Teología sistemática. Vol. 1

Systematic Theology #1

by Charles Hodge

In every science there are two facts and ideas; or, facts and the mind. Science is more than knowledge. Knowledge is the persuasion of what is true on adequate evidence. But the facts of astronomy, chemistry, or history do not constitute the science of those departments of knowledge. Nor does the mere orderly arrangement of facts amount to science. Historical facts arranged in chronological order, are mere annals. The philosophy of history supposes those facts to be understood in their causal relations. In every department the man of science is assumed to understand the laws by which the facts of experience are determined; so that he not only knows the past, but can predict the future. The astronomer can foretell the relative position of the heavenly bodies for centuries to come. The chemist can tell with certainty what will be the effect of certain chemical combinations. If, therefore, theology be a science, it must include something more than a mere knowledge of facts. It must embrace an exhibition of the internal relation of those facts, one to another, and each to all. It must be able to show that if one be admitted, others cannot be denied.

Genres: Theology

672 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1871

About the author

Charles Hodge (1797–1878) was an important Presbyterian theologian and principal of Princeton Theological Seminary between 1851 and 1878. He was a leading exponent of the Princeton theology, an orthodox Calvinist theological tradition in America during the 19th century. He argued strongly for the authority of the Bible as the Word of God. Many of his ideas were adopted in the 20th century by Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE FIRST VOLUME OF A MONUMENTAL SERIES BY A CALVINIST THEOLOGIAN

Charles Hodge (1797-1878) was the principal of Princeton Theological Seminary between 1851 and 1878, and one of the greatest exponents of traditional Calvinism in America during the 19th century.

He wrote in the Introduction to the first volume of this 1872-1873 series, “The Bible is no more a system of theology, than Nature is a system of chemistry or of mechanics… the Bible contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate, arrange, and exhibit in their internal relation to each other. This constitutes the difference between biblical and systematic theology. The office of the former is to ascertain and state the facts of Scripture. The office of the latter is to take those fact, determine their relation to each other and to other cognate truths as well as to vindicate them and show their harmony and consistency.” (Pg. 1-2)

He asserts, “It is plain that complete havoc must be made of the whole system of revealed truth, unless we consent to derive our philosophy from the Bible, instead of explaining the Bible by our philosophy. If the Scriptures teach that sin is heredity, we must adopt a theory of sin suited to that fact. If they teach that men cannot repent, believe, or do anything spiritually good, without the supernatural aid of the Holy Spirit, we must make our theory of moral obligation accord with that fact.” (Pg. 14)

He states, “What is to become of the mass of mankind? Are they to be left in darkness and despair?... The experience of ages proves that the world by wisdom knows not God. The heathen nations, ancient and modern, civilized and savage, have without exception, failed by the light of nature to solve any of the great problems of humanity. This is the testimony of history as well as of Scripture.” (Pg. 37)

He argues, “There is all the difference between a conviction founded on so-called philosophical demonstration, that there is between God and man, the divine and human. Let any man read the pretended philosophical demonstrations of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the resurrection of the body, or any other of the great truths of the Bible, and he will feel at liberty to receive or to reject it as pleasure. It has no authority or certainty. It is the product of a mind like his own, and therefore can have no more power than belongs to the fallible human intellect.” (Pg. 46-47)

He points out, “Romanists and Protestants vailed resisted the adoption of the Copernican theory of our solar system. They interpreted the Bible in a sense contradictory to that theory… they staked the authority of the Bible on the correctness of their interpretation. The theory proved to be true, and the received interpretation had to be given up. The Bible, however, has receive no injury, although theologians have been taught an important lesson: that is, to let science take its course, assured that the Scriptures will accommodate themselves to all well-authenticated scientific facts in time to come, as they have in time past.” (Pg. 57) Later, he adds, “Christians have commonly believed that the earth has existed only a few thousands of years. If geologists finally prove that it has existed for myriads of ages, it will be found that the first chapter of Genesis is in full accord with the facts, and that the last results of science are embodied on the first page of the Bible.” (Pg. 171) Later, he observes, “if the word ‘day’ be taken in the sense of ‘an indefinite period of time,’ a sense which it undoubtedly has in other parts of Scripture, there is not only no discrepancy between the Mosaic account of the creation and the assumed facts of geology, but there is a most marvelous coincidence between them.” (Pg. 571)

He contends, “the great body of what passes for philosophy or science, is merely human speculation. What is the philosophy of … the Platonists… of Leibniz with his monads… of Descartes and his vortices; of Kant and his categories; of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, with their different theories of idealistic pantheism?... these systems of philosophy are so many forms of human speculation… as far as these speculations agree with the Bible they are true; and do far as they differ from it, they are false and worthless.” (Pg. 58)

He says, “this ‘gift of prophecy’ … the gift of speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit, was analogous to the gift of miracles. The one has as obviously ceased as the other.” (Pg. 98) Later, he adds, “Mysticism has always been productive of evil. It has led to the neglect or undervaluing of divine institutions---of the Church, of the ministry, of the sacraments, of the Sabbath, of the Scriptures. History shows that it has also led to the greatest excesses and social evils.” (Pg. 103)

He asserts, “Romanists… plead the authority of tradition for all kinds of doctrines and precepts, for rites and ceremonies, and ecclesiastical institutions, which… are entirely outside of the sphere of the promised guidance of the Spirit. Our Lord… did not promise to preserve [his people] from error in subordinate matters, or to give them supernatural knowledge of the organization of the Church, the number of the sacraments, or the power of bishops.” (Pg. 115-116)

He notes, “There is no command given in the New Testament to keep up the succession of the Apostles. When Judas had apostatized, Peter said his place must be filled … [so] that the man selected might be ‘a witness with us of his resurrection.’ … And that was the end. We never hear of Matthias afterward. It is very doubtful whether this appointment of Matthias had any validity.” (Pg. 140)

He states, “[It is] unreasonable… to deny the inspiration of … the Bible, because one sacred writer says that on a given occasion twenty-four thousand, and another says that twenty-three thousand, men were slain. Surely a Christian may be allowed to treat such objections under his feet… So the Christian need not renounce his faith in the plenary inspiration of the Bible, although there may be some thins about it in its present state which he cannot account for.” (Pg. 170)

He argues, “There are two objections often urged against the doctrine that the knowledge of God results from the very constitution of our nature, and is therefore universal. The one is, that travelers and missionaries report the existence of some tribes so degraded that they could discover in them no traces of this knowledge… [But] Unless such people show that they have no sense of right and wrong… there is no evidence that they have no knowledge of such a being as God. The other objection is … the case of the deaf and dumb, who sometimes say that previous to instruction, the idea of God never entered their minds. To this the same answer may be given. The knowledge obtained by Christian instruction so much surpasses that given by intuition, that the latter seems as nothing.” (Pg. 196-197)

He says, “It is impossible… to overestimate the importance of the truth contained in the simple proposition, God is a Spirit… God is immaterial… The Bible everywhere recognizes as true the intuitive convictions of men. One of these convictions is that spirit is not matter, or matter spirit… If God be a spirit, it follows of necessity that He is a person---a self-conscious, intelligent, voluntary agent.” (Pg. 378-379)

He acknowledges, “We believe what we cannot understand. We believe that the Bible teaches us … that all things are ever present to [God’s] view… Whether we can harmonize these facts or not, is a matter of minor importance. We are constantly called upon to believe that things are, without being able to tell how they are, or even how they can be.” (Pg. 389-390)

He asserts, “That the good of the sufferer is not the primary end of the infliction of punishment, is proved… because the punishment of the wicked is always, in the Scriptures, referred to the anger of God… In many cases the nature of the punishment precludes the possibility of the good of the offender being the ground of its infliction…Scripture and existence both teach that suffering…has no tendency to reform…” (Pg. 417-418)

He states, “This doctrine that God cannot effectually control the acts of free agents without destroying their liberty, is so contrary to the Scriptures, that is has never been adopted by any organized portion of the Christian Church… If this be so, then God… cannot secure the accomplishment of his purposes, or the fulfillment of his promises… the Church has... preferred to leave the mystery of evil unexplained, rather than to seek its solution in a principle which undermines the foundation of all religion.” (Pg. 434-435) Later, he adds, “It is urged that the foreordination of all events is inconsistent with the free agency of man… In answer to the objection, it may be remarked… that it bears with equal force against foreknowledge. What is foreknown must be certain, as much as what is foreordained. If the one, therefore, be inconsistent with liberty, so also is the other.” (Pg. 545)

He states, “It is vain to argue that a holy and benevolent god cannot permit sin and misery, if sin and misery actually exist… It is vain to insist that a holy God cannot permit children to suffer for the sins of their parents, when we constantly see that they do thus suffer. So it is utterly irrational to contend that God cannot foreordain sin, if He foreordained the crucifixion of Christ…. The consistency, therefore, of foreordination with the holiness of God cannot rationally be denied.” (Pg. 547)

Turning to miracles, he states, “There is still another ground on which the possibility of a miracle’s being known or proved has been denied… It will… always be more probable that the witnesses were mistaken than that the course of nature has been violated. This is Hume’s famous argument… [But] The resurrection of Christ, for example… was an even which could be authenticated. The identity of the dead and living Jesus could be established beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt… Theism being granted, the difficulty about miracles disappears… Hume’s argument assumes that our faith in miracles rests exclusively on human testimony. This is not the fact… Our faith in miracles … is sustained by all the evidence which authenticates the gospel of Christ. And that evidence is not to be even touched by a balance of probabilities.” (Pg. 633-635)

Hodge’s series is a definite theological ‘classic,’ that will be ‘must reading’ for serious students of theology.

[Zach · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hodge notes at the beginning of one of the chapters in this book that the Christian is bound by the Scriptures, and not by philosophy. I wish Hodge had taken this advice more to heart. In many ways, this is a Systematic Theology similar to any other Reformed system out there. Hodge outlines prolegomena, the doctrine of Scripture, and the existence and nature of God. The highlight of the text is his treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is the most robust exegetically.
Other portions of the book do not live up to this rigorous biblical exegesis. Instead, Hodge often argues from “intuition” or what we know by nature in order to prove his position. For example, when discussing the nature of God as a Spirit and as three persons, Hodge simply states that we know God must be personal because we know all spirits are personal. Hodge would have been much better served simply pointing to biblical texts like John 4:24 to prove God is spirit.
The second problem with the text is Hodge’s use of logic. He often points out the logical fallacies of his opponents with tremendous acumen. However, he will then resort to these same logical fallacies himself. An example: in discussing whether each individual has a guardian angel, he reflects on Acts 12:15, where the believers at Mark’s house believe Peter, freed from prison, is “his angel.” Hodge notes that this does not prove everyone has a guardian angel, simply that this was the common view of the Jews at the time. A few pages later, however, in addressing the issue of demon possession, his first argument in favor of the reality of demonic possession is that it was commonly accepted by the Jews as real. This is the sort of logical inconsistency which Hodge displays, and tends to weaken the overall impact of his work. Worth reading, but not the best reformed systematic theology there is.

[Kevin Sheth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology represents 19th-century Princeton theology by its commitment to the Reformed Presbyterian system of theology in the Westminster Confession of Faith. At the same time, Hodge is aware of the developments in Pantheism among those reconciling the Enlightenment with Protestantism, and much of this first volume addresses and critiques the trajectories of a doctrine of God that leads to pantheism.

What’s unfortunate about these criticisms, while they may be well-founded, is that they lack the elaborations required to see them as more than reactionary. For example, Hodge critiques an “absolute” divine simplicity, even the divine simplicity advocated by the preceding era of Reformed orthodoxy, as conflating the attributes so much that there can be no distinction between what God creates and who God is. If God’s power, God’s knowledge, and God’s essence are the same, then the logical conclusion is that all creation is equivalent to God’s essence. Theologically, this trajectory does make sense. But proving that this is the actual development of the views held by Heidegger and others within Reformed Orthodoxy is suspect.

The preceding comment is not to suggest that Hodge has dramatically turned from the doctrine of God positively developed in the Reformed Orthodox period as a synthesis of medieval models with the Reformation. Instead, it is only to suggest that Hodge’s Systematic Theology may not be a replica of Turretin’s Institutes through a 19th-century lens. More work needs to be done to identify how Hodge departs from the system developed in Reformed theology out of concern for possible pantheistic trajectories.

[Alan Yau · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good systematic theology! 1st volume out of 3. Helpful to know Latin, German, Greek, Hebrew, and French, especially Latin. Personally I only have learned French and am learning Greek and Hebrew, so the Latin and German I didn't understand too well (maybe got bits); all these languages are just for quotes (though they are a decent amount of them). You'd get a good solid theological education from this with just English though.

[BRIAN POAD · Rating 4 out of 5]

Worth the time!

would have given the book 5 stars, but some of the content is dated. certain parts of the book, I had to persevere through, to get to the good stuff, but it was well worth it! books like this should be read more in our times.

[Batseba · Rating 5 out of 5]

A challenging read because of all the Latin but thoroughly addressed. He brings in natural revelation as much as special revelation. He thoroughly and convincingly addresses objections. Must read!