What do you think?
Rate this book
Christian Theology, Volume 1
Most widely used systematic theology of the 20th century in the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition. Approx. 500 pages per volume.
- GenresTheology
492 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 1, 2007
34 people are currently reading
54 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 14, 2024
THE FIRST VOLUME OF A SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY BY A NAZARENE THEOLOGIAN
Henry Orton Wiley (1877-1961) was a Christian theologian associated with the Church of the Nazarene, who was president of Northwest Nazarene College.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1940 book, “Nearly twenty years ago I was asked … to prepare a work on Systematic Theology for use in the Course of Study for Licensed Ministers… I have no thought of attempting any new contribution to modern theological science. My purpose and aim has been to review the field of theology in as simple a manner as possible for the use of those who, entering the ministry, desire to be informed concerning the great doctrines of the church.”
In the first chapter, he explains, “theology bears relation not only to religious experience in a general way, but also to that higher type of revealed truth which is in Christ and known as the Christian Revelation… it should ever be borne in mind that the Christian faith is not something which is self-created. It has its source in objective revelation. The universe is an external revelation of God. It declares Hie eternal power and Godhead.” (Pg. 18)
He outlines, “A knowledge of the several divisions of theology is of utmost importance---especially to those whom God has called into the ministry. Exegetical Theology furnishes the authoritative sources; Historical Theology gives perspective and balance; Systematic Theology provides the doctrinal standards of the church; and Practical Theology seeks to make effective the knowledge gained in the previous departments. Without this full range of theological science there can be no true perspective, no balanced knowledge, no authoritative standards, and hence no supremely effective ministry.” (Pg. 32)
He notes, “Philosophy is the formal or shaping source of theology. Its claim as a subsidiary source of theology lies solely in the fat that it has the power of systematizing and rationalizing truth, so that it may be presented to the mind in proper form for assimilation.” (Pg. 49)
After quoting Romans 1:21-23, he comments, “Here is indicated [a] direct refusal to worship God. The rejection is ethical. The psalmist in the expression ‘The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God’ meant not so much a denial of the existence of God as an ethical and spiritual rejection, ‘No God for me.’” (Pg 105)
He states, “From the historical viewpoint, we base our argument for the supremacy of the Christian religion over the ethnic religions on the fact of its all inclusiveness. Christianity is distinctive and therefore exclusive, because it is absolutely inclusive… By this method, therefore, we take firmer ground for the distinctness and finality of the Christian religion, than is possible by regarding it either as one religion among many, or one over against many, and we preserve what is true in both positions.” (Pg. 121)
He says, “History is not a disconnected series of events. History belongs to human volition. It is a record of what men have done. But there is an inner directing Presence in history and an Authoritative Will above it which directs all to an expressed goal, a fulness of time. This goal is the coming of the Word made flesh. In the light of this historical fact, we are able to look back through the pages of history and recognize purpose in its events; and we are able to read the words of the prophets and see their predictions fulfilled. But as the central point of all history, He has had His impress upon it.” (Pg. 133)
He notes, “we conclude that the Scriptures were given by plenary inspiration, embracing throughout the elements of superintendence, elevation and suggestion, in that manner and to that degree that the Bible becomes the infallible Word of God, the authoritative rule of faith and practice in the Church. Nor can our inability to explain this extraordinary action of God upon the human mind be an objection to the doctrine of inspiration. Psychology cannot satisfactorily explain the interaction between the mind and body in human personality, nor the manner in which ideas are impressed upon the mind. But it would be impertinent to deny the existence of such interaction.” (Pg. 171-172)
He asserts, “The only atheism which is recognized in the Scripture is a practical atheism which grows out of a reprobate mind. Sin has obscured the truth in human nature and the Scriptures charge men with not desiring to retain the knowledge of God.” (Pg. 227)
He observes, “Both the prophets and the psalmist are discriminating in their thought, limiting God’s power to that which is in conformity with His good pleasure. He can do all, not perhaps in the abstract as appertaining to that which is contrary to His nature and will, but all that He wills to do. Whatever is impossible to Him, is not such because of a limitation of His power but solely because of His nature makes it so, in the same sense that His holiness is incompatible with sin.” (Pg. 349-350)
He states, “it is forever argued that a Creator of unbounded benevolence and power, must, or might, or ought to have prevented the origination of evil. There are only two possible solutions of this profound difficulty. Either the desperate expedient must be adopted of renouncing a supreme God altogether; a solution which is really no solution, for atheism really solves nothing but dissolves all. Or, accepting the testimony of God himself, we must bow before an unfathomable mystery, and seek our refuge in the harmony of the divine attributes.” (Pg. 364)
He explains, “The generation of the Son is usually referred to in theology as eternal generation. This does not mean that the Father existed before the Son, or that the attributes of the former are greater than those of the latter, but that the Father has his nature from Himself, and the Son has His nature by the gift of the Father (Jn 5:26). The term ‘spiration’ is similar to that of generation and is the peculiar property of the Spirit. As the Son is said to be generated by the Father, so the Spirit is said to be spirated by the Father, and in a secondary sense by the Son.” (Pg. 420)
He observes, “When presented by Darwin and his school the evolutionary hypothesis was received with great applause. However, it could hardly be expected to hold its ground against the Christian belief in creation. It does not solve the problem. It merely pushes it back into time and therefore must rest ultimately in either creation or emanation.” (Pg. 444)
He states, “The Genesis account of creation is primarily a religious document. It cannot be considered a scientific statement, and yet it must not be regarded as contradictory to science. It is rather, a supreme illustration of the manner in which revealed truth indirectly sheds light upon scientific fields. The Hebrew word ‘yom’ which is translated ‘day’… is translated by something over fifty different words, including such terms as time, life, today, age, forever, continually and perpetually. With such a flexible use of the original term, it is impossible to either dogmatize or to demand unswerving restriction to one only of those meanings. It is frequently assumed that originally orthodox belief held to a solar day of twenty-four hours, and that the church altered her exegesis under the pressure of modern geological discoveries… The best Hebrew exegesis has never regarded the days of Genesis as solar days, but as day-periods of indefinite of indefinite duration. The doctrine of an immense time prior to the six days of creation was a common view among the earlier fathers and the schoolmen. Only with the scholastics of the middle ages and the evangelical writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was this idea current. Previous to this a profounder view was taught by the acknowledged leaders of the Church.” (Pg. 454-455)
This book will interest those who are seriously studying theology.
Henry Orton Wiley (1877-1961) was a Christian theologian associated with the Church of the Nazarene, who was president of Northwest Nazarene College.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1940 book, “Nearly twenty years ago I was asked … to prepare a work on Systematic Theology for use in the Course of Study for Licensed Ministers… I have no thought of attempting any new contribution to modern theological science. My purpose and aim has been to review the field of theology in as simple a manner as possible for the use of those who, entering the ministry, desire to be informed concerning the great doctrines of the church.”
In the first chapter, he explains, “theology bears relation not only to religious experience in a general way, but also to that higher type of revealed truth which is in Christ and known as the Christian Revelation… it should ever be borne in mind that the Christian faith is not something which is self-created. It has its source in objective revelation. The universe is an external revelation of God. It declares Hie eternal power and Godhead.” (Pg. 18)
He outlines, “A knowledge of the several divisions of theology is of utmost importance---especially to those whom God has called into the ministry. Exegetical Theology furnishes the authoritative sources; Historical Theology gives perspective and balance; Systematic Theology provides the doctrinal standards of the church; and Practical Theology seeks to make effective the knowledge gained in the previous departments. Without this full range of theological science there can be no true perspective, no balanced knowledge, no authoritative standards, and hence no supremely effective ministry.” (Pg. 32)
He notes, “Philosophy is the formal or shaping source of theology. Its claim as a subsidiary source of theology lies solely in the fat that it has the power of systematizing and rationalizing truth, so that it may be presented to the mind in proper form for assimilation.” (Pg. 49)
After quoting Romans 1:21-23, he comments, “Here is indicated [a] direct refusal to worship God. The rejection is ethical. The psalmist in the expression ‘The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God’ meant not so much a denial of the existence of God as an ethical and spiritual rejection, ‘No God for me.’” (Pg 105)
He states, “From the historical viewpoint, we base our argument for the supremacy of the Christian religion over the ethnic religions on the fact of its all inclusiveness. Christianity is distinctive and therefore exclusive, because it is absolutely inclusive… By this method, therefore, we take firmer ground for the distinctness and finality of the Christian religion, than is possible by regarding it either as one religion among many, or one over against many, and we preserve what is true in both positions.” (Pg. 121)
He says, “History is not a disconnected series of events. History belongs to human volition. It is a record of what men have done. But there is an inner directing Presence in history and an Authoritative Will above it which directs all to an expressed goal, a fulness of time. This goal is the coming of the Word made flesh. In the light of this historical fact, we are able to look back through the pages of history and recognize purpose in its events; and we are able to read the words of the prophets and see their predictions fulfilled. But as the central point of all history, He has had His impress upon it.” (Pg. 133)
He notes, “we conclude that the Scriptures were given by plenary inspiration, embracing throughout the elements of superintendence, elevation and suggestion, in that manner and to that degree that the Bible becomes the infallible Word of God, the authoritative rule of faith and practice in the Church. Nor can our inability to explain this extraordinary action of God upon the human mind be an objection to the doctrine of inspiration. Psychology cannot satisfactorily explain the interaction between the mind and body in human personality, nor the manner in which ideas are impressed upon the mind. But it would be impertinent to deny the existence of such interaction.” (Pg. 171-172)
He asserts, “The only atheism which is recognized in the Scripture is a practical atheism which grows out of a reprobate mind. Sin has obscured the truth in human nature and the Scriptures charge men with not desiring to retain the knowledge of God.” (Pg. 227)
He observes, “Both the prophets and the psalmist are discriminating in their thought, limiting God’s power to that which is in conformity with His good pleasure. He can do all, not perhaps in the abstract as appertaining to that which is contrary to His nature and will, but all that He wills to do. Whatever is impossible to Him, is not such because of a limitation of His power but solely because of His nature makes it so, in the same sense that His holiness is incompatible with sin.” (Pg. 349-350)
He states, “it is forever argued that a Creator of unbounded benevolence and power, must, or might, or ought to have prevented the origination of evil. There are only two possible solutions of this profound difficulty. Either the desperate expedient must be adopted of renouncing a supreme God altogether; a solution which is really no solution, for atheism really solves nothing but dissolves all. Or, accepting the testimony of God himself, we must bow before an unfathomable mystery, and seek our refuge in the harmony of the divine attributes.” (Pg. 364)
He explains, “The generation of the Son is usually referred to in theology as eternal generation. This does not mean that the Father existed before the Son, or that the attributes of the former are greater than those of the latter, but that the Father has his nature from Himself, and the Son has His nature by the gift of the Father (Jn 5:26). The term ‘spiration’ is similar to that of generation and is the peculiar property of the Spirit. As the Son is said to be generated by the Father, so the Spirit is said to be spirated by the Father, and in a secondary sense by the Son.” (Pg. 420)
He observes, “When presented by Darwin and his school the evolutionary hypothesis was received with great applause. However, it could hardly be expected to hold its ground against the Christian belief in creation. It does not solve the problem. It merely pushes it back into time and therefore must rest ultimately in either creation or emanation.” (Pg. 444)
He states, “The Genesis account of creation is primarily a religious document. It cannot be considered a scientific statement, and yet it must not be regarded as contradictory to science. It is rather, a supreme illustration of the manner in which revealed truth indirectly sheds light upon scientific fields. The Hebrew word ‘yom’ which is translated ‘day’… is translated by something over fifty different words, including such terms as time, life, today, age, forever, continually and perpetually. With such a flexible use of the original term, it is impossible to either dogmatize or to demand unswerving restriction to one only of those meanings. It is frequently assumed that originally orthodox belief held to a solar day of twenty-four hours, and that the church altered her exegesis under the pressure of modern geological discoveries… The best Hebrew exegesis has never regarded the days of Genesis as solar days, but as day-periods of indefinite of indefinite duration. The doctrine of an immense time prior to the six days of creation was a common view among the earlier fathers and the schoolmen. Only with the scholastics of the middle ages and the evangelical writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was this idea current. Previous to this a profounder view was taught by the acknowledged leaders of the Church.” (Pg. 454-455)
This book will interest those who are seriously studying theology.
January 19, 2022
Excellent.
Some of the discussionsI'm
regarding science and creation are dated. But, overall a sound presentation of his particular view of the Christian faith. It. Is worth reading whether you agree with the point of view or not.
Some of the discussionsI'm
regarding science and creation are dated. But, overall a sound presentation of his particular view of the Christian faith. It. Is worth reading whether you agree with the point of view or not.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews