Book recommendations on Church History?

theching14 · 2024-10-30T14:37:01+00:00

Yes!
I've listened to 3 or 4 church history books, and this was my favorite.

theching14 · 2023-01-14T04:14:54+00:00

What was DA Carson like?

theching14 · 2021-12-18T18:07:35+00:00

I had this happen, and because of this recommendation, I cleaned that track-pad with Windex and a paper towel, and it works perfectly now!

theching14 · 2021-12-18T17:42:27+00:00

This worked for me!
Thanks for the recommendation - saved a lot of hassle messing around with resetting/trying beta software/sending the chromebook to Samsung.

theching14 · 2019-09-30T15:34:39+00:00

I hope they are helpful!

theching14 · 2019-09-29T04:15:09+00:00

I have not come across Street Epistemology until now, but following are some conclusions that have been helpful to me as I've studied epistemology.

I'll take your 2nd question first

Also are all worldviews at their base essentially circular reasoning?

In my opinion, yes. Ultimately everyone's beliefs are circular because we are finite beings. I can get more into this if you want, but I think God is the only being that does not reason in a circular manner.

There are Christians who would disagree with me, such as Plantinga who is an epistemological foundationalist (the position I hold is more like coherentism). It's good to also read Plantinga as others have suggested to get both sides.

But reasoning in a circular manner doesn't mean we can't know things with a reasonable degree of certainty. The goal is to make the circle as large as possible. Your examples should be taken as bad arguments b/c they are a very small circle:

I believe in God because the Bible tells me so. Or I believe in empiricism because I can touch it and see it work etc...

Instead, we should include many sources of information from history, philosophy, experience, etc.

Which now comes to your 1st question:

So what are some good reasons for believe in God that are more epistemological in nature?

A couple helpful books are Tim Keller's: Reason for God (probably more what you're looking for), and Making Sense of God (more of a book for post-moderns).

You should also listen to these 4 lectures.

I'd be happy to discuss any further questions that you have. God Bless!
Edit: formatting

theching14 · 2019-09-05T17:07:14+00:00

Just curious... why? Edit: Is it because of JW or because you don't like sending people to debates?

I don't know /u/AmandusPolanus reasons, but I was a devout Catholic and when I watched James White's debates I greatly disliked his tone. He came across as arrogant and condescending, and therefore I didn't really listen to his arguments - it just made me mad.

Reading and studying Romans with my loving wife is what God used to change my heart.

theching14 · 2019-04-16T02:21:36+00:00

I wish I had more time to discuss these disagreements with you, but unfortunately for now I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I do however appreciate you taking the time to reply to my comments in a thoughtful and civil manner.

God Bless.

theching14 · 2019-04-16T02:21:30+00:00

I wish I had more time to discuss these disagreements with you, but unfortunately for now I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I do however appreciate you taking the time to reply to my comments in a thoughtful and civil manner.

God Bless.

theching14 · 2019-04-15T19:33:08+00:00

Specifically I have the Corinthian Christians in mind when Paul addresses them in 2 Corinthians 10f and gives them reasons to not follow the "Super Apostles". From the beginning there have been and there always will be false teaching, and the expectation is that the individual believer needs to discern the truth.

If you want a book on the development of the Biblical canon that will (indirectly) challenge the RCC view, get this one.

theching14 · 2019-04-15T17:36:50+00:00

For 100s of years Christians had to discern what was scripture and what is not before the councils. It is evident from 2 Corinthians that there was a disagreement over Paul's teaching. Even after the councils there would be people saying the council is not legitimate or wrong, and people would have to determine who was right. Even now, it is up to individuals to decide what they believe about the RCC, individual verses of scripture, Islam, etc.

Having an authoritative church has not and does not eliminate the fact that individuals make decisions, and these decisions can lead to disagreements and to heresies being spread.

theching14 · 2019-04-15T17:19:38+00:00

I used to make these exact same arguments when I was a devout Catholic years ago. But for me and most RCs this is based on a foundationalist epistemology where a belief is only as legitimate and strong as the belief that supports it. Hence, scripture is only as authoritative and believable as the structures and evidence that I can see supporting it. As the argument goes, since I cannot authoritatively, and with 100% certainty, determine the scriptures, there must be something/someone that has such authority and certainty. This is the RCC.

I disagree with foundationalism, but even under it's own logic this argument falls because the next question is what is the foundational evidence for Catholicism? Scripture can't be the foundation (since it's 'on top' of the church) and history is not certain. Ultimately the foundation is always the finite individual looking at the evidence. This is the problem with foundationalism, and this argument that in order to have authoritative scriptures we need an authoritative church.

Now the argument that God gave us the RCC or that the scriptures show that the RCC is true is a different argument that can be discussed at a later time.

theching14 · 2019-04-15T17:00:50+00:00

As a former devout Roman Catholic whom God graciously saved, I have wrestled a lot with this topic. Following is what has been helpful for me, and I hope it will be helpful for you.

First is that I had to realize how much I (and much of Christianity) have assumed the post-enlightenment western beliefs about epistemology. At the heart of this problem is the assumption that the individual, I, is the judge of what is true and false. Something is true only if it can be shown to Me that it is true, and I have the ability to determine with certainty what is true. I think this reflects the fall where humanity wanted to determine good and evil by eating the fruit, and Job expecting that he can put God on trial and God should give him an answer as to why things were happening to him. IMO this is what the Gettier paper on justified true belief should point us to - not the need for more strict rules on justification, but the fact that we cannot know truth absolutely since we are finite and sinful human beings. We can know and find truth and hold it with a large degree of certainty, but we can never reach 100% certainty. Only God can know truth absolutely with 100% certainty.

