Customer Reviews

History of Christian Doctrines

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The copyright on this book is 1939. On the title page we are told: "This volume is a companion volume to the author's "Systematic Theology" and contains the historical material to be used with that work." In a preface dated 1949, Berkhof says that this book was the "Historical Volume of what was originally called "Reformed Dogmatics"." So it sounds like "Reformed Dogmatics" was repackaged into the two books "The History of Christian Doctrines" and "Systematic Theology".

The book under review is a synopsis of the positions held by "Christian" intellectuals on topics foundational to Christianity, i.e. dogma. It is as much an overview of the unorthodox as the orthodox.

"The task of the History of Dogma is, briefly stated, to describe the historical origin of the dogma of the Church and to trace its subsequent changes and developments; or, in the words of Seeberg [Textbook of the History of Doctrines, Philadelphia, 1905, 2 vols., tr. Charles E. Hay], 'to show how the Dogma as a whole and the separate dogmas have arisen and through what course of development they have been brought to the form and interpretation prevailing in the churches of any given period'." (20)

In the Prolegomena, Berkhof distinguishes between dogma and doctrine. "A doctrine is often the direct, naive, expression of a religious truth. It is not necessarily formulated with scientific precision and when it is, may be merely the formulation of a single person. A religious dogma, on the other hand, is a religious truth based on authority and officially formulated by some ecclesiastical assembly." (16) Dogmas, in this sense, are not found in Scripture. "They are the fruit of human reflection, the reflection of the Church, often occasioned or intensified by theological controversies." (16)

In summary: "A dogma may be defined as a doctrine, derived from Scripture, officially defined by the Church, and declared to rest upon divine authority. This definition partly names and partly suggests its characteristics. Its subject-matter is derived from the Word of God and is therefore authoritative. It is not mere repetition of what is found in Scripture, but the fruit of dogmatic reflection. And it is officially defined by a competent ecclesiastical body, and declared to rest upon divine authority. It has social significance, because it is the expression, not of a single individual, but of a community. And it has traditional value, since it passes the precious possessions of the Church on to future generations." (19)

Differences in determining dogma arise between the Roman Catholic Church and the churches of the Protestant Reformation.

For the Reformers, "all truly religious dogmas derive their material contents from Scripture and from Scripture only. They do not recognize the unwritten word or tradition as a source of dogmas." (17) Dogma arises from the reflection on the "truths of revelation" by the "body of believers" and through the formulations of "competent representative bodies" of the Church. (17) "Since the reflection of the Church is often determined and deepened by doctrinal controversies, the formulations to which Church Councils or Synods are finally led under the guidance of the Holy Spirit often bear the earmarks of past struggles. They are not infallible but yet have a high degree of stability. And they are authoritative, not merely because they are proposed by the Church, but *formally* as defined by the Church and *materially* as based on the Word of God." (17)

In contrast, the Roman Catholics "minimize, if they do not exclude, the reflection of the Church *as the body of believers*, and substitute for it the study of the teaching Church or the hierarchy. Whenever a new form of error arises, this teaching Church, that is the clerus, which now has its infallible spokesman in the Pope, after careful examination, formulates the doctrine taught in Scripture or by tradition, declares it to be revealed truth, and imposes its acceptance on all the faithful." (16)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica puts it this way:

"Each theory of development has had its own distinctive prescription for doctrinal stability and doctrinal change. [ ...] Roman Catholicism relies on the magisterium (teaching authority) of the church, which is directed by the bishops as a "college" (collegium episcoporum) and supremely by the bishop of Rome as their collegial head. Protestantism has sought to bind both tradition and the church to the authority of Holy Scripture, with the resulting problem of specifying what is to be regarded as truly authoritative interpretations of Scripture."

From "doctrine and dogma" in Encyclopaedia Britannica from the Encyclopaedia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD.

The history of dogma is conceivable from a Protestant point of view because the Protestant view of dogma is that even though it is "characterized by a high degree of stability", dogma arises out of controversy and a deliberate reflection upon Scripture, and is thus "subject to change". The Roman Catholic view is that "they have an unchangeable dogma" and so there is some question of the intelligibility of the idea of a history of dogma from a Catholic point of view. (quotes, 20) Berkhof, not being Catholic, does not pursue this Catholic view beyond a brief mention of a proposal of J. H. Newman, which found some favor but not official approval, and which put forward that "many of the doctrines of the Church were only germinally present in the original deposit." (22) After a period of historical development they reach a formulation that the Church hierarchy can proclaim to be "divinely revealed truths". Although Berkhof gives no reference for this idea, according to the Encyclopeadia Britannica (in its "doctrine and dogma" article), the essay where Newman proposed this was "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine", published in 1845.

Berkhof's method of treatment of dogmas is vertical not horizontal. The distinction is that in a vertical method each topic within the history of dogma is studied chronologically in separation from the others, whereas in a horizontal method, the chronology of history, rather than of topics, is strictly followed, with all topics studied as they occur in a specific period, and then studying how these topics occur together in the subsequent period, and likewise through each period of history. (26)

The Table of CONTENTS is very detailed. An abbreviation of it is as follows:

Prolegomena
I. The Subject-Matter of the History of Dogma
II. The Task of the History of Dogma
III. Method and Divisions of the History of Dogma
IV. History of the History of Dogma

Preparatory doctrinal development
I. The Apostolic Fathers and Their Doctrinal Views
II. Perversions of the Gospel
III. Reform Movements in the Church
IV. The Apologists and the Beginnings of the Church's Theology
V. The Anti-Gnostic Fathers
VI. The Alexandrian Fathers
VII. Monarchianism

The doctrine of the Trinity
I. The Trinitarian Controversy
II. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Later Theology

The doctrine of Christ
I. The Christological Controversies
II. Later Christological Discussions

The doctrine of sin and grace and related doctrines
I. The Anthropology of the Patristic Period
II. The Pelagian and Augustinian Doctrines of Sin and Grace
III. The Anthropology of the Middle Ages
IV. The Anthropology of the Period of the Reformation
V. Anthropological Views of Post-Reformation Times

The doctrine of the atonement or of the work of Christ
I. The Doctrine of the Atonement before Anselm
II. The Doctrine of the Atonement from Anslem to the Reformation
III. The Doctrine of the Atonement in the Period of the Reformation
IV. The Doctrine of the Atonement after the Reformation

The doctrine of the application and appropriation of Divine Grace
I. The Soteriology of the Patristic Period
II. The Soteriology of the Scholastic Period
III. Reformation and Post-Reformation Soteriology

The doctrine of the Church and the Sacraments
I. The Doctrine of the Church
II. The Doctrine of the Sacraments

The doctrine of the last things
I. The Intermediate State
II. The Second Advent and the Millennial Hope
III. The Resurrection
IV. The Last Judgment and Final Awards

In the full CONTENTS, each roman-numeraled section has subsections and some of those subsections also have subsections. Additionally, within the main text, marginal notations indicate the subject being discussed at that point in the book.

If Berkhof's "Systematic Theology" is written with the same philosophical proficiency and intellectual precision as this book, it would be pleasure to read, regardless of my stance on the author's conclusions.

Why is it that whoever placed this book on Amazon does not think that a detailed description is necessary? They may not, but I do, so here goes. This book covers the development of some of the doctrines of the ancient church and almost none of the present day doctrinal questions. The periods it covers is: Apostolic Fathers (as Jewish and Gnostic perversions); Reformed; Apologists; Anti-Gnostic Fathers; Alexandrian Fathers; Monarchianism. It also covers the doctrine of the Trinity, of Christ, of sin and grace, the atonement, divine grace, the church and the sacraments. It does cover "The doctrine of the last things" but only in a very limited way: the intermediate state; the second advent and the Millennial hope; the resurrection; the last judgment and final awards. It does not cover such things as the question of the post or pre-tribulation rapture or other similar or modern concerns. All that it does cover, it covers briefly, a few pages per question, and does not go into deeper (or boring) detail. This book is supposed to be a companion to the writer's Systemic Theology and is supposed to give the historical background for the subjects covered in that book. I suppose that when viewed for that purpose, it is a good book. Just don't expect too much from it. It is about 7/8 thick (hardback book). It does not compare with the wide volumes I have found at the seminary libraries. That's where you need to go if you want detail.

It is interesting to see that there is someone who actually dug deep into the principles of christianity with an academia's mindset. He is excellent even if we do differ on some points of dogma. Anyway, its a book worth having because it unveils many things and gives you challenges to research and expand the vocabulary.

This is a good overview of Christian doctrinal development. But if theology is what you look for, purchase Berkhof's larger systematic theology instead. If you want something much more up to date-(from the same tradition) get R.L Reymond's recent systematic theology.

In full disclosure, I write the following as a Roman Catholic Christian convert, from a Protestant background.
I have this book in my library as a good reminder of what led me to look at the liturgical church traditions and eventually Catholicism. Besides the permeation of rationalism that governs reformed theology in general, the most useful point of reference for me are the six little pages discussing the Apostolic Fathers and their Doctrinal Views (Section 1 under Prepatory Doctrinal Development).
It is here that we find a little gem (or should I say germ) of Reformed Theology. Berkhof's writing has a demeaning disrespect for the writings and teachings of the Apostolic Fathers that one does not encounter within the liturgical church traditions (Orthodoxy, Lutherism, Anglicanism etc), but that marks and indeed is necessary to maintain a Reformed Theological outlook.
Now, don't get me wrong. What Berkhof writes is "true" in a sense, but he fails to disclose the "why." This should have been included within his History of...
In paraphrase, Berkhof states the Apostolic Father's writings were dry, uninspired, repetitive, and simplistic. In and of themselves they have very little use. What Berkhof fails to state or even to speculate is why were the early writings in such a state.
Simply put, the writings are much in the same pattern of the New Testament writings (putting aside inspiration) i.e. leaning upon accepted scripture (Septuagint), repetitive, dry, moralistic etc. We lean upon God's Spirit to glean the truth's from holy writ, because as they stand the writings are dry to our natural disposition. I don't mean to offend anyone's sensibilities, but let's face it - reading and studying scripture is no easy task because many parts are just plain boring (not as good a read as Gresham or King) resulting in our better spiritual selves battling the flesh which is ready for a snoozefest.
So, why oh why, do we have a continuation of this writing style with the Apostolic Fathers? Well we can find the answer in Scripture. Taken from 2 of Thessalonians (written around AD 51 or 52 - about 20 years after Christ's death and resurrection) Chapter 2 vs. 15 states simply, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us (NASB)."
Those of the liturgical traditions thus see the writings of the Apostolic Fathers i.e. a continuation of the Apostolic charism to carry on the church teachings and traditions. It is here we see the value and have respect for these writings. These same teachings and traditions that carried the church before the new testament scripture was canonized. The Church was reinterpreting the accepted Jewish scripture (which by the way was not formally canonized until some 200 years after Christ's death and resurrection), and did not have their New Testament scripture in canonized form - for some 280 years after Christ's death and resurrection.
So, here we see the Reformed against the Liturgical Church traditions. All starting from the assessment of the Apostolic Fathers. What follows in Berhof's writing are the fruit from the tree. Good for what it is, but in my opinion faulty from the first suppositions.