Best protestantism books according to redditors
We found 466 Reddit comments discussing the best protestantism books. We ranked the 241 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 466 Reddit comments discussing the best protestantism books. We ranked the 241 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Hi /u/iwillyes, I'm glad you're here! Let me start by talking a bit about what the Reformed tradition of Christianity is.
The Reformed Tradition is a branch of Protestant Christianity that developed during the Reformation in Switzerland, Scotland, France and the low countries. John Calvin was (and is) the most influential theologian in the Reformed tradition. While we share many similarities with Anglicans, Baptists and Lutherans we are usually seen as a distinct strand. We disagree on the meaning of both Baptism and the Eucharist, for example (in both regards Lutherans are closer to Catholics). Pentecostals and Anabaptist are quite different.
In terms of what makes the Reformed different from other Protestant groups, I love this quote by Cornelius Plantinga:
>>Our accents lie more on the sovereignty of God, on the authority of Scripture, on the need for disciplined holiness in personal Christian life, and finally, on Christianity as a religion of the Kingdom.
That emphasis on the sovereignty of God over all things is in my mind what most clearly distinguishes the reformed tradition. Part of that is understanding God to be sovereign in salvation - what is commonly known as the five points of Calvinism. Basically we believe that because of we are dead in our sin, man is utterly unable to do anything to save himself - even unable to turn to God. It is only through God's grace of drawing us to him that we are able to have the faith that saves us. This means that we contribute nothing to our own salvation - it is entirely a work of God.
In the U.S. there are two main groups of Reformed churches: Presbyterians (the Scottish Reformed) and the Dutch Reformed. Historically Scottish Reformed have put a bit more emphasis on personal piety (the Puritans are part of this group) while the Dutch Reformed have put slightly more emphasis on declaring the Lordship of Christ over all creation. But, we are very, very similar. The Reformed tradition is a deeply confessional one. We hold to historic documents that describe what we understand scripture to teach on a wide range of matters. The Presbyterians hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Dutch Reformed hold to the Three Forms of Unity. While different documents, the two sets of confessions essentially teach the same doctrine.
In terms of churches the large (100k+ members) Presbyterian denominations in the US are the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Presbyterian Chrurch in America. the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and ECO: A Covenant Order of Presbyterians. The PC(USA) is a more "liberal" church while the others are more "conservative" to varying degrees. The two large Dutch Reformed denominations are the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church. There are also many smaller Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. Many of them are part of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council.
What complicates things a bit is that in recent years, many Christians in other traditions have started using "reformed" to mean they have a Calvinistic view of salvation, even if they don't fit into the broader reformed tradition in other ways. You will find a lot of Baptists who have a Calvinistic view of salvation, but not of the sacraments or the church, for example. This sub tends to attract both the more conservative branch of the Reformed tradition as well as those who just have a Calvinistic view of salvation.
In terms of books, my number one recommendation for you is Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition by Jamie Smith. It's a quick easy read best digested in small parts. It does a great job of providing an overview of the Reformed tradition that is accessible, theological, and pastoral. It's aimed at those who have a 'come-to-Calvin' moment from within other theological traditions (Smith was pentecostal), but would benefit everyone.
Also read through some of the Reformed Confessions. The best place to start is with the Heidelberg Catechim and the Belgic Confession. If you want a more modern approach, I'd encourage you to also read the Christian Reformed Church's Contemporary Testimony Our World Belongs To God, too.
Other good "intro" level books:
Once you feel ready for higher level stuff, I recommend:
>What on earth even is a helpmeet? Is it a religious thing?
Is a fundamentalist thing, usually Baptist, usually part of the "quiver full" movement, and almost always involved in homeschooling. The Duggar from the show 19 Kids and Counting are involved in it.
http://nogreaterjoy.org/blogs/createdtobehishelpmeet/
These people also be a book about raising children, whose methods have been linked to the deaths of least three children.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pearl#Controversy_over_To_Train_Up_a_Child
My ex wife and her family started to go down this path (and have continued to since our divorce). Thankfully I was able to get full custody of our children.
There's a great book written by a woman and her husband who escaped that lifestyle, if you are interested. It is very much a cult, and creepy as hell. I highly recommend this book, if you know anyone in that lifestyle or are curious about things like that.
I Fired God: My Life Inside---and Escape from---the Secret World of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Cult https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250026261/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_vIYvzbTX1XKD6
You can also look at the BCP online to get a feel for the service if you’re nervous about heading to a new church (I get nervous and like to scope out the BCP and also their website).
If you want to read more about the Episcopal Church, I would recommend Walk in Love
If you are an American, then I'd say Thomas McKenzie's Anglican Way. Certainly pushed me closer to Anglicanism.
