What do you think?
Rate this book
Confessing the Gospel: A Lutheran Approach to Systematic Theology - 2 Volume Set
This modern dogmatics text is invaluable for Lutheran pastors, teachers, professors, and Christians who desire to arrive at a deeper understanding of the Lutheran confession of the faith. Uncover a recent perspective on Lutheran systematic theology that complements the masterful work of Francis Pieper in his three volumes of Christian Dogmatics. This volume presents readers with more contemporary discussions of pressing issues and current challenges in the last several decades of the Church's life.
- GenresTheology
1300 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 30, 2017
4 people are currently reading
23 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 28, 2020
Excellent full systematic theology from LCMS, the first in a hundred years with the last being Franz Pieper's three volume text. Here, the reader will find a full exposition of orthodox Lutheranism, with each chapter touching on five areas: Scripture, ecumenical and Lutheran confessional documents, systematic synthesis, historical theology (including contemporary issues) and implications for ministry. For those familiar with Lutheranism, this will not have many surprises, but it will likely serve as the new standard for LCMS and a major resource for other Lutheran bodies not associated with the Missouri Synod. What further distinguishes this is that it is written by many authors and so no one author is given credit, which has the function of fronting the church-oriented nature of this theology textbook.
November 26, 2018
I was quite pleased to see a decent sized Lutheran Systematic Theology being released, and even more pleased now that I have completed reading it. Whilst it is most definitely Lutheran, I would point out that it is Missouri Synod Lutheran - which of course has differences from other Lutheran Synods, including my own Lutheran Church of Australia. However, these 2 volumes have been designed so that they are both easy to read (as I did from cover-to-cover) and also good reference works. Each major topic is examined for both Old Testament and New Testament foundations - and then a close examinations through the Creeds and Confessions of the Lutheran Church (ie Book of Concord). I found this especially rewarding!
A Systematic Analysis then follows - which is then followed by a Historical look (Church Fathers / Medieval / Reformation / 17th - 19th / 20th Century). Whilst I thoroughly enjoyed the Historical look - sometimes it was a bit too brief as most of the topics could easily fill a good book when it comes to how it has been viewed throughout Church History - and though the footnotes are good, further reading suggestions would be good - in fact a nice bibliography for each topic would be a great addition for the next edition ;-)
Personally I though the Topic on Election was very well done (given my Lutheran bias of course) - however I thought other issues like Ordination of Women whilst discussed, weren't really dealt with well. Similarly Young Earth Creationism is presented as the only option for interpreting Scripture - with a Naturalistic Evolutionary approach seen as the only alternative - which I found a bit disappointing (as someone much more comfortable with Old Earth Creationism).
This was a good read, and a valued addition to my library!
A Systematic Analysis then follows - which is then followed by a Historical look (Church Fathers / Medieval / Reformation / 17th - 19th / 20th Century). Whilst I thoroughly enjoyed the Historical look - sometimes it was a bit too brief as most of the topics could easily fill a good book when it comes to how it has been viewed throughout Church History - and though the footnotes are good, further reading suggestions would be good - in fact a nice bibliography for each topic would be a great addition for the next edition ;-)
Personally I though the Topic on Election was very well done (given my Lutheran bias of course) - however I thought other issues like Ordination of Women whilst discussed, weren't really dealt with well. Similarly Young Earth Creationism is presented as the only option for interpreting Scripture - with a Naturalistic Evolutionary approach seen as the only alternative - which I found a bit disappointing (as someone much more comfortable with Old Earth Creationism).
This was a good read, and a valued addition to my library!
January 24, 2018
Hey, notwithstanding my critique of the formalities and basic parameters of these 2 volumes, which I mentioned in my review of the 1st volume, I still think both volumes are good reading and very worthwhile getting hold of. There’s a ton of worthwhile information included and plenty of history and noteworthy preliminaries to Lutheran Dogmatics. Although the basic pattern is the same for each essay, the quality of the various essays varies considerably according to the different authors and teams.
Those two lists of contributors – one lengthy and inclusive, the other shorter and exclusive – leave me with more questions than answers. Would have liked to know more specifically, who was attached to and responsible for what. Some obviously approached the dogmatic substance delicately and from afar, whereas others got stuck right into it and actually gave a good dogmatic account and systematic overview of these theological topoi and loci.
Some serious “Redaktionsgeschichte” will have to follow up to give clarity on that pretty unclear situation. Perhaps the editors thought, they were actually doing something like the theologians busy on the Formula of Concord. They too didn’t explain, who was responsible for what in those later years of the sixteenth century. Still, the end result before us now is very far from the conclusive and unified dogmatic position of the FC, the Lutherans fathers brought to book then. These grey volumes remain foreplay – an “approach” – and we’re waiting for the Lutheran Dogmatics to come still.
Sadly even the 2nd volume has some irritating issues, which I want to address as I finish off reading these volumes.
1. Although I welcome that the publishers did not try and get by with one volume, but came up with two, they should have given the 2nd volume it’s own page numbering and not just continue from page 623.
2. Instead of mentioning the respective writers like in the first volume on page xxxiii, the editors omit their names in the 2nd volume. That’s a pity.
3. Those writers did a great job addressing a rather difficult task, which required them to answer a dogmatic issue historically. That was looking for trouble. In that regard, the result did not fail. Still, the various authors probably had no say in this dilemma of design. They should be listed at the beginning or end of their respective chapters giving them due credit for a difficult (impossible) task well attended to.
4. I wonder, who from the general list of contributors belonged into what subjection or chapter? That is not clear at all. Their names should have been listed under their respective chapters. Perhaps the main contributors could have elaborated on the various inputs of the minor contributors to recognize their contributions and to honor their input.
5. It would also have been considerate and helpful to the reader to add a short biography of these international Lutherans of yesteryear in the main list. Not everybody had the privilege of studying at the feet of Professor Dr. Gottfried Hoffman in Oberursel i.T. or Professor Dr. Henry A. Hamman from Adelaide.
6. I wonder, if today’s publishing doesn’t allow for some illustrations. Not only of the authors, but also of their subject matter. All these dogmatic topoi have been brilliantly illustrated over the centuries. These volumes lack any sign of those.
7. Sadly the editors have duplicated the list of contents of nearly 20 pages in both volumes. That’s redundant.
8. Each chapter outline practically repeats the previous one. It’s not much more than the “statement on building block approach” (xxix-xxxi) repeated for the umpteenth time. Somebody must have really liked that approach and thought it was unique, regurgitating it over and over. It just repeats what the “Handbuch zur Systematischen Theologie” (Gütersloh) has been doing for ages. This was superfluous, unhelpful and quite bothersome.
9. They should have tried working on some form of index, register and bibliography instead. Finding something in these volumes is going to be challenging.
10. With all due respect to Professor Dr. Robert A. Kolb and his exceeding excellencies and although I really appreciated his excursion into “Election” more than most, I don’t understand the rationale for him doing two main sections. The same holds true for Klug.
11. Would it not have been fair to rather include Professor Dr. David Scaer doing Baptism for example, which is no foreign topic to him: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0109R3474/... or other dogmatic Professors from CTS Ft. Wayne like Kurt Marquart, Detlev Schulz and Roland Ziegler. Even Professor Dr. Werner Klän would have been a worthy inclusion in such an opus magnum representing theologians of the “International Lutheran Council”. Or was this “approach”, which took decades to realize, just another party effort to perpetuate the local wars and not really an attempt to give confessional Lutherans a voice in a representative Lutheran Dogmatics?
12. Is it not high time to then progress from the initial steps of approaching such a Systematic Theology to actually putting such a confession into writing in the form of a Lutheran Dogmatics i.e. a truly Christian Dogmatics?
Those two lists of contributors – one lengthy and inclusive, the other shorter and exclusive – leave me with more questions than answers. Would have liked to know more specifically, who was attached to and responsible for what. Some obviously approached the dogmatic substance delicately and from afar, whereas others got stuck right into it and actually gave a good dogmatic account and systematic overview of these theological topoi and loci.
Some serious “Redaktionsgeschichte” will have to follow up to give clarity on that pretty unclear situation. Perhaps the editors thought, they were actually doing something like the theologians busy on the Formula of Concord. They too didn’t explain, who was responsible for what in those later years of the sixteenth century. Still, the end result before us now is very far from the conclusive and unified dogmatic position of the FC, the Lutherans fathers brought to book then. These grey volumes remain foreplay – an “approach” – and we’re waiting for the Lutheran Dogmatics to come still.
Sadly even the 2nd volume has some irritating issues, which I want to address as I finish off reading these volumes.
1. Although I welcome that the publishers did not try and get by with one volume, but came up with two, they should have given the 2nd volume it’s own page numbering and not just continue from page 623.
2. Instead of mentioning the respective writers like in the first volume on page xxxiii, the editors omit their names in the 2nd volume. That’s a pity.
3. Those writers did a great job addressing a rather difficult task, which required them to answer a dogmatic issue historically. That was looking for trouble. In that regard, the result did not fail. Still, the various authors probably had no say in this dilemma of design. They should be listed at the beginning or end of their respective chapters giving them due credit for a difficult (impossible) task well attended to.
4. I wonder, who from the general list of contributors belonged into what subjection or chapter? That is not clear at all. Their names should have been listed under their respective chapters. Perhaps the main contributors could have elaborated on the various inputs of the minor contributors to recognize their contributions and to honor their input.
5. It would also have been considerate and helpful to the reader to add a short biography of these international Lutherans of yesteryear in the main list. Not everybody had the privilege of studying at the feet of Professor Dr. Gottfried Hoffman in Oberursel i.T. or Professor Dr. Henry A. Hamman from Adelaide.
6. I wonder, if today’s publishing doesn’t allow for some illustrations. Not only of the authors, but also of their subject matter. All these dogmatic topoi have been brilliantly illustrated over the centuries. These volumes lack any sign of those.
7. Sadly the editors have duplicated the list of contents of nearly 20 pages in both volumes. That’s redundant.
8. Each chapter outline practically repeats the previous one. It’s not much more than the “statement on building block approach” (xxix-xxxi) repeated for the umpteenth time. Somebody must have really liked that approach and thought it was unique, regurgitating it over and over. It just repeats what the “Handbuch zur Systematischen Theologie” (Gütersloh) has been doing for ages. This was superfluous, unhelpful and quite bothersome.
9. They should have tried working on some form of index, register and bibliography instead. Finding something in these volumes is going to be challenging.
10. With all due respect to Professor Dr. Robert A. Kolb and his exceeding excellencies and although I really appreciated his excursion into “Election” more than most, I don’t understand the rationale for him doing two main sections. The same holds true for Klug.
11. Would it not have been fair to rather include Professor Dr. David Scaer doing Baptism for example, which is no foreign topic to him: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0109R3474/... or other dogmatic Professors from CTS Ft. Wayne like Kurt Marquart, Detlev Schulz and Roland Ziegler. Even Professor Dr. Werner Klän would have been a worthy inclusion in such an opus magnum representing theologians of the “International Lutheran Council”. Or was this “approach”, which took decades to realize, just another party effort to perpetuate the local wars and not really an attempt to give confessional Lutherans a voice in a representative Lutheran Dogmatics?
12. Is it not high time to then progress from the initial steps of approaching such a Systematic Theology to actually putting such a confession into writing in the form of a Lutheran Dogmatics i.e. a truly Christian Dogmatics?
August 11, 2020
This two volume set does a nice job of explaining (Missouri Synod) Lutheran theology. There is fairly good discussion of differences between Lutheran and Catholic theology. I felt there could be more discussion of similarities and differences with both the Reformed and Arminian theological positions. As a lay person, I feel it would have been helpful to have a glossary at the end, as Grudem does in his his Systematic Theology. An index would also be helpful.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews