What do you think?
Rate this book
A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith
A contemporary, foundational statement of classic reformed faith, now revised and updated.
1210 pages, Hardcover
First published August 9, 1998
123 people are currently reading
265 people want to read
About the author
Robert L. Reymond
31 books10 followersDr. Reymond received his B.A., M.Div., and Ph.D. from Bob Jones University. He has in the past taught at BJU, Covenant Seminary, and Knox Theological Seminary, and pastored several different churches. He is currently serving as the organizing pastor for Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church (OPC).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
February 11, 2010
A disappointing systematics text. For a full critique, read Robert Letham's review in Westminster Theological Journal. He concludes: "This work is biblicistic and sectarian in its thrust. Despite its helpful features, as a new systematic theology it has serious and crippling inadequacies."
December 16, 2022
In a nutshell, what this book lacked in scope Reymond made up for in depth. Some topics Reymond addressed briefly or weren’t mentioned. But for most of the topics he addressed, he will go the distance to substantiate his theological positions using heavy doses of grammatical-historical exegesis compared to other ST books (even multi-volume ones). This has certainly benefited me a lot although I think sometimes he unnecessarily overkills in employing this method. What I meant is this, he is very diligent in surveying through almost all the relevant texts from the entire bible which can be quite cumbersome for readers. I think this is necessary for controversial topics such as predestination but I don’t think it’s needed for most of the topics under the doctrine of Scripture, Trinity and Christology. Another reason is that half of the time I think it wasn’t necessary for him to bring in the original biblical languages to make a point in exegesis when the english translation is sufficient. But don’t let this stop you from picking up this book, there are many gems in his exegesis worth consulting (although I disagreed with some of his exegesis) alongside with other commentaries for your theological studies or for your preparation in preaching. Overall I think all the serious ST students should pick up this book but this book needs to be supplemented with other ST books to fill in the gaps.
Strengths of this book:
1) I think the highlight for me is his treatment of Supralapsarianism, I find this position more convincing than Infralapsarianism now. Do note that his position differs slightly from mainstream supralapsarianism.
2) Not sure why others find him to be too Clarkian, I think he justifies his presuppositional apologetics pretty well.
3) I think his treatment of theodicy, predestination, ordo salutis, attributes, marks, authorities and duties of the church, and means of grace are excellent.
4) His arguments for amillennialism and interaction with premillennialism are pretty good.
5) I appreciate that he argued for a literal 6 days creation position but I wish that he engages with other creation views.
6) He writes from a confessional reformed position (Presbyterian), something which I appreciate a lot as a Reformed confessional Christian myself. Unfortunately nowadays there are not many contemporary confessional ST books available (i.e. Grudem, Erickson). I find the Young Restless Reformed or Neo-Calvinism movement to be a concern because of their lack of confessions and eagerness in wanting to reinvent the wheel without consulting much on the heritage of our Reformed Confessions.
Weaknesses of this book:
1) I don’t like Reymond’s outline compared to Berkhof, Bavinck, Grudem and Erickson. It’s quite frustrating to navigate through to search up for the topic I’m looking for.
2) Endless quotation of other theologians. Quoting other theologians is necessary but citing a whole chunk of big paragraphs from them on a regular basis without providing a summary can be very dense for most readers. This is challenging because the older theologians he quoted from, although they are theologically sharp but they tend to write with many words to make a point which makes it hard to follow. It would be much helpful if Reymond summarizes their views.
3) Topics I find from Reymond that did not address or lacking in engagement: Atonement theories, Angelology, Church government, Post-millennialism, failed in bringing up the limits of textual criticism, did not engage with Arminian’s prevenient grace doctrine, find it baffling why he ignores classical Arminianism and chose to engage with Open-Theism Arminianism and did not engage with Pentecostalism seriously.
4) Reymond’s doctrine of Trinity is a problem as he denies some of the historical orthodoxy teachings with regards to Eternal Generation, that is the eternal perpetual generation of the Son and communication of essence from the Father to the Son. Likewise, this means that he denies the teaching of Eternal Procession as well. Furthermore, he doesn’t affirm eternal subordination. But other than these issues, the rest of his trinitarian doctrine is fine.
5) Another aspect I disagree with Reymond is his view on how God interacts with succession of time. He disagrees with how God view time as eternal present or eternal now when it comes to past, present and future.
6) Like many others, I disagree with his exegesis on Romans 7 passage.
7) Reymond is not a classical theist in his understanding of the doctrine of God, he's a progressive theists, another term known as theistic mutualism.
