DOCSLIB.ORG

Theological Foundations I Essentials of Christian Doctrine •

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Theological Foundations I Essentials of Christian Doctrine • Theological Foundations I Essentials of Christian Doctrine • instructor’s guide • Theological Foundations I Essentials of Christian Doctrine instructor’s guide Bethlehem College & Seminary 720 13th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 612.455.3420 | 612.338.6901 (fax) [email protected] | bcsmn.edu Copyright © 2016 by Bethlehem College & Seminary All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright © 2007 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. • Theological Foundations I Essentials of Christian Doctrine instructor’s guide Table of Contents Instructor’s Introduction Course Syllabus 1 Lesson 1 Introduction to Systematic Theology 5 Lesson 2 Scripture, the Word of God Written (1) 17 Lesson 3 Scripture, the Word of God Written (2) 35 Lesson 4 The Trinity, One God as Three Persons 55 Lesson 5 God’s Eternal Purpose and Election (1) 77 Lesson 6 God’s Eternal Purpose and Election (2) 103 Lesson 7 God’s Creation of the Universe and Man (1) 127 Lesson 8 God’s Creation of the Universe and Man (2) 147 Lesson 9 Man’s Sin and Fall from Fellowship with God 167 Lesson 10 Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God (1) 191 Lesson 11 Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God (2) 211 Lesson 12 The Saving Work of Christ 235 Appendix A: Bethlehem College & Seminary Affirmation of Faith Instructor’s Introduction It is our hope and prayer that God would be pleased to use this curriculum for his glory. Thus, the intention of this curriculum is to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ by equipping men, women, and young adults to serve as family, business and community leaders, full-time Christian workers, missionaries, pastors, and teachers. This curriculum is guided by the vision and values of Bethlehem College & Seminary, which are more fully explained at www.bcsmn.org. On our website, you will find the God-centered philosophy that undergirds and motivates everything we do. May God be glorified in us as we are satisfied in him alone! • Course Description The Theological Foundations I course is an attempt to systematically present what the Apostle Paul called “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Students will study biblical topics by examining par-ticular biblical passages, reading through Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, and inspecting Bethlehem’s Affirmation of Faith. The student’s learning will be solidified through class discussion and various homework assignments. This course is the first of two semesters, progressing through roughly the first half of a systematic theology, including the doctrines of Scripture, the Trinity, God’s sovereignty, election, creation, sin, Christology and soteriology. Instructor’s Introduction TN • Objectives This course is designed to accomplish specific objectives. A student successfully completing this course should be able ▷ To magnify the worth of God in a more meaningful and personal way by treasuring him in their heart above all else. We recognize that this, the ultimate objective of the course, is impossible apart from the grace of God in the working of the Holy Spirit, who exalts the risen Lord, Jesus Christ. ▷ To understand the Scriptures more fully as a result of searching them diligently throughout the course. Every lesson will compel the student to read and meditate on the Word. Our desire is to encourage students to be Bereans (cf. Acts 17:11). ▷ To comprehend and thoughtfully interact with Bethlehem’s Affirmation of Faith and Grudem’s Systematic Theology. To this end the student will answer comprehension questions and formulate their own questions. ▷ To discuss and apply the biblical truth that is presented in the curriculum. ▷ To synthesize and summarize what they have learned through the course. This last objective will be accomplished by the completion of the course’s final project. • Implementation As the instructor of this course, it is imperative that you are completely familiar with the curriculum. We therefore recommend that you read this entire section carefully and then skim through the rest of what is contained in this binder. This course is designed to be taught in 12 lessons, ideally in 2 hours of in- class instruction and with approximately 2.5 hours of homework each week. To achieve the kind of undistracted focus and academic rigor that maximizes learning, we recommend that this course be taught as a weeknight class. We anticipate, however, that this curriculum might be adapted for a Sunday school, small group, or discipleship setting. If this is necessary or most appropriate, we urge you to establish an expectation among your students that this course will require more concentration and commitment than a typical Sunday school class would. A tone of serious and earnest study should be set by the instructor before the course even begins. TN Theological Foundations I Before the first class session, you will need to decide when and where this course First Lesson will be offered. Record this information on the syllabus in the box labeled: “Course Information.” You may also want to include your contact information in this box. The schedule incorporated in the syllabus does not have assigned dates. Please write the intended dates for each lesson. Once you have completed filling out the syllabus, photocopy it so that you may distribute one copy to each student enrolled in the course. The Student Workbook does not include a