(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best protestantism books

> 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:

• Article from Sam Storms spells out most charismatic beliefs regarding this gift: http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/prophets-and-prophecy
  
  
• A minister at my church was a guest preacher one day at another church in the city. During the middle of the sermon, he felt strongly that God said to him, "You need to stop preaching right now and tell someone that God has value for their life and that suicide is not the correct thing to do." He obeyed God and stopped the sermon and said exactly that and said that there was one person who this message was for. The person came up at the end of the sermon and said that they were going to kill themselves that day and that they decided to stop by this church to see if God is real before ending it all. Instead, they came to Christ that day.
  
  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:
  
  
• "You're Tom right? Two weeks ago I dreamed that you would be here today. The reason you are here is that you are seeking clarity for the hurt you suffered at the age of 7. God wants you to know that it is not your fault what you experienced..."
  
  > 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. Thanks for your questions. I'm a lifelong Adventist, but I've spent some time studying through these things, so I'll give you my best answers. However, I second watching Tell the World. It is surprisingly good and tells the story of how Adventism started very well, including Ellen White's role. It should help you understand a little better. Now for your questions (and I apologize for the wall of text):

1. I consider Ellen White to be a prophet, and her insights contributed greatly to the establishment of Seventh-day Adventism. However, I think one must ask what is meant by "prophet." Some people understand "prophet" as one who writes down the dictated words of God. Ellen White was not that. She drew heavily upon other authors to form her expressions and her work was edited as well. Uriah Smith, who formulated much of the Adventist understanding of prophecy had a difficult shift from the first understanding when Ellen White asked him to edit The Great Controversy for historical accuracy. Regarding her emphasis on health, as I understand it, God told her it was important, but she did much of the research for herself. Additionally, she referred to herself as a "lesser light pointing to the greater light" (the Bible). Although she had visions and received messages from God, she was clear that her writings were not to be used to settle doctrinal disputes. Only the Bible should do that.
   
   Understanding how Ellen White was "inspired" has helped Adventists understand how the Bible was inspired. God did not simply speak for men to record his words (except on rare occasion). Rather, he spoke to men who then expressed his ideas as best they could--in their distinct styles and contexts. Adventists do not believe in verbal inspiration, but rather thought inspiration (God gave the ideas, not the specific words of Scripture) in part because of what was seen in Ellen White's ministry.
   
   For myself, I have found Ellen White's writings to be a great help to my own understanding of God and his love. I highly recommend Steps to Christ, and the Conflict of the Ages series. To me, that is the real question--what difference does her work make in my life?
   
   
2. Adventists in no way deny the divinity of Christ. He is not an angel, he is God. "Michael the Archangel" is understood as simply another name for him, recognizing him as leader of the angels.
   
   
3. This is a topic I recommend studying further. This article gives an excellent explanation of how the Investigative Judgement makes sense of the gospel, in the context of various understandings of salvation. Regarding the timelines, that will require further study. Any pastor would be happy to go through it with you. W. A. Spicer's Our Day in Light of Prophecy, while a bit dated (and thus free online), gives an excellent explanation of all this. Marvin Moore's The Case for the Investigative Judgement is a far newer study of the topic which I quite enjoyed.
   
   Regarding the IJ, it is important to Adventism in terms of our picture of God as acting in history and having a plan laid out to establish his goodness to all who have questions. Details and dates are secondary to this fundamental idea--that God's goodness is in question and will be demonstrated before the entire universe through his interactions with humanity.

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:

• Reformed: What It Means, Why It Matters by Bob DeMoor. This is more of a booklet that a full book. It'd be a great option for a newcomers class at church.
  
  
• Deep Down Faith by Cornelius Plantinga. This one is a devotional aimed at young adults, but an excellent explanation of Reformed Faith.
  
  
• Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul. This is the book that made me a Calvinist. Best explanation and defense of TULIP out there. Sproul's The Holiness of God is anothe excellent choice, as are all of his books.
  
  
• Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport: Making Connections in Today's World by Richard Mouw. Another book focused on TULIP. This one's goal is to show how the doctrines of Grace affect the way we live out our lives and correcting common misunderstandings about Calvinism.
  
  
  Once you feel ready for higher level stuff, I recommend:
  
  
• Reformed Theology by Michael Allen. If you want a book that covers the breadth of Reformed Theology at a deep level than Smith or DeMoor, this is for you (think intro college level).
  
  
• Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation by Michael Allen and Scott Swain. This book is a clarion call: “to be Reformed means to go deeper into true catholicity, not to move away from catholicity.” A must read.
  
  
• Reformed Dogmatics (Abridged) by Herman Bavink. My appreciation for Bavink grows every time I read him. This abridged version is much cheaper and more accessible than the full four volume edition.
  
  
• Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. This one needs no explanation. Get this one if you want to splurge for a nice reference edition, the Beveridge Translation is available for much less (and free online).
  

I'm going to start this week with some of my initial reactions for people to chime in on, and then I will move on to some specific discussion about some points in the above post. This response is a bit unrefined, as I am in between classes and have not had a chance to go over it very much, so feel free to pick it apart or call me out on stuff.

Initial Thoughts

I enjoyed this chapter as a whole, but was a bit frustrated with it's lack of details and discussion on some topics. Particularly, I wish more time had been spent discussing Eastern theology, as well as the Roman and Lutheran branches in the Western Church. I am hoping he engages each tradition more fully during discussion of specific topics later on. I will probably take this week to read the unabridged chapter to see what that holds.

I was also a bit off-put by Bavinck's praise of Augustine. Certainly, Augustine is among the greatest of the Church Fathers of the early centuries, but I'm not sure we can say "Augustine has been and is the dogmatician of the Christian church." as Bavinck does. First, I think it does a disservice to the incredible contributions of Chrysostom, Irenaeus, the Cappadocian Fathers, Tertullian, Origen, and even later theologians like Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, and Melancthon. Second, I suspect Bavinck will in the end disagree with a great number of Augustine's theological positions, such as paedocommunion, and the canon.

Do we need to reclaim reflections of the ethical life?

I believe we do. I am currently taking a church history class, and I am struck by the incredible focus on sanctification that the early Church had compared to today. There is a great deal of anti-nomianism in the Church today. If the Roman error was to confuse justification and sanctification, our mistake has been to tear them apart. Especially as we enter the post-Christian era, we need to focus on the retrieval of the moral and ethical renewal that comes through faith in Christ, and I think dogmatic theology can help in this regard. We need to clarify some doctrines and help people understand the relationship between faith and works. Our dogmaticians need to be clearer that works are a necessary part of the Christian life. The idea that "if you believe in Jesus, when you die you get to go to heaven" is a 1-dimensional portrayal of salvation infested with Gnosticism. Faith is more than knowledge (gnosis), and salvation is more than "going to heaven when you die."

Why does good systematic theology matter when it didn't before?

I would argue that good systematic theology has always mattered. The Gospel has never changed, and the Church's implicit understanding of it has never changed. Systematic theology allows us to address the issues of our time in a explicit way, which is why it seems like it has grown more important over time. For example, the Christian Church has always believed in the Trinity. We didn't need to explicitly spell out the exact nature of the Trinity until Arius arrived with his heresy. Super detailed systematic theology is not necessary for individual salvation; you don't need to know what homoousios means in order to be saved. Systematic theology is necessary for the Church to fight heresy, to ensure correct teaching, and stay healthy.

Lutheran-Reformed Differences

I suspect Bavinck will approach each difference when talking about specific doctrines later on. So I will try to be brief.

There are two distinctions that immediately come to mind for me. First, we approach our confessions differently. Historically, Lutherans have generally taken the Formula of Concord to be more or less definitive. Lutherans view confessions as being necessary for unity in the church: all Lutherans hold to the Augsburg Confession for example. Part of this stems from the fact that, at least at the beginning, the Lutheran movement sought reconciliation with Rome in the form of an ecumenical council. Melancthon was actually on his way to the council of Trent, and only turned around when he was told that the Lutheran delegation would not receive a vote.

The Reformed take a lower view of our confessions. Calvin was happy to affirm the Confession of Augsburg, but he refused to bind the church to it. Our confessions have always been open to revision, and nobody has ever particularly cared that we all use different ones. The Dutch use the Three Forms of Unity and the Scottish use the Westminster Standards. They all generally agree we so we shrug and carry on. Anyone more interested in this topic would benefit greatly from the opening portions of Karl Barth's lectures on the Theology of the Reformed Confessions

The biggest issue has been the difference in our sacramentology. Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration, and the Reformed do not. Lutherans believe that Christ's body is present "around, through, under, and above" the elements of the Eucharist, and that even unbelievers receive Christ's body, though not the benefit. The Reformed believe that we commune with Christ's actual body, but in a spiritual sense when we receive the elements with faith. So only believers receive the Christ's body and the benefits thereof. The Reformed are not willing to be more specific, because to us the Lutheran view sounds too much like monophysitism. To the Lutherans, the Reformed view seems too much like a denial of the clear meaning of Christ's words at the institution of the sacrament.

Are there risks to doing dogmatic theology?

Certainly. We risk doing it wrong. We risk elevating some doctrines to a level they do not deserve, and we risk prying into mysteries we aren't meant to. I think the Lutheran/Reformed divide on the Lord's Supper is a great example of a dogma taken too far. In the end, either the Reformed are right, or the Lutherans are. However, in letting it continue to divide us we have failed to pay attention to our other doctrines as we should. Lutherans and Reformed acknowledge one another as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, and yet we have allowed our disagreement over this topic to prohibit us from approaching the table together. In doing so we tear Christ's body apart. Communion should be closed to unbelievers, heretics, and unrepentant sinners. Closing it to fellow believers because we understand the mystery of the Eucharist differently is a great sin in my opinion. Closing communion to fellow believers leaves us guilty of failing to discern the body as Paul commands us to in 1 Corinthians 11.

More generally we risk making theology an idol: placing our faith in the special knowledge (gnosis) that good theology gives us, rather than in our faith in Jesus Christ. This is just gnosticism rearing it's ugly head. We risk demanding understanding that some are not even capable of as a requirement for the sacraments, or salvation itself.

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.

Oh, goodness, depends on your area of interest! I liked American Protestsntism, but my real passion was early Christianity, especially the gospels excluded from the Bible.

Off the top of Mr head (and its been 30 years, so forgive me! This is good on American evangelical history The Great Awakening: A History of the Revival of Religion in the Time of Edwards and Whitefield
Also good in that area is The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America

A REALLY good way to find texts is to search for college/university syllabi which are usually on line now! For example, Dartmouth's Intro to American Religion is there, Rutgers' is online, etc.

I cannot stress enough how important it is to get recommendations from academic universities and courses, not church-based ones. You want to learn and engage with the material without having to deal with a school's or teacher's theology involved. You want information that isn't censored for theological reasons.

I LOVED my degree work, and the area is still a great passion of mine. Feel free to direct message me if I can be of any help. Check out some of the extra-biblical Gospels, like the Gospels of Mary, Thomas, etc. You'll delve into the politics of assembling the Bible and the reasons for excluding certain narratives (especially the equality of women and the aggressive social justice policies!). Love to chat about this stuff!

The institutes are surprisingly very readable. I read that somewhere in a couple places, and my experience reading them bears out this truth. Try out this article, note this:

>1. The Institutes may be easier to read than you think.
J. I. Packer writes, “The readability of the Institutio, considering its size, is remarkable.”
Level of difficulty should not determine a book’s importance; some simple books are profound; some difficult books are simply muddled. What we want are books that make us think and worship, even if that requires some hard work. As Piper wrote in Future Grace, “When my sons complain that a good book is hard to read, I say, ‘Raking is easy, but all you get is leaves; digging is hard, but you might find diamonds.'”

There are few works in history that had the influence the Institutes had, and had the effect of changing the course of history as this work did. One more though, I also own this version of Calvin's Magnum Opus, am about 250 pages in, it's the easiest version to read, I find, because it is shorter than the 1559 version and the headers and other aides makes this translation quite a treat, for me, a Calvinist.

I would definitely start with Machen, you cant go wrong. World Magazine said it's one of the 100 best books of the millennium:

>It was named one of the top 100 books of the millennium by World magazine and one of the top 100 books of the twentieth century by Christianity Today. / “An admirable book. For its acumen, for its saliency, and for its wit, this cool and stringent defense of orthodox Protestantism is, I think, the best popular argument produced [in the controversy between Christianity and liberalism].”

One last to share, I listened (ironically) to Dr. Adler's classic How to read a book which is a great one for whatever level of reader we find ourselves to be. We read and are driven to this endeavor because we seek to grow our minds. I don't mean to pile on, but you asked hehe. A few books to add to your list, believe me, when you start asking and keeping a "to-read list" it always seems to grow. There's lots of good stuff when you know what to look for :-)

Grace and peace.

Reading this makes my heart happy. I'm absolutely sure that Heaven will be full of people like you, who were wooed to God's quiet calling.

One book that I can highly recommend for a more clear and concise view of Adventist beliefs can be found here: SDA Believe Book. I am not someone who was raised as an Adventist, but the reason I am one today is because they follow most closely what the Bible actually says and, because of this, a true, logical, and beautiful picture of the character of God is painted.

I know you want to go more lightly on Ellen White but I can't help but recommend "The Desire of Ages". It's a powerful glimpse into the awesome story of redemption, and presents a staggering view of Christ's great love for humanity.

The next book I want to recommend is a theodicy written by one of my favorite pastors. It's called "God in Pain" by David Asscherick.

I hope you're able to check out these resources. Blessings to you. I'll be praying for God's continued leading in you and your family's walk with Him.

Welcome. Good luck on your path. Do know that faith ebbs and flows. Right now, you've had a powerful experience that moved you significantly--to a whole new faith. That's great. In a few months, or years, or maybe never, things may settle down and feel less powerful. But that doesn't mean they're less genuine. Be open to the journey and its ebbs and flows. Though if you're a fan of Ignatian spirituality you probably have a sense of that!

As far as books, I think The Anglican Way and Your Faith, Your Life are great introductions to the Anglican/Episcopal traditions. They are basic, but they might help you pick up some facts you're missing out on. For better understanding the Book of Common Prayer and liturgical worship, I'd recommend Inwardly Digest to start and the Commentary on the American Prayer Book if you really want to dive deep on specific aspects of the book. To understand the Nicene Creed, one of our primary statements of faith, try The Nicene Creed. It's written by a Catholic theologian but really helped me understand more pieces of this prayer that Christians share.

If you are interested in the more mystical/Ignatian modes of spirituality, both of these are Catholic but apply well to Anglicanism: Richard Rohr's Center for Contemplation in Action (love their daily reflections!) and many of the books by Father James Martin, SJ.

Lastly, read the Bible just a little bit every day! It will help you get more familiar with things. Try choosing a daily devotional like Sacred Space or Day by Day which will give you snippets of reading and reflection. It'll help you grow to understand scripture better.

• J.C. Ryle, Thoughts for Young Men ($8)
  
• J.C. Ryle, Holiness ($8)
  
• John Bunyan, Christian Behavior ($6)
  
• Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Life in the Spirit ($2, used)
  
• Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Christian Solider, $11 used
  
• William Gurnall, The Christian in Complete Armour, selections, $12
  
• Voices from the Past, $20 used -- this book is FANTASTIC for both being thought-provoking and helpful in its own right, but also as a jump-off point to whet the appetite for reading the Puritans. I've discovered (and read) so many worthy books for free on Kindle that I've originally discovered through this little book. Bit over your price point, unfortunately, but this is a great book I wish someone had given me when I was a teenager!
  
  These are all good and helpful to young people.
  
  EDIT: Also, The Swans are Not Silent series by John Piper is amazing; I especially recommend The Hidden Smile of God and The Roots of Endurance. However, these are all free for download (legally) here, and it pains me to recommend buying what can be gotten for free! You might recommend them to him though! Most of the above are also free to download (not the Lloyd-Jones, or compilations) but the price is lower and the volumes larger, so I think it's worth having a paper copy for a gift. :)

It's a bit complex, but I can recommend some sources. The greatest Luther scholar of the 20th century, Heiko Oberman, has a few books which may be helpful, though I disagree with his interpretation of Nominalism. The first is his, The Harvest of Medieval Theology and second, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil.

Now, Oberman thinks Luther's nominalism is a positive thing - indeed, a necessary thing to preserve against Pelagianism. This is, frankly, nonsense and sounds like Oberman's just trying to protect Luther's reputation.

You could also read this short post by a friend of mine. If you want books specifically on late medieval nominalism, I can recommend some too.

Edit: Just to balance things out, I'll recommend:

Louis Dupré, The Passage to Modernity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Culture

Etienne Gilson, The Unity of Philosophical Experience

I posted this before when someone asked about Law and Gospel:

>I've been reading Law & Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible by CFW Walther (Walther's the guy who basically founded the Missouri Synod, pretty big deal). Truth be told, it's a little dry. But it's a book about theology, and it's from the 1800s, so what can I expect? If you want a concentrated 10000 proof injection of Law'n'Gospel and all of the ways it can go wrong, there you go.

>I also liked The Theology of the Cross by Gene Edward Veith (of bloggy fame), though it's maybe a little low level where Walther was too high. Lots of stuff about vocation and just Lutheranism on a broad scale, so that's where Law and Gospel come in.

>I've also heard good stuff about Broken - Seven "Christian" Rules That Every Christian Ought to Break as Often as Possible by Jonathan Fisk (of Worldview Everlasting fame, check out that link for a nice Law/Gospel bit too), though I haven't read it myself. Funny_original_name has and liked it. And I cannot say enough how Fisk kicks butt, at least in WE.

>Lastly, if you want a weird way to approach it, Hammer of God by Bo Giertz (he of Scandinavian Lutheran Church fame), is basically Law and Gospel in novel form. Part of the idea is that the Law is this hammer that cracks us because it needs to crack us, that it might fashion us into something kewl.

Theology of the Cross by Veith would probably be my best recommendation for the average reader. If you have a library close by, you might also try The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology by Krauth (doubles as excellent doorstop), or On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 by Forde.

If you want a good example of someone who firmly believed in the doctrines of grace and yet was kind and loving towards those who didn't, check out some of John Newton's letters. Here's a book with a handful of his letters HERE, or quite a few more letters are found in his Works. It really has to do with humility and love kindled in us by the graciousness of the gospel!

> Last I checked, expositing a text is appealing to Scripture.

Agreed. But you're only appealing to those who agree with your view (confirmation bias).

> The speaking of tongues in the Bible is always one that the audience can comprehend

Not according to 1 Corinthians 14:2. You have to presuppose and go beyond the plain text to arrive at this conclusion.

> You're some dude on the internet, your anecdotes are of course not going to do much to my beliefs.

I could feed you stories from Bible scholars and great leaders and scholars of our time....but really...what's the point? You have determined that we are sinners (without a single shred of Scripture supporting this accusation of sin mind you...if you're going to cast a stone, at minimum, make sure you've got the legal grounds to do so before hurling).

> Convince me with the Word of God that the charismatic gifts are for all time

• All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness - 2 Timonthy 3:16
  
  
• Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy - 1 Corinthians 14:1
  
  
• for God's gifts (charismata) and his call are irrevocable. - Romans 11:29
  
  Cessationism contradicts plain teachings of Scripture and erases whole chapters from the Bible. Paul says "desire"...you tell me not to and that I'm sinning for doing so. Which shall I choose? Obey Paul or not?
  
  > explain how if that is the case the gifts ceased until 1906.
  
  Presupposition. Even Augustine reported the dead being raised in City of God. I understand you'll call it a miracle to protect the doctrine, but facts is fact - there have been document miracles (including tongues) in most every century of Christian history.
  
  Warfield's main arguments were demolished by this book. The remaining cessationist scholars haven't tried to refute his main arguments in over 24 years. I own it - PM me an email address and I can send it to you if you want to honestly evaluate this thing:
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Cessation-Charismata-Protestant-Post-biblical-Miracles-Revised/dp/0981952623/
  
  I also own this one. It's a more simple read. Takes on cessationist apologetics as well:
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Power-Spirit-Zondervan/dp/0310211271/
  
  I will happily send you either of these books right now. These are Bible scholars with multiple degrees from prestigious institutions taking this belief system on with all of their skill. At the very least, it makes sense to seriously evaluate this from both sides.
  
  I used to be a soft-cessationist, believe it or not. I bought into all the taglines and doctrines...but over time, my view has changed.

I also am a big fan of Glorious Companions which is a compendium of biographies on influential theologians of the Anglican faith. It gave me a much deeper understanding of my faith.

Probably. I'd recommend Renewing God's People by Foster and Holloway or Reviving the Ancient Faith by Hughes. The Foster book is a short read, and the Hughes book is pretty quick to get through also. All the authors are from Churches of Christ, but Foster in particular is an excellent historian. Foster has other brief books that go into detail about the other branches of the Stone-Campbell movement.

Not "essential" as in historically significant, but a helpful handbook on several Anglican themes that can help you navigate Anglican theology in the past and today is The Study of Anglicanism (eds. Booty [har-har], Sykes, and Knight) - then if you want to learn more you can browse the bibliographies of its chapters.

Another contemporary introduction is Mark Chapman's Anglican Theology.

https://www.amazon.com/Glorious-Companions-Centuries-Anglican-Spirituality/dp/0802822223

This book is one of my favorites. It contains an overview of a large number of Anglican authors and spiritual teachers over the centuries. For each one, there's a short biography, an overview of their works, and a bibliography. I think it'll give you a good overview of a lot of different teachers, and it'll certainly give you a long reading list if you pick a work or two from each author presented.

Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!

Here are your smile-ified links:

Christ, Baptism and the Lord's Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for Evangelical Worship

Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper

The Lord's Supper as a Means of Grace: More Than a Memory

The Lord's Supper in the Reformed Tradition

What is The Lord's Supper?

---

^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly bot

Here are a couple books to look at. Btw, NT Wright is an Anglican. And he's terrific if you haven't read him. Check out Surprised By Hope.

What Anglicans Believe in the Twenty-first Century (Continuum Icons) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0826476899/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_yh2Xzb7CE5F45

Anglican Theology (Doing Theology) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0567008029/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_4i2Xzb0SY5ZC0

The Study of Anglicanism https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002SG7H2I/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_sj2Xzb83PQ5CJ

Like some others have said, it's really a pretty in depth issue. If you have some time and want to do some reading, check out The Riddle of Amish Culture.

Book of Concord.

And, because it's an awesome resource to be available, bookofconcord.org.

A Quest for Godliness by Packer
Holiness by Ryle
Mortification of Sin
Future Grace by Piper
Pursuit of Holiness by Jerry Bridges

Brad Gregory, The Unintended Reformation

Louis Bouyer, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism

Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil

Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars

Dominic Erdozain, The Soul of Doubt

this book is a real good explanation of what is going on:

http://www.amazon.com/Riddle-Culture-Center-Anabaptist-Studies/dp/080186772X

Toothpaste: anything that's approved by the American Dental Association.

Cookie: Chocolate chip.

Cereal: Honey Bunches of Oats, specifically the cinnamon kind.

Reading: On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 by Gerhard Forde.

Hey, so your post included an Amazon affiliate link, which is why it was removed. If you link to the John Newton letters via a normal link (like so) that will be just fine.

Machen's Christianity and Modernism. I think gives the underpinnings. Definitely doesn't relate directly to homosexuality, but once you understand the things he is saying, you can see how we got here.

Here is the mobile version of your link

I was hoping to find, essentially, those two books in one hardbound volume. But that is the content I'm looking for. I already had this version of the Book of Concord on my list.

Edit - Actually, given my general distrust of anything officially PC(USA) I might go for this instead.

It varies from denomination to denomination and even from congregation to congregation, but generally speaking, it's either solely grape juice or juice and wine served separately.

The reasons aren't so much theological as practical. Some US Protestant denominations began with a strong emphasis on holiness, which expressed itself as an opposition to drinking, dancing, smoking, etc. Others were leaders in the abstinence movement, which means (to overgeneralize a bit) that they were opposed to drinking on not just moral grounds, but on class and sectarian lines.

These days, there's some cultural residue: it's just become tradition to use juice rather than wine. And many places worry about alcoholics taking wine accidentally or feeling like they can't take communion without breaking their sobriety pledges.

Source: I'm a pastor. Whose congregants drank shitty shitty communion wine.

Edit: This is interesting. Wondered when Baptists (and others) turned from wine to juice. Turns out it wasn't until the 19th century, in response to the temperance movement. Source 1, Source 2. Even more interesting: Thomas Welch was a Wesleyan minister who was so opposed to serving wine in church that he invented a method of pasteurizing grape juice to offer in its place.

Given for You seems pretty good, but I haven't read it yet.

Richard Muller should have a book that deals with the Reformed view of the Eucharist, I believe it is Calvin and the Reformed Tradition but I could be wrong.

This one! It has tons and tons of footnotes to explain difficult passages and give context. Sorry about the link formatting, I’m on mobile.

https://www.amazon.com/Karl-Barths-Church-Dogmatics-Introduction/dp/0567152197/ref=asc_df_0567152197/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312168414377&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=13122335735092874383&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9023224&hvtargid=pla-526221775372&psc=1