Systematic Theology (Volume 1 of 3)Strong, Augustus Hopkins
Religion
Systematic Theology (Volume 1 of 3)
Strong, Augustus Hopkins
Baptists -- Doctrines; Theology, Doctrinal
(_a_) The dictum of Empedocles, “Similia similibus percipiuntur,”
must be supplemented by a second dictum, “Similia dissimilibus
percipiuntur.” All things are alike, in being objects. But knowing
is distinguishing, and there must be contrast between objects to
awaken our attention. God knows sin, though it is the antithesis
to his holy being. The ego knows the non-ego. We cannot know even
self, without objectifying it, distinguishing it from its
thoughts, and regarding it as another.
(_b_) _Versus_ Herbert Spencer, First Principles, 79-82—“Knowledge
is recognition and classification.” But we reply that a thing must
first be perceived in order to be recognized or compared with
something else; and this is as true of the first sensation as of
the later and more definite forms of knowledge,—indeed there is no
sensation which does not involve, as its complement, an at least
incipient perception; see Sir William Hamilton, Metaphysics, 351,
352; Porter, Human Intellect, 206.
(_c_) Porter, Human Intellect, 486—“Induction is possible only
upon the assumption that the intellect of man is a reflex of the
divine intellect, or that man is made in the image of God.” Note,
however, that man is made in God’s image, not God in man’s. The
painting is the image of the landscape, not, _vice versa_, the
landscape the image of the painting; for there is much in the
landscape that has nothing corresponding to it in the painting.
Idolatry perversely makes God in the image of man, and so deifies
man’s weakness and impurity. Trinity in God may have no exact
counterpart in man’s present constitution, though it may disclose
to us the goal of man’s future development and the meaning of the
increasing differentiation of man’s powers. Gore, Incarnation,
116—“If anthropomorphism as applied to God is false, yet
theomorphism as applied to man is true; man is made in God’s
image, and his qualities are, not the measure of the divine, but
their counterpart and real expression.” See Murphy, Scientific
Bases, 122; McCosh, in Internat. Rev., 1875:105; Bib. Sac.,
1867:624; Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory, 2:4-8, and Study of
Religion, 1:94.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account