(Part 2) Best protestantism books according to redditors
We found 466 Reddit comments discussing the best protestantism 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.
It's an anti-credal movement that claims to have restored New Testament Christianity. Mainline variety is Disciples of Christ, other varieties include Church of Christ and Christian Churches. Here is the wiki article.
Key distinctives:
This book is quite good for historical background.
So Anglican theology is deeply liturgical - i.e. we see our theology as being expressed, experienced, and enforced in our worship - "lex orandi, lex credendi." This principle comes to a zenith in our theology behind the sacraments, which has often relied on liturgical texts and actions in a way unique among other Christian churches. This makes our theology as much of an experience as it is a set of intellectual commitments (not to artificially split the two though). However, it means that Anglicans, especially today's Anglicans, often have an implicit theology behind the sacraments, a theology relying on liturgy more than explicit explanations, which can make expressing a coherent theology difficult.
Regardless, the first place you should go if you want a taste of Episcopal "sacramentality" today is our current worship, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Our service for Baptism begins on p.298 (be sure to look at the Baptismal Covenant on p.304). We have two rites for the Eucharist, Rite I on p.323 and Rite II on p.355. As an example of Episcopal sacramental theology, it is very significant that Baptism and Eucharist are considered important enough to warrant their own liturgies.
But don't just read the texts - attend worship to understand! Theology is practiced and trained by worship.
Two other documents in the Prayer Book are of note: first, a very brief contemporary Catechism, which covers the Sacraments on pp.857-861. The other are the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England (dating back to the 16th century), which are not considered authoritative for Episcopalians today, but are an important historical document that highlights the deeply Reformed dimension of Anglicanism's development during the English Reformation (a fact that frankly embarrasses many today, for better or worse). Articles #25-31 cover the sacraments on pp.872-74.
Here's a link from a contemporary Episcopalian's attempt to coherently explain the basics of sacramental theology in our church today. It was written in response to a practice that he (rightly, imo) identified as a perversion of proper sacramentality: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/sacramental_theology_101_baptism_and_eucharist/
There are several good books on sacraments within Anglicanism by Anglican authors:
I hope this post did not give you a heart attack.
These are all good and helpful to young people.
EDIT: Also, The Swans are Not Silent series by John Piper is amazing; I especially recommend The Hidden Smile of God and The Roots of Endurance. However, these are all free for download (legally) here, and it pains me to recommend buying what can be gotten for free! You might recommend them to him though! Most of the above are also free to download (not the Lloyd-Jones, or compilations) but the price is lower and the volumes larger, so I think it's worth having a paper copy for a gift. :)
I'm a fan of Glorious Companions when it comes to understanding the theology of the Anglican faith.
I posted this before when someone asked about Law and Gospel:
>I've been reading Law & Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible by CFW Walther (Walther's the guy who basically founded the Missouri Synod, pretty big deal). Truth be told, it's a little dry. But it's a book about theology, and it's from the 1800s, so what can I expect? If you want a concentrated 10000 proof injection of Law'n'Gospel and all of the ways it can go wrong, there you go.
>I also liked The Theology of the Cross by Gene Edward Veith (of bloggy fame), though it's maybe a little low level where Walther was too high. Lots of stuff about vocation and just Lutheranism on a broad scale, so that's where Law and Gospel come in.
>I've also heard good stuff about Broken - Seven "Christian" Rules That Every Christian Ought to Break as Often as Possible by Jonathan Fisk (of Worldview Everlasting fame, check out that link for a nice Law/Gospel bit too), though I haven't read it myself. Funny_original_name has and liked it. And I cannot say enough how Fisk kicks butt, at least in WE.
>Lastly, if you want a weird way to approach it, Hammer of God by Bo Giertz (he of Scandinavian Lutheran Church fame), is basically Law and Gospel in novel form. Part of the idea is that the Law is this hammer that cracks us because it needs to crack us, that it might fashion us into something kewl.
Theology of the Cross by Veith would probably be my best recommendation for the average reader. If you have a library close by, you might also try The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology by Krauth (doubles as excellent doorstop), or On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 by Forde.
This book https://www.amazon.com/Glorious-Companions-Centuries-Anglican-Spirituality/dp/0802822223 is a really good read. It has a bunch of writers and spiritual thinkers that were/are Anglican from the last 5 centuries or so. It gives a short biography for each and an overview of their work along with a selected bibliography. Some of them I knew going in. Some of them I didn't. It's a good book on its own, and it's a tremendous resource for building a reading list of works from notable Anglican thinkers.
I highly, highly recommend Derek Olsen's excellent book on this exact subject:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0880284323/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1
>Also each downvote will show how much you people are afraid of debating
I was going to answer until I saw that. Instead I will give you some homework. Read Berkhof's Systematic Theology and see if that answers your question.
John Gill and the Cause of God and Truth by George M. Ella
William Huntington: Pastor of Providence George M. Ella (Huntington wasn't a baptist, I don't think, but great biography nonetheless)
Great post! I realized this myself some time ago, and decided to pursue an apology for Protestantism and gain a deeper understanding of the theology of the Church Fathers and Medieval Theologians. The book I'm going through at the moment is The Case for Traditional Protestantism, and it's been a great read and defense of the five Solas. I plan on tackling the Patriarchs soon, and I also want to dive into some Medieval sources; Summa Theologia by Aquinas being the main one.
I understand there are Calvinists in the churches and pulpits, but official SBC (among others) teaching differs from Calvinism on those first two points explicitly.
https://www.amazon.com/Whosoever-Will-Biblical-Theological-Five-Point-Calvinism/dp/0805464166
A Quest for Godliness by Packer
Holiness by Ryle
Mortification of Sin
Future Grace by Piper
Pursuit of Holiness by Jerry Bridges
> How do you rationalize years of church history that firmly believed these gifts ended, but now all of a sudden they are a thing again?
Have you read either of these two books?
Essentially, there have been documented miracles (I understand that a cessationist would consider this to be different than a gift) in every century since Pentecost. Ruthven's book is considered one of the most formative assaults on cessationism and any self-proclaiming cessationist is doing themselves a disservice if they haven't read it.
The institutes are surprisingly very readable. I read that somewhere in a couple places, and my experience reading them bears out this truth. Try out this article, note this:
>1. The Institutes may be easier to read than you think.
J. I. Packer writes, “The readability of the Institutio, considering its size, is remarkable.”
Level of difficulty should not determine a book’s importance; some simple books are profound; some difficult books are simply muddled. What we want are books that make us think and worship, even if that requires some hard work. As Piper wrote in Future Grace, “When my sons complain that a good book is hard to read, I say, ‘Raking is easy, but all you get is leaves; digging is hard, but you might find diamonds.'”
There are few works in history that had the influence the Institutes had, and had the effect of changing the course of history as this work did. One more though, I also own this version of Calvin's Magnum Opus, am about 250 pages in, it's the easiest version to read, I find, because it is shorter than the 1559 version and the headers and other aides makes this translation quite a treat, for me, a Calvinist.
I would definitely start with Machen, you cant go wrong. World Magazine said it's one of the 100 best books of the millennium:
>It was named one of the top 100 books of the millennium by World magazine and one of the top 100 books of the twentieth century by Christianity Today. / “An admirable book. For its acumen, for its saliency, and for its wit, this cool and stringent defense of orthodox Protestantism is, I think, the best popular argument produced [in the controversy between Christianity and liberalism].”
One last to share, I listened (ironically) to Dr. Adler's classic How to read a book which is a great one for whatever level of reader we find ourselves to be. We read and are driven to this endeavor because we seek to grow our minds. I don't mean to pile on, but you asked hehe. A few books to add to your list, believe me, when you start asking and keeping a "to-read list" it always seems to grow. There's lots of good stuff when you know what to look for :-)
Grace and peace.
This is a great read on the topic of anti-protestant discrimination in the south post independence. It’s not hard to see why the ‘siege mentality’ was/is still so strong in the Protestant community after what happened there.
The Faithful Tribe by Ruth Edwards (an Irish Catholic) while focussing on the Orange Order is also a great insight into the general loyalist mindset & their history.
HOLY CRAP!! MY DAD HELPED WRITE THIS BOOK!! I'm not even joking! He's an ordained Lutheran pastor and a professor of religion and philosophy at an ELCA college. Look at the second page of the preview on the Amazon page and scroll down to "Contributing writers." My dad is the second-to-last! And the last is the guy who wrote this specific page, and my family has spent New Years with his family at a cabin in northern Minnesota every year since I was a little kid! My dad is even leaving tomorrow to go to the International Luther Congress in Helsinki with the guy who wrote this page! AAAAH OMG IS THIS REAL LIFE?!
On free will specifically? Start with the SEP to get a basis. Then for specific books and examples I'd recommend:
The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner
Probably. I'd recommend Renewing God's People by Foster and Holloway or Reviving the Ancient Faith by Hughes. The Foster book is a short read, and the Hughes book is pretty quick to get through also. All the authors are from Churches of Christ, but Foster in particular is an excellent historian. Foster has other brief books that go into detail about the other branches of the Stone-Campbell movement.
I would say that a few books to maybe go through are The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement by Chute, Finn, and Haykin and Why I Am a Baptist by Moore, Nettles, Grudem, Mohler, and others. Both books are solid and easy reads, with the former covering more of the history as well as some of the Baptist distinctives, and the latter getting more doctrinal and also anecdotal.
I would recommend the following:
Free
Paid
I can't vouch for any of these sources, but there should be some good stuff in these.
https://www.amazon.com/Hymnal-1982-according-Episcopal-Church/dp/0898691214/ref=sr_1_2
I like to recommend this book. It is a little long for an introduction, but it really builds a great case.
The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination - Loraine Boettner
Some one already said Sproul's 'Chosen by God', so I will add Sam Storms "Chosen for Life'
If you want to watch something: I have watched this DVD (Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism) with a lot of people and it has really helped them out.
> So? The fact that the author chose to write "Southern Ireland", a state that has not existed since 1921 and considered a slur in the republic, shows just by the use of his language what audience he is pandering to. The British.
The title not detract from whether the claims of the book are accurate or not. It's irrelevant, much as the spelling mistakes are irrelevant.
> And That's just the times.
You should have written "And that's just the Times", should I now dismiss everything you ever write on the grounds of typographical errors? No, because that's silly. Glad you brought up the Times and the Independent though, as you clearly did some very selective reading of the reviews.
The Independent Review is here: https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/book-reviews/a-far-from-dispassionate-history-of-a-silent-minority-35539429.html
It states this:
> But Bury underestimates the extent to which members of the Protestant community were prepared to reassert themselves from the 1960s onwards.
Of course, by the time the 1960s rolled around the damage had been done, and most of the Protestants had left the country. There would be no point discussing how well Turkish Armenians had done after the foundation of the modern Turkish state because they'd almost all either been murdered or fled the country during a similar time period.
The review then degenerates into "but whatabout" naming a handful of modern Irish Protestants as if this wipes away what happened in the early years of the republic, or excuses the laws that discriminated against them and ends on a whiny note about "could't the book be more positive". The Protestant population dropped over 90%, small wonder the book isn't positive! Incidentally, is there still a requirement for members of Irish government and/or civil servants to speak Gaelic? Because if there is, then yet again, any unified Ireland would then automatically exclude almost every Protestant in NI from service in government.
They also downplay figures for the Irish Distress Committee, throwing out the number 9,000. 20,000 refugees had arrived in London by 1922, and from the period 1911 to 1926 60,000 had arrived. Most were not previous government employees as many apologists in ROI claim.
The Irish Times review is even worse, and says a lot whilst saying little: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/buried-lives-review-are-the-protestants-of-southern-ireland-really-under-siege-1.2981232
Their principal complaint is about sloppy editing, as if that undermines the rest of the book. They also ignore the massive decline in Protestant population and again attempt to white wash the whole thing.
All in all, both reviews smack of someone from a privileged majority marginalising the complaints of someone from a minority who's been pointed out their community has been attacked and marginalised. They then end with this ridiculous note:
> At the end, though, the book presents a somewhat dystopian view of the decline of a community that is contradicted by Protestantism’s continuing stubborn survival and by its determination to be a moral force and “confident minority” in Ireland.
Unless the Protestant population magically bounced back to well over 10% while I wasn't looking, there is no "revival". This isn't the first white wash the Irish Times has done on the subject, here is another one: https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/the-secret-lives-of-ireland-s-protestants-1.2955670
Top most comment: "No mention of ethnic cleansing post War of Independence. No surprise."
Finally, your criticism that the book is "pandering to Brits" is entirely inaccurate. British people are for the most part uninterested in Irish history, and know little of it. Anyway, its not me you have to convince, its all those 'Prods in the North that you think will be "welcomed with open arms", and who no doubt were the main audience for the book.
Maybe have a read, and then post a scathing review containing all the spelling mistakes, on Amazon, as its seems to be averaging just under 5 stars at the moment: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Buried-Lives-Protestants-Southern-Ireland/product-reviews/1845888804/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_paging_btm_2?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&pageNumber=1
I will keep it short and sweet.
On Systematic Theology
We studied God's word in a systematic way because we want to apply His words to life. Systematic theology provides with us insights about what the whole Scripture said on any given topic (Frame, Systematic Theology, p 9). What does the Bible said about our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, who is God and man at the same time? Off to Doctrine of Christ we go.
> Here we have a human attempting to systematize, categorize, and make easily referenced that which defies and even denies systematization
God ultimately is incomprehensible. But by His grace, He revealed to us truth about Himself so that we can understand Him. As mentioned in Deuteronomy 29:29: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." But that should not stop us from studying God's word and applying it in our lives systematically. Though, Grudem really isn't the finest. Try Berkhof if you are interested.
In my opinion Biblical theology is far more helpful in understanding the Biblical-redemptive story in the Bible.
On Positivism
I agree with most of your analysis, although I just want to add that some leading exponent of positivism does not excludes morality per say. They just simply believed that morality should not be part of the discussion in lawmaking. As far as I remember Austin and Hart believes that morality is not a legal inquiry, although they are important.
On Naturalism
Initially Augustine and Aquinas talked about the study of God's work in the natural world. Hence the name "natural law". However as time progresses human reason, instead of God's word, become the arbiter of the nature of law. Hence it resulted in an atheistic system.
I agree with the rest that you have said.
Thanks for your time!
You might like to read these books on the relationship between Lutheranism and the theme of theosis in Orthodoxy:
Yeah, Reddit debates are difficult because people open up 50,000,000 lines of attack and it becomes almost impossible to dialog. I'm trying to constrain my points to one or two issues at a time to allow clarity and simplicity. This said, I'll give a response to what you've specifically asked for.
> Please respond to my claim that Hebrews 1 and 2 declare explicitly that God bore witness of those who heard the Lord with the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Here's the verse:
"It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will." - Hebrews 2:3-4
And here's a direct response from Dr. Jack Deere in the book I've used in the past with you (worth a read if you want to get an answer to all of your burning questions)
> "The word translated as “confirmed,” bebaioo, is also used of Christ’s confirming the promises of God to the patriarchs (Rom. 15:8) and of God strengthening his servants (1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:21; Col. 2:7; Heb. 13:9). But it is never used of miracles confirming a servant. Hebrews 2:3-4 is frequently used by cessationists to prove that miracles ceased with the apostles. The author of Hebrews asks us: How shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. The author of Hebrews is not limiting this text to the apostles. He does not say that the message was confirmed by the apostles, but that the message was confirmed “by those who heard” the Lord. The apostles were not the only ones who heard the Lord. Others heard him also, and others did miracles and received miraculous gifts of the Spirit. In other words, the writer of the book of Hebrews seems to be saying that neither he, nor his audience, heard the Lord directly nor saw his miracles directly. They first heard the message about the Lord Jesus through “those who had heard him” directly. When they heard this message, God confirmed it by working signs and wonders through the group that preached to them. It could have been the apostles who preached to them, but it also could have been others who had originally heard the Lord. The text certainly leaves open the possibility that God will confirm with miracles the message about the Lord Jesus when it is preached by others who did not hear Jesus directly."
Cessationists, it's worth a read to at minimum understand our refutation of your arguments.
https://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Power-Spirit-Zondervan/dp/0310211271/
And here is Dr. Ruthven from Regent Theological in his masterpiece, On the Cessation of the Charismata, which is called the "nail in the coffin" of Warfield's arguments (basically what most cessationists quote these days):
> The second passage, Hebrews 2: 4,again, makes no necessary connection between the miraculous operations of the Spirit and the specific accreditation of the Apostles. The passage describes three more or less parallel “witnesses” to the same gospel: the Lord, His hearers, and God via the distributed charismata. In Biblical tradition “two or three witnesses” presenting the same message guarantee its certainty (Deut. 17: 7; 19: 15; Mt. 18: 16; 1 Cor. 14: 27; 2 Cor. 13: 1). The miracles in this context do not “accredit” the Kingdom of God, but are a manifestation of it: they are not proofs of the gospel; they are the gospel. The English expression “sign” may well suggest an image of a “sign post,” having little intrinsic significance except as it points to something of vastly greater importance. Certainly this is Warfield’s notion of sign/miracle, but as in the case of the “signs of a true apostle” above, the very characteristic of the Christian message was that it came expressed in “word and deed” (prophecy and miracle) two aspects of the Kingdom of Heaven breaking both the mental and physical bondage characterizing the kingdom of this age. The passage further suggests that the gifts of the Spirit were distributed to the Christian community at large, rather than restricted to Apostles (cf. 1 Cor. 12: 7 and 11; Rom. 12: 6 and 1 Pet. 4: 10). In this context, then, these “signs, wonders, miracles and gifts of the Spirit” do not appear as proofs of apostolic authority but the normative expression/ confirmation of the gospel working in acts of divine power working in and through the Christian community. The proof texts Warfield positively offers as support for cessationism can be interpreted, in fact, as contradicting it.
https://www.amazon.com/Cessation-Charismata-Protestant-Post-biblical-Miracles-Revised/dp/0981952623/
And here's Sam Storms basically saying the same thing:
http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/hebrews-2-and-the-continuationist---cessationist-debate
> Fourth, nothing in the text asserts that these miraculous phenomena must be restricted either to those who personally heard the Lord or to those who heard the message of salvation secondhand. Why wouldn’t God continue to testify to the message when it is preached by others in subsequent generations? In other words, in saying that God “bore witness” to the people of the early church he is not necessarily saying that God never “bore witness” for the benefit of those in the church of more recent days.
Take a look at Convergence by Sam Storms.
I wish it had been this one.
If you want a good example of someone who firmly believed in the doctrines of grace and yet was kind and loving towards those who didn't, check out some of John Newton's letters. Here's a book with a handful of his letters HERE, or quite a few more letters are found in his Works. It really has to do with humility and love kindled in us by the graciousness of the gospel!
He's so readable that I can definitely recommend skipping the books about St. Augustine and just going directly to the source. As others have mentioned, Confessions. Others you may be interested in are City of God and On Grace And Free Will.
Also, as /u/Philip_Schwartzerdt mentioned, John Calvin isn't typically considered one of the Church Fathers given that his time on earth came in the 16th century. In fact, as a Catholic, we would consider him a heretic, but that's neither here nor there. :)
For other early Church Fathers books, you may want to check out this collection of writings from the early church, Against Heresies by St. Iranaeus, countering heresy in the early Church, and The First And Second Apologies by St. Justin Martyr, a convert to the faith at about 130 A.D. and who was martyred (surprise) around 165 A.D.
As you may have guessed, with me being a Catholic in the Roman Rite, that's the perspective to which my study of the early Church Fathers led me, but if you wish to get a primer on St. Irenaeus before the books come, this is a worthwhile read.
I highly encourage the study of the fathers. The whole Christian world disagrees on many parts of of Sacred Scripture, and the testimony of the fathers, especially those who were direct disciples of the Apostles, should be one of our primary sources of discerning Christian truth amid the chaos. Plainly put, there are many interpretations of Scripture which "make sense" or are feasible outside of the tradition of the Apostles, but if said interpretation is true, it should be reflected in the doctrines, beliefs, and practices of those whom the Apostles taught.
I'll pray for you as you jump into this study. Please reach out if I can be of any help!
Peace,
DK
Machen's Christianity and Modernism. I think gives the underpinnings. Definitely doesn't relate directly to homosexuality, but once you understand the things he is saying, you can see how we got here.
I recommend the Episcopal hymnal! It's what I used to up my sight reading abilities, which has done wonders for me. There are plenty of well-known tunes and some excellent melodies/harmonies.
Red book contains accompaniment for pieces that have it.
Blue book is just SATB parts or melody lines.
Thank you for your prayers. The few that knew what was going on were also on their knees.
When we got to this part of the elders meeting, I was prepared with my notes with the doctrinal issues that put me on the wrong side of the line the pastor had drawn. With some scriptural references with each point, so I wouldn't get lost.
Ironically, he bought a copy of Whosoever Will for all of us elders.
After I got through my points, (uh oh, poor choice of words?) I asked if these were not compatible with the new restrictions. I brought up things that have been said in the past, such as elect meaning you are only elect after you are saved, man is fully capable on his own to acquire salvation through faith that is his own, and not a gift from God, the atonement is fully unlimited.
I was respectful, know that this was going to be a sketchy discussion. I did not denigrate his beliefs, merely show the disparity between the two, so we could make all this clear. (Our doctrinal statement does not address "calvinist" issues. The new lines being drawn has only been taking place since January.) My intention was to make this clear, and ask the elders how they thought we could or should continue.
Before we could get to that point, the pastor became greatly agitated and stormed out, saying that we could fire him if we wanted. That sort of came from left field. I told the others that I did not want to see him fired, I was actually prepared to fire myself, to eliminate any disharmony in the leadership! I did resign, but the chairman refused to accept it, pending a meeting between the pastor and I. (That will be at 2pm today.)
At this point I am finished, my sole purpose is to mend fences with the pastor, and make sure there isn't anything personal left gumming up the works.
I honestly love this man. He has a heart for God, the church and the community and gives of himself repeatedly. But this new turn in his policy has built a wall where one hadn't existed before. I am 100% OK with the wall, even though I am on the outside now. As long as he defends his beliefs soundly and using scripture, I can continue to hold him in high regard. I just think he is making some mistakes trying to implement an agenda that only he is fully aware of.
When we meet, once we clear up any personal issues, I am going to give him my resignation, which must be accepted. I have great peace on that score.