[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Lectures On Systematic Theology By Charles G
Lectures On Systematic Theology
By
Charles G. Finney
1878 Edition
Edited by J.H. Fairchild
This work is in the Public Domain. Copy Freely.
Table of Contents
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
file:///H|/Biblebob/Books/Online/Theology/Finney/index.html (1 of 2)8/11/2005 11:59:29 AM
l
l
l
Lectures On Systematic Theology By Charles G
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
file:///H|/Biblebob/Books/Online/Theology/Finney/index.html (2 of 2)8/11/2005 11:59:29 AM
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
TheologyWebsite.com Etext Index: Systematic Theology by Charles G. Finney: Note by the Editor
Lectures On Systematic Theology
By Charles G. Finney
1878 Edition
Edited by J.H. Fairchild
NOTE BY THE EDITOR J.H. FAIRCHILD
Two editions of President Finney's Lectures on Systematic Theology have been published--the first in this country in 1846,
the second in England in 1851, --the English edition being somewhat more full than its predecessor. Both editions have been
exhausted, and the book has disappeared from the market.
The present edition has been prepared from the English edition by a process of condensation, omitting, to some extent,
restatements or repetitions of the argument, paragraphs of a hortatory character, and other parts not essential to the
expression or elucidation of the doctrine.
Aside from these omissions, no changes have been made. No liberties have been taken with the author's style or thought.
Every sentence is his own, and even in those parts where, in the judgment of the editor, the author's views are not elaborated
with perfect consistency, as in the presentation of sin as selfishness, and in the lectures on sanctification, no attempt has
been made to secure consistency, as might have been done by judicious omissions. The author was in the habit of thinking
and speaking for himself while living, and no one can undertake to speak for him now that he is dead.
This condensed edition, it is believed, will not be less valuable, as an exponent of Mr. Finney's teaching, than the English
edition, but even more valuable. Unnecessary bulk in a volume is a hindrance and discouragement to the reader. The topics
will be found to be presented with all necessary fullness.
J.H.F.
OBERLIN COLLEGE, 1878.
|
|
|
file:///H|/Biblebob/Books/Online/Theology/Finney/a0editor.html8/11/2005 11:59:30 AM
 TheologyWebsite.com Etext Index: Systematic Theology by Charles G. Finney: Note by the Editor
Lectures On Systematic Theology
By Charles G. Finney
1878 Edition
Edited by J.H. Fairchild
PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR
1. To a great extent, the truths of the blessed gospel have been hidden under a false philosophy. In my early inquiries on the
subject of religion, I found myself wholly unable to understand either the oral or written instructions of uninspired religious
teachers. They seemed to me to resolve all religion into states either of the intellect or of the sensibility, which my
consciousness assured me were wholly passive or involuntary. When I sought for definitions and explanations, I felt assured
that they did not well understand themselves. I was struck with the fact that they so seldom defined, even to themselves, their
own positions. Among the words of most frequent use, I could find scarcely a single term intelligibly defined. I inquired in what
sense the terms "regeneration," "faith," "repentance," "love," etc., were used, but could obtain no answer, at which it did not
appear to me that both reason and revelation revolted. The doctrines of a nature, sinful per se, of a necessitated will, of
inability, and of physical regeneration, and physical Divine influence in regeneration, with their kindred and resulting dogmas,
embarrassed and even confounded me at every step. I often said to myself, "If these things are really taught in the Bible, I
must be an infidel." But the more I read my Bible, the more clearly I saw that these things were not found there upon any fair
principles of interpretation, such as would be admitted in a court of justice. I could not but perceive that the true idea of moral
government had no place in the theology of the church; and, on the contrary, that underlying the whole system were the
assumptions that all government was physical, as opposed to moral, and that sin and holiness are rather natural attributes,
than moral, voluntary acts. These errors were not stated in words, but I could not fail to see that they were assumed. The
distinction between original and actual sin, and the utter absence of a distinction between physical and moral depravity,
embarrassed me. Indeed, I was satisfied either that I must be an infidel, or that these were errors that had no place in the
Bible. I was often warned against reasoning and leaning to my own understanding. I found that the discriminating teachers of
religion were driven to confess that they could not establish the logical consistency of their system, and that they were
obliged to shut their eyes and believe, when revelation seemed to conflict with the affirmations of reason. But this course I
could not take. I found, or thought I found, nearly all the doctrines of Christianity embarrassed by the assumptions above
named. But the Spirit of God conducted me through the darkness, and delivered me from the labyrinth and fog of a false
philosophy, and set my feet upon the rock of truth, as I trust. But to this day I meet with those who seem to me to be in much
confusion upon most of the practical doctrines of Christianity. They will admit, that sin and holiness must be voluntary, and
yet speak of regeneration as consisting in anything but a voluntary change, and of Divine influence in regeneration, as
anything but moral or persuasive. They seem not at all aware of what must follow from, and be implied in, the admission of
the existence of moral government, and that sin and holiness must be free and voluntary acts and states of mind. In this work
I have endeavored to define the terms used by Christian divines, and the doctrines of Christianity, as I understand them, and
to push to their logical consequences the cardinal admissions of the more recent and standard theological writers. Especially
do I urge, to their logical consequences, the two admissions that the will is free, and that sin and holiness are voluntary acts
of mind. I will not presume that I have satisfied others upon the points I have discussed, but I have succeeded at least in
satisfying myself. I regard the assertion, that the doctrines of theology cannot preserve a logical consistency throughout, as
both dangerous and ridiculous.
2. My principal design in publishing Systematic Theology at first, was to furnish my pupils with a class or textbook, wherein
many points and questions were discussed of great practical importance, but which have not, to my knowledge, been
discussed in any system of theological instruction extant. I also hoped to benefit other studious and pious minds.
3. I have written for those who are willing to take the trouble of thinking and of forming opinions of their own on theological
questions. It has been no part of my aim to spare my pupils or any one else the trouble of intense thought. Had I desired to
do so, the subjects discussed would have rendered such an attempt abortive.
4. There are many questions of great practical importance, and questions in which multitudes are taking a deep interest at
present, that cannot be intelligently settled without instituting fundamental inquiries involving the discussion of those
questions that lie at the foundation of morality and religion.
5. Most of the subjects of dispute among Christians at the present day are founded in misconceptions upon the subjects
discussed in the volume. If I have succeeded in settling the questions which I have discussed, we shall see, that in a future
volume most of the subjects of disagreement among Christians at the present day can be satisfactorily adjusted with
comparative ease.
file:///H|/Biblebob/Books/Online/Theology/Finney/a0preface.html (1 of 3)8/11/2005 11:59:34 AM
 TheologyWebsite.com Etext Index: Systematic Theology by Charles G. Finney: Note by the Editor
6. What I have said on "Moral Law" and on the "Foundation of Moral Obligation" is the key to the whole subject. Whoever
masters and understands these can readily understand all the rest. But he who will not possess himself of my meaning upon
these subjects, will not understand the rest.
7. Let no one despair in commencing the book, nor stumble at the definitions, thinking that he can never understand so
abstruse a subject. Remember that what follows is an expansion and an explanation by way of application, of what you find
so condensed in the first pages of the book. My brother, sister, friend: read, study, think, and read again. You were made to
think. It will do you good to think; to develop your powers by study. God designed that religion should require thought, intense
thought, and should thoroughly develop our powers of thought. The Bible itself is written in a style so condensed as to require
much intense study. I do not pretend to so explain theology as to dispense with the labor of thinking. I have no ability and no
wish to do so.
8. If any of my brethren think to convince me of error, they must first understand me, and show that they have read the book
through, and that they understand it, and are candidly inquiring after truth and not "striving for masteries." If my brother is
inquiring after truth, I will, by the grace of God, "hear with both ears, and then judge." But I will not promise to attend to all that
cavilers may say, nor to notice what those impertinent talkers and writers may say or write who must have controversy. But to
all honest inquirers after truth I would say, Hail, my brother! Let us be thorough. Truth shall do us good.
9. It will be seen that the present volume contains only a part of a course of Systematic Theology. Should the entire course
ever appear before the public, one volume will precede, and another succeed the present one. I published this volume first,
because it contains all the points upon which I have been supposed to differ from the commonly received views. As a teacher
of theology, I thought it due to the church and to the world, to give them my views upon those points upon which I had been
accused of departing from the common opinions of Christians.
10. I have not yet been able to stereotype my theological views, and have ceased to expect ever to do so. The idea is
preposterous. None but an omniscient mind can continue to maintain a precise identity of views and opinions. Finite minds,
unless they are asleep or stultified by prejudice, must advance in knowledge. The discovery of new truth will modify old views
and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world. True Christian consistency does not
consist in stereotyping our opinions and views, and in refusing to make any improvement lest we should be guilty of change,
but it consists in holding our minds open to receive the rays of truth from every quarter and in changing our views and
language and practice as often and as fast, as we can obtain further information. I call this Christian consistency, because
this course alone accords with a Christian profession. A Christian profession implies the profession of candor and of a
disposition to know and obey all truth. It must follow, that Christian consistency implies continued investigation and change of
views and practice corresponding with increasing knowledge. No Christian, therefore, and no theologian should be afraid to
change his views, his language, or his practices in conformity with increasing light. The prevalence of such a fear would keep
the world, at best, at a perpetual standstill, on all subjects of science, and consequently all improvements would be
precluded.
Every uninspired attempt to frame for the church an authoritative standard of opinion which shall be regarded as an
unquestionable exposition of the word of God, is not only impious in itself, but it is also a tacit assumption of the fundamental
dogma of Papacy. The Assembly of Divines did more than to assume the necessity of a Pope to give law to the opinions of
men; they assumed to create an immortal one, or rather to embalm their own creed, and preserve it as the Pope of all
generations; or it is more just to say, that those who have adopted that confession of faith and catechism as an authoritative
standard of doctrine, have absurdly adopted the most obnoxious principle of Popery, and elevated their confession and
catechism to the Papal throne and into the place of the Holy Ghost. That the instrument framed by that assembly should in
the nineteenth century be recognized as the standard of the church, or of an intelligent branch of it, is not only amazing, but I
must say that it is most ridiculous. It is as absurd in theology as it would be in any other branch of science, and as injurious
and stultifying as it is absurd and ridiculous. It is better to have a living than a dead Pope. If we must have an authoritative
expounder of the word of God, let us have a living one, so as not to preclude the hope of improvement. "A living dog is better
than a dead lion" (Eccl. 9:4), so a living Pope is better than a dead and stereotyped confession of faith, that holds all men
bound to subscribe to its unalterable dogmas and its unvarying terminology.
11. I hold myself sacredly bound, not to defend these positions at all events, but on the contrary, to subject every one of them
to the most thorough discussion, and to hold and treat them as I would the opinions of any one else; that is, if upon further
discussion and investigation I see no cause to change, I hold them fast; but if I can see a flaw in any one of them, I shall
amend or wholly reject it, as further light shall demand. Should I refuse or fail to do this, I should need to blush for my folly
and inconsistency, for I say again, that true Christian consistency implies progress in knowledge and holiness, and such
changes in theory and in practice as are demanded by increasing light.
file:///H|/Biblebob/Books/Online/Theology/Finney/a0preface.html (2 of 3)8/11/2005 11:59:34 AM
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]