Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Literary Forum' started by CatechumenPatrick, Apr 28, 2008.
This is one of the negative consequences of the invention of the printing press.
Scott Hahn, Hail, Holy Queen and and The Openness of God by Rica, Sanders, Pinnock and Hasker are pretty much tied for most horrible. Of course, there are several books I've started and had to lay aside which might have been worse.
Amen, Amen, and Amen--sadly, these are the three most frequently read books in my fellowship, and in much of American Christianity.
God: A Biography| jackmiles.com: Jack Miles Online
What should I have expected from a Jesuit? Very difficult trudging through his morass of blasphemy.
Although I haven't read this (nor do I intend to) check out his new one. Read the excerpts if you can stomach them and his quotes.
Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God| jackmiles.com: Jack Miles Online
What St. Paul Really Said, by N.T. Wright
The last two volumes of Westermann's Genesis commentary
The Call of Grace, by Norman Shepherd
The Covenantal Gospel, by Cornelis van der Waal
A Faith That Is Never Alone, edited by Andrew Sandlin
Women in the Church, by Grenz and Kjesbo
The Federal Vision, by Wilkins and Garner
First off....GREAT topic idea
BUT, I really haven't read that many bad theological books. As has been said, I just don't have time for them. I do have to admit that I read Left Behind and a few of the sequels. Terrible! Not even worth using for kindling. Not only does it have a terrible theological foundation, but it's simply a boring story.
Well that piqued my interest. Though I certainly wouldn't rank it as my favorite, I am interested as to why you would rank it as one of the worst you have ever read.
This is an interesting thread. I guess I'm surprised by both ends of the spectrum and find myself in the middle of the road...again. Of course being in the middle of the road makes one more likely to be ran over.
Well this isn't theological but I still kick myself for reading
The World According to Garp by John Irving way back in 1978.
And yes Bennie Hinn's Good Morning Holy Spirit haunts me like a stomach flu.
Because it completely repudiates the definitions of covenant given by Witsius, a'Brakel, Turretin, and the WCF, by denying that covenant is an agreement, and saying instead that it is a relationship. Furthermore, according to van der Waal, the covenant is not made with the elect (contra the WLC), and hence does not have an internal/external distinction, but is rather along the lines of Schilder. Van der Waal is a precursor to the Federal Vision, in other words. Barach and Schlissel both say that their doctrine of the covenant is based on him, at least to some extent.
Anything by 'the Pearls'.
New Age Bible Versions, by Gail Riplinger. Even my KJV-only friends were embarrassed at this one. Her arguments are silly at best, and shamefully dishonest at worst. Why, one wonders, would anyone seriously read a book on textual issues written by someone with a home economics degree, and who knows neither of the Biblical languages? ( I had to for a class).
Grace by Lewis Sperry Chafer - a classic dispensationalist tells us grace is. Yuck.
Prayer - Asking and Receiving by John R. Rice - an old-style fundamentalist thinks this is all there is to prayer. Yuck.
Couple of books by Neil T. Anderson...Bondage Breaker and I can't remember the other one.
Anybody ever hear of C.S. Lovett?
Hew boy....those were stinkers.
"The Saving Life of Christ" by Major W. Ian Thomas - miserable "carnal Christian" sanctification theology - this book really did a number on me.
Ditto for Charles Stanley's works.
Mere Christianity by C S Lewis. Lewis was a clever writer, and this book makes some good points and interesting observations, but Lewis ultimately misses the heart of the Christian faith. His "mere Christianity" should be about the Gospel, in its purist form, instead it is Lewis' attempt at ecumenism, with mere Christianity defined roughly as "what all branches of Christianity believe." I made the awful mistake of rereading this book during a theological crisis in my early 20's, as Lewis had been my favourite author as a teenager, and came away thinking that Lewis was very confused as to what the Gospel actually was.
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes. I had to read this book, and an earlier work by Keynes, and write an essay on them in 3 days as an undergrad. Quite possibly the worst non-theological book ever written on any topic. Poorly written, containing constant obfuscations and errors of logic, while claiming to do the opposite. In the end, Keynes' economic system just doesn't add up, and he never deals with the stronger arguments of his opponents, which were already well known in 1936. Keynes was a very clever man, and highly articulate in person, but had an awful habit of deliberately convoluted and confusing writing. The 1938 German edition contained some wholehearted praise from Keynes for Hitler's government in the Introduction.
Woah! I was just given The Shack tonight. Hmm....interesting.
There have been more than a couple of books I have enjoyed are listed here. While I can't say that my overall opinion of them will change, the comments here, though, have provoked me to look closer at them. Thank you!
666 by Salem Kirban. I hope that it's long out of print.
That was the first ever Christian book I bought, and the worst I ever read - though I did not realise it at the time.
Recently, the worst book I've read is the Book of Mormon. The number of times it says "it came to pass" is ridiculous.
Probability and Statistical Inference by Hogg and Tanis was a fairly bad textbook I had to read two semesters ago.
I agree with John J. above, "What Love is This?" by Dave Hunt. It infuriated me.
How about the worst book you ever tried to read. I really tried to read Brian McLaren's "A Generous Orthodoxy" but I just couldn't finish it.
Also one of the first books recommended to me after I became Christian. The Bondage Breaker by Niel T. Anderson.
A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren.
I totally forgot this book! Great example! I went through the first fifty pages, and documented all the factual errors in her quotations of the modern versions. Constantly, she misrepresented the facts, by saying that "the modern versions say x," when only one of them did, and the rest agreed with the KJV! She made the differences far greater than they actually are. Furthermore, she has no hermeneutical training, and so she misrepresents other differences as well. I had a 13 page document when I was done, ripping her book to shreds. James White has quite adequately answered her as well.
Calvary Chapel Distinctives...
Calvary's attempt at a systematic theology
Tribulation and the Church
The philosophy of Ministry of Calvary Chapel
Romanism repackaged under evangelical vernacular.
I've got that book at the house. If you've lost yours I'll be gald to sell you mine.