Geerhardus Vos's Reformed Dogmatics

[Reformed Covenanter]

I am current about 60% of the way through Herman Bavinck's 4-volume Reformed Dogmatics, and am already wondering about taking on another multi-volume ST once I have finished. Has anyone here read much of Geerhardus Vos's 4-volume Reformed Dogmatics? I know that Lane has spoken highly of this series, but what about the rest of you? How does it compare to Bavinck's dogmatics? What sets it apart from other Reformed works of systematic theology?

 

[Josh Valdix]

I have the first two volumes but haven't read them yet. They're much shorter than the Bavinck volumes. Also the fourth and fifth volumes have not been translated/published yet. Hopefully someone who has read them can provide the differences in content.

 

[bookslover]

I believe volume four has just been published.

Yes, Vos is shorter than Bavinck. And Vos is in catechetical question-and-answer form.

 

[py3ak]

Here is the beginning. This is all Vos says before plunging into a discussion of the names of God. A comparison with the relevant section of Bavinck should highlight the differences:

1. The Knowability of God


1. Is God knowable?

Yes, Scripture teaches this: “that we may know the One who is true” (1 John 5:20), although it also reminds us of the limited character of our knowledge (Matt 11:25).

2. In what sense do Reformed theologians maintain that God cannot be known?

a) Insofar as we can have only an incomplete understanding of an infinite being.
b) Insofar as we cannot give a definition of God but only a description.

3. On what ground do others deny God’s knowability?

On the ground that God is All-Being. They have a pantheistic view of God. Now, knowing presumes that the object known is not all there is, since it always remains distinct from the subject doing the knowing. Making God the object of knowledge, one reasons, is equivalent to saying that He is not all there is, that He is limited.

4. What response is to be made against this view?

a) The objection that this view presents stems entirely from a philosophical view of God, as if He were All-Being. This view is wrong. V 1, p 2 God is certainly infinite, but God is not the All. There are things that exist, whose existence is not identical with God.
b) It is certainly true that we cannot make a visible representation of God because He is a purely spiritual being. But we also cannot do that of our own soul. Yet we believe that we know it.
c) It is also true that we do not have an in-depth and comprehensive knowledge of God. All our knowledge, even with regard to created things, is in part. This is even truer of God. We only know Him insofar as He reveals Himself, that is, has turned His being outwardly for us. God alone possesses ideal knowledge of Himself and of the whole world, since He pervades everything with His omniscience.
d) That we are able to know God truly rests on the fact that God has made us in His own image, thus an impression of Himself, albeit from the greatest distance. Because we ourselves are spirit, possess a mind, will, etc., we know what it means when in His Word God ascribes these things to Himself.​

Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, trans. Annemie Godbehere et al., vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2014), 1–2.

I would consider it something like Berkhof or A.A. Hodge's Outlines. Not bad to read through, useful as a quick reference, but by no means able to replace the larger works.