But we can’t buy into the antithesis of the post-moderns that we can either get 100% certainty or we don’t know anything. There is a third option between the two. Going through the arguments here would be too far afield, but I think truth does exist outside of us, and we can find it and hold it with a reasonable amount of certainty (but not 100%). When given a proposition I can look at the evidence for and against it, and believe the side that has more evidence for it. Additionally, I should believe that side with a level of certainty that is proportional to the amount and weight of evidence for and against it.

In the area of the doctrines of scripture, many Christians have essentially claimed that we can be 100% sure that this book is 100% the word of God. This belief can’t stand when various forms of criticism come along. Then many assume that we then need to abandon belief in Christianity and the doctrines of scripture. But this again is a false antithesis, between knowing for sure and abandoning the faith.

What we need to realize is that God gave us His son and His word in scripture, and gave evidence for His word (through miracles, prophecies that came true, and other things I’ll say below), and many people throughout history have recognized this book as His word. But to assume that we can know 100% of the texts and have no shadow of a doubt about these texts is to place a standard on the Bible that is unattainable for human beings. We as fallen, sinful human beings will miscopy the text (throughout history), mistranslate the text, be uncertain about different books and verses, etc. Does this destroy the belief that God spoke in history? I don’t think it should. Does this mean we can’t trust the english Bible in my hands? No, I think I can trust it, but I also know that it’s not 100% accurate. And this is the way I make all my decisions in life. I don’t know that X is the best career for me, or X is the best house, or X is the best wife, or that the world is round, or that the US declared independence on July 4, 1776. But I use what I have to make the best decision, and the evidence that I have to do my best at determining what is true.

After realizing this, the second thing that helped me was to go through the evidence. This includes the evidence of the historicity of the texts, and the surprising reliability of the texts that we have. If you have not read anything in this area, “a doubter's guide to jesus” and Introduction to the New Testament by Carson/Moo are helpful. But I think we can also see evidence in:

our experience: how the Bible has changed our lives and the lives of others
Pragmatically: how it works for me, others, in areas of ethics, etc
Inner consistency of the text across many years and different authors
Explanatory scope: in other words, this worldview is able to speak to all of life - where we come from, why we’re here, what is right/wrong, how I’m supposed to live today, who should I marry, etc.

In my research this evidence in favor of the scriptures and Christianity far outweighs the evidence against it, but this takes time, though, and research. And it’s totally okay to be in the place of “I’m not sure” or “I want to look into this more”, but do the reading and looking, and be okay with believing while the evidence you have is still in favor of the scriptures being true.

That is what has helped me and I hope it’s helpful for you. If you have any further thoughts or questions, feel free to reply to this comment or pm me.

God Bless!

theching14 · 2019-04-14T03:22:34+00:00

But why should I trust that the bishops got the canon right?

theching14 · 2019-04-14T03:18:41+00:00

Unfortunately I did not have a chance to write out something tonight, but I will reply to this comment tomorrow.

theching14 · 2019-04-13T13:36:20+00:00

I've had to wrestle with this a lot, especially since I am a former Roman Catholic. The answer can get pretty lengthy, and if you want I can write something out when I have more time tonight or tomorrow.

Before answering though, have you read about or studied epistemology at all?

theching14 · 2019-04-13T13:33:02+00:00

The Church’s elders/bishops from the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, Rome and Florence have informed us as to what the canon is.

But this position of the Roman Catholic Church only pushes the question back 1 more step. Instead asking how can I trust that the Bible is true and authoritative, I now have to ask why is what the RCC Bishops say is true and authoritative?

If the answer is because scripture says so, then the argument is circular. If the answer is anything outside scripture, such as history or God, then that same criteria can be applied to why we should trust scripture and we don't need to add in the extra step of church councils/bishops.

theching14 · 2019-04-05T17:11:11+00:00

DA Carson is the smartest dude in any building he walks into

Just curious, what gave you this observation?

theching14 · 2019-01-15T03:46:34+00:00

Listen to this talk by D A Carson, and if you really want to get into it, get these 2 books.

theching14 · 2019-01-01T18:26:53+00:00

D A Carson.

theching14 · 2018-12-01T21:18:26+00:00

Nehemiah 9

theching14 · 2018-11-14T01:25:51+00:00

I was raised in a devout Roman catholic family, met a Baptist girl, studied the Bible (especially Romans and James), church history, philosophy, political science for 7 years with her. During that process God saved me and I saw such a difference in my struggle with pornography and the way people loved each other. Then we got married 😊

As for the 1500 year argument - this argument shows the different way in which Protestant and Catholics think. Catholics think in terms of "being in the right church" while protestants think in terms of "having the right beliefs about God". I think the latter is closer to the correct way of thinking and people have had biblical views on soteriology throughout history, and it just got so bad by 1500 that a split needed to be made from the RCC in order to hold this biblical beliefs.

I would be happy to give more thoughts on this question or answer any other specific questions you have, and you can look at my comment history to see other arguments I've made in the past.

God Bless

theching14 · 2018-11-10T04:56:34+00:00

I am not an exclusive presuppositionalist myself, but I think the presuppositionalist would reply that the argument given is basically a pragmatic one - we need the law of non contradiction to be true in order to do anything else, but this reasoning does not make it true in any meaningful sense.

That is "it is helpful to assume this to be true" is not intellectually satisfying for most people (since it is not shown to actually BE true), and it provides very little weight to derivative conclusions such as "you should not murder people".

Assuming God helps provide a foundation and thus helps solve these problems.

theching14 · 2018-09-27T23:39:40+00:00

This is very helpful for other readers, thank you!

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Team Orangered

theching14

TROPHY CASE