​
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JHQOA8Q/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Some yes, some no. People tend to teach their own opinion and doctrines rather than the actual teachings of Jesus. If you want a book that will rock your world in this area, "What's Wrong with Protestant Theology" by Dr. Ruthven from Regent Seminary fits the bill. The bottom-line summary is that the central teaching of Scripture is that each one of us should know God personally and walk with Him in a real relationship. Unfortunately, denominations, churches, and theologies tend to give principals and rules rather than equip the average believer to actually walk with and know God.
https://www.amazon.com/Protestant-Theology-Tradition-Biblical-Emphasis/dp/098195264X/
Nice try, Wayne Grudem.
I kid, I kid. Seriously though, I've not read Wayne Grudem. Back in seminary, however, I took Theological Overview under J.I. Packer and the texts for his class were:
Millard Erickson's "robustly evangelical, gently Calvinistic", Christian Theology
& Louis Berkof's 'strongly Reformational', Systematic Theology
___
Those were the weightier academic requirements. Also on the reading list were two volumes for the general reader:
Bruce Milne's helpful survey of Christian theology, Know the Truth
& J.I. Packer's own commendable, Concise Theology
Excellent resources all.
I'm Episcopalian, which is the American branch of the Anglican Communion. Some people blame our ordination of an openly gay (that is, in a same-sex relationship) bishop in 2003 for the current troubles in the entire Anglican Communion. Some churches interpret 2003 as the moment the Episcopal Church "broke off" from the Communion and ceased to be Anglican! (For example, a popular book on Amazon, "The Anglican Way," makes this argument). The Diocese of South Carolina is in the process of leaving The Episcopal Church. A new Anglican denomination, the Anglican Church of North America, appeared in response to 2003. During Rowan Williams' term as Archbishop of Canterbury he spent a lot of energy (God bless him) trying to keep some African Anglicans from leaving the Communion.
In the meantime, we've approved some (trial?) ceremonial liturgies for same-sex couples (I'm fuzzy on the details) that are not considered a full-fledged marriage: so far, our official 1979 Book of Common Prayer still uses the language of "this man... this woman" in its Marriage ceremony.
But nonetheless, Episcopalians are considered part of an open and affirming denomination. My own parish flies the rainbow flag, and its previous priest was openly gay. The parish on the other side of my town has a married lesbian (2 kids) as its current rector (I've had dinner with her family.) I'd like to think of us a place of refuge for LGBT Christians who have been hurt.
At the same time, as a church it's not enough to pat ourselves on the back for having the "right" opinion and then do nothing. We must not just accept our LGBT members, but to nourish their life in Christ so that they can "perfectly love... and worthily magnify" (Collect for Purity) the holy Name of the Lord. A life of discipleship is the ultimate defense against a world that is suspicious of the validity of LGBT identity, because no offense can overcome the Lord, our "strength and shield." (Psalm 28.7)
If you could somehow teleport yourself to my church I would love to make you at home.
Here's a resource that may help you http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/documents/ToSetOurHope_eng.pdf
Well there was a correspondence between the ecumenical patriarch and the lutherans. Basically, they essentially agreed on principles of ecclesiology, but disagreed on a lot of doctrine regarding faith, salvation, and sacraments.
I would recommend picking up a book like Berkhof's Systematic Theology or Bavinck's The Doctrine of God. These will be more challenging, dense readings, but they will help with understanding the formulation of Trinity and the implications.
Also, picking up a church history book about the 3rd and 4th centuries and the Trinitarian debates then could be beneficial to see how the church has sharpened its understanding on this in response to wrong teaching.
Has anyone read I Fired God? After reading it I wanted to find out more about the IFB so I did some digging online and was not happy about what I found. It seems like an awful church to belong to if you're a woman or a child and their track record with rape victims is horrifying.
Start here:
Read this:
Also see:
It varies from denomination to denomination and even from congregation to congregation, but generally speaking, it's either solely grape juice or juice and wine served separately.
The reasons aren't so much theological as practical. Some US Protestant denominations began with a strong emphasis on holiness, which expressed itself as an opposition to drinking, dancing, smoking, etc. Others were leaders in the abstinence movement, which means (to overgeneralize a bit) that they were opposed to drinking on not just moral grounds, but on class and sectarian lines.
These days, there's some cultural residue: it's just become tradition to use juice rather than wine. And many places worry about alcoholics taking wine accidentally or feeling like they can't take communion without breaking their sobriety pledges.
Source: I'm a pastor. Whose congregants drank shitty shitty communion wine.
Edit: This is interesting. Wondered when Baptists (and others) turned from wine to juice. Turns out it wasn't until the 19th century, in response to the temperance movement. Source 1, Source 2. Even more interesting: Thomas Welch was a Wesleyan minister who was so opposed to serving wine in church that he invented a method of pasteurizing grape juice to offer in its place.
Real-talk here, not looking for a debate, just sharing my heart.
My biggest objection to Reformed theology is its handling of most things related to experiencing God. A plain and simple reading of the Bible leaves you with the conclusion that it upholds those who listen to God's voice, respond by obedience, and experience His miraculous power at work in their lives. I mean, almost every single hero of the faith is commended for this - they heard God's voice and responded by obedience in the face of suffering and doubt.
