So, I've finally got around to starting Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology". Due to the amount of time work has been taking recently, I think this is going to be a very slow read. After just finished the introductory chapter, and have a few questions.

1. The initial assumptions Grudem starts of with are
A. "the Bible is true and that it is, in fact, our only absolute standard of truth"
B. "the God who is spoken of in the Bible exists, and that he is who the Bible says he is: the Create of heaven and earth and all things in them."

These initial assumptions seem correct to me, but, then I may be missing something. Are there any flaws in these assumptions as the basis for a systematic theology? What initial assumptions do other systematic theology books begin with?

2.
Quote
The basic reason for studying systematic theology, then, is that it enables us to teach ourselves and others what the whole Bible says, thus fulfilling the second part of the Great Commission

Is this the main reason we study systematic theology? It seems ok to me.

3. Definition of doctrine
Quote
A doctrine is what the whole Bible teaches us today about some particular topic.

This seems like a somewhat imprecise definition of doctrine. Is this an ok definition of doctrine, or should it be more precise. I'm also concerned about the word "today" in his definition. In my opinion, it seems to make the doctrines of the Bible less absolute and more relative. Does the Bible teach us something different today then it did 100, 500, 1000 years ago. Later on in the section, Grudem comments that the reason for "today" is that some doctrines of the Bible may be more of interest to the church at different times in history. For example, the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

4. Major and minor doctrines
Quote
A major doctrine is one that has a significant impact on our thinking about other doctrines, or that has a significant impact on how we live the Christian life. A minor doctrine is one that has a very little impact on how we think about other doctrines, and very little impact on how we live the Christian life.

Is this a decent definition? It seems like it could be problematic. Many people put eschatology under a minor doctrine (which I would agree with). But, for many people (especially dispensational pre-millenialists), their eschatology seems to completely drive their actions and thoughts as Christians (of course, in this case, their theology probably has many other problems as well that affect their action). According to the above definition, then, it should be a major doctrine.

5. Grudem mentions "the extent of the atonement" as a minor doctrine. Is this really a minor doctrine? I would say this is one of the major doctrines of the Bible. Just from discussions I've seen on this board, one's view on the extent of the atonement has far-reaching implications on how one views many other Biblical doctrines.

I look forward to any comments.

Thanks,
John