What do you think?
Rate this book
Systematic Theology
Book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1886. Not illustrated. ... VL The Final States Of The Righteous And Op The Wicked. 1. Of the righteous. The final state of the righteous is described as eternal life (Mat. 25 : 46), glory (2 Cor. 4 : 17), rest (Heb. 4:9), knowledge (1 Cor. 18 : 8-10), holiness (Rev. 21:27), service (Rev. 22:3), worship (Rev. 19:1), society ( Heb. 12 : 23), communion with God (Rev. 21: 8). M»i. 2i : 46 --" And these shall go mj into eternal but the righteous into eternal life"; 2 Cor. 4 : 17 --" For our light affliction, which is for the moment, vorketh for as more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory "; Heb. 4 : 9 --" There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God "; 1 Cor. 13 : 8-10 --" Lore never bnt whether there be prophecies, they shall be done whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away, for we know in part, and we prophesy in but when that which is perfect is oome, that which is in part shall be done away"; Rer. 21: 27--"and there shall in no wise enter into it earthing unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and a bnt only they that are written in the Lamb's book of life "; 22:3 --" and his servants shall do him service"; 19:1 --" after these things I heard as it were a great voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, Hallelujah; Salvation, and glory, and power, belong to oar God; for true and righteous are his judgments "; Heb. 12 : 23 --" to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven "; Bev. 21: 3--"And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his peoples, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God." Summing up all these, we may say that ...
1166 pages, Hardcover
First published December 12, 1977
145 people are currently reading
151 people want to read
About the author
Augustus Hopkins Strong
141 booksAugustus Hopkins Strong (3 August 1836 – 29 November 1921) was a Baptist minister and theologian who lived in the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His most influential book, Systematic Theology, proved to be a mainstay of Reformed Baptist theological education for several generations.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
March 11, 2011
When I was 16, I decided that I should begin my in depth study of Christian doctrine and this was the little tome that continued my journey beyond Ryrie's Theology. In hindsight, I would have recommended something along the lines of Erickson or even Hodge, but to Strong I turned. In Strong, the reader finds a conflicted Baptist theologian who attempts to give credence to the liberals taking over his denomination while yet standing true to Scripture. He argues for the validity of evolution, but posits its theistic basis. He panders on whether or not God suspends the rules of nature for miracles, but yet argues for the authenticity of Christ's miracles. He alludes heavily to the ancient works of poetry on the one hand and remains abreast of the current liberal debates of his day. Strong is a theologian of complexity, paradox, and challenge. In fact, these qualities make his work both of great value and yet worthy of neglect. His controversies and struggles have, for the most part, faded into the past and the modern reader would likely allow his work to do the same; however, by reading the work of this fine theologian, we are reminded that the struggles and challenges of our day will soon pass. We like Strong will find relevance only insomuch as we adhere to the orthodoxy contained in Scripture alone.
As to the quality of the work in particular, in my edition of the text, the first edition material is included in standard font size, while the later edition printing is included in a tiny (8 point?) font size. If small print is a problem for the reader, this volume in the edition that I have it in will prove very difficult to read. Also, the allusions to Greek poetry and ancient works of literature, though helpful in Strong's day (the turn of the last century) are difficult in a society that remains largely unaware of the works in question. Finally, the writer makes use of a substantial amount of non-transliterated ancient languages, making it difficult for the reader who is unfamiliar with them to grasp the line of argumentation.
Overall, I would recommend this work to those who already have a strong foundation in theology as there will be some difficult subjects discussed. The reader should also be comfortable with the train of thought in the older systematics and should have a basic knowledge of New Testament Greek. In its proper place, this volume will serve as a valuable survey of the Queen of the Sciences.
As to the quality of the work in particular, in my edition of the text, the first edition material is included in standard font size, while the later edition printing is included in a tiny (8 point?) font size. If small print is a problem for the reader, this volume in the edition that I have it in will prove very difficult to read. Also, the allusions to Greek poetry and ancient works of literature, though helpful in Strong's day (the turn of the last century) are difficult in a society that remains largely unaware of the works in question. Finally, the writer makes use of a substantial amount of non-transliterated ancient languages, making it difficult for the reader who is unfamiliar with them to grasp the line of argumentation.
Overall, I would recommend this work to those who already have a strong foundation in theology as there will be some difficult subjects discussed. The reader should also be comfortable with the train of thought in the older systematics and should have a basic knowledge of New Testament Greek. In its proper place, this volume will serve as a valuable survey of the Queen of the Sciences.