The problem I have with Reformed thought is that it bristles at terms like "experience", "hearing God's voice", and "miraculous power". The problem is even more pronounced when Scripture seems to indicate that "knowing God" is closely related with hearing His voice spoken in your heart and experiencing His miraculous power at work in your life.
If we're not careful, we can nullify the clear teachings of Scripture through a variety of fancy terms and extrabiblical concepts like "special revelation" and "descriptive, not prescriptive" and "that has ceased upon the closing of the Canon" while missing the very heart of the Bible, which is a personal relationship with God.
This problem is articulated perfectly in the book "What's Wrong with Protestant Theology" by Dr. Ruthven from Regent. A masterpiece that greatly helped me get back to a "walk of faith" with God.
https://www.amazon.com/Protestant-Theology-Tradition-Biblical-Emphasis/dp/098195264X/
Why do I keep coming back? You guys are one of the only groups that is basically committed to Sola Scriptura.
As someone else mentioned, start a study into Theology with an introductory text in Hermeneutics. This where so many people go wrong and misinterpret the text, drawing false and erroneous conclusions. The way you interpret the text will determine what you draw out of it.
Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation was the first Hermeneutics text I worked through, and I highly recommend it. It's highly unbiased, and the end of each chapter is packed with problems to think through.
Once you're done there, if you have access to iTunes University or the [Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS)](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details id=com.subsplash.thechurchapp.reformedtheologicalseminary2&hl=en_US&referrer=utm_source%3Dgoogle%26utm_medium%3Dorganic%26utm_term%3Drts+mobile+app&pcampaignid=APPU_1_vSLpW7CiCMbCzwL3vK-wDw) app for Android, find Robert Cara's lectures in Advanced Biblical Exegesis under "Old and New Testament" and listen to them (they're free).
When you get to looking at a Systematic Theology to work through, I recommend staying away from Wayne Grudem. He's really popular among Evangelicals, but I'm personally not a fan of him. There's better Systematic Theologies out there. I highly recommend Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology or Classic Christianity by Thomas Oden.
There was actually significant dialogue between the early Lutheran reformers and the Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople. The Lutherans sent a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession and asked the Orthodox to, essentially, proof read it, as they believed that the Orthodox had maintained the Christian faith as set forth by the Apostles and would match quite nicely with the Lutheran beliefs. This book contains the letters and responses translated into English, and it's a really interesting read. You used to be able to find the letters translated online, but I can't find them for the life of me.
If you are looking for an alternative view of covenant theology found among many reformed baptists, check out [The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Distinctiveness-Baptist-Covenant-Theology/dp/1599253259)
Most noted covenant theologians will end up being Presbyterian or Lutheran, but I find the 1689 LBCF covenant theology view to be the most Biblical. Also, growing up dispensational, I bet you are a baptists. Great alternative to dispensational baptist view of scripture.
EDIT: great website to get you started is [1689 Federalism] (http://www.1689federalism.com/). Feel free to ask me any questions! This is a topic I really enjoy and have been studying regularly for a couple of years now
Currently reading:
The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology and it is very enlightening. I believe I fall in the 1689 Federalism camp, though I have not read much of NCT...
Oooh it's my lucky day! My thesis is on the peace process, so I've accumulated a pretty big bibliography as I've gone along; I'll give you some good references to get you started below. It's a really fascinating moment in time to study. Just out of my own curiosity -- what has piqued your interest in looking at the IRA in particular in relation to the Good Friday Agreement?
Please note, in flagrant disregard of your specifications (I'm sorry!), these are all books:
Bryan, Dominic. Orange Parades: The Politics of Ritual, Tradition and Control.
de Bréadún, Deaglán. The Far Side of Revenge: Making Peace in Northern Ireland. 2nd edition. Cork: The Collins Press, 2008.
Gallaher, Carolyn. After the Peace: Loyalist Paramilitaries in Post-Accord Northern Ireland. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007.
Gilligan, Chris and Jonathan Tonge. Peace and War? Understanding the Peace Process in Northern Ireland. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997.
Jarman, Neal. Material Conflicts: Parades and Visual Displays in Northern Ireland. Oxford: Berg, 1997.
McKay, Susan. Northern Protestants: An Unsettled People. Belfast: Blackstaff Press, 2000.
McKittrick, David and David McVea. Making Sense of the Troubles: A History of the Northern Ireland Conflict. London: Penguin, 2001.
McAuley, James W. and Graham Spencer. Ulster Loyalism after the Good Friday Agreement : History, Identity and Change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
McLaughlin, Greg and Stephen Baker. The Propaganda of Peace: The Role of Media and Culture in the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Bristol: Intellect, 2010.
Patterson, Henry and Eric Kauffman. Unionism and Orangeism in Northern Ireland since 1945: The Decline of the Loyal Family. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007.
Rowan, Brian. Behind the Lines: The Story of the IRA and Loyalist Ceasefires. Belfast: Blackstaff Press, 1995.
This is a long reply but I do hope you read all of it:
I am convinced that Roman Catholics are far too optimistic about reconciliation (believing it is just a few discussions away), and Eastern Orthodox Christians are far too pessimistic (believing it could never happen).
I am absolutely convinced that natural compromise is impossible. The Orthodox cannot accept Papal infallibility or supremacy (correctly I think; see my flair). More importantly, the Orthodox cannot accept the Filioque, and in addition to that all of the doctrine/thinking leading up to and surrounding the Filioque. The Filioque (and all surrounding doctrine) really is the thing that has been and will be the greatest impediment to reconciliation. If you are interested in reading just how seriously the Orthodox take it, I recommend two books: The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit and Augsburg and Constantinople.
The former work is St. Photius yelling at some unfortunate recipient about the Orthodox view of the Filioque (do not expect a charitable attitude, unfortunately). The latter work is a verbatim, chronological compilation of letters between some early Lutherans seeking communion with the East, and the then-contemporary Patriarch of Constantinople. Interestingly, the greatest source of debate between the two is the Lutheran acceptance of and support for the Filioque. I initially thought that it would boil down to the sacraments or saints, but no, it devolved into the same basic argument the Christian East has had with the Christian West for centuries, with some Protestant flavor. The latter work contains an actual back-and-forth debate on the matter, whereas the former work, being a single letter, is wholly one-sided. If you're wondering how the Lutheran arguments for the Filioque are relevant to the Roman Catholic arguments for the same, know that the Lutherans essentially copied and pasted Roman Catholic arguments into their letters, so the Patriarch is not really answering Lutheran arguments at that point, but Roman Catholic arguments with Protestant support.
I do think reading the former work is critical to fully understanding the language used in the latter, though I again warn that any Roman Catholic reader will find the former work condescending at least. Even I, while agreeing with St. Photius' points, wondered why it was necessary to take the tone he does. Regardless, if you read both works (the first is very short, the second is very much not), you will have a full appreciation for just how impossible the situation is, on either side. I really want to throw both books at anyone who asks "what's preventing reconciliation?" Even if one does not find the Orthodox arguments convincing, the question will be answered in full.
So again, I am convinced that no amount of dialogue will heal the Schism. I am also, however, most absolutely convinced that Christ desires the healing of the rift (why would He not?), and that as Christ is not a liar, all things are possible through Him. It really is not the responsibility of the laity to work out reconciliation, and attempts at doing so almost always result in behavior that should be brought to confession. We can, however, pray. Christ is not a liar, and says that if two or more are gathered in His name, what they ask will happen. What would happen if not just two or three came together, but rather all the laity on both sides of this painful situation cried out to God for intervention?
I mean, we could go line by line if I had time, but sure, here's some rapid fire answers to you:
3. Read—find the books that have been written by the generals of God’s army—those who truly do the stuff. There is a great storehouse of information for those willing to pursue. Don’t forget the leaders of the great healing revival of the 1950s. God’s Generals, by Roberts Liardon, is a great place to start. If you’re afraid of reading about those who later fell into sin and deception (some of these people ended in disaster), stay away from Gideon, Samson, Solomon’s Proverbs, and the Song of Solomon. The author of those books also ended in tragedy. We must learn to eat the meat and throw out the bones.
Johnson, Bill. When Heaven Invades Earth Expanded Edition: A Practical Guide to a Life of Miracles (p. 4). Destiny Image, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
His argument is that just because someone sinned doesn't mean their works are useless. If they fell into sin, listen to what they wrote but don't imitate their life. What a horrible misquote.
And I could keep going on, but this is frustrating how ill informed and slanderous this nonsense is.
​
Walk in Love: Episcopal Beliefs and Practices is a great place to start.
A while back I actually asked if anyone knew of any books on this dialogue, and a redditer suggested this book. I'm just now getting around to reading it, but I'm really enjoying it so far, and would suggest it to anyone interested on the topic.
I hold to 1689. Came from hardcore dispensationalism (like, I've learned about the red heifer while in Israel), became convinced that there was no such thing as a rapture so I must be Historic Premill. From there, continued to study- I read Continuity and Discontinuity, landed in NCT and then sort of kept developing, then read From the Finger of God and was convinced of threefold division of the law (I had previously been convinced of the 3-covenant structure of Covenant Theology, but leaned Westminster because those were the only guys talking Covenant). Came across The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, and it seemed more Biblical. So here we are.
I recommend Chosen by God or What is Reformed Theology?, both by RC Sproul.
Something that might be useful to keep in mind is that Calvin did not write down the five points typically attributed to him. Instead, the Arminians challenged the traditional Reformed theology, and were refuted at Dordt with these five points. (You can read the Canons of Dordt at www.reformed.org under "Historic Documents").
The reason I point this out is that these 5 points do not stand on their own really. They start to make a lot more sense when you keep them in the context of the rest of reformed theology (e.g., the idea of the covenant, and the means of grace).
As far as Limited Atonement, the idea is that Christ's death actually accomplished our redemption, not just made it possible. It's also called "particular redemption". It's really a question of efficacy and intent, though - Dordt taught that Christ's death "is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world" but that "it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father."
I think I've heard more than one systematic theologian define it as the effort to make Christian doctrine comprehensible to a contemporary audience. That definition may be technically a good one, but I think it's also potentially misleading. It makes it sound as though systematic theology is almost a form of evangelism, where theologians try to address their audience's "felt needs." That's not a good description.
If you actually read a work of systematic theology, such these by Wayne Grudem or Louis Berkhof, you'll see that they are a topic-by-topic explanation of what, in the view of the author, Christianity teaches. Conventionally they begin with "theology proper", which is the study of God himself: the doctrine of the Trinity, God's perfection, His omniscience, omnipotence, etc. They'll cover things like the nature of revelation, creation, the fall, salvation, and so on. Usually it's not just the author sharing his thoughts. He's interacting with and responding to the work of his contemporaries and to concerns that contemporary people have with respect to Christian doctrines.
I don't really know, i'm from Dublin :)
I read this book and it gave me quite an insight, though they talk to less hardcore people. The others seem more apathetic about it.
https://www.amazon.com/Northern-Protestants-Unsettled-Susan-McKay/dp/0856407712
I think in the past there definitely was more when Ireland really was a catholic backwater. Now ROI is more cosmopolitan, less catholic and wealthier I think it's changed, but follow some made guys on twitter and you'll see people really talking shit about the south.
Calvin is a great place to end up! If you want a good quick primer then read Welcome to a Reformed Church. It is pretty good instant primer on Reformed Thought. For a slightly more nuanced book, go with R.C. Sproul's What is Reformed Theology.
>what were your sources for your reply?
I've spent over four decades reading, researching, etc. I know some stuff about other religions too but naturally focused on Judaism and Xianity.
There are a couple specific things, I guess.
https://www.amazon.com/Homeric-Epics-Gospel-Mark/dp/0300172613 Richard Carrier's review: https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html
This site isn't too bad http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm
This guy http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/sanhedrin.html covers it pretty well. It is instructive to search out and read Jewish commentary on Mark. Devastating. It's no wonder Xianity spread much quicker among gentiles than among Jews - they would have seen that whole Sanhedrin story arc as completely bogus, obvious fiction.
I would start here. Reformed theology teaches that regeneration PRECEDES faith. We can't come to God unless He regenerates our heart.
The view he holds might be semipelagianism, but probably not
I would encourage you to be loving towards your grandpa, rather than try to shove doctrine down his throat to prove he's wrong/you're right.
Since you're new to to Reformed Theology, I'd recommend Letters to a Young Calvinist.
(From my Baptist perspective)
I found this to be a great book to start with: https://www.amazon.ca/Covenant-Theology-Reformed-Baptist-Primer-ebook/dp/B00P72UWWM
This video and their others were quite good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lKe2VopL9k
Which James White? I hear good things about Dr. James Emery White, though I have never read any of his works.
This James White is a different story. He's not really a "doctor", all his doctoral degrees come from an unaccredited institution. I haven't interacted with his work too much, mostly because he comes across as a bit arrogant and confrontational in the works I have read. His apologetic work often strikes me as disingenuous, uncharitable, and often pseudo-historical towards those he is arguing against, especially Roman Catholics.
I do have quite a few books I would recommend:
First, I would read the following:
The Heidelberg Catechism, The Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort
These are collectively referred to as the "Three Forms of Unity", and are the baseline documents for continental Reformed (Calvinist) churches. In addition, I recommend the following:
Good Introductions
Letters to a Young Calvinist by James K.A. Smith
Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport by Richard J. Mouw
What is Reformed Theology? by R.C. Sproul
A Little Book on the Christian Life by John Calvin
Digging Deeper
Pilgrim Theology by Michael Horton
The Christian Faith by Michael Horton
The Institutes of the Christian Religion in the 1536, 1541, or 1559 editions by John Calvin. Also available online here
Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Bavinck
Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof
As well anything by the following authors:
Modern: R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, James K.A. Smith, Cornelius Plantinga, Alvin Plantinga, John Piper, and Tim Keller.
1800s & 1900s: J. Gresham Machen, Herman Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper, G.C. Berkouwer, and B.B. Warfield
Pre-1800s: Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and John Knox
Somebody else already suggested r/Reformed, but I'll suggest a couple of less known subs. There's r/ReformedBaptist and r/1689Federalism. They're both low traffic subs, and the latter has just recently started, but there's still some good info to look into there.
