/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6365305]

I see a whole lot of Christianity stuff on here, but it all seems to be the same Catholic, mystical, and Orthodox books and authors being mentioned over and over again. (Also Kierkegaard. Lord knows /lit/'s infatuated with him at the moment.)

Has anybody here read any prominent protestant, evangelical, or otherwise theologically conservative writers, though? Everybody's acting like we're so well-versed in Christianity but all I keep seeing is the same few things over and over again. I mean heck, almost half of all Christians are protestant.

[Anonymous No.6365406]

/lit/ doesn't read anything

[Anonymous No.6365421]

mmm Schaeffer. He pushed apologetics and critical theological thinking to good heights and for that he's one of my favorites. I'd say Hugh Ross would be a good read because his findings in astrophysics is astounding.

[Anonymous No.6365438]

>>6365421
>I'd say Hugh Ross would be a good read because his findings in astrophysics is astounding.
Never read him. Any work in particular you'd recommend?

If you enjoy good reads with high level science and a more theologically conservative Christian view, you should check out John Polkinghorne. He was one of the fathers of quantum physics for a good chunk of the 20th c., but he eventually became an Anglican priest and now writes about the intersection between science and religion. Really interesting guy and really accessible writing, especially for such high level stuff.

[Anonymous No.6365448]

>>6365421
If you dig Schaeffer, you may enjoy J. Gresham Machen. His 1923 book Christianity and Liberalism still reads fresh today. It's a great introduction to the clashes between philosophical liberal and protest theology.

[Anonymous No.6365710]

>>6365406
Also, /lit/ isn't really Christian. It's not quite a meme, but it's not serious either. There's just a fad right now to discuss vaguely religious philosophy and act like its religion. It's more on par with a first year comparative lit course.

[Anonymous No.6365719]

>>6365710
>It's more on par with a first year comparative lit course
Just like everything else here

[Anonymous No.6366077]

Now that more of the US is awake, I'll give this thread a bump.

[Anonymous No.6366380]

Never read him, but I've heard really good things about Tillich.

[Anonymous No.6366459]

>>6365305
Protestantism:

>The Apostles of Jesus, and Christ and his first churches stemming from Christ are wrong.

>I am right, give me money, I speak in tongues, blahbrrrrtyblargh!!!!

>I used to do drugs and now own a church

>I can do whatever I want, I'm better than you, and I'm going to heaven as long as I accept MY NEW Jesus because at some point in time some guy said Jesus and the churches that came from his apostles are wrong. Some random faggot.

[Anonymous No.6366529]

>Everybody's acting like we're so well-versed in
no one is, it's always posturing. you can still learn from others and I'm sure anons learn from each other.

[Νιkονάνη Σkριάβιν !!Nsmsh3sSWI3 No.6366534]

Introduction to the Devout Life was obviously written by a Catholic Saint, but the protestants generally listen to it more than the Catholics do.

[Anonymous No.6366540]

>>6366459
>i dont know anything about Protestantism and the protestant tradition

[Anonymous No.6366602]

>>6366459

You clearly know nothing about protestantism.

[Anonymous No.6366610]

Recommending Ballou again. I discovered him when doing research on univeralism and American congregational churches.

Start with A Treatise on Atonement.

[Anonymous No.6366644]

melville & milton come immediately to mind.

[Anonymous No.6366770]

>>6366602
Oh yeah? I'm pretty sure it's called PROTESTANT cause some faggot protested against the first type of organized Christianity, called CATHOLICISM .

And who was this faggot? A nobody, like John Moses Browning.

[Anonymous No.6366775]

>>6366540
>protestant tradition

literally an oxymoron

[Anonymous No.6366829]

>>6366770

>being this mad

No wonder half of Christianity left Catholicism for based Luther.

[Anonymous No.6367202]

>>6366775
>500 years of tradition
>a billion adherents
>protestant tradition
>literally an oxymoron

Oh you!

[Anonymous No.6367388]

>>6366610
I wasn't familiar with him until your post. Don't really see how he fits with this thread---or even Christianity---at all. It seems like everything he taught was completely antithetical to any conceivable form of Christianity even under the most liberal of definitions.

[Anonymous No.6367407]

>>6366644
>melville
How so?

[Anonymous No.6367543]

>>6367407
I'm not even sure how anyone can read anything written by him without extensive biblical knowledge or constantly referencing the bible. you cannot separate melville and christianity.

[Anonymous No.6367592]

Posting Luther's 95 Theses in a Protestantism thread.

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.

4. The penalty, therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

[Anonymous No.6367600]

>>6367592
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.

20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.

25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;

34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

[Anonymous No.6367604]

>>6367600
36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

[Anonymous No.6367609]

>>6367604
51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;

61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

[Anonymous No.6367613]

>>6367609
70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!

72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."

83. Again: -- "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

84. Again: -- "What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?"

85. Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?"

86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

[Anonymous No.6367618]

>>6367613
87. Again: -- "What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"

88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"

89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?"

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

[Anonymous No.6367638]

>>6365305
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Lutheran) has some interesting works.
C.S. Lewis (Anglican) writes some thought provoking things (I think he asks interesting questions in a literary way that may be due to his studies as a medievalist). He doesn't always try to answer the questions he asks in a philosophically strict way.
Milton was Protestant and he's obviously GOAT.
Isaac watts maybe
There's plenty out there tbh.

[Anonymous No.6368108]

>>6365710
Speak for yourself

[Anonymous No.6368396]

>>6367592
>>6367600
>>6367604
>>6367609
>>6367613
>>6367618

Glorious. One day Catholics will admit they're jelly.

[Anonymous No.6368990]

For my Lutheran brothers,

Par Lagerkvist

I just read "The Sibyl"

Its actually really beautiful.

[Anonymous No.6369840]

>>6368108
So tell me about your religious beliefs, then.

[Anonymous No.6369849]

Mainline Protestants are not conservative at all, but William Lane Craig is what you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.6369890]

Thomas Muntzer
Rudolf Bultmann

>>6367638
BONHOEFFER YES

[Anonymous No.6369956]

>>6365305
John Bunyan and his Pilgrim's Progress

[Anonymous No.6369959]

>>6368990
Why don't you read his entire existentialist series.

Barabbas
The Sibyl
The death of Ahasuerus
Pilgrim on the Sea
The Holy Land

[Anonymous No.6369963]

>>6365305

RICOEUR
I
C
O
E
U
R

[Anonymous No.6369983]

I'm a /lit/ regular but I usually avoid the religion threads. I went to a Protestant church weekly until age 12 at which point I hit my first existential crisis and became a strict agnostic. It still seems to me nobody can truly know the truth and that organised religion cannot be true due to the Chinese whispers nature of it all, but I miss the loving community that came with my church and the way of life which it encouraged. As I've said before however, I could not submit myself to something I don't truly believe in and I could not proclaim Jesus to be son of god if asked. Would it be immoral for me to become a churchgoer once again? Would I find it beneficial? What do? My mum still goes to the same church weekly and I greet its members who I recognise whenever I see them around. All of my friends despise religion, I live in Glasgow where religious youth are now largely ostracised. I'm 18.

[Anonymous No.6369991]

>>6369983
I forgot to mention, I feel more partial towards spirituality and have a *feeling* -though not a solid belief- of the Divine.

[Anonymous No.6370049]

>>6369983
>Would it be immoral for me to become a churchgoer once again?
I can't see how. I guess if you go and you start proclaiming something you don't believe, then you'd be lying and that would be immoral. But most churches nowadays encourage people who have legitimate questions and are just trying to figure it all out.
>Would I find it beneficial?
Potentially. I guess it depends on the church you end up going to. Christianity is such a broad spectrum that you may find what you're looking for at one church but not another. Heck, you may not even know what you're after but you may find it at a church.
>What do?
If you're comfortable going back to the church of your youth, then give it a try. But don't feel tied down to it. Like I said, it may not be what you're looking for. Don't be afraid to try a few different churches. Really get a feel for what's out there.

[Anonymous No.6370070]

>>6370049
Thanks friend. I guess if I did return, I just wouldn't be able to take communion or become a member as that would require lying. I still carry a huge paranoia about lying and other basic forms of sinning from my religious days, which I think has helped me a lot in my life.

[Anonymous No.6370099]

>jonathan edwards
>widely acknowledged to be america's most important and original philosophical theologian
>never mentioned on /lit/

If you're not reading Edwards, you're missing out. He has one of the most remarkable bodies of work of any American philosopher ever, whether Christian or not.

[Anonymous No.6370108]

>>6369890
Eric Metaxas's biography of Bonhoeffer from a few years back is one of the greatest biographies written in recent memory. I'm generally not a biography person, but it's phenomenal.

[Anonymous No.6370113]

>>6367592
>>6367600
>>6367604
>>6367609
>>6367613
>>6367618
Actually just finished reading through that for the first time completely. Pretty logical critique of Catholicism. Even though some of the practices of the church have been discontinued, the underlying unconditional objections to the wrongness of those practices still seems highly relevant even today.

[Anonymous No.6370897]

>>6370108
I'd toss out Alistair McGrath's excellent bio if C S Lewis. Really made me respect Gilmore after reading it.

[Anonymous No.6371071]

>>6370099
>be a christian
>in high school
>10th grade
>american lit
>assigned to read "sinners in the hands of an angry god"
>read it
>get angry
>vehemently trash it during classroom discussion
>surely this bullshit isn't valid christianity
>years later get into theology
>become a strong calvinist
>eventually re-read "sinners"
>absolutely brilliant

[Anonymous No.6371120]

Anybody here ever read any Van Til or other presuppositionalists?

[Anonymous No.6372102]

REINHOLD NIEBUHR
>REINHOLD NIEBUHR
REINHOLD NIEBUHR
>REINHOLD NIEBUHR

[Anonymous No.6372569]

>>6372102
>political progressive masquerading as a christian

[Anonymous No.6372637]

>>6365305
TILLICH
>TILLICH
T
>T
I
>I
L
>L
L
>L
I
>I
C
>C
H
>H

[Anonymous No.6374313]

>>6372637
Why on earth would you suggest that man's new age drivel?

[Anonymous No.6374348]

>>6370108
I remember reading a bunch of ecstatic reviews about it in the literary press. Seems like a fascinating figure.

[Anonymous No.6374524]

>>6374348
He was astoundingly complex. A lot of people vaguely know that he was a theologian during Nazi Germany and that he was arrested and killed for a plot to assassinate Hitler, but reading about his life and decisions in detail really shows the ethical complexity of the time he lived in.

Plus, it's just a really well-written book.

[Anonymous No.6374552]

>protestants

>intellectually respectable

[Anonymous No.6374569]

>>6374552
>who is francis collins

[Anonymous No.6375920]

>>6374552
>shitposting
>on /lit/
How original.

[Anonymous No.6375926]

>>6374313
>new age

[Anonymous No.6377450]

>>6375926
Yes. New age.

[Anonymous No.6377518]

WHO /HELLENISMOS/ HERE?

[Anonymous No.6377832]

>>6377518
Not I.

[Anonymous No.6377838]

>>6377518
Loser.

[Anonymous No.6379624]

>>6366610
>universalist
>christian
Nigga wut?

[Anonymous No.6379653]

>>6377518
φιλία

[Anonymous No.6381032]

>>6365305
Anybody here ever read any RC Sproul? This book actually had a profound impact on me.

[Anonymous No.6381047]

The Christian offense here is a direct result of "fedora" blowback. Just a passing fad with the tykes on a Filipino yoyo hunters' message board.

[Anonymous No.6381066]

>>6381047
Like every belief, it is inevitably an opposition of previous held ones, but as such, it includes in itself a foundation of that disregarded world view and the negative of itself; therefore evolving to a more complete one. It's not the definitive truth yet, but the spirit goes on.

[Anonymous No.6381088]

>>6381066
I was actually going to post this image >>6375926 but dang it if it isn't already posted in this very same thread.

[Anonymous No.6382051]

>>6381066
Wut?