Reddit mentions: The best historical christian theology books

Divinity and Maximal Greatness makes the best case for it, but unfortunately, the book costs $200. (?!) I've heard Rogers' treatment of the subject is excellent, though. If I wanted to learn about it from the ground up, I would read (in order):

• Anselm's Ontological Argument
  
  
• Perfect Being Theology, a blog post that raises two questions I am sure you'd ask.
  
  
• God and Other Necessary Beings, particularly the Abstract Objects section, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  
  
• Craig's response to common objections.
  
  
  In short, PBT claims that whatever properties are best for a perfect being - "maximally great" qualities - then a perfect being will possess them. It is preferable, of course, for God to be good rather than evil - so He must be the maximally good being. It is preferable for Him to be loving rather than hateful, so He must be more loving than that which can be conceived. The same goes for his knowledge, his power, his justice, &c.
  
  Happy reading, and let me know what you think!

>Some unbeatable arguments against faith

Faith is believing something without evidence. Example: I have faith my car will start every morning so I can drive to work. However although it's a likely conclusion that it will, I cannot absolutely prove it will.

Basing your argument from a scientific basis and requiring theism to meet the burden of proof with which it is charged will almost assuredly result in a reliance on supernatural claims to justify the rationale of theism.

>Reasons why faith is pointless

To use a variation of Pascal's wager or as Matt Dillahunty stated, how do you know which god is the right one? If you have faith and are a monotheist there are thousands of creation myths from which christianity has plagiarized from to compose the basis of it's values and stories. (Robert Wright talks about this at length in ["the evolution of god"] (https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-God-Back-Readers-Pick/dp/031606744X) if you're interested)

So playing devil's god's advocate and assuming a higher power does exist, if you are a monotheist you run a very high likelihood that you believe in the wrong god. If you believe in many gods then by definition that would make one a pantheist. However, if you choose to still follow a christian faith whilst simultaneously recognizing other deities you are a blasphemer by the standards of the bible. (Robert Wright also discusses this in the evolution of god).

With that said, religion and faith can have positive latent affects on one's life and a community by instituting outreach programs etc. However, that isn't tied to religion or faith any more than sexual deviancy is tied to catholicism. Therefore, you don't need religion or faith to be a good person which nullifies the necessity of faith to be a moral person.

>Help with knowing how to prove how things came together first in evolution (they always tell me how stupid it is that everything formed from nothing)

Your parents have a point. If a higher power exists, where did this higher power come from and how did it create the universe out of nothing? The [first law of thermodynamics] (https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookEner1.html) states that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So either theists must rely on supernatural explanations outside of science to explain the creation of god, or they must admit scientific ignorance. Lawrence Krauss states that it is not entirely implausible that [something could have come from nothing.] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wng6c0oLkQE) However, utilizing the theoretical explanation of Dr. Krauss to support the existence of a higher power would at best be a bastardization of his hypothesis. Regardless, we can still observe [evidence of the big bang] (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25249-multiverse-gets-real-with-glimpse-of-big-bang-ripples/) which stands as another piece of evidence to contradict the idea that the universe was created by an invisible zombie sky wizard.

I would look [here] (http://www.atheist-experience.com/) and [here] (http://www.talkorigins.org/) if you're interested in reading more about the evidence behind evolution. Also the atheist experience is an awesome show put on by the atheist community of Austin which mainly fields on-air calls from theists as well as emails and refutes some of the arguments that I'm sure you have probably heard from time to time. Happy reading!

If you are looking for something to read up with, I would recommend this book.

>I still think the Nicene Creed is a faithful exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity and I have people and family I trust that know a lot more about this than I do. They would also attest to the validity of the Nicene Creed, as a result I'm a little more confident, despite my ignorance.

And I would agree with them. I would just argue that we got here not just by reading the Bible.

> You do realize the deliberations at Nicaea were argued pretty much purely from scripture, right?

And this proves my point! Both sides of the debate argued from scripture. Both sides carefully studied Scripture, and came to two very different positions. If you look at Scripture, and nothing but Scripture, you can make a strong argument for either side.

What the whole debate came down to was what did the Bible mean when it used the term "begotten." The Arians maintained that it was the same as "created" or "born." Alexander, their main opponent, disagreed. But to make his point, he had to use extra-Biblical (and mostly non-Christian) philosophy.

What is the whole point of this: many of the doctrines we hold dear are not the clear and only reading of Scripture. Every Christian and Christian denomination holds doctrines that may not contradict but go beyond what is plainly taught in the Bible and instead rely on tradition. Even people who argue we should completely disregard tradition and go with the Bible alone are using at least one extra-Biblical tradition: Sola Scriptura.

I think that it is important that we recognize this. First, because it gives us a better understanding of and more grace for our brothers and sisters who rely on tradition more than we do. Second, because it is intellectually honest. And third, because it helps us to keep focused on the truly central doctrines of our faith (which I would argue are completely and clearly laid out in the Bible, such as the efficacy of Christ's Resurrection).

I'm a Baptist.

First off, all the creeds are not so much an attempt to explain all the details of the faith as much as they are a response to those who moved beyond what Scripture teaches. They establish boundaries using increasingly specific language in order to clearly explain what falls within orthodox Christian belief. For example, two people may say they believe Jesus was divine, yet they one can mean his divinity over-rode his humanity, while the other (orthodox) person means that he was fully divine and fully human together. Simply put, the creeds are an attempt to summarize basic Christian beliefs.

The three creeds you mention are some of the earliest creeds. The first two are accepted all three major branches of the church (Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox). There are a few squabbles over some details in the Athanasian by Orthodox believers.

The Apostles creed, while not developed by the Apostles, was developed in the early second century and came into its final form by the late 300s. More info here

The Nicene creed builds on the Apostles creed specifically to address the nature of Christ. Here are details about how it came to be. I was developed to deal with heretics that were trying to separate Christ's humanity and divinity.

Lastly, the Athanasian creed is one of the absolute best descriptions of the Trinity you can find anywhere. Details here and here. It was developed out of a need to correct heretics that were dividing the Father and Son.

If I could recommend 1 book that would give you a really good, yet brief background and explanation of these Creeds and more, it would be this one.

I would say for questions 1. and 2. It is somewhat dependent on your region. Particularly in the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), I believe they decided to leave the Ordination of Women up to individual bishops/parishes.

For 3, I don't have a specific answer however I do remember asking about it before I took communion the first time at my church and I would say they are somewhat medial in their position. The blessed sacrament is not the actual body after the service, and so it does not need to go into a tabernacle or be eaten by the priest, but it is also not "just bread".

4. You may also like the Audio Daily Office at the Trinity Mission.

5. Nope as someone else said, there are rites of reception.

6. I would say they certainly believe in apostolic succession as important, but they aren't going to consider Protestant denominations who do not have this tradition, not the church As Per Article 19 of the 39 Articles, "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same."

7. I'm not aware of a blanket teaching. In my own church, people hold slightly different views.


I think if you spend any time on this sub, you'll learn that Anglicans are by no means universal in their beliefs. There just isn't the same type of unity as is expected in the Roman Catholic Church. I encourage you to explore the Anglican churches in your area either via there websites or in-person to find out more. If you are American, you may be interested in the book, Our Anglican Heritage. I found helpful in understanding how the American Anglican Church got to where we are today,

In 20th Century Theology Grenz and Olson suggest that you can track the transitions of cultural shifts by the tension between two views of God - his transcendence and his immanence.

Transcendence being the image of God the father, all powerful in heaven. Immanence being the view of God most associated with Jesus, a God who is close to us like a brother.

Both are true views, and need to be held in balance for a good view of God, if one is too heavily biased there will be theological problems.

The book explores the tension through history, particularly from the age of Enlightenment to a post modern age.

All of this came to mind when I read your post. Conservatism tends toward transcendence and Liberalism tends toward immanence.

I would guess it is because conservatives tend to look back to an age in history that favoured the transcendent view and liberals are more post modern and favour relational truths that lean towards immanence.

Either way, the book is an interesting read and may give you more insights.

>Well as a Christian if you don't think it's a lake of fire he throws people in, you're wrong.

You're claiming that the Eastern Orthodox Churches (and Oriental Orthodox maybe?) aren't Christian? That's a bold statement, Cotton.

Besides that, Revelation is about the persecution that the author's readers were going through. A pretty accessible book on that would be Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation by Elaine Pagels. Even if you don't accept that view, apocalypses and visions are known to use metaphors and allegories.

Now, in regards to other ideas of the "fate of the damned", there's multiple words that are used: Gehenna, Hades, Sheol and one instance of Tartarus (in Petrine letters). Gehenna is a literal physical place of burning, Hades is the Greek underworld and Sheol was just your grave, nothing else (later it picked up a connotation of an afterlife "realm" where all souls went after death). Once we understand that, it's not too hard to see that they're all being used as metaphor - this shouldn't surprise you because Jesus is presented as using that literary device as well as parables throughout his life. Understood as such, it's quite easy to see that the wicked/damned/whatever experience a sense of lostness, burning (like desire but the opposite?) Etc. In this case, they could be in the same "realm" as the sanctified, but experience it differently.

But that also neglects what the Greek (in the New Testament) actually says about those descriptions. For instance, the words for "eternal punishment" could be (and most likey should be) translated as "ages/age of discipline". So not only is it not "forever", it's a discipline not a punishment. And I'm perfectly inline with early Christian thinkers on this. Here's an Academic Book and a more accessible book outlining people throughout history with that interpretation. I have PDFs of the academic books, if you want to read them. A good translation with all this is mind would be this one by David Bentley Hart.

Once again, even knowing all of the above and still believing what you said , you haven't explained how people get there. Rejecting God? How could one do that? People can only reject an "idea of God". But, your view on this "lake of fire" is just one big misunderstanding.

>their "loving" God.

Just a nitpick: God is not "loving". To say God is loving is to say that there is a metaphysical order (Love) above God, which is absurd. God "is" Love, in the sense that to be "loving" one participates in the Divine.

Any typos and weird phrasings are because I'm typing on mobile at work.

A few book suggestions you might not get elsewhere:

The Pre-Nicene New Testament by Robert M. Price — a fresh translation of the New Testament plus twenty-seven other early Christian documents and apocrypha.

Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman — a more popular-level discussion of early Christian texts (but does not include the texts themselves).

The Routledge Companion to Early Christian Thought — seems comprehensive, but I haven't read it yet. It's rather expensive.

One Biblical scholar and author who is very popular among Mormons (though she is not one) is Margaret Barker. Her focus is on the influence of temple theology and Jewish polytheism in the formation of Christianity. Her books include The Great Angel and The Great High Priest. They are scholarly reading and might be difficult for the casual reader to follow.

If you listen to podcasts, Robert Price ("the Bible Geek") and Mark Goodacre both have popular podcasts on the New Testament and early Christianity. The former was a Jesus Seminar member and has some fairly radical views; the latter is a more conservative evangelical.

Yep. For further reading:

The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07VTS48L6/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_zouQDbN7DN82F

"This book summarizes Dr. Wilson's "ground-breaking" doctoral thesis at the University of Oxford which was published by Mohr Siebeck in 2018 as "Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'Non-free Free Will': A Comprehensive Methodology". With a new audience in mind, Dr. Wilson presents his extensive research on free will in ancient and early Christian thought in a shorter and more accessible format with translations of the ancient and modern foreign languages in plain English. Dr. Wilson first provides readers with essential background information on free will in the ancient philosophies and religions of Stoicism, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Manichaeism. He then guides his readers through the writings of the earliest Christian authors who wrote on free will. Finally, Dr. Wilson explores a curious split between St. Augustine's early and later writings and shows how the ideas presented in Augustine's later writings became the foundation for modern Calvinist (Reformed) theology, also known as Augustinian-Calvinism."

This is sort of one of my pet areas of interest, I've tried to read both the secular side and the Christian side, in the end I think these are the best books on the subject:

Kenneth Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament - He is one of the world's top Egyptologists and wrote this book to defend the OT.

https://www.amazon.com/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962

James Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt and Ancient Israel in Sinai - another one of the world's top Egyptologists.

https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-Sinai-Authenticity-Wilderness/dp/0195155467/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=

https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526660677&sr=1-1&keywords=israel+in+egypt

Provan, Long, and Longman's Biblical History of Israel is very good too:

https://www.amazon.com/Biblical-History-Israel-Second-ebook/dp/B01CUKCXFW/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526660730&sr=1-1&keywords=a+biblical+history+of+israel%2C+second+edition

Also, James Hoffmeier edited another book that I would recommend to any Catholic interested in biblical studies:

https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Matters-Matter-Faith-Postmodern-ebook/dp/B007IJY9YO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526660787&sr=1-1&keywords=do+historical+matters+matter+to+faith

There are many bad books out there, but these are very good and trustworthy by good scholars.

Many people will argue from a book called The Bible Unearthed that the Scriptures are not reliable, but quite frankly the arguments used in there are not very good. Kenneth Kitchen refutes them pretty in depth in his book.

Robert Royal's book A Deeper Vision is a great history/summary of all major 20th century Catholic thinkers. It's probably especially useful for you because it does a good job of situating recent Catholic thinkers within the context of secular philosophy.

Augustine and Aquinas are going to the Big Titans you want to get through before anyone else, and I'm going to third the need for an understanding of Aristotle, but also toss out that some Plato might be useful too, for an understanding of stuff that Aristotle is building on/rejecting, and later stuff that Augustine is building on/rejecting.

From what I remember of my undergraduate, this wasn't a bad intro to Thomas: https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Saint-Thomas-Aquinas/dp/0075536536/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468082922&sr=1-3&keywords=introduction+aquinas

And Maritain's Intro to Philosophy is probably also helpful, if dense: https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Sheed-Ward-Classic/dp/0742550524 Also useful for you since it kind of puts up Scholasticism vs Secular philosophy and where the Church broadly diverges (though always keep in mind that, even if Scholasticism is the most influential philosophical movement in the Church, Catholicism does not stamp it as the official philosophy of the Church.)

"The Orthodox Church" By Kallistos Ware. A very readable and comprehensive book by a well respected convert now bishop.

Byzantine Theology by John Meyendorff. He is one of the greatest contemporary Orthodox theologians.

The Way of the Pilgrim Author unknown. This is a classic of Eastern Christian spirituality that brings many people into the Orthodox way.

Hope these help!

I'm currently reading Alan Jacob's The "Book of Common Prayer": A Biography.

Next up is Economic Shalom: A Reformed Primer on Faith, Work, and Human Flourishing by John Bolt.

Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic ed. by Michael Allen and Scott Swain will jump to the top of my list when it comes out in April.

I don't generally plan what I'm going to read very far in the future, but here's an (incomplete) list of books I'm wanting to read. I almost certainly won't get to all of them this year (if ever).

• A History of Western Philosophy and Theology by John Frame
  
• Baptists in America: A History by Thomas Kidd and Barry Hankins
  
• Church History: An Essential Guide Paperback by Justo L. González
  
• Death of Adam: Essays on Modern Thought by Marilynne Robinson
  
• Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation by Jamie Smith
  
• Faith Speaking Understanding: Performing the Drama of Doctrine by Kevin Vanhoozer
  
• How (Not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor by James K. A. Smith
  
• Knowing Christ by Mark Jones
  
• Onward: Engaging the Culture without Losing the Gospel by Russell Moore
  
• Reformed Dogmatics: Abridged in One Volume by Herman Bavinck.
  
• The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus by Michael Bird
  
• Union with Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church by Todd Billings.

>I am mad at myself for not being this analytic about this earlier in my life

I had this exact feeling.

So one thing to realize is that this process takes time I mean for FSM sake u lived a lot with this Idea.keep reading whatever you do keep reading.

some sources or ideas that were helpful to me:

• parables of Jesus
  
• the history of hell
  
• history before ur religion.
  
• the Christ myth theory (However I do believe he existed but it lowered my certainty) and how exodus never happened look for the exodus myth
  
• Commonsense atheism and proving the negative
  
• talk origin and talk design are also very good sources.
  
• read some books on cognitive sciences and psychology of religion , search for recommended atheism books. (understand what cognitive bias is)
  
• this is the phone line u're looking for
  
• read an introductory account on atheism this is one of the best books on atheism
  
• find a way to express u're doubts or else u'll go crazy (at least if u're anything like me) ,blog about it or write about it , talk to s1, ask others questions.
  
• listen to debates about religions.
  
• think about the fact that u finally could emancipate urself from this.
  
• learn a little more about other religions it helps A LOT .
  
• read books by Xbelievers like John Luftus or Dan barker
  
• read more I mean Way more on cosmology and physics. just search for top books on Cosmology
  
• read comparative books like Karen Armstrong books and read the evolution of god
  
• read Religion Explained
  
  

  keep fear away and ...good luck !

A good recent anthology of primary texts from Yale University Press is Eastern Orthodoxy: The Essential Texts.

A meaty series from St. Vladimir's Press is The Church in History.

The Cambridge History of Christianity is a wonderful and rich resource. It's written by multiple scholars. Volume 5 covers the Eastern Orthodox.

A classic secondary source on Orthodox thought is John Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes.

Happy reading!

God is graciously chooses to save those who believe, not cause belief in those he chooses. The Holy Spirt convicts and you can resist Him or humble yourself.

“Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people—that they would become a curse and be laid waste—and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I also have heard you, declares the Lord.”
‭‭2 Kings‬ ‭22:19‬ ‭NIV‬‬


Chosen to be Holy and blameless, not chosen to believe. Chosen conditionally on being in Christ, not chosen to be placed in Christ. Predestined to adoption as sons, not predestined to salvation. The central theme of the book is serviced to God in our walk, the election is to service. Proper view of election is to service. Israel is elected to serve a purpose. Christ is elected to serve a purpose. The church is elected to serve a purpose.

Your doctrine was built on a false premise. Please research the origins of Augustinian/Calvinism. I would recommend.

https://www.amazon.com/Augustines-Conversion-Traditional-Choice-non-Free/dp/3161557530

Or a lighter read

https://www.amazon.com/Foundation-Augustinian-Calvinism-Ken-Wilson/dp/108280035X

Heck yeah! My first degree was in Cultural Anthropology, which is rife with Foucauldian sentiment and the like. Amazingly many of my faculty were open, strong believers despite professional pressures to hide that. I went through a crisis of faith while studying the humanities, but the witness of faithful colleagues helped me find my way home.

If you get a chance, check out the book The Slain God by Timothy Larsen, one of my former instructors. Dr. Larsen is a Protestant, but works collaboratively with Catholic theologians and philosophers very frequently, and was a huge part of my conversion to Catholicism. This book delves into the faith of numerous anthropologists and theorists that many of their contemporaries sought to minimize or hide. Many of them were Catholic, in fact: Evans- Pritchard, Mary Douglas, and the Turners come to mind as names you might recognize.

There are a number of Sumerian and Babylonian sacred texts here. In particular, the enuma elish has some interesting parallels to Genesis. One in particular - the creation of the world was the work of one god (marduk), but the creation of man was a joint effort between all the gods (the Sumerian creation myth is similar). Have a look at Genesis 1, and note where the text switches from singular to plural. Also - according to Mesopotamian mythology, humans were created to do the work that the gods were tired of doing. Thus they were expected to work the fields and engage in general labor. Have a look at Genesis 2:15 for a parallel.

I recommend these books for a deeper study:

Stories from Ancient Canaan

The Early History of God

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism

The Evolution of God

Thanks for those links. I'm going through Cowan and Spiegel's The Love of Wisdom, and was actually going to buy Frame's book my next go-around at buying books. I'll read it when I'm done with my other book, but this will definitely be helpful!

> Are the persons embodies by the Trinity part of God or are they each God essentially?

They are all one God.

> because it defines God with limited characteristics which are also somewhat separate from one another even if they are controlled by the same "intellect."

We define God with limited characteristics because we have limited intellects. In addition, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not simply "controlled" by the God; they are God. They are all "parts" of God even though God is simple and cannot have parts. Confusing, eh?

This illustrates that we cannot know what the Trinity is. It is a mystery. All of these characteristics, as I said earlier, should be approached in a fuzzy way. There is no way we can know what the Trinity actually is. We can only understand it the best we can through our limited nature. By using multiple analogies, we can start to get a glimpse of what the Trinity is, but we can never grasp it.

For more information about the Trinity take a look at the CCC, the Summa, or this book.

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

I have not looked at those two, but I own Olson's The Journey of Modern Theology and found the parts I read to be quite good. I am more on the liberal end than Olson but I can agree that he offers a quite balanced view.

Well, the agreement by the Empress was more the fact that she had called the council, and she was signing off on it. That did not make the council Ecumenical. After all, the Council of Hieria received similar approval, and is today disregarded.

Basically, the problem with idols was that they were presented as either gods or depictions of God.

The first does not apply to iconography: they aren't God (though there have been recorded abuses of icons as such, up to and including people breaking off and eating pieces of icons if they couldn't celebrate the Eucharist, which is plainly wrong). We pray before them, but we don't pray to them. We pray to God or ask the person depicted for their prayers.

The second problem isn't a problem anymore: as I keep saying, God became Man, and all men can be depicted without a problem. I might point you to the writings of St. John of Damascus on the subject or St. Theodore the Studite, which actually assisted me in accepting the practice (I can't find a free translation of either online, but some Google-fu should help).

As for the First and Second Temples, I might advise that you re-read Exodus in particular. It made prescriptions for the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant that did include art.

Grenz and Olsen wrote a fascinating book reviewing 20th century theology as it moved back and forward between the two aspects of God you are talking about. His Transcendence and his Imminence. Both are valid views, and they suggest that in fact, holding only one or the other diminishes your view of God, both need to be held in balance for a balanced view of God.

The book is kinda academic but a good read.

Pre-supp apologetics will make a world of difference.

I've spent a lot of time on Philosophy. I think it matters a great deal. Currently this work is waiting on my nightstand.

https://www.amazon.com/History-Western-Philosophy-Theology/dp/162995084X

If you wanted to dip more into our perspectives and approaches on philosophy, this would be a good starting place.

I can't compete with /u/davidjricardo but here is/would be my list:

NIGTC Book of Revelation Commentary

[The Reformation Study Bible ESV] (http://www.amazon.com/Reformation-Study-Bible-Crimson-Hardcover/dp/1567694411/ref=pd_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=31Tj7%2BFDV2L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR114%2C160_&refRID=1NETK7XFP7A2DT6824VT)

A History of Western Philosophy and Theology by John Frame

Greek East and Latin West: The Church AD 681-1071 by Andrew Louth

The Letter to the Romans - The Bible in Medieval Tradition

I've also recently become obsessed with Terry Brooks' Shannara series. If interested I recommend starting with the Elfstones of Shannara

Robert Wright's "The Evolution of God" is good both because it summarizes the scholarship on the topic and makes it interesting for the reader. It is also a lot newer than Karen Amstrong's book, which is important since a lot has happened in the scholarship of these religions in the past 20 years.

I hate buying books as much as the next guy, but this little paper back book is only like 25 bucks tops.

http://www.amazon.com/John-Wyclif-Great-Medieval-Thinkers/dp/0195183320

The book only has three reviews on Amazon.

Reddit, do what you do best.

Thanks /u/friardon for the tidbit!

I got John Frame's History of Western Philosophy and Theology. I haven't found a history of philosophy from the Reformed perspective that's also thorough and knows the details of competing philosophies. So when I read about this book coming, I knew I want to buy asap.

Here's the story written for any educated layperson:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-God-Back-Readers-Pick/dp/031606744X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453706897&sr=8-1&keywords=the+evolution+of+god

Here's the story for someone with a good familiarity with Biblical studies:
http://www.amazon.com/Invention-God-Thomas-R%C3%B6mer/dp/0674504976/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453706971&sr=8-1&keywords=the+invention+of+god

Absolutely it is useful. We see from the Apostle Paul that he was acquainted with and deployed pagan philosophy in service to the gospel of the risen Christ.


The most accessible, contemporary philosophical text written for the service of the church would be John Frame's. https://www.amazon.com/History-Western-Philosophy-Theology/dp/162995084X

• You could start out by reading any of the topics on the theology AMAs here on Reddit.
  
• Also check out /r/theology
  
• There are a lot of open source education lectures on the Bible and theology on iTunes U from Harvard and Yale.
  
  As far as books, I recommend the following as a general introduction:
  
  
• Faith Seeking Understanding by Daniel Migliore
  
  And then these if you're interested in the history of theology:
  
  
• The Story of Christian Theology by Roger Olson
  
• The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez, which is more of a church history thing but of course theology is relevant within it.

Here is a good read on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-God-Back-Readers-Pick/dp/031606744X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422654371&sr=8-1&keywords=the+evolution+of+god

For a broad overview of philosophy, I've heard good things about Frame's History of Western Philosophy and Theology. Though it is an expensive and massive tome.

Have you read The Evolution of God by Robert Wright? It resolves many of the inconsistencies and oddities of the Bible/Torah as actually textual evidence for the evolution of the Abrahamic God from a polytheistic pantheon. Might clarify your thinking here.

If you're wanting a history of how religion evolved in that arena, I can recommend this https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-God-Back-Readers-Pick/dp/031606744X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493132334&sr=8-1&keywords=the+evolution+of+god

The Evolution of God.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Back-Readers-Pick/dp/031606744X

http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Back-Readers-Pick/dp/031606744X

I haven't read these yet, but one or both WILL be on my near-term reading list:

Evolution of God

A History of God