Compendium of Christian Theology by William Burt Pope

William Burt Pope wrote an excellent three volume systematic theology from an Arminian perspective. The first two volumes are available on Google books and I recommend them. I really like his view of grace. So few Arminian systematic theologies are available online that it really is amazing this is out there for free. Here's the links:

Volume 1
Volume 2

Here’s a little about him from Wikipedia.

William Burt Pope (1822 – 1903) was an English Christian theologian in the Methodist tradition.Ordained in 1842, Pope became a successful linguist and translator of German anti-rationalist critics. He taught at Didsbury Wesleyan College in Manchester, England from 1867 to 1886. His greatest work, Compendium of Christian Theology (1875-1876), set forth influential arguments for the "holiness doctrine of all Methodist systematic theology" and defended Methodist doctrine against its critics.

God be with you,
Dan

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hi, Dan and Bethyada. Are you sure you are able to access those volumes through Google Books? I can't.
Here are the pdf copies of the books at a Nazarene online library.
Scroll down (or use the search function) until you get to "Pope, William Burt"
http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/indices/index-p-authors.htm
August 11, 2008 at 7:37 AM
Godismyjudge said…
It seems that the full text is available on google books for the 1st and second volumes. The third seems to be only a description, without the text. But link Wesley provided does have the third volume as well. Thanks Wesley!

God be with you,
Dan
August 11, 2008 at 7:54 PM
bethyada said…
wesley wong, I can't even get the text for the first 2 volumes on google books.
August 12, 2008 at 5:37 AM
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
June 25, 2013 at 2:44 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more