(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best evangelism books

Hi there,

Thanks for your reply, but I am not sure I am communicating myself very clearly. Please accept my apologies for this.

I'd like the opportunity to explain what I mean a little better. I hope that is OK.

I think that to faithfully preach a text there are many things to consider.

It is really important that we understand the text as well as we can. We need to understand the text well so we can teach it well.

For example, every book in the Bible was written for a reason, and that reason influences the way the author wrote it. The reason we have the majority of the New Testament was because there were particular issues in that particular church at the particular time. Most of those letters were to correct errors in teaching or behaviour.

If we know what the issues were, then we can understand what they really mean and how they apply to us. For example, an issue might just be to a particular person or people or it might relate specifically to a certain cultural practise in that church at that time. Of course, there might be some universal principles there, but if we don't understand the context we can be sure what they really are.

Do you understand why 1 John was written?

There are many other questions we need to ask of the text. Here are a few for consideration:

• What do certain words mean?
  
• Are there any cultural customs involved that we don't understand? * Are there any terms that are used people don't understand?
  
• What does the original language say (all Bible translations are interpreted to some degree so which nuances are brought out by each?)?
  
• What genre is the text?
  
• Who is the author and how does his personality influence the work?
  
• How does the book relate the the Bible as a whole?
  
• How does the book divide properly and what is each section about? How does each section build the main point of the book?
  
• How does my section relate to the main purpose of the book and how does it relate to the passages around it?
  
• Are there any repeated words in the text?
  
• What theological ideas are there in the text?
  
• What is the main point of the text?
  
• What is the big idea and the big question?
  
• Are there any references or inferences to the OT and why?
  
• What were the original audience supposed to do?
  
  I noticed that you choose 1 John 2:3-6. Why did you choose this unit? I think 1 John is a very tricky book to teach, and one of the issues is that the arguments are cyclical. What I mean is that instead of going:
  
  [--Argument A--][--Argument B--][--Argument C--]
  
  It goes more like:
  
  [--Argument A--][--Argument B--][--Argument C--][--Argument A--][--Argument B--][--Argument C--][--Argument A--][--Argument B--][--Argument C--]
  
  So it is hard to divide the letter into sections to preach. But regardless, I would have probably have gone with 2:3–11, because I think it is more of a complete unit on 'Obeying the Command to Love'.
  
  2:3-6 just doesn't have enough of the argument IMHO.
  
  Then you need to work out how it relates to us today: Your church, your area, your country/culture etc.
  
  I also attempt to write a commentary on the passage and explain what it is.
  
  I use commentaries to help me understand tricky parts better and the whole passage over all.
  
  I use Logos Bible Software and I have quite a few commentaries on each Bible book.
  
  I use a six page exegesis model and I also use the preaching triangle. I don't use this exegesis model, but it would be similar to what I use.
  
  Then I find sermons from really solid preachers who have preached on the passage I am working on. It is good to hear what they have said and it can help influence illustrations etc. Some of the best spots IMHO are Gospel Coalition, St. Helen's, Monergism, All Souls, Desiring God, and The Village, although there are many more excellent places.
  
  Are there any preachers you used to help prepare for your sermon?
  
  So that is some of my approach to exegesis.
  
  What approach do you use for your exegesis?
  
  Then I get into writing my sermon.
  
  When I preach there are a few things I aim to achieve:
  
  

1. Help people understand the main point of the passage, which I intend to be related to the main point of the argument the original author was making for that section.
   
2. Help people understand what is written in the text, verse by verse.
   
3. Illustrate what is written in the text so that people can understand it better and relate to the meaning of the passage better.
   
4. Apply the text for people to go away with something that helps them in their faith.
   
5. I try to have a Christ-centred message, and I try to bring home how the passage relates to the gospel in some way. I will attempt to explicitly preach the gospel, if the text permits, every time I preach because there are normally people who are not Christians present and I want them to believe it and be saved.
   
   In terms of helping my sermons be better, and more applicable to my hearers I have found The Heart is the Target one of the best. I also think Expository Exultation is an excellent book on preaching too.
   
   How did you approach your sermon preparation?
   
   So now maybe I have better explained what I mean and I have explained how I go about things a little. Is your approach similar?

​

4.One of the things that helped me immensely was that I made a close male friend that had also struggled with pornography for many years and had been successful in quitting. Being able to speak with him openly about what had happened and all my failures and sins was so incredibly freeing. Also being able to hear his story as well was an encouragement and a reminder that I'm not the only one who struggles with it, and he was able to pass on wisdom on how he overcame it.

1. A few other things that helped:
   
2. I joined a small accountability group of 3-4 other Christian men who also do struggle or have struggled with pornography. Being able to speak with these other men and encourage as well as hold each other accountable was invaluable. There was no judgement but there was also no making excuses or making light of the sin.
   
3. I'm not sure who your husband associates with but he needs some good strong Christian men he can talk to about this. People he can trust not to cast judgement but who can hold him accountable and encourage him.
   
4. A couple books I read that were very helpful (In order of usefulness:
   
   1. " A Gentle Path through the Twelve Steps" by Patrick Carnes. This book was most helpful and also painful, it was the most useful for finding out the root causes of my desire for porn. It is essentially the same twelve step program for other addictions, but it is more tailored for sexual addiction. It goes into details of how addiction works, how co-addiction affects us and how to break these habits. I could even suggest you to read it as his wife to help you understand the addiction a bit or at least see what he is working through in the book (If I remember correctly the author is Christian)
      
   2. "Fortify: The Fighter's Guide To Overcoming Pornography Addiction" similar to the above book but simplified, also bit more secular if memory serve me correct so make sure to be wise while reading it. It did have some useful tools and information though. It was helpful to me how they suggested journaling when I viewed pornography: When it happened (time/date), what I was feeling at the time, what was I doing that led me to it etc. Also just tracking the hours/days/weeks etc. between slipping up was encouraging that I was seeing progress. This was a good start but I don't know that it's a good resource on it's own.
      
   3. "At the Altar of Sexual Idolatry" by Steve Gallagher. This is one that I have not read much of admittedly, but was highly suggested by some of the men in my accountability group. Unfortunately I cannot comment on it much but it may be worth checking out.
      
5. I might suggest that maybe you read the books along with him and discuss it. It may be difficult and you will have to respect each others boundaries when doing so but it would be helpful for him to know that you are involved and actively wanting to understand and help. They could be helpful for finding out a lot about yourselves and each other that you might not have known before. Though as I said it can and likely will be difficult and painful at times.
   
6. Marriage counseling is wise, especially if he is unwilling to speak with you, seek help from fellow Christian men, or there is not improvement. I cannot stress enough that if this is suggested it MUST be out of love, grace and forgiveness and out of a desire for both of you to improve and grow as a couple. If he feels like he is being attacked or told he isn't good enough or failing etc. then he could feel drawn to pornography more so. Please don't think that I'm saying it's your fault, I absolutely am not trying to place blame on you for any of it but being married our actions certainly do affect our spouse. If you do seek counseling remember this:
   
7. The counselor MUST be a theologically sound Christian male.
   
   1. You don't want some quack of a psychiatrist or counselor to start filling either of your heads with nonsense. There are a lot out there that will so if you have other STRONG Christian couples that you trust that can suggest someone I'd go that route.
      
   2. He must be someone that both you and your husband can agree on. It must be someone you both can trust and confide in and be comfortable sharing difficult truths with. They must also listen to both of you equally and acknowledge your feelings.
      
   3. I do stress that the counselor should be male, especially for dealing with your husbands pornography addiction. Men should counsel men especially in this area.
      
8. You should both also seek wise counsel from other Christian couples in your community. People that you both can trust and who preferably have gone through a similar scenario. Again this must be people that you agree on and can trust, neither of you should feel that the other is going behind the others back to talk with this couple.
   
   ​
   
   I know this is a ton of information and when I started typing I wasn't expecting to write so much but please if you have any questions or if something I said wasn't clear feel free to comment and ask for more info or clarification.
   
   God bless and I will pray for you both!
   
   Part2 (Formatting got screwey sorry)

Delphine, may share an analogy with you?

If you were sick and you didn't know what was wrong with you, you would go to the doctor right? And one of two things would happen: 1) the doctor would figure out what was wrong, or 2) the doctor would not be able to figure out what was wrong. Which situation is better? The first one right? Because then at least you'd have an idea of what was going on and what you might be able to do about it.

I think I can "name your problem" and I want to do so now to help at least bring you a bit of peace (so you know what's going on) and also maybe give you some ideas of what you might need to do. I hope I don't sound pretentious or condescending by saying that, though.

I think what has happened to you, and to all of us, is that we have all become "heretics". We were part of a group that we thought was good, and right, and worthy, and now all of a sudden we don't belong there anymore.

The "orthodox" group claims that they are the ones who decide what is good, and right, and worthy, and we realize that they are corrupt. But because of the mantle of power that they hold, they are sitting in the catbird seat. Because we disagree, they are doing their best to demonize us and disgrace us and banish us.

Being a heretic kind of sucks. When it first happens, your world get turned upside down. For some reason that I don't understand, the universe seems to keep pulling this same trick on me ... making me feel that I've found my special new home, and then I find out that my "family" really isn't who I think they are.

I became a Christian as a teenager, but then realized that many of them don't really care about the teachings of Jesus. I didn't fit, and I didn't understand what was going on until about my 40's ... and then I realized I am a heretic. I have the "wrong beliefs," at least as far as the Churches I'd belonged to were concerned.

I became a UU (Unitarian Universalist) in my 40's. I don't know if you are aware of them, but basically the core idea is that everyone is on their own journey, and that each of the major religions has value. It's practically like you cannot do anything wrong. Garrison Keillor has a joke, "there is nothing sadder than a fallen UU," which is funny because it's basically impossible to be a fallen UU. Guess what? I'm a fallen UU! Long story short (it's actually hard to describe), the minister was involved with a church politics situation that involved the unfair firing of a certain individual (that I didn't even really know), I stood up for them out of principle, which many folks admired at the time but then I kind of was tainted afterward. Oh well, strike two.

I found Daily Kos, and you know the rest. It is simply not the progressive website that we all thought it was, turns out we were all being used to make kos rich and powerful. Which pretty much seems to be the theme of the Democratic Party today. And the Democratic Party is not what we thought it was either, right?

As an experienced heretic, i want to tell you that you will live. It is uncomfortable now, the worst part is the realization that you had been duped for so long and the people you had "loved" were not really the people that you thought they were. It is as if you are banished, and in the old days criminals would rather be executed instead of banished because being banished is scary, and who knows that the "new world" will be and whether or not you will survive.

But because of the actions of MO and the folks who created Kossacks and c99 we have a few islands of safety, and new ones like Liepar's are being created too.

You are doing the right thing, trying to figure out how to survive in this strange new world. You don't owe allegiance to any site, but I want to encourage you to realize that we are friendlies and that keeping in touch is most likely going to be good for your soul. In the end, that is up to you to decide though. Also, many of us are on the same journey as you ... everything feels strange and odd and not quite comfortable. I think those feelings are normal, and that you are not alone with struggling with them.