syllabus, so your students will not have a syllabus until you distribute one. Photocopying the syllabus is the only photocopying that is required of you by this curriculum. During the first lesson, we recommend the following outline to structure your time: ▷ Welcome / Prayer (5 min): Greet the students as they arrive. Open the lesson by exalting God in prayer. ▷ Personal Introductions (10 min): Ask each student in the room to introduce themselves briefly by answering the following questions (and answer these questions yourself): What is your name? Can you tell the class a little about yourself? Why are you enrolled in this course and what are you hoping to gain from it? ▷ Syllabus Review (10 min): Distribute your customized course syllabus and then guide the class through it, reading each item and answering any questions that the students might have. ▷ Break (5 min) ▷ Introduction to Systematic Theology (50 min): Guide the class through Lesson 1. After allowing a few minutes for the students to answer each question, pause to discuss their answers. Lesson 1 is the only lesson you will take your students through without their prior preparation. For all subsequent lessons, students will work through the lesson on their own before coming to class. To prepare yourself for this lesson, you should attempt to answer the questions yourself before consulting the suggested answers in the Instructor’s Guide. Reading the first chapter of Grudem’s Systematic Theology and skimming Bethlehem’s Affirmation of Faith would also be beneficial preparation. Instructor’s introduction TN ▷ Overview the Next Lesson / Closing (5 min): Encourage the students to purchase the required textbooks if they don’t have them already. Ensure that they understand what is required of them in preparation for the next class session. Then thank them for coming to the class and dismiss in prayer. The lesson outline for Lesson 1, included in the Teaching Notes, is our suggestion for how the class time should be structured. Although it is not necessary to follow this outline rigidly, nevertheless you should allow adequate time for each component of the lesson. Review the first lesson and its outline thoroughly before you attempt to teach it. Subsequent Lessons As the instructor, you will be expected to do all the preparation for each lesson that is required of the students and more. We strongly recommend that you obtain a Student’s Workbook and attempt to complete the homework on your own before consulting this Instructor’s Guide. The Instructor’s Guide provides our suggested answers. Some questions in this curriculum are open-ended and could be answered in different ways. You may find that the answers contained in this manual may not be the clearest or most accurate answers possible. Therefore, we encourage you to improve upon our answers if you can. It is essential to understand that this Instructor’s Guide is meant to be a resource; the real authority is God’s Word. Furthermore, we have deliberately omitted lesson outlines for Lessons 2-12. Our recommendation is to open the class in prayer and then immediately start to discuss the work the students have done. The discussion could then proceed through each day’s study. We consider it unnecessary to lecture through the material the students will have read in Grudem’s Systematic Theology— discussing student questions on the reading should adequately cover the material. You will notice that the material in each lesson should provide you with much more material than you can cover in two hours of thoughtful interaction. This is not a mistake in design and you should not feel obligated to provide the students with answers for every question. Rather, as the instructor, your responsibility should be to focus on areas where students have questions or interest. You will also notice that the Instructor’s Guide has material that is not included in the Student’s Workbook in the form of Teaching Notes. Consult these notes in your preparations after thoroughly reviewing the lesson. TN Theological Foundations I It is our conviction that the best teachers foster an environment in the classroom Teaching Style which engages students.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Five Points of Calvinism
    • TULIP The Five Points of Calvinism instructor’s guide Bethlehem College & Seminary 720 13th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 612.455.3420 [email protected] | bcsmn.edu Copyright © 2007, 2012, 2017 by Bethlehem College & Seminary All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright © 2007 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. • TULIP The Five Points of Calvinism instructor’s guide Table of Contents Instructor’s Introduction Course Syllabus 1 Introduction from John Piper 3 Lesson 1 Introduction to the Doctrines of Grace 5 Lesson 2 Total Depravity 27 Lesson 3 Irresistible Grace 57 Lesson 4 Limited Atonement 85 Lesson 5 Unconditional Election 115 Lesson 6 Perseverance of the Saints 141 Appendices Appendix A Historical Information 173 Appendix B Testimonies from Church History 175 Appendix C Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism 183 Instructor’s Introduction It is our hope and prayer that God would be pleased to use this curriculum for his glory. Thus, the intention of this curriculum is to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ. This curriculum is guided by the vision and values of Bethlehem College & Seminary which are more fully explained at bcsmn.edu. At the Bethlehem College & Semianry website, you will find the God-centered philosophy that undergirds and motivates everything we do.
