Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

Systematic Theology #1-3

Systematic Theology -

Rate this book
The magnum opus of one of America’s most prominent theologians offers an in-depth exploration of theology, anthropology, soteriology, and eschatology. This monumental work, now a standard for theological students, was written while Hodge served as a professor at Princeton, where he permanently influenced American Christianity as a teacher, preacher, and exegete. Includes a comprehensive index. This 3-volume hardcover set contains the

2400 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 1960

Loading interface...
Loading interface...

About the author

Charles Hodge

383 books28 followers
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.

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
304 (47%)
4 stars
215 (33%)
3 stars
95 (14%)
2 stars
22 (3%)
1 star
8 (1%)
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
Profile Image for Jacob Aitken.
1,615 reviews332 followers
May 21, 2014
Charles Hodge is the highpoint of American theology. While Dabney searched deeper into the issues, Hodge’s position (if only because the North won) allowed him a wider influence. Thornwell was the more brilliant orator and Palmer the greater preacher, but Hodge was the teacher and systematician. Of the Princetonians Hodge is supreme. His writing style is smoother than Warfield’s and he is deeper than his predecessors.

We rejoice that Hendrickson Publishing is issuing these three volumes at $30. Even with the page-length quotations in Latin, Hodge is strong where American Christianity is weak. A renaissance in Hodge would reinvigorate discussions about epistemology, the doctrine of God and God’s knowledge, justification, and God’s law. We will look at Hodge’s discussion of epistemology, doctrine of God, human nature (including both sin and free volition), soteriology, and ethics.

Common Sense Realism
Far from stultifying the gospel, Hodge's position safeguards the reliability of "truth-speak" and if taken seriously today, adds another angle to the "convert" phenomenon. A properly basic belief is one that doesn't need another belief for justification. I'm not so sure if Hodge is making that claim. However, he does anticipate some of Plantinga's positions by saying that God so constituted our nature to believe x, y, and z. My aim is to show from Hodge's own words that our cognitive faculties are (1) reliable and (2) made so by God. I will advance upon Hodge's conclusions: a commoner can read the Bible and get the general "gist" of it apart from an infallible interpreting body. Secondly, to deny the above point attacks the image of God. Thirdly, to deny the above point is to reduce all to irrationality. The practical application: Those who deny this position often find themselves looking for "absolute" and infallible arbiters of the faith. Such a position denies a key aspect of our imago dei.

"Any doctrine [and Hodge is using this word in the technical sense of philosophic and/or scientific beliefs], therefore, which contradicts the facts of consciousness, or the laws of belief which God has impressed upon our nature, must be false" (I: 215).

"Our knowledge of mind, therefore, as a thinking substance, is the first and most certain, and the most indestructible of all forms of knowledge; because it is involved in self-knowledge...which is the indispensable condition of all knowledge" (I: 277).
It is interesting to note his reference to self-knowledge. One is reminded of Calvin's duplex cognito dei.

Doctrine of God
...[S]tart with the revelation that God has made of himself in the constitution of our own nature and in his holy word. This method leads to the conclusion that God can think and act, that in him essence and attributes are not identical (I: 564).
It's also interesting to note Hodge's comment about God constituting our nature in a certain way. Shades of Thomas Reid.

“To say, as the schoolmen, and so many even of Protestant theologians, ancient and modern, were accustomed to say, that the divine attributes differ only in name, or in our conceptions, or in their effects, is to destroy all true knowledge of God...If in God knowledge is identical with eternity, knowledge with power, power with ubiquity, and ubiquity with holiness, then we are using words without meaning (I: 371-372).

The attributes of God, therefore, are not merely different conceptions in our minds, but different modes in which God reveals himself to his creatures...just as our several faculties are different modes in which the inscrutable substance self reveals itself in our consciousness and acts (I: 374).

So what do we mean by simplicity? Rome has a thorough, if ultimately chaotic, answer to this question. Orthodoxy has an outstanding response to Rome, but nothing in terms of a constructive view of Simplicity. Following Turretin, Hodge writes,

The attributes are to be distinguished not realiter, but;"virtualiter, that is, there is a real foundation in the divine nature for the several attributes attributed to him (I: 370).

What does virtualiter mean?
Richard Muller defines it as "literally, i.e., with virtue or power" (Muller 371).

It's interesting that Muller mentioned "power." This corresponds with Radde-Galwitz's interpretation of Gregory of Nyssa. Alluding to Michel Barnes he notes that divine power is the causal capacity rooted in the divine nature; inseparable from the divine nature and gives rise to the divine energies (183; Barnes). Further, each "Good" (or attribute, in our case) entails another.

Human Nature
Charles Hodge’s key argument regarding the free will controversy is this: does infallible certainty of a future event destroy human liberty? He answers no. Hodge gives a lengthy explanation that the Reformed tradition can maintain free agency, yet God’s foreknowledge of future actions is not threatened (Hodge, II: 296-304). Part of his discussion is labored and a bit confusing, for he realizes that “free will” has as many glosses as it does adherents. He explains what is and is not meant by “free will.”

I do not always agree with his defining of the terms. He lists the three options: necessity (fatalism), contingency (free-willism) and certainty (Reformed and Augustinianism). My problem with Hodge’s list is that traditional Reformed orthodoxy made a distinction between the necessity of the consequent (absolute necessity as pertaining to God ad intra) and necessity of the consequent thing (conditional necessity). My problem with his term “contingency” is that it risks confusion: God is a necessary being; man is a contingent one. It is evident, though, that Hodge makes clear he means the semi-Pelagian options. He does advance the discussion forward, though, with his use of the term “certainty.” Hodge is content to show that opponents of the Reformed system cannot demonstrate a contradiction between the proposition “all events are foreknown by God and will happen with certainty,” and the proposition, “Man can make rational choices apart from absolute necessity.” Hodge lists several metaphysical and biblical examples. God is a most perfect being. This is a certainty (else we are doomed!), yet few will argue that God’s liberty is impinged. Jesus’s crucifixion was foreknown in the mind of God, yet the Roman soldiers sinned most freely.

This raises an interesting issue: many semi-Pelagians try to duck the Reformed charge by saying, “God simply foresees who will believe and elects them based on his foreseeing their believing.” Besides being a crass works-righteousness, does this really solve the problem? Is their belief any less certain? If the semi-Pelagian argues that election is God’s foreseeing their faith, then we must ask if this is a certain action? It’s hard to see how they can say no. If they do affirm that it is certain, then they must at least agree (hypothetically) with the Reformed gloss that certainty does not destroy free agency.

So what does it mean for a man to act “freely.” Few people on either side ever define this satisfactorily. Hodge loosely follows the standard Reformed gloss: the will follows the intellect (which is assumed to be fallen). Man can be said to act freely if he acts naturally: man acts according to the way he was created (II: 304).


Imputation

One of the objections to the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ is that the transfer of guilt (ours/Adam's) and/or the transfer of righteousness (Christ's) is morally and legally impossible. Hodge answers:

"The transfer of guilt or righteousness, as states of consciousness or forms of moral character, is indeed impossible. But the real transfer of guilt as"a responsibility to justice, and as righteousness which satisfies that justice,’ is no more impossible than that one man should pay the debt of another. All that the bible teaches on the subject is that Christ paid as a substitute our debt to the justice of God" (II: 540-541).

Justification
Vol. 3: 114ff

Hodge gives a wonderful and penetrating treatment on justification. He notes that The nature of the act of justification Does not produce subjective change. It is an Act of God not in his character of sovereign but in character of judge (speech-act?)

Includes both pardon and declaration that believer is just in the sight of the law. It is not saying that the believer is morally just in terms of character. The believer is just in relation to the law--guilt is expiated (120). It is not mere pardon: sinner’s guilt is expiated (125). Mere Pardon does not produce reconciliation (128).

Scriptural usage:
Dt 25:1. Judge pronounces a judgment. He does not effect a character change. Condemnation is the opposite of justify. A sentence of condemnation does not effect an evil character change. Thus, if sentence of condemnation is judicial act, so is justification (123).

Romanist Views
Infusion of righteousness does nothing for guilt (though possibly they would say the guilt is washed away in baptism). Accordingly, justification does nothing for the satisfaction of justice. Even if the Romanist claim that justification makes me holy were true, I would still be liable to justice (133).

Satisfaction of Justice
An adequate theory of justification must account for satisfying justice (130). Nothing “within” me can do that.

Works of the Law
Scripture never designates specifically “what kind of works” (137). The word “law” is used in a comprehensive sense. Nomos binds the heart--law of nature. Not ceremonial. Paul says “thou shalt not covet” as the law that condemns me (Romans 7). Not ceremonial. Grace and works are antithetical. It doesn’t make sense to subdivide works (138).

Ground
The Ground of justification is always what is done for us, not what is in us
justified by his blood (Romans 5:19)
by his righteousness (5:18)
If just means “morally good,” then it would be absurd to say that one man is just because of another (141).
We say that the claims against him are satisfied.
When God justifies the ungodly, he does not declare him morally godly, but that his sins are expiated.

Hypothetical Objections Proves Protestant View
Why object over possible antinomianism if faith alone not true (Romans 6; p. 140)?

The Law of God
Like older Reformed systematics, Hodge has a treatment of the Decalogue. Much of it is common fare. What is interesting is the way he handled it. By reading his arguments we see a commentary on problematic cultural issues. Of particular importance, which I won’t develop here, are his expositions of the 4th and 7th commandment. In the latter he specifically deals with Romanist tyranny in marriage.

Throughout the whole discussion he is combating Jesuitism. We do not see that today. Modern systematics, even conservative ones, are scared of appearing “conspiratorial.” Hodge’s age was a manlier age. They called it for what it was. They knew that Jesuits swear an oath to destroy Protestant nations by any means necessary. And they knew that only the Law of God provides spiritual and political liberty.

Hodge is not entirely clear, though. When he wants to prove the Levitical prohibitions as binding today on sanguinuity and close-kin marriage, he argues like Greg Bahnsen. Almost word for word. If he did that today he would be fired. But when he wants to argue against more theocratic penalties, he sounds like a dispensationalist.

Sacraments
Keith Mathison's book on Calvin's view of the Supper is now something of a classic, and deservedly so. I am in large agreement with most of the book. I certainly lean towards Calvin. That said, I think one of the unintended consequences of the book is a slighting of Charles Hodge among the "Young Turk Calvinists." It's not that I disagree with Mathison or Calvin, but I am concerned about the new interest in Nevin. I used to be a hard-core Hegelian for 3 years. Nevin was also an Hegelian. Granted, Nevin pulled back from the worst of Hegel. I am not so sure Nevin's modern interpreters fully understand that. I hope to give something of a modified defense of Hodge on the Supper:

"really conveying to the believing recipient, Christ, and all the benefits of his redemption...There must be a sense, therefore, in which believers receive the body and blood of Christ" (III: 622).
However,

Anything is said to be present when it operates duly on our perceiving senses" (637). I am not so sure Hodge is able to dodge Mathison's charge. I agree with Hodge's common sense realism, but I don't think Hodge's next point follows: "In like manner Christ is present when he thus fills the mind, sheds abroad his love into our hearts..." (638). I suppose the question at issue is this: we grant that Christ fills the mind. We grant that sensory operations also fill the mind, but it does not necessarily follow that Christ is present in the Supper in a sensory manner. In some sense I think all Reformed would agree with that.

Hodge makes the common Reformed point that "what is affirmed to be present is not the body and blood of Christ absolutely, but his body as broken and his blood as shed" (641). This is a decisive point against High Church traditions: when they insist upon a literal reading, "This is my body," the Reformed can point that Christ's wasn't sacrificed yet, so the "body" at issue can't be the sacrificial body.

Hodge concludes his exposition of the Reformed teaching with "There is therefore a presence of Christ's body in the Lord's Supper; not local but spiritual; not to the senses, but to the mind and to faith; and not of nearness, but of efficacy" (643).

The Problem with Nevin
Throughout the work is a running attack on Nevin’s theology. Hodge makes a point that isn’t always grasped by Nevin’s defenders today: if we accept Nevin’s platonic essentialism, especially with regard to the Eucharist and Christology, then we run into huge problems. If Christ assumed the universal humanity, then he also assumed the rules of predicating of genus: the more universal a genus, the less specific it is. If Christ is the universal humanity, then there is nothing specifically human about him!

Evaluation
It is superfluous to sing of Hodge’s greatness. That is a given. I do have some issues with his treatment. Hodge routinely appeals to the “received consensus of the church” for many of his doctrines. There are several problems with this. Aside from the most general teachings from the Creeds, appeals to the Patrum Consensus are problematic and question-begging. Further, the Eastern Orthodox Church, to which Hodge sometimes appeals, would not share his assumptions about Adam’s imputed guilt, for example.
Profile Image for Mhleli Mhlaba.
2 reviews3 followers
August 17, 2018
This Systematic Theology is probably the best ever written after Calvin's Institute's
Profile Image for Paul (Linda) Dillow.
Author 12 books5 followers
May 7, 2019
Hodge does a masterful job of presenting theology in its basic form. A must read for every student of God's Word as it crosses denominational barriers and reestablishes the foundation for why we believe what we believe.
Profile Image for G Walker.
240 reviews26 followers
November 9, 2012
This was the second text I read on systematic theology. When pitted against Ryrie (who was my first) it was like drinking water from a fire hydrant that is wide open - full blast. Yet, I believe that this was because of the paradigm shifts in content more than anything else. Hodge was a staunch calvinist... Ryrie was at best an Amyraldian (maybe less). Hodge is postmillennial... Ryrie a classic dispensationalist... etc, etc, etc. Worlds part! Over the course of the last 20 years or so, I have read these volumes through on 3 separate occasions. Each time I learned something new, or was at least provoked to look at something afresh... All that to say, this set is worth engaging. BUT and it is a BIG BUT, this work is dry and often irrelevant... not irrelevant in the sense of not speaking to the felt needs of my generation... I'm not talking about the "idol of relevance"... I am talking more about the fact that it is sterile, obtuse and too scholastic... it doesn't comport with reality! For Hodge, it seems anyway, that God and the things of God only matter in as far as you agree with the reformed tradition. And if you disagree then you get the answers wrong on the quiz and your eternal destiny should be reviewed and reconsidered. Theology IS more than just propositions. Knowing God and even knowing about God is more than just thinking the right things. It needs to comport with reality. It needs to make sense day to day. And as a brief aside... while polemics ARE important, Hodge has too many enemies that are sheep.
Profile Image for Isaac.
404 reviews
November 9, 2015
This is a long, difficult book, best suited as a theology course textbook or as a reference work. Hodge is incisive in his analysis and penetrating in his criticism of heterodox positions. Systematic Theology stands as an unapologetic defense of Reformed theology as set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I'm grateful for all the work that went into this impressive study.

Reading through this outside of seminary was an enlightening experience, as I found many of my little idiosyncratic theories about comparatively minor points of theology being consistently smacked down by Hodge. He almost always convinced me of the position he was explaining.

There's lots of Latin, which makes me feel like a total slouch of a scholar, as Hodge clearly expected his readers to be entirely comfortable with paragraphs of the stuff strewn haphazardly throughout the text, in addition to German, French, and a bit of Dutch. He was not doing his research in translation.

As with any work from the past, Hodge vigorously polemicizes numerous theories that are no longer in vogue, but you can't say he wasn't thorough.
Profile Image for John Sheehan.
Author 9 books11 followers
April 30, 2016
This classic work walks any theological student down an amazing path of exploration of theology, anthropology, soteriology, and eschatology giving amazing insight into the mind, will and emotion of a man in fellowship with his God truly bringing to light the depth and meaning of Jeremiah 33:3

Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.

I love the depth that this man's rhetorical discussion goes, taking me down roads to ponder for a life time resting upon a solid foundation of truth. This should only be read in truth to those that are mature in faith having exercised their minds in the wonder of scriptures and the ever-deepening history behind each verse written with a exegete spirit of truth. Without all this beloved ones you will simply become lost in this vast ocean of theology.

The only draw back if you will is Hodges sources are found in their original text without any translation into English, so knowing German, Latin, Hebrew and Greek will allow you to take an even deeper journey of understanding.
Profile Image for Myles.
135 reviews1 follower
March 14, 2018
Fantastic in depth study of Theology, why we believe what we do, and where these principles came from Biblically. A true asset to every Christians library.
Profile Image for Roy.
107 reviews1 follower
January 26, 2023
Resumed re-reading yesterday, up to page 195 of Vol. 2
Profile Image for Scott Cox.
1,119 reviews22 followers
January 18, 2016
This is my favorite Systematic Theology second only to Louis Berkhof's and Robert Reymond's works. Some of my favorite quotes: "The Church has never held what has been stigmatized as the mechanical theory of inspiration. The sacred writers were not machines . . . There is no reason to believe that the operation of the Spirit in inspiration revealed itself any more in the consciousness of the sacred writers, than his operations in sanctification reveal themselves in the consciousness of the Christian" and "Christianity, therefore, is not a system of doctrine; it is not, subjectively considered, a form of knowledge. It is a life. It is the life of Christ." I also lean towards Hodge's postmillennial eschatological viewpoint. My only concern regards his Creation (day-age) views which have had a harmful influence on Princeton & Westminster Seminary up to this present day.
Profile Image for Dale.
139 reviews2 followers
January 11, 2010
Charles Hodge (1797-1878) is considered to be the greatest defender of Calvinism and Reformed Theology in the 1800s.

This is his classic systematic theology textbook that he penned while teaching at Princeton.

Dr. R.C. Sproul used this as our Systematic Theology textbook at Reformed Theological Seminary in the late 80s/early 90s.

It is a challenging read. Hodge slips between Latin/Greek/Hebrew as easily as he does English. He does not translate the passages in the other languages, expecting his readers to already have a firm grasp on these languages.

At 2,260 pages, this is an exhaustive work. Reformed pastors would be well served by working through this classic work.
Profile Image for Jim Howe.
16 reviews15 followers
March 15, 2021
This classic theology is well worth the read. Some of the thinking is dated. Like so many books of his time he interacts with past and contemporary thought as they touch various areas of theology. Solid good orthodox thinking important to understanding Reformed Theology.
Profile Image for Matt.
58 reviews
September 14, 2015
Really refreshing to read some solid reformed theology that is not affected by today's materialistic and pragmatic culture.
Profile Image for Logan.
1,445 reviews50 followers
August 11, 2016
I love Hodge's treatment of each area: by first fairly looking at opposing views and then presenting the biblical view.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.