For what it's worth, if anything, here's what I'd recommend for Reformed theology: BEGINNER Bunyan, John. The Pilgrim's Progress. In a sense, it's a Reformed catechism in story format (though it's also much more). Ferguson, Sinclair. The Christian Life: A Doctrinal Introduction. A number of Ferguson's works could apply here but this is the most systematically organized, I think. Helm, Paul. The Beginnings: Word and Spirit in Conversion; The Callings: The Gospel in the World; The Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell. A trilogy published by the Banner of Truth that offers a good overview of Christian theology in the Christian life. Hodge, A. A. The Westminster Confession: A Commentary. A fine commentary on the WCF. Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. The atonement, justification, sanctification, and more. Packer, J. I. Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. Best brief introduction to Reformed theology. It offers a list of theological topics like God, atonement, demons, death, heaven, and so on, and it uses only a couple of pages per topic to explain it. I also appreciate how solidly based in exegesis it is. I Iike it better than R. C. Sproul's Everyone's a Theologian, which is in a more Q&A format. Packer, J. I. A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. A collection of a number of Packer papers on the Puritans with a particular emphasis on John Owen. It's in effect applied Puritan theology. The sort of thing that someone like Joel Beeke does well today. Warfield, B. B. The Emotional Life of Our Lord. Exegetical, biblical, theological. And edifying to read. INTERMEDIATE Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. The classic standard bearer for Reformed systematic theology. Often a distillation of Hodge and Bavinck. But Berkhof says so much and says it so pithily. Packs quite a punch. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. A classic that isn't exactly what we think of as systematic theology, but is nevertheless tremendously valuable and edifying to read. Organized around four parts: God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, the Church. Consider reading it alongside a work like Calvin: A Guide for the Perplexed (Paul Helm) to benefit even more from it. Frame, John. Concise Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Forthcoming. A significant update of his Salvation Belongs to the Lord. Alternatively one could read his fuller Systematic Theology, which is certainly worth reading, but I find something of a Frankenstein's monster in that many parts of it are directly lifted from and sometimes revised sections of his Lordship volumes and expansions of his Salvation Belongs to the Lord along with new fresh material as well. Letham, Robert. Systematic Theology. Focused especially on *historical* systematic theology. Poythress, Vern. Chance and the Sovereignty of God: A God-Centered Approach to Probability and Random Events. Where Poythress' mathematical prowess meets his theological analysis. Poythress, Vern. The Mystery of the Trinity: A Trinitarian Approach to the Attributes of God. Poythress on the doctrine of God. Welty, Greg. Why Is There Evil in the World (and So Much of It)? Arguably the best popular level theodicy (a defense of the problem of evil) from a Reformed Christian perspective. I also look forward to Welty on the doctrine of God, viz. his version of theistic conceptual realism. Zaspel, Fred. The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary. Warfield never wrote a systematic theology, but Zaspel effectively collates all of Warfield's theological writings and organizes it all into a single volume that is something like Warfield's systemic theology. ADVANCED Edwards, Jonathan. The Religious Affections. Alvin Plantinga said this book is one of three books every Calvin College student should read (the other two were Plato's Republic and Augustine's Confessions). See Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief for how Edwards and in particular his Religious Affections influenced Plantinga's thinking. Of course, many other Christians have been influenced by Edwards including John Piper. In this book, among other things, Edwards seeks to re-orient the much neglected role of affections in Reformed theology. Frame, John. The Doctrine of God; The Doctrine of the Christian Life; The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God; The Doctrine of the Word of God. Frame's entire four volume Lordship series is magisterial. Granted, Frame is controversial among some Reformed folks, but in my mind that's overblown. Besides, one doesn't have to agree with everything Frame wrote to be enriched and edified by his writings and especially this series. Schreiner, Tom. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. A biblical scholar works out the exegetical theology that undergirds systematic theology. Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Polemical by design. Dense to read. Intellectually stimulating to consider. Warfield, B. B. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. I believe it's a 10 volume set, but it doesn't include everything Warfield ever wrote. For example, The Emotional Life of Our Lord isn't included. Warfield was the preeminent theologian at Old Princeton.
good recommendations. I'm half way through Berkhof and on page 410 of the Institutes. I haven't read Beeke's systematics yet. Both are excellent works.
For a true beginner you can't go wrong with J. I. Packer's Concise Theology. It will give you the basics of Reformed, Covenant Theology in 3 to 4 page chapters. Packer knew how to say a lot in few words.
@@classicchristianliterature Don't trusted trust the scripture's did Jesus give the Apostles Authority to forgive sin's as it says in John chapter 20 vrs 20-23??? That is the question.
It's funny seeing the Bible-only comments!! Strongly agree with Beeke, the Puritans wrote the best Christian material, can't wait for 5th volume of Mastricht!!!
I don’t know what to think of all the Bible only comments. Are there really that many Church of Christ folks on CZcams? Why are they visiting my channel? They usually last 1-2 questions and then dip out. Thanks for watching the channel! I’m with you, Van Mastricht was a master theologian.
@@classicchristianliterature The best explanation i can come up with is that there will always be opposition to what is good and right and true. And as we live in increasingly darker times, it will become more and more ferocious and inescapable. Keep up the good work, always love seeing appreciation for Reformed theology, God bless!!
All due respect, my brother, but most of these contain a STRONG Reformed theological strain. Every systematic theology comes from a SPCIFIC theological school of thought; Reformed, Presbyterian (Buswell), Strong (Baptist), Oden (Methodist) Thiessen (Southern Baptist), etc. I learned early in my walk with Christ, use these to GATHER all texts that are relevant to a certain doctrine and THEN read each passage at least 20 times in one sitting (live in the text and watch it come alive!). I say this respectfully friends, do not allow yourself to fit-in to any theological school of thought; be a Bible student. I welcome your response, friend and appreciate what you are trying to do. Angel Arellano Jr, According To The Scriptures.
It's become a saying, and no less true, Reformed systematic theologies are the gold standard. No other theological school puts all its cards on the table as Reformed STs do, and no other theological school includes all the other traditions and views as Reformed STs do.
@@carolinetrace894 That may be true within Reformed circles, but not elsewhere. Reformed theology is built heavily on allegedly implicit statements and debated biblical texts. They are essentially 5-Point Catholics. Btw, what do you think of these cards that a Reformed theologian put on the table?; "Hence, the father may be said to have made three productions of the Son-one from eternity, one when, in time, the Son was sent out as Agent of God’s working, one when He was born of the virgin.” Tell me what you think of this heresy and then I will provide you with the reference. Peace Sis.
@@carolinetrace894Forgive me sister in Christ, but I should have set the tone from the beginning. I appreciate Reformed theology at times. I want you to understand my perspective on the Reformed Tradition. Please try not to take offense. These posts often misrepresent us at times. I am speaking to you with all due respect and Christian charity. In my judgment, if you're studying the nature of God, His character, attributes, the sovereignty of God or soteriology, Reformed and/or Presbyterian systematics are the best, bar none. However, they depart from sacred Scripture in other areas of theology. I will cite them in subsequent comments, though for now I want to stay on one topic, so we don't muddy the waters. By acknowledging Frame's drawbacks, you're now qualifying your comments about Reformed systematics, rather than making a blanket statement, no? Of course I'm serious. No, it is not Frame. It was Dabney. You do have his systematic, don't you? (p. 205) I am aware that it was written originally published in 1871, but it still continues to be published to this very day. Banner of Truth Publishers (so-called). And finally, his blasphemous heresy diminishes you're initial comments, don't you think? Moreover, I have one final important thing to say regarding Danbey and I would like to hear your assessment of it AFTER THIS ONE. I eagerly await your response. I will cite Berkhof after we finish with Dabney, ok?
Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve been reading his book on Roman Catholicism. I also may obtain his historical theology as well. Any thoughts on that work?
Honestly I am not sure what to think about John Calvin because all of the bad things I have heard about Him. It makes me a little nervous to listen or read his teachings. If you have any input on if John Calvin was actually a good person or not I am willing to listen. I am not set in how I feel about him because I have heard good and bad and it's hard to know who to believe. The only book that I have of all the ones you showed is the Francis Turretin institutes of elenctic theology. I do struggle to make myself read things as much as I should so having all those books wouldn't help if I don't make my self read them. I am trying to read some of the ones I have now before I get more.
It’s definitely easier to own a book than read it. Check out my John Calvin playlist and you can listen to an audio book of his Institutes and decide for yourself. Many people have slandered Calvin and exaggerated his faults. None of God’s children are perfect and Calvin is no exception. He loved Christ and God blessed him to write some of the best sermons, commentaries, and theological works the church has ever seen. I think you will find him to be balanced and biblical throughout his writings.
I know that this is 9 months down the road but I hope that my comment will pop up on you feed. Do some serious study on John Calvin and find for yourself the man he was. I will summarize, people hate Calvin because his doctrine required you to take faith and God seriously. The man was such a devoted and loving pastor that he worked himself to death while writing, ministering, and preaching. He also dealt with many health issues and yet that didn't hinder him from preaching, visiting people, pastoring, etc.
@@malikbishop9798 Thank you for your comment. I can't believe it's been 9 months since I asked this question already. I do believe he was a true Christian. There are some questions I have about some things I have heard that he did. I have read and heard so many great things about him too. I really want to make more time then I have lately to read the works of him and others.
@@malikbishop9798 Agree. Most people who hate John Calvin have simply not read him (or they merely read him on the single controversial topic they disagree with him on).
I have lots of thoughts actually. I may need to make a video on this. First, Frame is brilliant and he loves Jesus. I’ve benefited a lot from his “history of theology and philosophy” lectures and book. I am concerned about his theology proper (doctrine of God) not being entirely orthodox. He proposes 2 divine existences. There has been a lot of discussion about this. A book “All that is in God” by James Dolezol discusses this briefly. He advocates something called triperspectivalism which I have not found to be clarifying in his discussions. Frame and Poythress both are influenced a little too much by modern philosophy I would say as opposed to older paradigms that have shaped historic Christian faith. Perhaps a lot of what they provide the church does contain useful answers to modern questions and modes of thinking. Just for me, I try to be careful when reading them. If I was limited on time and money I was willing to sink into a systematic, I would look elsewhere.
@classicchristianliterature thanks for your response. That's helpful... I have read All that is in God, I need to revisit it now... I remember being blown away by the "simplicity of God." I actually just recommended it to a friend.
@@VisionOnDuty have you read “confessing the impassible God”? It’s in the same vein as Dolezol’s book, but probably even better at answering some of the knotty questions.
For me, imperative every American student of theology (lay or clergy) - Charles Octavius Boothe: Plain Theology for Plain People. Also, for concise reference overview, J. S. Whale: Christian Doctrine. And I do not think it verbal overexertion to use the expression ‘for heaven’s sakes’ whatever one’s received tradition of orientation - eastern, western, Roman Catholic, Orthodox (variously autocephalous), Protestant, Anglican, Anabaptist (which John Calvin’s wife was), Reformed, Lutheran, pentecostal, Assyrian Church of the East, Mar Thoma of south India (to indicate a few) - to venture outside it is imperative of the Gospel, whatever our experience of compliance!
@grammaticopedanticus9727 Sounds like you're happy to accept any interpretation of the truth rather than the truth itself. Going by that I guess you also accept that there are variables to the mathematical truth that 1+1=2
@@peterxuereb9884, thank you for your response. There is much I don’t know but I suspect little you do. To adapt from a comment posted elsewhere in this forum, one doesn’t have to agree with everything [someone writes] to be enriched and edified by [it].
@grammaticopedanticus9727 There are no compromises with truth. Once you start to do so, truth ceases to play a part in the discussion. St Paul did not compromise with the truth he called it like it is. To make alterations then, it is no longer the truth but only ones opinion of it, and a wrong one at that.
@@peterxuereb9884, thank you for your response. So? As The Theologian observed, all truth is God’s truth. And also (incidentally, in accord with ancient rabbinic dictum (to my mind not superseded by Gospel)) we are to heed truth whencever spoken. And another observation (from US southern Appalachia (perhaps less kashrut) remarks, even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then (which is not to be interpreted as everything that blind pigs find is acorns - or isn’t (there can be, and I suspect much is) a rich mix to the mast)). To my mind it is a regrettable thing to deny that all eggs not in one’s own basket are eggs. But, coming back to your opening comment on truth, an ancient pledge in baptism into the community of the Rabbi of Nazareth and Capernaum is rejection of evil. Do you repudiate former President of the USA Donald John Trump, baptised and confirmed in a Presbyterian congregation, some years back?
You don’t have to agree with Calvin but have some respect for the reformed faith, Calvin and Luther are the reason Protestants exist in the first place, you can agree to disagree but Calvinism definitely isn’t heresy it’s one of the most God centered forms of Christianity as opposed to man centered. John Calvin quite literally invented systematic theology let’s not be ignorant and disregard the thoughts of the of men that yes the Holy Spirit used in the right time and the right place in history. Christians who don’t regard church history have a huge hermeneutical blind spot, we are not the first people to engage the scriptures in history and we’d do well to learn and gain insight from the knowledge the Holy Spirit has revealed to men in the past.
I’ve honestly not looked into Dake much. I was aware of the Dake annotated bible. I have read that he had several odd beliefs (1) each person in the Trinity has a body, soul, and spirit (2) that Jesus’ resurrected body was not physical (3)salvation by grace plus works (4) a gospel of health and prosperity. Are you able to answer to any of these? Not having read the primary sources, I would not know.
@@classicchristianliterature Going by what you heard or hear is no way to find truth, get a copy , it's cheap. It's basis is the KJV and leaves the bible to interpret itself.
I can only recommend the Bible. The books of men makes things complicated and turn men away from the sound Truth of the gospel. Gods heart weeps about all these books.
To my knowledge, Catholic systematic theology hasn't been well served for decades if not generations. I suspect much of that is owing to the fact that many if not most of the intellectual heavy hitters in Catholicism have been more theologically moderate or even liberal. For example, Antony Flew likely could've written a fine Catholic systematic theology but he not only left Catholicism but became an agnostic/atheist. I suppose his history of Western philosophy is something like a historical systematic theology to some degree though. Taken as a whole, Joseph Ratzinger's theological writings might be a valuable contribution to systematic theology, but are they organized into a systematic theology? Or is it more happenstance? I don't know enough about Ratzinger to tell.
Try the Bible. It's all we need. If you use a particular theologian for aid in understanding, be sure that you have searched the Scriptures first, trusting the interpretation of the Holy Ghost. Then you will have a base to build your house. God gave some to be teachers... and we should listen to them, but our source material should always be holy Scripture!
Agree. Also nothing wrong with studying theology. It’s not an either/or but a both/and. Scripture obviously is the only infallible rule for faith and practice.
@classicchristianliterature I read nothing but the Scriptures for the first 20 years of my walk with Jesus. In 2010, I read Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, but only chapters 16 and 32. I thought he stole my notes. It only confirmed that what I had learned was from the Lord. A fellow walked up to me after teaching a Bible study in a local prison. He asked me if I was a Calvinist. My response was, who is John Calvin? That was in 2009. I actually learned of Calvin from Grudem's notes. That is when I purchased a copy of the Institutes. I love reading Calvin. My contention is the emphasis that many "reformed" thinkers place on the confessions of the faith. The Westminster and London Baptist specifically. I had copies of both, but have since disposed of them. While they are identical, with the exception of baptism, the tendency for teachers and reformed ministers is to lean more on these confessions than the Scriptures from which they come. Ex: Calvinist or Christian? I choose the biblical identification. I simply teach and preach the Scriptures. I am truly Sola Scriptura. Question: How much time do you spend reading the Scriptures as opposed to books about them? Did your time in the Scriptures outweigh the time spent in other books? If you are honest, you will admit that it is not even close. Time spent in other books far outweighs that of time spent in the text of scripture. You can quote the 5 Solas, but are you truly Sola Scriptura? I await your response.
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith I don’t think we can assume that the way you have approached the Christian life is more appropriate than others. Paul clearly read other things and desired that they be brought to him in prison. 2 Timothy 4:13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. Ignoring how the Holy Spirit has worked in other Christian’s hearts as they read and reflected on the Scriptures throughout 2000 years of church history with the assumption that I can figure it all out on my own is a good way to fall into heresy. Arians, Socinians, and other heretical groups all claimed to be putting the text of the Bible over the confession. It’s not an either/or, it’s a both/and.
Of course it is the Bible and the teaching of the Holy Church. We should not forget that it was the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the Bible.
It’s remarkable that someone could study the Bible that long and have no concept of election or predestination as taught in Ephesians 1, Romans 9, John 6…etc. A familiar story of Charles Spurgeon comes to mind: One time a man went up to the great English preacher Charles Spurgeon and said, "Mr. Spurgeon, I've read my Bible through twenty times on my knees and I haven't found the doctrine of election once." Spurgeon replied, "No wonder, reading in such an uncomfortable position, at such a fast pace, it's a wonder you've noticed anything in the book! May I suggest that you sit down and read more slowly."
@@classicchristianliterature What I was saying is that you should derive sound doctrine from studying the scriptures not from studying theological presuppositions, that is a trap even for people like Spurgeon.
@@classicchristianliterature Teaching from the whole counsel of God: Those who are convinced by His Spirit (John 16) willing to repent, baptized and receive His Spirit (Acts 2) are predestined to be transformed into the image of Christ.
@@glennishammont7414 thank you for your response. But I became reformed for this exact reason - non-reformed folks cannot walk through those exact texts (Ephesians 1, Romans 9, John 6). They have to go elsewhere. It’s really not the “whole counsel of God”… it’s just the “other parts of the Bible that I do like”. The whole counsel would also consider Ephesians 1, Romans 9, John 6 and allow those texts to inform the doctrine.
@@classicchristianliterature IMHO, Calvin is basically a commentary on the Reformation. His OPINIONS are an insult to The Cross. Takes less than a minute to refute Total Depravity which collapses TUPLIP. Blessings to you and yours.
@@rickward2977 as a “calvinist” I can tell you I don’t know anyone who blindly follows Calvin. Second, you don’t have a pastor? The Bible commands us to follow and imitate others who follow Christ. Hebrews 13:7 ESV Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. 1 Corinthians 4:16 KJV Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
Many people think study of theology is study of the Bible, but they are often different. Do not be fooled. The pursuit of theology has caused many in the church to become followers of theologians and theological systems instead of students of God’s word. Out of fear of sounding too preachy, dogmatic, or as one of those “Bible nuts” that quotes scripture, theology is used as the tool of choice to address problems in and out of the church. Replacing the Bible with Theological Studies replaces the pillar of the truth with ivory towers, and the ground of the truth with the sacred ground of seminaries. As a result for many, the Bible is a closed book. They are told it should not be understood except by the theologically trained, ordained, and accredited. Theologians pride themselves in their knowledge of philosophy, religious traditions, and the opinions of other theologians. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” - Col 2:8 The Bible was not given for theologians. It was given for every man to understand. It does not require the wisdom of the world, but it does require we study it. The Difference There is a difference between studying theology and studying the Bible. Theology asks questions like, “Does God exist?” The Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”, and never questions God after that (Gen 1:1). - - - - - - - - - - - - Theology wonders, “If God intervenes then why is there evil in the world?” The Bible says that God manifest in the flesh died for our sins (Rom 5:8-12). - - - - - - - - - - - - Theology rhetorically states “what is truth?” The Bible quotes Jesus as saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). - - - - - - - - - - - - Theology raises uncertainties and studies them. The Bible makes us certain, “That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth” (Prov 22:21). - - - - - - - - - - - - Theology debates whether our future is predetermined or decided by our free will. The Bible says, “but now [God] commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30). - - - - - - - - - - - - Theology argues whether men who have never heard the gospel can be saved. The Bible says, “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe”, and “How shall they hear without a preacher?” (1 Cor 1:21, Rom 10:14). Theology does not preach. The Bible must be preached to be believed (Rom 10:17). - - - - - - - - - - - - Theology is more palatable to unbelievers and skeptics. The Bible will not work effectually in those who do not believe (1 Thess 2:13). - - - - - - - - - - - - Theology can often change. The Bible never changes (Isa 40:8). - - - - - - - - - - - - Theology is man’s word about God. The Bible is God’s word to man (2 Tim 3:16). - - - - - - - - - - - - The mind of a wise man is required to study theology. God is required to study the Bible (1 Cor 2:12-16).
All books are erroneous because all books are written by those who contradict the scripture's. To deny what Jesus said to the Apostles in John chapter 20 vrs 20-23. Is to deny Jesus Authority, in denying Jesus Authority, you protestants have placed yourselves above Jesus.. This is a why the Catholic Church, which began with, by and from, the Apostles who were inspired and instructed by Jesus Christ, has always regarded protestants and protestantism as a contradiction to Christianity.
@grammaticopedanticus9727 And yet extremely accurate like saying "you people" or "you men" or "you women." All protestants are a contradiction to Christianity because all protestants deny Jesus Authority for having done what he did in John chapter 20 vrs 20-23
there is only one book i trust and that is the bible, no where in the bible does it say "reformed". Or pentecostocal or baptist, its only a word people made. Jesus says follow me, and disciple is used over 200 times in the bible while christian is only used 3 times.
I was going to comment about how incredibly ignorant someone would have to be to dismiss 1,900 years of study, history, and commentary by the most brilliant men in Christianity, but It wouldn’t do any good for someone so proud they actually believe they wouldn’t need any of it. That’s just a whole other level of in-humility.
@@michaelseay9783 , That’s why you use discernment. If you’re worried about being deceived by people smarter than you then you can’t ever learn anything.
@@shawnglass108Only the Catholic Church which began with, by, and from, the Apostles who were inspired and instructed by Jesus Christ it is only they who can be trusted with Dogma, Doctrine, Faith, Morals, and Theology. If thatcwas not possible then the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church. Anyone who does not accept that Jesus has Authority to do what He likes and he passed on that Authority to the Apostles to forgive sins as it says in John chapter 20 vrs 20-23, is denying Jesus Authority and placing themselves above Him, that is what Protestants and protestantism has done for 500 years. There is no truth to protestantism since it contradicts Christianity.
For what it's worth, if anything, here's what I'd recommend for Reformed theology:
BEGINNER
Bunyan, John. The Pilgrim's Progress. In a sense, it's a Reformed catechism in story format (though it's also much more).
Ferguson, Sinclair. The Christian Life: A Doctrinal Introduction. A number of Ferguson's works could apply here but this is the most systematically organized, I think.
Helm, Paul. The Beginnings: Word and Spirit in Conversion; The Callings: The Gospel in the World; The Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell. A trilogy published by the Banner of Truth that offers a good overview of Christian theology in the Christian life.
Hodge, A. A. The Westminster Confession: A Commentary. A fine commentary on the WCF.
Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. The atonement, justification, sanctification, and more.
Packer, J. I. Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. Best brief introduction to Reformed theology. It offers a list of theological topics like God, atonement, demons, death, heaven, and so on, and it uses only a couple of pages per topic to explain it. I also appreciate how solidly based in exegesis it is. I Iike it better than R. C. Sproul's Everyone's a Theologian, which is in a more Q&A format.
Packer, J. I. A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. A collection of a number of Packer papers on the Puritans with a particular emphasis on John Owen. It's in effect applied Puritan theology. The sort of thing that someone like Joel Beeke does well today.
Warfield, B. B. The Emotional Life of Our Lord. Exegetical, biblical, theological. And edifying to read.
INTERMEDIATE
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. The classic standard bearer for Reformed systematic theology. Often a distillation of Hodge and Bavinck. But Berkhof says so much and says it so pithily. Packs quite a punch.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. A classic that isn't exactly what we think of as systematic theology, but is nevertheless tremendously valuable and edifying to read. Organized around four parts: God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, the Church. Consider reading it alongside a work like Calvin: A Guide for the Perplexed (Paul Helm) to benefit even more from it.
Frame, John. Concise Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Forthcoming. A significant update of his Salvation Belongs to the Lord. Alternatively one could read his fuller Systematic Theology, which is certainly worth reading, but I find something of a Frankenstein's monster in that many parts of it are directly lifted from and sometimes revised sections of his Lordship volumes and expansions of his Salvation Belongs to the Lord along with new fresh material as well.
Letham, Robert. Systematic Theology. Focused especially on *historical* systematic theology.
Poythress, Vern. Chance and the Sovereignty of God: A God-Centered Approach to Probability and Random Events. Where Poythress' mathematical prowess meets his theological analysis.
Poythress, Vern. The Mystery of the Trinity: A Trinitarian Approach to the Attributes of God. Poythress on the doctrine of God.
Welty, Greg. Why Is There Evil in the World (and So Much of It)? Arguably the best popular level theodicy (a defense of the problem of evil) from a Reformed Christian perspective. I also look forward to Welty on the doctrine of God, viz. his version of theistic conceptual realism.
Zaspel, Fred. The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary. Warfield never wrote a systematic theology, but Zaspel effectively collates all of Warfield's theological writings and organizes it all into a single volume that is something like Warfield's systemic theology.
ADVANCED
Edwards, Jonathan. The Religious Affections. Alvin Plantinga said this book is one of three books every Calvin College student should read (the other two were Plato's Republic and Augustine's Confessions). See Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief for how Edwards and in particular his Religious Affections influenced Plantinga's thinking. Of course, many other Christians have been influenced by Edwards including John Piper. In this book, among other things, Edwards seeks to re-orient the much neglected role of affections in Reformed theology.
Frame, John. The Doctrine of God; The Doctrine of the Christian Life; The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God; The Doctrine of the Word of God. Frame's entire four volume Lordship series is magisterial. Granted, Frame is controversial among some Reformed folks, but in my mind that's overblown. Besides, one doesn't have to agree with everything Frame wrote to be enriched and edified by his writings and especially this series.
Schreiner, Tom. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. A biblical scholar works out the exegetical theology that undergirds systematic theology.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Polemical by design. Dense to read. Intellectually stimulating to consider.
Warfield, B. B. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. I believe it's a 10 volume set, but it doesn't include everything Warfield ever wrote. For example, The Emotional Life of Our Lord isn't included. Warfield was the preeminent theologian at Old Princeton.
@pattube, thanks
good recommendations. I'm half way through Berkhof and on page 410 of the Institutes. I haven't read Beeke's systematics yet. Both are excellent works.
For a true beginner you can't go wrong with J. I. Packer's Concise Theology. It will give you the basics of Reformed, Covenant Theology in 3 to 4 page chapters. Packer knew how to say a lot in few words.
Thanks for the recommendation. From what I have read of Packer, I enjoy his writing.
Packer didn't understand the truth, so he said nothing worthwhile.
@@peterxuereb9884 but we are to trust a CZcams comment to be worthwhile and truthful… nice
@@classicchristianliterature Don't trusted trust the scripture's did Jesus give the Apostles Authority to forgive sin's as it says in John chapter 20 vrs 20-23??? That is the question.
@@peterxuereb9884 I thought you said books are in error in another comment? Why are you appealing to Scripture to disprove scripture?
Thank you so much brother, I greatly appreciate it.
Any time. Plan on doing a part 2 soon.
It's funny seeing the Bible-only comments!! Strongly agree with Beeke, the Puritans wrote the best Christian material, can't wait for 5th volume of Mastricht!!!
I don’t know what to think of all the Bible only comments. Are there really that many Church of Christ folks on CZcams? Why are they visiting my channel? They usually last 1-2 questions and then dip out.
Thanks for watching the channel! I’m with you, Van Mastricht was a master theologian.
@@classicchristianliterature The best explanation i can come up with is that there will always be opposition to what is good and right and true. And as we live in increasingly darker times, it will become more and more ferocious and inescapable. Keep up the good work, always love seeing appreciation for Reformed theology, God bless!!
All due respect, my brother, but most of these contain a STRONG Reformed theological strain. Every systematic theology comes from a SPCIFIC theological school of thought; Reformed, Presbyterian (Buswell), Strong (Baptist), Oden (Methodist) Thiessen (Southern Baptist), etc. I learned early in my walk with Christ, use these to GATHER all texts that are relevant to a certain doctrine and THEN read each passage at least 20 times in one sitting (live in the text and watch it come alive!). I say this respectfully friends, do not allow yourself to fit-in to any theological school of thought; be a Bible student. I welcome your response, friend and appreciate what you are trying to do. Angel Arellano Jr, According To The Scriptures.
It's become a saying, and no less true, Reformed systematic theologies are the gold standard. No other theological school puts all its cards on the table as Reformed STs do, and no other theological school includes all the other traditions and views as Reformed STs do.
@@carolinetrace894 That may be true within Reformed circles, but not elsewhere. Reformed theology is built heavily on allegedly implicit statements and debated biblical texts. They are essentially 5-Point Catholics. Btw, what do you think of these cards that a Reformed theologian put on the table?;
"Hence, the father may be said to have made three productions of the Son-one from eternity, one when, in time, the Son was sent out as Agent of God’s working, one when He was born of the virgin.”
Tell me what you think of this heresy and then I will provide you with the reference. Peace Sis.
@@accordingtothescriptures3470 John Frame? If so, way to choose a controversial guy. (OK, Dabney.) You're not serious. Use Berkhof as an example.
Add to my first comment...no other systematic theologies other than Reformed stay within the warrant of Scripture and biblical anthropology.
@@carolinetrace894Forgive me sister in Christ, but I should have set the tone from the beginning. I appreciate Reformed theology at times. I want you to understand my perspective on the Reformed Tradition.
Please try not to take offense. These posts often misrepresent us at times. I am speaking to you with all due respect and Christian charity.
In my judgment, if you're studying the nature of God, His character, attributes, the sovereignty of God or soteriology, Reformed and/or Presbyterian systematics are the best, bar none. However, they depart from sacred Scripture in other areas of theology. I will cite them in subsequent comments, though for now I want to stay on one topic, so we don't muddy the waters.
By acknowledging Frame's drawbacks, you're now qualifying your comments about Reformed systematics, rather than making a blanket statement, no?
Of course I'm serious. No, it is not Frame. It was Dabney. You do have his systematic, don't you? (p. 205) I am aware that it was written originally published in 1871, but it still continues to be published to this very day. Banner of Truth Publishers (so-called).
And finally, his blasphemous heresy diminishes you're initial comments, don't you think? Moreover, I have one final important thing to say regarding Danbey and I would like to hear your assessment of it AFTER THIS ONE.
I eagerly await your response. I will cite Berkhof after we finish with Dabney, ok?
A great high level that you can use devotionally is 50 Core Truths of the Faith by Greg Allison.
Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve been reading his book on Roman Catholicism. I also may obtain his historical theology as well. Any thoughts on that work?
@@classicchristianliterature I have it but have not read it yet.
Honestly I am not sure what to think about John Calvin because all of the bad things I have heard about Him. It makes me a little nervous to listen or read his teachings. If you have any input on if John Calvin was actually a good person or not I am willing to listen. I am not set in how I feel about him because I have heard good and bad and it's hard to know who to believe. The only book that I have of all the ones you showed is the Francis Turretin institutes of elenctic theology. I do struggle to make myself read things as much as I should so having all those books wouldn't help if I don't make my self read them. I am trying to read some of the ones I have now before I get more.
It’s definitely easier to own a book than read it. Check out my John Calvin playlist and you can listen to an audio book of his Institutes and decide for yourself. Many people have slandered Calvin and exaggerated his faults. None of God’s children are perfect and Calvin is no exception. He loved Christ and God blessed him to write some of the best sermons, commentaries, and theological works the church has ever seen. I think you will find him to be balanced and biblical throughout his writings.
@@classicchristianliterature Ok, I will try to remember to check it out when I get the chance.
I know that this is 9 months down the road but I hope that my comment will pop up on you feed. Do some serious study on John Calvin and find for yourself the man he was. I will summarize, people hate Calvin because his doctrine required you to take faith and God seriously. The man was such a devoted and loving pastor that he worked himself to death while writing, ministering, and preaching. He also dealt with many health issues and yet that didn't hinder him from preaching, visiting people, pastoring, etc.
@@malikbishop9798 Thank you for your comment. I can't believe it's been 9 months since I asked this question already. I do believe he was a true Christian. There are some questions I have about some things I have heard that he did. I have read and heard so many great things about him too. I really want to make more time then I have lately to read the works of him and others.
@@malikbishop9798 Agree. Most people who hate John Calvin have simply not read him (or they merely read him on the single controversial topic they disagree with him on).
Any thoughts on John Frame Systematic Theology?
I have lots of thoughts actually. I may need to make a video on this.
First, Frame is brilliant and he loves Jesus. I’ve benefited a lot from his “history of theology and philosophy” lectures and book.
I am concerned about his theology proper (doctrine of God) not being entirely orthodox. He proposes 2 divine existences.
There has been a lot of discussion about this. A book “All that is in God” by James Dolezol discusses this briefly.
He advocates something called triperspectivalism which I have not found to be clarifying in his discussions.
Frame and Poythress both are influenced a little too much by modern philosophy I would say as opposed to older paradigms that have shaped historic Christian faith. Perhaps a lot of what they provide the church does contain useful answers to modern questions and modes of thinking. Just for me, I try to be careful when reading them.
If I was limited on time and money I was willing to sink into a systematic, I would look elsewhere.
@classicchristianliterature thanks for your response. That's helpful... I have read All that is in God, I need to revisit it now... I remember being blown away by the "simplicity of God." I actually just recommended it to a friend.
@@VisionOnDuty have you read “confessing the impassible God”? It’s in the same vein as Dolezol’s book, but probably even better at answering some of the knotty questions.
@@classicchristianliterature I have not
For me, imperative every American student of theology (lay or clergy) - Charles Octavius Boothe: Plain Theology for Plain People.
Also, for concise reference overview, J. S. Whale: Christian Doctrine.
And I do not think it verbal overexertion to use the expression ‘for heaven’s sakes’ whatever one’s received tradition of orientation - eastern, western, Roman Catholic, Orthodox (variously autocephalous), Protestant, Anglican, Anabaptist (which John Calvin’s wife was), Reformed, Lutheran, pentecostal, Assyrian Church of the East, Mar Thoma of south India (to indicate a few) - to venture outside it is imperative of the Gospel, whatever our experience of compliance!
@grammaticopedanticus9727 Sounds like you're happy to accept any interpretation of the truth rather than the truth itself. Going by that I guess you also accept that there are variables to the mathematical truth that 1+1=2
@@peterxuereb9884, thank you for your response.
There is much I don’t know but I suspect little you do.
To adapt from a comment posted elsewhere in this forum, one doesn’t have to agree with everything [someone writes] to be enriched and edified by [it].
@grammaticopedanticus9727 There are no compromises with truth. Once you start to do so, truth ceases to play a part in the discussion. St Paul did not compromise with the truth he called it like it is. To make alterations then, it is no longer the truth but only ones opinion of it, and a wrong one at that.
@@peterxuereb9884, thank you for your response.
So?
As The Theologian observed, all truth is God’s truth. And also (incidentally, in accord with ancient rabbinic dictum (to my mind not superseded by Gospel)) we are to heed truth whencever spoken.
And another observation (from US southern Appalachia (perhaps less kashrut) remarks, even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then (which is not to be interpreted as everything that blind pigs find is acorns - or isn’t (there can be, and I suspect much is) a rich mix to the mast)).
To my mind it is a regrettable thing to deny that all eggs not in one’s own basket are eggs.
But, coming back to your opening comment on truth, an ancient pledge in baptism into the community of the Rabbi of Nazareth and Capernaum is rejection of evil.
Do you repudiate former President of the USA Donald John Trump, baptised and confirmed in a Presbyterian congregation, some years back?
@grammaticopedanticus9727 Why should I repudiate Donald on what grounds???
