The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism.

I owe a post on misconceptions about Arminianism. This is not, actually, that post. However, for the time being, it should serve a similar purpose:

A Brief Summary on the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism

What do we mean by each?

By Calvinism, we mean the soteriology as explicitly laid out by the Canons of Dort in 1619. These canons laid out soteriology in a series of five points, and the concept of five point Calvinism is fairly common and alive and well, today.

            What is not as widely known, however, is that the famous five points of Calvinism were actually written in response to five points put out by Arminianism, known as the Articles of Remonstrance in 1610. The Remonstrant/Dortian conflict was over the interpretation of the Belgic Confession from 1566, which was the standard for the Dutch Reformed church. (Dutch Reformed churches now hold what are called the ‘Three Forms of Unity, which accept the Canons of Dort as well as the Heidelberg Catechism 1563, in addition to the Belgic.)

Interestingly enough, both Calvin (1564) and Arminius (1610) were dead by the time Dort and Remonstrance were penned.

In brief, here is how Dort and Remonstrance compare:

Both held that man is totally incapable of choosing salvation without the grace of God in their lives. (Essentially, this is known as ‘total depravity’.) For the Calvinist, this grace is always a sufficient condition for man to accept God and be saved. For the Arminian, this grace is merely enough to make the free will of the individual alive, and then the individual must choose to accept Christ.

            Both held that God elected people to salvation. For the Calvinist, this election is made without any merits of the individual being considered, it is completely unconditional. In Arminianism, God elects people based on his ability to foreknow who would accept salvation of their own free will. The subject of how free will is defined is disputed between these two groups, and we will cover that later.

            The two sides are divided on the nature of the atonement. The Calvinist believes that the atonement of Christ is only intended for those who God elected. Thus, the atonement is effective for everyone for whom it was attended. The Arminian asserts that the atonement is intended for all men, and it’s effectiveness is contingent on man choosing to accept the work as such in his life.

                        -There’s a bit more to the atonement than this, however. The Calvinist believes that the atonement was a ‘penal substitutionary’ atonement. This means that when Christ died on the cross, he was literally accepting the full penalty of all the sin he intended to die for once and for all. Obviously, if this is the case, then we understand why the atonement is limited, because if Christ intended to die for all, then all would be saved, and universalism would be true. In the words of Puritan John Owen:

“The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:  All the sins of all men all the sins of some men, or some of the sins of all men. In which case it may be said:
 That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

-The vast majority of Arminians accept Owen’s dilemma as being valid. Therefore they have responded by saying that the atonement was not a penal substitutionary one. Instead, they present other theories, the most common of which is the ‘ransom theory’, which says that when Christ died he paid the cost of all sin in the divine economy of justice. This, obviously, leaves room for all men to have a part in the atonement while maintaining that they are responsible for accepting that payment for their debt, in the same sense that a hostage may become convinced of the dogma of his captors, and choose to remain with them, a sinner may be convinced of the dogma of his sin, and choose to remain in it.

On the last point of Dort and Remonstrance we see an instance of saying the same thing in different ways. Both the Arminian and the Calvinist taught that only those who persevere in the faith until the end would be saved. However, the Calvinist teaches that since his faith is decreed before the foundation of the world, and God is the active agent all the way through, then God ensures that the Christian perseveres in the faith and the elect never fall away. The Arminian, by contrast, teaches that man, of his own free will, can choose to reject the faith even after he has entered into it. So, in Arminianism, it is possible to be saved at one point in life and not saved later on.

-Many Baptists who agree with the other features of Arminianism have rejected it on this last point. They believe that since God knows who will be saved from the start, then a person’s salvation is just as set in stone as it is in Calvinism, and they agree with the Calvinists on the point of how perseverance works.

FREE WILL

As we noted, Calvinists and Arminians define free will differently. However, it is very important to note that both sides do believe that man has free will in such a way that he is morally responsible for his sin. For the Arminian, for the will to be ‘free’ it is essential that the ability to do otherwise lies with the agent in relation to his decision. So, as we see in salvation, God looks into the future and sees what an agent will do of his own free will, and then, consents to let that will be the case and decrees that the world will be that way.

Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that the will is free so long as man does what he wants to do. So, if my choice aligns with my strongest desires, my choice is free. Now, one may say that I do not want to get out of bed and go to work in the morning, so how is it a free choice that I do so? The answer is that while I may not want to get out of bed, I do want to keep my job and pay my bills and take care of my family. The desire to do those things outweighs my desire to not get out of bed, so I get out of bed, and accomplish what I most want to do. As it relates to salvation, without the grace of God I do not want to come to God, and so I freely choose not to… I am morally responsible for my evil choice to not follow God because I did what I wanted to do.

Other options

Now, there are nuanced versions of these two views, including some folks that would be considered ‘four point Calvinists’ who explain the nature of the atonement in a way that tries to split the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism (see Bruce Ware’s God’s Greater Glory for a great example. On the Arminian side, there are differences on how exactly God’s foreknowledge and his decree work together, and we usually distinguish at the very least between ‘Classical Arminians’ who hold to Simple Foreknowledge and ‘Molinists’ who adhere to something called Middle Knowledge. (Ware, mentioned above, uses Middle Knowledge as well, but he uses it to come to Calvinistic conclusions about free will and grace.) There are also extremists on both sides, from warped versions of Calvinism that deny that man has any free will, (we call them fatalists) to warped versions of Arminianism that insist that God does not know the future (we call them Open Theists.) Lutherans hold a slightly different view than both camps, though in fairness they probably have a bit more in common with Calvinism. Roman Catholics have a bit more in common with Arminians, overall, on this issue.

For a good introduction to the classic Calvinist view, I suggest: Chosen by God by RCSproul

For a good introduction to a more traditional Arminian view, I suggest: Elect in the Son: A study in Divine Election by Robert Shank

Conclusion

In brief, there’s your difference between the different views. As you might have noticed, I very strongly support the classic Calvinist notion of election.  However, what gets missed way too often in this debate is how close, theologically, the original Calvinists and Arminians actually were, and even today, Southern Baptists hold to both views. (The ‘Baptist Faith and Message’ was adapted from the Calvinistic ‘New Hampshire Confession’, and the very first Southern Baptist Confession, the ‘Abstract of Principles’ was Calvinistic as well, but, in an unfortunate turn in history, racism was the primary unifier that brought together the Southern Baptist Convention just before the Civil War, and by the time they finally wrote a statement of faith in 1925 they wrote it so that it would be neutral on the question of Calvinism.) What I get sick of is Arminians treating Calvinists as though their view makes God evil, or Calvinists treating Arminians as though their view makes God not sovereign. I’m very adamantly convinced of Calvinism, but there’s gotta be enough perspective there to realize that what we are arguing about is the metaphysics of God’s decree and man’s freedom, and the hairs getting split there are very fine, indeed. 

A misconception about Calvinism

Calvinism as Controversy:

I am a Southern Baptist. Few topics are more controversial in Southern Baptist circles than the topic of Calvinism. This phenomenon has always been interesting, to me, since Calvinism's chief historic rival, Arminianism, is technically against the standards of the Southern Baptist Confession. (By Arminianism, here, I mean Arminianism proper, such as it is laid out in the Five Articles of Remonstrace and the writings of Jacob Arminius, himself. (By the way, many more Calvinists should read Arminius. All in all, he was an excellent scholar.) These writings contrast the Baptist Faith and Message, which clearly teaches that no one can lose his salvation. Classic Arminianism teaches that a person can in fact lose their salvation, so, what we see in Southern Baptist circles is not really Arminianism, but a sort of synergistic evolution of historic Baptist life. The Baptist Faith and Message was based on the Calvinistic New Hampshire Confession, a personal favorite of this author, and it kept the Calvinistic teaching of 'Perseverance of the Saints'. I have always found synergism and this teaching to be an odd pairing, but such is life as a Southern Baptist, you really do see all kinds.

So, I guess the best way to sum up the point of this post is this: I am not trying to convince you to be Calvinist, I am simply trying to persuade you that Calvinists are not all the horrible ghouls we often get made out to be. 