Edit: As I read Berkhof, I noticed that there were many things Reymond did not cover and engage with, maybe due to the fact that most of the space were taken up by his exegetical arguments. I will say, this book is still worth reading don't let this be your primary doctrinal book. Berkhof is much better than Reymond. Upon further reflection, while the methodology of this book sound promising, but in practicality it somewhat falls short, especially when we see how Reymond deviate away from the orthodox understanding of trinitarian eternal generation and procession. Plus a ST book is not meant to be a commentary due to space limits. Reymond should be like Grudem, only bringing up exegetical arguments for controversial topics that need to be addressed. But Reymond went beyond this and kinda overkills by bringing lots of exegetical arguments even for topics that aren't controversial. Thus there were many other topics weren't covered and addressed in depth. Proof texts will normally be suffice for uncontroversial topics. In short, I think this book in some sense over promised with its methodology but under delivers in its actual theological content.
Updates:
Upon further studies, I noted that Reymond's arguments to support the mode of baptism to refute credobaptist for limiting it to be only immersion seems to be excellent and pretty convincing. And same goes with his argument for paedobaptism. Both of these topics made good use of exegesis and GNC (good and necessary consequence deduced from scripture) methods. So these two areas are highly recommended to be consulted.
However his understanding on the reformed sacramental union seems to be a lacking.
From
Westminster Confession of Faith 27.2 states, “There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.”
So for those verses like Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 which are the favourite key texts of sacerdotalists. Reymond refutes the sacerdotalists view by exegeting these 2 texts without tying it to the Reformed sacramental union view mentioned above, which seems to me is less convincing. As for Mark 16:16, Reymond just ignore it because he takes a hard critical text position.
I highly recommend reading A A Hodge's Westminster Confession Commentary or Berkhof's Systematic Theology to understand how understanding the sacramental union properly will help to refute the sacerdotalists view especially refuting baptismal regeneration. Both of their arguments are something like this, they will first demonstrate from scripture that a sacrament is a visible sign, and a visible seal. Then they will demonstrate from scripture the sacramental union between the thing and the sign which is what WCF 27.2 mentioned, and they will argue for that's how passages like Acts 2:38 and 22:16 are meant to be understood, which seems to be much more convincing to me. This view also can used to address Mark 16:16 which will be helpful for those who affirms the majority/received text position.
Update 2: After learning more about Classical Theism, especially analogical language, divine simplicity, impassibility, eternal generation, eternal spiration, indivisible work, divine appropriation, I can no longer recommend this book with a clear conscience. There are simply too many errors in this book. Read Dr Robert Letham's review of this book to understand the flaws better.
Strengths of this book:
1) I think the highlight for me is his treatment of Supralapsarianism, I find this position more convincing than Infralapsarianism now. Do note that his position differs slightly from mainstream supralapsarianism.
2) Not sure why others find him to be too Clarkian, I think he justifies his presuppositional apologetics pretty well.
3) I think his treatment of theodicy, predestination, ordo salutis, attributes, marks, authorities and duties of the church, and means of grace are excellent.
4) His arguments for amillennialism and interaction with premillennialism are pretty good.
5) I appreciate that he argued for a literal 6 days creation position but I wish that he engages with other creation views.
6) He writes from a confessional reformed position (Presbyterian), something which I appreciate a lot as a Reformed confessional Christian myself. Unfortunately nowadays there are not many contemporary confessional ST books available (i.e. Grudem, Erickson). I find the Young Restless Reformed or Neo-Calvinism movement to be a concern because of their lack of confessions and eagerness in wanting to reinvent the wheel without consulting much on the heritage of our Reformed Confessions.
Weaknesses of this book:
1) I don’t like Reymond’s outline compared to Berkhof, Bavinck, Grudem and Erickson. It’s quite frustrating to navigate through to search up for the topic I’m looking for.
2) Endless quotation of other theologians. Quoting other theologians is necessary but citing a whole chunk of big paragraphs from them on a regular basis without providing a summary can be very dense for most readers. This is challenging because the older theologians he quoted from, although they are theologically sharp but they tend to write with many words to make a point which makes it hard to follow. It would be much helpful if Reymond summarizes their views.
3) Topics I find from Reymond that did not address or lacking in engagement: Atonement theories, Angelology, Church government, Post-millennialism, failed in bringing up the limits of textual criticism, did not engage with Arminian’s prevenient grace doctrine, find it baffling why he ignores classical Arminianism and chose to engage with Open-Theism Arminianism and did not engage with Pentecostalism seriously.
4) Reymond’s doctrine of Trinity is a problem as he denies some of the historical orthodoxy teachings with regards to Eternal Generation, that is the eternal perpetual generation of the Son and communication of essence from the Father to the Son. Likewise, this means that he denies the teaching of Eternal Procession as well. Furthermore, he doesn’t affirm eternal subordination. But other than these issues, the rest of his trinitarian doctrine is fine.
5) Another aspect I disagree with Reymond is his view on how God interacts with succession of time. He disagrees with how God view time as eternal present or eternal now when it comes to past, present and future.
6) Like many others, I disagree with his exegesis on Romans 7 passage.
7) Reymond is not a classical theist in his understanding of the doctrine of God, he's a progressive theists, another term known as theistic mutualism.
Edit: As I read Berkhof, I noticed that there were many things Reymond did not cover and engage with, maybe due to the fact that most of the space were taken up by his exegetical arguments. I will say, this book is still worth reading don't let this be your primary doctrinal book. Berkhof is much better than Reymond. Upon further reflection, while the methodology of this book sound promising, but in practicality it somewhat falls short, especially when we see how Reymond deviate away from the orthodox understanding of trinitarian eternal generation and procession. Plus a ST book is not meant to be a commentary due to space limits. Reymond should be like Grudem, only bringing up exegetical arguments for controversial topics that need to be addressed. But Reymond went beyond this and kinda overkills by bringing lots of exegetical arguments even for topics that aren't controversial. Thus there were many other topics weren't covered and addressed in depth. Proof texts will normally be suffice for uncontroversial topics. In short, I think this book in some sense over promised with its methodology but under delivers in its actual theological content.
Updates:
Upon further studies, I noted that Reymond's arguments to support the mode of baptism to refute credobaptist for limiting it to be only immersion seems to be excellent and pretty convincing. And same goes with his argument for paedobaptism. Both of these topics made good use of exegesis and GNC (good and necessary consequence deduced from scripture) methods. So these two areas are highly recommended to be consulted.
However his understanding on the reformed sacramental union seems to be a lacking.
From
Westminster Confession of Faith 27.2 states, “There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.”
So for those verses like Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 which are the favourite key texts of sacerdotalists. Reymond refutes the sacerdotalists view by exegeting these 2 texts without tying it to the Reformed sacramental union view mentioned above, which seems to me is less convincing. As for Mark 16:16, Reymond just ignore it because he takes a hard critical text position.
I highly recommend reading A A Hodge's Westminster Confession Commentary or Berkhof's Systematic Theology to understand how understanding the sacramental union properly will help to refute the sacerdotalists view especially refuting baptismal regeneration. Both of their arguments are something like this, they will first demonstrate from scripture that a sacrament is a visible sign, and a visible seal. Then they will demonstrate from scripture the sacramental union between the thing and the sign which is what WCF 27.2 mentioned, and they will argue for that's how passages like Acts 2:38 and 22:16 are meant to be understood, which seems to be much more convincing to me. This view also can used to address Mark 16:16 which will be helpful for those who affirms the majority/received text position.
Update 2: After learning more about Classical Theism, especially analogical language, divine simplicity, impassibility, eternal generation, eternal spiration, indivisible work, divine appropriation, I can no longer recommend this book with a clear conscience. There are simply too many errors in this book. Read Dr Robert Letham's review of this book to understand the flaws better.
August 13, 2012
I bought this book three years ago. I was looking for a systematic theology and monergism books recommended this one, and trusting them and being pretty new to the Reformed faith I bought this one. This was before I knew who Bavink, Berkhoff, or Hodge were, but I really do like Dr. Reymond's systematic and learned much from it. Obviously in addition to the Biblical text, he quotes extensively from the Westminster Standards and other solid reformed sources and this work is layed out in an easy to follow format. It's a helpful resource to go back to and very thorough.
My only real issue is Dr. Reymond's exegesis of Romans 7, where he thinks Paul is talking about unbelievers not believers, which would be a minority position, not his alone, but a minority. However to Dr. Reymonds credit, he includes that as an appendix in the back, not in the main body of his systematic, so it's not a show stopper.
If you were shopping around for a systematic this one volume work would be worth considering.
My only real issue is Dr. Reymond's exegesis of Romans 7, where he thinks Paul is talking about unbelievers not believers, which would be a minority position, not his alone, but a minority. However to Dr. Reymonds credit, he includes that as an appendix in the back, not in the main body of his systematic, so it's not a show stopper.
If you were shopping around for a systematic this one volume work would be worth considering.
November 1, 2013
This is the first systematic theology that I've read cover to cover. Grudem might have been a better place to have started as his systematic theology seems easier to read. While not agreeing with some secondary issues, I found this book very helpful overall. Reymond writes from a reformed perspective so there are lots of quotations from the Westminster Confession and theologians in the reformed line. He interacts with some non-reformed theologians, although he can come across as being a bit dismissive of their arguments in places. Overall, a very helpful systematic theology.
April 30, 2008
Very good contemporary systematic theology. Reymond is Reformed in his theology. He is supralapserian. He is too Clarkian for my taste (and his critiques of Van Til are poorly done). He is a paedocommunionist (which is problematic, on many fronts). He gives excellent presentations of all the issues a systematic theology textbook should. So despite any problems I have with the book (and it's just one a few minor issues), this one deserves to be on everyone's shelf.
August 28, 2014
This is an excellent Systematic Theology written by my former Seminary Professor. I worked through the entirety of this great work when I sat under Dr. Reymond's teaching. It is the best modern systematic theology out there. It is easy to read, but it is not a light weight. It takes a very pastoral approach to issues and is one I still use often and refer to in my ministry. I highly recommend it.
April 9, 2008
This is my favorite systematic theology. Dr. Reymond (my former teacher) has put together a thoroughly Reformed systematic that relies on the best Reformed scholarship while interacting with important modern movements (like dispensationalism, open theism, etc.).
Highly recommended.
Highly recommended.
December 7, 2012
121207: Finished. I still can't embrace "Limited atonement", but I doubt I will ever study a serious doctrinal issue without consulting Dr. Reymond. An excellent book.
February 28, 2022
Took me a while but it was worth it. Certainly, this is the best one-volume systematic in the Reformed tradition since Berkhof and most definitely worth consulting. Like all systematics, it has its strengths and its weaknesses, but, Reymond is staunchly confessional and bases the outline and progression of his work on that of the Westminster Confession of Faith. I got the sense that Reymond was writing "with authority" inasmuch as he was presenting each doctrine, and his conclusion, backed by a multitude of scriptural references; as well as the conclusions of many historical and contemporary giants of reformed scholarship. As some have mentioned, although it is extremely valuable to quote such eminent forbears, Reymond does so extensively; and whats worse, he seems to only quote the same 4 or 5 people throughout the whole work, which made it a bit monotonous at times.
Topics that I think he presented particularly well include: his defense of a Clarkian epistemology, his critique of Molinism, the continuity of the CoG throughout redemptive history, the CoW, man as covenant breaker (an excellent exposition of Gen. 3), the imputation of Adam's guilt, his case for supralapsarianism, the development of Christology in the early church, and what I believe to be the best and most succinct defense of sprinkling.
Things I wasn't all too impressed with: his style of writing (oftentimes too dry and stilted), his confusing stance on how God relates to time, his denial of eternal generation, and his section on eschatology, which was long and not very helpful, although I am also amillennial I found his presentation weak.
Overall, because of his committedly confessional approach, there were few instances where I disagreed with him and only a handful of times that I wish he went a little farther in his analysis (a problem, I know, often occurring in one-volume systematics). I commend this work to all.
Topics that I think he presented particularly well include: his defense of a Clarkian epistemology, his critique of Molinism, the continuity of the CoG throughout redemptive history, the CoW, man as covenant breaker (an excellent exposition of Gen. 3), the imputation of Adam's guilt, his case for supralapsarianism, the development of Christology in the early church, and what I believe to be the best and most succinct defense of sprinkling.
Things I wasn't all too impressed with: his style of writing (oftentimes too dry and stilted), his confusing stance on how God relates to time, his denial of eternal generation, and his section on eschatology, which was long and not very helpful, although I am also amillennial I found his presentation weak.
Overall, because of his committedly confessional approach, there were few instances where I disagreed with him and only a handful of times that I wish he went a little farther in his analysis (a problem, I know, often occurring in one-volume systematics). I commend this work to all.
May 12, 2017
magnificent and edifying---sad when it came to an end
February 19, 2021
Best modern Systematic Theology. Best part is his doctrine of the Scriptures. Presuppositional, reformed, supralapsarian.
November 1, 2021
I try to read one systematic theology a year. This one has some really good parts and some bad parts. I recommend it for his section on ecclesiology.
April 18, 2011
A great contemporary Reformed systematic theology.
The book's strengths:
Comparing this work with Berkhof's, I would say that Reymond's ST is stronger than Berkhof in his interaction with contemporary issues and in that he engages in more exegesis, which I think gives him a stronger polemic than Berkhof.
The book's weaknesses:
As I recall (I'm writing this review after almost a year of having read it), his discussion isn't as broad as Berkhof's is. For instance, Berkhof has a discussion devoted to angels (their creation, fall, etc) in his section on "The Works of God." Reymond, however, has no similar discussion in his section on "God's Work of Creation."
Another weakness in this book is it's Clarkianism. Reymond is a follow of the Christian philosopher Gordon H. Clark and it shows, especially in his discussion of the traditional proofs and paradox in Christian theology.
The book's strengths:
Comparing this work with Berkhof's, I would say that Reymond's ST is stronger than Berkhof in his interaction with contemporary issues and in that he engages in more exegesis, which I think gives him a stronger polemic than Berkhof.
The book's weaknesses:
As I recall (I'm writing this review after almost a year of having read it), his discussion isn't as broad as Berkhof's is. For instance, Berkhof has a discussion devoted to angels (their creation, fall, etc) in his section on "The Works of God." Reymond, however, has no similar discussion in his section on "God's Work of Creation."
Another weakness in this book is it's Clarkianism. Reymond is a follow of the Christian philosopher Gordon H. Clark and it shows, especially in his discussion of the traditional proofs and paradox in Christian theology.
March 25, 2016
People all over the internet hail this book as the best Systematic ever written. But, all I can say is - what a mess. The flow of this systematic was just horrible. I have never worked harder in my life to want to like a book and understand a book than I have this one. It was just a struggle from beginning to end to follow his discussion. The endless quotes of other writers is not what I want to read. Is it necessary to quote BB Warfield on his comments on John Calvin? The author seems to argue with other’s positions (Pinnock for example) more than just explaining the doctrine. If I wanted to know what Pinnock has to say on any given subject I would have bought his book. It seems to me it would have been a better Systematic if Reymond would have presented his own views rather than presenting everyone else’s and spend the whole book refuting their arguments. I would not recommend this book because there are many many better Systematics available.
October 18, 2012
Good solid work. A much needed update to mainstream reformed systematics. Compared to Berkhof, this is a breath of fresh air. While Reymond's exegesis falls prey to his tradition's myopic, pre-determined "meanings", at least he is engaging the actual text(s) of Scripture, which is more than I can say for most. That said, in other places he relies too heavily on the Westminster standards as "proofs". In he end too Clarkian for me, but I still think that this is a noble and noteworthy text. I wish though that he noted where he made changes/revisions from the first edition. For a contemporary systematic theology, this is probably one of the more "sane" when compared to the likes of Grudem or Horton. While this is a significant work, I still believe that Reymond's _Jesus: Divine Messiah_ is his most important work.
Want to read
February 6, 2011Used the section on the attributes of God for an Adult Sunday School class on the topic Jan 30, 2011. Reymond dissects Westminster Shorter Catechism question 4: "What is God?" and does a very fine job of it. Especially appreciated (and echoed) his perspective on the usefulness (or rather the lack thereof) of grouping the attributes of God into natural / moral, incommunicable / communicable, etc. Hope to get back to a more thorough reading of this book.
Borrowed from Grace Church Library (which bought on my recommendation). ;)
Borrowed from Grace Church Library (which bought on my recommendation). ;)
March 13, 2014
His eschatology is alright... that's about it to me. Note: I'm not Reformed (was at one time). I just read this to see if it would change my mind and read it just because. I'm still unconvinced of the Reformed theology and Arminian as well and favor an Eastern Orthodox approach. For Reformed, I guess it is done well. doesn't work for me though. I can't personally recommend it. I'll probably do a small critique later on about this one as I was scribbling notes all throughout this clunker. May Dr. Reymond rest in peace.
January 18, 2016
I was initially trained on Louis Berkhof's "Systematic Theology," a standard reformed work. However this work by Dr. Robert Reymond is excellent, and is quickly becoming one of my favorite Systematic Theology references. I very much appreciated his clarity on the Ordo Salutis, especially the section entitled "The Completed Order of Application" (p.711).
Read
August 21, 20120353
November 17, 2007
Reading a systematic is quite dry, but important to have on hand and reference back to often. Biblical theology is much more exciting for me!
March 28, 2012
Best Systematic Theology you will be able to find in the last 50 years, Excellent work by Dr Reymond. :-D
December 25, 2012
Good. Not great.
April 6, 2015
Melhor teologia sistemática disponível. Mesmo não sendo pós-milenista. :)
January 5, 2018
Una de las mejores teologías sistemáticas que ya leí. Recomendada.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews