Worst book(s)

[inspector]

I've never felt right about selling or giving away a book whose theology makes me cringe. Usually I would either keep it for reference or toss it in the trash.

This is what I did. The books that I purchased in my early days, such that houseparent and others here have listed; I threw the stuff in the garbage. I do not even want the junk on my shelves and it would of been more hassel than it is worth to sell them...and besides I would not want to be responsible for even being the one who sold the junk to someone and strengthend their false position anyway.

And this is not bad theology, but I had some stuff that was so technical - with Greek knowledge necessary - that I gave them away to a friend who went to seminary and had learned enough Greek to be able to use them.

 

[Timothy William]

I have an Arminian friend who gave me a copy of "Wild at Heart" to read.

I threw it at the wall.

"This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly, but thrown with great force" Dorothy Parker reviews some late, unlamented manuscript.

My worst - The Power of Positive Thinking by Norman whatsisname - seriously, so bad and theologically dodgy I could see the errors in my early teens, years before I was actually converted. After reading that, Purpose Driven Drivel seems like correct, if watered down, theology by comparison.

Mere Christianity by C S Lewis. So many errors that I think Lloyd-Jones was onto something in doubting Lewis' salvation. A shame as I liked most of his other works, but when he gets truely theological - as opposed to his ususal profound philosophical cum evangelical mode - Lewis goes way off track, introducing dangerous erros, possibly heresies.

Dianetics by L Ron Hubbard. Don't ask; I was young and naive, and it's not like I actually read the thing.

One of the Left Behind books.

 

[bookslover]

Mere Christianity by C S Lewis. So many errors that I think Lloyd-Jones was onto something in doubting Lewis' salvation. A shame as I liked most of his other works, but when he gets truely theological - as opposed to his ususal profound philosophical cum evangelical mode - Lewis goes way off track, introducing dangerous erros, possibly heresies.

To be fair to Lewis, he was neither a churchman nor a trained theologian. He was a literature scholar (as you know) whose avocation was Christian apologetics and fiction. Reading his stuff, I'm convinced he was a Christian, even if he couldn't articulate the finer points of doctrine very well at times.

Could a professional theologian have written The Screwtape Letters better than Lewis did?

 

[Irishcat922]

To be fair to Lewis, he was neither a churchman nor a trained theologian. He was a literature scholar (as you know) whose avocation was Christian apologetics and fiction. Reading his stuff, I'm convinced he was a Christian, even if he couldn't articulate the finer points of doctrine very well at times.

Could a professional theologian have written The Screwtape Letters better than Lewis did?

I happen to love Lewis as well. I think it is unfair to rip into him for his theology, when he says at the outset of Mere Christianity, I am not a theologian. And you have to consider the context of these lectures. Specifically the attack of London by the Germans during WW2. His intention was to help Englishmen to Understand the essential truth's of Christianity. I read Lewis for his literary brilliance not for his theology. Like Poe, or Twain, the difference is I believe Lewis to be a genuine Christian, and a literary genius.

 

[Timothy William]

I also love many of Lewis' works. The Screwtape Letters was my favourite book at around age 15, and some of his collections of essays and sermons had are profound effect on me at that time. But there is a great difference between, on one hand, a layman whose expertise is in literature not theology, and whose doctrine is simple yet true as far as it goes, and, on the other hand, one who makes basic doctrinal mistakes but can obfuscate them through clever writing or is given a free pass due to his deeper psychological insights. We might appreciate the Christian literature of the former though we would not make him a seminary professor, but the latter would be a great danger if read uncritically.

The Screwtape Letters is a great work of psychology. Lewis truely understood the human mental condition better, I think, than Freud or Jung or any of their followers. Screwtape is a wordly-wise, Machiavellian manipulator, who well uses his knowledge of basic human foibles - not the supposedly deeper or higher psychology of the theorists but insights into how people actually think and feel and act - to advise, and them manipulate, Wormwood. Yet little in the book is particularly Christian, much less Protestant. A Jew or Muslim could easily have written the same story of one of their devils tempting a soul into perdition.

Lewis clearly denied both Total Depravity and the perseverance of the saints, and taught ecumenism with both Rome and the East. He also was ambivalent on substitutionary atonement and biblical inerrancy. Not only is Mere Chistianity his most poorly written work, it hints at such errors at sacramental regeneration and doctrinal relativism between different church traditions. Far from teaching a new believer what the basics of "mere" christianity were, it would confuse them and possibly lead them to think they were a Christian when they were not, or vice versa. Some years back I made the mistake of reading through Mere Christianity during a spiritual crises, only to feel the ground give way beneath me as the errors I was struggling with were not only not refuted but were positively endorsed.

I think of Lewis as a man of great intelligence, warmth and learning with a deep understanding of issues affecting Christians; but then I much the same of the current Pope. And I am not sure that either is more in error than the other, though their errors don't always overlap.

 

[Ivan]

Any relation to Lyle?

As far as I know, no. Here are a couple of links. The first is Lovett's and the next a critique of his ministry. If you look at them you'll know as much as I do about the man.

http://www.cslovettbooks.com/index.html
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lovett/general.htm

 

[bookslover]

As far as I know, no. Here are a couple of links. The first is Lovett's and the next a critique of his ministry. If you look at them you'll know as much as I do about the man.

http://www.cslovettbooks.com/index.html
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lovett/general.htm

I took a look at the links - yuck!

 

[JasonGoodwin]

I took a look at the links - yuck!

Phil Johnson has written a critique of Rick Miesel's Biblical Discernment Ministries. Much needed, considering that Mr. Miesel seems to have an axe to grind with just about every well-known Christian minister/ministry. (Some of it is necessary like Billy Graham, but there's also quite a bit of it that is also overreaching to the extreme like his "expose" of John MacArthur. Makes him sound like a desperate political candidate who is trailing badly in the polls to a popular politician who has character and integrity. One last thing in this section: why didn't he write up Mike Warnke? Wikipedia did! (Now there's a guy who has some serious ethical flaws!))

www.spurgeon.org/~phil/bookmark/apol.htm , then scroll down to the aforementioned "ministry". I'm heavily inclined to take Phil at his word.

Also, not to mention, "Measles" webpage is so 90's-ish, right when the WWW was first coming out. Seriously, if that webpage is going to need some serious consideration (as opposed to laughter and mockery), he needs a major fixup that could at least bring his template design at least to the turn of the century.

 

[caddy]

Miesel's a nut case. I've gone round and round with him in email before. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have even bothered.

Phil Johnson has written a critique of Rick Miesel's Biblical Discernment Ministries. Much needed, considering that Mr. Miesel seems to have an axe to grind with just about every well-known Christian minister/ministry. (Some of it is necessary like Billy Graham, but there's also quite a bit of it that is also overreaching to the extreme like his "expose" of John MacArthur. Makes him sound like a desperate political candidate who is trailing badly in the polls to a popular politician who has character and integrity. One last thing in this section: why didn't he write up Mike Warnke? Wikipedia did! (Now there's a guy who has some serious ethical flaws!))

www.spurgeon.org/~phil/bookmark/apol.htm , then scroll down to the aforementioned "ministry". I'm heavily inclined to take Phil at his word.

Also, not to mention, "Measles" webpage is so 90's-ish, right when the WWW was first coming out. Seriously, if that webpage is going to need some serious consideration (as opposed to laughter and mockery), he needs a major fixup that could at least bring his template design at least to the turn of the century.

 

[Theoretical]

The Traveler's Gift by Andy Andrews - horrid piece of junk pop pyschology and a very self-esteem centered work.

 

[Theoretical]

Ditto to all of that, Timothy. I too used to love Lewis, but I'm seeing a lot more clearly of just how messed up his theology really was. The Great Divorce, Miracles, and Problem of Pain really bothered me in parts. For his sake, I really hope he was a believer, but I have to call much of it into question.

Lewis being so incredibly popular in evangelical circles may also have a great deal to do with so much of the weakness and susceptibility towards radical teachers that is being seen nowadays.

 

[toddpedlar]

Ditto to all of that, Timothy. I too used to love Lewis, but I'm seeing a lot more clearly of just how messed up his theology really was. The Great Divorce, Miracles, and Problem of Pain really bothered me in parts. For his sake, I really hope he was a believer, but I have to call much of it into question.

Lewis being so incredibly popular in evangelical circles may also have a great deal to do with so much of the weakness and susceptibility towards radical teachers that is being seen nowadays.

Part of Lewis's popularity, I think, has to do with his Arminianism, that clearly comes out in Mere Christianity. He's very friendly to the ideas of the "forelooking" God (as opposed to the "foreknowing" God) and even (it seems) to the "anonymous Christian" ideas of Rahner. Perhaps I'm intolerant, but these things I just can't get past. He writes very well - and much of his writing is enjoyable - but I can't abide the gross theological error in it.

 

[TeachMe]

Is there a link to Grudem's faulty theology?

 

[johnny_redeemed]

"What Love is this" by Dave Hunt
"The Believers Conditional Security" by Dan Corner

 

[RamistThomist]

Is there a link to Grudem's faulty theology?

Mainly consult his systematic theology. He defends continuing miraculous gifts, tongues, etc.

He also defends and propogates credobaptism. Whether this is faulty theology or not depends on the position of the reader, I suppose.

On an organizational level, though, I really like his Systematic Theology.

 

[JoeRe4mer]

I have had many "bad books" over the years half I bought so I could learn about false religions and the other half I got when I was still dispensational. Most have been given away or traded but I will list a few here many of which I still use a refernces for false teachings.

What Love is This? by Dave Hunt...
Knowing God Intimately by Joyce Meyer
Prayer of Jabez by Bruce Wilknson
Things to come by Dwight Pentecost
Chosen but Free by Norman Giesler
Not by Faith Alone by Robert Sungenis
Purpose Driven Life by u know who...
and last but not least my personal favorite and the worst of the worst that I have had the misfortune to read....Smith Wigglesworth "The Complete Collection of His Life Teachings" RIP

Ok I feel bad now for even admitting I own all thouse.

 

[polemic_turtle]

God's operations of grace but no offers of grace: To which are added two treatises on inviting and exhorting sinners to repentance by Joseph Hussey

Seriously, I'm not mature enough to stomach this stuff yet. I need to read some sound and balanced fellows first. Yuck.