Best christian pastoral resources books according to redditors
We found 67 Reddit comments discussing the best christian pastoral resources books. We ranked the 50 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 67 Reddit comments discussing the best christian pastoral resources books. We ranked the 50 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
I think a healthy understanding of baptism is very much marred by our current day and age of decisionism and the synergistic culture of baptism and rebaptism at the non-denom church up the street. "I have decided to follow Jesus" Is dangerous to our understanding of salvation.
A resource that helped me think past all this is William the Baptist by James Chaney.
> That obviously would make no sense, since there would be no way for the author to know the story.
I highly recommend a book called Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark by Robert Fowler. He shows again and again how the omniscient narrator of Mark has "impossible" knowledge of events that occur when no witness is around and knows the inner thoughts of Jesus, his antagonists, and other characters in the story. Mark manipulates the reader at the discourse level, putting his own words into the mouth of Jesus and other characters and constructing scenes rife with irony and misdirection. The dialogue is often self-referential, alluding to future events the reader knows about, but not the characters ostensibly being addressed in the story. Everything is meant to have a specific effect on the reader, including the astonishing fact that Jesus' bodily resurrection is not revealed to the disciples. This is all deliberate on the author's part.
Fowler's analysis is intended to show that by focusing on the plausibility of the narrative level and ignoring the discourse level, most readers (even most scholars) miss out on the meaning and rhetorical strategies of Mark. It is a rare eye-opener.
How does the author of Mark know there was an empty tomb and a young man in a white robe even though the only witnesses told no one? He knows the same way any novelist knows what his characters see, think and do in secret.
Sermons That Shaped America: Reformed Preaching from 1630 to 2001 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004LDLDK8/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_wOnRzbDW9KWM6
Tip: Reformed theology is waaaay more than 5 Solas.
Sorry that this will sound patronizing, but how educated are you about the Bible as a historical document? I majored in religious studies with a focus on Christian origins. I know a good bit about it.
> Jesus claiming to be God IS the whole point of the new testament
This is basically true. But that's not the same as what Jesus, the historical figure, said or believed.
The Bible is inarguably a hodge-podge of different stories and accounts, many of which conflict with each other. The book of John was written much later than Matthew, Mark, Luke, or "Q" and reflects an advanced notion of Christian theology. It's no coincidence that Jesus says things in John that are much different than in the other three. The author of John wasn't somehow aware of Jesus-sayings that the other authors weren't.
> Most everything in the Gospels is proof of the fulfillment of the OT prophecy about the messiah.
Most everything in the Gospels is certainly written to be proof. The authors definitely had that goal in mind. But it doesn't mean that the actual historical events were proof.
> I don't know where you got this nonsense about later sources being less accurate, but there is simply no basis for that.
Yes, there is. I got it from my bachelor's degree (and, ya know, from common sense). I invite you to start your research here and continue with books like this and this (or even this). If you've never performed comparative study of the gospels, this is a neat resource too. (Note that the latter book doesn't even mention John, which is just that far removed from the other gospels.)
> to say Jesus never reliably claimed to be God is just insane
As wrong as you are about the historical facts, I will back off a little here: there is sufficient evidence that Jesus believed himself to be the "Son of Man," and probably even the Messiah. However the more historically reliable documents suggest that he was extremely cagey about saying this himself (Matthew 16 is a perfect example of this), whereas the less reliable documents have him declaring it quite explicitly.
All that being said, I think we left the primary point a little bit. Jesus most certainly was a moral inspiration (whether he called himself that or not), and it's that example—not literal salvation—that my mother (and I, for that matter) are inspired by.
I'm really curious to see what the scholars have to say on this, but until then, I'll add some resources that I didn't see mentioned in your other thread — it's a really interesting question, and I've done a bit of searching myself.
Larry Perkins wrote a paper (PDF warning) that drew on Robert Fowler's book Let the Reader Understand, as well as more recent scholarship. (I'm not sure how much the original book focuses on the parenthetical, so I would suggest previewing a PDF before paying $40 for a paperback, feel free to pm me if you're having trouble finding one.)
Also, a post on the earlychristianwritings.com forum summarizes the argument from the (unfortunately untranslated) German book, Der Weg Jesu. Here's an introduction to the post from Neil Godfrey, who I will note is not a scholar, but as someone unfamiliar with this particular area of scholarship, I found his explanation helpful.
Church Refugees is a really good book about this problem.
It's a really good book about what's happening in the Church in the West.
In addition to some other great recommendations already put out there, I'd wholeheartedly recommend Zac Hicks' [The Worship Pastor] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01CXDN2TC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1). Despite the title, it definitely doesn't apply only to people with "pastor" in their job description - in fact, Hicks argues heavily that worship leadership is an eminently pastoral role and that all worship leaders need to consider themselves pastors and take their pastoral call seriously. It's also a very practical book (that speaks a lot to the "in the trenches" work of leading gathered, congregational worship every week) and is, very importantly, Christ-centered and focused on the story of the Gospel, using its narrative structure to shape the flow of worship.
I've also been given a few recommendations by my pastor that I'll pass on to you, though I'll mention straight away that I haven't read these ones yet so I can't give you any thoughts:
I highly recommend you get and read Engaging with Muslims. It’s only like 100 pages and so is a little pricey for such a short book (it’s an obscure publisher I think) so get it on kindle or look for a used copy. But it is a very helpful book for understanding and sharing the gospel with Muslims.
What is important to understand is you should not spend much time arguing with them and especially do not try to prove their religion wrong. Muhammad was not a great dude (married a 5 y/o and had sex with her when she was 9), and there are lots of inconsistencies in the Qur’an. But if you start to poke holes in their beliefs, you may offend them and lose them as a friend. They likely come from an honor/shame society, so making them look bad may mean you will lose your gospel witness. Also they have tons of safeguards in place to block criticisms, such as abrogation, where old Qur’anic texts are overwritten by newer ones.
Instead, try to build friendships with them. This is done by spending a lot of time with them—doing things like inviting them over to eat. Eventually you’ll want to read Bible stories with them, and begin to point to their need for a Savior in Christ. They work very hard to earn salvation, but even if they are a very good Muslim they have zero assurance. The book I recommended works through all of that. Most of all though, make sure you are praying for them. They are all sinners in need of grace.
Todd Pruitt: "there's a well-known professor of systematic theology at a big name, respected seminary who has a book in which he argues that Christian prayer should only be directed to the Father."
Me, in the car, by myself: "HIS NAME IS BRUCE WARE WHY AREN'T YOU WARNING PEOPLE!?"
Honestly. It's public. He has a book out on the subject. It's hardly slander or gossip to accurately describe what he's written.
There are three Synoptics, not four, and the gold standard is this one.
Definitely Brian Croft's Practical Shepherding Series, as a start. I know that, looking at that series, you'll think "Gospel-Centered Funerals?! I'm gonna be a youth pastor!" Trust me, it happens and you need to know how to do a funeral well. All of those books are easy-to-read and jam-packed with helpful information.
Another good one is The New Pastor's Handbook. Its primary audience is senior pastors, but I got a copy for my friend who just became a youth pastor and he said he read it profitably.
Edit: One more, Quick Scripture Reference for Counseling. If you have the whole Bible memorized with references, feel free to skip this one. Otherwise, it's a gem to have on your desk.
>I know it's an acquired taste. I've just not had the time, energy, care, or money to acquire taste for anything good... or anything at all.
Don't listen. I think I'm a fairly good writer (I paid most of my way through college by winning essay contests; I majored in English), and I drink very infrequently, like probably 5-6 times a year, and am fairly certain that I have never been legally intoxicated. Find your inspiration elsewhere
:)
>What would you recommend for a 20-something college student trying to attain basic biblical literacy.
Hmmm. Um, well, first, I'd do a pretty good survey read of the text. I think everyone who flies the flag of "Christian" should, at a bare minimum, be familiar with Genesis, Exodus, 1Samuel-2Kings, Isaiah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1+2 Corinthians, and Hebrews.
If that's out of the way, I really liked Luke Timothy Johnson's introduction to the NT. It is suitable for a college student who does not know Greek. For the OT, which isn't my wheelhouse, I'd look into Walter Brueggemann's introduction.
Before you plunk down your hard earned college student dollars though, iTunes University has a number of free courses available from seminaries (usually more conservative ones; sadly PTS, YDS, Duke, etc. aren't down for sharing for the betterment of the Gospel) and universities, which can provide very good information, for free. For example, Yale University's course on the New Testament is available as a free recording. While that's going to be secular and focused on critical scholarship, it should give you a lot of info about the book.
Finally, however, if you're after more than just knowledge, I can't recommend enough Eugene Peterson's Eat This Book, which really changed my view on a series of documents that I had devoted years to digging into. In fact, if you'd like, PM me your address and I'll Amazon you a copy.
This is an excellent question. There’s a book by Bruce Ware that explains all of this [here](Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance https://www.amazon.com/dp/1581346689/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_nrwXBbQVNJKHC), but when it comes to prayer the gist of it is this... The typical pattern we see in scripture is that we pray TO the Father, THROUGH the Son, BY THE POWER of the Holy Spirit.
But as others have mentioned it would never be wrong to pray to the Lord Jesus or even the Spirit (though this is less common than people praying to Jesus), because they are all God, and God is who we pray to.
Hope this helps.
I've done this, too. PM me if you need anything.
I found this book useful:
http://www.amazon.com/Conduct-Gospel-centered-Funerals-challenges-Ministering/dp/1846252660
I started out here, which are just notes from a course:
http://www.slideshare.net/mattyp99/cjs-bias-towards-or-against-women
Then I followed some of the references, finding things like this:
http://www.academia.edu/2573801/Gender_and_Crime_in_Oxford_Handbook_of_Criminology_2012_
Also this is referenced, but I can't actually read the book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Women-Punishment-The-Struggle-Justice/dp/1903240573
From what references say, the assertion is that women are sentenced for being bad at being women in some conventional sense vs being sentenced just for the crime committed. It works both ways, though, because women who have kids or a husband that speaks well of them get gentler punishments. I'm not sure where those stats come from.
I was able to eventually get to this article, that asserts that punishments are increasing while actual violence is going down:
http://cmc.sagepub.com/content/2/1/29.abstract
This whole direction could be quite biased, though. I think the whole thing is part of the "chivalry principle" which comes up a lot. The idea is essentially that women are seen as less capable as men, and therefore judged less harshly if they remain being seen as feminine. Punishments increase not due to increased crime, but decreased perception of feminity.
I'd like to recommend reading "The Doubting Disease". It really helped me. Here's the link to amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Doubting-Disease-Scrupulosity-Compulsions/dp/0809135531
Just read it in the last 12 hours! It was helpful. Also helpful was this one.
I'm really into Sojourn from Louisville, the new Gospel Coalition album from the book of Luke, The Sing Team (and basically anything that Brian Eichelberger does), anything by bifrost arts, The Modern Post, and Peters Branch
When It comes to books, I've really loved Mike Cosper's Book, Rhythms of Grace, Kauflin's Worship Matters, and Harold M. Best's Unceasing Worship.
All of these books are steeped in great theology, story and are incredibly inspiring to the worshiper and worship leader.
I'm currently reading Unceasing Worship and have been blown away by it!
I'm in Indianapolis, where are you in Kentucky? I'd love to try and meet up sometime when I'm in Louisville to visit family.
Is this in reference to Cage-Stage Calvinism? If so, I recommend this book.
This is the best one I know of. It is mostly religious but addresses moral scrupulosity: http://www.amazon.com/The-Doubting-Disease-Scrupulosity-Compulsions/dp/0809135531
As an Orthodox Christian, I'm interested in the way emergent people are asking the same questions we've been asking all along.
..and so on.
Jim Belcher's excellent book Deep Church](http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Church-Beyond-Emerging-Traditional/dp/0830837167) is a sympathetic overview of the issues emergent Christians identify as needing new, better answers, and some of the things they've proposed instead. The answers they come up with tend to be constrained by their western paradigm, but many of their questions and criticisms are the same ones I'd offer.
You can find this message and more like it in Bryan Chappell's volume, The Hardest Sermons You'll Ever Have to Preach.
To me the missing piece in understanding the Bible is Biblical Theology which is understanding the Bible as a whole. I was never taught in church growing up that the Bible had a single, consistent story much less how the parts of the Bible fit into that story.
So a good book on Biblical Theology would be very helpful to you, like this one.
I'm not aware of any catechisms that are structured that way, but what you are describing is basically the difference between Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology.
If you want to get a good primer in Biblical Theology, there are several great sources out there.
The Goldsworthy Trilogy (Gospel and Kingdom, Gospel in Wisdom, Gospel in Revelation) by Graeme Goldsworthy
According to Plan by Graeme Goldsworthy
God's Big Picture by Vaughan Roberts
What is Biblical Theology by James Hamilton
A small book helped me get started on reading the OT (and also the whole bible). Since you aren't an absolute beginner, most of the things are common knowledge, but it helps in wrapping it all together in a framework when reading the OT.
https://www.amazon.com/What-Biblical-Theology-Symbolism-Patterns/dp/1433537710
Check out Rhythms of Grace by Mike Cosper. The book does an excellent job of explaining what gospel-centered worship looks like.
Also, Cosper is one of the worship pastors in my church, so the book also does a great job explaining how we as a church do things.
Yep. Here are my sources:
(http://www.amazon.com/Inculturation-Jesus-Tradition-Impact-Cultures/dp/1563382954/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top)
I get it. You want evidence. We've already been over this.
I had not heard of how the null hypothesis and how it relates to Van Til's arguments (at least, named that specifically), but as I suspected as soon as I started reading about it, the writers who relate the two show a complete misunderstanding of presuppositionalism in the first place, to a laughable level. It's as if they read the title of the book and the introduction and then went off as if they were experts. What you and many atheists seem to not-so-ironically miss is the fact that the name "presuppositionalism", as well as "the God of the Gaps", are both intentional misnomers given by apologetics meant to poke fun at those who don't actually understand the arguments. In other words, the apologetics are indeed playing word games with you, and in your ignorance you fell for it hook, line and sinker. Dutcher actually did a similar thing recently in a book he wrote about Calvanism, and of course hilariously people got up in arms about it.
I had actually come to the revelation of the transcendental argument on my own many years ago through my own reasoning and introspection, it was only later after studying philosophy that I learned that others had seen the same thing and put a names to it. Naturally I was initially put off by presuppositionalism just because of the name. Now of course I realize how clever it actually is.
> We can measure knowledge, we can see the effects in CAT scans, we can remove parts of the brain and people lose knowledge in certain areas and even change personalities. You didn't like my definition of knowledge either, that is why you shoehorned the classical definition in the argument. Again, my definition of knowledge is the sum input of our human senses translated by our brains into neural network patterns. Completely physical.
One of the problems that naturalists like to ignore is the fact that they arbitrarily throw words like "knowledge", "mind", and especially "observe" without pondering or understanding what they're actually saying. We know what observation is because we experience it. We all "presuppose" that this abstract thing called observation takes place, but it's not something you can easily define, especially in a naturalistic sense. When you define logic in a physical sense, it's really nothing more than a reaction to a force. Memory is not much more than evidence of past forces. When you look at things like knowledge, memory, or observation in a strictly naturalistic sense, you can't really differentiate between the activities in a human brain and, lets say, erosion. It's a deterministic worldview, it leaves no room for intentions or free will because my thoughts and actions are really just governed by physics. Additionally, that still leaves you in the realms of pantheism because then these subjective things like knowledge, intention, qualia, etc are nothing more than energy in motion. Where that leads the atheist is to try to either isolate the subjective to "the human brain", or deny that the subjective exists altogether. The latter is immediately debunked through direct introspection, the former is at best idealism and at worse solipsism. Still then, you have to account for the fact that the universal laws of nature facilitate qualia, or in other words, you're still stuck with a higher order of subjective qualities regardless of how you try to break it down.
So, at the core of our universe and all truth is observation. Incidentally, the qualities one would require to be called an "observer" aren't that far off from qualities you would assign to God. This is what is meant in the Word when it is said that we are created in God's image. For me personally, I found it quite miraculous that all these complex philosophical issues such as observation and free will (that really haven't been public discourse until relatively recently) are all explained in Genesis, evidently written thousands of years ago by some sheep herders who claimed to be divinely inspired. Of course, if you're going to reject the existence of God I wouldn't expect you to see it that way. Maybe they were just sheep herders who were accidentally really smart, right ;)
Van Til even went so far as to say the atheist was intentionally delusional, which I agree with. The thought that we don't have to be held ultimately accountable for our thoughts and actions is not only comforting, it's a sentiment that's reflecting into society's culture today at an alarming rate. So essentially, the fundamental difference between our worldviews is that the atheist thinks they're a good person. I on the other hand know I'm not a good person. In fact I'm so far off from the infinite that I'm totally depraved.
One more claim for today. It has been stated at least three different times that we have copies of Daniel dating to about/in 200 BC. Our earliest copies actually date to about 125 BC.
This is only 75 years – what does it matter? It is pretty undeniable that Daniel describes events from the sixth century until about 165 BC. He clearly describes the persecution under Antiochus IV, 175-164 BC. It would be very hard to find a scholar, mainline or conservative, who disagrees with this.
Does Daniel CLEARLY describe anything after this date? No. (I know the response some Xenos people will give. Daniel 9 predicted Jesus' death to the exact date. Scroll down to the bottom of this page. But even if Daniel 9 really was so specific and accurate--why is it ok to make false claims about the date?)
Again, the newbie to Daniel hears the false claim that we have copies of Daniel that date to, or about 200 BC (false)--and finds out that Daniel describes events in the 160s BC (true). What other conclusion is there to reach? Daniel must have written no later than 200 BC, and thus predicted events at least three decades in his future.
Here are the time stamps.
I included the context...in addition to the false 200 BC claims--if you listened to these quotes, almost everything you just heard is false (eg 'scholars used to date Daniel to 100 BC, then they found a copy dated to 200 BC, and started dating Daniel to 200 BC', which is designed to prop up their claims by making these scholars look ridiculous.)
These '200 BC' claims go back to 2009. Where do they come from? I have no idea. Someone, please ask these teachers for their source. Any legitimate scholar you read will tell you the earliest copies of Daniel date to late second century, or possibly early first century. Here are just some resources that back this up.
Carol Newsom, Daniel (2014) https://www.amazon.com/Daniel-Commentary-Old-Testament-Library/dp/0664220800
p 3--Earliest copies 4QDan(c) and 4QDan(e)--late 2nd to early 1st cent BC
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Courses-Dead-Sea-Scrolls/dp/1598036300/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488416930&sr=1-2 (can get this with free Audible.com trial) Dead Sea Scrolls Gary Rendsberg 2010 – audible.com Lecture 11 14:45ff. The Daniel manuscripts (plural) are dated circa 125-100 BCE...only 1/2 century at the most after it was written (165 BC)
Making of the Dead Sea Scrolls 2002--there are eight Daniel copies in the Dead Seas Scrolls 125 BC (4QDanc) to 50 A.D. (Every recent source I have ever looked at confirms that there are 8 copies, meaning there have apparently been no recent discoveries, as suggested at Xenos teachings above
Daniel Apollos Commentary Lucas 2002 (conservative) p 17--earliest copy of Daniel is from late 2nd century
Meaning and mystery of Dead Sea Scrolls – Shanks space 1998 p 142 – earliest scrolls date to late second century BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel (see 'Manuscripts')
This actually might take a bit of work to verify this... But consider this. If we really had copies of Daniel that date to 200 BC, Christian apologists would be shouting this from the rooftops. You would have no trouble finding proof of this. Also, conservative scholars would stop making this argument found here https://www.amazon.com/Daniel-Story-God-Bible-Commentary-ebook/dp/B00VEYHY1E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510792030&sr=1-1&keywords=widder+longman+daniel Daniel Story of God Commentary, Widder and Longman, phDs, conservative scholars. (2016) Introduction (Who Wrote Daniel?) “Most critical scholars think the book was written by an anonymous Jew…during tumultuous events of the early second century BC…involving Antiochus IV. [175-164 BC[…Proponents of a late date situate the completed book…with the earliest possible date being a few years after 167 BC. Yet the manuscript evidence found at Qumran indicates the book was considered significant and sacred as late as late second to early first century BC, no more than 50 years after its proposed completion date." (This argument would be obsolete if we had copies dating to 200 BC. They would just say 'Daniel can't have been written in 165 BC, we have copies decades earlier!)
I emailed some very well-known scholars-- one has written commentary on Daniel, in addition to a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls. This scholar told me that dating the Daniel copies (at 180 BC) is based entirely on guesswork, but there's no reason to date that early (the date I asked him about was 180 BC, not 200, because I found a very questionable source making a similar claim, using 180 instead). The other scholar told me that the 180 date was false, and confirmed that the source of this claim is not legitimate.
Again, these teachers at Xenos are the ones making the claims. They are the ones who need to provide evidence.
Now, back to Daniel 9. It's not a clear passage. Do some research on alternative views. Just one example of this: the other major interpretation favored by conservative scholars, that agrees that it predicts Jesus, disagrees with Xenos' interpretation on five different points--the start date (458/7 vs 445/4), date of Jesus death (29 or 30 vs 32 or 33), the meaning of 'comes' refers to Jesus' baptism/start of ministry (not the triumphal entry), no 'gap', no 360-day lunar conversion. A specific, clear prophecy does not have five (there are more) legitimate points of disagreement among scholars. A specific, 100% clear prophecy has ZERO legitimate points of disagreement. That's all Daniel 9 is, nothing but questions and no answers. (It's not even clearly referring to THE Messiah; the word mashiach never refers to THE Messiah in most OT translations; it is always translated as 'anointed', referring to a high priest, a prophet, military leader or king--thus Isaiah 45:1 calls Cyrus God's meshiach, his anointed--that doesn't mean he's THE Messiah.) Just read this article by Gleason Archer, who holds this alternative view. This is the conservative scholar that wrote the article that Xenos hands out, to demonstrate that the Aramaic of Daniel is not consistent with 2nd century Aramaic. Incidentally he says here that the majority of conservative scholars date Jesus' death to 30...This doesn't mean that the 33 date is wrong, but if it's so obviously 33, why do conservative scholars not know this? https://verticallivingministries.com/tag/gleason-archer-on-daniels-seventy-weeks/
In addition to this, the 8 events described in Dan 9:26-27 very accurately match events that occurred from 171-164 BC (7 years, or a 'week'.) While some are vague, some of these are incredibly rare and specific, such as the Abomination of Desolation in 167, or the stopping of sacrifices. All center around the persecution of Antiochus IV. This suggests that Daniel 9 has nothing to do with 'The Messiah'. (That doesn't invalidate Christianity; many Christians hold the view that the 70 sevens end in 164 BC. See https://infidels.org/library/modern/chris_sandoval/daniel.html#war. This is obviously from an atheist, but he describes the 8 events of Dan 9:26-27, and how they match actual events 171-164 BC. (Even if the historical fulfillment of Daniel 9 really ended in 164 BC, those who believe in dual fulfillments in prophecy can find a second fulfillment in Jesus. That would actually make Daniel 9 even more impressive, if it were true.)
I am not trying to prove that Daniel 9 is not about Jesus. I'm only showing that it's up for debate. Why? I say that it is very important NOT to tell people that we have copies of Daniel in 200 BC, because it (falsely) demonstrates that Daniel predicted the future (160s BC). Some at Xenos will respond 'It doesn't matter when the copies date; Daniel 9 is so specific and accurate.' And, I tried to showed how this objection is wrong. (This argument, that I know will be used, that it doesn't matter when our copies date, is exactly the argument made by one of these teachers at Xenos. See Xenos Summer Institute teaching 2014, Predictive Prophecy in Evangelism, 12:35)