I recently finished reading Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019). I had purchased it on Logos Bible Software and, because I thought it had lots of good features, also purchased a physical copy with Reformation Heritage Books (which may be cheaper than getting it on Amazon, which I linked to above with an affiliate link. They currently have the entire four volume set at a heavily discounted price. I have not read volumes 2-4 (yet!) so I cannot comment on their quality.) I read almost all of the 1158 pages of the book on my phone in small snippets of time, such as when going up and down in an elevator, or standing in a line, and so on. I am about 60 pages into volume two, reading it in the same way. Let me commend to you being purposeful with the time God gives you; there are many time-suckers on a typical cell phone and on the Internet, but you can choose to avoid them and do something useful when you have a minute or two or five here and there.)
Positive features of Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).
There are many positive features of volume one of Reformed Systematic Theology. These include:
1.) The book consistently seeks to make doctrine practical. While it seeks–and achieves–theological precision, it consistently applies doctrine to life. The book does not just seek to increase one’s mental comprehension of Biblical teaching, but seeks to be the instrument of the Holy Spirit in applying the truth of Scripture to transform the whole man. As Dr. Beeke is the president of the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, we should not be surprised that, as an heir of the Puritans, he seeks to apply doctrine practically to life. The authors explain their purpose in writing as follows:
This systematic theology explores the classic teachings of the Reformed Christian faith from a perspective that is biblical, doctrinal, experiential, and practical. Today’s churches need theology that engages the head, heart, and hands. Too often, we have compartmentalized these aspects of life (as if we could cut ourselves into pieces). The result has been academics for the sake of academics, spiritual experience without roots deep in God’s Word, and superficial pragmatism that chases after the will-o’-the-wisp of short-term results. The church has suffered from this fragmented approach to the Christian faith. However, we have learned from the Reformers, the British Puritans, and the Dutch Further Reformation divines an approach to Christianity that combines thoughtful exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, rich exploration of classic Augustinian and Reformed theology, an experiential tone that brings truth into the heart, and practical applications for life.
Joel R. Beeke, “Preface,” in Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 17–18.
This practical emphasis is commendable, and it makes the book an edifying read.
2.) Reformed Systematic Theology is consistently conservative, evangelical, and Reformed in its theology. While Scripture does not teach Calvinist soteriology, if one is aware of the standard imbalances in Reformed doctrine, there is not much else in terms of “bones” to spit out while one eats the meat. There are no unexpected strange doctrines, but a solid presentation of the doctrines of revelation and of the infallible, inerrant Bible and of the God of Scripture, with the only things that are off being the standard errors of Reformed theology (in terms of theology proper, getting too close to making God the author of sin by saying that He decrees sin and justifying the horrifying Calvinist doctrine of reprobation). While I would not just hand this book to a new Christian and tell him to believe everything it says, I would not be concerned about giving it to someone training for the ministry who knows the problems with Reformed doctrine and is inoculated against them from Scripture. I believe people in the latter class could be greatly blessed by much good Biblical explanation and practical application in this book.
3.) Reformed Systematic Theology uses the King James Version as its base Bible version. I believe that Dr. Beeke preaches from the KJV, so this is not surprising, but it is still refreshing to not have to read lots of quotations from inferior modern Bible versions. On occasion the ESV is quoted, but the large majority of the time it is the KJV, which is a blessing for King James Only Christians.
4.) Interestingly, Paul Smalley is a Reformed Baptist, while Joel Beeke is a Reformed paedobaptist. I cannot agree with the paedobaptism, but I am thankful that at least one of the two authors is a minister in a Baptist church, even if it is a Reformed Baptist congregation.
5.) When it is appropriate Beeke and Smalley make warnings such as: “Worldliness diminishes a man’s soul and makes him petty; knowing God ennobles a human being.” (Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019], 509). It is great to read a systematic theology that warns against worldliness and points one, instead, to knowing God as the cure for it!
6.) The book discusses doctrines, such as Divine simplicity, that I am afraid that graduates from many Baptist Bible colleges and institutes will give you a blank stare if you ask about them. (Do you know what Scripture teaches about Divine simplicity? If not, maybe you should read the part of Reformed Systematic Theology about that doctrine and find out what it is.)
7.) My physical copy of Reformed Systematic Theology is a quality hardcover book that is well-made and easy to read. It is also written in well-written and engaging English. It is scholarly and excellently done.
Concerns with Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).
1.) My major concern is, naturally, that the Bible does not teach unconditional election and reprobation, limited atonement, or irresistible grace in salvation (and, depending on how one defines things, total depravity and the perseverance of the saints could also have problems). Reformed Systematic Theology is unabashedly Reformed. One who has not already read independent Baptist systematic theological works such as Robert Sargent’s Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine from Bible Baptist Church Publications would be well-advised to start there before reading a Reformed systematic theology, even one that has the commendable features mentioned above.
2.) While I am thankful that Reformed Systematic Theology uses the Authorized, King James Version, it does not have a section on the preservation of Scripture. The book’s outline on the doctrine of revelation is at the bottom of this blog post (please see down there).
You can see that there is a lot of good stuff in there. However, there is nothing either supporting or denying the perfect preservation of Scripture. One who recognizes that he has all of God’s Words in the Old and New Testament Textus Receptus will not have his faith attacked, but neither will he have it confirmed.
3.) I also do not want people who read this book and are encouraged by its good English, its many edifying and encouraging practical applications, and its solid theology in many areas to become improperly enamored with Reformed paedobaptist theology. I do not doubt that Dr. Beeke is a sincere and converted man whom I expect to see in heaven, but the special presence of Christ is not in his Reformed paedobaptist organization. If you can explain and defend why Reformed soteriology is wrong and why, in the doctrine of God, Scripture does not teach that God ordains sin or unconditionally reprobates people for His glory (!!), you may get many blessings from this book. Maybe you will even find it engaging enough to read the whole thing on your phone while waiting in lines and going up and down in elevators and the like.
–TDR
Here is the outline of the section on the doctrine of revelation. I did not take the time to re-introduce all the tabination, so please pardon the fact that everything is just in a straight line.
X. Theological Fundamentals of Divine Revelation
A. Biblical Terminology of Divine Revelation
1. Old Testament Terminology
2. New Testament Terminology
B. Basic Biblical Perspective on Divine Revelation (Genesis 1–3; Psalm 19)
1. The Revelation of the Sovereign God to His Image Bearers
2. The Revelation of God by His Creation (General Revelation)
3. The Revelation of God by His Word (Special Revelation)
4. The Response of God’s Servants to His Word (Applied Revelation)
C. Summary Statement on the Biblical Doctrine of Divine Revelation
X. General Revelation
A. General Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. Revelation around Man in Creation
a. General Revelation of the Divine Nature
i. It Reveals God to a Limited Degree
ii. It Reveals God in an Open and Plain Manner
iii. It Reveals God according to His Will
iv. It Reveals the Invisible God
v. It Reveals God’s Divine Nature
vi. It Reveals God throughout History
vii. It Reveals God through His Created World
b. General Revelation of Divine Wrath in a Fallen World
2. Revelation within Man
a. General Revelation according to the Image of God
b. General Revelation via the Human Conscience
3. The Use and Efficacy of General Revelation
a. The Universal Knowledge Granted through General Revelation
i. God Exists, and Created All Things
ii. Atheism Is Folly
iii. God Has a Unique Nature as God
iv. Idolatry Is Wicked
v. God Holds Man Accountable to His Moral Law
vi. Sinners Are under God’s Wrath and without Excuse
b. The Universal Response of Mankind to General Revelation
c. The Proper Christian Use of General Revelation
i. The Church’s Missiological Use of General Revelation
ii. The Church’s Doxological Use of General Revelation
B. General Revelation: Philosophy and Science
1. Christianity and Rational Philosophy
a. Not Necessary in Order to Know and Glorify God
b. Teaches Some Valid and Useful Truths
c. Proposes Systems of Thought Antithetical to the Gospel
d. May Be Used Only with Radical, Biblical Critique
e. Recognizes Legitimate Methods of Reasoning
2. Christianity and Empirical Science
a. Operates with Delegated Authority
b. Can Investigate Nature with Confident Rationality
c. Must Work from a Posture of Intellectual Humility
d. Must Realize That Its Conclusions Possess Only Human Certainty
e. Should Pursue Knowledge with Prayerful Dependency
f. Limited by Its Ultimate Insufficiency to Make Us Wise
g. Must Work with God-Fearing Integrity
h. Should Make Use of Its Findings to Promote Grateful Doxology
C. General Revelation: Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
1. Various Rejections of Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
a. Karl Barth
b. Cornelius Van Til
2. Toward a Biblical, Reformed Approach to Theistic Arguments
a. God Testifies to Himself through the Natural World
b. Belief in God Is a Valid Presupposition of Human Thought
c. The Proper Posture of Human Reason Is to Fear God as His Servant
d. The Sinner’s Mind Is Alienated from God, and Cannot Reason to Its Creator
e. The Philosophy of Non-Christians Is Distorted by Satan
f. A Right Use of Reason Depends upon the Spirit-Illuminated Word
g. Christians May Make Rational Arguments from Creation to God
h. Christians May Use Arguments to Show the Foolishness of Those Who Deny God
i. The Wise Use of Theistic Arguments Varies with Culture and Education
j. Christians Should Beware of Glorying in Human Wisdom
k. Theistic Arguments Are Appeals to Divine Witness in Creation
l. Theistic Arguments Are at Best Like the Law That Convicts but Cannot Save
D. Some Historical Perspective on Natural Theology and Theistic Proofs
1. Ancient Roots of Natural Theology
a. Pagan Literature: Varro, Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno
b. Early Christian Apologists: Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian
c. Early Greek Fathers: Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and John of Damascus
d. Latin Christianity: Augustine
e. Assessment of Ancient and Early Christian Natural Theology
2. Medieval Development of Natural Theology
a. Muslim and Jewish Scholarship: Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides
b. Christian Medieval Scholasticism: Anselm and Thomas Aquinas
c. Assessment of Thomist Natural Theology
3. The Reformation’s Critical Interaction with Natural Theology
a. Critique of Natural Theology: Luther and Calvin
b. Critical Appropriation of Theistic Arguments: Vermigli, Junius, and Turretin
c. Assessment of Early Reformed Views of Natural Theology
XI. Special Revelation: Theological Introduction
A. Special Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. The Trinitarian, Mediatorial Work of Special Revelation
a. The Son Is the Only Mediator of Divine Revelation
b. The Father Is the Sovereign Author of Divine Revelation in the Son
c. The Spirit Is the Effective Agent of Divine Revelation in the Son
2. The Finite Human Character of Special Revelation
3. The Manifold Historical Modes of Special Revelation
a. Supernatural Verbal Revelation
b. Supernatural Visual Revelation
c. Supernatural Providential Revelation
d. Supernatural Incarnational Revelation
4. The Personal, Propositional Content of Special Revelation
B. Errors Regarding Special Revelation
1. Special Revelation Extended to Hierarchical Tradition
2. Special Revelation Subordinated to Human Reason
3. Special Revelation Diffused to Harmonize All Religions
4. Special Revelation Redefined as Holy Encounter
5. Special Revelation Confined to Historical Events
XII. The Bible as the Word of God
A. The Word of the Prophets and Apostles Is the Word of God
1. The Word of God Preached through the Prophets and Apostles
2. The Written Word of God: The Old Testament
3. The Written Word of God: The New Testament
B. The Spirit’s Inspiration of the Written Word of God
1. The Reality of Verbal Inspiration
2. The Extent, Meaning, and Implications of Inspiration
a. Extent: Plenary Inspiration
b. Meaning: God-Breathed Word
c. Implications
i. Authority
ii. Veracity
iii. Sufficiency
iv. Clarity
v. Necessity
vi. Unity in Christ
vii. Efficacy
XIII. The Properties of the Written Word
A. The Authority of the Bible
1. The Source of the Bible’s Authority
2. Biblical Authority and the Church
3. The Authentication of the Bible
4. Biblical Authority versus Personal Autonomy
5. Practical Implications of Biblical Authority
B. The Clarity of the Bible
1. The Perspicuity Controversy
2. Practical Implications of Biblical Clarity
C. The Necessity of the Bible
1. The Necessity of the Gospel for All Mankind
2. The Publishing of the Gospel in Written Form
3. The Preservation of the Gospel to the End of the Age
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Necessity
D. The Unity of the Bible in Christ
1. The Great Theme of the Bible
2. The Manifold Forms of Christ’s Revelation
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Unity in Christ
E. The Efficacy of the Bible by the Spirit
1. The Word and the Spirit of Conviction
2. The Word and the Spirit of Life
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Efficacy by the Spirit
F. The Inerrant Veracity of the Bible
1. Inerrant Veracity Defined
2. Inerrant Veracity Clarified
3. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Inerrant Veracity
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Veracity
5. Objections to Inerrancy
a. Human Fallibility
b. History Is Not Essential to Religion
c. Contradictions with Modern History and Science
d. Contradictions in the Bible
e. Theological Novelty
H. The Sufficiency of the Bible
1. Biblical Sufficiency Defined
2. Biblical Sufficiency Clarified
2. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Sufficiency
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Sufficiency
XIV. The Cessation of Special Revelation
A. Arguments for Charismatic Continuationism
1. God’s Ancient Promise
2. The Eschatological Last Days
3. Cessation at Christ’s Second Coming
4. The Spirit’s Ministry to the Body
5. Edification of the Saints
6. God’s Command
7. Historical Movements
8. Personal Experiences
9. The Reality of the Supernatural
10. The Silence of Scripture
B. The Uniqueness of the Apostolic Age
1. The Apostles of Jesus Christ
2. A Biblical Pattern of Miraculous Ministry in History
3. Apostles in Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches Today
C. Practical Implications of the Apostles’ Ministry
1. We Must Receive the New Testament as the Word of God
2. We Should Distinguish between Modern Teachers and the Apostles of Jesus Christ
3. We Must Beware of False Apostles and Prophets Working Wonders
4. We Must Seek the Power of the Holy Spirit
D. The Cessation of Revelatory Gifts Such as Prophecy
1. The Finality of Christ
2. The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets
3. The Fallibility of Modern “Prophets”
E. Pastoral Concerns about Evangelical Prophecy
1. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Individual Leaders
2. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Presumptuous Beliefs
3. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Human Thoughts, Impressions, and Feelings
XV. Applied Revelation for Practical Fruit
A. Personal Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Personal Faith in the Scriptures
2. Personal Study of the Scriptures
3. Personal Experience through the Scriptures
B. Familial Fruit of Applied Revelation
C. Ecclesiastical Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Transformation in Corporate Life
2. Balance in Pastoral Ministry
3. Zeal in Evangelism
4. Dependency in Leadership
5. Priority in Education
6. Saturation in Worship
D. Societal Fruit of Applied Revelation
E. International Fruit of Applied Revelation
F. Doxological Fruit of Applied Revelation
Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 29–35.
The college I went to used Sargent’s “Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine”, and I reference it rather regularly. However, I’ve often wanted something that went deeper, and that spent more time engaging with the other views. It’s great, but if it were produced by a normal publishing house it would be a medium sized one-volume theology. I’ve since started using logos, and now have access to several different systematics. But I’d really like to find a really thorough older Independent Baptist systematic theology that’s both deep and reliable. I found Pendelton’s “Church Doctrines” but it’s a rather small (though fun and informative) primer, rather than a full systematic. I also have Jenkin’s “Baptist Doctrines”, but again, a rather small book for systematic theology. As near as I can tell, I fall as closely as anyone might in agreement with what theological positions you guys have displayed here, and I’d love any recommendations you might give. Will consider Beeke’s systematic for the future.
We used Augustus Strong, when I was in seminary, but Dr. Thomas Strouse also handed us a systematic theology syllabus. Other Baptists: E. Y. Mullins, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression and James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology
Dear Bro Brandenburg & Adam,
I agree that the people Bro Brandenburg mentioned did practice believer’s immersion, but, unfortunately, it is also true that:
“With regard to Scripture, Strong allowed science and criticism to modify his definition of biblical inspiration.”
Timothy George and David S. Dockery, eds., Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 160.
Mullins was no fundamentalist:
The third theological polarity which Mullins faced was the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. This controversy centered around a cluster of issues involving the implications of the critical study of history for the history reported in the Bible, of the natural sciences for the miracles reported in the Bible, and of evolution for the creation stories recorded in the Bible. One or more of these questions was on the theological agenda throughout the three decades of Mullins’s teaching career. In each case, what was threatened was the Bible and the church’s understanding of it; and in each case the threat came from the critical consciousness which had arisen in the Western world in the seventeenth century (science) and in the eighteenth century (history). As he did with Calvinism, once again he took a moderate stance; he adopted a position that resisted naturalistic reductions of Christian faith and the obscurantist rejection of the legitimate claims of history or science.
Timothy George and David S. Dockery, eds., Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 185.
Nor was Mullins strong on the church, while he was commendably non-Calvinist:
Mullins’s greatest theological achievement may have been to guide Baptists, especially Southern Baptists, away from some of the more extreme expressions of Calvinism and Landmarkism.
Timothy George and David S. Dockery, eds., Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 198.
So Mullins was better on not being Calvinist but was weak on Scripture. Boyce was better on inerrancy but was a Calvinist:
Boyce was both a strict (though not hyper-) Calvinist and a biblical inerrantist.
Timothy George and David S. Dockery, eds., Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 85.
Things to keep in mind if one is reading their books.
I have a life-goal of writing a systematic theology. So you can pray for me to get that done over the next few decades if Christ does not yet return and God gives me good spiritual, mental, and physical health.
George and Dockery’s book is a useful one if one wants to see how a non-separatist evangelical Baptist evaluates significant Baptist theologians of the last few centuries.
I would recommend someone have local-only Baptist ecclesiology and the errors of Reformed soteriology solidly down by reading works such as:
https://faithsaves.net/the-reformed-doctrine-of-salvation/
https://faithsaves.net/questions-for-members-of-reformed-denominations/
https://faithsaves.net/were-the-reformers-heretics/
as well as a lot against Calvinism, and be able to go verse-by-verse through Romans 9 and show why it is not teaching Calvinism (hint: the Calvinist interpretation requires taking the OT quotes out of context) before reading any deep Reformed systematic theology. If one has done this, and he can both recognize and reject Calvinist arguments, Beeke’s systematic theology is worth reading. Brakel’s A Christian’s Reasonable Service is also edifying and relatively in depth. The post-reformation standard for years was Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology, and a modern deep work is Bavinck’s 4 volume Dogmatics. Richard Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics is also worth reading. I have not read John Gill’s systematic theology, but I would like to. I wish there were something as in-depth by non-Calvinist Baptists I could recommend. It may be easier to write such deep works when one does not have to go out and evangelize everyone (after all, the elect will come in, won’t they?) but can literally stay home and read and write for hours every single day. I am also reading Gerhard’s Theological Commonplaces to get the perspective of the major non-Calvinist post-Reformation non-Reformed perspective (Lutheranism), although, of course, Luther and Lutheranism teaches the awful heresy of baptismal regeneration (as did, in a different way, the early Reformed).
By the way, I recognize that Calvinists do not SAY that it is fine not to evangelize because of unconditional election. But Calvinism, in practice, reduces the amount of evangelism that takes place, since, consistently, if Christ only took the sins of the elect on Himself, there is no well-meant offer by God to the non-elect, since He decreed their damnation from eternity, and because Christ allegedly did not die for them, so there is no salvation for them; they could not be saved even if they (theoretically) came to Christ, because He never took their sins on Himself. Of course, many Calvinists are not consistent with their theology.
“ It may be easier to write such deep works when one does not have to go out and evangelize everyone (after all, the elect will come in, won’t they?) but can literally stay home and read and write for hours every single day.”
My thoughts exactly
Jim Camp
Yes, Bro.
Lewis Sperry Chafer’s 8 volume systematic theology is useful in that it is dispensational, although he was a Presbyterian and is on the edge of different ways of salvation in the different dispensations, although he isn’t really there yet, just on the edge. On eschatology Sargent has a good book specifically on that topic, and Things to Come by Pentecost might be #2 after Sargent’s book.
If you own these books on Logos, you can have your phone or computer read them to you out loud while you drive, do errands, etc.
Useful books against Calvinism include:
Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022).
David L. Allen and Steve W Lemke, eds., Whosoever Will (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2010).
David L. Allen, The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review (Broadman & Holman, 2016),
Against Calvinism, Roger Olson
I think they are all Baptists. Olson is actually unabashedly Arminian, as is Lemke (I think), and that is also bad. We should be neither Calvinist nor Arminian.
By the way, it is interesting that Bavinck often has copious notes giving references for what he is talking about. But then when he comes up with some questionable attack on the Anabaptists, usually there are no sources at all. We just have to take his word for it that they believed the crazy thing. But this also is what one sees in, say, Calvin’s Institutes.
On Baptist history, John T. Christian’s HIstory of Baptists and Robert Sargent’s 2 volume history are good. Something more general, from a moderate Protestant perspective that could use a bit more criticism of Catholicism, is Philip Schaff’s 8 volume church history. David Beale, In Pursuit of Purity, is a good starter on the history of fundamentalism by a fundamentalist.
There is a three volume systematic theology by a four-point Calvinist Baptist fundamentalist:
Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity
I have not been impressed with Millard Erickson’s works, although I suppose they are OK. He is Southern Baptist.
McCune is dispensationalist, and represents a true gospel. His eschatology would match ours.
Yes, it is very good that McCune is dispensational and is right on repentance and the gospel.
Bro. Thomas, thank you for the review. I also appreciate the discussion in the comments about various good systematic theologies, especially from Baptistic, dispensational, non-Calvinistic, inerrantist viewpoint. Not very common! I love reading and am always on the look out for good books, although shipping to my part of the world is expensive, often more than the price of the book itself.
E-books are a great help. I am in the Accordance ecosystem instead of Logos. I used to be on Bibleworks, but then they closed. But I still much prefer physical books.
I do want to raise doubt about the doctrine of divine simplicity though. I have yet to see any treatment of the doctrine that is thoroughly Bible based. I don’t believe anyone can arrive at it (at least a strong version of divine simplicity) merely from Scripture. It seems to be a product of philosophical musings in the medieval era of what perfection should look like, and then applying it to God.
I’ve noticed that some aspects of so called “classical theism”, especially the parts that are philosophy based instead of scripture-based, are hand-in-glove with calvinism. For instance that God is pure-act or actus purus, although high-sounding, is very much consistent with the idea that God in eternity past in one act has decreed all that is to come. There is no room here for “free will” and God reacting (a seemingly forbidden concept in strong calvinism) to the free-will choice of humans. For the “perfect” God cannot be reacting, only acting. Such is philosophy applied to God.
I don’t recall ever hearing of divine simplicity so I guess I would give you a blank stare if you asked me about it. However, I would hope that I could speak with you intelligently about the doctrine of God from Scripture without knowing a term that must be read in a Puritan systematic theology I’ve never read without being viewed as Biblically ignorant.
I agree that many in Bible college are taught things they shouldn’t be and not taught many things they should be which is inherent in the nature of Bible college. Sadly very little of what I learned in college (PCC) has been of much use to me in the ministry, but I wouldn’t consider not learning about the doctrine of divine simplicity to be one of the major shortcomings.
In my short research on the doctrine, it appears to be very much philosophical rather than Biblical. Not to say it is entirely wrong, but why not just say, “I believe what the Bible says about God.” I prefer the simplicity of believing the Bible without the need for man’s philosophy. As Solomon said, “Of making many books there is no end; and much study is weariness of the flesh.”
I’ll also add here that I was challenged and encouraged last week by your gospel preaching video. Thank you for that. Your point about using time wisely is well taken and also studying to show ourselves approved unto God. I’m for those things.
Dear Bro Thompson,
Thanks for the kind words. You are right that we can go by Scripture alone for our doctrine of God (and all other doctrine), but sometimes we would both agree, I suspect, that if Christians (and even religious “Christian” unbelievers) have been thinking about who God is for 2,000 years very carefully they very likely have discovered things that we have missed just reading the Bible on our own. I am not aware of any Baptist confession that denies Divine simplicity, and it is specifically in at least some (obviously something like a confession by some Anabaptists that is about what they do with ecclesiology may not even address the doctrine of God at all).
Dear Tenrin,
I commend you for being aware of what Divine simplicity is so that you can offer the common objection to it; I am glad you are reading and thinking with your Bible in hand. It seems to me like the arguments in favor of it in both Beeke / Smalley and in Bavinck’s Dogmatics are strong enough both from several passages and from good and necessary consequences of other things Scripture teaches to establish that it is a Biblical doctrine.
I like both Accordance and Logos, but if I had to choose only one, Accordance would win. However, you can get more books on Logos, and so I don’t have to choose between only having the one or the other.
I also agree that we need to be careful when we are discussing things like how God works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). I think Calvin’s doctrine of deducing everything that happens from one all-encompassing decree is pushing more on that verse than it can bear exegetically. However, Divine simplicity certainly predates Calvin, as it is advocated by Reformed, Arminian, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic theologians.
We certainly need to watch out for the danger of speaking about the hidden things of God when we don’t know what we are talking about.
Thanks for the comment.
Let me quote from the work of Augustus Strong, a Baptist minister, from his Systematic Theology:
“II. Relation of the divine Attributes to the divine
Essence.
1. The attributes have an objective existence. They are not mere
names for human conceptions of God—conceptions which have
their only ground in the imperfection of the finite mind. They are
qualities objectively distinguishable from the divine essence and
from each other.
The nominalistic notion that God is a being of absolute
simplicity, and that in his nature there is no internal distinction of
qualities or powers, tends directly to pantheism; denies all reality
of the divine perfections; or, if these in any sense still exist,
precludes all knowledge of them on the part of finite beings.
To say that knowledge and power, eternity and holiness, are
identical with the essence of God and with each other, is to deny
that we know God at all.
The Scripture declarations of the possibility of knowing God,
together with the manifestation of the distinct attributes of his
nature, are conclusive against this false notion of the divine
simplicity.” (volume 1, p. 557 PDF version, which can be obtained for free from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44035/44035-pdf.pdf)
I think all Christians would agree that God is not composed of parts in a physical sense and is not breakable into smaller pieces. But “divine simplicity” goes much further than this into esoteric ideas such as: “God is God’s existence and God’s essence is God’s existence” (pretty hard to know what that means), all of God’s attributes as actually the same thing, and some goes as far as saying God has no properties at all. I find Augustus Strong’s statement above to be persuasive.
Thank you for engaging in this topic.
Dear Tenrin,
Thanks for the quote. I don’t think that Divine simplicity is necessarily tied to nominalism, nor do I see any reason whatever for concluding that it either is or necessarily leads to pantheisim.
Here’s a quote for you, especially relevant for the Baptist part:
God’s simplicity is an important part of the Reformed confessional tradition. The Belgic Confession (Art. 1) states, “There is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God.”33 Richard Muller says, “The concept of a ‘sole and simple essence’ of God was also understood by the Reformed as so basic a truth that it was early on ensconced in the confessions of the Reformed churches.”34 The English Reformed confessional tradition, including that of Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Reformed Baptist churches, affirms God’s spirituality and simplicity by saying that he is “without body, parts, or passions.”35
33 The Three Forms of Unity, 17.
34 PRRD, 3:275. In addition to the Belgic Confession, Muller cites the French Confession (Art. 1). See Reformed Confessions, 2:141.
35 Thirty-Nine Articles (Art. 1); Irish Articles (Art. 8); Westminster Confession (2.1); Savoy Declaration (2.1); and London Baptist Confession (2.1), in Reformed Confessions, 2:754; 4:92, 236–37, 461, 535 For a recent Baptist affirmation of simplicity, see MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine, 174.
Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 629.
Thank you gentleman for the recommendations. I have access to most of the recommended works, and I’m starting to put them to use. I was hoping there was something more thorough for local only baptists out there, but I’m not terribly surprised either. The unfortunate truth is it seems many independent baptists just don’t think such a project is worthwhile. When you get that far, Bro. Ross, feel free to include me in a list of proof readers for a new systematic theology! I look forward to seeing someone produce one that is thorough and well organized. I appreciate this blog quite a bit.
Thanks Adam. It’s true that there is not a great systematic theology to write that has everything in it like we like, but Thomas wants to write one. Maybe he can go 8 volume set like Chafer.
Thanks Adam. It’s true that there is not a great systematic theology to write that has everything in it like we like, but Thomas wants to write one. Maybe he can go 8 volume set like Chafer.
Yes, Adam, I wish there was more from the local-only perspective. If you are the Adam whom I am thinking about, I believe you already have my email address, and I have yours. Thanks for volunteering for proof-reading. It might be a bit before that volume is ready, but perhaps I could give you some other proof-reading before then to whet your appetite!