April 14, 2024
AN INFLUENTIAL SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY BY A REFORMED BAPTIST
[NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 1166-page hardcover edition.]
Augustus Hopkins Strong (1836-1921; he is NOT related to James Strong, creator of the Exhaustive Concordance) was a Baptist minister and theologian who was president of Rochester Theological Seminary. He wrote in the Preface to this 1906 book, “That Christ is the one and only revealer of God, in nature, in humanity, in history, in science, in Scripture, is in my judgment the key to theology. This view implies a monistic and idealistic conception of the world, together with an evolutionary idea as to its origin and progress…. Neither the evolution nor the higher criticism has any terrors to one who regards them as parts of Christ’s creating and educating process… Philosophy and science are good servants of Christ, but they are poor guides when they rule out the Son of God… Here is my test of orthodoxy: Do we pray to Jesus?... Is he our living Lord, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent? Is he divine only in the sense in which we are divine[?]… The present volume, in its treatment of Ethical Monism, Inspiration, the Attributes of God, and the Trinity, contains an antidote to most of the false doctrine which now threatens the safety of the church. I desire especially to call attention to the section on Perfection… Love must have a norm or standard, and this … can be found only in Holiness… I make no apology for the homiletical element in my book. To be either true or useful, theology must have a passion.”
He states, “Faith… and only faith can furnish, fit and sufficient material for a scientific theology. As an operation of man’s higher rational nature, though distinct from ocular vision or of reasoning, faith is not only a kind, but the highest kind, of knowing. It gives us understanding of realities which to sense alone are inaccessible, namely, God’s existence, and some at least of the relations between God and his creation.” (Pg. 4)
He asserts, “the intuition of an Absolute Reason is (a) the necessary presupposition of all other knowledge, so that we cannot know anything else to exist except by assuming first of all that God exists; (b) the necessar4y basis of all logical thought, so that we cannot put confidence n any one of our reasoning processes except by taking for granted that a thinking Deity has constructed our minds ... We cannot PROVE that God is; but we can show that, in order to the existence of any knowledge, thought, reason, conscience, in man, man must ASSUME that God is.” (Pg. 61) Later, he adds, “Although the knowledge of God’s existence if intuitive, it may be explicated and confirmed by arguments drawn from the actual universe and from the abstract ideas of the human mind… These arguments are probable, not demonstrative. For this reason they supplement each other, and constitute a series of evidences which is cumulative in nature.” (Pg. 71)
He explains, “Ethical Monism is that method of thought which holds to a single substance, ground, or principle of being, namely, God, but which also holds to the ethical facts of God’s transcendence as well as his immanence, and of God’s personality as distinct from, and as guaranteeing, the personality of man… While Ethical Monism embraces the one element of truth contained in Pantheism---the truth that God is in all things and that all things are in God---it regards this scientific unity as entirely consistent with the facts of ethics…” (Pg. 105-106)
He states, “The chief proof of inspiration, however, must always be found in the internal characteristics of the Scriptures themselves, as these are disclosed to the sincere inquirer by the Holy Spirit. The testimony of the Holy Spirit combines with the teaching of the Bible to convince the earnest reader that this teaching is as a whole and in all essentials beyond the power of man to communicate, and that it must therefore have been put into permanent and written form by special inspiration of God.” (Pg. 201) Later, he adds, “Inspiration did not guarantee inerrancy in things not essential to the main purpose of the Scriptures… When the unity of the Scripture is fully recognized, the Bible, in spite of imperfections in matters non-essential to its religious purpose, furnishes a safe and sufficient guide to truth and salvation.” (Pg. 215, 218)
He suggests, “science has not yet shown any fairly interpreted passages of Scripture to be untrue. With regard to the antiquity of the race, we may say that owing to differences of reading between the Septuagint and the Hebrew there is room for doubt whether either of the received chronologies has the sanction of inspiration. Although science had made probable the existence of man upon the earth at a period preceding the dates assigned in these chronologies, no statement of inspired Scripture is therefore proved false,” (Pg. 224) He adds, “Even if error in matters of science were found in Scripture, it would not disprove inspiration, since inspiration concerns itself with science only so far as correct scientific view are necessary to morals and religion.” (Pg. 226)
He argues, “The decrees are, like foreknowledge, an act eternal to the divine nature, and are no more inconsistent with free agency than foreknowledge is. Even foreknowledge of events implies that those events are fixed. If this absolute fixity and foreknowledge is not inconsistent with free agency, much less can that which is more remote from man’s action, namely, the hidden cause of this fixity and foreknowledge---God’s decrees---be inconsistent with free agency. If anything be inconsistent with man’s free agency, it must be, not the decrees themselves, but the execution of the decrees in creation and providence.” (Pg. 359-360)
Against the objection that “It is inconsistent with the benevolence of God to create and uphold spirits, who he knows will be and do evil,” he counters, “this is not more inconsistent with God’s benevolence than the creation and preservation of men, whose action God overrules for the furtherance of his purposes, and whose iniquity he finally brings to light and punishes.” (Pg. 461)
He acknowledges, “the Scriptures do not disclose the method of man’s creation. Whether man’s physical system is or is not derived, by natural descent, from the lower animals, the record of creation does not inform us… the forming of man ‘of the dust of the ground’ … does not in itself determine whether the creation of man’s body was mediate or immediate… Evolution does not make the idea of a Creator superfluous, because evolution is only the method of God. It is perfectly consistent with a Scriptural doctrine of creation that man should emerge at the proper time… yet growing out of the brute… All depends upon the plan.” (Pg. 465-466) Later, he adds, “While we concede, that man has a brute ancestry, we make two claims by way of qualification and explanation: first, that the laws or organic development which have been followed in man’s origin are only the methods of God and proofs of his creatorship; secondly, that man, when he appears upon the scene, is no longer brute, but a self-conscious and self-determining being, made in the image of his Creator and capable of free moral decision between good and evil.” (Pg. 472)
In answer to the question, “How could a holy being [e.g. Adam] fall?” he argues, “We must acknowledge that we cannot understand how the first unholy emotion could have found lodgement in a mind that was set supremely upon God, nor how temptation could have overcome a soul in which there were no unholy propensities to which it could appeal… Satan’s fall, moreover, since it must have been uncaused by temptation from without, is more difficult to explain than Adam’s fall.” (Pg. 585) He suggests, “Once allow that the race was one in its first ancestor and fell in him, and light is thrown on a problem otherwise insoluble---the problem of our accountability for a sinful nature which we have not personally and consciously originated.” (Pg. 624)
He notes, “The objection that death existed in the animal creation before the Fall may be answered by saying that, but for the fact of man’s sin, it would not have existed. We may believe that God arranged even the geologic history to correspond with the foreseen fact of human apostasy (cf. Rom 8:20-23---where the creation is said to have been made subject to vanity by reasons of man’s sin).” (Pg. 658)
Of the salvation of infants, he explains, “Infants are in a state of sin, need to be regenerated, and can be saved only through Christ… Yet as compared with those who have personally transgressed, they are recognized as possessed of a relative innocence, and of a submissiveness and truthfulness, which may serve to illustrate the graces of Christian character… For this reason, they are the objects of special divine compassion and care, and through the grace of Christ are certain of salvation.” (Pg. 661)
But later, he also opposes infant baptism: “The evil effects of infant baptism are a strong argument against it: First, in forestalling the voluntary act of the child baptized, and thus practically preventing his personal obedience to Christ’s commands… Secondly, in inducing superstitious confidence in an outward rite as possessed of regenerating efficacy… Fifthly, in putting into the place of Christ’s command a commandment of man, and so admitting the essential principle of all heresy, schism, and false religion.” (Pg. 957-958)
He states, “Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the ordinance was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover, there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper which necessitates the Romanist use of the wafer. Although the wine which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary fermented juice of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape…” (Pg. 960)
He suggests “a possible way of reconciling the premillenarian and the postmillenarian theories, without sacrificing any of the truth in either of them: Christ may come again, at the beginning of the millennium, in a spiritual way, and his saints may reign with him spiritually, in the wonderful advances of his kingdom; while the visible, literal coming may take place at the end of the thousand years… Until we know whether the preaching of the gospel in the whole world (Mt 24:14) is to be a preaching to nations as a whole, or to each individual in each nation, we cannot determine whether the millennium has already begun, or whether it is yet far in the future.” (Pg. 1014)
This is a very important and influential work, that will be of great interest to those seriously studying theology.
[NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 1166-page hardcover edition.]
Augustus Hopkins Strong (1836-1921; he is NOT related to James Strong, creator of the Exhaustive Concordance) was a Baptist minister and theologian who was president of Rochester Theological Seminary. He wrote in the Preface to this 1906 book, “That Christ is the one and only revealer of God, in nature, in humanity, in history, in science, in Scripture, is in my judgment the key to theology. This view implies a monistic and idealistic conception of the world, together with an evolutionary idea as to its origin and progress…. Neither the evolution nor the higher criticism has any terrors to one who regards them as parts of Christ’s creating and educating process… Philosophy and science are good servants of Christ, but they are poor guides when they rule out the Son of God… Here is my test of orthodoxy: Do we pray to Jesus?... Is he our living Lord, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent? Is he divine only in the sense in which we are divine[?]… The present volume, in its treatment of Ethical Monism, Inspiration, the Attributes of God, and the Trinity, contains an antidote to most of the false doctrine which now threatens the safety of the church. I desire especially to call attention to the section on Perfection… Love must have a norm or standard, and this … can be found only in Holiness… I make no apology for the homiletical element in my book. To be either true or useful, theology must have a passion.”
He states, “Faith… and only faith can furnish, fit and sufficient material for a scientific theology. As an operation of man’s higher rational nature, though distinct from ocular vision or of reasoning, faith is not only a kind, but the highest kind, of knowing. It gives us understanding of realities which to sense alone are inaccessible, namely, God’s existence, and some at least of the relations between God and his creation.” (Pg. 4)
He asserts, “the intuition of an Absolute Reason is (a) the necessary presupposition of all other knowledge, so that we cannot know anything else to exist except by assuming first of all that God exists; (b) the necessar4y basis of all logical thought, so that we cannot put confidence n any one of our reasoning processes except by taking for granted that a thinking Deity has constructed our minds ... We cannot PROVE that God is; but we can show that, in order to the existence of any knowledge, thought, reason, conscience, in man, man must ASSUME that God is.” (Pg. 61) Later, he adds, “Although the knowledge of God’s existence if intuitive, it may be explicated and confirmed by arguments drawn from the actual universe and from the abstract ideas of the human mind… These arguments are probable, not demonstrative. For this reason they supplement each other, and constitute a series of evidences which is cumulative in nature.” (Pg. 71)
He explains, “Ethical Monism is that method of thought which holds to a single substance, ground, or principle of being, namely, God, but which also holds to the ethical facts of God’s transcendence as well as his immanence, and of God’s personality as distinct from, and as guaranteeing, the personality of man… While Ethical Monism embraces the one element of truth contained in Pantheism---the truth that God is in all things and that all things are in God---it regards this scientific unity as entirely consistent with the facts of ethics…” (Pg. 105-106)
He states, “The chief proof of inspiration, however, must always be found in the internal characteristics of the Scriptures themselves, as these are disclosed to the sincere inquirer by the Holy Spirit. The testimony of the Holy Spirit combines with the teaching of the Bible to convince the earnest reader that this teaching is as a whole and in all essentials beyond the power of man to communicate, and that it must therefore have been put into permanent and written form by special inspiration of God.” (Pg. 201) Later, he adds, “Inspiration did not guarantee inerrancy in things not essential to the main purpose of the Scriptures… When the unity of the Scripture is fully recognized, the Bible, in spite of imperfections in matters non-essential to its religious purpose, furnishes a safe and sufficient guide to truth and salvation.” (Pg. 215, 218)
He suggests, “science has not yet shown any fairly interpreted passages of Scripture to be untrue. With regard to the antiquity of the race, we may say that owing to differences of reading between the Septuagint and the Hebrew there is room for doubt whether either of the received chronologies has the sanction of inspiration. Although science had made probable the existence of man upon the earth at a period preceding the dates assigned in these chronologies, no statement of inspired Scripture is therefore proved false,” (Pg. 224) He adds, “Even if error in matters of science were found in Scripture, it would not disprove inspiration, since inspiration concerns itself with science only so far as correct scientific view are necessary to morals and religion.” (Pg. 226)
He argues, “The decrees are, like foreknowledge, an act eternal to the divine nature, and are no more inconsistent with free agency than foreknowledge is. Even foreknowledge of events implies that those events are fixed. If this absolute fixity and foreknowledge is not inconsistent with free agency, much less can that which is more remote from man’s action, namely, the hidden cause of this fixity and foreknowledge---God’s decrees---be inconsistent with free agency. If anything be inconsistent with man’s free agency, it must be, not the decrees themselves, but the execution of the decrees in creation and providence.” (Pg. 359-360)
Against the objection that “It is inconsistent with the benevolence of God to create and uphold spirits, who he knows will be and do evil,” he counters, “this is not more inconsistent with God’s benevolence than the creation and preservation of men, whose action God overrules for the furtherance of his purposes, and whose iniquity he finally brings to light and punishes.” (Pg. 461)
He acknowledges, “the Scriptures do not disclose the method of man’s creation. Whether man’s physical system is or is not derived, by natural descent, from the lower animals, the record of creation does not inform us… the forming of man ‘of the dust of the ground’ … does not in itself determine whether the creation of man’s body was mediate or immediate… Evolution does not make the idea of a Creator superfluous, because evolution is only the method of God. It is perfectly consistent with a Scriptural doctrine of creation that man should emerge at the proper time… yet growing out of the brute… All depends upon the plan.” (Pg. 465-466) Later, he adds, “While we concede, that man has a brute ancestry, we make two claims by way of qualification and explanation: first, that the laws or organic development which have been followed in man’s origin are only the methods of God and proofs of his creatorship; secondly, that man, when he appears upon the scene, is no longer brute, but a self-conscious and self-determining being, made in the image of his Creator and capable of free moral decision between good and evil.” (Pg. 472)
In answer to the question, “How could a holy being [e.g. Adam] fall?” he argues, “We must acknowledge that we cannot understand how the first unholy emotion could have found lodgement in a mind that was set supremely upon God, nor how temptation could have overcome a soul in which there were no unholy propensities to which it could appeal… Satan’s fall, moreover, since it must have been uncaused by temptation from without, is more difficult to explain than Adam’s fall.” (Pg. 585) He suggests, “Once allow that the race was one in its first ancestor and fell in him, and light is thrown on a problem otherwise insoluble---the problem of our accountability for a sinful nature which we have not personally and consciously originated.” (Pg. 624)
He notes, “The objection that death existed in the animal creation before the Fall may be answered by saying that, but for the fact of man’s sin, it would not have existed. We may believe that God arranged even the geologic history to correspond with the foreseen fact of human apostasy (cf. Rom 8:20-23---where the creation is said to have been made subject to vanity by reasons of man’s sin).” (Pg. 658)
Of the salvation of infants, he explains, “Infants are in a state of sin, need to be regenerated, and can be saved only through Christ… Yet as compared with those who have personally transgressed, they are recognized as possessed of a relative innocence, and of a submissiveness and truthfulness, which may serve to illustrate the graces of Christian character… For this reason, they are the objects of special divine compassion and care, and through the grace of Christ are certain of salvation.” (Pg. 661)
But later, he also opposes infant baptism: “The evil effects of infant baptism are a strong argument against it: First, in forestalling the voluntary act of the child baptized, and thus practically preventing his personal obedience to Christ’s commands… Secondly, in inducing superstitious confidence in an outward rite as possessed of regenerating efficacy… Fifthly, in putting into the place of Christ’s command a commandment of man, and so admitting the essential principle of all heresy, schism, and false religion.” (Pg. 957-958)
He states, “Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the ordinance was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover, there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper which necessitates the Romanist use of the wafer. Although the wine which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary fermented juice of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape…” (Pg. 960)
He suggests “a possible way of reconciling the premillenarian and the postmillenarian theories, without sacrificing any of the truth in either of them: Christ may come again, at the beginning of the millennium, in a spiritual way, and his saints may reign with him spiritually, in the wonderful advances of his kingdom; while the visible, literal coming may take place at the end of the thousand years… Until we know whether the preaching of the gospel in the whole world (Mt 24:14) is to be a preaching to nations as a whole, or to each individual in each nation, we cannot determine whether the millennium has already begun, or whether it is yet far in the future.” (Pg. 1014)
This is a very important and influential work, that will be of great interest to those seriously studying theology.
April 11, 2020
An epic masterpiece, philosophically and academically written in pedantic language. Written in three volumes with various parts and sections, it outlines profound theological thoughts like the definition, aim and possibility of theology; the existence of God, man's capacity to know God, God's revelation of himself to man; the necessity of theology and its relation to religion; the material of theology: scripture and nature...and rationalism...and mysticism etc.; the method of theology; evidence and arguments for God's existence; soteriology: regeneration, conversion, justification; ecclesiology, ordinances and eschatology among others. It is a staple and rudimentary text for theological training and mastery.
November 15, 2012
Not a fan of his overall theological method... I appreciate the "heart" behind his eclectic approach, but in the end, it made the content suffer ridiculously. Took substantial issues with overall theological method an conclusions (even beyond being a Baptist)... especially his view(s) on creation seemed especially silly to me. That said, this is a standard classic text from an American Baptistic Perspective... Overall all though, even from that tradition, there are more profitable resources out there... Not worth the time I spent in reading it. This is a massive tome and the formatting and printing is laborious.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews