Systematic Theology: The Complete Three Volumes

Product Information

Yes, it’s often a distillation of Bavinck, but you will not find a better one-volume systematic theology in the Reformed tradition. Gutjahr blames Hodge’s extensive study of Paul and his patriarchal mentors for his own view that men are superior to women. Before we look at these three charges in turn, it is worth noticing that in this article Professor Vanhoozer says little if anything directly about Hodge's inductive approach to the data of Scripture, (though he does mention it in his article in the Kostenberger book) . For example, he might well have endorsed the view that every doctrinal hypthesis must be falsifiable by Scriptural data. It is a matter of no moment in the city of God whether he who adopts the faith that brings omen to God adopts it in one dress and manner of life or another, so long as he lives in conformity with the commandments of God.

So for Hodge the facts to which the systematic theologian attends are already ‘laden’ with the conclusions of the biblical theologian. In addition to articles and essays, Hodge published commentaries on Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Ephesians. As Hodge understands matters, the 'facts' which the systematician assembles are the clauses and sentences and collections of sentences - narratives and arguments - of Scripture, and only those facts.

It is no less unscientific for the theologian to assume a theory as to the nature of virtue, of sin, of liberty, of moral obligation, and then explain the facts of Scripture in accordance with his theories. The impression that Bavinck conveys of Hodge is that he thinks that Scripture simply consists of a set of facts, which the theologian then provides an interpretation for these, the interpretation coming from the hypothesis that the facts suggest or indicate.

If, therefore, theology be a science, it must include something more than a mere knowledge of facts. The idea that the data of Scripture are instances of data of a natural scientific kind is not one that Hodge entertained. If he were alive today perhaps Hodge would express these ideas in terms of proper basicality or truth-acquiring mechanisms.

Whether this is the book’s greatest strength or its Achilles’ heel depends on what you are hoping for in a systematic theology.

Unique among systematic theologies, the last two volumes are almost entirely devoted to sanctification, covering topics like contentment, self-denial, patience, and prayer. In 1812 Hodge’s mother moved the family to Princeton in hope of matriculating her sons at Princeton College. A major historical work in defence of old-school Presbyterian doctrine and practice, The Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, appeared in 1840.

Before we look at these three charges in turn, you'll notice that Professor Vanhoozer says little if anything directly about Hodge's inductive approach to the data of Scripture. These traits are said to reveal him as expressing the mentality of the Enlightenment, 'the assumption of modernity', in his pursuit of objectivity, a mentality perhaps fostered by the influence upon him of one of the most notable figures of the Scottish Enlightenment, Thomas Reid, and perhaps by the dreaded ‘Reformed Scholasticism’. And finally, the theologian must verify them by what Scripture teaches concerning these presuppositions.

God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself' is (Hodge would say), a fact, a true proposition, a truth. According to Vanhoozer, according to Hodge anyone can do the observing necessary to being a theologian. In making this list, I’ve limited myself to systematic theologies that (1) I have read through or have used before, (2) are readily available, and (3) are committed to the inerrancy of Scripture. The magnum opus of one of America's most prominent theologians offers an in-depth exploration of theology, anthropology, soteriology, and eschatology.Unfortunately, Professor Vanhoozer's negative comments about Charles Hodge's systematic theological method are not novel. These sentences bear certain familiar tell-tale signs, expressed in three charges against Hodge: that he presupposes a ‘subject-object dichotomy’ in which the mind observes facts (which are in some sense mind-independent), and in which the situation of the interpreter is irrelevant. As we have noted, Hodge is not describing what actually goes on in carrying forward the science of theology, but giving his views on what ought to happen. There is a table over there' is 'laden' with the theory of the spatio-temporal location of middle-sized artifacts. The danger of operating with preconceived theories is not a situation which Hodge himself is exempt from, nor (he would say) is anyone else.