By direct revelation, mostly. Walked and talked with Jesus for three years. Worked along side His apostles and their disciples.
The fact of the matter is, ordinarily a good commentary is a very good help, and many reject them to their peril. I think Van's and Winman's posts would be enough to warn anyone. Yours might be as well, but don't see too many of yours.
You have to make sure it is a biblically-based commentary, and you determine that by checking its conclusions against what the Holy Spirit is telling you in your own personal study. If it disagrees, cast it aside. It's not valid.
I do my own study, then read 20-30 commentaries on the verse and such plagerism, false assumption and out of context points - so as to amaze.
I do find good application from time to time and now and then a good line of thought but often just the same o same o that they all see.
A preacher I used to know used to say - don't know if it was original with him or not - Chew and spit.
Chew what you hear and spit out the junk and keep the good.
Speaking as a non-Calvinist you make that absurd claim. I maintain that the best representative of most of Calvin's theology in the 20th century was Aurthur W. Pink. Spurgeon and AWP wouldn't think much of your theology I dare say.
Pardon me,but you are entirely out of place. You,in the main do not know whereof you speak. Four months ago you said :
"John Calvin drew his inspiration for outlining his concept from the Council of Dort."
Of course the above is bunk since Dort was some 55 years after Calvin's death! It's hard to draw inspiration from something that has not yet transpired. LOL!
You also had intimated that Calvin's progeny at Dort had misrepresented what he taught. Just a bare assertion on your part with no substance behind the charge.
Books in regards to bible study:
I strongly believe in relying on the Bible, reading and studying it apart from any type of commentary and coming to your own conclusion.
Then turning to commentaries and reading the conclusions of others.
For me, if I come up with a “new” interpretation and can find no one in history holding my view…well…then I am most likely mistaken in my own understanding.
Opposing views can also point out the flaws and weaknesses (when present) in my understanding.
I do believe that we should read and understand the interpretations of others, both who agree and disagree with our conclusions.
It’s too easy to come up with an unfounded view if one avoids being challenged by trying to genuinely understand an opposing position.
I also read theology books.
I have found that it is rare that a position (an opposing view) can be challenged on the basis of Scripture (within orthodox Christianity).
Most often, both views can substantiate their positions and the disagreement boils down to interpretation or reasoning.
Personally, I find understanding how different views are “justified” by their adherents very interesting and of course, adhering to a “systematic theology” is unavoidable.
So, to answer the OP, I generally determine what books (in terms of biblical studies) to read by its author.
I want an author that is objective and a credible source of information.
But, I do not read to be “taught” what to believe, but instead to learn.
For example, Brian MLaren’s “A Generous Orthodoxy” provides useful insights (if you can ever get anything concrete from the guy).
I do not know anyone who restricts their reading to “recommended books” from a particular church (actually, I don’t know of a church that maintains such a list).
I guess that I do not think that practicing discernment necessarily means what the OP presents it to mean.
People like McLaren does have opinions and observations that the church should hear, and if it applies address it biblically (not with McLaren’s New Christianity).
Another example: You mention Rick Warren’s book.
His “Purpose Driven Church” is a good read, although I disagree with some of his conclusions.
I believe it is wrong in its one-sidedness.
MacArthur’s “Fools Gold” is the extreme opposite, and I believe is also wrong in its one sidedness. But I can learn from both.
Discernment here is in the doctrine that you accept, not necessarily the books you read.
I have lots of books by Mac, 2 by Erickson, 2 by Packer, 1 by Stott, and so forth.
will add that Erickson is not Reformed, but that does not mean I cannot learn from him. Hey have you ever read Charles Leiter? Paul Washer seems to fully endorse him. Have never read him, but is he any good?
Why do you speak so highly of a heretic like Brian Mclarren? The man is from hell. You really need to read the Truth War by Mac. He has lots of things on that devil that people need to hear. The man is dominated, dead, and lost to sin. He needs to get saved.
I agree Warrens book is a good read and is easy to read. However its very shallow in terms of doctrine. But no question Warren has a good writing style.
This saddens me. People should be reading Radical or Desiring God instead.
Here is a snippet of what CHS who you profess to admire said about commentaries:
"It seems odd,that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves,should think so little of what he has revealed to others...It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries...Usually,we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them;in their case,it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt...who will deny the preeminent value of such expositions as those of Calvin,Ness,Henry,Trapp,Poole, and Bengal,which are as deep as they are broad?"
"How many who now speak of him eulogistically,and refer to him as 'beloved Spurgeon',would gnash their teeth and execrate him were they to hear his faithful and plain-spoken preaching." (A.W. Pink)
Check out Free Will --A Slave and Human Inability for starters.
This is a great quote and truth that I always enjoy seeing posted.many of the puritans shared these thoughts in their works.thanks for this fine post:thumbsup::thumbsup:
I didn't speak highly of McLaren.
I just said the church, since it is the topic of McLaren's criticism, should listen to and evaluate what he says.
You and McLaren actually agree in much of your criticism of mainstream Christianity.
I actually don't agree with Warrens book (the one I mentioned), and the one you mention is shallow if you take it that way (but I don't think it was written to spoon feed doctrine, which seems to be what you may be looking for).