Archive for the ‘Charles Hodge’ Category

The NT on the Mosaic Covenant

January 23, 2010

Here is a short extract from Hodge on the various ways the New Testament speaks of the Mosaic covenant:

(1.) When viewed in relation to the people of God before the advent, it is represented as divine and obligatory.
(2.) When viewed in relation to the state of the Church after the advent, it is declared to be obsolete. It is represented as the lifeless husk from which the living kernel and germ have been extracted …
(3.) When viewed according to its true import and design as a preparatory dispensation of the covenant of grace, it is spoken of as preaching the same gospel, the same method of salvation as that which the apostles preached.
(4.) When viewed, in the light in which it was regarded by those who rejected the gospel, as a mere legal system, it was declared to be a ministration of death and condemnation. (2 Cor. iii. 6-18.)
(5.) And when contrasted with the new or Christian economy, as a different mode of revealing the same covenant, it is spoken of as a state of tutelage and bondage, far different from the freedom and filial spirit of the dispensation under which we now live.”
Systematic Theology, 2:376

I think this is a very helpful summary to keep in mind when trying to understand how the NT speaks of the Mosaic Economy, which, as any observer of the current reformed scene knows, is a matter of some controversy!

Charles Hodge on the Free Offer

November 15, 2008

Charles Hodge has an interesting sermon on 1 Tim 2:4 (Who will have all men to be saved) in his Princeton Sermons (rept. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1979, 18-19).  There is much in this sermon that is important for understanding the free offer.

Hodge begins by explaining a key hermeneutical principle, “when a passage admits of two interpretations, the choice between them is to be determined … by the analogy of Scripture.  If one interpretation contradicts what the Bible elsewhere teaches, and another accords with it, then we are bound to accept the latter.”  This is standard.  Unsurprisingly, given Hodge leads with this he believes that 1 Tim 2:4 is capable of two interpretations [1].  First, “God wills, in the sense of purposing or intending, the salvation of all men.”  Second, “God desires the salvation of all men” [2].

Hodge argues that the first interpretation is impossible. He reasons as follows, “the purposes of God are immutable” but “all men are not saved” so to say that “God intends and purposes what he knows is not to happen is a contradiction.”  So, by necessity the second interpretation must be regarded as true, namely that “God desires the salvation of all men.”  But what does Hodge mean by this?

Well to declare that God desires the salvation of all men “means … just what is said when the Scriptures declare that God is good; that he is merciful and gracious, and ready to forgive; that he is good to all, and his tender mercies [are] over all his works … This goodness or benevolence of God is not only declared but revealed in his works, in his providence, and on the work of redemption.”  Hodge cites, Ezek 33:11, Ezek 18:23, Lam 3:33, the parables of the prodigal son, the lost coin, the lost sheep and Christ’s lament over Jerusalem.  The sum of these verses is “that God delights in the happiness of his creatures, and that when he permits them to perish … it is from some inexorable necessity; that is, because it would be unwise and wrong to do otherwise.”  Hodge argues his understanding of the passage is correct in that “It does not contradict the Scriptures … or make God mutable or impotent … It agrees with the fact, that God is benevolent…”

Hodge concludes with some reasons why the truth that God desires the salvation of all men is important:

1) “Because all religion is founded on the knowledge of God and on the proper apprehension of his character.  We would err fatally if we conceived of God as malevolent.”
2) “[Because] the conviction that God is love, that he is a kind Father, is necessary to encourage sinners to repent.  The prodigal hesitated because he doubted his father’s love.  It was his hope that encouraged him to return.”  Hodge here is in perfect harmony with the greatest of Puritan preachers Thomas Manton, “There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God.” (Works, 21:463).
3) “[Because] This truth is necessary to restore our confidence in God.  It is the source of gratitude and love.”

Now in giving Hodge’s view here I am not necessarily endorsing his actual understanding of 1 Tim 2:4 (and far less saying it is the only understanding compatible with the well meant offer).  But what I am saying is that the thrust of his sermon is vitally important, and thoroughly reformed.

On another note, I was up at the Inverness branch of the Scottish Reformation Society this week giving a lecture on “James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel.”  The lecture was well received.  I don’t think it was recorded but I may try and turn the substance of the lecture into a journal article.

[1] It is interesting that Hodge doesn’t even give as an option in his sermon that “all men” does not mean “all men” but “all classes of men”.

[2] Maybe good old John Murray wasn’t such an innovator in maintaining God desires the salvation of all men after all 🙂