Would you recommend a book by an author who has very concerning views on area of Theology?

Well, that depends on particulars. Otherwise most likely not.

 

Are we naming names? Gordon Fee springs to mind, as he has written some pretty good books. Barth certainly seemed to be living in sin, but the thoroughness of his writing makes it seem like he's touched on a number of niche topics that make him worthwhile. Angelology comes to mind. And I've enjoyed Heiser, though I don't agree with every view he has.

 

Something tells me there may be more to the OP. Do you have an author in mind?

 

Absolutely! I read to engage my mind.
I really like reading Peter Enns books.
I’d recommend his latest, “How the Bible Actually Works”...

...but don’t think that it won’t bother you while you read it.​

Rob

 

Enns' Genesis myth view was one of the contributing factors that lead to the apostasy of a dear friend. Because of that, I do not think I can pick up a book authored by Enns. Enns aside, there are other authors I have read that have given me perspective on what happens when people play fast and loose with scripture. Robert Gundy comes to mind.

 

I have a copy of The Church and Tribulation and refer to it from time to time but would not recommend it to anyone. I could say the same about Riddlebarger and others.

 

Correction. Robert Gundry.

 

If you're looking at historical teaching, you're going to have to, unfortunately. Looking through the early church writings, there's plenty of truth and error mixed together.

Extrapolating that to the modern era, I would strive to find wholesome sources, but wouldn't be opposed to recommending less orthodox sources to a mature Christian, albeit with a warning.

 

Someone can be right in certain areas of doctrine, and yet wrong on others, see Dr Grudem ST, as he upholds major doctrines, and yet wrong on spiritual gifts and Holy Spirit operating as such today!
And would not want to read someone who was in known and unrepentant sinning...

 

I would say that it is important to read some books before other books.

Before ever recommending any outside book, I would recommend that people read the Bible in a readable translation. I usually quiz people about the Bible before recommending anything else. Most commonly I ask “What happens at the end of Judges?” Because anyone who has read it in a readable translation will have difficulty forgetting the mess that happened at the end of Judges. If they have no clue or have to look it up, I will just recommend reading the Bible.

 

A great deal depends upon the purpose.

For example (and this applies across the board with ALL media): If the person becomes enamored with an author then there may be excuse or persuasion that is extended toward that person. One might embrace all that is McA, or Swindoll, or McGee, or Spurgeon, or ... merely because of the author, and suspend that critical awareness necessary for a believer to sift what is stated for agreement with the Scriptures.

Also, there is the enticement of finding something new or even controversial. There is a certain allure that is used by the enemy of God that was used upon Eve to attract from the truth and validity of God.

If the audience is aware of these warnings, then the library is full of books, all types, all kinds, even those objectionable to the believer's views but are read for knowledge of the position of others.

If the audience is unaware of these warnings, then the library should be closed and highly censored.

One other small truth.

This standard, as stated above, is to be applied to all media. Not just books.

 

I read Enn's book Inspiration and Incarnation and I didn't think it added much from the information I had since high school - decades ago.

It has been well know for quite some time that the creation and flood myths were similar. Also, most everyone knew since before the archeological excavations that the law in the Bible was similar to ancient law.

But what he put forth with no explanation was that the Bible was modeled after other texts. There is no reason to believe the opposite was true - that the other texts were modeled on the Bible. He jumps to this conclusion with no evidence or explanation. It's as if he doesn't want to believe.

But the guy is a Presbyterian and follows Calvin. That means that he has probably believes as Calvin believed when John Calvin wrote that the Old Testament was the "babbling of nursemaids". So, I can see why he didn't want to believe in the Old Testament to begin with.

I also don't see why he was kicked out for this book. The ones who kicked him out of the Presbyterian seminary never did write an opposing book.

And yes, I actually read the books others may recommend regardless of whether I agree with them.