Big Reading in 2008

[bookslover]

Anyone have any major reading projects they want to get to next year?

 

[toddpedlar]

The first item on the blocks is a Brakel's The Christian's Reasonable Service. Once that's out of the way, I may break out Turretin...

 

[bookslover]

The first item on the blocks is a Brakel's The Christian's Reasonable Service. Once that's out of the way, I may break out Turretin...

Todd: I don't have a Brakel but I do have Turretin. Maybe I'll launch out on the vast sea of Turretin next month. Either that or Mad Magazine!

 

[Pergamum]

Ha, I am trying to read more Bible this year. Also, more people who are still alive. Current missiological journal articles. And some parenting books.

 

[ANT]

I want to read more Bible as well ...

I've been saying to my self lately ....

"Self, why don't you try to read the whole Bible 2 times through next year."

I'm just trying to get alot more familiar with the whole Book lately!

I have read the entire Bible in under 3 months before ... so I know it's possible ... We will see ...

 

[Pergamum]

Happy reading....and watch out for those begets.....they can be a bear sometimes...

 

[kvanlaan]

Also, more people who are still alive.

Piffle.

Finish up Owen's "Mortification". More commentary study and Bible reading.

 

[Pergamum]

Ah piffle yourself..... God is making great saints and scholars in our day as well... Theology does exist after the 17th century.

 

[RamistThomist]

Murray Rothbard's 1400 page Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Ludwig von Mises Human Action.

I also want to improve my Spanish and German.

 

[Pergamum]

Although Owen still rocks!

I am still bummed my wife did not get me a powdered wig for Christmas.

 

[Herald]

I am trying to read more Bible this year.

Same here. I can only speak for me, but when I read more theology books than the bible there is something out of whack. I would like to keep my reading in better balance in 2008.

 

[JM]

I'd like to read Pink's work on Hebrews and Fortner's sermon notes on Leviticus.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The first item on the blocks is a Brakel's The Christian's Reasonable Service. Once that's out of the way, I may break out Turretin...

Excellent! Enjoy! (Where's the a'Brakel smilie?)

As Charles Spurgeon said:

Even an apostle must read. Some of our very ultra Calvinistic brethren think that a minister who reads books and studies his sermon must be a very deplorable specimen of a preacher. A man who comes up into the pulpit, professes to take his text on the spot, and talks any quantity of nonsense, is the idol of many. If he will speak without premeditation, or pretend to do so, and never produce what they call a dish of dead men's brains—oh! that is the preacher. How rebuked are they by the apostle! He is inspired, and yet he wants books! He has been preaching at least for thirty years, and yet he wants books! He had seen the Lord, and yet he wants books! He had had a wider experience than most men, and yet he wants books! He had been caught up into the third heaven, and had heard things which it was unlawful for a men to utter, yet he wants books! He had written the major part of the New Testament, and yet he wants books! The apostle says to Timothy and so he says to every preacher, "Give thyself unto reading." The man who never reads will never be read; he who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains, proves that he has no brains of his own. Brethren, what is true of ministers is true of all our people. You need to read. Renounce as much as you will all light literature, but study as much as possible sound theological works, especially the Puritanic writers, and expositions of the Bible. We are quite persuaded that the very best way for you to be spending your leisure, is to be either reading or praying. You may get much instruction from books which afterwards you may use as a true weapon in your Lord and Master's service. Paul cries, "Bring the books"—join in the cry.

And as C.S. Lewis said:

There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about "isms" and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.

This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.

Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o'clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ("mere Christianity" as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?"—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.

And for those who might wish to read a little more (pardon this lengthy post), see Thomas Murphy on the primacy of Bible study and the use of commentaries.

Happy reading to all in 2008, the Year of the Puritans.

 

[etexas]

Ah piffle yourself..... God is making great saints and scholars in our day as well... Theology does exist after the 17th century.

...Nice! And true enough.

 

[Casey]

Well, the next few months will be rather busy, but after that . . . I'm trying to decide between Bullinger's Decades and Thomas' Summa . . I think the Summa will be more difficult (it's certainly longer), and if anyone has any tips on that (like, "make sure you know Aristotle before reading Aquinas"), I'm open to them!

 

[etexas]

I am trying to read more Bible this year.

Same here. I can only speak for me, but when I read more theology books than the bible there is something out of whack. I would like to keep my reading in better balance in 2008.

BIG AMEN Bill, this is an issue for me, EVERYTIME I keep a regular Bible reading and focus, I keep derailing on Commentary and Theology books, nothing wrong with them in and of themselves, but they are not Scripture, Martin Luther himself made an Apology (later in life) for making some commentary too long, stating that it should have been more succinct so that peoples focus would be on Scripture itself.

 

[fredtgreco]

Well, the next few months will be rather busy, but after that . . . I'm trying to decide between Bullinger's Decades and Thomas' Summa . . I think the Summa will be more difficult (it's certainly longer), and if anyone has any tips on that (like, "make sure you know Aristotle before reading Aquinas"), I'm open to them!

Get Kreeft's Summa of the Summa

 

[RamistThomist]

Well, the next few months will be rather busy, but after that . . . I'm trying to decide between Bullinger's Decades and Thomas' Summa . . I think the Summa will be more difficult (it's certainly longer), and if anyone has any tips on that (like, "make sure you know Aristotle before reading Aquinas"), I'm open to them!

Get Kreeft's Summa of the Summa

Not everything Thomas said was of immediate importance (although much is), and reading Kreet's footnotes makes it all the worthwhile.* Kreeft's edition is the one I worked through.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Hopefully more of John Owen.

I also hope to read and re-read a lot of material on Postmillennialism.

 

[Casey]

Well, the next few months will be rather busy, but after that . . . I'm trying to decide between Bullinger's Decades and Thomas' Summa . . I think the Summa will be more difficult (it's certainly longer), and if anyone has any tips on that (like, "make sure you know Aristotle before reading Aquinas"), I'm open to them!

Get Kreeft's Summa of the Summa

Is the book you're recommending an introduction, or an abridgment? I already have the five-volume edition available through Amazon.

 

[RamistThomist]

Well, the next few months will be rather busy, but after that . . . I'm trying to decide between Bullinger's Decades and Thomas' Summa . . I think the Summa will be more difficult (it's certainly longer), and if anyone has any tips on that (like, "make sure you know Aristotle before reading Aquinas"), I'm open to them!

Get Kreeft's Summa of the Summa

Is the book you're recommending an introduction, or an abridgment?* I already have the five-volume edition available through Amazon.

Its an abridgment (only the relevant parts available) with Kreeft's valuable footnotes.* In some ways it is a better use of time.

 

[Casey]

Get Kreeft's Summa of the Summa

Is the book you're recommending an introduction, or an abridgment?* I already have the five-volume edition available through Amazon.

Its an abridgment (only the relevant parts available) with Kreeft's valuable footnotes.* In some ways it is a better use of time.

That's okay. I want the real deal. Call me crazy!

 

[Herald]

I am trying to read more Bible this year.

Same here. I can only speak for me, but when I read more theology books than the bible there is something out of whack. I would like to keep my reading in better balance in 2008.

BIG AMEN Bill, this is an issue for me, EVERYTIME I keep a regular Bible reading and focus, I keep derailing on Commentary and Theology books, nothing wrong with them in and of themselves, but they are not Scripture, Martin Luther himself made an Apology (later in life) for making some commentary too long, stating that it should have been more succinct so that peoples focus would be on Scripture itself.

Balance is the key. I'm not about to forsake good theology reads, but scripture must rule supreme.

 

[etexas]

Same here. I can only speak for me, but when I read more theology books than the bible there is something out of whack. I would like to keep my reading in better balance in 2008.

BIG AMEN Bill, this is an issue for me, EVERYTIME I keep a regular Bible reading and focus, I keep derailing on Commentary and Theology books, nothing wrong with them in and of themselves, but they are not Scripture, Martin Luther himself made an Apology (later in life) for making some commentary too long, stating that it should have been more succinct so that peoples focus would be on Scripture itself.

Balance is the key. I'm not about to forsake good theology reads, but scripture must rule supreme.

Of course, Luther also said "We stand on the shoulders of Giants." I would never forsake good commentary, I just have had trouble sometimes finding that "balance."

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I want to read more Bible as well ...

I've been saying to my self lately ....

"Self, why don't you try to read the whole Bible 2 times through next year."

I'm just trying to get alot more familiar with the whole Book lately!

I have read the entire Bible in under 3 months before ... so I know it's possible ... We will see ...

Eight chapters in the OT and two in the NT per day will put you through it three times a year.

 

[kvanlaan]

Theology does exist after the 17th century.

True enough. But I think it's important to get a historical foundation before moving into modern writers, that's all.

Also, if you ever start saying anything like this...

systematic theologies ... claim (overtly, covertly, or unconsciously) to have final orthodoxy nailed down, freeze-dried, and shrink-wrapped forever.

...it's wedgie time. Theological, virtual, and physical. Just warning you, brother.