Reddit mentions: The best protestantism books
We found 466 Reddit comments discussing the best protestantism books. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 241 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.
1. The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology
- Used Book in Good Condition
Features:
Specs:
Height | 9 Inches |
Length | 6 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 0.61949895622 Pounds |
Width | 0.43 Inches |
2. Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession
- Used Book in Good Condition
Features:
Specs:
Height | 9 inches |
Length | 6 inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Release date | July 2005 |
Weight | 1.25 pounds |
Width | 0.93 inches |
3. How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation
- Built in snug fitting visibilty raincover
- Separate padded laptop and file sleeve, large cell phone and key pocket on shoulder strap
- Internal organizer for pump, tubes and tools
- Volume: 1920ci/32L
- Weight: 2lbs 14oz/1.30k
Features:
Specs:
Height | 8.25 Inches |
Length | 5.5 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 0.67 Pounds |
Width | 0.7 Inches |
4. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
- Used Book in Good Condition
Features:
Specs:
Height | 0.62 Inches |
Length | 9 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 0.9369646135 Pounds |
Width | 6 Inches |
5. Systematic Theology
- Used Book in Good Condition
Features:
Specs:
Height | 10 Inches |
Length | 7 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 2.50004205108 Pounds |
Width | 1.67 Inches |
6. What is Reformed Theology?: Understanding the Basics
- Blade Runner (30th Anniversary Collector's Edition) - Blu-ray Used Like New
Features:
Specs:
Height | 9.01573 Inches |
Length | 5.98424 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Release date | June 2005 |
Weight | 0.70106999316 Pounds |
Width | 0.5452745 Inches |
7. Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition
- Brazos Press
Features:
Specs:
Height | 7 Inches |
Length | 5 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Release date | November 2010 |
Weight | 0.31085178942 Pounds |
Width | 0.4 Inches |
8. Calvin
Yale University Press
Specs:
Height | 7.78 Inches |
Length | 5.19 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 0.81350574678 Pounds |
Width | 1.28 Inches |
9. Northern Protestants: An Unsettled People
Specs:
Height | 8 Inches |
Length | 5.75 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 1.2 Pounds |
Width | 1.25 Inches |
10. Systematic Theology
- one year guarantee
Features:
Specs:
Height | 8.5 Inches |
Length | 5.5 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 2.7006627095 Pounds |
Width | 2.26 Inches |
11. The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: Revised Edition
- NO.1 Best-Selling LED lighting kit on Amazon: (4) 12’’ LED light bars + rocker switch+ UL-Listed A/C Power adapter + (3) extra 12’’ extension cables
- A quick and great way to upgrade your kitchen cabinet, extremely easy installation that can be done with common household tools within minutes. If you need extra extension cables, please search ASIN: B07H85YD2D for compatible extension cables
- Comparing to battery operated lighting system, this electrical powered light kit is more suitable for permanent installation as it supplies more long-lasting and constant lighting. 150 lumens per light bar, high output LEDs provides an ultra-bright lighting effect but you never need to worry about batteries dying on you
- Additional light bars can be added to fit big size long cabinet or counters. It max can be connected to 8pcs of light bars. Extra extension cables included. Rocker switch enables full control of the light
- Touch up your closet, cabinet and show case with this low cost and low consumption light kit. 30,000 hrs lifespan, UL listed power adapter, 3-year satisfaction guarantee warranty. Small investment to make huge difference
Features:
Specs:
Height | 9 Inches |
Length | 6 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 0.50926782522 pounds |
Width | 0.36 Inches |
12. Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Primer
Specs:
Release date | November 2014 |
13. On Grace and Free Will
- Oxford University Press USA
Features:
Specs:
Height | 8 Inches |
Length | 5 Inches |
Weight | 0.3 Pounds |
Width | 0.25 Inches |
14. Walk in Love: Episcopal Beliefs and Practices
- Used Book in Good Condition
Features:
Specs:
Height | 8.5 Inches |
Length | 5.5 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Release date | February 2018 |
Weight | 1 Pounds |
Width | 0.94 Inches |
15. What's Wrong with Protestant Theology? Tradition vs. Biblical Emphasis
- GUARANTEED TO CLEAN EVEN THE DIRTIEST GROUT, This is best professional grout cleaner for tile floors dirt, grease, food spills and soap scum disappear. Save money and do it yourself!
- STOP SHOPPING for grout and tile cleaners that DO NOT work. Black Diamond Ultimate Grout Cleaner is the clear winner in performance. It makes cleaning an ezz.
- BE AWARE! Most grout cleaners use acid in their formulas that will damage the grout and make it re-soil faster and harder to clean. Great for them but BAD for you!
- THE WHOLE HOUSE will look cleaner when the floors are cleaner and the colors will look great. Can be used with a grout brush or a grout steam cleaning machine if you would like.
- WE CONTROL the whole process. We formulate, test, fill, label and ship all of our own formulas so you can be assured that the Ultimate Grout Cleaner will exceed your expectations every time.
Features:
Specs:
Height | 9.01573 Inches |
Length | 5.98424 Inches |
Weight | 1.15 Pounds |
Width | 0.673227 Inches |
16. The Oxford Guide to The Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey
- ★Applying to cutting all metals including steel、stainless steel and cast iron. It can be cut and grinded, one piece is dual purpose. Mainly suitable for portable cutting machines and angle grinders.
- ★ Size:4-1/2'' x1/16'' x7/8'' (115 x1.6 x22.2mm). High quality A level brown fused alumina. It can achieve simple grinding operations and good material cutting, while maintaining low thermal impact on the workpiece.
- ★Multilevel excellent glass fiber mesh and resin as reinforced bonded material.Enhanced fiber matrix improves the stability of high-speed cutting.
- ★High tensile resistance,shock resistance and bending strength. The center hole is embedded with a high-quality stainless steel ring for precise positioning, which is safe and firm without falling off. Lightweight, durable and the perfect angle grinder accessory.
- ★High cutting effiency and high cutting ratio. Compared with other cutting blades that may be broken or prematurely worn, the cutting time is longer and faster ,more reliable.
Features:
Specs:
Height | 1.88 Inches |
Length | 9.58 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 2.28619365694 Pounds |
Width | 6.38 Inches |
17. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
- Can be cleaned multiple times for low cost filtering
- Carbon core removes many chemicals including iodine, pesticides and chlorine
- Ceramic Gauge lets you know when to replace the ceramic element
- Adapter base lets you screw your MSR filter directly onto wide-mouth Nalgene bottles
- Lifetime warranty
Features:
Specs:
Height | 9.5 Inches |
Length | 6.5 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 1.1464037624 pounds |
Width | 0.75 Inches |
18. Case for Traditional Protestantism: The Solas of the Reformation
Specs:
Height | 8.48 Inches |
Length | 5.7 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 0.54 Pounds |
Width | 0.59 Inches |
19. Inwardly Digest: The Prayer Book as Guide to a Spiritual Life
- [VISIBILITY]: Each ‘L’ sized fluorescent yellow safety vest keeps you safe and reduces risks of accidents in construction, for surveyors, during roadside emergencies, when bicycling, for cross guards and many more uses/applications.
- [EXTRA COMFORT]: Each high visibility vest is ultra-lightweight, breathable mesh fabric that remains cool and easy to wear, making it suitable for joggers, bicycle riders, truck drivers, safety workers, construction, and more!
- [REFLECTIVE STRIPS]: 2 vertical and 2 horizontal reflective strips come with a 2” width on both, front and back, for maximum visibility in all weather and lighting conditions to keep you safe while performing your tasks.
- [VEST DESIGN]: These multi-functional fluorescent safety vests come with 7 pockets: 2 large lower torso pockets, 2 slit pockets on the left chest including a transparent display pocket for identification badges/cell phones, another regular slit pocket and 3 slit pockets on the right chest, so you can carry everything you need on the job site.
- [ANSI APPROVED]: These safety vests meet ANSI/ISEA Class 2 107-2004 standard, making it suitable for both indoor and outdoor working environments, and both, adult men and women.
Features:
Specs:
Height | 8.5 Inches |
Length | 5.5 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Release date | September 2016 |
Weight | 0.86 Pounds |
Width | 0.86 Inches |
🎓 Reddit experts on protestantism 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 protestantism books are discussed. For your reference and for the sake of transparency, here are the specialists whose opinions mattered the most in our ranking.
> We are looking at the same things and calling it two different names
Amen to that! So much battle is fought over different names of the same concepts.
> "the gifts of the Spirit" have ceased, but "the miraculous gifts of the Spirit," or more accurately, "the sign-gifts of the Spirit" have ceased from the church.
Oh definitely! I totally understand this position as well. It's silly for people to say that God no longer gives gifts of, say, wisdom.
> there are no other texts that seemingly command spiritual gift-seeking.
I would agree with you on the surface based on explicit general commands to the Church. But if you're wanting to challenge this view, this book has shown me the huge depth of "fan to flame the gifts" type comments throughout Scripture:
https://www.amazon.com/Protestant-Theology-Tradition-Biblical-Emphasis/dp/098195264X/
I'm still in "shock and awe" from reading the book. I read it about 6 months ago, and have read it 3 times since and can honestly say it's the most life-changing book I've read outside of the Bible. I'm not quite ready to defend the position because I'm still soaking it in - but Dr. Ruthven shows pretty solidly the traces of "seek prophecy" and "pursue God's miraculous empowering presence" throughout the entire Bible. He rightly points out that the most common effect of the Holy Spirit interacting with humanity throughout the entire Bible is prophecy and revelation.
He's also the author of what has been considered by some to be the most authoritative refutation of cessationism (particularly Warfield's approach) written to-date. In 25 years, virtually none of his main arguments have been attacked by cessationist scholars.
https://www.amazon.com/Cessation-Charismata-Protestant-Post-biblical-Miracles-Revised/dp/0981952623/
> The Corinthians had allowed some weird stuff in the name of spiritual gifts (12:3)
Amen to that. I heard an interesting comment that went something like this, "the Corinthians weren't the only church to have the charismata...but they were the church needing a correction in the area." I think this one may be a little to far out there, but I heard one commentator say that some of the Corinthians may have even been worshiping the "god of words of knowledge" and the "god of healing" and that's why Paul says "same Spirit" over and over. Speculative and I haven't been able to substantiate that, but it entertained my itching ears nonetheless :p
> I believe that one can fulfill the command to "earnestly desire the higher gifts" in Ch. 12. by either prioritizing teaching as a member of the local church, or b) desiring the teaching gift (either through trying to teach themselves or desiring to benefit from the teaching gift) individually.
Very interesting point, I'll think more about that. It would seem to me that the highest gift in this list is apostleship and that should be our top desire - be a servant who builds the church.
John Wimber made a very interesting observation in this passage. He pointed out that the context of this passage is regarding the display of the charismata in a corporate gathering. We don't have much Scripture at all that discusses stuff like ministry on the streets or personal devotion, so there very well could be a different ranking of gifts in different situations.
> The emphasis in the chapter is on the supremacy of the word of God for clear edification. Today, that looks like expository preaching, IMO.
This is where I think we'd depart a bit. I do see a clear emphasis in chapter 14 that primarily edifying gifts which instruct should be spoken. However, the result of whatever the gift of "prophecy" is is that "an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you."
Prophecy isn't really defined in Scripture as well as we'd like. But we know the clear result is "falling on his face". I haven't really seen that through the gift or office of teacher very often. There can be prophetic teaching that results in this in my opinion, however. Here's an example of what I would call prophecy:
The secrets of the heart were laid bare and the person basically fell down and said, "God is among you" - the textbook response to authentic prophecy. In my opinion, this isn't teaching - this is a deep revelation that shakes someone to the core and forces them to come to the conclusion that God is real and that they must make a decision about it - approach in faith or shrink back. I could give many more examples of this, but they all follow the same pattern - God revealed something, someone spoke it out, and someone was shaken to the core and basically said "God is among us!" Teaching can do this, but this seems like a secondary effect rather than the primary meaning of the words as I interpret them!
I think this is Paul's point in wanting everyone to prophesy. Imagine if an atheist walked into a church gathering where 1,000 people operated at the same level of prophecy that the minister at my church did in that specific situation. He wouldn't even have a chance - he'd be saved in very short order:
> Adulting is tough, this post took me 2.5 hours to complete due to interruptions, and this is my chill day haha.
Haha, I hear ya man! Time is a scarce commodity!
Hi /u/iwillyes, I'm glad you're here! Let me start by talking a bit about what the Reformed tradition of Christianity is.
The Reformed Tradition is a branch of Protestant Christianity that developed during the Reformation in Switzerland, Scotland, France and the low countries. John Calvin was (and is) the most influential theologian in the Reformed tradition. While we share many similarities with Anglicans, Baptists and Lutherans we are usually seen as a distinct strand. We disagree on the meaning of both Baptism and the Eucharist, for example (in both regards Lutherans are closer to Catholics). Pentecostals and Anabaptist are quite different.
In terms of what makes the Reformed different from other Protestant groups, I love this quote by Cornelius Plantinga:
>>Our accents lie more on the sovereignty of God, on the authority of Scripture, on the need for disciplined holiness in personal Christian life, and finally, on Christianity as a religion of the Kingdom.
That emphasis on the sovereignty of God over all things is in my mind what most clearly distinguishes the reformed tradition. Part of that is understanding God to be sovereign in salvation - what is commonly known as the five points of Calvinism. Basically we believe that because of we are dead in our sin, man is utterly unable to do anything to save himself - even unable to turn to God. It is only through God's grace of drawing us to him that we are able to have the faith that saves us. This means that we contribute nothing to our own salvation - it is entirely a work of God.
In the U.S. there are two main groups of Reformed churches: Presbyterians (the Scottish Reformed) and the Dutch Reformed. Historically Scottish Reformed have put a bit more emphasis on personal piety (the Puritans are part of this group) while the Dutch Reformed have put slightly more emphasis on declaring the Lordship of Christ over all creation. But, we are very, very similar. The Reformed tradition is a deeply confessional one. We hold to historic documents that describe what we understand scripture to teach on a wide range of matters. The Presbyterians hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Dutch Reformed hold to the Three Forms of Unity. While different documents, the two sets of confessions essentially teach the same doctrine.
In terms of churches the large (100k+ members) Presbyterian denominations in the US are the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Presbyterian Chrurch in America. the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and ECO: A Covenant Order of Presbyterians. The PC(USA) is a more "liberal" church while the others are more "conservative" to varying degrees. The two large Dutch Reformed denominations are the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church. There are also many smaller Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. Many of them are part of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council.
What complicates things a bit is that in recent years, many Christians in other traditions have started using "reformed" to mean they have a Calvinistic view of salvation, even if they don't fit into the broader reformed tradition in other ways. You will find a lot of Baptists who have a Calvinistic view of salvation, but not of the sacraments or the church, for example. This sub tends to attract both the more conservative branch of the Reformed tradition as well as those who just have a Calvinistic view of salvation.
In terms of books, my number one recommendation for you is Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition by Jamie Smith. It's a quick easy read best digested in small parts. It does a great job of providing an overview of the Reformed tradition that is accessible, theological, and pastoral. It's aimed at those who have a 'come-to-Calvin' moment from within other theological traditions (Smith was pentecostal), but would benefit everyone.
Also read through some of the Reformed Confessions. The best place to start is with the Heidelberg Catechim and the Belgic Confession. If you want a more modern approach, I'd encourage you to also read the Christian Reformed Church's Contemporary Testimony Our World Belongs To God, too.
Other good "intro" level books:
Once you feel ready for higher level stuff, I recommend:
Oooh it's my lucky day! My thesis is on the peace process, so I've accumulated a pretty big bibliography as I've gone along; I'll give you some good references to get you started below. It's a really fascinating moment in time to study. Just out of my own curiosity -- what has piqued your interest in looking at the IRA in particular in relation to the Good Friday Agreement?
Please note, in flagrant disregard of your specifications (I'm sorry!), these are all books:
Bryan, Dominic. Orange Parades: The Politics of Ritual, Tradition and Control.
de Bréadún, Deaglán. The Far Side of Revenge: Making Peace in Northern Ireland. 2nd edition. Cork: The Collins Press, 2008.
Gallaher, Carolyn. After the Peace: Loyalist Paramilitaries in Post-Accord Northern Ireland. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007.
Gilligan, Chris and Jonathan Tonge. Peace and War? Understanding the Peace Process in Northern Ireland. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997.
Jarman, Neal. Material Conflicts: Parades and Visual Displays in Northern Ireland. Oxford: Berg, 1997.
McKay, Susan. Northern Protestants: An Unsettled People. Belfast: Blackstaff Press, 2000.
McKittrick, David and David McVea. Making Sense of the Troubles: A History of the Northern Ireland Conflict. London: Penguin, 2001.
McAuley, James W. and Graham Spencer. Ulster Loyalism after the Good Friday Agreement : History, Identity and Change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
McLaughlin, Greg and Stephen Baker. The Propaganda of Peace: The Role of Media and Culture in the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Bristol: Intellect, 2010.
Patterson, Henry and Eric Kauffman. Unionism and Orangeism in Northern Ireland since 1945: The Decline of the Loyal Family. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007.
Rowan, Brian. Behind the Lines: The Story of the IRA and Loyalist Ceasefires. Belfast: Blackstaff Press, 1995.
Neil Godfrey directly addressed the Jesus vs. Socrates question Read the whole essay Was Socrates man or myth? Applying historical Jesus criteria to Socrates but here is the most salient part:
>It might be interesting to see how the criteria used for the quest for the historical Jesus might work with another figure of comparable stature in the ancient world. A comparison like this might help us assess their real value as determinants of historicity.
>Multiple Attestation
>We have the writings of the philosopher Plato. These dramatize the teaching career, trial and death of Socrates in dialogue form. But was Plato writing about a real person or was Socrates only a literary character he chose through whom to express his own philosophical teachings?
>We have the writings of Xenophon. Xenophon was known as a historian but his writings about Socrates are not histories. They portray a very different sort of teacher from the one we read about in Plato.
>Both Plato and Xenophon are clearly writing as devoted followers of Socrates, and classicists have often remarked that the teachings they attribute to Socrates are really their own and not those of a real Socrates at all. So we are still have one source type represented by both of these authors, and historicity cannot be settled by appealing to their “multiple attestation” alone.
>This reminds us of Schweitzer’s complaint about the nature of the evidence for Jesus:
>>[A]ll the reports about [Jesus] go back to the one source of tradition, early Christianity itself, and there are no data available in Jewish or Gentile secular history which could be used as controls. Thus the degree of certainty cannot even be raised so high as positive probability. (Schweitzer, Quest, p.402)
>But we do have another source that appears to be quite independent of the above pair of Socrates’ disciples.
>We have the writings of Aristophanes, another apparent contemporary. Now far from writing as an admiring follower of Socrates, Aristophanes wrote plays in which he lampooned Socrates. Socrates appears in his works as a wastrel, dirty, leading people astray though deceitful, self-serving cleverness. But even if Aristophanes had been kinder to his portrayal of Socrates, he would still have been writing as one relatively independent of those claiming to be personal followers.
>So it appears we have a strong case for Socrates being a real person after all. Aristophanes is certainly not using Socrates as a literary figure through which to express his own philosophy.
Some classicists do claim that Socrates is an invention but only a very few do so.
The whole Jesus historicity playing field is fucked - the historicists insist that the mythicists must prove Jesus did not exist. That's fucked because the mythicists themselves say that's impossible. What the myther camp is doing is in fact making an argument for a mythical Jesus but the way they do that is indicting the thousands of years old conventional wisdom, the narrative. IOW, they aren't saying "Jesus didn't exist," but rather "the case for an historical Jesus has more holes than a tub of Swiss cheese." They are saying "here's an alternative explanation of how the narrative came to be." They question the long unquestionable claim because there are good reasons to think it's bogus.
I won't argue here for a mythical Jesus. (Aside: I'm firmly in the myther camp. I find it extremely unlikely that anything like the standard narrative is what actually happened. There may have been an actual person behind the urban legend of Jesus, but if so that person doesn't resemble the biblical Jesus in the least. And if such a person existed, it was at least 50 years before the alleged Jesus.)
The historicists make the claim there was a Jesus. It is incumbent upon them to make a good argument for that being the case. They have failed, miserably IMO. Tom Verenna makes a strong indictment of a noted historicist's case here
"Jesus was" is a claim. If one starts with the question "Did Jesus Exist" and takes an agnostic approach, you begin with dispassionate examination of the records. Again, to do it properly you don't set out to prove Jesus existed, nor to prove there was no historical Jesus. You just examine the evidence to see where it leads. This is what Earl Doherty does in the various versions of The Jesus Puzzle. Yes, he concludes that the biblical Jesus is mythical, but he reaches that conclusion through an objective reexamination of the evidence. Similarly for Carrier.
In doing historical investigations it's not sufficient to indict the evidence for this or that argument, one must offer an alternative explanation. Dennis MacDonald makes a remarkably strong case for the Gospel of Mark being a Homeric anti-epic, updating the long deprecated notion of Odysseus as the ideal man by placing a Jewish mystic in the role. https://www.amazon.com/Homeric-Epics-Gospel-Mark/dp/0300172613
Robert Price in Deconstructing Jesus, offers another.
>After more than a century of New Testament scholarship, it has become clear that the Jesus of the gospels is a fictive amalgam, reflecting the hopes and beliefs of the early Christian community and revealing very little about the historical Jesus. Over the millennia since the beginning of Christianity various congregations, from fundamentalist to liberal, have tended to produce a Jesus figurehead that functions as a symbolic cloak for their specific theological agendas.
>Through extensive research and fresh textual insights Robert M. Price paves the way for a new reconstruction of Christian origins. Moving beyond the work of Burton L. Mack and John Dominic Crossan on Jesus movements and Christ cults, which shows how the various Jesus figures may have amalgamated into the patchwork savior of Christian faith, Price takes an innovative approach. He links the work of F.C. Baur, Walter Bauer, Helmut Koester, and James M. Robinson with that of early Christ-myth theorists-two camps of biblical analysis that have never communicated.
>Arguing that perhaps Jesus never existed as a historical figure, Price maintains an agnostic stance, while putting many puzzles and scholarly debates in a new light.
>He also incorporates neglected parallels from Islam, the Baha'i Faith, and Buddhism. Deconstructing Jesus provides a valuable bridge between New Testament scholarship and early freethinkers in a refreshing cross-fertilization of perspectives.
So yes, there are many very good reasons to believe Jesus was mythical, and there are plausible and even compelling arguments offering alternative explanations to the narrative "the Jesus of the bible is based on a real person."
I'm sure you'll get sarcastic remarks about "just read the Bible" (which, as a Reformed Baptist [charismatic] I'd agree with) but I think you're looking for solid theological interactions on the issue. In some ways, I think these are good starter books for not only the issue at hand (baptism) but also how it fits within the larger theological vision of the Christian life and community. Baptism is one of those issues that, for being seemingly simple, reveals a great deal about how one understands the nature of faith, the entire Christian life, and the nature of the Gospel itself. Just taking a guess, but I assume you're approaching it from the sobriety that the issue deserves given your reading thus far, so I commend you for looking for further resources on the topic and continuing to read!
Here are a few that are good starters, and for more reading, I'd look to their bibliographies and footnotes.
Believer's Baptism - This is a good resource. There are a few points here or there where I'd disagree with various articles. I'd want to emphasize different aspects here or there, but especially at points where the covenants (Covenant Theology v. New Covenant Theology) becomes the issue. So, good starter, and the basic presentation of a thoughtful credo-baptist view.
The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology - Taking up that point of covenant theology, this is a very thorough book on how the covenants play within a Reformed Baptist view of baptism. Very good.
Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants
Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Primer
The Confessing Baptist - This is a website and podcast. A good resource for articles and podcasts on various issues related to Reformed Baptists.
If you're looking for one book, I'd go with Believer's Baptism, and supplement with materials available at The Confessing Baptist website. That'll get your versed in the logic of the credo-baptist position, and hopefully provide some good things to mull over.
Hope that helps!
Book nerd, reporting to duty! Some ideas to spice it up:
Christian Living
If you've done much searching in this area, you've doubtless come across Dr. Neil Anderson - and for good reason. Anderson is the best Christian Living author I've encountered. Head of the Practical Theology department at Talbot (same school as MacArthur) for a decade, all of Anderson's teaching and core material has been "approved" by the theology department at Talbot and rooted in real world experience. Anderson specializes in giving practical steps for getting right with God and becoming more like Christ. By far my favorite author in this genre. Some of his books which changed my life the most:
Theology
Evangelism
A few years ago, I came across a list of the top 50 books which have shaped Evangelicals. I saw a book that interested me: Power Evangelism by John Wimber.
This is a long reply but I do hope you read all of it:
I am convinced that Roman Catholics are far too optimistic about reconciliation (believing it is just a few discussions away), and Eastern Orthodox Christians are far too pessimistic (believing it could never happen).
I am absolutely convinced that natural compromise is impossible. The Orthodox cannot accept Papal infallibility or supremacy (correctly I think; see my flair). More importantly, the Orthodox cannot accept the Filioque, and in addition to that all of the doctrine/thinking leading up to and surrounding the Filioque. The Filioque (and all surrounding doctrine) really is the thing that has been and will be the greatest impediment to reconciliation. If you are interested in reading just how seriously the Orthodox take it, I recommend two books: The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit and Augsburg and Constantinople.
The former work is St. Photius yelling at some unfortunate recipient about the Orthodox view of the Filioque (do not expect a charitable attitude, unfortunately). The latter work is a verbatim, chronological compilation of letters between some early Lutherans seeking communion with the East, and the then-contemporary Patriarch of Constantinople. Interestingly, the greatest source of debate between the two is the Lutheran acceptance of and support for the Filioque. I initially thought that it would boil down to the sacraments or saints, but no, it devolved into the same basic argument the Christian East has had with the Christian West for centuries, with some Protestant flavor. The latter work contains an actual back-and-forth debate on the matter, whereas the former work, being a single letter, is wholly one-sided. If you're wondering how the Lutheran arguments for the Filioque are relevant to the Roman Catholic arguments for the same, know that the Lutherans essentially copied and pasted Roman Catholic arguments into their letters, so the Patriarch is not really answering Lutheran arguments at that point, but Roman Catholic arguments with Protestant support.
I do think reading the former work is critical to fully understanding the language used in the latter, though I again warn that any Roman Catholic reader will find the former work condescending at least. Even I, while agreeing with St. Photius' points, wondered why it was necessary to take the tone he does. Regardless, if you read both works (the first is very short, the second is very much not), you will have a full appreciation for just how impossible the situation is, on either side. I really want to throw both books at anyone who asks "what's preventing reconciliation?" Even if one does not find the Orthodox arguments convincing, the question will be answered in full.
So again, I am convinced that no amount of dialogue will heal the Schism. I am also, however, most absolutely convinced that Christ desires the healing of the rift (why would He not?), and that as Christ is not a liar, all things are possible through Him. It really is not the responsibility of the laity to work out reconciliation, and attempts at doing so almost always result in behavior that should be brought to confession. We can, however, pray. Christ is not a liar, and says that if two or more are gathered in His name, what they ask will happen. What would happen if not just two or three came together, but rather all the laity on both sides of this painful situation cried out to God for intervention?
> Do you mind providing some Scriptural support for that statement?
The most important thing to see is that Mosaic Law is an outgrowth of the Abrahamic covenant made in Genesis 17, rather than something opposite or disconnected. When you separate the two, the land promises made to Abraham go unfulfilled and circumcision takes on a connotation of both grace and law, which contradicts Romans 2:25. The Mosaic Law grows out of the promise God makes in Genesis 17. That is the covenant God remembered when He carried the Jews out of Egypt and gave them Canaan.
Passages such as Exodus 6:1-10, Joshua 5, Genesis 15:18, Exodus 23:31, Joshua 1:3, Exodus 32:13, Psalm 105:8-10, Leviticus 26, and Galatians 3.
A great comparison of the three views (Mosaic and Abrahamic are both law; Abrahamic is grace and Mosaic is law; Mosaic and Abrhamic are both grace) can be found in Pascal Denault's Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology. It's obviously in favor of the baptist view, but is a resource that has helped me greatly.
> what do people specifically have in mind when they use words like "administration" and "republication"? Are they synonymous?
To the best of my understanding, yes, they are roughly the same thing. "Substance", in Presbyterian covenant theology is roughly the purpose of the covenant and "administration" is the how the covenant is administered. Republication is the "re-administration" of a previous covenant. Republication is usually restricted to addressing the covenant of works, because the covenant of works is seen as failing with Adam, so it's "re-administered" later on, in a temporal sense with a different outcome. The covenant of grace is not republished because it never failed and will never fail. It is continuous and has no end.
> Would you mind detailing the reasons for traditional Presbyterians to believe in the Mosaic Covenant to be an administration of the Covenant of Grace?
The majority of the arguments for the Mosaic covenant being a covenant of grace is the stipulations for the forgiveness of sins built into the law. I am familiar with the argument, but I have never found this argument compelling, especially in light of passages such as Hebrews 10:4, 2 Corinthians 3:7-8, and Romans 4:15.
Additionally, the second argument is that the law is gracious in that it pushes people into the arms of Christ, but this can be accomplished from a covenant of works and does not necessitate the substance of the law be grace.
A third and final argument I have heard for the law being a covenant of grace is that God made a covenant when He didn't have to, but isn't that true with even the Adamic covenant of works? It's probably the weakest of the three.
Besides Presbyterians who really dive into covenant theology, seeing the law as a covenant of grace proves difficult to defend, at least in my experience. There is a growing movement within both the PCA and the OPC where the Mosaic Law is seen as a unique covenant of works (republication). The continental reformed churches even allow for the adherence to republication.
In my experience, trying to reconcile Paul's teachings of the law and the teaching that the law is actually inherently grace is what pushed me to the 1689 LBCF.
> Thank you so much, again! I think I'm slowly (but surely) starting to piece covenantal theology together.
No problem at all! As always, feel free to ask any more questions you may have.
So Anglican theology is deeply liturgical - i.e. we see our theology as being expressed, experienced, and enforced in our worship - "lex orandi, lex credendi." This principle comes to a zenith in our theology behind the sacraments, which has often relied on liturgical texts and actions in a way unique among other Christian churches. This makes our theology as much of an experience as it is a set of intellectual commitments (not to artificially split the two though). However, it means that Anglicans, especially today's Anglicans, often have an implicit theology behind the sacraments, a theology relying on liturgy more than explicit explanations, which can make expressing a coherent theology difficult.
Regardless, the first place you should go if you want a taste of Episcopal "sacramentality" today is our current worship, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Our service for Baptism begins on p.298 (be sure to look at the Baptismal Covenant on p.304). We have two rites for the Eucharist, Rite I on p.323 and Rite II on p.355. As an example of Episcopal sacramental theology, it is very significant that Baptism and Eucharist are considered important enough to warrant their own liturgies.
But don't just read the texts - attend worship to understand! Theology is practiced and trained by worship.
Two other documents in the Prayer Book are of note: first, a very brief contemporary Catechism, which covers the Sacraments on pp.857-861. The other are the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England (dating back to the 16th century), which are not considered authoritative for Episcopalians today, but are an important historical document that highlights the deeply Reformed dimension of Anglicanism's development during the English Reformation (a fact that frankly embarrasses many today, for better or worse). Articles #25-31 cover the sacraments on pp.872-74.
Here's a link from a contemporary Episcopalian's attempt to coherently explain the basics of sacramental theology in our church today. It was written in response to a practice that he (rightly, imo) identified as a perversion of proper sacramentality: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/sacramental_theology_101_baptism_and_eucharist/
There are several good books on sacraments within Anglicanism by Anglican authors:
I hope this post did not give you a heart attack.
He's so readable that I can definitely recommend skipping the books about St. Augustine and just going directly to the source. As others have mentioned, Confessions. Others you may be interested in are City of God and On Grace And Free Will.
Also, as /u/Philip_Schwartzerdt mentioned, John Calvin isn't typically considered one of the Church Fathers given that his time on earth came in the 16th century. In fact, as a Catholic, we would consider him a heretic, but that's neither here nor there. :)
For other early Church Fathers books, you may want to check out this collection of writings from the early church, Against Heresies by St. Iranaeus, countering heresy in the early Church, and The First And Second Apologies by St. Justin Martyr, a convert to the faith at about 130 A.D. and who was martyred (surprise) around 165 A.D.
As you may have guessed, with me being a Catholic in the Roman Rite, that's the perspective to which my study of the early Church Fathers led me, but if you wish to get a primer on St. Irenaeus before the books come, this is a worthwhile read.
I highly encourage the study of the fathers. The whole Christian world disagrees on many parts of of Sacred Scripture, and the testimony of the fathers, especially those who were direct disciples of the Apostles, should be one of our primary sources of discerning Christian truth amid the chaos. Plainly put, there are many interpretations of Scripture which "make sense" or are feasible outside of the tradition of the Apostles, but if said interpretation is true, it should be reflected in the doctrines, beliefs, and practices of those whom the Apostles taught.
I'll pray for you as you jump into this study. Please reach out if I can be of any help!
Peace,
DK
>My reading is honest. What are you getting at?
Only that you're doing it again...
>You...upbraid any and all other interpretations of a given text except your own, insist that the way you interpret the text is alone legitimate, and then proceed to argue how that text, as interpreted, is obviously contrary to reason, common sense, and good morals.
So once again, the only "honest" reading also happens to be your reading...which just happens to be consistent with mainline Protestant theology. But the vast majority of Christians alive today or who have ever lived don't share that interpretation. In fact they regard that interpretation as wrong! (The record of this exchange between the followers of Luther and the Patriarch of Constantinople is particularly instructive on this point.) In fact, I think that in this you seem very much like a modern day Luther or Calvin, insisting that almost everybody else is misreading the text and that your interpretation is the only clear and obvious one, (i.e. the only honest one).
>You seem to be assuming I was raised a Calvinist. I was not. I was raised a Baptist.
It doesn't seem as though the peculiarities of your tradition make much difference. Until five or six years ago I was a committed Lutheran, and my interpretation of these texts would have been the same as yours. And that interpretation would have assumed from the outset the correctness of sola fida and sola scriptura. And I would have brought a number of other assumptions to my interpretation of the text, like, for example, the doctrines of "imputed righteousness" and "total depravity of the will".
However, I would now insist that the only way to get those conclusions out of the text is to read those conclusions into the text, as I believe Luther and Calvin and many after them have done. But to do that is to exclude even the possibility of interpreting these passages in a way that's consistent with the tradition of interpretation common to the churches of both the east and the west.
So I don't question your honesty. Certainly your interpretation does seem to be warranted by the texts you cite when taken in isolation. But in taking these texts in isolation and interpreting them through the lens of your tradition, you come to a false, albeit honest, interpretation.
But as the Second Vatican Council indicated, there are three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it:
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.
And I don't think the Reformers interpreted Scripture according to these three criteria, but instead made too small a part bear the burden of the whole. That is, they interpreted everything through what they understood Paul to be saying in Romans and Galatians and made that the rule for interpreting everything.
So I think that your interpretation of these texts, the honesty of which I have no desire to impugn, suffers from these three deficiencies:
Yes! I agree 100% with everything you stated!
I think one can see heavy Greek influences in the scripture. Here's a rather amazing book:
https://www.amazon.com/Homeric-Epics-Gospel-Mark/dp/0300172613
Here's a video on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJAcX_K5YA4
You write: "I went though the Christian Bible in its entirety before meeting stoicism. I greatly enjoyed the wisdom in the teachings of Jesus." Yes! So did Thomas Jefferson!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
"Jefferson accomplished a more limited goal in 1804 with The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, the predecessor to The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.[7] He described it in a letter to John Adams dated October 13, 1813:
In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines."
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
Enjoy!
Somebody else already suggested r/Reformed, but I'll suggest a couple of less known subs. There's r/ReformedBaptist and r/1689Federalism. They're both low traffic subs, and the latter has just recently started, but there's still some good info to look into there.
Right now is a pretty exciting time for Baptists due to the "rediscovery" of our Reformed/ Calvinist roots. It's difficult to find Baptist scholarship of this caliber, but some names to look for include Richard Barcellos, James Renihan, and Pascal Denault. Some historic names to look into are Benjamin Keach, William Kiffin, John Gill, William Gadsby, Charles Spurgeon, A.W. Pink, and James Petigrue Boyce.
One place I'd recommend starting from is some books. Like I said, Baptists haven't written on this stuff in a while, so there are no recent Systematic Theologies that I'm aware of. The closest you'll find is A Body of Doctinal Divinity by John Gill (PDF warning) or Abstract Of Systematic Theology by James Petigru Boyce. If you prefer hard copies, you can probably find them on Amazon.
Next, if you've been studying Reformed Theology, you should be aware that Baptists have their own distinct Covenant Theology that does not lead to Infant Baptism. It's really unfortunate that so many Baptists discover Covenant Theology and throw it away because it leads to Infant Baptism. In our development of Covenant Theology, called 1689 Federalism, we use the idea of the covenants to formulate "Believer's Baptism". There others who reject our 1689 Federalism for what is called New Covenant Theology, which attempts to bridge Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. All of this can be found online at Wikipedia if you want to read more about it. There's also some scholarship available on the topic. The Distinctives of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault is a wonderful book to get started on this subject.
Finally, I encourage you to read the historic Baptist confessions. You can find the 1689 LBCF here. It is based off of the Westminster Confession that the Presbyterians use. It's almost identical, except for a few changes of wording, and it's Congregationalist and Credobaptist affirmations. The Baptists of the 17th Century based their confession on the Westminster Standards to show their unity in Reformed doctrine. Although most Reformed Paedobaptists like to say that we're not "R"eformed, there is very little difference between us in the grand scheme of things, and Baptists holding to the 1689 LBCF and 1646 LBCF are always included in discussions relating to historic Reformed faith.
Here are a couple of resources:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi827OngqLaAhVBoVMKHd6dDEgQtwIIPDAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dp8X8a7DtwUI&usg=AOvVaw3XXUiZlCdnODbctHxPaLbt
https://www.amazon.com/How-Wide-Divide-Evangelical-Conversation/dp/0830819916/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1522893087&sr=1-1&keywords=how+wide+the+divide
https://www.amazon.com/What-Mormons-Believe-Rex-Lee/dp/0875796397/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1522893452&sr=1-1&keywords=what+do+mormons+believe
If you honor your parents and do your best to keep the commandments, they are going to be able to see the difference and light in you. And God will not punish you in any way for respecting their wishes while you live under their roof. Do your best to life as a disciple of Christ and then be baptized once you've turned 18, if they will not change their mind before that.
I think I've heard more than one systematic theologian define it as the effort to make Christian doctrine comprehensible to a contemporary audience. That definition may be technically a good one, but I think it's also potentially misleading. It makes it sound as though systematic theology is almost a form of evangelism, where theologians try to address their audience's "felt needs." That's not a good description.
If you actually read a work of systematic theology, such these by Wayne Grudem or Louis Berkhof, you'll see that they are a topic-by-topic explanation of what, in the view of the author, Christianity teaches. Conventionally they begin with "theology proper", which is the study of God himself: the doctrine of the Trinity, God's perfection, His omniscience, omnipotence, etc. They'll cover things like the nature of revelation, creation, the fall, salvation, and so on. Usually it's not just the author sharing his thoughts. He's interacting with and responding to the work of his contemporaries and to concerns that contemporary people have with respect to Christian doctrines.
On free will specifically? Start with the SEP to get a basis. Then for specific books and examples I'd recommend:
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/
This is an excellent resource for seeing all the various iterations of the Book of Common Prayer and how it has changed, in such variegated ways, over Anglican history. My favorite BCPs are the 1929 Scottish, 1928 American, 1928 English Proposed, and the 1954 South African. There's some cool stuff in the Indian 1960 too.
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/everyman_history/
Good old St Dearmer! Here's his history of the Book of Common Prayer.
Some podcasts I like: there's the Young Tractarians which definitely has a conservative Anglo-Catholic bent that talks extensively about the Prayer Book and what it is, so I'd recommend that. I'd also recommend understanding the BCP in the context in which it was written, namely the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. And finally, there's also these two special editions, one of the 1662 with an essay at the beginning from Penguin (you may be able to find this without having to buy 1662, but it's a gorgeous essay I would really recommend) and the Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer.
Out of curiosity, why do you want modern?
I've been reading Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ recently. It might be the best book on CT from a baptistic perspective out there, though its 300+ years old. Alternatively The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology is excellently done, scholarly and modern. It can be a bit tedious, since it was originally written in French as a master's thesis.
From a presbyterian perspective, I read The Christ of the Covenants and found it excellent and winsome. A number of reformed colleges and seminaries use it as a textbook.
You should be able to get any of those from the Christian Book Nook, or I can lend them to you at church on Sunday if you'd rather save some cash.
Two books I highly recommend are:
The Case for Traditional Protestantism by Terry Johnson
Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary by Matthew Barrett
The latter is an EXCELLENT work of scholarship, and is an Historical Theology of the Reformation. It begins with Medieval Catholic Theology to provide context to the Reformation and goes from there explaining the history of each doctrine in light of the Reformation and it's Reformers in a Systematic layout. with plenty of footnotes and book references, it should provide you with just about anything you need to know, and how to find it.
The other book by Terry Johnson is also an excellent case defending the Solas of the Reformation, including Sola Scriptura. It should be pointed out that the Reformers did not discredit the authority of the Church Fathers, but instead charged that the final authority rests in scripture. This is why, like you said, they were constantly referencing the Church Fathers to show that these ideas were not new. Calvinism and the Doctrines of Grace were nothing new in his day. Just about everything is founded on Augustine's debate with Pelagius on the role of God's Sovereignty and Man's Free Will in salvation. This was quite common for the Reformers to quote from earlier sources other than the Bible.
I'm Episcopalian, which is the American branch of the Anglican Communion. Some people blame our ordination of an openly gay (that is, in a same-sex relationship) bishop in 2003 for the current troubles in the entire Anglican Communion. Some churches interpret 2003 as the moment the Episcopal Church "broke off" from the Communion and ceased to be Anglican! (For example, a popular book on Amazon, "The Anglican Way," makes this argument). The Diocese of South Carolina is in the process of leaving The Episcopal Church. A new Anglican denomination, the Anglican Church of North America, appeared in response to 2003. During Rowan Williams' term as Archbishop of Canterbury he spent a lot of energy (God bless him) trying to keep some African Anglicans from leaving the Communion.
In the meantime, we've approved some (trial?) ceremonial liturgies for same-sex couples (I'm fuzzy on the details) that are not considered a full-fledged marriage: so far, our official 1979 Book of Common Prayer still uses the language of "this man... this woman" in its Marriage ceremony.
But nonetheless, Episcopalians are considered part of an open and affirming denomination. My own parish flies the rainbow flag, and its previous priest was openly gay. The parish on the other side of my town has a married lesbian (2 kids) as its current rector (I've had dinner with her family.) I'd like to think of us a place of refuge for LGBT Christians who have been hurt.
At the same time, as a church it's not enough to pat ourselves on the back for having the "right" opinion and then do nothing. We must not just accept our LGBT members, but to nourish their life in Christ so that they can "perfectly love... and worthily magnify" (Collect for Purity) the holy Name of the Lord. A life of discipleship is the ultimate defense against a world that is suspicious of the validity of LGBT identity, because no offense can overcome the Lord, our "strength and shield." (Psalm 28.7)
If you could somehow teleport yourself to my church I would love to make you at home.
Here's a resource that may help you http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/documents/ToSetOurHope_eng.pdf
> So: what is your take on the subject?
Long story short, I too was drawn to Reformed theology and had to ask myself many questions about paedobaptism. In my case my study was both personal and academic (I wrote a 30 page paper on the development of covenantal paedobaptism for my secular schooling). At the end of my study I remained staunchly and firmly credobaptist, now I'm a confessional Reformed Baptist in a Baptist seminary.
> like the dispensationalism vs covenant theology vs new covenant theology debate, I really don't know what to think. It is alkso the position I came to after studying to topic.
Have you heard of 1689 Federalism? 1689 Federalism is the way the early Particular Baptist approached the topic.
> Essentially, as far as I understand it, it is said that baptism is really the sacrament of circumcision for the new covenant.
And that's one of the key places where covenantal paedobaptists go wrong. While circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant and Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, the fulfillment of physical circumcision is circumcision of the heart, aka regeneration. Here's a good take on circumcision and baptism.
In general I would really recommend this blog, the author is an excellent Reformed Baptist writer and historian. He has a lot on baptism, circumcision, and 1689 Federalism. The blog also interacts with R Scott Clark a lot, I saw someone recommended him earlier.
If you would like are also penalty of historic works from Baptists in which they articulated and defend their views. For example, John Gill's writings and those of James Haldane (Presbyterian churchman turned Baptist) are quite good.
There are also a lot of modern books that I would recommend, two being Baptism of Disciples Alone by Fred Malone and The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault. Again these are just a few of many.
I know this was a lot of link dumping (and this was just the tip of the iceberg), but it always sad to see when Baptists come to Reformed theology they skip right over the rich and mighty historic Particular/Reformed Baptist tradition and head right into Paedobaptist works, thinking that's all there is by way of Reformed scholarship.
God bless.
Calvin is a great place to end up! If you want a good quick primer then read Welcome to a Reformed Church. It is pretty good instant primer on Reformed Thought. For a slightly more nuanced book, go with R.C. Sproul's What is Reformed Theology.
Bart Ehrman has some great lectures, MacDonald has a good book on why Mark is a clear rip of Homeric epics.
http://evilbible.com has a lot of interesting verses. Make sure to check the context though since they've been known to ignore that when it is important.
As a historian who studies Reformation England, I'd highly recommend the Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer for anyone wanting an introduction to the history behind the it. It's especially good at covering the reciprocal relationship between theology and society/culture/politics. It's a pretty hefty book, but it's broken up into chapters not only on specific eras, but ones on specific themes as well. So it's pretty easy to find your way around while covering a lot of information.
Fantastic book! If you want a couple other ones that just add to this, check out Dennis R. MacDonald's The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Richard I Pervo's The Mystery of Acts, and Robert M. Price's works such as Deconstructing Jesus, and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. These all add to the conclusion that the gospels (and Acts) are works of fiction, or at best, could go either way...meaning that there is very little (or no) historical truth about Jesus in them.
I would start here. Reformed theology teaches that regeneration PRECEDES faith. We can't come to God unless He regenerates our heart.
The view he holds might be semipelagianism, but probably not
I would encourage you to be loving towards your grandpa, rather than try to shove doctrine down his throat to prove he's wrong/you're right.
Since you're new to to Reformed Theology, I'd recommend Letters to a Young Calvinist.
There are not too many big name theologians who hold that view (actually, there aren't too many big name Reformed Baptists).
The best book that I have personally read on the topic is this book by Pascal Denault
This book I have not read, but I have heard really good things about. It's a compilation of different authors like Richard Barcellos, Jim Renihan, James White, Tom Hicks, etc.
A while back I actually asked if anyone knew of any books on this dialogue, and a redditer suggested this book. I'm just now getting around to reading it, but I'm really enjoying it so far, and would suggest it to anyone interested on the topic.
Nice try, Wayne Grudem.
I kid, I kid. Seriously though, I've not read Wayne Grudem. Back in seminary, however, I took Theological Overview under J.I. Packer and the texts for his class were:
Millard Erickson's "robustly evangelical, gently Calvinistic", Christian Theology
& Louis Berkof's 'strongly Reformational', Systematic Theology
___
Those were the weightier academic requirements. Also on the reading list were two volumes for the general reader:
Bruce Milne's helpful survey of Christian theology, Know the Truth
& J.I. Packer's own commendable, Concise Theology
Excellent resources all.
>After listening to the Wolfe Tones and Dubliners so much and watching some films like Hunger, Bloody Sunday and In The Name of the Father
Using the above sources (except the Dubliners) to gain a better understanding Irish history and society would be similar to learning about American capitalism by watching Michael Moore documentaries. My point is, these are either emotionally charged or extremely biased sources which is of no benefit to an understanding of history. (Personally, I think using film is generally a bad choice as a method to learn history.)
Some good resources would include:
Dermot Keogh, Twentieth Century Ireland Amazon Link
R.F. Foster, The Oxford History of Ireland Amazon Link (admittedly, many Irish don't like Foster's revisionist approach to Irish history. However, this book is a short and concise edition to Ireland's entire history and provides good context for the 20th century).
Susan McKay, Northern Protestants: An unsettled people Amazon Link
Others mentioned the CAIN website to understand the troubles, and I totally agree. If you are in college at the moment, and have access to academic journal articles, check out Irish Historical Studies. They also have a website.
Finally, check out Newstalk's 'Talking History' podcasts. The presenter is a lecturer in Trinity College, Dublin and his guests are almost always distinct academics on each respective issue. If you look through the back catalog, you will find some great podcasts around twentieth century Irish history.
Walk in Love: Episcopal Beliefs and Practices is a great place to start.
A very interesting book, The Homeric Epics and the gospel of Mark, makes some compelling connections between Odysseus and Jesus (they both have 12 incompetent followers...both try to keep their divinity secret...both expel an evil spirit, turn it into 2000 hogs, and drown them...).
Mark was written in Greek by someone who most assuredly had Homer's style pressed into his head as he wrote this magnificent Gospel!
In "100 Years before Christ", another author notes that for all of Paul's works, he doesn't mention any anecdotes about the life of Christ. He must have met some people who had some contact? He, rather, describes the "Heavenly Christ" who died for our sins...
The suggestion I get from these two works is that Paul wrote first, about a Christ long-dead ("100 years..."), and Mark was the first (?) and best to present a chronicle to establish an orthodoxy?
I don't know anything. I'm just a reader. What do you recommend?
Thanks.
If you are looking for thoughtful informed dialogue and debate between an informed Mormon and and informed Christian I highly recommend you read How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson.
Pascal Denault has a good smaller work, but I know there are people at the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies who are currently working on more comprehensive systematic treatments :)
As someone else mentioned, start a study into Theology with an introductory text in Hermeneutics. This where so many people go wrong and misinterpret the text, drawing false and erroneous conclusions. The way you interpret the text will determine what you draw out of it.
Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation was the first Hermeneutics text I worked through, and I highly recommend it. It's highly unbiased, and the end of each chapter is packed with problems to think through.
Once you're done there, if you have access to iTunes University or the [Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS)](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details id=com.subsplash.thechurchapp.reformedtheologicalseminary2&hl=en_US&referrer=utm_source%3Dgoogle%26utm_medium%3Dorganic%26utm_term%3Drts+mobile+app&pcampaignid=APPU_1_vSLpW7CiCMbCzwL3vK-wDw) app for Android, find Robert Cara's lectures in Advanced Biblical Exegesis under "Old and New Testament" and listen to them (they're free).
When you get to looking at a Systematic Theology to work through, I recommend staying away from Wayne Grudem. He's really popular among Evangelicals, but I'm personally not a fan of him. There's better Systematic Theologies out there. I highly recommend Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology or Classic Christianity by Thomas Oden.
That depends heavily on where you're coming from and on what you mean by "Reformed".
You might want to study a catechism (or if you aren't credobaptist).
You might want to study through a reformed confession.
You might want to read a book by RC Sproul on What is Reformed Theology.
Basically, welcome! Tell us more so we can help you.
I highly, highly recommend Derek Olsen's excellent book on this exact subject:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0880284323/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1
I would recommend the following:
Free
Paid
I can't vouch for any of these sources, but there should be some good stuff in these.
I would recommend picking up a book like Berkhof's Systematic Theology or Bavinck's The Doctrine of God. These will be more challenging, dense readings, but they will help with understanding the formulation of Trinity and the implications.
Also, picking up a church history book about the 3rd and 4th centuries and the Trinitarian debates then could be beneficial to see how the church has sharpened its understanding on this in response to wrong teaching.
There's all kinds of good stuff at monergism.com. Also I recommend Berkhof's Systematic Theology and Horton's Introducing Covenant Theology (also known as "God of Promise").
If you want a good one to add to that, I'd recommend 'northern Protestants- an unsettled people'
Really interesting book.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Northern-Protestants-Unsettled-Susan-McKay/dp/0856407712
I recommend The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault. It was very helpful for me because I knew I was covenantal, but wasn’t convinced of paedobaptism. He offers the 1689 view of covenant theology which is more nuanced and yet doesn’t fall into New Covenant Theology.
This book changed my life and my walk with the Lord. Because of this, my "personal relationship" with God is becoming more "personal" and "real".
https://www.amazon.com/Protestant-Theology-Tradition-Biblical-Emphasis/dp/098195264X/
This book has my highest praise.
There was actually significant dialogue between the early Lutheran reformers and the Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople. The Lutherans sent a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession and asked the Orthodox to, essentially, proof read it, as they believed that the Orthodox had maintained the Christian faith as set forth by the Apostles and would match quite nicely with the Lutheran beliefs. This book contains the letters and responses translated into English, and it's a really interesting read. You used to be able to find the letters translated online, but I can't find them for the life of me.
I have actually read this book…
http://www.amazon.com/The-Orthodox-Church-New-Edition/dp/0140146563/
... and trying to start reading (among a lot of others) this one…
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0916586820/
You might say it is more of a history phase I am going through right now more than anything else. While I classify myself as a Protestant I consider myself non-denominational and more curious why we differ more than anything else. But on what you said online…
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2235-Lucifer-in-Septuagint
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/why-did-septuagint-put-lucifer-word-howl-50019/
… yep. That is one of the specific examples why I asked.
Currently reading:
The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology and it is very enlightening. I believe I fall in the 1689 Federalism camp, though I have not read much of NCT...
I had that point shown to me nicely in this book here:
https://www.amazon.com/Protestant-Theology-Tradition-Biblical-Emphasis/dp/098195264X/
Well there was a correspondence between the ecumenical patriarch and the lutherans. Basically, they essentially agreed on principles of ecclesiology, but disagreed on a lot of doctrine regarding faith, salvation, and sacraments.
If you're a reader, I highly recommend these books:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Wide-Divide-Evangelical-Conversation/dp/0830819916
https://www.amazon.com/Are-Mormons-Christians-Stephen-Robinson/dp/1570084092
If you are an American, then I'd say Thomas McKenzie's Anglican Way. Certainly pushed me closer to Anglicanism.
​
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JHQOA8Q/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
> Do you have an alternative hypothesis for the creation of these stories?
They're likely reactions to Jewish suppression and decimation after the Jewish-Roman Wars. There are parallels between the NT Jesus and a few characters in the texts of Josephus - 'the Egyptian', Jesus ben Ananais. See
Theologian Dennis MacDonald has noted distinct parallels between The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
> If he is fictional why is he [Jesus the Christ] not a more heroic character?
He is: he ranks highly on the Rank-Raglan scale.
This is also interesting and slightly related,
http://www.amazon.com/The-Homeric-Epics-Gospel-Mark/dp/0300172613
I haven't read it yet, but this is the one that I've seen recommended highly: Calvin https://www.amazon.com/dp/030017084X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_x76LybNRZBTDP
You can also look at the BCP online to get a feel for the service if you’re nervous about heading to a new church (I get nervous and like to scope out the BCP and also their website).
If you want to read more about the Episcopal Church, I would recommend Walk in Love
Here it is in book form. Not sure if it is online somewhere as well.
well... At least the Lutherans like the Orthodox and the reformation had nothing to do with us....
The book I found the first two reviews to be insightful.
a YouTube series from the book
Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology. Available for ~$10 in paperback and free as an ebook.
Highly recommend this one
Also, is he arguing for hypercalvinism in this exchange?
This is a response by JP Holding on the book making the claims mentioned. I'm no big fan of Holding, but if he's not misrepresenting it, the claim sounds a bit weak.
http://www.amazon.com/Homeric-Epics-Gospel-Mark/dp/0300172613/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323404191&sr=8-1 is the book it's based on.
I don't really know, i'm from Dublin :)
I read this book and it gave me quite an insight, though they talk to less hardcore people. The others seem more apathetic about it.
https://www.amazon.com/Northern-Protestants-Unsettled-Susan-McKay/dp/0856407712
I think in the past there definitely was more when Ireland really was a catholic backwater. Now ROI is more cosmopolitan, less catholic and wealthier I think it's changed, but follow some made guys on twitter and you'll see people really talking shit about the south.
Which James White? I hear good things about Dr. James Emery White, though I have never read any of his works.
This James White is a different story. He's not really a "doctor", all his doctoral degrees come from an unaccredited institution. I haven't interacted with his work too much, mostly because he comes across as a bit arrogant and confrontational in the works I have read. His apologetic work often strikes me as disingenuous, uncharitable, and often pseudo-historical towards those he is arguing against, especially Roman Catholics.
I do have quite a few books I would recommend:
First, I would read the following:
The Heidelberg Catechism, The Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort
These are collectively referred to as the "Three Forms of Unity", and are the baseline documents for continental Reformed (Calvinist) churches. In addition, I recommend the following:
Good Introductions
Letters to a Young Calvinist by James K.A. Smith
Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport by Richard J. Mouw
What is Reformed Theology? by R.C. Sproul
A Little Book on the Christian Life by John Calvin
Digging Deeper
Pilgrim Theology by Michael Horton
The Christian Faith by Michael Horton
The Institutes of the Christian Religion in the 1536, 1541, or 1559 editions by John Calvin. Also available online here
Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Bavinck
Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof
As well anything by the following authors:
Modern: R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, James K.A. Smith, Cornelius Plantinga, Alvin Plantinga, John Piper, and Tim Keller.
1800s & 1900s: J. Gresham Machen, Herman Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper, G.C. Berkouwer, and B.B. Warfield
Pre-1800s: Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and John Knox