What were Charles Hodge’s responses to the theological tendencies of Modernism? What were the reactions of Fundamentalists to Hodge’s theology? Base your answer on the textbook readings and any other relevant sources that might aid class discussion.
Response
As a proponent of orthodox Protestant theology, Charles Hodge responded to the theological tendencies of Modernism by deploying modern methods to reinforce orthodox Protestant Christianity. Reformed Scholasticism and Scottish common sense realism informed Hodge’s response to Modernism. Medieval Scholasticism utilized logic and rationality to find solutions to theological questions. The speculative nature of the effort caused many Reformers to dismiss the process. However, after the Reformation, theologians began once again appreciating the value of logic and rationality in what is now called Reformed Scholasticism. The influence of Reformed Scholasticism appears in Hodge’s assertion that the validity of God’s revelation depends on it neither violating morality nor the law of noncontradiction. Additionally, against idealism, which assumes that reality existed in the mind rather than external objects, Thomas Reid’s common sense realism asserted that humanity has the ability to know external reality, at least with reasonable certainty. For Hodge, God’s revelatory communication through Scripture is the external reality that can be comprehended and validated through the laws of reason. Since knowledge of an external reality is possible through a process of logical validation, confining Christianity to feelings or ethics, as espoused by Protestant liberalism, was no longer necessary.
Fundamentalism and American Culture
Hodge’s epistemology allowed him to respond to Modernism by asserting that theology is a science. George Marsden suggests Baconianism had a profound influence upon Hodge and the other Princeton theologians, who drew strong analogies between theology and science.[1] Reflective of the Baconian method, Hodge’s method of theology utilizes an inductive approach. Just as nature is the data used to develop the natural sciences, the Bible is the data used to develop the science of theology. In other words, Hodge’s inductive approach to the Bible allows general principles to emerge from the facts of Scripture. These general principles are not based on subjective opinions, but rely on first principles. For Hodge, first principles consist of a priori, self-evident truths such as the law of noncontradiction, basic morality, and God’s inability to violate His divine attributes. In sum, Hodge’s response to Modernism is a type of biblical foundationalism that combines biblical facts and constitutive first principles to acquire knowledge, which is equivalent to using the scientific method to gain scientific knowledge.
Fundamentalism embraced many of Hodge’s theological responses to Modernism. Hodge’s influence on Fundamentalism focused primarily on the topic of biblical authority. For Hodge, the authority of Scripture depends on rational reasoning, biblical inspiration, and infallibility. Regarding reason, the authority of Scripture depended on both the subjective testimony of the Holy Spirit and objective evidences of the Bible such as its impact on history. Regarding inspiration and infallibility, Hodge defended the inspiration of Scripture, which asserted that the Holy Spirit influenced the minds of the writers to communicate God’s Word infallibly. Hodge’s view of biblical inspiration and infallibility had a profound impact on Fundamentalism. D. G. Hart contends that Hodge’s development of the doctrine of inspiration “formed the cornerstone for fundamentalist opposition to liberal Protestantism” and identifies Hodge’s view of inerrancy “as an ideological source of fundamentalism.”[2] Although Hodge’s view of biblical authority may have been the most obvious influence upon Fundamentalism, Hodge’s lack of awareness regarding cultural context and his rejection of historicism also had a lasting influence.
_________________________________________
[1] George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford, 2006), 112.
[2] Darryl G. Hart, “A Reconsideration of Biblical Inerrancy and the Princeton Theology’s Alliance with Fundamentalism,” Christian Scholar’s Review 20, no. 4 (1991): 362.
Bibliography
