Making Sense of Man and Sin: One of Seven Parts from Grudem's Systematic Theology (3)

Making Sense of...

by Wayne Grudem

Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology is required reading in many courses on biblical theology—and with good reason. The textbook’s emphasis on the scriptural basis for each doctrine, along with its clear writing, and contemporary approach make it an indispensable resource for many Christians. This series presents, as a separate book, each of the seven main parts that make up the 1,600-page Systematic Theology , making it more portable, affordable, and less daunting. Part 3— Making Sense of Man and Sin —explores how mankind is distorted, but not lost, through sin and is renewed through redemption in Christ. Important Topics Written in a friendly tone, appealing to the emotions and the spirit as well as the intellect, Making Sense of Man and Sin helps readers overcome wrong ideas, make better decisions on new questions, and grow as Christians.

Genres: Theology

128 pages, Paperback

First published January 25, 2011

About the author

Wayne Grudem (PhD, University of Cambridge; DD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is research professor of theology and biblical studies at Phoenix Seminary, having previously taught for 20 years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Grudem earned his undergraduate degree at Harvard University, as well as an MDiv from Westminster Seminary. He is the former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, a cofounder and past president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a member of the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible, the general editor of the ESV Study Bible, and has published over 20 books, including Systematic Theology, Evangelical Feminism, Politics—According to the Bible, and Business for the Glory of God.

Reviews

[Norjak · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great balance (academic/summary) in systematic theology.

[Kingsley Layton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Part 3 of 7.

Grudem's treatment of sin is good and clear. It helps put to bed nagging hamartiological problems.

However, his concept of the nature of man is flagrantly biased.

His dismissal of trichotomic man is both flimsy and careless as he seems to deliberately make no mention of obvious refutes to his disregard for it.

Likewise, his defence of his own views border on monism and he seems blind to the problems his preferred nature throws up.

All told, an unusually careless approach. If I were to guess - and it is only conjecture - I would say that this topic touches a nerve with him that he would allow himself to be so biased.