    [Show full text]
  • Objections to the Doctrine of Total Depravity
    Biblical Soteriology: An Overview and Defense of the Reformed Doctrines of Salvation by Ra McLaughlin Total Depravity, Part 4 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY 1. The most obvious objection to the doctrine of total depravity is the objection that man is not so sinful that God must condemn him. 2. Another objection to the doctrine of total depravity states that all men can savingly believe and trust the gospel, while a corollary objection asserts that man cannot savingly believe the gospel in and of himself, but that God graciously grants all men (or all men who hear the gospel) this ability, which man must then exercise by his own freewill in order to be saved. Under this second system, not all who have the God- given ability to believe actually exercise this ability in saving faith. Most versions of this view hold that all mankind has received this enabling gift. 3. Some objections to the doctrine of total depravity are based on experience. They insist that experience demonstrates that man may desire to be saved, to do good, and to please God prior to coming to saving faith. If any of these things are true, then total depravity is false. 4.. Most objections to total depravity also insist that a command by God to do something implies that the people of whom the thing is commanded possess a corresponding ability to do the thing commanded. That is, God would not command the impossible. Therefore, since God commands all men to exercise saving belief in the gospel, all men have the ability savingly to believe the gospel (whether from natural or graciously granted ability).
    [Show full text]
  • Total Depravity
    TULIP: A FREE GRACE PERSPECTIVE PART 1: TOTAL DEPRAVITY ANTHONY B. BADGER Associate Professor of Bible and Theology Grace Evangelical School of Theology Lancaster, Pennsylvania I. INTRODUCTION The evolution of doctrine due to continued hybridization has pro- duced a myriad of theological persuasions. The only way to purify our- selves from the possible defects of such “theological genetics” is, first, to recognize that we have them and then, as much as possible, to set them aside and disassociate ourselves from the systems which have come to dominate our thinking. In other words, we should simply strive for truth and an objective understanding of biblical teaching. This series of articles is intended to do just that. We will carefully consider the truth claims of both Calvinists and Arminians and arrive at some conclusions that may not suit either.1 Our purpose here is not to defend a system, but to understand the truth. The conflicting “isms” in this study (Calvinism and Arminianism) are often considered “sacred cows” and, as a result, seem to be solidified and in need of defense. They have become impediments in the search for truth and “barriers to learn- ing.” Perhaps the emphatic dogmatism and defense of the paradoxical views of Calvinism and Arminianism have impeded the theological search for truth much more than we realize. Bauman reflects, I doubt that theology, as God sees it, entails unresolvable paradox. That is another way of saying that any theology that sees it [paradox] or includes it is mistaken. If God does not see theological endeavor as innately or irremediably paradoxical, 1 For this reason the author declines to be called a Calvinist, a moderate Calvinist, an Arminian, an Augustinian, a Thomist, a Pelagian, or a Semi- Pelagian.
    [Show full text]
  • Inerrancy and Church History: Is Inerrancy a Modern Invention?
    MSJ 27/1 (Spring 2016) 75–90 INERRANCY AND CHURCH HISTORY: IS INERRANCY A MODERN INVENTION? Jonathan Moorhead Instructor, The Master’s Academy International, Czech Republic The claim that the church has always believed in the inerrancy of Scripture has been challenged for over a century. In particular, it has been charged that the doc- trine of inerrancy was invented by Princetonian theologians and proto-fundamental- ists. This article will show from primary resources that this claim is without warrant. ***** In 1970, Ernest Sandeen (Macalester College) claimed that nineteenth-century Princeton theologians A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield created the doctrine of iner- rancy to combat the burgeoning threat of liberalism.1 In particular, Sandeen posited that the doctrine of inerrancy in the original autographs “did not exist in either Europe or America prior to its formulation in the last half of the nineteenth century.”2 In 1979, Jack Rogers (Fuller Seminary) and Donald McKim (Dubuque Theological Seminary) wrote, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Ap- proach, which popularized this theory on a broad scale. Over the past forty years, the conclusions of Sandeen, Rogers and McKim have affected how many Christians think about the doctrine of inerrancy. Namely, if the doctrine of inerrancy was not promoted throughout church history, why should the church fight for it now? 1 Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800– 1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Sandeen did not originate this charge. As early as 1893 Philip Schaff claimed, “the theory of a literal inspiration and inerrancy was not held by the Re- formers” (quoted by B.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Calvinism Vs Wesleyan Arminianism
    The Comparison of Calvinism and Wesleyan Arminianism by Carl L. Possehl Membership Class Resource B.S., Upper Iowa University, 1968 M.C.M., Olivet Nazarene University, 1991 Pastor, Plantation Wesleyan Church 10/95 Edition When we start to investigate the difference between Calvinism and Wesleyan Arminianism, the question must be asked: "For Whom Did Christ Die?" Many Christians answer the question with these Scriptures: (Failing, 1978, pp.1-3) JOH 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV) We believe that "whoever" means "any person, and ...that any person can believe, by the assisting Spirit of God." (Failing, 1978, pp.1-3) 1Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, (4) who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (NIV) 2PE 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (NIV) REV 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. (NIV) (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inerrancy of Scripture, Kevin Vanhoozer
    The Inerrancy of Scripture: By Kevin Vanhoozer, Senior Lecturer in Theology and Religious Studies at New College, University of Edinburgh – Republished with permission from Latimer House 131 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7AJ Whereas inspiration concerns the origin of the bible's authority, inerrancy describes its nature. By inerrancy we refer not only to the Bible's being 'without error' but also to its inability to err (we might helpfully illustrate this point by comparing it to the distinction between Jesus' sinlessness or being without sin, on the one hand, and his impeccability or inability to sin on the other). Inerrancy, positively defined, refers to a central and crucial property of the Bible, namely, its utter truthfulness. The basis for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is located both in the nature of God and in the Bible's teaching about itself. First, if God is perfect – all knowing, all wise, all-good – it follows that God speaks the truth. God does not tell lies; God is not ignorant. God's Word is thus free from all error arising either from conscious deceit or unconscious ignorance. Such is the unanimous confession of the Psalmist, the prophets, the Lord Jesus and the apostles. Second, the Bible presents itself as the Word of God written. Thus, in addition to its humanity (which is never denied), the Bible also enjoys the privileges and prerogatives of its status as God's Word. God's Word is thus wholly reliable, a trustworthy guide to reality, a light unto our path. If the biblical and theological basis of the doctrine is so obvious, however, why have some in our day suggested that the inerrancy of the Bible is a relatively recent concept? It is true, as some have suggested that the inerrancy of the Bible is a relatively recent concept? Is it true, as some have argued, that the doctrine of inerrancy was 'invented' in the nineteenth century at Princeton by B B Warfield and Charles Hodge and is therefore a novelty in the history of theology? In answer to this question, it is important to remember that doctrines arise only when there is a need for them.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of the Problem 1
    Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF OPEN THEISM WITH THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY A Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology by Stuart M. Mattfield 29 December 2014 Copyright © 2015 by Stuart M. Mattfield All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with all things, the first-fruits of my praise goes to God: Father, Son and Spirit. I pray this work brings Him glory and honor. To my love and wife, Heidi Ann: You have been my calm, my sanity, my helpful critic, and my biggest support. Thank you and I love you. To my kids: Madison, Samantha, and Nick: Thank you for your patience, your humor, and your love. Thank you to Dr. Kevin King and Dr. Dan Mitchell. I greatly appreciate your mentorship and patience through this process. iii ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this thesis is to show that the doctrine of open theism denies the doctrine of inerrancy. Specifically open theism falsely interprets Scriptural references to God’s Divine omniscience and sovereignty, and conversely ignores the weighty Scriptural references to those two attributes which attribute perfection and completeness in a manner which open theism explicitly denies. While the doctrine of inerrancy has been hotly debated since the Enlightenment, and mostly so through the modern and postmodern eras, it may be argued that there has been a traditional understanding of the Bible’s inerrancy that is drawn from Scripture, and has been held since the early church fathers up to today’s conservative theologians. This view was codified in October, 1978 in the form of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Systematic Theology Ii Theo 0532
    Course Syllabus FALL 2013 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY II THEO 0532 WEDNESDAYS 6:30 – 9:20 PM SEPTEMBER 11 – DECEMBER 6, 2013 INSTRUCTOR: PROF. JAMES BEVERLEY, PhD Telephone number: 416 876 6012 Email: [email protected] Office Hours: I can see students on Wednesday before or after class or during the week when I am at Tyndale. I will be at the seminary Monday-Thursday most weeks during term. Please email to set up an appointment. To reach me by phone use my cell phone number. Leave a message on my cell phone. When sending me an email please put Tyndale in subject line. To access your course materials, go to your Tyndale email account: http://mytyndale.ca. Please note that all official Tyndale correspondence will be sent to your <@MyTyndale.ca e-mail account. For information how to access and forward Tyndale e-mails to your personal account, see http://www.tyndale.ca/it/live-at-edu. I. COURSE DESCRIPTION Continuation of Systematic Theology I. Acquaints students with the elemental building blocks of the Christian faith. The following major doctrines will be considered: Creation and evil, human nature, sin and grace, salvation, church, sacraments, eschatology and approaches to world religions. Special attention will be given to the implications of a Trinitarian theology for Christian faith and witness. Prerequisite: Systematic Theology I (0531) Objectives: I adopt the words used by Victor Shepherd, my colleague in theology. This course “aims at enabling students to see the truth of God in the interconnection of its various aspects, Revised Aug. 26, 2013 1 and to see the truth of God whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Aspects in the Design of Christ's Atonement
    Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2004): 85-98 Two Aspects in the Design of Christ’s Atonement Wayne S. Hansen Associate Professor of Theology Bethel Seminary of the East 1601 N. Limekiln Pike Dresher, Pennsylvania 19025 For well over three and a half centuries Christians have been divided over one aspect of Christ’s atonement. This topic has served to separate believer from believer, often with great animosity. The cleavage is so great that it has divided schools, denominational institutions, mission agencies, and local churches. Ironically, it has been labeled as a “non-essential” by at least one side in the debate. Yet the implications for this topic are significant for one’s approach to the church, evangelism, confidence in the sovereignty of God, and especially, Christology. The topic I am alluding to is limited atonement, to use its more recognized label. Some have preferred the term “definite atonement” or “particular redemption” to emphasize the positive focus of the doctrine and eliminate any suspicion of the value of Christ’s work. But whichever term is used the basic question remains. “Did God intend to save only the elect in the death of Christ or provide salvation for all?” Passionate defenses on each side of the issue have been offered. Frequently, tensions are so strong on this issue that one side does not hear what the other is saying. Each feels justified in her/his view and often refuses to look at the other’s argument. Not a few have stated that both are true and then dismissed the subject without seeing the inconsistency of their logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Depravity
    Here We Stand: Total Depravity INTRODUCTION Ø A brief review of the 5 Sola’s Ø Our objective over our remaining evenings together is to begin unpacking what is called in Reformed Theology, “The doctrines of grace”. We are going to devote one evening per each point to analyze what Scripture teaches concerning the nature of sin and the nature of God’s saving grace. 2 very important qualifiers to this study Ø #1 The division we are about to address within the Reformed church is not a division concerning the essentials of the Christian faith! Ø #2, although these doctrines are not essential to be a Christian, we believe they are essential to ascribe all the glory to God in salvation and that they grant the Christian the truest grounds for comfort and assurance. Arminianism’s First Point Ø “Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him.” Ø In other words, they believe that man possesses the “ability” to respond to the gospel in and of himself. Man is able to comply with the gospel command to “repent and believe” apart from God’s regenerating grace. Ø And here’s the implication… salvation or damnation, ultimately will be dependent on the sinner’s choice. Ø The Synod of Dort’s teaching could be summarized under this counter point… “Total Depravity”. This has also been referred to as Radical Corruption. Erasmus and Luther Ø In 1524 Desiderius Erasmus, a Renaissance humanist and Catholic priest, was considered in his time as the foremost opponent to challenge Martin Luther and his teachings on the nature of saving grace.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of Atonement in the Theology of Jacobus Arminius
    JETS 53/4 (December 2010) 773–85 THE NATURE OF ATONEMENT IN THE THEOLOGY OF JACOBUS ARMINIUS j. matthew pinson* Jacobus Arminius is one of the best known and least studied theologians in the history of Christianity. His writings have been neglected by Calvinists and Arminians alike. Calvinists have disliked him because of his opposition to scholastic predestinarian theology. Most Arminians have neglected him because what little they have read of him reminds them more of Calvinism than they like. Arminius scholar Carl Bangs is correct when he says that most modern treatments of Arminius assume a definition of Arminianism that does not come from Arminius. Bangs states that most interpreters of Arminianism begin with a preconception of what Arminius should be expected to say, then look in his published works, and do not find exactly what they are looking for. They show impatience and disappointment with his Calvinism, and shift the inquiry into some later period when Arminianism turns out to be what they are looking for—a non-Calvinistic, synergistic, and perhaps semi-Pelagian system.1 This is the approach many scholars have taken toward Arminius regard- ing his doctrine of atonement. For example, the Calvinist scholar Robert L. Reymond has said that the Arminian theory of atonement is the governmental theory, which “denies that Christ’s death was intended to pay the penalty for sin.” He claims that the governmental theory’s “germinal teachings are in Arminius.”2 Similarly, well-known Wesleyan-Arminian scholar James K. Grider states: “A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Systematic Theology : a Series of Questions Upon the Lectures
    SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY: A SERIES OF QUESTIONS UPON THE LECTURES DELIVERED TO THE STUDENTS IN PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, BY THE Rev. CHARLES HODGE, D.D. EDITED BY A MEMBER OF THE SENIOR CLASS, AND PRINTED FOR THE USE OF THE STUDENTS. PHILADELPHIA. 1865. Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1865, By Eev. FEEDERICK H. WINES, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. PRINTEn BY ALFRED MARTIEN, PHir.APEI.PHlA. tv Srom i^ &t6targ of (J0equeaf0eb fig ^tm fo t^ feiBrarg of (Princeton C^cofo^icaf ^eminarj? Br PREFACE Dr. Hodge's method of teaching theology to the students in the Theological Seminary at Princeton is by manu- script lectures, which he reads to the successive classes. The questions printed in this volume are his own ques- tions upon his own lectures, and furnish a general but not an exhaustive view of the course of study pursued in his department. They have been arranged for publica- tion, (by authority of the Senior Class,) and appropriate headings added to them, in such a manner as to indicate to the eye the analysis of the subject, by one of the stu- dents, with Dr. Hodge's consent, but without his super- vision or revision. Whatever of defect there may be in the arrangement is due to the compiler. At present Dr. Hodge is engaged in rewriting his entire course of lectures, and has progressed as far as the subject of Original Sin. Up to this point, the questions are upon the new course.
    [Show full text]