispensational perspective).
Pros: I liked Erickson’s handling of Soteriology, especially Election (chapter’s 43-45 coupled with chapter 15 “God’s plan”). Erickson is one of just a few people to incorporate Molinism into his understanding of pretemporal, unconditional election without becoming Arminian (Bruce Ware is another).
Cons: I found his ecclesiology section to be weak. Though I agree with his general conclusions (Baptist church polity) I didn’t think his arguments were very strong. I probably walked away from the book less convinced of his view that when I began…
I also had issues with his section on eschatology, mostly with regard to his understanding of dispensationalism. He is a posttribulational premillennialist, and that’s fine. I don’t care necessarily that he rejects dispensational pretribulationalism. My issue is that he has a very dated view of dispensationalism. Not only does he fail to mention the welcome and needed advancements of progressive dispensationalism (80’s — today), his understanding of dispensationalism barely even reflects the “revised” era of dispensationalism (60’s — somewhat today). The dispensationalism that he picks apart is mostly of the “classic” era (Scofield, Chaffer, etc.), which no serious dispensational theologian (that I know of) holds to anymore.
A few examples: He speaks of the dispensational division between the “kingdom of God” and the “kingdom of Heaven” (1068). He talks about dispensational interpreters interpreting Song of Solomon as a “picture of Christ’s love for the Church” (1067). He mentions Matthew 24:39-44 (“one will be taken and the other left”) as being a proof-text for pretribulationalists (1119). Each of these examples are of views held long ago by dispensationalists, and held by virtually none today (whether progressive or even revised/traditional). It’s simply not honest scholarship.
Pros: I liked Erickson’s handling of Soteriology, especially Election (chapter’s 43-45 coupled with chapter 15 “God’s plan”). Erickson is one of just a few people to incorporate Molinism into his understanding of pretemporal, unconditional election without becoming Arminian (Bruce Ware is another).
Cons: I found his ecclesiology section to be weak. Though I agree with his general conclusions (Baptist church polity) I didn’t think his arguments were very strong. I probably walked away from the book less convinced of his view that when I began…
I also had issues with his section on eschatology, mostly with regard to his understanding of dispensationalism. He is a posttribulational premillennialist, and that’s fine. I don’t care necessarily that he rejects dispensational pretribulationalism. My issue is that he has a very dated view of dispensationalism. Not only does he fail to mention the welcome and needed advancements of progressive dispensationalism (80’s — today), his understanding of dispensationalism barely even reflects the “revised” era of dispensationalism (60’s — somewhat today). The dispensationalism that he picks apart is mostly of the “classic” era (Scofield, Chaffer, etc.), which no serious dispensational theologian (that I know of) holds to anymore.
A few examples: He speaks of the dispensational division between the “kingdom of God” and the “kingdom of Heaven” (1068). He talks about dispensational interpreters interpreting Song of Solomon as a “picture of Christ’s love for the Church” (1067). He mentions Matthew 24:39-44 (“one will be taken and the other left”) as being a proof-text for pretribulationalists (1119). Each of these examples are of views held long ago by dispensationalists, and held by virtually none today (whether progressive or even revised/traditional). It’s simply not honest scholarship.
September 18, 2014
The strength of this book is the depth into which Mr. Erickson goes as he covers the main theological viewpoints on various topics. He does a great job of summarizing the various views, offering strengths and weaknesses of those views, and then offering his own final analysis as to which view he believes is the most Biblically sound. The drawback to this approach is that it is sometimes difficult to keep the views separated in one's own mind, causing some unnecessary confusion. Additionally, by the conclusion of several chapters I was exhausted by the amount of information and competing views and almost too tired to care which conclusion Mr. Erickson holds.
In this book you will find a width and depth of theological viewpoints that enlightens and educates. Though sometimes dry, this is a very useful book to use when trying to gain a better understanding of the underlying reasons people hold various theological views.
In this book you will find a width and depth of theological viewpoints that enlightens and educates. Though sometimes dry, this is a very useful book to use when trying to gain a better understanding of the underlying reasons people hold various theological views.
December 18, 2015
I gave myself a year to work through the 1200+ pages of this book while trying to do justice to the text. it's taken almost that long, but was worth the time. Although completely evangelical, Erickson is unafraid to take less-than-majority opinions (it threw me that he leans to post -tribulationism). There is a constant emphasis on missions. best of all, this book is readable in a way that Strong's is not, and profound in a way that Bancroft's is not. I reccomend it highly.
February 25, 2011
Although firmly anchored within the Baptist tradition, Erickson presents all sides of each issue with clarity and balance before making his conclusions on each issue. Unlike much work in theology, Erickson's prose is light and readable throughout, making this a practical option for serious students as well as laymen.
October 17, 2017
It's not perfect, but it's one of my favorites. I don't agree with a lot of Erickson's theological leanings, but he treats most positions fairly throughout the book before writing on his own. J.I. Packer calls it "gently Calvinistic." I think that's going a bit too far, myself. Even so, be sure to add this one to your shelf. Will make for good reference (for me) for years to come.
January 17, 2022
Openminded in posture regarding tough doctrines. Allows for differences in minors while retaining major doctrines tightly and firmly. Explains, presents, and concludes fairly on doctrines and the variants on them. Lengthy, but attainable and accessible for any reader who puts in the work. Not super conclusive, would like him to be more.
March 15, 2009
Even though I was in seminary and have had several years of Bible teaching, this book was written in a language that many could understand. I appreciated the unbiased presentation of different perspectives.
July 4, 2022
The text book we used in Systematic Theology in seminary. I always consult this book when I want to read about a topic it addresses.
November 13, 2019
This is essentially a reference book. As such, it is far from exhilarating.
March 20, 2023
When I was in seminary I loved the idea of systematic theology. I love organization and this seemed like an amazing way to organize some of the main doctrines of the church and have them easy to read and reference. This excitement about systematic theology led me to pick up this book, Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson. I had read bits and pieces of it before and thought it was okay, but I wanted to give it a read through more recently.
I am now years removed from seminary and I've come to realize that systematic theology, while useful to a certain degree, is not as simple as what I thought in my younger years. There can be many interpretations on a certain topic and while people try to incorporate the Bible into these views, there are usually a number of passages that challenge a particular view as well. The bad thing is that works like this are large due to the wide amount of topics that are covered and this can lead to topics being explored more from the view of the author than looking at all the possibilities.
This is definitely something I felt happened in Erickson's work here. On the one hand, he does do a decent job of presenting a wide variety of theological topics and gives some alternate views in each of these chapters. On the other hand, there are many chapters where you can tell he knows his end result and is just kind of going through the motions of presenting other options mainly in order to present their shortcomings. Also some of the alternate views are so very scholarly that they're not going to be too useful for anyone in a practical situation and sometimes I felt like the focus on scholarly views caused the omission of more practical alternatives to certain doctrines.
I wound up finding myself frustrated at times because it often didn't seem like he was really working up from the Bible, but more working down from ideas and then presenting Biblical backing for them. This wasn't all the time, but it happened enough that it was kind of frustrating. I do understand that space is an issue in an already large book, but I can't say I was a huge fan of Erickson's approach here.
With that said though, I don't think that this is a waste for those who want more information on certain doctrines. Erickson does try to present other ideas and in some chapters he does really wrestle equally with where to come down. I typically enjoyed these chapters more than the ones where his conclusion seemed rather obvious from the start.
Overall, I don't really know what to say about a book like this. It's mainly supposed to be for reference purposes, but even then I don't really know when I would pull it out. Between the cooling off of my interest in systematic theology and an increased knowledge and interaction with the Scriptures over the years, I found a book like this kind of inadequate. It's maybe good for those who share Erickson's beliefs but for those who may disagree in areas, you may not find as much use here.
I am now years removed from seminary and I've come to realize that systematic theology, while useful to a certain degree, is not as simple as what I thought in my younger years. There can be many interpretations on a certain topic and while people try to incorporate the Bible into these views, there are usually a number of passages that challenge a particular view as well. The bad thing is that works like this are large due to the wide amount of topics that are covered and this can lead to topics being explored more from the view of the author than looking at all the possibilities.
This is definitely something I felt happened in Erickson's work here. On the one hand, he does do a decent job of presenting a wide variety of theological topics and gives some alternate views in each of these chapters. On the other hand, there are many chapters where you can tell he knows his end result and is just kind of going through the motions of presenting other options mainly in order to present their shortcomings. Also some of the alternate views are so very scholarly that they're not going to be too useful for anyone in a practical situation and sometimes I felt like the focus on scholarly views caused the omission of more practical alternatives to certain doctrines.
I wound up finding myself frustrated at times because it often didn't seem like he was really working up from the Bible, but more working down from ideas and then presenting Biblical backing for them. This wasn't all the time, but it happened enough that it was kind of frustrating. I do understand that space is an issue in an already large book, but I can't say I was a huge fan of Erickson's approach here.
With that said though, I don't think that this is a waste for those who want more information on certain doctrines. Erickson does try to present other ideas and in some chapters he does really wrestle equally with where to come down. I typically enjoyed these chapters more than the ones where his conclusion seemed rather obvious from the start.
Overall, I don't really know what to say about a book like this. It's mainly supposed to be for reference purposes, but even then I don't really know when I would pull it out. Between the cooling off of my interest in systematic theology and an increased knowledge and interaction with the Scriptures over the years, I found a book like this kind of inadequate. It's maybe good for those who share Erickson's beliefs but for those who may disagree in areas, you may not find as much use here.
August 19, 2021
Read all but one or two chapters of this work as a requirement for a graduate level class over two semesters. There were definitely some positives as well as some negatives for me.
One positives was that, being a contemporary author, Erickson is very readable and understandable as compared to older authors. I also read many lengthy excerpts from older systematic works and some were truly a chore to get through. Another positive is that Erickson does very accurately and unbiasedly present multiple viewpoints, both historical and contemporary, on doctrinal positions before presenting what he believes is the best fit with the biblical data.
A major negative to me is closely related to the last positive point. So many chapters were filled with analyzing other viewpoints, that the biblical position (author’s position) was given very little attention in comparison. Yes, there were some chapter explicitly devoted to expounding a particular doctrine, but overall, it felt like a survey of all the viewpoints and not so much an in-depth look at biblical doctrine. Another negative was the lack of a detailed outline of systematic theology. The table of contents provided a very generic heading outline, but you had to go to each individual chapter in order to find a detailed outline for that heading; and sometimes the contents of the chapter were not easily discernible from the heading.
Perhaps I’m a bit strange in the fact that I want a systematic work to deal with the Bible’s teachings more than surveying opposing viewpoints. I realize that some doctrines do require refuting erroneous views, but that should not be the bulk of the material. I’ve read large portions of Chafer and McCune, and I much prefer either of them to Erickson – Chafer for his outline, McCune for readability and conciseness. I realize I am comparing multi volume works with a singles volume work; nevertheless, my critiques still stand.
One positives was that, being a contemporary author, Erickson is very readable and understandable as compared to older authors. I also read many lengthy excerpts from older systematic works and some were truly a chore to get through. Another positive is that Erickson does very accurately and unbiasedly present multiple viewpoints, both historical and contemporary, on doctrinal positions before presenting what he believes is the best fit with the biblical data.
A major negative to me is closely related to the last positive point. So many chapters were filled with analyzing other viewpoints, that the biblical position (author’s position) was given very little attention in comparison. Yes, there were some chapter explicitly devoted to expounding a particular doctrine, but overall, it felt like a survey of all the viewpoints and not so much an in-depth look at biblical doctrine. Another negative was the lack of a detailed outline of systematic theology. The table of contents provided a very generic heading outline, but you had to go to each individual chapter in order to find a detailed outline for that heading; and sometimes the contents of the chapter were not easily discernible from the heading.
Perhaps I’m a bit strange in the fact that I want a systematic work to deal with the Bible’s teachings more than surveying opposing viewpoints. I realize that some doctrines do require refuting erroneous views, but that should not be the bulk of the material. I’ve read large portions of Chafer and McCune, and I much prefer either of them to Erickson – Chafer for his outline, McCune for readability and conciseness. I realize I am comparing multi volume works with a singles volume work; nevertheless, my critiques still stand.
October 6, 2019
Book 168 of 2019. This 1186 page behemoth of systematic theology has been a slow-but-steady read for me across three months and two systematic theology classes. Like the title says, this is Christian theology, and it is a systematic theology touching upon all areas of Christian doctrine. Between it and my two theology professors, I feel like I have been truly mentored through systematic theology and like I have a basic grasp on the discipline’s concepts.
For the armchair theologian: This is a difficult (and at times liberal) work of theology. If you are inserted in reading a systematic theology book, I would suggest you start with MacArthur or Grudem before proceeding to Erickson. Both are more pastoral in nature, great for practical application as opposed to philosophy.
For those avoiding Reformed theology: I doubt you’ll be able to read any systematic theology that does not challenge your beliefs. However, Erickson is a moderate Calvinist and I think you’ll fine more areas of agreement with him than disagreement. You’d probably be pleasantly surprised.
As for me, Erickson is truly a master in his field, and his book is an important work, often cited in journal articles and other books. Whether you agree with him or not (and I tend to the majority of the time), his work is one that every professional theologian should own and reference often. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
#gradschool #seminary #systematictheology #christiantheology #books #bookstagram #theunreadshelfproject2019
For the armchair theologian: This is a difficult (and at times liberal) work of theology. If you are inserted in reading a systematic theology book, I would suggest you start with MacArthur or Grudem before proceeding to Erickson. Both are more pastoral in nature, great for practical application as opposed to philosophy.
For those avoiding Reformed theology: I doubt you’ll be able to read any systematic theology that does not challenge your beliefs. However, Erickson is a moderate Calvinist and I think you’ll fine more areas of agreement with him than disagreement. You’d probably be pleasantly surprised.
As for me, Erickson is truly a master in his field, and his book is an important work, often cited in journal articles and other books. Whether you agree with him or not (and I tend to the majority of the time), his work is one that every professional theologian should own and reference often. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
#gradschool #seminary #systematictheology #christiantheology #books #bookstagram #theunreadshelfproject2019
November 16, 2020
Whew! This was not a fast read. Erickson's approach is to try to engage a range of views on each of the many topics, and then try to come to a conclusion from the Biblical evidence (usually) or his personal preference (a couple times). He brings a broadminded Calvinistic evangelical approach, though sometimes the work seems disproportionately weighted with mid-Twentieth Century views--likely the cutting edge theories when he was in school.
His view of science and Genesis seems very dated (as well as inconsistent with his professed epistemological approach), and his view that Ephesians 5 as the individual Christian being united as in marriage to Christ I found exigetically unsound. These were my two biggest beefs in a book over 1100 pages long.
This is a great work for working through various issues and their historical views. It's not so great as a quick concise theological reference--there are many out there better for that, depending on your denominational and theological background.
I think it is decent for what it purposes to do. Three stars is more about my engagement than his success or failure. I probably would have enjoyed more spending that much time (days and days of reading) reading more Wycliffe or Roger Williams or even Philip Schaff.
His view of science and Genesis seems very dated (as well as inconsistent with his professed epistemological approach), and his view that Ephesians 5 as the individual Christian being united as in marriage to Christ I found exigetically unsound. These were my two biggest beefs in a book over 1100 pages long.
This is a great work for working through various issues and their historical views. It's not so great as a quick concise theological reference--there are many out there better for that, depending on your denominational and theological background.
I think it is decent for what it purposes to do. Three stars is more about my engagement than his success or failure. I probably would have enjoyed more spending that much time (days and days of reading) reading more Wycliffe or Roger Williams or even Philip Schaff.
April 21, 2020
I am tempted to say that Erickson is the "true and better Grudem" because they are both baptistic, introductory systematic theology but Erickson is slightly more detailed and engages more broadly with major positions, but halfway through the book I realised Grudem might be more conservative (reformed) than Erickson (Grudem's problem is his doctrine of God). Well, it wouldn't be fair to stack this against other single volume STs that are intentionally within the reformed tradition (Berkhof, Horton, Frame). Packer describes it as "robustly evangelical, essentially conservative, thoroughly contemporary, firmly Baptist, gently Calvinistic, and cautiously post-tribulationist premillennial", well, which pretty much sums up the distinguishable highlights of the ST (and the last three descriptions is essentially all that I disagree with Erickson 😂). He also represents the egalitarian and amyraldism position, and I think he leans towards cessationism, which Grudem differs, so I think a side by side reading of both would be the best baptistic ST entry experience one could get.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews