Geerhardus Vos Ref Dog

Reformed Dogmatics by Geerhardus Vos A limited release of Chapters 1 & 2 of Vol.1 has been sent to those who have placed a pre-pub order for the work. This is my first experience with a work of this kind. My first impression is one of disappointment.

My problem is one of conception. I find the proposition to approach knowing God through an application of a so called "systematic" approach is wanting. For me approaching Him through His Word, through prayer, praise, and especially worship are among our sovereign Lord's peculiar prescriptions He has determined for believers to come to know Him.

Vos's scripture citations supporting his argument often fall short. Take this quote found on page 10 and number 18. What is God’s simplicity? Amos 4.2; 6.8. Are we to understand from this scripture quote that simply stated God is Holy? As certainly He is, then why not state it and while you're at it quote 1Pet 1.15,16 or Rev 4.8.

This resource I intend to keep, if for no other reason to educate myself to this form of bible interpretation, and the price is right. But, like cod-liver oil I don't have to like it.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

George Somsel

Vos's scripture citations supporting his argument often fall short. Take this quote found on page 10 and number 18. What is God’s simplicity? Amos 4.2; 6.8. Are we to understand from this scripture quote that simply stated God is Holy? As certainly He is, then why not state it and while you're at it quote 1Pet 1.15,16 or Rev 4.8.

Vos was one of those who was on the cusp of the development of biblical theology. As such, his reasoning still bears a considerable hold-over of the systematic approach. There is nothing wrong with having a system of theology, but the tendency has been to attempt to make all scripture passages agree when there is obviously a development in the understanding of God and his relationship to man from the earliest writings until the latest. I would not wish to speak of a conflict the passages so much as a development from an earlier understanding to a later one. What Vos did seem to understand is that biblical theology is a different animal from systematic or philosophical theology even though his understanding of the difference was not fully developed. I have a number of works that I, like you, don't particularly like, but I have long contended that one needs particularly to have the works of those with whom he disagrees. In the case of Vos, we are dealing with a scholar from a different age and a different mind-set (though I think there are a number even here who are of a similar mind).

Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403059#Comment_403059

You may want to try a different, more modern systematic theology if you are interested in the concepts. Grudem, for example, does a wonderful job at building a modern theology based on systematic type thinking.

fgh

Vos's scripture citations supporting his argument often fall short. Take this quote found on page 10 and number 18. What is God’s simplicity? Amos 4.2; 6.8. Are we to understand from this scripture quote that simply stated God is Holy? As certainly He is, then why not state it and while you're at it quote 1Pet 1.15,16 or Rev 4.8.

I don't have Vos' book, and, not being Reformed, I'm pretty sure I'd have lots of disagreements with it, but I suspect I can answer this one from my (admittedly rusty) knowledge of Aquinas.

According to traditional theology God's oneness is so total that He is utterly 'simple'. That means He isn't made up of parts, the way we are, but it also means He doesn't 'have' qualities, the way we do. If you're a good person, and then something happens to you and you become evil, you're still ultimately you. The goodness may be part of your current personality, but it's not you. It's secondary. You can add to it, or you can reject it. With God, on the other hand, His goodness, or holiness, or whatever, isn't secondary. It's identical to who He is. Saying "God's goodness" is just another way of saying "God".

Hence the Amos references. Not having the book, I can't know exactly how his argument goes, but the gist of it must be that 4:2 says that God's sworn by "His holiness", but 6:8 says that God's sworn by "Himself", therefore God's holiness must be = God Himself.

All traditionally organized systematic theologies start with the arguments for God's existence, simplicity, perfection, infinity, unity and so on. They do that partly because these are the most fundamental of all fundamental questions, and partly because that's how Aquinas organized the Summa Theologica, but above all because these issues are traditionally considered to be questions that can be answered through sheer logic, and therefore it's natural and reasonable to start with them and only thereafter go on to doctrines that require belief in Christian revelation.

For this reason it's common not to use [many] Bible references in these early chapters, but rely solely on logic, since logic, unlike Bible verses, is authoritative for everyone. But while a Catholic would normally feel comfortable saying that if it has to be this way, then it is this way, Vos, being Reformed, probably feels more of a need to find Biblical support even for the logically necessary. It's important to understand, however, that traditional systematic theology does not start by reading the Bible and drawing conclusions from that, it starts by looking for indisputable facts and drawing conclusions from them: because of a, b, and c there has to be a god, because of d,e, and f this god has to be like this, and so on, systematically working its way forward, always trying to argue from what it has already proven. If you don't understand that, you're constantly going to think "that's an awful lot of weird conclusions drawn from one odd Bible verse".

Now, obviously, I don't know how well Vos does this. Perhaps he does it well enough that you can now follow the logic without reference to the supporting Bible verses, or perhaps he's so obsessed with Biblical 'proof', that the logic is sorely missing and can only be understood by someone who already knows the argument.

Another problem is that someone like Aquinas wrote to people who all had an extensive training in [Aristotelian] logic and philosophy, and although it was in all likelihood nowhere near as good in Vos' days, it was still probably considerably better than what we get today, so he may use lots of words -- like 'simplicity' -- that every academic in his days understood what they stood for, but which the average person today either misunderstands or doesn't understand at all. It may be necessary for you to read some more basic book either before or in parallel with Vos.

(Btw, the doctrine of God's simplicity does not interfere with the doctrine of the Trinity, but that is a wholly different issue.)

A bit longer than I intended...[:$]

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403604#Comment_403604

Wow, this is super! They should make you write an introduction to it.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403604#Comment_403604

I don't have Vos' book, and, not being Reformed, I'm pretty sure I'd have lots of disagreements with it, but I suspect I can answer this one from my (admittedly rusty) knowledge of Aquinas.

I suspect fgh is correct here. I thought so when I first read it (why else would holiness equate to simplicity?), but I didn't want to get into the weeds. I'm glad she decided to deal with it.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403604#Comment_403604

According to traditional theology God's oneness is so total that He is utterly 'simple'.

Now this puts light on the intent of the author! And points me in the right direction to assimilate this kind of doctrinal position. Thank you. Not that this will instruct you but I will include for clarity a more representative portion of the book to illustrate the path the author took in making his point about God's simplicity.

18. What is God’s simplicity?

That attribute of God whereby He is free of all composition and distinction. God is free:

a) Of logical composition; in Him there is no distinction between genus and species.

b) Of natural composition; in Him there is no distinction between substance and form.

c) Of supernatural composition; in Him there is no distinction between slumbering capacity and action. Proof texts: 1 John 1:5; 4:8; Amos 4:2; 6:8.

The Socinians and Vossius deny this attribute in order better to escape the Trinity, that is, the oneness in being of the three Persons.

Vos, G. (2012). Vol. 1: Reformed Dogmatics: Theology Proper (R. B. Gaffin, Ed.) (A. Godbehere, Trans.) (10). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403604#Comment_403604

Vos's scripture citations supporting his argument often fall short. Take this quote found on page 10 and number 18. What is God’s simplicity? Amos 4.2; 6.8. Are we to understand from this scripture quote that simply stated God is Holy? As certainly He is, then why not state it and while you're at it quote 1Pet 1.15,16 or Rev 4.8.

I don't have Vos' book, and, not being Reformed, I'm pretty sure I'd have lots of disagreements with it, but I suspect I can answer this one from my (admittedly rusty) knowledge of Aquinas.

According to traditional theology God's oneness is so total that He is utterly 'simple'. That means He isn't made up of parts, the way we are, but it also means He doesn't 'have' qualities, the way we do. If you're a good person, and then something happens to you and you become evil, you're still ultimately you. The goodness may be part of your current personality, but it's not you. It's secondary. You can add to it, or you can reject it. With God, on the other hand, His goodness, or holiness, or whatever, isn't secondary. It's identical to who He is. Saying "God's goodness" is just another way of saying "God".

Hence the Amos references. Not having the book, I can't know exactly how his argument goes, but the gist of it must be that 4:2 says that God's sworn by "His holiness", but 6:8 says that God's sworn by "Himself", therefore God's holiness must be = God Himself.

All traditionally organized systematic theologies start with the arguments for God's existence, simplicity, perfection, infinity, unity and so on. They do that partly because these are the most fundamental of all fundamental questions, and partly because that's how Aquinas organized the Summa Theologica, but above all because these issues are traditionally considered to be questions that can be answered through sheer logic, and therefore it's natural and reasonable to start with them and only thereafter go on to doctrines that require belief in Christian revelation.

For this reason it's common not to use [many] Bible references in these early chapters, but rely solely on logic, since logic, unlike Bible verses, is authoritative for everyone. But while a Catholic would normally feel comfortable saying that if it has to be this way, then it is this way, Vos, being Reformed, probably feels more of a need to find Biblical support even for the logically necessary. It's important to understand, however, that traditional systematic theology does not start by reading the Bible and drawing conclusions from that, it starts by looking for indisputable facts and drawing conclusions from them: because of a, b, and c there has to be a god, because of d,e, and f this god has to be like this, and so on, systematically working its way forward, always trying to argue from what it has already proven. If you don't understand that, you're constantly going to think "that's an awful lot of weird conclusions drawn from one odd Bible verse".

Now, obviously, I don't know how well Vos does this. Perhaps he does it well enough that you can now follow the logic without reference to the supporting Bible verses, or perhaps he's so obsessed with Biblical 'proof', that the logic is sorely missing and can only be understood by someone who already knows the argument.

Another problem is that someone like Aquinas wrote to people who all had an extensive training in [Aristotelian] logic and philosophy, and although it was in all likelihood nowhere near as good in Vos' days, it was still probably considerably better than what we get today, so he may use lots of words -- like 'simplicity' -- that every academic in his days understood what they stood for, but which the average person today either misunderstands or doesn't understand at all. It may be necessary for you to read some more basic book either before or in parallel with Vos.

(Btw, the doctrine of God's simplicity does not interfere with the doctrine of the Trinity, but that is a wholly different issue.)

A bit longer than I intended...

It may be a bit longer but helpful. Thank you

Wow, this is super! They should make you write an introduction to it.

Going to put fgh and George's comments into a note file for future reference.

EDIT: both George's and FGH's comments deserve to be at least part of a community note since I am sure others will find these comments helpful.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403627#Comment_403627

18. What is God’s simplicity?

That attribute of God whereby He is free of all composition and distinction. God is free:

a) Of logical composition; in Him there is no distinction between genus and species.

b) Of natural composition; in Him there is no distinction between substance and form.

c) Of supernatural composition; in Him there is no distinction between slumbering capacity and action. Proof texts: 1 John 1:5; 4:8; Amos 4:2; 6:8.

Please tell me that's just [sub]headings and not a full quote! There isn't a person today without some serious philosophical and/or theological studies behind him who could properly define the words 'genus', 'species', 'substance', 'form', 'capacity' and 'action' in this context. I sure wouldn't want to try, given that he's made a complete mishmash of Aquinas' disposition (or followed someone else who did so earlier).

Rosie Perera

Reformed Dogmatics by Geerhardus Vos A limited release of Chapters 1 & 2 of Vol.1 has been sent to those who have placed a pre-pub order for the work.

Hmm, not to all of us. I only ordered it on Oct 4, though, so maybe they sent it out before that date and didn't send it to anyone who ordered after they sent out the limited release.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403649#Comment_403649

Please tell me that's just [sub]headings and not a full quote!

I kid you not! This is a full representation of the text. He begins on pg. 6 with a heading P 6 2. NAMES, BEING, AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD then proceeds with 133 sub-headings; the 18th of which you have in full. Based on your explanation I am now led to believe he will come back later with a more full explanation of his brief assertions later in this volume. Please keep in mind I do not have the entire work to refer to.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403657#Comment_403657

I kid you not! This is a full representation of the text.

Earlier today I was upset by the book title OMG!. Right now I'm sorely tempted to use that exclamation myself...

Based on your explanation I am now led to believe he will come back later with a more full explanation of his brief assertions later in this volume.

Well, we can always hope that this is just a kind of TOC, but it doesn't look too promising to me:

If it is, why the line about the Socinians and Vossius?
Gereformeerde dogmatiek (Book, 1890) [WorldCat.org]: "Handwritten syllabus of lectures"
Reformed Dogmatics by Geerhardus Vos now in English!- Credo ...

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403675#Comment_403675

Gereformeerde dogmatiek (Book, 1890) [WorldCat.org]: "Handwritten syllabus of lectures"
Reformed Dogmatics by Geerhardus Vos now in English!- Credo

So it seems we have the scholar's crib notes. This is a sore disappointment. Note, I have taken your implied advice and I will now turn my attention to Aquinas in his Summa.

Evan Boardman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403678#Comment_403678

I would recommend stay with Vos but also use others, like Aquinas . A brand new work would be more than helpful.Aquinas in his Summa has his own challenges. Suggestion, https://www.logos.com/product/26683/the-christian-faith-a-systematic-theology-for-pilgrims-on-the-way

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403654#Comment_403654

Reformed Dogmatics by Geerhardus Vos A limited release of Chapters 1 & 2 of Vol.1 has been sent to those who have placed a pre-pub order for the work.

Hmm, not to all of us. I only ordered it on Oct 4, though, so maybe they sent it out before that date and didn't send it to anyone who ordered after they sent out the limited release.

There was a cut off date Rosie of September 12, as they released on September 13. Talk to your Logos Customer Service rep and see if they can do something for you.

http://blog.logos.com/2012/09/receive-chapters-of-reformed-dogmatics-before-its-released/

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/403678#Comment_403678

Note, I have taken your implied advice and I will now turn my attention to Aquinas in his Summa.

I don't think I meant to imply any such advice. I like Aquinas, but the Summa is 22 vols, and although Thomas claims that it's for "the instruction of beginners", what he means with "beginners" is beginners in theology, and in his days such beginners had several years of philosophy behind them and understood the concepts. The course I took spent a full year on just the first few questions -- not even one full volume -- and it was still fairly cursory.

I'd probably suggest starting with a good introductory book on Philosophy of Religion, written by someone who understands Aquinas. Or at least an introductory book on Aquinas. Problem is I can't really recommend any. Chesterton's book on Aquinas is supposed to be very good, but I haven't read it.

Paul J Glenn's A Tour of the Summa is excellent for a quick summary, but it's the kind of book where you look things up when you're too lazy to read the full text in the Summa, not the kind of book you read straight through, and it's of more use if you have some background first.