Reddit mentions: The best pneumatology books

We found 49 Reddit comments discussing the best pneumatology books. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 32 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

1. God and Time: Four Views (Spectrum Multiview Book)

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
God and Time: Four Views (Spectrum Multiview Book)
Specs:
ColorMulticolor
Height9 Inches
Length6 Inches
Number of items1
Weight0.80027801106 Pounds
Width0.8 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

2. The Trinitarian Controversy (Sources of Early Christian Thought)

The Trinitarian Controversy (Sources of Early Christian Thought)
Specs:
Height8.5 Inches
Length5.5 Inches
Number of items1
Weight0.63052206932 Pounds
Width0.45 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

3. Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes

Used Book in Good Condition
Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes
Specs:
Height8.5 Inches
Length5.5 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateJune 1984
Weight0.440924524 Pounds
Width0.37 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

6. Works on the Spirit PPS43 (Popular Patristics Series)

Works on the Spirit PPS43 (Popular Patristics Series)
Specs:
Height7 Inches
Length5 Inches
Number of items1
Weight0.55 Pounds
Width0.75 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

7. Defining Deception: Freeing the Church from the Mystical-Miracle Movement

Defining Deception: Freeing the Church from the Mystical-Miracle Movement
Specs:
Height9 Inches
Length6 Inches
Number of items1
Weight0.61 Pounds
Width0.46 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

8. Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religion

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religion
Specs:
Height8.5 Inches
Length5.75 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateSeptember 2014
Weight0.5401325419 Pounds
Width0.47 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

9. The God of Israel and Christian Theology

    Features:
  • 65% polyester, 35% cotton
  • Wrinkle Free
  • Point Collar
  • Solid
  • Front Pocket
The God of Israel and Christian Theology
Specs:
Height8.5 Inches
Length5.5 Inches
Number of items1
Weight0.60186197526 pounds
Width0.44 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

10. Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God (vol. 1)

Used Book in Good Condition
Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God (vol. 1)
Specs:
Height9.01573 Inches
Length5.98424 Inches
Weight2.1605301676 Pounds
Width1.3751941 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

11. Divine Empathy: A Theology of God

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
Divine Empathy: A Theology of God
Specs:
Height9 Inches
Length6 Inches
Number of items1
Weight1.02074027306 Pounds
Width0.77 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

12. Does God Have a Nature? (Aquinas Lecture 44)

Used Book in Good Condition
Does God Have a Nature? (Aquinas Lecture 44)
Specs:
Height7.25 Inches
Length4.75 Inches
Number of items1
Weight0.35 Pounds
Width0.5 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

14. Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur's Strange Fire

Creation House
Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur's Strange Fire
Specs:
Height8.5 Inches
Length5.5 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateJuly 2015
Weight1.05 Pounds
Width0.827 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

15. The Trinity in Asian Perspective

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
The Trinity in Asian Perspective
Specs:
ColorWhite
Height9 Inches
Length6 Inches
Number of items1
Weight0.83996121822 Pounds
Width0.59 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

16. The Trinity: Global Perspectives

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
The Trinity: Global Perspectives
Specs:
Height9 Inches
Length6 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateJanuary 2007
Weight1.26 Pounds
Width0.98 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

17. The Holy Spirit (New Studies in Dogmatics)

The Holy Spirit (New Studies in Dogmatics)
Specs:
Height9 Inches
Length6 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateOctober 2015
Weight0.65918216338 Pounds
Width0.63 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

18. Speaking in Tongues: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives (Studies in Pentecostal and Charismatic Issues)

Speaking in Tongues: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives (Studies in Pentecostal and Charismatic Issues)
Specs:
Height8.9 Inches
Length6.3 Inches
Number of items1
Weight400 Grams
Width0.7 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

19. The Comforter

The Comforter
Specs:
Height9 Inches
Length6 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateJune 2004
Weight1.34922904344 Pounds
Width0.989 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

