Lectures on Systematic Theology : by the Rev. Charles G. Finney ; edited by Pres. J.H. Fairchild(2d ed. 1946) Aanbieding

Beschrijving

Lectures on Systematic Theology
by Rev. Charles Grandison Finney, D.D., Late President of Oberlin College and Professor of Theology ;
edited by Rev. J.H. Fairchild, Late President of Oberlin College

This edition originally published in l878 by E.J. Goodrich,
Re-published in 1944 by Colporter Kemp, Second Edition 1946

The present reprint is of the 1878 revised edition

Finney’sLectures on Systematic Theologywas issued in two volumes in 1846 and 1847. Though it appears Finney planned a work of a number of volumes, only the two were finished: Volume 2 in 1846, and Volume 3 in 1847 (Volume 1 never appeared). In the Preface of the first volume, Finney states “What I have said on the ‘Foundation of Moral Obligation’ is the key to the whole subject.” Finney’s system was based upon the premise of the complete freedom of the human will and the moral responsibility that involves. Dr. Keith Hardman, Finney’s recent biographer, points out that for Finney “ . . . a person must be completely holy or totally sinful. There can be no gradation or degrees. Every person is therefore at any given instant perfectly sinful or perfectly holy. As Finney declared“ Moral agents are at all times either as holy or as sinful as with their knowledge they can be.” Dr. Hardman goes on, “It cannot be overemphasized that Finney makes these states mutually exclusive.” He again quotes Finney, “Sin and holiness, then, both consist in supreme, ultimate, and opposite choices, or intentions, and cannot, by any possibility, coexist.” These difficult concepts begin to explain Finney’s emphasis on the need for perfection. Strong criticism followed the publication of theSystematic Theology, especially from Charles Hodge of Princeton, the renowned Calvinist theologian. Hodge argued that Finney’s system was consistent, but that it was a total departure from the traditional Protestant teaching about justification by Faith, and was more a system of morals. Nevertheless, it is recognized that this work is one of a high degree of sophistication, and despite its difficult reasoning and use of terms, it has had a wide influence.

For further NOTES See also the NOTE of the book!