Best products from r/theology

Good on you for diving into theology!

I think your goal of getting "all the topics straight" for yourself is a good one. Getting a sense for the playing field, so to speak, will give you the context within which to work through the elements.

Alister McGrath is hard to beat for this sort of organization. He isn't my favorite theologian ever (not that he's bad--just not my favorite), but for an introduction to theology, he's the best I know.

Theology: The Basics would be a phenomenal starting point. Here is why I like it so much:

1. The aforementioned organization is super helpful for getting a sense for the field.
   
2. While like everyone he comes from a particular theological perspective, McGrath really is trying to introduce theology generally here, and not argue for his personal systematic theological stances.
   
3. He is ridiculously easy to read. If anything, you may feel he's too accessible.
   
4. He introduces the major figures in the history of theology, which all the more provides context for engagement. This includes people McGrath definitely does not agree with. But it will help you get a sense for where ideas came from, and what other Christians, trying to be faithful to our God, have thought in their own struggles to understand God and the world.
   
5. Perhaps most importantly of all, he is pastoral in guiding his reader through an engagement with theology. For instance, at the end of many of his chapters, he has a selection from an important theological work. The first is from Calvin's Institutes. He includes this, not to prove a point, but to help the reader gain the skill of interpreting important theological texts. McGrath knows that his text is only a beginning, never intended to give all the answers, but instead there to help the reader engage theology beyond.
   
   If you'd like, you could also get his Theology: The Basic Readings, to supplement.
   
   My final recommendation couple of recommendations would be:
   
   
6. First go through the book fast, then go back and read. It is too easy to get bogged down when reading. Skim through the book to get a feel for it--maybe a couple minutes each chapter--then read, regularly referring back to the table of contents to keep a sense of the bigger picture.
   
7. Engage with other people. Come back here and post; DM me or another person if you'd like; talk to friends; audit a class at a local seminary, if you're near one. Find people who are knowledgeable, but much more importantly, find people who are encouraging and who make you want to read and learn more.
   
   Good luck, and God bless!

Write your story, but don't expect much. (Low expectations lead to pleasant surprises.) Religion is a very emotional topic for most people. Logic - usually - need not apply to the conversation.

I can empathize with you. My stepfather is wonderful. He has loved me and cared for me in ways beyond measure. And, he is not-quite-ultra-conservative in his beliefs. He has gay friends and is OK with gay marriage, but as for the rest, he has consumed the Fox News water. He thinks all Muslims should be banned from the US. He thinks Trump is a great businessman and would make a great president. He wants the military to solve all the world's problems. He thinks more guns = more safety.

I can quote more New Testament scripture than my dad can, but that doesn't matter. Also, prooftext as evidence is usually not the best from a source like the Bible. The book is so self-contradictory. The Gospel of Matthew says both "lay down your burdens" and "pick up your cross." Well, which one is it?!?

Instead, look into composed theologies.

• Theology of Peace by Paul Tillich
  
• Living Justice and Peace by Jerry Windley-Daoust
  
• Not in God's Name by Jonathan Sacks
  
  I will also warn you, that this could backfire. I have said these things to my dad before, only to get responses like, "I want peace, too, but Muslims don't," and "I just want to keep my family safe. If that means bombing (Syria/Iran/N. Korea), then that's what we have to do." Sigh.

My advice is to start with The Book of Enoch. Lots of angels (fallen and righteous) involved in the action, interacting with each other, etc. It's technically not scripture (except in Ethiopia) but, just barely.

This book is alright, just for reference and exposing yourself to a huge swath of different angels. Definitely follow up on as many primary sources as interest you; they're pretty well indexed in the book.

Otherwise, don't stress out too much -- there isn't really anyone who's "fundamentalist" about angelology or angel lore. There's more imagination involved than theology, so definitely go where your inspiration leads.

I've actually done a bunch of research myself on different angels; if there's any specific angel you want to know more about I can send you some notes (currently at work but I'll see what I've got on Ramiel when I get home).

EDIT: At home and looking at notes. Heads up that Remiel / Ramiel (same angel) is not a fallen angel -- he's actually considered an archangel. His being the angel of "true visions" is from 2 Baruch, scroll down to Chapter 55. He has that title because he interpreted the visions to Baruch correctly, not necessarily that he himself grants any visions.

I'm pretty convinced that you will find the fallen angel you're looking for in The Book of Enoch though. If not, another source I'd try is Paradise Lost by Milton. Happy researching, and let me know if you need anything else!

For a good textbook overview, McGrath has a great book called Historical Theology

He also has a book exclusively about justification, since you mentioned that above. I read these as a teenager, and they proved to be great starting points.

Otherwise, check out the sidebar to r/christianity for online reading of classic authors. Read some basic treatises like Augustine's Nature and Grace, Luther's on the Freedom of a Christian, and Introduction to Romans.

I'll always plug my man Gerhard Forde, too :) Books like Where God Meets Man and On Being a Theologian of the Cross are short, accessible books with a perspective that I think is very helpful in approaching the "problems" of God and faith. Justification is his main theme.

Also, just curious, what's your username about?

These observations have classically been arguments for atheism. Since we use human terms and projections to describe God. Auditing a theology class and we're reading https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Christian-Theology-Religion-ebook/dp/B00L4CPEJU
again. Just talked about this a few weeks ago. p 93-96 summarizes Humanistic Atheism, which points out going back to ancient Greece, the gods were in human form -- lending evidence to the idea that God is merely a human projection. Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche all have contributions to this, but I'll leave that to you if you wish to buy the book. Nietzsche in particular realized that as God becomes smaller to humanity, the central altruism God evokes is in danger of eroding with it, and humans need a new common good perspective to prevent them slipping into pure apathy. His so-called "last man". It was actually quite prescient to today's society.

The counter-argument? Nietzsche et al, starting at the Enlightement, were speaking from their understanding of God at the time, which unfortunately was around a 13th century interpretation. Those who throw out this type of atheism are refuting a God that Christians don't really believe in either -- an all powerful grandpa in the sky who at best is all powerful but evil because he doesn't help us out, or at worst is impotent and doesn't help because he can't. Theologians like Barth (early 20th cent) and more recently Moltmann (still alive today) have very insightful minds and thoughts about the nature and actions of God, and I would encourage you (or your athiest friends) to do some more reading.

Humanist Atheism refutes the God of the 1200s. This isn't logical since you wouldn't take the time to debate alchemy (a "science" from the same era). Modern arguments for or against God need to take into account BOTH modern science and logical methods AND modern theology. Either refuting either's outdated perceptions is fundamentally a straw man argument and a waste of time.

Now as to your perspective, it is similarly outdated. Also in the book above (starting at p103), the classical (read: middle ages) describes God's "via negativa" attributes -- things humans have that are weaknesses and stating them in the negative and saying this must be God's nature. Humans are complicated; God is therefore simple and motivated ultimately by love. Humans change and are inconsistent; God therefore must never change. Humans age and die; God therefore must be outside of time. The God is immutable (doesn't change) argument was developed along logic ideas similar to: God is defined as perfect. If He changes, the new form is either better (meaning he wasn't as good as possible before) or worse (meaning now He's not as good as he was). Therefore God must not be able to change. This is a view that has been challenged by modern theology, and the academic-level thinkers about God no longer believe in God's immutability. His CHARACTER never changes. He is always loving, always pursuing, always ready to forgive -- and likewise doesn't have "bad days" like humans do, but he does sometimes "change". He changes his mind through prayer for example. There are tons of examples of this Biblically. Abraham interceding for Sodom and Gomorrah or Isaiah telling God, "send me!" Theologians since the enlightenment have wrestled with this and this is where they've landed.

Some attributes of God are rooted in hellenistic and greek thinking. One such attribute is "God never changes" -- meaning anything in any way shape or form. This has caused problems with some Biblical stories where God very cleary changes his mind, responds to human suffering, or answers a prayer out of left field. As theologians tease this out, they have re-examined the interplay of ancient Greek logic and Platonistic thinking with theology, and have a view of God that is more personal, ever-changing, and one that fundamentally responds to humans, without affecting his perfection. In short, different doesn't necessarily mean "better" or "worse."

The book Barth for Armchair Theologians is actually a good place to start if you want introductory. But Evangelical Theology by Barth is not bad either. He also wrote a book called 'Dogmatics in Outline' which is a condensed version of his famous and very long work 'Church Dogmatics'. This book is good too.

The book by George Hunsinger 'How to Read Karl Barth' is pretty good for showing themes to look for in Barth's work.

But what is probably most helpful to learn about Barth is the role he played in the shift away from Liberal theology (Schleiermacher, Ritschl, von Harnack etc). This history helps to place Barth and understand his significance. His Romans commentary written near the beginning of the 20th century was called 'a bomb dropped on the playground of the theologians'.

He rejected liberal theology's anthropocentric focus, and put the focus back on God. He also developed a trinitarian focus when this was no longer in style.

He is not a conservative in the mould of evangelical conservatism like Carl Henry or other popular conservative evangelicals of today. He is probably better described as the forerunner of the stream of theology known today as 'postliberalism'. This has Hans Frei and George Lindbeck as its founders.

Good luck to you as you learn more. Barth is an incredible figure.

This is more biblical study than process or systematic theology but it is the ONLY book at all that takes both the science and the bible and works with them in a real way.

Any other attempt leans either biblicaly or scientifically and this author's goal was to be as true to both fields as he could. Great book and I got to hear the author speak at my seminary and really enjoyed chatting with him.

As an engineer turned seminarian I was very interested in it at the time.

Others have provided a good immediate response, but if you want to do more reading, then Edward Fudge has written several books on the matter. The most recent one that is supposed to summarize all his work for a popular audience is called Hell: A Final Word. Please note that he comes down pretty strongly on the side that says eternal conscious torment (aka, the modern version of Hell) is not biblical.

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

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


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

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

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

Or a lighter read

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

I would say no. There is no Biblical support for the fact that he can (or can't) listen to prayers. However, even if he can hear your prayers, there isn't really much that he could do about it as God is infinitely more powerful than Satan.

If you want an interesting take on the subject, you should check out the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. It's been a while since I've read them, and I don't remember if Lewis asserts demons can hear prayers or not, but it is a fascinating and wonderful look at demons and what they do.

A couple standard works I recommend:

• Atheism: A Philopshical Justification by Michael Martin One of the most robust works of philsophical atheism I've come across.
  
  
• An Ethics for Today by Richard Rorty Another solid work of modern philsophcial atheism.
  
  
• Doubt: A History by Jennifer Michael Hecht A history of atheism.
  
  
• The Essence of Christianity by Ludwig Feuerbach The intellectual ancestor of modern atheism.
  
  
• Arguing About Gods by Graham Oppy Probably my second favourite work of philosophical atheism (if I can say favourite in regards to the opposition belief)
  

It seems like there is a lot of information out there on the web, including some articles from some Christian sources. This article echoes some of the things you are saying: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13193b.htm

Not many occultists here, as you might imagine, except maybe some ex-occultists.

I suggest you read The Gurus, the Young Man, and Elder Paisius, The Mountain of Silence: A Search for Orthodox Spirituality, and/or Everyday Saints if you want an Orthodox Christian take on Christian mysticism. The last book was the #1 bestseller in Russia for several weeks and was translated to English just recently.

May God keep you, my friend!

Here are three books I absolutely love for dipping your feet into Christian theology:

• For the Life of the World by Alexander Schmemman ($2.99 on kindle)
  
  
• [Acquiring the Mind of Christ] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0990502996) by Sergius Boyer
  
  
• [The Mountain of Silence] (https://www.amazon.com/Mountain-Silence-Search-Orthodox-Spirituality/dp/0385500920) by Kyriacos C. Markides

I would suggest The Mosaic of Christian Belief by Roger Olson. He's a Neo-Orthodox writer and does a very good job at being impartial.

https://www.amazon.ca/Mosaic-Christian-Belief-Roger-Olson/dp/0830851259/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517539139&sr=1-15

https://www.amazon.com/Mosaic-Christian-Belief-Centuries-Diversity/dp/0830851259/ref=sr_1_1/137-1936682-8264518?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517539200&sr=1-1