Right now is a pretty exciting time for Baptists due to the "rediscovery" of our Reformed/ Calvinist roots. It's difficult to find Baptist scholarship of this caliber, but some names to look for include Richard Barcellos, James Renihan, and Pascal Denault. Some historic names to look into are Benjamin Keach, William Kiffin, John Gill, William Gadsby, Charles Spurgeon, A.W. Pink, and James Petigrue Boyce.
One place I'd recommend starting from is some books. Like I said, Baptists haven't written on this stuff in a while, so there are no recent Systematic Theologies that I'm aware of. The closest you'll find is A Body of Doctinal Divinity by John Gill (PDF warning) or Abstract Of Systematic Theology by James Petigru Boyce. If you prefer hard copies, you can probably find them on Amazon.
Next, if you've been studying Reformed Theology, you should be aware that Baptists have their own distinct Covenant Theology that does not lead to Infant Baptism. It's really unfortunate that so many Baptists discover Covenant Theology and throw it away because it leads to Infant Baptism. In our development of Covenant Theology, called 1689 Federalism, we use the idea of the covenants to formulate "Believer's Baptism". There others who reject our 1689 Federalism for what is called New Covenant Theology, which attempts to bridge Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. All of this can be found online at Wikipedia if you want to read more about it. There's also some scholarship available on the topic. The Distinctives of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault is a wonderful book to get started on this subject.
Finally, I encourage you to read the historic Baptist confessions. You can find the 1689 LBCF here. It is based off of the Westminster Confession that the Presbyterians use. It's almost identical, except for a few changes of wording, and it's Congregationalist and Credobaptist affirmations. The Baptists of the 17th Century based their confession on the Westminster Standards to show their unity in Reformed doctrine. Although most Reformed Paedobaptists like to say that we're not "R"eformed, there is very little difference between us in the grand scheme of things, and Baptists holding to the 1689 LBCF and 1646 LBCF are always included in discussions relating to historic Reformed faith.
Here it is in book form. Not sure if it is online somewhere as well.
Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology. Available for ~$10 in paperback and free as an ebook.
"Recently, a group of Finnish scholars has suggested that Luther shares much in common with the Orthodox Church."
That really isn't the impression one gets from reading about the theological exchange between some Lutheran theologians and the Patriarch Jeremiah II that took place in the late 16th century.
What motivated the Lutheran theologians is, I think, the same thing that motivates protestants today to claim some affinity with the churches of the east. But the fact is that Orthodox theology is, for all intents and purposes, Catholic theology. There are a couple of major points of disagreement on doctrine (the "filoque" and the precise role of the papacy) but most differences and disagreements are on matters of discipline (priestly (I do not say "clerical") celibacy, the dating of Easter, etc.)
This book is well worth reading and though it seems one should be able to, I can't find these correspondences for free online anywhere.
http://www.amazon.com/Augsburg-Constantinople-Correspondence-Theologians-Confession/dp/0916586820
Also, maybe it's an honest oversight on the part of OP, but Luther categorically denied the freedom of the human will to choose the good EVEN AFTER conversion and baptism. Something later theologians stepped away from.
http://www.amazon.com/Discourse-Free-Will-Continuum-Impacts/dp/0826477941/ref=pd_sim_b_8
http://www.amazon.com/Bondage-Will-Martin-Luther/dp/1434440656/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368813064&sr=1-1&keywords=on+the+bondage+of+the+will
EDIT: I'm a convert from Lutheranism and had to wade through all these issues for myself not too long ago.
This might help explain why.
>After listening to the Wolfe Tones and Dubliners so much and watching some films like Hunger, Bloody Sunday and In The Name of the Father
Using the above sources (except the Dubliners) to gain a better understanding Irish history and society would be similar to learning about American capitalism by watching Michael Moore documentaries. My point is, these are either emotionally charged or extremely biased sources which is of no benefit to an understanding of history. (Personally, I think using film is generally a bad choice as a method to learn history.)
Some good resources would include:
Dermot Keogh, Twentieth Century Ireland Amazon Link
R.F. Foster, The Oxford History of Ireland Amazon Link (admittedly, many Irish don't like Foster's revisionist approach to Irish history. However, this book is a short and concise edition to Ireland's entire history and provides good context for the 20th century).
Susan McKay, Northern Protestants: An unsettled people Amazon Link
Others mentioned the CAIN website to understand the troubles, and I totally agree. If you are in college at the moment, and have access to academic journal articles, check out Irish Historical Studies. They also have a website.
Finally, check out Newstalk's 'Talking History' podcasts. The presenter is a lecturer in Trinity College, Dublin and his guests are almost always distinct academics on each respective issue. If you look through the back catalog, you will find some great podcasts around twentieth century Irish history.
This is a response by JP Holding on the book making the claims mentioned. I'm no big fan of Holding, but if he's not misrepresenting it, the claim sounds a bit weak.
http://www.amazon.com/Homeric-Epics-Gospel-Mark/dp/0300172613/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323404191&sr=8-1 is the book it's based on.
If you are looking for thoughtful informed dialogue and debate between an informed Mormon and and informed Christian I highly recommend you read How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson.
Book of Concord.
And, because it's an awesome resource to be available, bookofconcord.org.
This is something that does interest me, though right now it sounds more like a scripted presentation that it does a dialogue.
Have you thought about using a format similar to How Wide the Divide in a structured dialogue? The dialogue between not only what one side may believe but also what they believe of the other viewpoint opens up a lot to the conversation.
I would love to see an open dialogue/conversation in the context of intra-mormonism and Mormonism within Secularism and Mormonism vs. Exmormonism as a way to bridge these various groups.
The book I found the first two reviews to be insightful.
a YouTube series from the book
I'm sure you'll get sarcastic remarks about "just read the Bible" (which, as a Reformed Baptist [charismatic] I'd agree with) but I think you're looking for solid theological interactions on the issue. In some ways, I think these are good starter books for not only the issue at hand (baptism) but also how it fits within the larger theological vision of the Christian life and community. Baptism is one of those issues that, for being seemingly simple, reveals a great deal about how one understands the nature of faith, the entire Christian life, and the nature of the Gospel itself. Just taking a guess, but I assume you're approaching it from the sobriety that the issue deserves given your reading thus far, so I commend you for looking for further resources on the topic and continuing to read!
Here are a few that are good starters, and for more reading, I'd look to their bibliographies and footnotes.
Believer's Baptism - This is a good resource. There are a few points here or there where I'd disagree with various articles. I'd want to emphasize different aspects here or there, but especially at points where the covenants (Covenant Theology v. New Covenant Theology) becomes the issue. So, good starter, and the basic presentation of a thoughtful credo-baptist view.
The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology - Taking up that point of covenant theology, this is a very thorough book on how the covenants play within a Reformed Baptist view of baptism. Very good.
Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants
Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Primer
The Confessing Baptist - This is a website and podcast. A good resource for articles and podcasts on various issues related to Reformed Baptists.
If you're looking for one book, I'd go with Believer's Baptism, and supplement with materials available at The Confessing Baptist website. That'll get your versed in the logic of the credo-baptist position, and hopefully provide some good things to mull over.
Hope that helps!
I haven't read it yet, but this is the one that I've seen recommended highly: Calvin https://www.amazon.com/dp/030017084X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_x76LybNRZBTDP
There are not too many big name theologians who hold that view (actually, there aren't too many big name Reformed Baptists).
The best book that I have personally read on the topic is this book by Pascal Denault
This book I have not read, but I have heard really good things about. It's a compilation of different authors like Richard Barcellos, Jim Renihan, James White, Tom Hicks, etc.
Since you mentioned both Calvinism and Orthodox, I have two recommendations if you want to read two books where each of these debated and discussed their differences. That said, I do recommend the more 'basic' suggestions first as this isn't light reading. Not in the sense that these two will be hard to read. Rather they are theologically DENSE.
Lutheranism vs. Calvinism: The Classic Debate at the Colloquy of Montbeliard 1586
Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession
Given for You seems pretty good, but I haven't read it yet.
Richard Muller should have a book that deals with the Reformed view of the Eucharist, I believe it is Calvin and the Reformed Tradition but I could be wrong.
Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!
Here are your smile-ified links:
Christ, Baptism and the Lord's Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for Evangelical Worship
Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
The Lord's Supper as a Means of Grace: More Than a Memory
The Lord's Supper in the Reformed Tradition
What is The Lord's Supper?
---
^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly bot
Fantastic book! If you want a couple other ones that just add to this, check out Dennis R. MacDonald's The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Richard I Pervo's The Mystery of Acts, and Robert M. Price's works such as Deconstructing Jesus, and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. These all add to the conclusion that the gospels (and Acts) are works of fiction, or at best, could go either way...meaning that there is very little (or no) historical truth about Jesus in them.
If you want a good one to add to that, I'd recommend 'northern Protestants- an unsettled people'
Really interesting book.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Northern-Protestants-Unsettled-Susan-McKay/dp/0856407712
Pascal Denault has a good smaller work, but I know there are people at the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies who are currently working on more comprehensive systematic treatments :)
well... At least the Lutherans like the Orthodox and the reformation had nothing to do with us....
Highly recommend this one
Also, is he arguing for hypercalvinism in this exchange?
This book changed my life and my walk with the Lord. Because of this, my "personal relationship" with God is becoming more "personal" and "real".
https://www.amazon.com/Protestant-Theology-Tradition-Biblical-Emphasis/dp/098195264X/
This book has my highest praise.
