To my ears, it sounds like you’re using the systematic theologies (Erickson’s happens to be in focus) as if they were Dictionaries of Theology. Now, I have no problem with theological dictionaries, like Elwell’s - they are tremendously useful in aiding in just the sort of activity you describe. It seems, however, that while dictionaries are written for the purpose of setting the reader off in the right direction (the better ones include a small bibliography at the end of each entry), and while a systematic theology may be used for that purpose (although, I think, not as well), a systematic theology is not written for that purpose. No, systematic theologies (the book, not necessarily the discipline) are written as an argument for what constitutes “right theology.” When used educationally students are being introduced to theology as a discipline so much as to what Millard Erickson thinks should be considered right theology - which I find disturbing (I would be equally disturbed if we were to merely substitute Erickson’s text with another’s). When we are beginning to shape our own views about theological topics we need a plurality of voices; that so we don’t ‘learn’ by parroting, but by wrestling.
I am also suspicious of texts which purport to emcompass the discipline of theology: I am close to claiming that all theology is, or should be, ad hoc - occasional in nature. But thats for another post.
To be fair:I actually do own Erickson’s book, which means I haven’t “chucked” it either. His text remains interesting for me insofar as it sheds light on the logic behind a particular (historical) theological movement - a movement in which I find my own roots also.

I appreciate your appreciation for Jesus and the Victory of God. That book also had a large impact on me and how I view Jesus and how I view and do theology. I understand your angst about Erickson (having studied under that same text) but in some sense I think systematic theologies can be helpful as references. There is a sense that they can help navigate the waters, so to speak. If nothing else, they are a useful collection of ‘proof-texts’ (and I’m not happy with that word) under systematic/thematic headings, which can be examined and explored in a more helpful and dialogic manner. But I’m not willing to chuck them completely because of their useful survey of the material. Does that make sense? That’s my thought anyway.

Ben (from church)