Even scientific men are sometimes led to suppress or pervert facts which militate against their favorite theories; but the temptation to this form of dishonesty is far less in their case, than in that of the theologian. It shows to him that in the Bible there is an organization finer, more complicated, more exquisite than even the texture of muscles and nerves and brain in the human body; that its various parts are interwoven and correlated in the most subtle manner, each sensitive to the impressions received from all the others, perfect in itself, and yet dependent upon the rest, while in them and through them all throbs as a unifying principle the Spirit of God’s living truth.

Simultaneously, on the evangelical right, Kevin Vanhoozer, in The Drama of Doctrine, charges Hodge with de-dramatizing Scripture and wrongly attempting to create an “epic” theology that reduces the Bible to a collection of propositions. However, Hodge refers to 'the truths' of the Bible, and 'the facts of Scripture', and I suppose that he would not deny that these truths and facts are expressed, or are expressible, in propositions.Stephen Nichols describes how Charles Hodge responded to linguistic shifts at Princeton by writing a three-volume work for his students. Centered on the doctrine of the Trinity, Kelly weaves together an impressive array of theologians from the early church through the medieval period and the Reformation down to the present. First to revisiting those seventeen pages, and then to looking at Professor Vanhoozer's three charges.

The main point of invoking induction for Hodge is simply to endorse a method which gives Scripture theological priority, allowing it to address us rather we addressing it. This paper is intended as neither an attack nor a defence of Hodge, but only as an effort to put the record straight. If behind the dislike of ‘propositional theology’ there lurks the fear of equating 'propositional' with dry, detached truths located in a dry, detached theological system, then Hodge’s words may also allay such fears. Gutjahr attributes this to his steadfast constitution, but one wonders if there is not something more. For each of the three points made by Bavinck, insofar as they implicate Hodge, seem to be off their target.Unfortunately, Professor Vanhoozer's negative comments about Charles Hodge's systematic theological method are not novel. His studies in Europe made him one of the leading Hebraists teaching in an American theological institution in the early nineteenth century. In other words, unlike pebbles on a beach, the facts of Scripture, expressed in the sentences and clauses of the Bible, have semantic and syntactic meaning.

While the organization and layout are not as user-friendly as Grudem, Horton is a much more sophisticated theologian. Charles Hodge (1797–1878) was one of nineteenth-century America’s leading theologians, owing in part to a lengthy teaching career, voluminous writings, and a faculty post at one of the nation’s most influential Hodge's inductive method betrays certain tell-tale marks of its time, though this alone is hardly an argument against it.The impression that Bavinck conveys of Hodge is that he thinks that Scripture simply consists of a set of facts, which the theologian then provides an interpretation for these, the interpretation coming from the hypothesis that the facts suggest or indicate. Geerhardus Vos, in his inaugural lecture for the newly-established Chair of Biblical Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary (1894) ‘The Idea of Biblical Theology’ seems at first to offer some support for the Bavinck/ Kuyper view of theology and theological method. The direction of theological reasoning is bottom up: from biblical foundations to doctrinal formulation. p. 1, 2) In a Christian view of Scripture 'God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself' is consistent with 'God created the heavens and the earth' and 'Our God is a consuming fire', and it is the task of the systematic theologian, as far as he is able, to display this consistency. But we know that Jonathan Edwards considered it superior to Turretin and the best book on divinity besides the Bible.