Here are a couple of resources:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi827OngqLaAhVBoVMKHd6dDEgQtwIIPDAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dp8X8a7DtwUI&usg=AOvVaw3XXUiZlCdnODbctHxPaLbt
https://www.amazon.com/How-Wide-Divide-Evangelical-Conversation/dp/0830819916/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1522893087&sr=1-1&keywords=how+wide+the+divide
https://www.amazon.com/What-Mormons-Believe-Rex-Lee/dp/0875796397/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1522893452&sr=1-1&keywords=what+do+mormons+believe
If you honor your parents and do your best to keep the commandments, they are going to be able to see the difference and light in you. And God will not punish you in any way for respecting their wishes while you live under their roof. Do your best to life as a disciple of Christ and then be baptized once you've turned 18, if they will not change their mind before that.
I'm going speak up for strong language too with this one as I had been published because I did employ the f-strike. Let's not borrow our strong language from the Latter Day Saints. Warning: I am going to say FUCK in this comment and will defend this word because the author behind I Fired God it's a guess she found my roster at some point. She swears as hard as in The Pattern Of Diagnosis. Telling an Italian not to swear is rude to the culture as in telling them to watch their language they're going to be called a 'cazzo.'
I have been in this fight since I was 20 years old; as I had those pulling Fundie Copypasta because I had employed use of the f-bomb. I will message you in private because I had invoked a lot of controversy because the guys on Issue Five of my mag became the embodiment of the House Divided Speech.
My alumni are going to cause a real stir because he had this on his page; Habakkuk 2:2 as the King James Version. Tim blocked me from commenting because I said "fuck" in the comments.
And in this comment I am going to defend this word from other Christians because "fuck" has a history. I will provide my literary journals fifth issue to help you speak out against censorship and let's not hide behind Ephesians to be censorship advocates. Christians trying to speak out against the finger, as I am going to say that's telling the Greeks they don't give a shit about Ancient Greece or Philosophy. As I am about to invite everyone to read up because it's a guess that the Apostle Paul was given this gesture when he did Ephesians as I see young earth creationists with this statement on their facebook page.
>CUSSING, BLASPHEMY, and ABUSE WILL BE BANNED!
I guess he hasn't invoked cram it clownie or make the joke of being my first boy scout troop being the one who instigated the urban legend. Rebuking Hovind and the controversy I invoked when I did it was all for laughs. I have this petition which I started for The Boondocks creator; read the entire thing and look into the information I provided as I am defending the use of strong language. When one seen The Babylon Bee pull off some equally nasty barbs; as Fox News caught wind of them over the TBN barb. When one sees Paul Crouch showing the finger, then you see the barb as even funnier.
If you're a reader, I highly recommend these books:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Wide-Divide-Evangelical-Conversation/dp/0830819916
https://www.amazon.com/Are-Mormons-Christians-Stephen-Robinson/dp/1570084092
Out of curiosity, why do you want modern?
I've been reading Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ recently. It might be the best book on CT from a baptistic perspective out there, though its 300+ years old. Alternatively The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology is excellently done, scholarly and modern. It can be a bit tedious, since it was originally written in French as a master's thesis.
From a presbyterian perspective, I read The Christ of the Covenants and found it excellent and winsome. A number of reformed colleges and seminaries use it as a textbook.
You should be able to get any of those from the Christian Book Nook, or I can lend them to you at church on Sunday if you'd rather save some cash.
This is also interesting and slightly related,
http://www.amazon.com/The-Homeric-Epics-Gospel-Mark/dp/0300172613
Here is the mobile version of your link
I just started reading a book called I Fired God: My Life Inside---and Escape From---the Secret World of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Cult by Jocelyn Zichterman. It was a recommendation from another girl who went to my boarding school. You might find it interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0096QZ4X2/ref=oh_d__o00_details_o00__i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I was hoping to find, essentially, those two books in one hardbound volume. But that is the content I'm looking for. I already had this version of the Book of Concord on my list.
Edit - Actually, given my general distrust of anything officially PC(USA) I might go for this instead.
Yes! I agree 100% with everything you stated!
I think one can see heavy Greek influences in the scripture. Here's a rather amazing book:
https://www.amazon.com/Homeric-Epics-Gospel-Mark/dp/0300172613
Here's a video on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJAcX_K5YA4
You write: "I went though the Christian Bible in its entirety before meeting stoicism. I greatly enjoyed the wisdom in the teachings of Jesus." Yes! So did Thomas Jefferson!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
"Jefferson accomplished a more limited goal in 1804 with The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, the predecessor to The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.[7] He described it in a letter to John Adams dated October 13, 1813:
In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines."
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
Enjoy!
> Do you have an alternative hypothesis for the creation of these stories?
They're likely reactions to Jewish suppression and decimation after the Jewish-Roman Wars. There are parallels between the NT Jesus and a few characters in the texts of Josephus - 'the Egyptian', Jesus ben Ananais. See
Theologian Dennis MacDonald has noted distinct parallels between The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
> If he is fictional why is he [Jesus the Christ] not a more heroic character?
He is: he ranks highly on the Rank-Raglan scale.