Anyway, I hope this helps and doesn't seem like TMI. Also, I found a book that I found really interesting and soothing and wonderful to read called Heretics, Mystics & Misfits, turns out you can buy it on Amazon these days: http://www.amazon.com/Heretics-Mystics-Misfits-John-Mabry/dp/0974762318. Basically it's a story of Christians throughout history who found themselves holding "the wrong beliefs" according to the orthodoxy. Most of these people seem like heroes to me, they were the good guys while the orthodoxy was simply the guys who happened to hold power. I think it is a great book, one of my favorites now.

Anyhoo ... I hope this sounds useful or helpful, but if it doesn't feel free to ignore. I wish you the best, and also want to say that I very much enjoyed many of your diaries and posts over at TOP. Good luck.

There's a difficult part in Hosea 2:16-17. Here is the ESV:

> 16 “And in that day, declares the Lord, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’ 17 For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be remembered by name no more.

The idea here is the Hebrew word Baal means husband/master, but was also the name of a pagan god. Thus people who prayed to that name, could claim to be praying to the Lord, because the Lord is their master. It must have made relations smoother with all the Baal worshipers they interacted with, and it would have allowed them to get more wisdom and teachings, because oftentimes the Bible seems so short, and there are so many things it doesn't mention. Yet God rejected this practice and admonished them to not use that name for him anymore.

On the other hand, in Acts 17, Paul comes across one of the altars to "an unknown god" that was common in the Graeco-Roman empire. They used these altars because oftentimes disaster would be associated with worshiping the wrong god and so it was better to hedge if you weren't sure. Paul does not admonish them, but compliments their religiosity:
> Acts 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.

Then Paul proclaims to them the real object of their worship, the Lord:

> 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

> 24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[a] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[b]

>29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Amos Yong is one of the most interesting writers on pluralism in Christianity today. His writing might interest you:

https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Pluralism-Today-Reassessing-Missiological-ebook/dp/B017J89YVQ
https://www.amazon.com/Religious-Pluralism-Commission-Theological-Christian/dp/0981958281
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Impasse-Pneumatological-Theology-Religion/dp/1498204651
https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Poured-Out-Flesh-Pentecostalism-ebook/dp/B005OYUIIG

I find that Christianity is difficult for people to accept who reject the doctrine of original sin / total depravity / brokenness. This is part of why Christianity has made so little progress in Japan. I will be interested in whatever answers you find in your journey.

For me, I see glimpses of my brokenness restored in my new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), yet even as sanctification continues, I don't see how it will ever be complete until Christ comes again and fully restores the New Kingdom. Furthermore I don't see how this new creation would be possible without God's grace.

Yet all of these concepts and words are packed with theological baggage and centuries of western philosophy and culture. Could satori (悟) be another way of saying born again? Could our earthly passions (煩悩) be another way of recognizing original sin? To me the gospel of LOVE and MERCY and GRACE makes this difficult to accept, but might there be a path there for someone else? I sure hope so. Because I want all to come to share in the wondrous gift of salvation. And antagonizing -- instead of attempting to understand and converse with -- other belief structures has caused a lot of historical problems and may not be the most righteous path.

However, my personal conviction is it is still only a path to God. Christ is the destination. After finding him, accepting his grace, and having a personal relationship with him--I believe that is more than enough. At that point the other things seem like distractions and tests, and their merits few.

If you haven't read it already, I highly recommend the book Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. This book has greatly influenced how I think about inerrancy. In the book Al Mohler, Kevin Vanhoozer, Peter Enns, Michael Bird, and John Franke each write an essay about the inerrancy of scripture, interacting specifically with the CSBI statement and three difficult Bible passages. The other four authors then offer a response to each essay. It's a great format to get a feel for relevant issues, and all five authors do a good job presenting their position and critiquing the others (Mohler less than the others, but still good). I tend to agree with Van Hoozer the most of the five, but read it for yourself and tell us what you think.

Personally, I think inerrancy as a theological category has outlived it's usefulness. Anymore "inerrancy" has become a sort of evangelical shibboleth; people affirm "inerrancy" if they want to be viewed as an evangelical and refuse to affirm it if they don't want to be seen as an evangelical. As a result, you get people with substantially identical views of scripture affirming or rejecting inerrancy solely for purposes of mood affiliation. We would be better of discarding the language of inerrancy in favor of saying that the Bible is True, inspired, authoritative, sufficient etc. - the language used in our confessions.

I don't agree with Enns' work on scripture in general, but I do think his analogue about the Word of God is useful. As I see it: Jesus (the incarnate Word) is fully God and fully man. The Bible (the inspired word) is fully God's word and fully man's word. Being fulling God, Jesus never sinned. Being fully God's word, the Bible does not error - it is completely accurate, trustworthy, and True in all that it affirms. Being fulling human, Jesus made mistakes. He stubbed his toe and mispronounced words. Being fully written by man, the Bible is not always scientifically accurate. The mustard seed is not in fact smaller than all other seeds. That doesn't mean that it errs or is not True, just that it is a result of both human and divine authorship.

Put another way, I will embrace inerrancy as VanHoozer defines it:

>authors speak the truth in all things they affirm (when they make affirmations), and will eventually be seen to have spoken truly (when right readers read rightly)

In addition to what /u/tphelan88 said, I would say that evangelism is not primarily about conversion, but about worship. We evangelize not primarily to save people, but primarily to increase true worship of God. Conversion is necessary for someone to truly worship, and so it is a fruit we desire to see from evangelism, but if everyone truly worshipped God, there would be no evangelism. After Christ returns, there will be worship, but no evangelism.

Because we are seeking to increase worship of God, the act of evangelism itself is a form of worship. Thus our evangelism has a fruit, whether or not it leads to conversion. When we preach the gospel to everyone, we know that our work is always bearing fruit, even when it doesnt always bring conversion.

If you are interested in a reformed/calvinistic perspective on evangelism, check out Let the Nations be Glad! by John Piper.

Edit: Also, check out the classic Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer

Here's some novels with some very interesting themes: Timothy Findley's Pilgrim (about a man that cannot die, about the nature of man and, to some extent, divinity and religion), David Adams Richards' The Friends of Meager Fortune (about sin/evil and gossip in the context of a small lumber town), Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum (the nature of truth and the power of text wrapped up in a massive, world-changing conspiracy involving the Knights Templar), George Orwell's 1984 (totalitarianism, language, and politics in general? this was very formative to my grade 7 self), Ayn Rand's Anthem (think of it as the anti-Animal Farm, except even less subtle and Rand is never a very strong writer or [IMO] political thinker, still offers a relevant counter-balance and much more readable than Atlas Shrugged due to this books shorter length and less ambitious scope).

As a theology graduate, I recommend these books on modern Christian thought: Stanley Hauerwas' and William Willimon's Resident Aliens and Where Resident Aliens Live (calls for the Church to view itself as a colony living within the nations of the world -- a big part of the call is for Christians to disentangle themselves from secular politics), Stanley Hauerwas' After Christendom (he calls this a "prequel" to Resident Aliens, it lays a lot of groundwork that Resident Aliens assumes -- Hauerwas is, strictly speaking, an ethical thinker but this book covers topics ranging from the how justice to the language we use, but ends on a note knowing that for all the ground he'll cover, Hauerwas' own thought on these topics is incomplete and is part of an ongoing discussion with other thinkers). Reinhold Neibuhr's The Nature and Destiny of Man (Neibuhr is probably the most influential American ethicist -- his influence is felt wide even if his name isn't credited so often. Last election both Obama and McCain referred to him as their favourite American political thinker, his approach to understanding justice has shaped how American Christianity views politics; Hauerwas [who I have obvious sympathies for] views this influence in a negative light, while simultaneously admitting some level of indebtedness to him; these two volumes are Neibuhr's attempt to consolidate the entire history of philosophy). Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Discipleship (aka The Cost of Discipleship) is an important text to see the roots of discontent with Neibuhr's own political theology and Bonhoeffer offers a very different, very radical version (Bonhoeffer was a student of Neibuhr but found more comfort in the politics of Islam and the black churches of Detroit than Neibuhr; Bonhoeffer tried to organize a peaceful, church based resistance to German's Nazi regime, this book advocates pacifism. The German Church was unwilling to offer any to resistance to the evils of Hitler's regime so he famously was executed after getting involved in a plot to bomb Hitler); Bonhoeffer's book is an interpretation of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and uses the ethics found within to argue that the Lutheran Church had a bad view of God's grace that didn't involve Christian ethics. Of these I'd consider Discipleship and Resident Aliens to be must reads as Discipleship is a pretty traditional book on ethics while Resident Aliens is a call to live by these sorts of ethics (Hauerwas and Willimon are both Bonhoeffer fans).

For some classic texts, I suggest Plato's Republic (I'm a bit of a Platonist in my weaker moments, and Republic is such a comprehensive text; Plato covers everything from the nature of art, education, family, and the soul), St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (some theologians consider this particular epistle to be THE primary Pauline text, a book which provides the tools for the Gentile community to interpret Jewish scriptures truthfully; in the history of European thought Paul's writings in Romans have been important. A lot of Luther's political thought comes from his interpretation of Romans and Luther's political theology has had a lasting impression on the direction of European thought. I suggest the NIV translation [not my favourite but it's pretty accessible while not prone to over simplify some of the grammatical ambiguities of the Koine Greek text]), St. Augustine's Confessions (Augustine's autobiography, it presents his thoughts on the nature of God's love, the human condition, and evil; it's much less dense than City of God which covers his political thought [if you ever soldier through that, I suggest an abridged version]). Of these I'd consider the epistle to the Romans to be essential (it's so short yet pretty dense, as the history of interpretation shows) and Republic (extremely important to the history of political thought).

Also, if you want some good books on spirituality I recommend Khalil Gibran's The Prophet (a poem about his thoughts on various topics: he was a Christian deeply influenced by his Arabic roots and a universalist) and Henri Nouwen's The Return of the Prodigal Son (Nouwen was a Catholic priest who struggled with his vows of celibacy and his need for intimacy, and [as it was later revealed when he died] his homosexuality; this book is an extended commentary on the parable of the prodigal son using Rembrandt's painting of it as a lens through which to understand the themes Nouwen seeks to talk about, it's a deeply personal book). Both are easy reads (The Prophet is easily read in one sitting, The Return of the Prodigal Son easily read in two or three). Nouwen's books have been very important to me as of late in understanding my own spiritual position in relation to my own work and volunteering. He's moved me and given me the resources to understand how I can deal with the pain another shares with me as they seek to understand the pain in their lives.

This is a much longer convo but I believe the relationship between God and humanity from the beginning was one of faith/trust. Humans were designed to trust God’s will and design for things. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not impart a real knowledge but represents humanity choosing to make their own knowledge the center of their lives. They reject God as God when they did that. I should be saying “we” because it is really each of our stories and not just Adam and Eve. The effects of human definitions of “good and evil” or “right and wrong” can be clearly seen through history. As judges says
> In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. - Judges 17:6

So the point is not to receive a “get out of hell free card” because ultimately the same motives which made us reject God’s knowledge of good and evil, all selfish motives, are the same as simply wanting out of trouble for our actions.

Jesus re-establishes faith as the relationship. We must fully and whole heartedly trust in God through Jesus. Jesus dies for us, thereby paying the price of our rebellion. He is raised for us, thereby establishing a new humanity which is eternally in relationship with God. Jesus calls us to “take up our cross and follow him” an ultimately selfless behavior in accordance with his actions.

For me the driving force of evangelism is that Jesus is Lord! He conquered! He reigns! And he did it all not through human means of power (destruction, violence, fear) but through selfless sacrificial love. He turned human power assumptions upside down and also proved God’s goodness to humanity perfectly. He gave reason for us to trust that God is good. Look at the lengths he is willing to go to save his creation from themselves.

The western protestant church has been so obsessed with the penal substitution model of atonement, which has legitimacy but not supremacy, it has created the idea you have that the whole point is to get out of hell. There are so many more facets to the diamond of what Jesus did in his life, ministry, death, and resurrection than just penal substitution. Would be good for you to do some reading on those other facets. A great book on that topic is The Crucifixion by Fleming Rutledge

It isn't a direct study which I conclude this from. I'm drawing my argument from one that Michael Bird, who has written in Christian circles against inerrancy, made comparing the confessions of faith held by different global denominations:

>So the 60 million Anglicans in the global south hold to the Thirty-Nine Articles, with its reference to the “authority” and “sufficiency” of Scripture for salvation, leaving open how Scripture relates to history and science. The 75 million Presbyterians around the world, with major concentrations in Brazil and Korea, hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which affirms the “infallible truth and divine authority” of Scripture. The 2 million members of the Church of Southern India believe that “the Scriptures are the ultimate standard of faith and practice.” The Baptist World Alliance, representing some 41 million Baptists, in their Centenary Congress of 2005 declared that “the divinely inspired Old and New Testament Scriptures have supreme authority as the written Word of God and are fully trustworthy for faith and conduct.”

Source

I feel like you're looking at it the wrong way, you see salvation as a way to get into heaven and you've gotten caught up in the doing things like worship group to validate yourself. I think what you need to do is change your idea of God and salvation. It's not just about going to Heaven, that's just a perk. It's about a Father who created you and loves you. I say the best resource is the Bible. It is about 60% prophecy which most has already been fulfilled. You can look at all these things but each one will have something because it's written by humans and we can't even grasp how great He is. I know you're looking for cold, hard facts but it's faith that will truly show you Him.

I hear this is a good apologetic book though, if you want proof, look up apologetics:

-J. Warner Wallace (part of Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason crew) has a new book out - - Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels - - Its only $3.74 for Kindle on Amazon
( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A71Y7I8?ie=UTF8&camp=213733&creative=393177&creativeASIN=B00A71Y7I8&linkCode=shr&tag=apologetics31-20&utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferf7a2a&utm_medium=twitter )

This is one of my passions, so get ready.

Let's play a game; you pick any passage in 1 Samuel, and I will tell you how it is about Christ.

There are many more ways that the OT is about Jesus than just "messianic" and "allegory." But, I do want to caveat - verses and chapters, though helpful, are largely arbitrary units. I would nuance this to say that every "passage" is about Jesus - every independent literary unit. So no Jesus is not in every word, or every verse, or sometimes not even in every chapter, but he is what every passage is ultimately about.

If you haven't studied them, I would encourage you to consider a few NT passages - how Jesus considers the theme of the OT:

John 5:39-40: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."

Luke 24:25-17: "And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."

Or, maybe more on the nose, take a look at how the NT interprets OT passages that aren't "messianic."

Like Matthew 2:13-15, quoting Hosea 11:1 - in context clearly about Israel and not Jesus. But Matthew seems to think it is! If you read and wrestle with this article, you'll have a great start to understanding how the NT interprets the OT.

Following up on Matthew 2, John 12's use of Isaiah 6, or 1 Corinthians 10's use of much of the Exodus narrative - both use OT passages that are not evidently about Christ but prove to be.

If you're curious, I recommend two books: David Murray's "Jesus on Every Page" is a popular level book, and Sidney Greidanus' "Preaching Christ from the Old Testament" is more academic and will give a christocentric method for interpreting the OT.

I know it sounds unintuitive but start reading the NT in the book of John.

Then I strongly recommend you to read the book Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.

The audiobook form is the best, at least for me.

https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity/dp/B0009NS97E

Try to get into apologetics to assure your faith. Personally I cannot accept anything without some level of framework or logic behind it, I think this will help you a lot in knowing that it's not about blind faith, but there's a real foundation in which your faith is based upon.

A few of these are a bit preacher centered, but here's a few I've found helpful (even if you're not preaching):

• The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament by Edmund Clowney
  
• Preaching Christ in All of Scripture by Edmund Clowney
  
• According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible by Graeme Goldsworthy
  
• Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture: The Application of Biblical Theology to Expository Preaching
  
• An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach by Bruce K. Waltke
  
• New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity & Diversity of Scripture by Brian S. Rosner
  
• Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments by Geerhardus Vos
  
  Specific Themes/Genres:
  
  
• The Prophet and His Message: Reading Old Testament Prophecy Today by Michael J. Williams
  
• Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship by David G. Peterson
  
• Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon by Bryan Chapell
  
  I recommend you start with Clowney. He was the most helpful, IMO.

I don't know why they exist when they suck so much.

I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt (DFW) and the mainstream Christian bookstores (Lifeway, etc.) leave much to be desired. The front of the store is littered with crap, feel good, "follow God and he will hook you up with $$$$ lolz" books while the best, deep and rich in love and thought are shoved in the back of the store collecting dust.

Case in point: I found this 5 volume set of Spurgeon's Sermons in a cardboard box on an empty shelf towards the back of the store about 10 years ago. About a year ago, I wondered if it was still there. It was... covered in freakin' dust.

Insane.

It is just like having the Christian section of a bookstore except more.

I echo that NT Wright stuff is good. If you want something long and deep about the New Testament, check out The Moral Vision of the New Testament by Richard Hays.

You should read Life Together & Discipleship by Bonhoeffer, Prayer by Karl Barth. There are many more I would recommend, but those are great starters.



If you want to get beyond the neo-conservative reformed whatever bubble and learn an overview of the history of Christianity, I'd recommend A History of Christian Thought by Justo Gonzalez. There're 2 other volumes.

> If you could explain how supplying school buses to students is a negative thing, even if it was started due to desegregation, I would appreciate it. I'm not asserting that it isn't, I just fail to see it.

Okay, essentially after the Supreme Court handed down Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 there was a great deal of uproar as school districts found themselves newly unable to segregate schools by race by law or policy; there was a great deal of racist backlash against the implementation of SCOTUS' vision in Brown, i.e. that black and white students receive education in the same classrooms. The backlash took many forms as white school district and elected officials scrambled to find ways to obstruct the courts and maintain de facto segregation. By the late 60s and early 70s, the courts had become exasperated with the lack of progress in ending de facto segregation and began forcing school districts into more systematic schemes to achieve educational integration. Often these schemes involved requiring each individual school in a district to maintain a demographic balance that reflected the racial demographics of the school district as a whole. This resulted in students being assigned to schools on the other side of the district, and they would have to get there by bus. Opposition to busing was two parts. There was upset that white children were being reassigned to geographically closer schools to ones farther away. A great deal of the backlash, however, was whites angry that black students were establishing a presence in schools that were, until then, exclusively white schools. Black parents, on the whole, were pleased to have an opportunity to send their children to qualitatively better schools, and black bused students had better outcomes.

> States rights is NOT a legal justification to Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws are unconstitutional

Yes, because there was a series of federal legislation and judicial decisions through the middle of the last century that overturned previous precident and drumroll took away a state's right to enforce Jim Crow laws.

> I've admitted the areas in which I'm ignorant. I am completely open to other points of views, you have simply failed to provide any.

Look, real talk here. If you're an adult, it's no one's job to educate you. It's your job to educate yourself. And in any event you shouldn't be learning your historical facts from dubious strangers on Reddit, especially not one that is of such moral and social import as race and racism. Watch some documentaries about the Civil Rights movement on Netflix or youtube (ones produced by reputable people). Visit a civil rights museum. Read some books. I recommend reading two books concurrently, one a history of race in America (like this) and the other a collection of source texts (I recommend this one). Knowledge of the past should shape how you understand the present.

I was leading a Disciple class at my church for a while. As well as helping out with the church middle school youth group when I can. I've had to step back a little from helping out as much as I want to. I had hopes of starting a community game night at one point. Hard to put one together when I'm the only one pushing for it.

I've volunteered with cleaning up during the week, taking care of the prayer path last year. I'm always willing to help out what I can.

Here’s a couple of good books you may consider reading beforehand or take along, God bless

Let the Nations Be Glad!: The Supremacy of God in Missions https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801036410/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_3l50CbFZ3KR8C

Cross: Unrivaled Christ, Unstoppable Gospel, Unreached Peoples, Unending Joy https://www.amazon.com/dp/1433686015/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Ni50CbY6XG857

Have you thought about reading any christian theology books? I find reading opposing perspectives and ideas helps to strengthen my own. If I can make a few recommendations...

The Reason for God - Timothy Keller

Jesus Among Other Gods - Ravi Zacharias

The End of Reason - Zacharias

Christian Apologetics - Norman Geisler

Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis

I would highly recommend everyone read Wayne Grudem's "Christian Beliefs". It's an abbreviated version of "Systematic Theology". Very short but concise overview of basic christian beliefs.

I can only recommend christian material as I haven't read a lot of other religious text. Christianity is the most relevant religion where I live, so understanding has been helpful in conversing with the religious folks around me.

>No

Then why bring up your "academic, peer-reviewed paper this is "unquestionable convincing" criteria in the first place?

>To me it would be something that is established as being true to a very high degree of confidence, such that there is no known legitimate basis for even questioning it.

J, you just re-stating your "unquestionable convincing" as "no known legitimate basis for even questioning it"

So let's re-ask those questions you avoided:

1. Is truth established only when there "no known legitimate basis for even questioning it"?
   
   
2. I think your requirement above is quite a stretch; here is a question I asked previously but wasn't addressed; is there anything in the world that there is "no known legitimate basis for even questioning it"? for example Flat earthers, holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, and etc abound. Can you address this, please?
   
   
3. Also, this was asked but not addressed: is your ""no known legitimate basis for even questioning it" criteria requirement your standard for everything and everyone [including yourself] or it just for things you don't like and viewpoints you don't hold? If not can you please present 3 things that are "no known legitimate basis for even questioning it"?
   
   
4. In fact, can you please present any view with "no known legitimate basis for even questioning it" which proves that the criteria is "no known legitimate basis for even questioning it" is the only or best way to know the truth about something?
   
   You should be able to do this since you wouldn't believe something is true without it, would you?
   
   
5. What is "no known legitimate basis for even questioning it"? Please define this as you seem to be making the certainty fallacy, demanding that a level of absolute certainty must be obtained for X before X can believed to be true when in fact there is virtually nothing in the world that is know to be absolute certain. [i.e. it's the double standard fallacy]
   
   In short, I think your reasoning about this is fallacious. But you have the opportunity [again!] to give reasons and arguments that will convince me otherwise. We'll see.
   
   >In a criminal matter you cannot use anonymous texts (which the gospels are) as evidence
   
   Please prove this or that the Gospels are anonymous or that you are not employing a double standard.
   
   >one person's witness statement copying from another (which happened with the gospels) would invalidate that statement
   
   This makes no sense; there are plenty of instances of where someone will cite another. How does this invalidate that statement?
   
   >the gospels contain elements that could not possibly have been witnessed by the author which would invalidate them as eye witness statements.
   
   Please prove this.
   
   Btw, J, if you'd actually read JWW's CCC you'd see he devoted an entire chapter [chapter 11] that addressed all of these.
   
   

Do you know there are christians who trust in God's goodness beyond human-reasoning, and they see miracles.
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Smuggler-Brother-Andrew/dp/0800793013
http://www.amazon.com/John-Lake-Complete-Collection-Teaching/dp/088368568X

And here a man who's adamant about Jesus being real, because he has witnessed Him, His mercy & His grace:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBnC7Ef9Lec

This is not the case, biblically. Christ didn't have to die in order for God to forgive. God forgave freely because God is a forgiving God. Christ had to die to set us free from bondage to sin, death and the devil.

As I said, this justice issue is fundamental. If we can't see eye to eye on that we're just talking past each other. I'll leave you with an article:

http://therebelgod.com/cross_intro.shtml

Blessings

EDIT

And a newly released book I'll be nabbing this month myself:

A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: Addressing Commonly Asked Questions about Christian Nonviolence

Please do not use [Luke 11:21 NRSV] as a proof-text for self defense. It's truly not the intention of the broader narrative. It's easy to pull one or two sentence axioms out of a text and miss the larger intent [Luke 11:14-22 NRSV].

As an Anabaptist Christian, I do not think it's ever within our rights to kill others. If we are to love our enemies, it's hard to do it while shooting at them, beating them, or harming them. I also believe that there's few things more beautiful in life than to lay down your life for a friend or your Christian convictions [martyrdom]. Christ is our moral and ethical exemplar. Tertullian rightly said, "the divine banner and the human banner do not go together, nor the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil. Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword."

A book that I have recommended and many have found helpful is a new(er) collection of essays compiled called "A Faith NOT Worth Fighting For."

Well a resource we used for just real basic "snippets" of theology based on theme is a large book (read: tome) called "The Christian Theology Reader" which was edited by Alister McGrath. The reason I would recommend this book in particular is that it is by topic, it is in small digestible portions per author and also gives some context on the snippet that it pulls out from a given author's full text. The other reason I suggest it is that, like Shakespear, theological reading is something where you need to read enough of it in order to start actually grasping the way language is used. Before you go and get Karl Barth's "Church Dogmatics" it's helpful to have a book like the above to get your toes wet. Also, you may find a theologian in this tome that strikes your fancy from the early church or from the past century you've never heard of and if you like it you can find one of their books for cheap on amazon as well. Here's the link to the recommended book:

https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Theology-Reader-Alister-McGrath/dp/1118874382/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523043307&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Christian+Theology+Reader

Now there is the 4th edition as well which you can buy for cheaper, that's the copy I own. But honestly, with the breadth of information for the beginning reader it is worth the price tag.

Edit: Oh and one more book, it is also a tome, but if you have any interest in the theology of the cross (Not why Jesus had to die but why Jesus had to be crucified) then I'm going to recommend a book that I just got done teaching a class on called "The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ" by Fleming Rutledge. It is, as I said, a tome. But it was one of the more formative books in my own formation than any other single book I've ever read (incoming jokes about "how about the bible?").

https://www.amazon.com/Crucifixion-Understanding-Death-Jesus-Christ/dp/0802875343/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523043804&sr=8-1&keywords=the+crucifixion+fleming+rutledge

Chappell has a good work for preachers.


[Goldsworthy does a good job for general exegetical work.] (http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Centered-Hermeneutics-Foundations-Evangelical-Interpretation/dp/0830838694/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377522356&sr=1-6&keywords=graeme+goldsworthy)

Ever read his greatest influence: Leonard Ravenhill?

Great book!
https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity/dp/B0009NS97E

I’m sending you a list of free (public domain) Genesis-Revelation full set commentaries from the Protestant Reformers. All are from the Historicist Eschatological Perspective.

John Calvin (1509–1564)
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cal.html
http://www.amazon.com/Calvins-Commentaries-22-Volume-Set/dp/0801024404

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin
1599 Geneva
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/geneva-study-bible/
http://www.christianbook.com/the-geneva-bible-1599-edition-hardcover/9780975484692/pd/484692

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible

Matthew Poole (1624–1679)
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/
http://www.christianbook.com/matthew-pooles-commentary-3-volumes/matthew-poole/9780917006289/pd/06283?event=ESRCG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Poole
Matthew Henry (1662–1714)
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/

http://www.christianbook.com/matthew-henrys-commentary-whole-bible-volumes/9781598564358/pd/564365?event=ESRCG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Henry
John Gill (1697–1771)
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/
http://www.amazon.com/GILLS-COMMENTARY-Exposition-Old-Testaments/dp/0801037565/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454392444&sr=1-2&keywords=john+gill+commentary+set

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gill_(theologian)
John Wesley (1703–1791)
http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/john-wesleys-notes-on-the-bible/
http://www.amazon.com/John-Wesleys-Notes-Whole-Bible/dp/1849026351/ref=sr_1_46?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454392792&sr=1-46&keywords=wesley+commentary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley
Adam Clarke (1762-1832)
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc.html

http://www.amazon.com/Clarkes-Commentary-Containing-Testaments-Critical/dp/B0015Y6W7U/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454392708&sr=1-5&keywords=clarke+commentary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Clarke
Albert Barnes (1798–1870)
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb.html

http://www.amazon.com/Barnes-Notes-Murphy-Pusey-Albert/dp/B0041MDSYI/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454392753&sr=1-2&keywords=albert+barnes+set

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Barnes_(theologian)
Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892)
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/spe.html

http://www.amazon.com/Spurgeons-Sermons-5-Vol-Set/dp/0801011132/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454392865&sr=1-2&keywords=charles+spurgeon+set

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Spurgeon

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown (1802-1910)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/jfb/

http://www.amazon.com/Commentary-Old-New-Testaments-Set/dp/1565631978/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454392979&sr=1-3&keywords=brown+commentary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamieson-Fausset-Brown_Bible_Commentary

Charles Taze Russell (1852–1916)
http://www.internationalbiblestudents.com/HTDB_EBC.html

https://chicagobible.org/product/expanded-biblical-comments/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell

Paul Kretzmann (1901–1975)
http://www.kretzmannproject.org/
http://www.amazon.com/Popular-Commentary-Bible-Old-New-Testament/dp/B000XHXX4A/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454393014&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=kreitzman+commetnary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._P._Kretzmann

Seventh Day Adventist Church (1953-1980)
http://bibletools.info/Gen_1.1

http://www.adventistbookcenter.com/seventh-day-adventist-bible-commentary-set-vol-1-8.html

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=zerr+commentary&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Azerr+commentary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Commentary_Reference_Series

Depends on the goal. Reading for understanding key concepts is different than reading to try and discern an overall story. For the former, I'd pick up a plan that explores concepts and you'll end up reading it like your Mom suggested. If you want the overall story, front to back seems to work better. My church runs small groups that use https://www.amazon.com/Disciple-Becoming-Disciples-Through-manual/dp/0687783496 to do it this way. It's much better with the videos and in a small group, but following this will guide you through and you'll touch about 68% of the verses. It starts with Genesis and ends with Revelation.

Add these to your reading list:

• Anything by John Warwick Montgomery
  
• JP Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Baker, 1987)
  
• Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Baker, 1988)
  
• Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict Volume 1 (Here's Life, 1992) Volume 2 (Thomas Nelson, 1992); these have apparently been revised and expanded into a single volume (Thomas Nelson, 1999).
  
• Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan, 1998)
  
• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles (self-published, 1264); note this is in four volumes
  
• Kreeft & Tacelli, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics (Ignatius, 1994)
  
  Specifically on morality:
  
  
• Peter Kreeft, A Refutation of Moral Relativism (Ignatius, 1999)
  
• Anything by Jay Budziszewski or Janet Smith
  
  There also exist multimedia available online related to the above that you can hunt down for yourself.
  
  (As a Catholic naturally I disagree with whatever goes against Catholic teaching in the above works; nevertheless there is much that is good in all of these. Furthermore even though some items are specifically Catholic, much in them would be useful to you.)

This book is fantastic. One of the better interviews, believe it or not, was published in Playboy.

"The Holiness Of God" by R.C. Sproul influenced my thinking somewhat.
"God's Smuggler" by 'Brother Andrew' inspired some activity.

You should look at these :

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates-ebook/dp/B00A71Y7I8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542809757&sr=8-1&keywords=cold+case+christianity

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation-ebook/dp/B01863JLK2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542809781&sr=1-1&keywords=a+case+for+christ

Try this.

https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Hope-Essential-Writings-Speeches/dp/0060646918

http://www.amazon.com/Testament-Hope-Essential-Writings-Speeches/dp/0060646918/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373287752&sr=1-2&keywords=mlk

Here's the full source of the quote.

This book has a collection of the most memorable speeches/writings from MLK.

Wikipedia has a list of the sermons and speeches from the late Reverend too.

For too long people have interpreted the Bible without taking into account its various genres. When that is done all kinds of problems ensue. There is narrative, narrative mixed with fable, wisdom, prophecy, poetry, personifications, embellished war narratives, etc. Some sections were thematic and meant to impart a theological teaching and were never intended to be taken literally. I would suggest a few sources to help.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org

https://www.amazon.com/Guard-Students-Thinkers-Guide-Christian-ebook/dp/B00U894IGA/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1522428918&sr=8-3&dpID=410%252B8eMXoiL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=detail

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas-ebook/dp/B001QOGJY0/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1522429211&sr=8-4-fkmr0

https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates-ebook/dp/B00A71Y7I8/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1522428968&sr=8-1

There's more than one flavor of "inerrancy." You cannot be orthodox and maintain that the Bible has errors, but two people can disagree (to an extent) about what constitutes errors and still both be orthodox. Check this book out to explore more in depth.