(Part 2) Best evangelism books according to redditors
We found 639 Reddit comments discussing the best evangelism books. We ranked the 241 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
Frank Schaeffer, the original fixer and fund-raiser behind the Moral Majority and National Right to Life, has a lot to answer for, for having done so much to set up this unholy admixture of misogyny, Christianity, and Republican politics. Even he admits that he was wrong and has a lot to answer for.
But, characteristically, he blames women for this.
At the end of a book-length mea maxima culpa about how awful the blend of Republican politics and Christian fundamentalism has been and why he can no longer identify with either one, let alone both, he "explains" why he made this mistake.
You see, when he was a kid living on a fundamentalist commune, he basically guilted the rich, hot daughter of one of his dad's cult members into having pity-sex with him. And because, thankfully, contraception was difficult for young people to obtain and not the cultural default, she got pregnant. And because the cult was in a place where abortion was, at the time, impossible to get, she was forced by her parents to marry him. And this was the best thing that ever happened to him.
And the thought that even one man out there won't be able to impregnate some woman he coerces to have sex with him, or the possibility that even if he does he won't be able to force the woman he gets pregnant to marry him, is such a massive social injustice that he is carrying a lot of rage, still, over the fact that the Democrats didn't kick the feminists out of the Democratic coalition. He argues that because the labor movement was so heavily Catholic, and because there's a strain of libertarianism in the Republican coalition already, the pro-contraception and pro-abortion campaigners would have been, in his opinion, a better fit with the Republican platform.
So if the feminists hadn't forced him to fund Republicans if he wanted contraception and abortion outlawed for the greater good of the next man who needs to force a woman to marry him, he says, we would never have had trickle-down economics, the new Jim Crow era, or the carceral/torture state. And he hates those things. And given that the Republicans still haven't managed to outlaw contraception and abortion, despite all the money he and his successors raised for them, he thinks it wasn't worth it.
But he blames women, and the Democratic men who don't want to own women.
And he's not alone.
One of my wife's books (I haven't read it) might be of interest to you.
Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back
Oh, man, GEB changed my life in a way that many people might not appreciate. Here's a copy of a post I made before
****
Whereas my upbringing was not like yours (my parents raised me to be open-minded and inquisitive), my sunday-school teachings sunk into me in a way that made me a true believer, without my own knowledge of it.
In many ways, it was like Frank Schaeffer's Crazy for God.
I just knew it was right, and I would read into things... the Gulf War, to me, was the first sign of apocalypse, that kind of stuff.
I told my girlfriend how I got out of it, and she wanted me to share this with people:
I had gone through some truly horrible experiences in college and dropped out for a few years. The whole time, I wondered, "why, God, I have been a good person, why is this happening to me, I have done everything you have wanted me to do."
The problem of theodicy... why do bad things happen to good people?
I started searching for answers, and eventually came across Godel, Escher, Bach. In digesting and reasoning through it, I realized the following:
Within any formal system sufficient for arithmetic, there are truths that cannot be proved within that system, that are nonetheless still true.
I had a rigid belief system that I felt was analogous to a formal system, in its rigidity, requirements for self-consistency, and stricture. I could finally acknowledge it, but couldn't, for the life of me, get out of it. It may not have been formal system in the strictest sense, but it had many of the same properties.
However, I also knew I was missing something, some higher truth that I couldn't perceive within the system. I realized I needed to Jump Out Of the System.
That is to say, I knew there was a larger truth (or truths) out there, beyond my reach, but I could not grasp it within the language of the system I was stuck in. That did not deny the greater truth of that "out there", but rather highlighted my limitations due to the strictures of my belief system at the time. Nonetheless, my rational abilities let me take the leap of reasoned faith that my instincts couldn't allow.
So I took the leap, around 1998, methinks. Explored alternate belief systems, altered states of consciousness, and have come to see that small opening outside my boundaries in much the same way as the simple jump the robot Moe does when he first walks outside the lines in the movie Wall-E.
I really do feel for people indoctrinated in any belief system that claims exclusive privilege on truth. As Shakespeare writes in Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt in your philosophy.
I recommend "The Whole Christ" by Sinclair B. Ferguson, which talks about the challenging tension between legalism and antinomianism, among other things.
https://www.amazon.com/Whole-Christ-Antinomianism-Assurance-Why-Controversy-ebook/dp/B01AIM65CQ
Her family is more than just "religious." Jehovah's Witnesses are fundamentalist: their belief in, and allegiance to, doctrine is the way they use fear to control their followers (who, of course, call it faith). Deny those beliefs or express any doubt whatsover and you'll be exiled by family and the entire community. Lately, Amber Scorah has been doing a great job of "translating" this for non-fundamentalists in the media. Read her book to understand what you're up against. The bottom line is that the stakes couldn't be higher for your gf, so either way it's going to be a very difficult road.
I'll start with theology (broadly construed) first. There's no particular order, but I've separated them into "lighter" and "heavier" categories. I'm happy to talk about why I think each book is a "must read" you want. I'll try to come back later and give some fiction recommendations.
Lighter theology:
Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition by Jamie Smith (top recommendation if you haven't read it).
Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport: Making Connections in Today's World by Richard Mouw.
Knowing God by J.I. Packer.
Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul
Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin by Cornelius Plantinga.
Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill.
[Rejoicing in Lament: Wrestling with Incurable Cancer and Life in Christ] (http://www.amazon.com/Rejoicing-Lament-Wrestling-Incurable-Cancer/dp/1587433583) by J. Todd Billings
Christ, Baptism and the Lord's Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for Evangelical Worship
When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor . . . and Yourself by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert.
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham.
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John Walton
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins.
Literally everything by CS Lewis
Any of Zondervan's Counterpoints series. My current favorite in the series is Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy by Al Mohler, Kevin Vanhoozer, Michael Bird, Peter Enns, and John Franke
Heavier Theology
The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert A. J. Gagnon
Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships by James Brownson.
Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation by R. Michael Allen and Scott Swain
Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics: An Introduction and Reader by Allen
The abridged version of Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Bavink.
Systematic Theology
When you link to it, just use the first part of the address. Sometimes if someone uses the longer address to find it and then review it, Amazon will link the review to you and not let it through. So, just this: https://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Witness-Exiting-Religion-Finding/dp/0735222541/
Congratulations!
In addition to what /u/tphelan88 said, I would say that evangelism is not primarily about conversion, but about worship. We evangelize not primarily to save people, but primarily to increase true worship of God. Conversion is necessary for someone to truly worship, and so it is a fruit we desire to see from evangelism, but if everyone truly worshipped God, there would be no evangelism. After Christ returns, there will be worship, but no evangelism.
Because we are seeking to increase worship of God, the act of evangelism itself is a form of worship. Thus our evangelism has a fruit, whether or not it leads to conversion. When we preach the gospel to everyone, we know that our work is always bearing fruit, even when it doesnt always bring conversion.
If you are interested in a reformed/calvinistic perspective on evangelism, check out Let the Nations be Glad! by John Piper.
Edit: Also, check out the classic Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer
Please do not use [Luke 11:21 NRSV] as a proof-text for self defense. It's truly not the intention of the broader narrative. It's easy to pull one or two sentence axioms out of a text and miss the larger intent [Luke 11:14-22 NRSV].
As an Anabaptist Christian, I do not think it's ever within our rights to kill others. If we are to love our enemies, it's hard to do it while shooting at them, beating them, or harming them. I also believe that there's few things more beautiful in life than to lay down your life for a friend or your Christian convictions [martyrdom]. Christ is our moral and ethical exemplar. Tertullian rightly said, "the divine banner and the human banner do not go together, nor the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil. Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword."
A book that I have recommended and many have found helpful is a new(er) collection of essays compiled called "A Faith NOT Worth Fighting For."
Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by Packer is the seminal work, and it's a quick read. Kind of like a Bondage of the Will-size treatment of a reformed doctrine of evangelism. Amazon link.
An approach to evangelism that is not only extremely helpful for all but also places the right emphasis on the power of God in conversion is Questioning Evangelism by Randy Newman. Amazon link.
John Dehlin, famous for the thorough and amazing mormonstories podcast, along with a handful of others hosted the conference.
Here is a copy of the schedule.
There were also a few authors who were available during breaks for book signings. Amber Scorah talked about her book, Leaving the Witness, and Jeremy Runnels sold paperback copies of his CES Letter and said he will be using proceeds to help fund the event, etc.
Recommendation: Him We Proclaim by Dennis Johnson.
Best reference possible I used it extensively when I was more into debating
Yes, I do. As does /u/bsmason
Here's a hit list.
Episode 200 of Christ the Center. Richard Gaffin Jr. and his student Lane Tipton in particular are the best. If you are not familiar with Christ the Center, check them out. They also did a whole conference on Union with Christ. You will also find a debate between Horton and Tipton on this topic.
One With Christ
The Chapter on Union with Christ in John Murray's Book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied.
Sinclair Ferguson has now written on it in his excellent and recent book The Whole Christ. This one is good because he speaks on the dangers of Legalism and Antinomianism, which are the resultant errors when we get a function theology of Union wrong.
Tangentially related: Mark Jones' Antinomianism, Reformed Theology's Unwelcomed Guest is also related to the topic. He is particularly strong on Christology, and consistently emphasiszes that we are united to Christ, the God-Man and how this should impact us.
I have read all these books, some more than once, and recommend them.
Read Have a Nice Doomsday: Why Millions of Americans Are Looking Forward to the End of the World -- www.amazon.com/Have-Nice-Doomsday-Millions-Americans/dp/B003F76G08
Wikipedia should be able to answer basic questions. Also this book is great http://www.amazon.com/Just-War-Christian-Discipleship-Recentering/dp/1587432250
Shaeffer's book, "Crazy For God" is a MUST read:
http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-God-Helped-Religious-Almost/dp/0786718919
If that book is tl;dr, he deals with a lot of the same material in the very short and entertaining book called "Portofino":
http://www.amazon.com/Portofino-Novel-Calvin-Becker-Trilogy/dp/0786713755/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253216591&sr=1-1
Seriously; this guy is awesome.
The Marrow of Modern Divinity with Boston's Notes. (Get the orange and black one) https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/1845504798/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
The Whole Christ, which is the history about the Marrow Controversy that the book caused. https://smile.amazon.com/Whole-Christ-Antinomianism-Assurance-Why-Controversy/dp/1433548003/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1522805635&sr=1-1&keywords=whole+christ
I don't know about Christians as a whole, but regarding conservative Evangelicals, the book Have a Nice Doomsday talks about this at length. Christian Zionism depends on certain prophecies being fulfilled, such as the Temple being rebuilt, before Jesus returns and ends the world.
>The main problem with denying its inerrancy is that it fundamentally becomes useless. Find a scripture that makes your life harder? Find a scripture that makes you uncomfortable? Simply ignore it. In essence its a license to invent a God and religoin that perfectly suits whatever lifestyle of belief you want it to, regardless of the truth.
I believe you have set up a false dichotomy: either the scripture is inerrant (100% factually true in all manners, according to author's intention) or it is useless. This doesn't have to be the case, although I understand the inerrantist mindset in thinking it is so.
Scripture can contain exaggerations, flaws, and even outright errors because it is a book written by humans. If God verbally inspired the 66 books of the Bible, then I will go on record and say that He did kind of a poor job. There are confusing bits everywhere that don't reconcile with one another (Nephilim, Witch at Endor, Zombies at the end of Matthew), there are conflicting accounts of the same events (death of Saul, Jesus' testimony before pilate, Saul/Paul's conversion story), it seems pretty clear to archaeologists that the Exodus could not have happened on the scale described in the Exodus nor could pretty much all of the book of Joshua.
I know that you can come up with answers to all of these, they are not new objections. But we don't need to do the innerancy dance. We can take the Bible for what it is: the best primary source we have concerning God's unfolding, progressive revelation of Himself to Humanity.
I submit that nobody truly believes that the choice is either inerrancy or garbage. If that were true there would be no sermons, no commentaries, no C.S. Lewis writings--we all know that these are wholly human creations, and capable of error, yet they are very useful and very powerful and we have all experienced God through these (and no, I am not saying they are not on the same level as the scripture, I am merely pointing out that errant does not equal useless and full of lies).
Anywho, check out this book if you want. There are smarter people than us having these same discussions. It has a pretty wide range of views and a good discussion.
Or check out this review of the book here.
Check this out if you haven't heard of it before:
"The Kingdom of the Cults"
by Walter Martin
From a Protestant (non-Catholic) perspective, Walter Martin might be considered the (an) authority on who is or who is not "Christian". And, yes, Catholics are Christians, as far as he's concerned.
There are, indeed, many, however, who don't regard Catholics as Christians. As you've no doubt read already, some groups that call themselves Baptists hold that view.
Who Made God? by Edgar Andrews
From Tim Challies Review
> Edgar Andrews whose list of academic credentials include more letters than all the names in my family: BSc, PhD, DSc, FInstP, FIMMM, CEng, CPhys (which, according to a site I consulted, is together an anagram for disbenching tscpf fpsps chym- cmd `m). No, I don't know what any of those degrees mean, but they sure sound impressive. He is Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London and an international expert on the science of large molecules (not small ones, mind you, only the large ones). His credentials include things that sound like they must set him apart; things such as this: In September 1972 he was one of four specially invited speakers at the dedication symposium of the Michigan Molecular Institute, two of the others being Nobel Laureates Paul Flory and Melvin Calvin....The topics Andrews covers range from the existence of God to the nature of hypotheses to the abilities of mutations to create. Through it all, he shows how the claims of atheism and naturalism fall short--how they rely on bad science, how they require bad logic or unfair hypotheses and how they are beneath the very minds that create them. He draws the reader to inevitable conclusion that there is a Creator who is pre-existent and who is living and active in the world today. By the end he draws the gaze of the created to the majesty of the Creator and calls the reader to see God for who he is.
WONDERFUL article.
I read this in my "Religion and Violence Class".
Since taking that class, I've come to the conclusion that Aquinas and, to some extent, Augustine were right-- violence is morally neutral. And there is a hard path ahead when you try to categorize violence as either "religious" or "secular" because WHAT exactly is religion?
I think Christianity has a role to play not in protesting all wars, because I believe there may be times when war is needed, even the right choice rather than the "lesser of two evils", but seeking we act justly and humanly as we do.
The secular state probably won't listen to constant calls to pull out of all conflict altogether but maybe Christians can have an influence on ensuring we conduct ourselves as honorably and Christ-like as possible in battle. Christ-like in battle? Yes. Loving your enemy even as you fight them. Treating them humanely even as they are captured. Recognizing they are made in the image of God, even if you must slay them.
Here's a book: Just War as Christian Discipleship by Daniel Bell
You may have heard of On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society in which Dave Grossman lies out the horrible consequences of training someone, who does not wish to kill, to kill. The psychological impact can be awful if we manipulate the mind to do such things (although the soldiers DO become more effective. Grossman found that many soldiers would shoot into the air rather than kill another man. The military has designed techniques around this to make people more comfortable with killing but it can have bad psychological damage attached to it.) Think shell-shock.
Grossman cites primarily evolutionary reasons for the psychological damage phenomenon. But I suspect there may be religious reasons. Especially in the Civil War. On both sides, these were deeply religious men (read their journals!) who probably had great qualms about shooting the men who were once their brothers and countrymen, who worshiped, and, of course, were made by the same God. Religion, I suspect has a large impact on resistance to killing.
So violence is much more nuanced than it seems. It may be morally neutral, a tool for good or evil, but that is not to say it doesn't have its extreme difficulties attached.
Where Cavanaugh has it right is that recent, modern, efforts to paint religion as something inherently IRRATIONAL and VIOLENT itself ignores secular violence, legitimizes the nation-state against religious belief and creates a dichotomy which, in truth, does not exist.
Plenty of skeptics and atheists will tell you of their fear of religion because it promotes senseless violence by unthinking faithful people. The sad part is, it is not religion responsible for foolishness. Religion is not inherently irrational. Secular minds can, and have, used violence for just as much evil. Once again, the dichotomy of religious/ secular does not exist because religion, to define precisely, is impossible. Even the secular person, and a completely secular person is difficult to find, will have spiritual or religious trappings to them.
Don't fall for the lie.
Cavanaugh's article rules.
/rant
There's more than one flavor of "inerrancy." You cannot be orthodox and maintain that the Bible has errors, but two people can disagree (to an extent) about what constitutes errors and still both be orthodox. Check this book out to explore more in depth.
Good deal. I'm adding you as a friend. Here's another that was just released that I'll be getting this month: A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: Addressing Commonly Asked Questions about Christian Nonviolence
"Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses"
https://www.amazon.ca/Reasoning-Scriptures-Jehovahs-Witnesses-Rhodes/dp/0736924515
Expository Apologetics is a fantastic book, as it talks not only about apologetics but about what the foundation of our apologetics should be: The Bible. Many people believe that we need to let go of the Bible and utilize arguments from reason or philosophy in order to get people to a point where they are ready and willing to hear what the Bible says, but Baucham argues that to do so is to try to go into battle without our sword, attempting to convince the enemy that our sword is real and dangerous, rather than simply allowing it to cut them, instantly dissolving their disbelief.
Most fundamentalist Christians (i.e., the only group concerned with what constitutes a "real" Christian) reject Mormonism as either a heresy or a cult because of how radically its theology differs from that of the Bible, including, but not limited to, Native Americans as a lost tribe of Israel to whom Jesus came after his resurrection, the "Magic underwear," the planet Kolob, connections to freemasonry, God as an enlightened human elevated to godhood rather than an eternal omnipotent/scient/present being, and the belief in the eventual elevation to Godhood of LDS members.
That said, I honestly wonder if the author of the linked post was ever a Mormon. The way he speaks about Mormonism sounds very similar to the way every fundie anti-cult literature and speaker I ever heard growing up spoke about Mormonism. The mention of freemasonry, especially, makes it sound like he is just reading off a list of fundamentalist warnings about Mormonism. I could be wrong, but it seriously sounds like something straight out of "Kingdom of the Cults."
Did a quick search and found a typical fundie list of why Christians should hate Mormons - this is pretty much average for the type of anti-LDS FUD that propagates within fundie churches that fear "cults."
To a skeptic, the difference between Mormonism and Christianity is about like the difference between Christianity and Islam or Judaism, but to a fundamentalist, Mormons might as well be witches.
I think there are a couple of fundamental issues to be addressed here. First, the church is definitely a mixed bag of issues, especially in the first four centuries. Augustine marks a sort of theological turning point; Rome is ruined, Christians gain political power, former would-be martyrs are now happy statesmen, etc.
Prior to Augustine, the overwhelming majority of the writings we have from the early church appear to be pretty much unanimously against violence, including self-defense. There is also a huge pacifist tradition that starts with Origen who headed a catechetical school, so he sort of wins the battle simply by having a lot of disciples, but he's probably the biggest landmark figure prior to Augustine on the issue of violence.
With Augustine, we find some interesting trends feeding into his thought. He's trying to reconcile Greek philosophy with the Christian narrative. Furthermore, he himself was involved in political office prior to becoming a bishop. He is not so much interested with creating a decisive break with his forays into pagan ideas, but rather he wants to do his best to synthesize them. That's not to say that he doesn't critique them at all, but he is clearly trying to hold both as much as he can. This appears to be his reason for wanting to develop a theory of "just war." We essentially have a very different position on violence because of a very different Christian situation; Augustine is a product of his time. Because he is such a prolific and skilled writer, his views take hold in the Church. He ends up really developing some core doctrines (original sin, providence, sexuality), and thus the Church feels comfortable with his ideas on violence--especially if those ideas relate to gaining political power and increasing the influence of the Church.
The question becomes whether you see the development of the just war tradition as solely a means for political gain (a cynical but by no means bad position) or an attempt for honest Christians to wrestle through the problems that come along with being responsible for leading a state (and eventually, in the form of the papacy, several states).
Regardless, there is one final issue that should be addressed. The just war theory developed by Christians is very restrictive. For example, most affirm that in cases of self-defense the use of lethal force is strictly forbidden. Also, violence is done in hopes of reconciliation, and retributive violence (such as the wars America is currently engaged in) is completely nullified. Furthermore, one wonders what the just war theory looks like when the technologies of war have advanced in ways unimaginable to the early thinkers in the just war tradition--I think it would be tough to make Augustine accept nuclear weapons, virtual warfare, firebombs, etc. (the list could really, unfortunately, go on forever).
If you're looking for a good book on the topic, Daniel Bell has recently written one that has gotten wide acclaim even from the most vocal Christian pacifists like Stanley Hauerwas. I haven't read it myself but several of my friends have and really enjoyed it (they're also pacifists). This is also a good review from a pacifist standpoint. Your friends might be interested in reading the book based on those testimonies. Undoubtedly they're familiar with Hauerwas.
Interesting post. I listened to these wonderful lectures a number of years ago, and this book recently hit the shelves by the lecturer Dr. Ferguson. I stand proudly with the Marrow men, and Pastor Boston :-)
Grace and peace.
Here is the mobile version of your link
I would recommend starting with Goldsworthy's Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics. Just my personal opinion, but for me it was the best outcome comparing to the time invested in the book.
There was also
Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures by Dennis E. Johnson, which I can also recommend.
Just my two cents.
It depends. I suggest you check out the Urbana Missions Conference. It's one of the biggest missions conferences in the United States and can help you get a better feel for what you can do and where you can go. I also highly recommend On Being a Missionary by Dr. Thomas Hale, who was a friend of my family's and was a doctor in rural Nepal for 30 years. It has a lot of practical wisdom and helps you get personally ready.
Thanks! Lots to read here. I read Lee Srobel's book Case For Christ and I must admit I found it annoying and disingenuous. I will definatly have a look at Reason For God. Have you read Who Made God?
It isn't a direct study which I conclude this from. I'm drawing my argument from one that Michael Bird, who has written in Christian circles against inerrancy, made comparing the confessions of faith held by different global denominations:
>So the 60 million Anglicans in the global south hold to the Thirty-Nine Articles, with its reference to the “authority” and “sufficiency” of Scripture for salvation, leaving open how Scripture relates to history and science. The 75 million Presbyterians around the world, with major concentrations in Brazil and Korea, hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which affirms the “infallible truth and divine authority” of Scripture. The 2 million members of the Church of Southern India believe that “the Scriptures are the ultimate standard of faith and practice.” The Baptist World Alliance, representing some 41 million Baptists, in their Centenary Congress of 2005 declared that “the divinely inspired Old and New Testament Scriptures have supreme authority as the written Word of God and are fully trustworthy for faith and conduct.”
Source
Yes there are! I enjoyed them all, I found them all on amazon for under $10-$15.
Some of my favorites are:
There are a few others but I can't remember the name off the top of my head, just type JWs into amazon and shit ton pops up. And if you want a laugh, some JWs left comments on some of the books angry about their existence and they were hilarious to me.
Edit:added some and changed formatting
This is the one I have:
https://www.amazon.com/Marrow-Modern-Divinity-Edward-Fisher-ebook/dp/B00701JFX0
It is really great. And after that, read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Christ-Antinomianism-Assurance-Controversy/dp/1433548003
A fantastic book.
There is a good, very short, book by J.I. Packer called Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.
https://www.amazon.com/Evangelism-Sovereignty-God-J-Packer/dp/083083799X
It's a great read for understanding how those who believe in sovereignty and predestination still work hard at evangelism.
I just finished Expository Apologetics by Voddie Baucham. The author shows how apologetics, defending your faith, isn't something that only super-Christians can do and how it's not about winning arguments. It's full of good, practical advice about how to be ready to talk to people about your faith. And, it's not hard to read.
Actually, Christians did that one on their own, and even wrote a book about it: http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-True-For-You-But-ebook/dp/B006XG0ID4
In my opinion it's because it's the truth.
Humans get into long debates over this whole thing but here's my short version:
We exist. We must have come from somewhere. The Bible offers the best explanation for our existence.
See this book for a decent, scientific approach to the question of God.
Go to Amazon for the mind bending positive reviews.
When a person becomes a Christian they are united with Christ.
They become one with him in a supernatural union.
Ever noticed how many times the Bible talks about us being 'in him' or 'in Christ'? (here are a few examples Phil. 1:1, 2 Cor. 5:17, Eph. 1:3-10).
Also, ever considered that we received Christ and that he is 'in us'? (2 Cor. 6:16, Rom. 8:9-11).
What this essentially means is that everything that Christ is and did becomes a part of us.
We ARE holy because we are in Jesus and he is holy.
While we are not holy in an of ourselves, the Holy Spirit in us is changing us to be more like Jesus - he is making us more like Jesus and therefore making us holy.
In him we are considered holy, and the work of the Holy Spirit in us is making us holy.
Part of the work of the Holy Spirit is to help us want to be more like Jesus. Just think for a minute how you view Christ:
Jesus was the one to perfectly bear the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
To emulate Jesus as his disciple (as close as is possible) you'll need to seek these things in your life and through prayer. These things will lead to holiness.
Don't fret though, as I said before, the Holy Spirit is in you and is going to help you to do this.
If you'd like to read more about 'union with Christ', check out this pretty good article explaining it by Rory Shiner. If you really want to understand the concept, check out 'The Whole Christ' by Sinclair Ferguson. Be warned though: reading this book may well blow your mind and inject something very powerful into your walk with God ;-).
The God Delusion
while reading David Robertson's responses chapter by chapter in
The Dawkins Letters
You can start by getting a general idea of what is Christianity first before diving in and reading the Bible. The book "Mere Christianity" by C.S Lewis is probably the best I'd found.
https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity/dp/B0009NS97E
Fascinating read, there's an audiobook version too if you prefer.
Can't think of too much that is recent. Maybe some of Michael Kruger's works, but that is aimed a bit more at the canon. Perhaps this Counterpoints volume on Inerrancy.
Great book!
https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity/dp/B0009NS97E
Sounds like a familiar story. I left for about 10 years, and came back. But when I did, I had to really examine and deconstruct my faith.
I have a recommendation. It's a book about someone else who had crazy things happen, left the faith, and came back. And it was a story that helped me to reconcile some things. It's "Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of it Back".
There are quite a few that come to mind right off the bat.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Superstition-Refutation-Atheism/dp/1587314525
http://www.amazon.com/The-Dawkins-Letters-Revised-Challenging/dp/1845505972
http://www.amazon.com/Illogical-Atheism-Comprehensive-Contemporary-Freethinker-ebook/dp/B00D19LIVW
The first is written by Edward Feser, and manages to explain the mechanics of the Aquinas argument from the First Mover while providing some of his own polemical broadsides in return to Dawkins. This book was actually instrumental in my own conversion to Christianity.
The Second is a series of rather friendly letters which were written in response to Dawkins book which ended up getting put onto the old Dawkins website before he shut it down for getting out of control.
The third is a longer book which focuses on critiquing all of the major New Atheist arguments. Great price it comes from the perspective of someone who isn't even necessarily arguing for Christianity- but is simply pointing out all of the philosophical and logical holes in the emperors new robe.
Those are just the first three that come to mind. Ask if you want something a little more academic.
I'm not going to be objective, but I will try to be graceful.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe in their interpretation of their "translation" of the Bible as delivered through the current the literature that they buy and sell from the Governing Body of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Like other groups with roots in 19th century American Restoration Movement, they have a underlining presupposition the mainstream Christianity diverged from the truth of the Bible back in the days of early Roman Catholicism. They might say that the Reformation was a move in the right direction, away from the Pope and his demonically inspired organization, but they will deny just about every aspect of orthodoxy that isn't undeniably obvious.
JWs do not believe in the Trinity; it is a doctrine that they believe has pagan roots and is intrinsically polytheistic. Nevertheless, they believe that Jesus is a god, but not the God Jehovah. They believe that the Holy Spirit is merely the finger of God and not a distinct divine person.
JWs do not believe that people have immortal souls. They believe that one's spirit is simply one's breath.They believe that when a person dies, they are annihilated. God may choose to recreate anyone from His memory which is what he did with Jesus after his death. They do not believe that Jesus was resurrected as a physical man (except for when he had to demonstrate to his disciples that he was alive). They do not believe in the Ascension.
JWs do not believe in hell. They do not believe in Christ's sacrificial atonement. Christ is merely the first and most obedient creature that God created and is therefore our greatest example. They (currently) believe that only a very select group of believers will ever go to heaven. Most of humanity will be recreated from God's memory to repopulate a new earth. Those who did not offend God directly or join Satan's organization (the Roman Catholic Church) will be permitted to live in happiness whether or not they ever trusted in Jesus.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus died on a cross; he was nailed to a stake. They do not believe that God is out right more powerful than the Devil. They very likely believe that Jesus has already returned invisibly and that he is guiding the Governing Body of the Watch Tower and judging Christian churches around the globe.
Active JW missionaries are called publishers. They are heavily encouraged to study and distribute Watch Tower literature. They buy enough tracts and pamphlets to give away to whoever will take them with their own money. That money goes back to the Watch Tower B&T Society for them to print more books, pay staff (including the Governing Body), purchase and maintain property, and other organizational expenses. The materials in the literature is subject to change. Beyond certain points in the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, you will find no publicly available physical literature that the Society has recalled. Ostensibly, that recalled literature will be made available digitally in unedited form (ostensibly).
JW churches are called Meeting Halls and their services are called meetings. Meetings are held several nights a week. It is in these meetings that the latest Watch Tower literature is discussed and their more systematic doctrines taught. One basic understanding that JWs have is that the Bible without the light of the Watch Tower is very easy to misunderstand. Nevertheless,I must admit that they spend more time memorizing (Watch Tower exegeted) scripture than I do.
There is much more about Jehovah's Witnesses to say, but I'll stop here before typos overwhelm me. I haven't even discussed their Bible or mentioned theocratic warfare.
Sources:
http://freeminds.org
Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz
30 Years A Watchtower Slave by William J Schnell
Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin
working with and befriending current, former, and disfellowshipped (excommunicated) JWs.