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

Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19

Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic , so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage: Ephesians 1:17-19 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic , this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defi
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