Systematic Theology | Wayne Grudem
Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Zondervan, 1994. 1290 pp.
This book is available in two formats, the traditional hardback book and also in electronic form; Libronix has a particularly good (searchable) form of the electronic version.1 I personally have both editions. Do not think that you will get it cheaper by getting the electronic version! I was first introduced to this work when Dr. Kevin Giles (Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Re-invent the Doctrine of the Trinity) called Dr. Grudem a heretic for his doctrine of a hierarchical Trinity.
Dr. Grudem has worked hard to make the field of theology accessible to the layman theologian, though this volume is also used in many seminaries. Dr. Grudem has studiously avoided technical theological words and worked to make the book both accurate and devotional; he used neither Greek nor Hebrew in the text of the book, and rarely referred to them in the footnotes. Like most choices, this has both good results and difficulties. The good is that he has “put the cookies on the bottom shelf,” so to speak. On the other hand, this choice gives up the clarity and definition that the technical words naturally carry. His accuracy is worked out in the detailed description of his ideas, and in the bibliographies that are at the back of every chapter. The devotional nature is seen in the personal application questions, the Bible memory verses, and the hymns, which are also at the end of the chapters.
The book is organized along the lines of most major systematic theologies, and there are no surprises there. Though his theology is Reformed in nature, it is not Reformed in attitude. Calvinism permeates every chapter, and is assumed in his teaching of the chapters. The so-called doctrines of grace are addressed in their appropriate chapters, but Dr. Grudem did not wait until then to introduce them as he discussed the various topics leading up to Chapter 32 “Election and Reprobation.”
One of the things Dr. Grudem did was to eliminate the terms used by those who disagree with him, for example the Reformed doctrines:
The term double predestination will not be used in this book to refer to election and reprobation, since it blurs the distinctions between them and does not give an accurate indication of what is actually being taught.2
By setting the terms to be used, he has defined the outlines of the debate, and thus controls the outcome from the beginning. Double predestination, to which he objected, simply means that in addition to God’s election of some to salvation, God also elected the remainder to reprobation; whether by active selection or by passive leaving. In this matter Dr. Grudem was defensive, even coy.
In other doctrines, specifically the Trinity (chapter 14, p. 226), Dr. Grudem makes his arguments more cogently and does so without defensiveness. His choice, however, of the model of the Trinity as a hierarchy setting the pattern for the marriage relationship (454) is problematic. The Trinity is a tri-unity, while a marriage is merely dual-mutual. Yes, the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the church (Eph. 5:23), but that is a relationship between the husband and wife, as between Christ and the church; but not as between the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. No where does the New Testament make that comparison. In his comparison of marriage to the relationship of Jesus to the Father, Dr. Grudem over emphasizes the Deity of Jesus and under-emphasizes His humanity. The idea of marriage is used (Eph. 5:23) as a metaphor, and not as a literal covenant. Jesus’ ability to be the mediator between God and man is based on His commonality in humanity with us, not just His uniqueness as the only begotten Son of God. In fact Paul closes his illustration by saying, “This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church” (Eph 5:32).3 For someone just starting out in the adventure of systematic theology, this book is an excellent primer. For those more advanced in their studies, this is a good point of reference, but it does not satisfy the need for more highly developed thought in theology.
Timothy Mills
Pastor, Whitton Baptist Church, Tyronza, AR 72386
MidAmerica Baptist Theological Seminary, Alumni (2000)
July 19, 2007
___________________
Notes:
- Electronic Systematic Theology, Libronix Compatible. Copyright © 1997, 2004 Wayne Grudem and John Hughes. [↩]
- Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids: IVP; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994, 670. [↩]
- Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, © Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1988, 1995. Used by permission. [↩]
Like this post? Subscribe to our feed 
.
Phil Gons
Thanks for your review, Timothy. One quick question: you said,
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but isn’t that precisely the connection Paul makes in 1 Cor 11:3?
Just as a husband is the head of his wife, so the Father is the head of the Son.
How would you handle this passage in light of the above statement from your review?
Thanks.
Phil
Jul 23rd, 2007 3:36 pm
Tim Manion
Isn’t it obvious that Grudem is a heretic? The very idea of a heirarchy in the Trinity is tritheism. Consubstantiality is destroyed the minute you have one of the persons become inferior to another in authority. This is why the Athanasian Creed says the Son is equal to the Father as regards His Godhead, but inferior to the Father as regards His manhood. This is pure Arianism all over again. How can anyone recommend this book. It should be burned.
Aug 16th, 2007 9:24 pm
Phil Gons
Tim,
I don’t share your view of Grudem. He is far from a heretic. He is a very solid evangelical scholar, and his Systematic Theology is one of my favorites. I recommend it often and will continue to do so. His view of the trinity is supported by a long line of evangelical scholars and ecumenical creeds and councils.
Nor do I share your view of the trinity. I disagree that hierarchy, properly understood and defined, constitutes tritheism—for the simple reason that both hierarchy and monotheism are taught in Scripture.
First, you need to distinguish between essence or nature and function or economy. Father, Son, and Spirit are equal in the former, but not in the latter.
Second, that Jesus during His incarnation was functionally subordinate to the Father is without dispute. If this could take place for a time without constituting tritheism, then it could take place eternally without constituting tritheism.
Third, whether that subordination existed before and continues after the incarnation is less clear, but there are some texts that strongly suggest this.
Deal, please, with 1 Cor 11:3 and 1 Cor 15:28.
The Father is the head of the Son. The Son will finally be subjected to the Father. If this is not functional subordination, then what is it?
A denial of functional subordination is nothing more than egalitarianism wrongfully controlling exegesis and theology.
Aug 17th, 2007 11:44 pm
Timothy Mills
The above item written as “Tim” on 16 August, 2007 was not written by my hand. NO! Dr. Grudem is not a heretic! Hierarchical relationship within the Trinity is NOT tritheism! Rather it is an explanation of the function of the persons within the Trinity, how they relate to one another. The Athanasian Creed is correct that the persons of the Trinity are equal in their persons, but the question of how they relate to one another did not arise in the time of the Athanasian Creed; instead the question was about the Deity of Jesus and His position as God: fully God and fully man. The early creeds, especially the Apostles Creed and the Athanasian Creed, were directed at the Arian heresy, which denied the deity of Jesus, but did not directly address the question of the relationship of the persons within the Trinity.
I addressed this question more fully in my review of Kevin Giles’ book “Jesus and the Father,” where he made the same agreements about the nature of the persons of the Trinity, saying that the Persons of the Trinity are so undifferentiated that the most one can say about the Trinity is that one is called “Father,” another is called “Son,” while the third is called “Holy Spirit.” Giles only stopped short of denying that there is in fact a Trinity, and that God merely shows up in different forms at various times to accommodate our humanity (Modalism).
Indeed, God IS the head of Christ (1 Cor 11:3), I affirm that with full voice; if we accept Scripture to be what it claims to be, then we must also believe that Christ will also subject Himself to the Father on the Last Day, and God is all in all (1 Cor 15:28). I also affirm that verse full throated.
Far from being burned, Dr. Grudem’s work is to be cherished and studied, learned from and (largely) implemented.
Shame to whomever posted the comments above Phil Gons’s comments using my name. I would never recommend the burning of any book, however much I disagreed with it, much less one with which I am largely in accord.
Aug 21st, 2007 5:23 pm
Phil Gons
Thanks for the comment, Timothy. I have just now edited the comment by Tim and added his last name, Manion, which I pulled from his email address.
This should make it clear that the comment by “Tim” was not authored by you, Timothy Mills.
Aug 21st, 2007 5:44 pm