🎓 Reddit experts on pneumatology books

The comments and opinions expressed on this page are written exclusively by redditors. To provide you with the most relevant data, we sourced opinions from the most knowledgeable Reddit users based the total number of upvotes and downvotes received across comments on subreddits where pneumatology books are discussed. For your reference and for the sake of transparency, here are the specialists whose opinions mattered the most in our ranking.
Total score: 29
Number of comments: 5
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 14
Number of comments: 2
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 11
Number of comments: 2
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 9
Number of comments: 4
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 9
Number of comments: 3
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 5
Number of comments: 1
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 4
Number of comments: 1
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 3
Number of comments: 1
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 3
Number of comments: 1
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 1
Number of comments: 1
Relevant subreddits: 1

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Top Reddit comments about Christian Pneumatology:

u/ahmama · 5 pointsr/Christianity

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.

u/jacobheiss · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Continued from the comment above...

> How come God is in an eternal war with Satan? How can an angel of God be mightier than the almighty? Can't God just zap him out of existence?

Yes, God can just zap Satan out of existence. The traditional answer to your question from both a Jewish and a Christian angle is that God has chosen to use Satan to accomplish God's purposes. Exactly how that all goes down is the subject of literally libraries worth of interpretation, discussion, and theological reflection. Let's bracket it for the time being for the sake of brevity since there's not as great a conflict here between the Christian and Jewish understandings on this point as is the case for the other points you mentioned.

> How do Christians view Jews?

There is no consensus. Many highly admire Jews; others hate Jews; still others are ambivalent. I would guess that most Christians respect the Jews but also completely misunderstand them. Most Christians don't know what most Jews believe or how most Jews act, and most Christians suffer from an anemic doctrine of Israel insofar as systematic theology is concerned. This is something that has only lately begun to recover from centuries of neglect; check out R. Kendal Soulen's The God of Israel and Christian Theology for a jump start.

> Are we lost?

Not all of us! Scripture teaches us that God has always preserved a "remnant," a righteous group of Jewish people who seek God's face according to God's ways. See Genesis 45:7, 2 Kings 19:30, Ezra 9:8, Isaiah 37:32, and Micah 5:8 for some Old Testament examples. Romans 9-11 shows how all of this works right up to a New Testament context, which should be a mission-critical text for you to consider.

> Are we wrong?

Both the average Jew and the average Christian are wrong because their respective theological loci have developed in opposition to each other rather than in harmony with the Bible.

> How do you understand our differences?

See above. Or please elaborate if you want more specific detail!

> This is a bigger question, but I'm curious to see the response. How does the Jewish bible work? How do you know it to be true? It would have to be true for your religion to be true, correct? How does the old testament flow into the new testament?

The Old Testament is most of the Bible, and it is the only Bible that both Jesus and the early church possessed when they spoke of the scriptures, the Law, the prophets, etc. Taking each part of this question in turn based on this first point:

  • How does the Jewish Bible work? This is an ill formed question; please specify!

  • How do you know it to be true? I understand the term "truth" primarily through a treatment John Searle developed in his text, The Construction of Social Reality, which basically emphasis the connotation of "trustworthiness." The Jewish Bibile is a rich text, composed and redacted by multiple different people over hundreds of years comprising several different genres of literature. The more historical portions are pretty substantially trustworthy. The more poetic portions, those describing the nature of humanity and our world, are also pretty trustworthy, but in a different way due to the difference in genre. There are multiple prophecies in the Jewish Bible that can be shown to have been delivered far before they came to pass--and not just those that refer to the Messiah. In other words, they were not written after the fact to merely appear prescriptive; they actually, legitimately were prescriptive. When something that diverse appears trustworthy from that many different angles upon inspection, then I conclude that my belief in its overall trustworthiness is well justified; hence, I am comfortable asserting that I know it is true.

  • It would have to be true for your religion to be true, correct? Yes.

  • How does the old testament flow into the new testament? It is impossible to properly understand any of the New Testament without the Old Testament and vice versa. For this reason, my personal reading plan includes a chapter from the Old Testament, a chapter specifically from the Psalms, a chapter from the New Testament gospels, and a chapter from the New Testament epistles so I can remain balanced. There are several passages in the Jewish Bible indicating that God would one day deliver a new covenant to repair the breach of relationship that resulted from the sins of our Jewish people, such as Jeremiah 31:31-34. This is precisely what Jesus came to accomplish through his own sacrifice, which he himself indicated right in the middle of sharing a Seder meal with his disciples during Passover according to Matthew 26:26-30. Multiple other New Testament texts go into the details of how this works, but you can find one quick summary in the first half of the book of Hebrews, especially Hebrews 8. Remember that the terms "covenant" and "testament" are interchangeable. In essence, the Old Testament is the collective witness of God's people about God's faithfulness hinging around God's first covenant delivered through Moses; the New Testament is the collective witness of God's people about God's faithfulness hinging around God's second covenant delivered through Jesus the Messiah.

    Woot. We're down to your last paragraph:

    > I look forward to the answers. All I ask is that you cite verses you use to answer the questions so I can follow along. I have a copy of the NIV bible along with a Hebrew/English translation of the 5 books of Moses. Also, don't be afraid to not be politically correct. I won't be offended if you call me a Jesus killer or tell me I'm going to hell for not accepting your beliefs today. Be blunt, be honest, be direct. I plan on responding back as soon as possible. And feel free to ask me questions back.

    I'll save my questions until I've first heard your feedback on my responses; in the mean time, I'll take care of getting offended at anybody who might call you a Jesus killer (since it is for all of our sins that he laid down his life) or that you're going to hell for not accepting somebody else's beliefs (since this is really sloppy theological language). In the mean time, shalom...
u/fakeemail47 · 1 pointr/mormon

I disagree that the only way to resolve that paradox is to place God in another temporal dimension. In fact, I think you could make a convincing case that God exists within time, not outside of time. Take pearl of great price as an example--1 year of god's time is X year's of our time. It's clear that it is not a different time dimension, but that he experiences time differently. This is perfectly consistent with our observable universe, as shown by Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. You don't have to be in a different dimension to experience time differently.

But more to the point, Blake Ostler has a very rigorous approach to this very question (of what it means to be omniscient, doesn't God know what we pray for, do we really have free will).

The formal theological term that proposes a solution to this apparent paradox is called libertarian freewill.

But the paradox gets at the very nature of God. Is God the greatest possible being--anything that we could imagine or state within an English sentence he could do? Or is God the greatest being actually possible? If God's omniscience and omnipotence is the first type, you run into problems with other paradoxes like this trite one: Can God build a rock so big he couldn't move it? You can construct thoughts that are illogical and impossible.

If on the other hand, God is the greatest being that is actually possible, then free agency and omniscience are compatible. God knows all things that can actually be known. Does God know what color shoes I will wear exactly 25 years from this second? No, b/c that is unknowable.

Anyway, I am writing too much. But look at all the examples of God's omniscience in the scriptures. How many of those examples are indicative of what, exactly, God knows other people will do and which are examples of God telling us what he plans to do (which he is in complete control of). The only real outlier I see is Christ telling Peter he will deny him thrice before the cock crows--and that is a fairly near-term prediction that could be explained by Christ's own knowledge of Peter and the situation.

u/BillWeld · 2 pointsr/ChristianApologetics

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but you hold the B-theory of time: time, as a whole, is static. The past, present and future are all equally "real". There is no real "coming to be" of events. Events exist alongside each other, but do not actually "occur" in the way they seem to from our point of view.

That sounds strange to me.

> The strength of my view is that it allows for an actual state of affairs in which God exists without creation.

The idea of God changing states is a problem.

> He is a temporal being.

I'm pretty sure I don't understand you properly but this seems like blasphemy.

> I still cannot understand a sense of the word "exist" in which God does not "exist". It seems to me that whatever "is" must also "exist".

I think we can deal with that, though maybe not right this minute.

> it seems pantheistic to say that God is all of reality.

Yes! I hope to never say such a thing. What I do say is that reality has its being in God, not vice versa. He contains it--it does not contain him, though of course he fills it. He is its environment or habitat. The ground of its being. He does not have an environment or habitat.

It's easier to think of it in terms of space, probably because we're more used to thinking of divine omnipresence. God created space. It has its being in him, not vice versa. It does not contain him yet he fills it. Same with time and every other created thing. And every other thing apart from God himself is created.

I just re-listened to this lecture from the author I recommended earlier. Great stuff. He defends the classical doctrine of divine eternity against Craig's and several related views. Highly recommended!

I got this book a week or two ago. I don't know whether I'll ever read it but Craig is one of the contributors and it might interest you.

Blessings!

u/2ysCoBra · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

> So I gather. The only recent stuff I've read is Brian Greene's, but he seems to think there being a first moment of time isn't decisively supported by the data, and that there's good evidence for eternal inflation. This was a 2010 book. When was the Vilenkin talk?

The Vilenkin talk was in 2012. I'm about 98% sure he's since made a stronger statement, but I can't for the life of me find it lol. I haven't read Greene's book, so I can't say anything to it, but James Sinclair analyzes string models in his and Craig's essay on the Kalam in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

> I don't know. I don't know how controversial it is among scientists; all I have are (e.g.) the Wikipedia page, which is perfectly friendly to beginningless universes, and admits that a Big Bang singularity is impossible according to our well-supported physics.

I think you might find this article stimulating.

> It's also inconceivable that time have a sufficiently explained first moment, which is some evidence against it, if the normal pro-PSR considerations are evidence.

Well that's now to move past physics and into philosophy, particularly the intersection of phil of time and phil of religion. There are various ways theists attempt to hash out this perplexing issue. Craig himself grapples with this in his book on the Kalam, in the Blackwell essay, and in his book Time & Eternity. There is a solid Four Views book on this too. I think it must also be said that it is, at the very least, just as inconceivable that there is an infinite amount of time before this very moment than of time beginning.

> And there are many beginningless models; I'm not sure why we should think the disjunction of them has a probability below 0.5.

Yes, of course there are many beginningless models, but that's not to say they are the best-supported or even well-supported for that matter. In philosophy, for example, as I'm sure you're aware, there are dozens of models for the mind-body problem, but that alone doesn't thereby validate any of these models. From my understanding of the current state of the field, which, admittedly, is rather shallow, physicists pushing past-eternal models do so knowing that the current evidence we have is in favor of models with an absolute beginning of the universe. In other words, they are knowingly going against the grain of the evidence.

> In any case, the point of my original comment was to say that I don't know whether principles such as PSR apply to cosmogonic questions. I don't have any intuition in that direction, and it seems possible that PSR is a metaphysically contingent consequence of the physical laws we happened to arrive at, laws that themselves would be metaphysically contingent.

I suppose we just have different intuitions, and thus reach an impasse here lol. However, I'm not sure how PSR could be a metaphysical consequence of physical law. Could you explain that more (or differently)? I can understand it being contingent given it being birthed by contingent physical law, but I'm not sure how physical law can birth a metaphysical PSR. If it's a strictly physical principle, then why say there is a metaphysical PSR? Or am I misunderstanding you?

> But that's precisely what physicists do with physics itself: apply it to everything in the universe but toss it out when we get to the Big Bang singularity. And the beginning of the universe is radically different from everything else in the universe in interesting ways, for example (allegedly) that it's unbounded by time on one side.

Well you're conflating the KCA with the contingency argument. The KCA operates on a causal principle from beginnings ("everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause"), whereas contingency arguments operate on broader explanatory principles, typically focusing on contingent concrete particulars ("everything that exists (concretely) has an explanation for its existence"). With that said, physics only goes so far until we reach metaphysics, of course, and I'm not familiar with any relation between the PSR and cosmogony, let alone it being standard practice of physicists to throw it out completely. In fact, the entire project of cosmology seems completely founded on the PSR.

> But in my experience (I'm not an expert), those religion still (e.g.) anthropomorphize this creative agent or describe its act as will. And I certainly wouldn't want to call these views theistic either.

Well, they would, haha, but I suppose this is now just categorical. But would you consider the existence of a single, impersonal, immaterial, eternal, transcendent cause of the universe closer to theism or atheism? Where would you put this on the spectrum of conceptual schemes?

u/REVDR · 3 pointsr/spiritfilledbelievers

For a pretty comprehensive book on the how the Holy Spirit is taught throughout the Bible and has been viewed throughout the history of Church, your one-stop-shop is Anthony Thiselton's The Holy Spirit: In Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today. One comment has already addressed Dr. Gordon Fee, and he is another go to scholar for doctrine related to the Spirit. Any of his books or commentaries would be good.

For more accessible material, Billy Graham actually wrote a little book on the Holy Spirit serval years ago that is pretty straightforward and helpful. Also, Francis Chan and J.D. Greear have written more recent books on the Holy Spirit.

To better understand the spiritual gifts I would recommend the works of Wayne Grudem or Sam Storms, as well as D.A. Carson's exposition of 1 Corinthians 12 -14.

If you would like a sermon series to listen to, I found this podcast helpful.

I hope that helps!

u/TheBaconMenace · 7 pointsr/Catacombs

I'm not, myself, but I have been mistaken for one several times and am immersed in the literature of that movement. That's about all I've got. I think liturgical_libertine at least flirts with the category if he doesn't embrace it, but I won't speak for him.

EDIT:
>I'm pretty sure most people would agree that the Christian religion is built upon theism

I just wanted to challenge this a bit. I understand that by "theism" you simply mean a belief in God, but there are some fascinating more or less orthodox theologians who refuse to be described as "theists." I would place Kierkegaard and Marion in this category. This is worked out very well in this book, which I highly recommend. He also mentions some anti-theists (not read: atheists) in the Jewish camp, notably one of my favorite theologians Franz Rosenzweig.

u/ConceptuallyHebrew · 1 pointr/Christianity

I've been reading this:
https://www.amazon.com/Does-Have-Nature-Aquinas-Lecture/dp/0874621453

I would not dare to presume to think I could adequately codify it, but the criticism as I understand it is that if there is no differentiation between the divine properties, and God's essence is identical with his existence, then it reduces to the absurdity that God is a property.

Besides that, I have yet to read a coherent account of how we can reconcile metaphysical simplicity with Trinitarianism. If it is a true fact that the Father is not the Son nor the Spirit, that fact is eternally dependent on the divine nature and stands as an eternal differentiation within the nature. If it is a true fact that the Father uniquely knows he is not the Son nor the Spirit, then there exists an eternal differentiation within the divine knowledge, dependant upon the divine nature, standing as an eternal differentiation within the nature.

The entire enterprise appears to be a theological exercise in having your cake and eating it, too.

u/CustosClavium · 7 pointsr/Catholicism

These are some of the better books I've accumulated in school:

u/GiantManbat · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Here are a few of my favorite theologians, Bible scholars, and books

For Biblical exegesis

Inductive Bible Study by Robert Traina and David Bauer

For Systematic Theology

Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology by Thomas C. Oden (Almost anything by Oden is good really)

For Pauline Studies

Paul and the Faithfulness of God by NT Wright

The Theology of Paul by James D. G. Dunn


For Cultural Background in New Testament

Craig S. Keener (his commentary on John's Gospel is phenomenal, as is the IVP Background commentary by him)

Ben Witherington III (his commentaries are generally good)

For Christian ethics

Moral Vision of the New Testament by Richard B. Hays

For Old Testament

Walter Brueggeman (pretty much anything by this guy)

Terrence Fretheim (I especially like his commentary on Exodus)

Sandra Richter (Epic of Eden, a good primer on ancient Israelite and Canaanite culture and how it shaped the OT)

Philosophy of Religion

Soren Kierkegaard (my absolute favorite philosopher, I especially recommend Fear and Trembling)

Thomas Aquinas

St. Augustine

Alvin Plantiga (I personally dislike Plantiga's philosophy, but he's become a big name in philosophy of Religion so not someone to be ignorant of)

William Hasker

William Abraham

Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes by Charles Hartshorne (I'm not a process theologian, but this book in particular is highly important in modern theology, definitely worth a read)


Edit:
If you wanted a broad, general sweep of theology, I'd recommend The Modern Theologians by David F. Ford. It's a good overview of various theological movements since the start of the 20th century and covers theology from many different perspectives.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/Reformed

Resources:

Douglas Wilson (The most identifiable of the proponents of Federal Vision, but I'd say actually not so representative of it).

> Reformed is not Enough

> To a Thousand Generations

> Back to Basics

> A Study Guide to Calvin's Institutes

James Jordan

> Primeval Saints

> The Law of the Covenant

> The Glory of Kings (Not Jordan himself, but his Festschrift)

P. Andrew Sandlin

> A Faith that is Never Alone (He edited this volume)

> Backbone of the Bible (He edited this as well, which includes John Frame)

Rich Lusk

> Paedofaith

Tim Gallant

> These are Two Covenants

Peter Leithart

> A House for My Name

> The Baptized Body

> Commentary on 1&2 Kings

> The Kingdom and the Power

> Christology Ancient and Modern (He has an essay in here)

> Priesthood of the Plebs (This is his dissertation. Just read it. It's basically wonderful)

Internet Resources

> http://www.federal-vision.com/

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision

> http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/

> http://dougwils.com/

Books on Federal Vision

Pro:

> The Federal Vision

Neutral:

> The Auburn Avenue Theology

Against:

> The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology

> Federal Vision

> Calvin and the Federal Vision

At the core of the whole controversy is a man named Norman Shepherd. He is not typically thrown in with the Federal Vision proper, but they all use his insights. Here are his two books:

> The Call of Grace

> The Way of Righteousness

Norman Shepherd was a tenured professor at Westminster Theological Seminary (in Philadelphia) and they fired him for "doctrinal reasons." Or at least, that's what those who slander him would like to believe. The Justification controversy has been awash in haziness and misinformation. There are two main accounts, taking opposite perspectives.

> The Current Justification Controversy

> Trust and Obey

I would also suggest the Festschrift for Norman Shepherd.

> Obedient Faith (Difficult to find)

The basic gist is this:

John Murray, Norman Shepherd, and Meredith Kline are on a continuum.

Meredith Kline----------John Murray-----------Norman Shepherd.

Most people tend to side with Kline, but they insist on calling Shepherd a heretic.

u/reformedscot · 2 pointsr/Christians

There is a diversity amongst Christians, even conservative evangelical Christians, about what is possible when it comes to God's revelation of Himself to modern mankind. I am firmly of the position, and convinced of it by Scripture and tradition, that God no longer communicates to us directly, but rather, that He has given us a fully sufficient Scripture, good and able in every facet of life and doctrine. I know of Christians, of whom I am in doubt of their salvation, that have a different understanding, and even experience of this.

Basically, there's a world of presupposition behind a phrase like 'you can hear the Voice of God', and your understanding of how theology works is going to have a huge impact on that. You're not going to get to the bottom of how to discern God's will in a reddit post or two.

I encourage you to talk with your elders about this. Read a bit on the cessationist and continuationist arguments. It's worth reading both camps and working it through in your own church. John MacArthur has a book called Strange Fire that is cessationist. Mike Brown has a response called Authentic Fire that is continuationist. Finally, DeYoung and Harris have a good book, Just Do Something that I think goes a long way to helping equip people to answer questions like the one you are experiencing.

edit ze spelink

u/_innocent · 4 pointsr/Reformed

Hope it's okay for me to post here!

You might be interested in reading what the Church Fathers had to say:

  • On the Holy Spirit by St. Basil the Great

  • Works on the Spirit by St. Athanasius the Great/Didymus

    EDIT: Popular Patristics is a modern translation of these works, but you can also find huge anthologies (and I mean huge) of stuff like that for a few bucks. Just FYI :)
u/BoboBrizinski · 7 pointsr/Christianity

Check out the blog of Ben Myers, a theology professor at United Theological College. He has some cool posts on the Trinity.

You have probably exposed yourself to many primary patristic sources on the Trinity, so here are some secondary sources.

u/BishopOfReddit · 1 pointr/Reformed

Hey! Welcome to the sub, thanks for your first time post.

Here is the best article I have read that concern's the Holy Spirits eschatological role in the life of the believer (The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit, Vos.)

The standard seminary text you will read on Pneumatology will be Ferguson's work: Sinclair Ferguson: The Holy Spirit (Contours of Christian Theology Series)

Here is a more modern treatment of the Holy Spirit, which was reviewed some time back on Reformed Forum: The Holy Spirit (New Studies in Dogmatics) ( Christopher R. J. Holmes (Author), Michael Allen (Editor), Scott R. Swain (Editor) -- Really, an all-star cast)

u/Nexu101 · 3 pointsr/Christian

First of all, I want to say that I do not believe that logic is superior to emotion. They are equal from my point of view, and I think God endowed humans with both of them so that we can use them together to better discern our world. One of the most powerful verses in the Bible is John 11:35 - "Jesus wept." Even though Jesus logically knew that He could heal Lazarus, He was still overcome with emotion with the humanity in the grief of Lazarus' friends. If Jesus cries and gets emotional, then we sure can too.

Moving on, I should say that I'm a feminist, and while I can appreciate and respect other theologies that have different roles for women, I oftentimes find them to be incompatible with my personal beliefs.
I believe that women and men are spiritually equivalent. In our physical reality, there are differences in what we can do. Men tend to be stronger, and women can give birth. But our spiritual souls transcend our physical reality, and our souls are equal in the eyes of the Lord. We are spiritually equivalent. Rebecca Groothuis has a great discussion of this in her book, found here: https://www.amazon.com/Good-News-Women-Biblical-Equality/dp/0801057205

Some Christians will disagree with the following, but I believe that because women are spiritually equal to men, we are also equal in our capabilities of spiritual leadership. (The Apostle Paul seems to disagree with this notion... not sure if this is the place to get into that, but I can discuss it if needed).

Another interesting discussion of women in Christianity can be found in Sally McFague's book here: https://www.amazon.com/Models-God-Sallie-McFague/dp/0800620518/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521686251&sr=1-1&keywords=models+of+god

Basically, being a woman is just as fine and dandy as being a man from my point of view.

u/Ciff_ · 1 pointr/Christianity

Provide evidence for experiencing the Holy spirit. Theese things are in the context of the Christian faith and tradition, and are therefore explored as a Christian from that world view. Not all things within faith, especially mystic elements such as the spirit, spiritual realm etc are within the scope of empericly research, hence it is instead up to theology scholars, yet there has been many studies. I can recommend the litterature review in book form Speaking in Tongues: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives is a starting point for a scientific, theological and cultural perspective where both some empericlal research is discussed but also theological schools and traditions. But the field is very rich, and can't be covered by one book or a handful of studies.

u/Pinkfish_411 · 7 pointsr/DebateReligion

No single book could possibly capture my religious outlook (until I get around to writing my own systematic theology, at least), but the best for giving the general contours of my views is Sergei Bulgakov's trilogy on Divine-Humanity: The Lamb of God, The Comforter, and The Bride of the Lamb.

u/b3k · 3 pointsr/Reformed

10 words. Same as the number of horns of the beast?!

But really, when I think of dispensational charts. The first thing I think of is [
THE GREATEST BOOK ON DISPENSATIONAL TRUTH IN THE WORLD* by Clarence Larkin](https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Book-Dispensational-Truth-World/dp/B000OSX9N8) which I was once gifted.

u/ignatian · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

We do, however, have to be critical of the type of witness Scripture gives us. The high Christological formulas we find in the gospels are the result of some development over the first decades after Christ's death. I say this to simply point out that statements like Thomas' shouldn't be misunderstood as implying the historical 12 disciples saw Jesus as 'homoousios' with the Father. The development of Christological and Trinitarian doctrines is a fascinating question that needs to take the historically mediated nature of revelation into account. The book I cited above is a great intro. Also, this book and this book are wonderful texts for further examination.

u/expanj · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

Welcome to the dark side ;)

Actually though, this is the question that got me interested in theology as a nonreligious person. And it's partner question can God make a square circle?

The argument I find most persuasive comes from C.S. Lewis's essay "Divine Omnipotence," and though it is not without faults, I'll present it briefly here: The reality is, what is "good" for one person is simultaneously "bad" for another. If God were to run around making everything good for everyone, we would live in a meaningless universe, constantly in flux, with no set rules or principles by which we could understand our surroundings. In order for our life to make sense, there have to be constant, set, principles by which the world is ordered. It's not a question of must evil exist, it is a question of how could it not, particularly in a world where humans have free will.

Might I suggest the book Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes

u/lilyonce · 5 pointsr/Christianity

I've already given an explanation. I've got links as well, among the most well known is "She Who Is" by catholic theologian Elizabeth Johnson. "Models of God" by Sallie McFague. Link to a podcast that discusses how "El Shaddai" was wrongly translated as "Almighty God" and that El Shaddai can indicate God as a mother at the 46 minute mark. Here's a link to the wikipedia page on it. You can google "Jerome Almighty God translation" with google scholar and see the academic work for yourself. The burden of proof is on you. You can't sweep it under the rug to maintain male dominated imagery of God that you prefer.

EDIT for link.

u/terevos2 · 1 pointr/Reformed

Did you not know Carson believes in prophecy? I think he's one of those who believes, but doesn't practice it.

He wrote an outstanding commentary on 1 Corinthians 12-14.

u/nmshhhh · 2 pointsr/TrueChristian

I implore you to read this book, I’ll buy you a copy if you’ll commit to read it:

Defining Deception: Freeing the Church from the Mystical-Miracle Movement https://www.amazon.com/dp/0986444243/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_G.wMAbGFZTGBT

“The global movement of mystical-miracle enthusiasts have put a modern face on historical heresies. Men and women posing as prophets and apostles make millions preying on the sick, poor, and emotionally fragile. Behind a veil of glamour, many self-proclaimed pastors mask their spiritual abuse with claims of special power from the Holy Spirit. Defining Deception pulls back the curtain to reveal the truth behind this lucrative industry. Written with a unique blend of theology, history, and personal experience, Costi Hinn and Anthony Wood have lovingly, yet sternly, exposed the mystical-miracle fraud in the hope that Christians will unite against those who have turned Jesus into a commodity. It is also a call to all Christians of good faith to help those trapped by these corrupt leaders rediscover the biblical Gospel of Christ. Every Christian is called to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 3) even when it’s controversial—Defining Deception will equip Christians to do just that.”

u/dundermifflin324 · 4 pointsr/Reformed

In addition to everyone else's answers, I found the Strange Fire book and Defining Deception to be helpful. Also the documentary American Gospel: Christ Alone is helpful but it is more on the prosperity gospel though than of the gifts discussion but they do talk about it a little bit.

u/cmerc1290 · 2 pointsr/Reformed

I read a book called Defining Deception abouta year ago which seemed to have some similar content.

That is a great book BTW. They go after Bethel again and again and show how they are unbiblical in many aspects.

Defining Deception

u/StandardToaster895 · 2 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity

The only other one St. Vlad's prints that I know of is "Works on the Spirit." I own that as well, but I've never gotten around to reading it, so I can't tell you much about it.

u/Ibrey · 2 pointsr/Christianity

The Christological Controversy, an anthology of both orthodox and heretical primary sources. (There is another volume on The Trinitarian Controversy.)