You don’t have to agree with Calvin but have some respect for the reformed faith, Calvin and Luther are the reason Protestants exist in the first place, you can agree to disagree but Calvinism definitely isn’t heresy it’s one of the most God centered forms of Christianity as opposed to man centered. John Calvin quite literally invented systematic theology let’s not be ignorant and disregard the thoughts of the of men that yes the Holy Spirit used in the right time and the right place in history. Christians who don’t regard church history have a huge hermeneutical blind spot, we are not the first people to engage the scriptures in history and we’d do well to learn and gain insight from the knowledge the Holy Spirit has revealed to men in the past.
True
Considering Aquinas came and left by this time, theology was not a new concept of Christianity.
Very well said sir.
Berkhof first
God's Plan for Man by Finnis Jennings Dake is the best bible study ever put to print.❤
I’ve honestly not looked into Dake much. I was aware of the Dake annotated bible. I have read that he had several odd beliefs (1) each person in the Trinity has a body, soul, and spirit (2) that Jesus’ resurrected body was not physical (3)salvation by grace plus works (4) a gospel of health and prosperity.
Are you able to answer to any of these? Not having read the primary sources, I would not know.
@@classicchristianliterature
Going by what you heard or hear is no way to find truth, get a copy , it's cheap.
It's basis is the KJV and leaves the bible to interpret itself.
Berkhof
@@bigtobacco1098 Berkhof is good. Fairly brief in some areas. Different theologians emphasize different areas so it’s good to have multiple.
@@classicchristianliterature agree... the context was "first"
I can only recommend the Bible. The books of men makes things complicated and turn men away from the sound Truth of the gospel.
Gods heart weeps about all these books.
I can’t read your comment because it’s not a direct quote from Scripture.
@@classicchristianliterature Indeed it is not a direct quote from Scripture, but at least I am pointing directly to Scripture!
@@Bijbelstudies so none of these books point to scripture?
Is pointing to Scripture the only legitimate function of non-scriptural words?
NO CATHOLICS???
I have Ed Feser’s excellent book on “5 proofs of God”.
To my knowledge, Catholic systematic theology hasn't been well served for decades if not generations. I suspect much of that is owing to the fact that many if not most of the intellectual heavy hitters in Catholicism have been more theologically moderate or even liberal. For example, Antony Flew likely could've written a fine Catholic systematic theology but he not only left Catholicism but became an agnostic/atheist. I suppose his history of Western philosophy is something like a historical systematic theology to some degree though. Taken as a whole, Joseph Ratzinger's theological writings might be a valuable contribution to systematic theology, but are they organized into a systematic theology? Or is it more happenstance? I don't know enough about Ratzinger to tell.
Catholic systemic theology has been around since before the Reformation and continues to thrive in Roman Catholic seminaries.
@@pattubeJoseph Ratzinger was a theological giant. He has what it takes to be a doctor of the church.
@@kevinphillips150can you give some recommendations?
Try the Bible. It's all we need. If you use a particular theologian for aid in understanding, be sure that you have searched the Scriptures first, trusting the interpretation of the Holy Ghost. Then you will have a base to build your house. God gave some to be teachers... and we should listen to them, but our source material should always be holy Scripture!
Agree. Also nothing wrong with studying theology. It’s not an either/or but a both/and. Scripture obviously is the only infallible rule for faith and practice.
@classicchristianliterature
I read nothing but the Scriptures for the first 20 years of my walk with Jesus. In 2010, I read Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, but only chapters 16 and 32. I thought he stole my notes. It only confirmed that what I had learned was from the Lord.
A fellow walked up to me after teaching a Bible study in a local prison. He asked me if I was a Calvinist. My response was, who is John Calvin? That was in 2009. I actually learned of Calvin from Grudem's notes. That is when I purchased a copy of the Institutes. I love reading Calvin.
My contention is the emphasis that many "reformed" thinkers place on the confessions of the faith. The Westminster and London Baptist specifically. I had copies of both, but have since disposed of them. While they are identical, with the exception of baptism, the tendency for teachers and reformed ministers is to lean more on these confessions than the Scriptures from which they come. Ex: Calvinist or Christian? I choose the biblical identification. I simply teach and preach the Scriptures. I am truly Sola Scriptura.
Question: How much time do you spend reading the Scriptures as opposed to books about them? Did your time in the Scriptures outweigh the time spent in other books? If you are honest, you will admit that it is not even close. Time spent in other books far outweighs that of time spent in the text of scripture. You can quote the 5 Solas, but are you truly Sola Scriptura? I await your response.
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith I don’t think we can assume that the way you have approached the Christian life is more appropriate than others.
Paul clearly read other things and desired that they be brought to him in prison.
2 Timothy 4:13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.
Ignoring how the Holy Spirit has worked in other Christian’s hearts as they read and reflected on the Scriptures throughout 2000 years of church history with the assumption that I can figure it all out on my own is a good way to fall into heresy.
Arians, Socinians, and other heretical groups all claimed to be putting the text of the Bible over the confession. It’s not an either/or, it’s a both/and.
@@classicchristianliterature
Your response was expected. I will respond to this later.
Of course it is the Bible and the teaching of the Holy Church. We should not forget that it was the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the Bible.
After studying the bible for 30 years, I came across Calvinism, the contrast couldn’t be any bigger.
It’s remarkable that someone could study the Bible that long and have no concept of election or predestination as taught in Ephesians 1, Romans 9, John 6…etc. A familiar story of Charles Spurgeon comes to mind: One time a man went up to the great English preacher Charles Spurgeon and said, "Mr. Spurgeon, I've read my Bible through twenty times on my knees and I haven't found the doctrine of election once." Spurgeon replied, "No wonder, reading in such an uncomfortable position, at such a fast pace, it's a wonder you've noticed anything in the book! May I suggest that you sit down and read more slowly."
@@classicchristianliterature What I was saying is that you should derive sound doctrine from studying the scriptures not from studying theological presuppositions, that is a trap even for people like Spurgeon.
@@glennishammont7414 what doctrine would be derived from Ephesians 1, Romans 9, John 6?
@@classicchristianliterature Teaching from the whole counsel of God: Those who are convinced by His Spirit (John 16) willing to repent, baptized and receive His Spirit (Acts 2) are predestined to be transformed into the image of Christ.
@@glennishammont7414 thank you for your response. But I became reformed for this exact reason - non-reformed folks cannot walk through those exact texts (Ephesians 1, Romans 9, John 6). They have to go elsewhere. It’s really not the “whole counsel of God”… it’s just the “other parts of the Bible that I do like”. The whole counsel would also consider Ephesians 1, Romans 9, John 6 and allow those texts to inform the doctrine.
Love you brother but you lost me at “Calvin.” Might as well recommend something by Joseph Smith.
That’s quite a charge. How is Calvin comparable to Mormonism?
@@classicchristianliterature IMHO, Calvin is basically a commentary on the Reformation. His OPINIONS are an insult to The Cross. Takes less than a minute to refute Total Depravity which collapses TUPLIP. Blessings to you and yours.
BTW, to directly answer, Mormons blindly follow Joseph Smith as many blindly follow Calvin. I’m a Christian and I follow THE CHRIST. Period.
@@rickward2977 as a “calvinist” I can tell you I don’t know anyone who blindly follows Calvin. Second, you don’t have a pastor? The Bible commands us to follow and imitate others who follow Christ.
Hebrews 13:7 ESV
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
1 Corinthians 4:16 KJV
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
Many people think study of theology is study of the Bible, but they are often different. Do not be fooled.
The pursuit of theology has caused many in the church to become followers of theologians and theological systems instead of students of God’s word.
Out of fear of sounding too preachy, dogmatic, or as one of those “Bible nuts” that quotes scripture, theology is used as the tool of choice to address problems in and out of the church.
Replacing the Bible with Theological Studies replaces the pillar of the truth with ivory towers, and the ground of the truth with the sacred ground of seminaries.
As a result for many, the Bible is a closed book. They are told it should not be understood except by the theologically trained, ordained, and accredited.
Theologians pride themselves in their knowledge of philosophy, religious traditions, and the opinions of other theologians.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” - Col 2:8
The Bible was not given for theologians. It was given for every man to understand. It does not require the wisdom of the world, but it does require we study it.
The Difference
There is a difference between studying theology and studying the Bible.
Theology asks questions like, “Does God exist?”
The Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”, and never questions God after that (Gen 1:1).
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Theology wonders, “If God intervenes then why is there evil in the world?”
The Bible says that God manifest in the flesh died for our sins (Rom 5:8-12).
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Theology rhetorically states “what is truth?”
The Bible quotes Jesus as saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Theology raises uncertainties and studies them.
The Bible makes us certain, “That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth” (Prov 22:21).
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Theology debates whether our future is predetermined or decided by our free will.
The Bible says, “but now [God] commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30).
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Theology argues whether men who have never heard the gospel can be saved.
The Bible says, “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe”, and “How shall they hear without a preacher?” (1 Cor 1:21, Rom 10:14).
Theology does not preach.
The Bible must be preached to be believed (Rom 10:17).
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Theology is more palatable to unbelievers and skeptics.
The Bible will not work effectually in those who do not believe (1 Thess 2:13).
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Theology can often change.
The Bible never changes (Isa 40:8).
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Theology is man’s word about God.
The Bible is God’s word to man (2 Tim 3:16).
- - - - - - - - - - - -
The mind of a wise man is required to study theology.
God is required to study the Bible (1 Cor 2:12-16).
You are making a lot of theological statements in opposition of theology. Self-defeating position.
The question of whether God exists is a philosophical question. Theology would have a more insightful response.
I love asking questions about Life and Truth. That is how God got me started studying the Bible. But you have a GOOD point. It is about Him not me.
Stay away from Reformers.
Why?
Reformed from what to what and why?@@classicchristianliterature
@@kevinphillips150 church history provides a good answer for this (the protestant reformation 1517-1648).
All books are erroneous because all books are written by those who contradict the scripture's. To deny what Jesus said to the Apostles in John chapter 20 vrs 20-23. Is to deny Jesus Authority, in denying Jesus Authority, you protestants have placed yourselves above Jesus.. This is a why the Catholic Church, which began with, by and from, the Apostles who were inspired and instructed by Jesus Christ, has always regarded protestants and protestantism as a contradiction to Christianity.
All CZcams comments are erroneous too because not sanctioned by the RC church. Self-defeating argument
@@classicchristianliterature Wrong
Excrementum tauri
‘[Y]ou protestants’ is adversarial and generalization.
@grammaticopedanticus9727 And yet extremely accurate like saying "you people" or "you men" or "you women." All protestants are a contradiction to Christianity because all protestants deny Jesus Authority for having done what he did in John chapter 20 vrs 20-23
@@peterxuereb9884 again, why are we appealing to Scripture to disprove Scripture?
there is only one book i trust and that is the bible, no where in the bible does it say "reformed". Or pentecostocal or baptist, its only a word people made. Jesus says follow me, and disciple is used over 200 times in the bible while christian is only used 3 times.
I don’t trust your comment because it’s not a direct quotation of Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible say “hey123h”.
I was going to comment about how incredibly ignorant someone would have to be to dismiss 1,900 years of study, history, and commentary by the most brilliant men in Christianity, but It wouldn’t do any good for someone so proud they actually believe they wouldn’t need any of it. That’s just a whole other level of in-humility.
@@shawnglass108the problem is, “the most brilliant men in Christianity ” are good at deceiving using God’s word.
@@michaelseay9783 , That’s why you use discernment. If you’re worried about being deceived by people smarter than you then you can’t ever learn anything.
@@shawnglass108Only the Catholic Church which began with, by, and from, the Apostles who were inspired and instructed by Jesus Christ it is only they who can be trusted with Dogma, Doctrine, Faith, Morals, and Theology. If thatcwas not possible then the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church. Anyone who does not accept that Jesus has Authority to do what He likes and he passed on that Authority to the Apostles to forgive sins as it says in John chapter 20 vrs 20-23, is denying Jesus Authority and placing themselves above Him, that is what Protestants and protestantism has done for 500 years. There is no truth to protestantism since it contradicts Christianity.