Some good theology book recommendations?

Although Grudem is Reformed and generally sound, he does have some weaknesses that would not put him high on my list of recommended systematic theology books. Most certainly, his book is not great although quite popular. Robert Reymond's A New Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith is probably as good Reformed systematic theology as you will find among the recently published works.

 

Yes. I always thought that we did it as gentlemen and truth seekers and we parted as friends.

IMHO, Lewis is dangerous for the novice. He is so appealing as an intellectual but he is completely unorthodox as a theologian. It is better for the neophyte to read orthodox theologians until he is firmly grounded and then he can branch out into other views. This is the problem of liberal seminaries that destroy the faith of budding preachers by exposing them to liberal theologians before they are grounded in orthodoxy. He can find plenty of variety in orthodoxy, for example, by reading Chafer and Hodge. A mother doesn’t feed her infant chicken backs with the small bones in it; the baby may swallow a bone and choke.

No, by no means. I simply mean that we see this one issue differently.

IMHO, one doesn’t read indiscriminately, especially as a novice. One needs guidance and direction by one grounded in the faith. This is the Biblical pattern, I believe.

You’re welcome.

In sum, my view is that the beginner starts at the proper place and branches out. He needs direction and guidance. We cannot trust one to arrive at the proper destination if he has many conflicting road maps. He may end up in the wrong place unless he is oriented to the geography. Of course, the main thing is to compare and to question everything in light of Scripture.

 

The thing is, Lewis himself wrote on more than on occasion about his own deficiencies as a theologian. I'd recommend that anyone read Lewis, but only if they understand that what they are getting is philosophy and not theology. Those who do not know the difference would be better served reading something else.

 

This is great advice here. I would wholeheartily second this! </font>[/QUOTE]Does anyone else have a problem with this???? How is it great advice not to listen to the man that God has placed over you and watches over your soul as one who must give an account? How is it good advice not to listen to the one who has studied the theology and original languages and spends every day immersed in the Word and in prayer in order that he might proclaim God's Word to you?

The problem the modern church has is that everyone wants to "be their own man" and no one wants to listen to the under-shepherds that Christ has placed in His church. Today, most people think that what their "home pastor" has to say isn't that important because, "Hey, we are all priests." We have abandoned the historic creeds and confessions and now every one does what is right in his own eyes.

As for a good theology text, take up the Westminster Confession or the 1689 London Baptist Confession. This is the theology of most of the church since the 1600's and can teach us a lot.

 

No one said to not listen to your pastor. No one said to not take seriously the views and the convictions of the men God has placed in your life.

However, we should not just settle for what they tell us. We should study for ourselves the Word of God and the different views of theology. We should form our own beliefs and convictions based upon the Word of God. We should follow the example of the Bereans in Acts and search the Scriptures on our own.

I have the utmost respect for the men that God has placed in my life. I value their opinions, beliefs and convictions. Yet I made a decision a long time ago to not just take what they believed and copy/paste it as my set of beliefs. I wanted to wrestle with the Word and hammer out my own beliefs.

Do I agree with a lot of what my mentors do? Yes.

Do I disagree in areas with them? Yes.

Most importantly through it all I know and have the satisfaction that I have searched the Scriptures to form my own beliefs based upon the Word. I have not just settled for what they tell me.

 

No one said to not listen to your pastor. No one said to not take seriously the views and the convictions of the men God has placed in your life.

However, we should not just settle for what they tell us. We should study for ourselves the Word of God and the different views of theology. We should form our own beliefs and convictions based upon the Word of God. We should follow the example of the Bereans in Acts and search the Scriptures on our own.

I have the utmost respect for the men that God has placed in my life. I value their opinions, beliefs and convictions. Yet I made a decision a long time ago to not just take what they believed and copy/paste it as my set of beliefs. I wanted to wrestle with the Word and hammer out my own beliefs.

Do I agree with a lot of what my mentors do? Yes.

Do I disagree in areas with them? Yes.

Most importantly through it all I know and have the satisfaction that I have searched the Scriptures to form my own beliefs based upon the Word. I have not just settled for what they tell me. </font>[/QUOTE]I appreciate your response here. It calms my nerves a little! I still think the original quote is a little strong. Although we should not just sit there and be spoon-fed what to believe, neither should we "be our own man."

Too many errant views come from ignoring what those who have come before us have hashed out already. RC Sproul has wisely said that if you study the Scripture and come up with an interpretation that a majority of the church has ignored or refused for the majority of church history, it is a good idea for you to dump your interpretation.

Open Theism and NPP are all examples of people being their own men and deciding that great theologians of the past (and probably their home pastors) were wrong.

We must study to show ourselves approved unto God, but we must listen to those whom God has placed over us.

BTW, if you read Acts 17:10-12, the Bereans in question were unbelieving Jews who searched the Scriptures when Paul preached the gospel and eventually believed. They were not believers who were testing the teachings of Paul.

 

Would not the opposite be true as well? Many errant views have been passed on from person to person because people were not willing to search the Scriptures for themselves.

I would agree with this 100%. But that does not mean that we should not be willing to hammer out our own beliefs instead of just taking what someone else has said.

I just reread the passage. I do not think you can say that they did not continue to search out the Scriptures daily after their salvation. There is nothing there that limits that searching out to only preconversion. So while I agree it is referring to them searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching about salvation was true, should we automatically assume that it stopped once they were saved?

 

I have never suggested that anyone should not search the Scripture for themselves. Of course they should. In fact, pastors and churches should teach their members how to study the Bible in addition to what the Bible says.

I don't believe that anyone should "just take what someone else has said," including their pastor or other well-known preachers. That was not the point. The quote that I objected to said that people should not "get their theology from their home pastor." They should "be their own man." You agreed whole-heartedly. This is tantamount to saying that you should not allow yourself to be taught theology by your pastor. This is unbiblical. The reason God has given pastors is to teach theology (the study of God) from the Bible.

I assume that it continued since they became believers. Believers will continue in the Word. I was just saying that the passage did not refer to believers but to unbelievers searching the Scripture. Too many people listen to people quote this passage and don't look it up and see that it is referring to unbelievers.

 

I think perhaps you and I have a different take on what Rhet initially posted. Hopefully Rhet will jump in here and share with us what he meant.

I do not think Rhet was saying we should not be taught theology by our pastors. I believe that we should be taught theology by our pastors. But that is not where it should stop. We should still search on our own and work out what we believe.

I think you and I agree more than we realize.

 

This is what comes to mind - I think it fits. Acts 18: 24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

These church folks heard the preacher, Apollos,(and they were apparently more grounded in their "theology" than he) and took him away privately to teach him. So I think this shows that the sheep really need to know the word and the way of the Savior strongly, on their own.

 

of course Priscilla and Aquila had not learned on their own either... that is, it wasn't just them saying "it's just me and my Bible" or "its just me and Jesus" (not that I think you are saying this per se) .... but they had been taught by Paul along side their own study.... and so it is a combination of showing one's self approved, an able student on the word, along with listening to the teachers God has given to the church that creates a balanced Christian.... there are no lone-ranger Christians...

pretty much it seems everyone is in agreement with this balanced approach....

I know that RC Sproul was and is concerned about an improper or incorrect understanding of the sola scriptura principle, one that I have heard called “solo scriptura” which is not what the Reformers taught at all, they had a very healthy and obvious respect for tradition...rather, the objection is to a radical individualism which was especially popularized during the second great awakening perhaps epitomized by Charles Finney's radically subjectivistic approach (the anxious bench etc) to the Christian life and doctrine which ended up being a rather arrogant dismissing of the men and women of God who had gone before him... of course he wasn't solely responsible for this drift in direction, and he wasn't the only one engaged in the practice of radical individualism..... during this same time frame (early 1800's) 2 other groups who had adopted the same rather arrogant attitude towards biblical interpretation and tradition also surfaced, e.g. the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses... and all three were from the "burned over district" in New York, an area that became synonymous with revivalism and the tent meetings... the sort of "revival on demand" approach that had an unhealthy overly subjective leaning…

Blessings,
Ken