A New Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith 2nd Edition - Revised And Updated

Rating:
Summary: It could have been so much more...
Review: This was the first systematic theology I ever owned. I read and re-read it assiduously. I found it to be very helpful as a conversation partner as I developed my theology for the first time. However, as I have returned to it over the last two years I have been increasingly aware of its inadequacies. A few of these inadequacies are as follows:-
Firstly, Reymond could have interacted with Biblical theology a whole lot more. Many advances have been made in Biblical theology and it needs to be more closely integrated into our systematics.
Secondly, as a specific example of the previous inadequacy, where is there an extended treatment of the significance of the resurrection? Reymond defends the 'fact' of the resurrection, but gives little account of the significance of the resurrection. The resurrection, which is so central to the preaching and theology of the apostles, is treated as an isolated element by Reymond. Compare the length of Reymond's treatment of the crosswork of Christ to his treatment of the resurrection. Another oversight is Pentecost, which is given little attention.
Thirdly, Reymond's theological methodology is, I believe, deficient. He follows Gordon Clark in key areas of his epistemology and, consequently, is not able to apply the riches of Van Til's analogical system to his work. His treatment of Van Til's analogical system is also misleading. The role of logic in Reymond's theology makes it, in my opinion, more scholastic than Biblical.
Fourthly, there is insufficient interaction with modern debates. The issue of spiritual gifts is not really addressed to any real depth. I was also hoping for some interaction with movements such as preterism and theonomic reconstructionism but found little in those areas either. These are a few examples among many. The 'interaction with important contemporary theological documents' promised to us inside the cover, is woefully limited.
Fifthly, Reymond's treatment of the covenant is quite one-dimensional and does not sufficiently account for its organic development. Individual election has too great a controlling influence on his theology in such areas as the atonement, where he gives a very limited treatment.
Sixthly, Reymond's soteriology is very individualistic. There should be more focus on the church as the object of redemption.
Seventhly, Reymond's approach to the ordo salutis fails to do justice to the centrality of union with Christ and that fact that the blessings of redemption are received as aspects of personal mystical union with Him. Reymond's treatment of justification (at least in my edition - he might have changed this) is also hopelessly outdated as it fails to engage much with the claims of the New Perspective movement.
Eighthly, there is no real treatment of wider issues such as the family, culture, education and the state, which are deeply relevant in our world. It is my belief that good theology is very relevant. Unfortunately, Reymond fails to give us much in the way of practical, ecclesiastical, cultural or experiential application.
Ninthly, I found Reymond's representation of some scholars quite unfaithful. Calvin and Warfield's relationship to Nicene orthodoxy on the issue of the eternal generation of the Son is far more faithfully depicted by Reymond. Anyone who has read Calvin and Warfield on the subject should recognize that Reymond has misrepresented them. Again, Reymond badly misrepresents the claims of the theonomists.
All in all, I am disappointed with this book. Given the developments in reformed theology over the past years, particularly in Biblical theology, this book could have been so much better. Instead, Reymond has merely reheated the Reformed theologies of the past few hundred years. What a pity...