What do you think?
Rate this book
Reformed Dogmatics: Ecclesiology, The Means of Grace, Eschatology
"Like books, people can become 'classics.' Great in their day, but richer and more fulfilling with time. Not yet a classic, Vos's never-before-published Reformed Dogmatics is more like a lost Shakespeare play recently discovered."
--Michael Horton
Until recently, Reformed Dogmatics was only available in its original Dutch. But now you too can access Geerhardus Vos' monumental work of systematic theology. This brand-new English translation was edited by biblical theologian and Vos expert, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.
In Volume Ecclesiology, The Means of Grace, Eschatology , Vos
--The essence and organization of the church
--The Word of God, baptism, and the Lord's Supper as means of grace
--The doctrine of last things in both individual and general terms
--Michael Horton
Until recently, Reformed Dogmatics was only available in its original Dutch. But now you too can access Geerhardus Vos' monumental work of systematic theology. This brand-new English translation was edited by biblical theologian and Vos expert, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.
In Volume Ecclesiology, The Means of Grace, Eschatology , Vos
--The essence and organization of the church
--The Word of God, baptism, and the Lord's Supper as means of grace
--The doctrine of last things in both individual and general terms
352 pages, Hardcover
Published October 26, 2016
25 people are currently reading
122 people want to read
About the author
Geerhardus Vos
102 books87 followersGeerhardus Johannes Vos was an American Calvinist theologian and one of the most distinguished representatives of the Princeton Theology. He is sometimes called the father of Reformed Biblical Theology.
Vos was born to a Dutch Reformed pastor in Heerenveen in Friesland in the Netherlands. In 1881, when Geerhardus was 19 years old, his father accepted a call to be the pastor of the Christian Reformed Church congregation in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Geerhardus Vos began his education at the Christian Reformed Church's Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, before moving to Princeton Theological Seminary. He completed his studies in Germany, receiving his doctorate in Arabic Studies from the Philosophy Faculty of Strassburg University in 1888.
Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper tried to convince Vos to become professor of Old Testament Theology at the Free University in Amsterdam, but Vos chose to return to America. Thus, in the Fall of 1888, Vos took up a position on the Calvin Theological Seminary faculty. In 1892, Vos moved and joined the faculty of the Princeton Theological Seminary, where he became its first Professor of Biblical Theology.
In 1894 he was ordained as a minister in the Presbyterian Church in the USA.
At Princeton, he taught alongside J. Gresham Machen and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and authored his most famous works, including: Pauline Eschatology (1930) and Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (1948). Despite his opposition to the growing modernist influence at Princeton in the late 1920s, he decided to remain at Princeton Seminary after the formation of Westminster Theological Seminary by Machen, as he was close to retirement. Vos did indeed retire to California in 1932, three years after the formation of Westminster.
Vos's wife, Catherine, authored the well-known Child's Story Bible. She died in 1937, after 43 years of marriage. They had three sons and one daughter, and their son J. G. Vos studied at Princeton Theological Seminary and also became a minister.
Vos was born to a Dutch Reformed pastor in Heerenveen in Friesland in the Netherlands. In 1881, when Geerhardus was 19 years old, his father accepted a call to be the pastor of the Christian Reformed Church congregation in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Geerhardus Vos began his education at the Christian Reformed Church's Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, before moving to Princeton Theological Seminary. He completed his studies in Germany, receiving his doctorate in Arabic Studies from the Philosophy Faculty of Strassburg University in 1888.
Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper tried to convince Vos to become professor of Old Testament Theology at the Free University in Amsterdam, but Vos chose to return to America. Thus, in the Fall of 1888, Vos took up a position on the Calvin Theological Seminary faculty. In 1892, Vos moved and joined the faculty of the Princeton Theological Seminary, where he became its first Professor of Biblical Theology.
In 1894 he was ordained as a minister in the Presbyterian Church in the USA.
At Princeton, he taught alongside J. Gresham Machen and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and authored his most famous works, including: Pauline Eschatology (1930) and Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (1948). Despite his opposition to the growing modernist influence at Princeton in the late 1920s, he decided to remain at Princeton Seminary after the formation of Westminster Theological Seminary by Machen, as he was close to retirement. Vos did indeed retire to California in 1932, three years after the formation of Westminster.
Vos's wife, Catherine, authored the well-known Child's Story Bible. She died in 1937, after 43 years of marriage. They had three sons and one daughter, and their son J. G. Vos studied at Princeton Theological Seminary and also became a minister.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
March 22, 2019
It's okay
July 2, 2024
THE FIFTH AND FINAL VOLUME OF VOS’S SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) was an American Calvinist theologian who taught Biblical Theology at Princeton Theology from 1893-1932.
He observes about Jesus’ use of the word ‘church,’ “on the one hand, the church is something future. On the other hand, there is present in the word itself, pointing back clearly enough to the church of Israel, that it is not something absolutely new. It has existed earlier but will now come in a new form; it will now be HIS church par excellence… the church in the form that He Himself… has given it. In essence, the church under the old and new covenant is the same; in form and manifestation there is a difference…The church under the old dispensation was more than church, it was equally state… The church of the old covenant was not only a state church; it was essentially a national church… The outpouring of the Holy Spirit… likewise distinguishes the Old and New Testament church… in the particular form in which this now happens, it forms a distinction between the Old and the New.” (Pg. 7-8)
He points out, “deacons and deaconesses should be spoken of… It can be said of all office-bearers in the church that they are servants. Paul calls himself a ‘deacon’ (Col 1:25). The government is God’s minister (Rom 13:4)… But ‘deacon’ also appears in a narrower sense along with the office of ‘elder,’ ‘with the overseers and deacons’ (Phil 1;1)… Mention is made of a woman as a deaconess, ‘Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae’ (Rom 16:1)…” (Pg. 61)
He suggests of the word “sacraments” that it is not to be rejected, just because it is not scriptural: “for it shares this character with many other terms that we nevertheless cannot do without. Time and time again there have been those who have expressed objection to its use, but in spite of all criticism the word has remained.” (Pg. 93)
He says of Confirmation, “Protestants have replaced the Roman Catholic confirmation with a confirmation of their own. However, they make no claim that it is a divine institution; it is something purely human that may not be elevated at the expense of baptism. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper belong to each other as sacraments; the so-called profession [of faith] or confirmation indicates only the time when the right to the Lord’s Supper, constantly held forth, becomes actual, is in force.” (Pg. 106)
He acknowledges, “Thus the issue between us and Baptists is not at all whether ‘baptize-in’ means to immerse or to sprinkle. One can grant, and probably will have to grant, that nowhere in the New Testament has it completely lost its original meaning of ‘immersing’ or ‘dipping.’ The issue is simply whether immersion was the main point or something incidental. And then we say the latter. It was immersion with the purpose of washing, and in order to portray purification. We rely on this when we claim that baptism by sprinkling is just as much the ordinance of Christ as baptism by sprinkling is just as much the ordinance of Christ as baptism by immersion.” (Pg. 123)
He looks at the “baptism for the dead”: “Linked permanently to 1 Corinthians 15:29 is the difficult question whether dead persons may also be baptized, at least representatively—that is, whether someone can be baptized on behalf of the dead… The most natural and… only tenable explanation seems to be as follows: In the Corinthian congregation a misuse must have existed whereby Christians let themselves be baptized vicariously for unbaptized deceased persons, probably in the superstitious belief that from this baptism the latter would gain an advantage on the day of resurrection. Thus this misuse included belief in the resurrection from the death. And to the extent that the practice included this faith, Paul could make use of it as an ad hominem argument. By this, however, it is not being maintained that Paul approved of this superstitious use. Under other circumstances Paul could have remonstrated with the Corinthians about this practice and taught them better. In any case the apostles opposed it, for it did not continue in the church… No one will be able to claim, however, that [Vos’s explanation] removes all difficulties. It remains abidingly strange that Paul could make such a dreadful misuse of baptism the basis for his argument without a single word of disapproval.” (Pg. 139-140)
Of the “profession of faith” needed prior to adult baptism, he observes, “Knowledge of the fundamental truths of Christianity is required. The baptism of an adult takes place on the supposition that there is grace present in the heart. But the presence of that grace can only be revealed by words. Where every expression of knowledge is lacking, the basis for the supposition just mentioned would be lacking. God has so ordained that the inward life of a Christian can only emerge by a conscious profession. But a difference of opinion can exist regarding the extent of the knowledge required. That extent can vary according to the person.” (PG. 143)
He asserts, “The fact that under the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace, young children of the covenant people were circumcised. If it can be shown that circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace in entirely the same sense as baptism is that now, then infant baptism follows from circumcision. One easily sees that this argument can only be advanced by maintain the spiritual character of the Old Testament dispensation… Adults… were not circumcised in Israel. The Baptist must then also maintain that circumcision did not possess any signifying and sealing power for the covenant of grace. But if not circumcision, then what? Passover, perhaps? Its administration was just as general as circumcision. So we see how the Baptist must come to completely despiritualize the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace. Nothing of it remains other than the form of a national covenant.” (Pg. 161-162)
He argues, “we do not maintain that the children of believers are already regenerated at an early age, but leave that completely undecided. And nevertheless, we assume on the basis of the promise of God that the young children of the covenant who die before the use of their understanding, receive eternal salvation. On what basis do we make this assumption?... We should note that Scripture does not offer us any grounds to entertain this expectation for ALL children wherever they are born among pagans, Muslims, of Christians. It is clear that one can only reason here from the covenant. Where no covenant relationship exists, every basis for such a verdict is lacking. One need not for that reason to preach with emphasis that all such children are lost. But there is no basis for their salvation. All the reasons that are produced for their salvation proceed from a weakening of the concept of original sin. It is believed that original sin… in itself is not sufficient to consign a child as damnable before God, or at least cause it to be lost. If the child dies before it commits actual sin, then it is saved. Our answer to this is that original sin is certainly sufficient for damnation, and one may not make this difference in degree between it and actual sin.” (Pg. 183)
He continues, “one cannot go further than to say that on the basis of the promise it is expected and required of all the children of the covenant that they will fulfill the covenant. That expectation includes that, if the parents honor their promise, God, in His own time, wills to work in their children through His Spirit, and from those who grow up will build the church and further His covenant. And at the same time, that expectation includes those children who die before the use of their understanding are saved. Both expectations are sealed in baptism. And so there is in that sealing of baptism more than a conditional offer of the covenant; there are positive promises of God. These are the two highly comforting facts. And with an eye to this, no one will be able to say that infant baptism is meaningless.” (Pg. 185)
He also suggests, “So we can only hold to this rule: the children of believing parents have the right to baptism. It is very difficult to make a further determination and establish how many generations may be skipped. The church has not always remained the same on this matter. It wishes to baptize even the children of those who are excommunicated… members by baptism only are certainly covenant members, but members who do not honor their covenant obligations. And those who are excommunicated and censured for other sins do that much less. This, too, is a consideration: suppose that one admits such baptized members to the sacrament of baptism for their children, what means are there left to exercise discipline over them? Keeping them from the Lord’s Supper is of no avail, since they do not desire the Lord’s Supper for themselves. Denying them baptism for their children appears to be the only means. But that is a means that at the same time affects the children along with the parents…” (Pg. 195)
Of the bread in the Lord’s Supper, he asserts, “The Reformed view is exegetically the only tenable one: ‘This thing (the bread) SIGNIFIES my body.’ That the apostles could understand. By that understanding one is not in the least forced into the Zwinglian view. Nowhere is it determined that we must derive everything that we know regarding the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper from that ‘is.’ If that were so, then the explanation ‘signifies’ would in fact carry us into the arms of Zwinglianism. But there are other data that teach us that more is connected with this ‘signifies,’ about which further presently.” (Pg. 213-214)
He explains, “This intermediate state [after death] is passed by believers in heaven, by the lost in hell. Thus it is not a state without locality… That believers at their death enter heaven follows from the fact that they do to be with the Lord. We may not be able to say where heaven is, and yet that heaven is where Christ is, namely, according to His human nature… That the lost are in hell follows from Luke 16:23, ‘being in torment.’… Nor are the souls of those who have died elevated above time; they are and remain in time (Rev 6:11); they serve God ‘day and night’ (Rev 7:15). (Pg. 256-257)
He admits, “One must acknowledge that Revelation 20:1-6 seems to speak of a millennium. We are not able here to provide an explanation of this passage. It would first be necessary to decide which interpretation of the book of Revelation must be employed, the so-called church-historical theory or the so-called groupings theory. In any case, it is certain that the numbers in Revelation do not have a literal but a symbolic meaning. The number of the beast is 666. Even the chiliast cannot take that number literally. Why then does he insist on the literal interpretation of these 1,000 years?... However, we would not want to go as far as some who say that if it is proven that Revelation 20:1-6 in fact teaches a millennium, then that for me is a reason to declare Revelation to be spurious. We do not have the right to reject prophecy because it appears to us to be in conflict with other portions of Scripture.” (Pg. 299)
As regards the punishment of hell, he states that it consists “In absolute separation from the gracious presence of God… In endless destruction, an endless disruption of existence… In actual pains of the soul and of the body… Along with these objective punishments, there will also be subjective ones---pangs of conscience, anguish, despair… The question arises how the ‘fire of hell’ is to be understood… It seems to us that this question is not capable of being resolved… Even if material fire is not meant, then the repeated mention of fire still cannot be a mere metaphor in the superficial sense in which it is usually taken… In the punishments of hell there will be a difference of degree…” (Pg. 302-304)
This series will be of great interest to those seriously studying Reformed theology.
Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) was an American Calvinist theologian who taught Biblical Theology at Princeton Theology from 1893-1932.
He observes about Jesus’ use of the word ‘church,’ “on the one hand, the church is something future. On the other hand, there is present in the word itself, pointing back clearly enough to the church of Israel, that it is not something absolutely new. It has existed earlier but will now come in a new form; it will now be HIS church par excellence… the church in the form that He Himself… has given it. In essence, the church under the old and new covenant is the same; in form and manifestation there is a difference…The church under the old dispensation was more than church, it was equally state… The church of the old covenant was not only a state church; it was essentially a national church… The outpouring of the Holy Spirit… likewise distinguishes the Old and New Testament church… in the particular form in which this now happens, it forms a distinction between the Old and the New.” (Pg. 7-8)
He points out, “deacons and deaconesses should be spoken of… It can be said of all office-bearers in the church that they are servants. Paul calls himself a ‘deacon’ (Col 1:25). The government is God’s minister (Rom 13:4)… But ‘deacon’ also appears in a narrower sense along with the office of ‘elder,’ ‘with the overseers and deacons’ (Phil 1;1)… Mention is made of a woman as a deaconess, ‘Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae’ (Rom 16:1)…” (Pg. 61)
He suggests of the word “sacraments” that it is not to be rejected, just because it is not scriptural: “for it shares this character with many other terms that we nevertheless cannot do without. Time and time again there have been those who have expressed objection to its use, but in spite of all criticism the word has remained.” (Pg. 93)
He says of Confirmation, “Protestants have replaced the Roman Catholic confirmation with a confirmation of their own. However, they make no claim that it is a divine institution; it is something purely human that may not be elevated at the expense of baptism. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper belong to each other as sacraments; the so-called profession [of faith] or confirmation indicates only the time when the right to the Lord’s Supper, constantly held forth, becomes actual, is in force.” (Pg. 106)
He acknowledges, “Thus the issue between us and Baptists is not at all whether ‘baptize-in’ means to immerse or to sprinkle. One can grant, and probably will have to grant, that nowhere in the New Testament has it completely lost its original meaning of ‘immersing’ or ‘dipping.’ The issue is simply whether immersion was the main point or something incidental. And then we say the latter. It was immersion with the purpose of washing, and in order to portray purification. We rely on this when we claim that baptism by sprinkling is just as much the ordinance of Christ as baptism by sprinkling is just as much the ordinance of Christ as baptism by immersion.” (Pg. 123)
He looks at the “baptism for the dead”: “Linked permanently to 1 Corinthians 15:29 is the difficult question whether dead persons may also be baptized, at least representatively—that is, whether someone can be baptized on behalf of the dead… The most natural and… only tenable explanation seems to be as follows: In the Corinthian congregation a misuse must have existed whereby Christians let themselves be baptized vicariously for unbaptized deceased persons, probably in the superstitious belief that from this baptism the latter would gain an advantage on the day of resurrection. Thus this misuse included belief in the resurrection from the death. And to the extent that the practice included this faith, Paul could make use of it as an ad hominem argument. By this, however, it is not being maintained that Paul approved of this superstitious use. Under other circumstances Paul could have remonstrated with the Corinthians about this practice and taught them better. In any case the apostles opposed it, for it did not continue in the church… No one will be able to claim, however, that [Vos’s explanation] removes all difficulties. It remains abidingly strange that Paul could make such a dreadful misuse of baptism the basis for his argument without a single word of disapproval.” (Pg. 139-140)
Of the “profession of faith” needed prior to adult baptism, he observes, “Knowledge of the fundamental truths of Christianity is required. The baptism of an adult takes place on the supposition that there is grace present in the heart. But the presence of that grace can only be revealed by words. Where every expression of knowledge is lacking, the basis for the supposition just mentioned would be lacking. God has so ordained that the inward life of a Christian can only emerge by a conscious profession. But a difference of opinion can exist regarding the extent of the knowledge required. That extent can vary according to the person.” (PG. 143)
He asserts, “The fact that under the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace, young children of the covenant people were circumcised. If it can be shown that circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace in entirely the same sense as baptism is that now, then infant baptism follows from circumcision. One easily sees that this argument can only be advanced by maintain the spiritual character of the Old Testament dispensation… Adults… were not circumcised in Israel. The Baptist must then also maintain that circumcision did not possess any signifying and sealing power for the covenant of grace. But if not circumcision, then what? Passover, perhaps? Its administration was just as general as circumcision. So we see how the Baptist must come to completely despiritualize the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace. Nothing of it remains other than the form of a national covenant.” (Pg. 161-162)
He argues, “we do not maintain that the children of believers are already regenerated at an early age, but leave that completely undecided. And nevertheless, we assume on the basis of the promise of God that the young children of the covenant who die before the use of their understanding, receive eternal salvation. On what basis do we make this assumption?... We should note that Scripture does not offer us any grounds to entertain this expectation for ALL children wherever they are born among pagans, Muslims, of Christians. It is clear that one can only reason here from the covenant. Where no covenant relationship exists, every basis for such a verdict is lacking. One need not for that reason to preach with emphasis that all such children are lost. But there is no basis for their salvation. All the reasons that are produced for their salvation proceed from a weakening of the concept of original sin. It is believed that original sin… in itself is not sufficient to consign a child as damnable before God, or at least cause it to be lost. If the child dies before it commits actual sin, then it is saved. Our answer to this is that original sin is certainly sufficient for damnation, and one may not make this difference in degree between it and actual sin.” (Pg. 183)
He continues, “one cannot go further than to say that on the basis of the promise it is expected and required of all the children of the covenant that they will fulfill the covenant. That expectation includes that, if the parents honor their promise, God, in His own time, wills to work in their children through His Spirit, and from those who grow up will build the church and further His covenant. And at the same time, that expectation includes those children who die before the use of their understanding are saved. Both expectations are sealed in baptism. And so there is in that sealing of baptism more than a conditional offer of the covenant; there are positive promises of God. These are the two highly comforting facts. And with an eye to this, no one will be able to say that infant baptism is meaningless.” (Pg. 185)
He also suggests, “So we can only hold to this rule: the children of believing parents have the right to baptism. It is very difficult to make a further determination and establish how many generations may be skipped. The church has not always remained the same on this matter. It wishes to baptize even the children of those who are excommunicated… members by baptism only are certainly covenant members, but members who do not honor their covenant obligations. And those who are excommunicated and censured for other sins do that much less. This, too, is a consideration: suppose that one admits such baptized members to the sacrament of baptism for their children, what means are there left to exercise discipline over them? Keeping them from the Lord’s Supper is of no avail, since they do not desire the Lord’s Supper for themselves. Denying them baptism for their children appears to be the only means. But that is a means that at the same time affects the children along with the parents…” (Pg. 195)
Of the bread in the Lord’s Supper, he asserts, “The Reformed view is exegetically the only tenable one: ‘This thing (the bread) SIGNIFIES my body.’ That the apostles could understand. By that understanding one is not in the least forced into the Zwinglian view. Nowhere is it determined that we must derive everything that we know regarding the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper from that ‘is.’ If that were so, then the explanation ‘signifies’ would in fact carry us into the arms of Zwinglianism. But there are other data that teach us that more is connected with this ‘signifies,’ about which further presently.” (Pg. 213-214)
He explains, “This intermediate state [after death] is passed by believers in heaven, by the lost in hell. Thus it is not a state without locality… That believers at their death enter heaven follows from the fact that they do to be with the Lord. We may not be able to say where heaven is, and yet that heaven is where Christ is, namely, according to His human nature… That the lost are in hell follows from Luke 16:23, ‘being in torment.’… Nor are the souls of those who have died elevated above time; they are and remain in time (Rev 6:11); they serve God ‘day and night’ (Rev 7:15). (Pg. 256-257)
He admits, “One must acknowledge that Revelation 20:1-6 seems to speak of a millennium. We are not able here to provide an explanation of this passage. It would first be necessary to decide which interpretation of the book of Revelation must be employed, the so-called church-historical theory or the so-called groupings theory. In any case, it is certain that the numbers in Revelation do not have a literal but a symbolic meaning. The number of the beast is 666. Even the chiliast cannot take that number literally. Why then does he insist on the literal interpretation of these 1,000 years?... However, we would not want to go as far as some who say that if it is proven that Revelation 20:1-6 in fact teaches a millennium, then that for me is a reason to declare Revelation to be spurious. We do not have the right to reject prophecy because it appears to us to be in conflict with other portions of Scripture.” (Pg. 299)
As regards the punishment of hell, he states that it consists “In absolute separation from the gracious presence of God… In endless destruction, an endless disruption of existence… In actual pains of the soul and of the body… Along with these objective punishments, there will also be subjective ones---pangs of conscience, anguish, despair… The question arises how the ‘fire of hell’ is to be understood… It seems to us that this question is not capable of being resolved… Even if material fire is not meant, then the repeated mention of fire still cannot be a mere metaphor in the superficial sense in which it is usually taken… In the punishments of hell there will be a difference of degree…” (Pg. 302-304)
This series will be of great interest to those seriously studying Reformed theology.
March 6, 2026
Mostly focused on the liturgical and baptism parts of this, definitely skipped eschatology and a few other small sections. Vos was surprisingly very accessible & easy to read.
September 21, 2020
And this concludes the final volume on Vos’ Reformed Dogmatics.
I’m probably going to be the reverse of most and say I could’ve read the ecclesiology portions all day and skimmed over the eschatology. That’s...pretty much how it went down. I’m a reactionary victim of my times. Too much of modern American evangelicalism is devoted to eschatology—mostly premil and rapture fear-mongering meant to gain “converts” or keep the fires (or threats of fires) lit under the pew barnacles. If one were to make a drinking game out of pulpit eschatological references, I doubt anyone would survive conscious to point one of the standard modern evangelical three-point, under-ten-minutes sermon. (That’s assuming you could sneak the alcohol into onto the Prohibitionist-Properties-for-Jesus). Just...at what point in 200 years of “the end is near” and “Jesus is coming soon” do you begin to reevaluate your definition of “near” and “soon?” Seriously. It’s the evangelical version of “are we there yet?”...and nobody is reaching into the back seat to smack some sense into the childish aggravants.
But, whew...that ecclesiology portion. Apparently I’ve done a fair bit of reading for my age (as I am told to the point of annoyance), but this is the first time that staples such as “means of grace” and “sign versus thing signified” really sunk their teeth in. Maybe it was just my time for conviction (spreading my evangelical hand fan and reaching for my handkerchief in preparation for my testimony...only to headbutt myself before I vomit at the repugnantly clichéd imagery). Lots of great info. Logically organized, clearly/memorably stated. Will be pulling this off the shelf as a reference for decades to come.
Hodge’s Systematic Theology can seem daunting. Bavinck has his own Reformed Dogmatics set which I look forward to devouring one day, but for the length of the read, the organization of the info, and the prioritization of the subjects covered? Start with Vos. Time well spent.
I’m probably going to be the reverse of most and say I could’ve read the ecclesiology portions all day and skimmed over the eschatology. That’s...pretty much how it went down. I’m a reactionary victim of my times. Too much of modern American evangelicalism is devoted to eschatology—mostly premil and rapture fear-mongering meant to gain “converts” or keep the fires (or threats of fires) lit under the pew barnacles. If one were to make a drinking game out of pulpit eschatological references, I doubt anyone would survive conscious to point one of the standard modern evangelical three-point, under-ten-minutes sermon. (That’s assuming you could sneak the alcohol into onto the Prohibitionist-Properties-for-Jesus). Just...at what point in 200 years of “the end is near” and “Jesus is coming soon” do you begin to reevaluate your definition of “near” and “soon?” Seriously. It’s the evangelical version of “are we there yet?”...and nobody is reaching into the back seat to smack some sense into the childish aggravants.
But, whew...that ecclesiology portion. Apparently I’ve done a fair bit of reading for my age (as I am told to the point of annoyance), but this is the first time that staples such as “means of grace” and “sign versus thing signified” really sunk their teeth in. Maybe it was just my time for conviction (spreading my evangelical hand fan and reaching for my handkerchief in preparation for my testimony...only to headbutt myself before I vomit at the repugnantly clichéd imagery). Lots of great info. Logically organized, clearly/memorably stated. Will be pulling this off the shelf as a reference for decades to come.
Hodge’s Systematic Theology can seem daunting. Bavinck has his own Reformed Dogmatics set which I look forward to devouring one day, but for the length of the read, the organization of the info, and the prioritization of the subjects covered? Start with Vos. Time well spent.
April 5, 2017
***1/4
Very weak on the Eucharist, tending towards Zwinglian heresy (so far as Vos protests a distinction, I can't see it as a meaningful one) contradicting Calvin (ICR 4.17.7, 10), unclear and unconvincing on baptism with a similarly symbolical view. (Vos' exposition of the covenant in Vol II is an irrefutable argument for paedobaptism and against the incoherent babble of credobaptristry, and is in fact a far stronger argument than to be found here.)
His exposition of the church is classically Reformed and quite good. His short exposition of general eschatology, taking the correct historical amillennial stance against the chiliasts, is excellent, with many terse refutations of (what in his time was embryonic, but would later blossom in to) dispensational heresy is the highlight of the book. His sections on the last things do not quite equal his sui generis exposition of covenant theology in Vol II, but stands apart as an excellent very short introduction to historical Christian eschatology.
Very weak on the Eucharist, tending towards Zwinglian heresy (so far as Vos protests a distinction, I can't see it as a meaningful one) contradicting Calvin (ICR 4.17.7, 10), unclear and unconvincing on baptism with a similarly symbolical view. (Vos' exposition of the covenant in Vol II is an irrefutable argument for paedobaptism and against the incoherent babble of credobaptristry, and is in fact a far stronger argument than to be found here.)
His exposition of the church is classically Reformed and quite good. His short exposition of general eschatology, taking the correct historical amillennial stance against the chiliasts, is excellent, with many terse refutations of (what in his time was embryonic, but would later blossom in to) dispensational heresy is the highlight of the book. His sections on the last things do not quite equal his sui generis exposition of covenant theology in Vol II, but stands apart as an excellent very short introduction to historical Christian eschatology.
December 31, 2019
This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader, and yes, it covers the set as a whole, but I'm posting it to each volume here on Goodreads 'cuz I'm not clever enough/too lazy to write up something on each volume.
---
Why am I talking about this as a set instead of individual volumes? That's a decent question, but I guessed when I finished Volume 1 that I'd end up saying the same things each time. And now looking back on the set, I think I agree. Sure, I could've talked some in some more detail about each one, but I'm not sure there'd have been a lot of profit in that for anyone reading this.
Honestly, what I should do here is just post a link to Lane Tipton's review/article, Vos’s Reformed Dogmatics and be done with it. Lipton says in two paragraphs, what I would flail around for 10-12 paragraphs to say:
But just pointing to (and/or reposting) Tipton would be cheating, albeit efficient. So let's see what I can say.
This was my big project read for the year and was so worth it. As Tipton said, it's great devotional reading—and you even learn a little bit. Okay, that's a gross understatement, you can learn a great deal from these (relatively) slim volumes.
Vos displays a fantastic economy of words here—especially if you contrast his Dogmatics with, say, Bavinck. He's basically the Hemingway of Reformed Theology. There are no wasted words here, he says everything he needs to say and you rarely say to yourself, "I wished he'd covered something more thoroughly." The segment on Individual Eschatology, however, works as an example of something he could've done more with—if you ignore his addressing the errors like purgatory, soul sleep, and annihilation, there's practically nothing there.
The downside to his style and vocabulary is, like Hemingway, you can look at his writing and think "oh, this is simple and basic" and read too quickly and without reflection. This is a giant mistake. Vos is subtle. He's profound. He's also, thankfully, clear. You read this carefully and you'll benefit greatly.
As the titles of the individual volumes suggest, he covers the major loci, and not much else. But he covers everything you'd need to cover in those, the topics covered are:
The Knowability of God
Names, Being, and Attributes of God
The Trinity
Of God’s Decrees in General
The Doctrine of Predestination
Creation
Providence
The Nature of Man
Sin
The Covenant of Grace
Names of Christ
Person and Natures of Christ
Offices of Christ
States of Christ
The Ordo Salutis
Regeneration and Calling
Conversion
Faith
Justification
Sanctification
The Doctrine of the Church
Essence of the Church
Organization, Discipline, Offices of the Church
The Means of Grace
Word and Sacraments
Baptism
The Lord’s Supper
Eschatology: The Doctrine of Last Things
Individual Eschatology
General Eschatology
Which looks like a lot for so few pages, but Vos somehow pulls it off.
I expected that I'd have a favorite volume or two out of the set, but I really didn't. There were sections within each I found more interesting/useful to me, but I am willing to bet that your list would vary from mine. Except maybe the section on the covenants in Volume 2, I can't imagine there's anything else in that one nearly as interesting to anyone. Not that the rest of the volume is lacking or uninteresting, it's just that it's so good.
The book is clearly written for his Dutch-speaking students in Michigan, focusing on that Church Order and controversies in contemporary Holland. So there are bits and pieces of it that will seem awfully foreign to those of us not in those circles. But even those parts have something we can profit from if we don't get too bogged down in trying to suss out names/positions/etc.
Gaffin does provide the occasional footnote to explain the text or translation choice, but he's largely silent, letting Vos speak for himself. I wouldn't have minded a little more commentary, but honestly, it wasn't necessary (but maybe was helpful).
I'm glad I read this and will be returning to it in years to come, both for reference and re-reading. I'm also glad that I found an electronic copy on sale over a year ago, so I can keep it on my phone for easy reference. One side-benefit of his pithiness is that you can do a quick check on the high points while having a conversation (something you can't do so easily with Hodge, Turretin or Bavinck). Scholarly, yet approachable, simple and profound—oh, and piously orthodox--I really can't recommend it highly enough.
---
Why am I talking about this as a set instead of individual volumes? That's a decent question, but I guessed when I finished Volume 1 that I'd end up saying the same things each time. And now looking back on the set, I think I agree. Sure, I could've talked some in some more detail about each one, but I'm not sure there'd have been a lot of profit in that for anyone reading this.
Honestly, what I should do here is just post a link to Lane Tipton's review/article, Vos’s Reformed Dogmatics and be done with it. Lipton says in two paragraphs, what I would flail around for 10-12 paragraphs to say:
Richard B. Gaffin Jr.’s editorial oversight of the translation of Geerhardus Vos’s Gereformeerde Dogmatiek has brought to light yet another theological treasure from perhaps the finest Reformed theologian since Calvin. The sustained depth of penetration of the traditional loci of systematic theological discussion is coupled with the warmth of a theological reflection pursued in vital communion with the absolute, triune God through Spirit-gifted, faith-union with Christ. This renders it ideal for both seminary instruction and devotional reading.
On the one side, Vos’s work displays the proper, and it seems to me necessary, task of retrieving creedal doctrine in the preservation of Christian theology. On the other side, his work displays the proper, and it seems to me equally necessary, task of reforming that creedal doctrine in the formulation of a confessionally constructive, Reformed theology, tethered to its preceding creedal and confessional expressions, yet advancing organically beyond both, through biblical and systematic theological methods of interpreting the inerrant Scriptures. Vos not only expounds orthodox creedal theology in a faithful way, but, within the boundaries of confessionally Reformed theology, he advances that confessional theology with unparalleled insight. His work presents us with an orthodox, yet constructive, expression of the truth of the Scriptures that faithfully serves to instruct the church in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
But just pointing to (and/or reposting) Tipton would be cheating, albeit efficient. So let's see what I can say.
This was my big project read for the year and was so worth it. As Tipton said, it's great devotional reading—and you even learn a little bit. Okay, that's a gross understatement, you can learn a great deal from these (relatively) slim volumes.
Vos displays a fantastic economy of words here—especially if you contrast his Dogmatics with, say, Bavinck. He's basically the Hemingway of Reformed Theology. There are no wasted words here, he says everything he needs to say and you rarely say to yourself, "I wished he'd covered something more thoroughly." The segment on Individual Eschatology, however, works as an example of something he could've done more with—if you ignore his addressing the errors like purgatory, soul sleep, and annihilation, there's practically nothing there.
The downside to his style and vocabulary is, like Hemingway, you can look at his writing and think "oh, this is simple and basic" and read too quickly and without reflection. This is a giant mistake. Vos is subtle. He's profound. He's also, thankfully, clear. You read this carefully and you'll benefit greatly.
As the titles of the individual volumes suggest, he covers the major loci, and not much else. But he covers everything you'd need to cover in those, the topics covered are:
The Knowability of God Names, Being, and Attributes of God The Trinity Of God’s Decrees in General The Doctrine of Predestination Creation Providence The Nature of Man Sin The Covenant of Grace
Names of Christ Person and Natures of Christ Offices of Christ States of Christ The Ordo Salutis Regeneration and Calling Conversion Faith Justification Sanctification
The Doctrine of the Church Essence of the Church Organization, Discipline, Offices of the Church The Means of Grace Word and Sacraments Baptism The Lord’s Supper Eschatology: The Doctrine of Last Things Individual Eschatology General Eschatology
Which looks like a lot for so few pages, but Vos somehow pulls it off.
I expected that I'd have a favorite volume or two out of the set, but I really didn't. There were sections within each I found more interesting/useful to me, but I am willing to bet that your list would vary from mine. Except maybe the section on the covenants in Volume 2, I can't imagine there's anything else in that one nearly as interesting to anyone. Not that the rest of the volume is lacking or uninteresting, it's just that it's so good.
The book is clearly written for his Dutch-speaking students in Michigan, focusing on that Church Order and controversies in contemporary Holland. So there are bits and pieces of it that will seem awfully foreign to those of us not in those circles. But even those parts have something we can profit from if we don't get too bogged down in trying to suss out names/positions/etc.
Gaffin does provide the occasional footnote to explain the text or translation choice, but he's largely silent, letting Vos speak for himself. I wouldn't have minded a little more commentary, but honestly, it wasn't necessary (but maybe was helpful).
I'm glad I read this and will be returning to it in years to come, both for reference and re-reading. I'm also glad that I found an electronic copy on sale over a year ago, so I can keep it on my phone for easy reference. One side-benefit of his pithiness is that you can do a quick check on the high points while having a conversation (something you can't do so easily with Hodge, Turretin or Bavinck). Scholarly, yet approachable, simple and profound—oh, and piously orthodox--I really can't recommend it highly enough.
June 30, 2025
While there are many books on ecclesiology and eschatology, Vos does his a bit different. Rather than say each individual part of the church, he spends more time on what the church is and how it functions effectively. He spends much time on the sacraments. Because for him that application of baptism throughout the life of the believer falls under the doctrine at the church. He does spend a fair amount of time The Roman Catholic Church, the eastern orthodox, the Lutheran, the Zwinglian and Baptist, differ from the Reformed view of the Lord’s Supper. But rather than just a list of how they differ, he talks about how this infiltrates their entire theology. The eschatology is not so much an afterthought because it is threaded throughout his entire five volume systematic theology. However, when it comes to eschatology. He only handles a few issues. Other issues, such as a millennial are not addressed. Even still this volume shows us how your ecclesiology, your view of the sacraments, and your eschatology affects every aspect of your relationship with God. Therefore, for example, you cannot say we are just like them except for we do this one thing differently. Because everything is connected.
July 17, 2017
Finally finished all 5 volumes of Reformed Dogmatics by Geerhardus Vos (finished the first four volumes last year). Vol 5 was my favorite. I did take a couple weeks off when I went on vacation, but whenever I picked it up, I found it to be incredibly helpful. Some bloke has called Vos' view on the sacraments to be slightly Zwinglian. Interesting analysis, especially given the fact that when Vos considers the Lord's Supper, he critiques Zwingli every couple of pages or so. The eschatology portion is shorter than I thought it would be, but thankfully Vos has much more to bring to the table in his other writings.
March 31, 2018
The best of the 5 volumes, I have come to have a much greater appreciation for Geerhardus Vos as a result of reading them. I may re-read the first two as I read them 12-18 months ago. Interestingly, Vos makes a fairly good case for the Pope being the antichrist, while not being entirely committal on the subject.
February 27, 2020
As a Reformed credobaptist, the final volume or final section of a Reformed systematic theology is usually where I find myself differing with the author (i.e., infant baptism). This volume is no exception. But it’s still very helpful, and I thought his treatment of the Lord’s Supper was very well done.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews