Best products from r/Reformed

We found 271 comments on r/Reformed discussing the most recommended products. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 1,749 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

Top comments mentioning products on r/Reformed:

u/WhomDidYouSay · 1 pointr/Reformed

Hey sorry for the delay getting back to you. I think BirdieNZ nailed it. The Law of Moses is a covenant of law but not a covenant of works. What's the difference?

The Covenant of Works (with Adam) had in view the full picture of man's relationship to God. Perfect obedience was required to maintain that relationship. If Adam obeyed perfectly then he would live and no salvation would be necessary since there would be nothing to be saved from. This is not the case with Israel receiving the Law, since:

  1. All are already fallen in Adam and in need of salvation. The perfect obedience ship already sailed. (Rom 3-5; Gal 3-5; 1 Cor 15)

  2. Israel received the Law as part of redemptive history. God's first words to Moses were "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob", pointing back to Abraham and the covenant God made with him and was continuing to keep.

  3. The order is backwards for Israel if the Law is a covenant of works: God redeemed Israel from Egyptian slavery then gave them the Law.

  4. The Law included a system of sacrifices for sins, which both (1) pre-supposes law-breaking; and (2) points forward in the COG to Christ.

  5. God had already promised grace to Abraham and his offspring, and that promise cannot be undone by the presence of the Law. Regarding this promise, Paul explains:

    > 15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Gal 3:15-18

    The Covenant of Law was "a guardian" (Gal 3:24), given to national Israel to instruct them in the will of the God who redeemed them. This was never intended as a means of salvation (Rom 3-4; Gal 3).

    Here's a perfect explanation of the above from Scripture:

    > 6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, 10 and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them. He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face. 11 You shall therefore be careful to do the commandment and the statutes and the rules that I command you today. Deut 7:6-11

    It's true that there are blessings and curses associated with the Law, but note the language of the blessings and curses (e.g., Deut 28). It's all about the land and the enemies around them, but never about salvation, which is conferred by Christ under the Covenant of Grace. Justification always has, and always will, come by grace through faith (Rom 4). Paul (Rom 2:29) and Moses (Deut 10:12-17) both say true "circumcision" is a matter of the heart (i.e., faith). Paul says not everyone born of Abraham had faith (Rom 9). Regardless of what happened to Israel, from Achan to Babylon, everyone with genuine faith was saved under the Covenant of Grace.

    I know I've already said it, but I'll recommend again The Christ of the Covenants. Best $12 you'll ever spend! :-)
u/RazzleDazzleForThree · 1 pointr/Reformed

> 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!
u/davidjricardo · 28 pointsr/Reformed

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).
u/tbown · 3 pointsr/Reformed

I'd recommend against Barth's Church Dogmatics unless you are quite well versed in theology, and like reading long and sometimes confusing sentences.

Interested in Church Fathers?

Oden's Classical Christianity is pretty decent. It tries to break down the typical "systematic theology" headings using the early church (and some later ones). Not perfect, but there isn't one I've read yet that beats it.

Augustine's Confessions is a must if you haven't read it yet. Its autobiographical yet very spiritual and insightful at the same time.

Chrysostom's On the Priesthood is a great writing that can apply to anyone, not just those seeking ordination.

Athanasius' On the Incarnation focuses on the person of Christ, and what it meant for God to become man.

Basil's On the Holy Spirit is a great exposition on not just how the Holy Spirit is argued to be part of the Trinity, but also Christ. Very great reading for people questioning it or curious about it.

Reformation Fathers?

Peter Martyr Vermigli's Predestination and Justification is great. John Calvin in a letter said Vermigli had a better understanding of Predestination than he did, which is funny since Calvin is known for predestination today.

Martin Luther's Theological Works has most of his important works, including Bondage of the Will.

Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vol. but try not to pay $325 for it. Its out of print so might be a bit hard to find for a reasonable price. If you are able to find it though, it's a gold mine. Also check out other of his books.

More contemporary?

Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism is a classic on the Reformed faith.

Herman Bavinck's Abridged Reformed Dogmatics is great, and in my opinion one of the best Systematic Theologies available. More of a Dutch Reformed than Presby bent, but essentially the same.

Karl Barth's Dogmatics in Outline is a very abridged version of Church Dogmatics, and would recommend it over the original source unless you have a lot of free time or want to be a Barth scholar.

Thats what I can think of off the top of my head. If you have other specific ones I can find other stuff.

u/another_dude_01 · 5 pointsr/Reformed

So my comments above show my linking skills, but I will do my best in advance of the report coming out monday (already advance reviews are mixed to break down this issue...

As regards the Covenant of Works ("COW"), was it, in any sense, "republished" in the mosaic covenant? Republicationists say yes (hence there name). However, if you have read any John Murray, you'll know he objected to the very term COW in favor for a Covenant of Life, between Adam and God. The reason being is that Murray and his spiritual successors in the anti-repub camp see a Grace element in EVERY single of the covenant administrations (for more on the various covenants, please see O Palmer Robertson's classic work.) By calling it a covenant of works, they feel, runs the risk of downplaying the grace in the COW. Republicationists do not deny a grace element in the COW, nor any of the subsequent covenants, but you can see the problems from this short paragraph, when one side won't even allow for a COW, when our standards refer to it in those exact terms.

I refer to above again to the idea of no smoking gun in this case. In other words, one can claim a repub position, or an anti-repub position, and maintain themselves as orthodox reformed.

And as some are talking about Kline, it could be reduced to that in its simplist form, if you don't want to get into the covenant issues. Are you for Kline (like me?). Then you like repub (he advocated it). Against Kline, you probably argue against it.

Whether Repub is Biblical or not, is of course the question at hand. There's a lot to this. For Kline's more important work, one should work through his lectures on their commute or something, they are worth it, I have gotten through quite a few of these. I have [his book] (https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Prologue-Foundations-Covenantal-Worldview/dp/1597525642) in my own personal archives, but anyway, that is the best I can frame all this. Any of you want to correct or add, please feel free. Love to all the reformed redditors! Read the report on Monday when it comes out, and we'll see how accurate I am haha

u/Delk133 · 1 pointr/Reformed

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:


  • Victory over the Darkness - Powerful. Walks you through what happened to your identity when you gave your life to Christ and gives practical ways to grow in sanctification.

  • Freedom from Fear - If you've ever had issues with anxiety, this book will break it. For the first time in my life, I experienced "the peace that surpasses all understanding" through this book.


    Theology

  • What's Wrong with Protestant Theology - This remains one of the best books I've ever read, regardless of genre. The author was a professor of Theology at Regent Theological (J.I. Packer's old school). In this book, Ruthven slaughters a few sacred cows in a quest to just see "what does the Bible say?" The basic problem is this - during the Reformation, the primary debate was over salvation: "what must I do to be saved and how much does it cost?" We focused so much on this question that we omitted many of the main themes of Scripture (namely the experiential aspects of the New Covenant). Ruthven ruthlessly marches through most of Bible to answer questions like: What does it mean to "know God"? What is "the word of God"? What does it mean to "be like Christ?" What am I supposed to do now that I'm saved? A masterpiece. One of the only books I've ever read that made me sit up, sweating and saying "oh my...he's right...woe is me."


    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.

  • Power Evangelism - This book is what actually got me up off my rear end and start doing real, in person evangelism. Not only that, this book motivated me to share Christ with others out of excitement. Led a few people to Christ, seen a few cool miracles - and it all started here.
u/gt0163c · 2 pointsr/Reformed

Yes, all RUF pastors are ordained ministers with seminary training. I'm friends with a bunch of current and former RUF pastors as well as other staff members (interns, the intern coordinator, assistant to an area director, etc). RUF's an awesome ministry and I'm a little jealous they it wasn't on my campus when I was in college. I'm sure your meeting with the pastor will be fruitful.

As for your concerns. Yep. That happens. Spiritual disciplines are hard. Fortunately we serve a God who knows that. Jesus died for us knowing full well most of us were going to be forgetful, sluggish people who neglect what we've been taught a good portion of the time and don't like to or want to repent. The fact that this troubles you is good! It's evidence of the Holy Spirit working in your life!

So, how do you fix it? There are some ways to become better at spiritual disciplines. Set aside a specific time each day to read scripture and pray. Using a devotional/Bible study guide might help. It's okay to pray printed prayers (The Valley of Vision) is one good source). Being in fellowship with other believers and being intentional about your interactions, talking about spiritual matters, praying together, etc is also helpful. There are tons of strategies. But also remember that these things do not save you (Yes, you almost certainly already know this. But as people we're really good at forgetting things.) There's a good quote from a book by Dallas Willard; "Grace is opposed to earning, not effort."

u/aathma · 1 pointr/Reformed

I don't think the works are primarily a proof of our faith to ourselves but a witness of the authenticity of our faith, already known by us, to those around us. At least, that is what I think James is talking about.

Self-witness, I feel, comes from continuing acknowledgement of Biblical truths to your self, growing desire to obey God's commands, and continual turning away from sin.

I would also add that both the easy-believism and works-based crowds have a higher perceived assurance because they are both point towards actions the have take as opposed to actions God has taken. The Reformed position is indeed less straight-forward but that is because we reliant on God's mercy... and I honestly believe that the recognition of the full need for Jesus to be our righteousness to be very comforting to me personally.


I would recommend getting a copy of [
The Valley of Vision*](https://www.amazon.com/Valley-Vision-Collection-Puritan-Devotions/dp/0851512283/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523284721&sr=8-1&keywords=the+valley+of+vision) as this has been very helpful for my own assurance and encouragement.

u/pjamberger · 8 pointsr/Reformed

I can't say one single piece of evidence (or a single study) convinced me, but I can summarize the various pieces of evidence as biogeography - the fact that we see similar (related) creatures living in the same geographic area and even some creatures on different continents with similar features in places where plate tectonics would lead us to expect similarities - and genetics, most notably the human vitamin c gene, which is defective.


The evidence for evolution is not measured in single studies, but in the weight of the collective evidence. For an overview of the collective evidence across many fields, this book by Jerry Coyne lays out the general case for the factuality of evolution. If you read it you do need to be ready for some Dawkins-esque posturing - he wrote a book on why faith and science are incompatible, but the information in the book is very good. For a basic summary, this Khan Academy page does a good job.

Finally, institutions like the Biologos institute convinced me that it's Biblically okay to believe in Theistic Evolution (Evolutionary Creation? Whichever one posits God's active involvement in creation via evolution.). The final "nail in the coffin" was The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton.

u/b3k · 6 pointsr/Reformed

Of course the top "reformed book" is Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.

A great and useful book is the Heidelberg Catechism (or the Baptist version).

And, something put together this century is Valley of Vision, a great book of prayers to help learn to pray better.

u/BSMason · 1 pointr/Reformed

I think this book will pretty well layout the theology of tradition and how to take the fathers:

http://www.amazon.com/Reformed-Catholicity-Retrieval-Theology-Interpretation/dp/0801049792

but I don't think I otherwise have a very good answer. I hope others could jump in as I'd like to study this more as well.

u/mlbontbs87 · 1 pointr/Reformed

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.

u/reformedscot · 3 pointsr/Reformed

This is really quite the question. You'll undoubtedly get some really insightful response from guys way smarter than me!

So let me contribute my widow's mite to the conversation. Grab a couple of books and read them slowly and thoughtfully. I think this deliberate lingering look at the subject that your post shows you've obviously given much thought to, will serve you better than a paragraph or two here in reddit - be they ever so clear!

If I may recommend two for you?

You've got to read the seminal work by O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants

Then follow that up with Michael Horton's book Introducing Covenant Theology for a more modern look at the subject.

Both of these you can buy used at Amazon for right around $5. I think they will be great tools for you as you work through the thoughts you outline above.

Forgive the lack of 'crunchy' in this post by skirting an answer with book recommendations!

u/rdavidson24 · 3 pointsr/Reformed

Goldsworthy is a great place to start. I recommend According to Plan, which includes "Gospel and Kingdom" mentioned elsewhere but also "Gospel and Wisdom" and "Gospel in Revelation". So you get the covenant theology take on all of Scripture.

For what it's worth, Christ of the Covenants is like $10 on Amazon. I think that's the book I used in my OT class in college. But I think I'd go with Goldsworthy for the extra eight bucks.

u/buzz_bender · 3 pointsr/Reformed

That's a lot of questions! I'll try to provide some answers, but obviously they will be brief and just starting points. I'll point you to resources/books that will answer your questions more exhaustively when I can, since some of your questions have been answered in many books.

First, I would expand a little bit on your definition of Sola Scriptura. It means that Scripture and Scripture alone is our final authority in the church. (Note: it is not the only authority. We value tradition, experience and reason as well, but they are not the final authority.)

>What is the historic evidence of Sola Scriptura?

Not sure what you mean by historic evidence, but I would take the writings of the early church fathers, where they would appeal to the Scriptures as final authority. It's very hard to answer such a broad question on a medium like this. Now, if you want an early church father explicitly defending this doctrine, then there is none, as far as I know. This is simply because it was not a doctrine that was fought over, hence not a lot of the early church fathers wrote explicitly on this. (This applies to heaps of other doctrines.)

>How do advocates of Sola Scriptura answer the charge of knowing the canon of Scripture while the canon not being listed (explicitly) in Scripture?

See Michael Kruger's book, Canon Revisited.

>Does the Bible say that it is sufficient to be the rule of Christian faith and practice? It seems that the verses: 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Timothy 3:16–17, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and many others seem to indicate that not only does Scripture not mention self sufficiency but rather as a practical guide, with Tradition being on equal par as an inspired pair with Scripture.

In these passages, why would you take the word "tradition" as how the Roman Catholic church would define it? I would read "tradition" as Paul's teaching as passed on to them, which is then enscripturated in the Bible. There's nothing in those passages that requires Tradition being on equal par with Scripture. It is only that if you have already assumed the meaning of the word "Tradition" as only how the RC church would define it.

>How do advocates of Sola Scriptura answer Cardinal Newman's argument against Sola Scriptura on the basis that pulling from some of the Pauline Epistles proves to much: "Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

I'm not exactly sure what he means. If you would rephrase it, it would be helpful. But if I'm reading him correct, he seems to say that it's too much to base our doctrine of Sola Scriptura on the writings of Paul. Well, we don't just rely on Paul's writings to defend the doctrine. In fact, I would argue that if properly defended, Sola Scriptura can be defended from the whole Old Testament all the way to the New.

Penal Substitution
>If Christ's death was efficacious for the removal of the punishment of sin of human beings, being fully of God, why wouldn't everyone be saved?

Good question! That's why Calvinist do not believe that Christ death was efficacious for the removal of the punishment of all human beings, but only for the elect. This is the "L" (Limited Atonement) in TULIP, although I prefer the term "Particular/Definite Redemption". To sum that doctrine up - "Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect."

>Why should we think that it is even possible for Christ to take on moral responsibility for our current and past sins?

On the one hand, why is it up to us? We believe Scripture says so, and thus we believe it. On the other hand, you can point to the doctrine of union with Christ - we become one with Christ, or united with Christ when we believe in him. Because of that, he is able to take on moral responsibility for our sins. What is ours are his, and what is his is ours. It's like in a marriage. When you marry someone, everything that he/she has is yours, and everything that is yours is hers/his, and that include things like debt.

Justification by Faith
>What Biblical basis is there that it is only by faith we are justified?

Heaps. Romans 3:21ff, Romans 4 (where Abraham is used as an OT example), Ephesians 2:1-11, Galatians, etc. Now, just in case you don't know, the RC notion of justification is different from the Protestant doctrine of justification. So, before you go any further, I think it's best that you know that first.

>Does the act of believing, or baptism, show a correspondence of works and faith?

Not sure what you mean by this. Please elaborate.

>What is the historic evidence of Sola Fide?

See answer above on historic evidence of Sola Scriptura. It's there in the writings of the early church fathers, but it is not explicit, since it was not something the church fought over. The early church fought over other things (Trinity, Christology), and that's why you see their writings focusing so much on those things. Sola fide was really only seriously fought over during the Reformation, that's why there are numerous writings on this during that time. This doesn't mean that it's not there in the early church, it definitely is. But it is inchoate.

u/Mynome · 4 pointsr/Reformed

[John Walton] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton) is an OT scholar and professor at Wheaton College. I just finished the [Lost World of Genesis One] (https://www.amazon.ca/Lost-World-Genesis-One/dp/0830837043/) this week and would highly recommend it.

He argues that the creation account concerns functional origins rather than material origins. To show this he considers a few Hebrew words in Genesis 1, specifically bara (translated as 'create') and tohu and bohu (translated as 'formless and void'). He contends that bara primarily concerns function-giving instead of material creation, and that tohu/bohu refer to an unproductive/nonfunctional state instead of an empty one. His analysis relies heavily on considering ancient near east culture and how they would have interpreted what's writtten in Gen. 1, claiming that a truly literal approach to reading the Bible is found through understanding what it meant in the world that it was first written.

Of course he goes into a lot more detail, and discusses a number of other topics related to the Gen. 1 debate. If you're like I was before reading it, these kinds of arguments will be pretty foreign to you, but I found them to be pretty persuasive and certainly worth a read.

u/5upralapsarian · 2 pointsr/Reformed

RC Sproul has a lot of excellent books for the layman.

Recommended reads would be:

The Holiness of God - Free copy from Ligonier

Chosen by God

What is Reformed Theology?

I also recommend Knowing God by JI Packer

u/roanhorse95 · 2 pointsr/Reformed

I like the method presented in Michael Kruger's book Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. He calls it the self-authenticating method (by listening to some of what you mentioned you might have heard of it). It is essentially this: canonical books must meet four criteria – 1. Providntial Exposer 2. Divine Qualities 3. Corporate Reception and 4. Apostolic Origins.

There is a ton of nuance there, but I think that the method he presents is the best considering the alternatives. This method makes a case for Revelation as canon and perhaps Enoch as scripture (again, a lot of nuance, and in his book he talks about books that were Scripture but are not canon, such as Paul's lost letters).

Overall, the canon must be self auhthenticating, and a lot of methods we use to argue for canonical books rely on authority that rests outside of God and his Word. I highly suggest reading his book. If you want a free .mobi or .epub copy direct message me.

u/dionysius_rossi · 2 pointsr/Reformed

The Puritans practiced a form of discursive "meditation" (think of Augustine's Confessions and how he talks to God while thinking through something) that has been getting some much needed attention lately. David Saxton's book "God's Battle Plan for the Mind: The Puritan Practice of Biblical Meditation" is a great book on the subject.  Joel Berke also has a great summary (in less depth), for free here.

Another Reformed classic is Matthew Henry's A Way to Pray, which is online here. Henry takes the strangely novel approach of creating a "prayer book" composed entirely of Scripture.

Another absolutely essentially "prayer book" is "The Valley of Vision."  Just get it.

Finally, not to be to self serving, but I have setup an online liturgical website who's sole intention is to help Christians pray either regular morning and evening services (Psalter once a month), or even the classic hours (Psalter in a week).  I created Reformed and Evangelical services that try to combine Matthew Henry's method of using Scripture as the prayers while retaining the classical western liturgical tradition (similar to the Book of Common Prayer) but modified to remove the repetitions and keep the non-biblical content to an absolute minimum. If you're interested, you can check it out here.

One last thing, I'd personally stay away from things like the Jesus Prayer if you're Reformed. There's nothing wrong with the prayer itself, but it's practice in the East is tied into the mystical practice of hesychasm, which is itself tied to the asceticism of the Eastern Orthodox, which is in turn, tied to a very un-Reformed view of salvation as the synergistic healing of the nous (which was just damaged in the fall) through the asceticism of the church, rather than as spiritually dead people being saved by God in spite of themselves and through no action of their own.

u/terevos2 · 18 pointsr/Reformed

Well, he's not a cessationist, but even cessationists love it: Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology.

Banvinck's is good too.

u/chewblacca681 · 2 pointsr/Reformed

Have you considered going through The Valley of Vision, perhaps following a daily guide?

Not only do I enjoy and benefit from praying the old Puritan prayers, they also help and encourage me to consistently pray personal prayers.

u/robertwilliams · 2 pointsr/Reformed

I understand your point and disagree. But really my intent was to use the BCP in private worship and devotions; the RPW only pertains to corporate worship.

I have a copy of The Valley of Vision which is a collection of devotions and prayers of the Puritans. Some have used it for their own devotions. Would you also consider that inappropriate?

There's also this book about a prayer of a guy named Jabez; I think I should try that out for sure. ;-)

u/fuzzymumbochops · 5 pointsr/Reformed

Of course "six days" means "six days." The question is what does a "day" mean for the writer(s) of Genesis. Is it a period of 24 hours or not? All evidence from the surrounding passage suggests that the writer wouldn't have meant a literal 24 hour period.

I'll simplify it. What do I mean when I say to someone "I've been stuck in traffic for a year!"? Do I mean a literal period of 356 (and a third) days? No, I'd certainly hope not. How'd you know that? Context of what I was talking about. Now reread the rest Gen 1-12 with this in mind. But also read the scholarship of the people who get paid to investigate this sort of thing.

Also, as to my Hebrew qualifications, I'd rather this not become a fight about whether I'm more or less qualified than you. That's an illogical way of arguing (ad hominem). Instead, since you're well versed in Hebrew, let's also presume that you're well versed in Old Testament scholarship. So here's a better way to go about things: let's list some scholarship. I'll start. Here's a tenured Old Testament professor who's studied Hebrew for about 40 years professionally. He teaches at a fairly conservative Christian college in the United States which has a reputation for being the Harvard of the Christian education world. He's written a book called The Lost World of Genesis One which supports everything I've mentioned. But don't buy his theological position just because of his tremendous qualifications. Read the book because of that. Make up your own mind as to the success or failure of his argument. This is how intellectual discussions work.

u/solasolasolasolasola · 3 pointsr/Reformed

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.

u/DaJuanbobo · 3 pointsr/Reformed

I love Micheal Kruger's books Canon revisited and The question of Canon. If you really want to dive into the subject D.A. Carson's The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures is an amazing resource.

u/Luo_Bo_Si · 10 pointsr/Reformed

I would recommend the work of Michael
Kruger like Canon Revisited or The Question of Canon.

Beyond that, a classic is Warfield's The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible. Maybe even Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.

u/SizerTheBroken · 2 pointsr/Reformed

G.K. Beale Commentary on Revelation or his Shorter Commentary on Revelation as well as many of the other books he's written on Thessalonians, New Testament use of Daniel, etc. are some of the best resources for an amillennial, idealist interpretation. He also has a lot of shorter articles and lectures available online, if you're lazy like me.

u/remembertosmilebot · 2 pointsr/Reformed

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

u/keltonz · 5 pointsr/Reformed

A lot of good comments here. I suggest you read a good book on the history of the canon, though. You’re operating with a few misconceptions.

Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books https://www.amazon.com/dp/1433505002/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_b8YnDbAKH12AB

u/friardon · 5 pointsr/Reformed

I have this version and it is a really easy to read translation. The only complaint I have is the typeface. Other than that, it's great. Look for it used or on Kindle if $90 is a bit steep. I bought mine under a pastoral stipend back in the day.

u/CiroFlexo · 2 pointsr/Reformed

I'd recommend two versions of essentially the same resource by R. C. Sproul:

  1. Chosen by God - This is the book version. It's a fairly short, accessible read, and it'll probably answer a lot of your questions. I can't recommend this enough.


  2. Chosen by God - If you want to watch a series of sermons/lectures which covers much of the same ground, Ligonier has Sproul's video series up for free.
u/JCmathetes · 1 pointr/Reformed

Oh heaven help me...

Read. The. Book.

u/ItalianDressingGood · 1 pointr/Reformed

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.

u/Repentant_Revenant · 4 pointsr/Reformed

The academic work of John Walton is what makes the most sense to me.

A really good talk by Tim Mackie from the Bible Project sums it up incredibly well.