benebean's Reviews > Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine

Systematic Theology by Wayne A. Grudem
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Apr 30, 14

bookshelves: nonfiction, philosophy-religion, paused-progress

disclaimer: this isn't really a real "review" of this book. What I wrote was more like notes on first reactions to the text since a friend of mine had recently/was going through the book around the same time. It really was never meant as a well-crafted expression of my view(s) on the book, nor does it reflect a studious approach on my part in carefully endeavoring to fully understand every argument before offering a well thought out conclusion. So if you end up reading this, take it with a grain of salt ;), it's quite possible I misunderstood/missed explanations given in the book-- I was likely doing several different tasks at the same time as listening to this tome.

So far, I haven't come across any conclusions that I disagree with, but there have been more than a couple proof texts that the author uses (particularly in prayer, and miracles) that I believe are clearly used incorrectly and thus serve to devalue his conclusions. It really makes me nervous about other proof texts he used that I may not have been very familiar with-- not knowing if he used them incorrectly. But all in all I still think the book is very informative and worth going through.

hmm, his logic seems rather flawed in a lot of places... it's not that I can prove him wrong, but I don't think he has adequate support for the points that he makes. He's using a lot of, well because the Bible doesn't say that A is true, it means that A is false. which is a clear logical fallacy.

I don't understand why he thinks that the angels were definitely created in the seven days of creation. I mean they certainly could have been, but I'm unaware of scripture that specifies that they definitely were created during the seven days described at the beginning of Genesis.

He's attached to this notion that heaven is a part of our physical universe-- which I just don't think is supported in scripture. Could it be true? yes. Is it definitely so? no. He seems to think that just because there're things happening all around us that we can't see, it means everything that happens is part of our space time continuum. Could this be true? yes. Is it necessarily true? No. I happen to speculate (there isn't scriptural proof either way that I know of) that it's more accurate to say, we are a part of God's world, rather than God and all spiritual beings are a part of ours. I suppose the only support that comes to mind for this is when God says our world is as dust on his scales.

Also, I'm irritated that he uses one of the most highly debated texts and even more controversial interpretations of the texts, as his proof. Saying heaven is physical because New jerusalem comes down out of the sky is not at all good support-- because it is one of the most heatedly debated items that New Jerusalem is physical. Could it be? Yes. Is there reason to believe it may not be? Considering that it says in the same passage that the twelve apostles are the foundation for new Jerusalem, YES. Is this a good proof text, NO!
2 likes · Likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Systematic Theology.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

05/18/2010 page 30
show 44 hidden updates…

Comments (showing 1-1)

dateUp arrow    newest »

Mike What's you biblical stance? What denomination?

back to top