Free Will and the Author of Sin

Calvinists have often been accused of believing that man does not have free will in the decisions that he makes. However, this is contrary to historical Reformed teaching. Consider the following from the Calvinistic Second London Baptist Confession of Faith: (emphasis added)

CHAPTER 3; OF GOD’S DECREE

Paragraph 1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;3 in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.4

1 Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15,18

2 James 1:13; 1 John 1:5

3 Acts 4:27,28; John 19:11

4 Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:3-5

 This confession is in perfect agreement with the teachings of other Calvinistic confessions, like the Westminster Confession of Faith as well as the teachings of John Calvin, himself, who said:

Whence, then comes this wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord; and by his fall drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3:23:8

What often gets missed, when Calvinists are accused of believing that man has no free will, is that there is significant debate to be had as to how free will is defined. When a synergist says that man has free will, he means something different from what a Calvinist means when he says that man has free will.

Calvinists believe that man has what is called 'Compatibilistic Freedom' and what that means is that we believe that man's freedom is completely compatible with God's decree of all things that would ever happen. God is in complete control, yet we still act freely. How, you may ask? Well, in compatibilistic freedom, man is free so long as he can do what he most desires. Let me give an example. Say that I have to be at work at six o'clock in the morning for a twelve hour shift. If I get up and go to work, I did so as a free act. But, you may argue, of course you did not want to get up that early! And, who wants to work a twelve hour shift? Surely, this disproves the Calvinist notion of what freedom is...

But, on the contrary, I did do what I wanted most. Let me explain: when my alarm clock goes off so that I can get up and go to work, a significant part of me certainly does not want to get out of bed. However, greater than my desire to continue sleeping is my desire to continue to pay the bills and put food on the table and gas in my car. So, because my greater desire in that instance means I go to work, I get up and I go to work. My going to work is now, as Calvinism defines it, a free act.

 The same would of course go for acts of mine that are sinful. In the moment that I make that decision, my desire to disobey God is greater than my desire to honor God with my life, and I fall into sin. However, none of this contradicts God's overall plan and decree for the universe. As Joseph told his brothers:

Genesis 50:20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."

Joseph's brothers were responsible for sin and God was responsible for the good that came out of the situation, anyway. 

That leads to the other half of this misconception. Because people believe that Calvinists teach that man has no free will, they are led to believe that Calvinists believe that God is the author of sin. Take a moment, if you will, and scroll back up to where we quoted the London Baptist Confession. Notice, it explicitly says that God is not the author of sin. If a person tells you that God is the author of sin, he is not a Calvinist, he is a fatalist, and his view is just as heretical as are the extremes of synergism: Open Theism and Pelagianism. Calvinists are wrong if they try to put all synergists in those two categories (a blog post for another time, consider it forthcoming) and synergists are wrong if they group Calvinists in with those who think our Holy and Righteous God is the author of sin. 

Some helpful links

RC Sproul on God's sovereignty and human freedom (video)

Jonathan Edwards on the nature of man's freedom

Excerpt from John Frame's Doctrine of God about whether God is the author of sin

Conclusion

All I ask from my synergistic brothers and sisters in Christ is that if you are going to disagree with us, please do two rather simple things. First, I ask that you represent our views fairly, as they have been explained, above. (And I promise that in the next few days I will produce an explanation of certain points of synergism that demand the same from our Calvinist brothers and sisters) and second, let us live and work to fulfill the Gospel together. Do not vilify the Calvinists around you or try to have them thrown out of your churches, embrace them with unity as we work to serve the same Lord and spread the same Gospel. God bless. 

 

What is the Gospel?

A sermon delivered at Severn Baptist Church on 7/26/2015:

So, you want to learn about Reformed Baptist Theology?

Prominent Reformed Baptist James R. White once made a comment that "My Presbyterian brothers are going to be offended, but listen up. We Reformed Baptists read all your stuff, and you never read a word we have to say. That's my experience."

I think he makes a great point, I've interacted with my fair share of our Presbyterian friends, and to find one that is truly well read on Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology is a rarity, indeed. So, what we'll be doing today is walking through a list of books that every Paedobaptist who wants to understand Baptist covenant theology should read. It seems only fair to me that my friends should read the noteworthy people in our camp, since we as Reformed Baptists are all quite thoroughly educated in their Covenant Theology arguments. It's sad to me how many paedobaptists I've encountered who literally do not know that Baptist Covenant Theology exists, and even sadder that there are those who reject its existence even after being shown thousands of pages (which they usually never read) on the very subject. So, our goal today is to educate. I'm not necessarily trying to persuade people to drop Presbyterianism to become Baptists, but I am encouraging Presbyterians to take the same time getting to know our theology that we have taken to get to know theirs.

So, in no particular order, here's eleven texts that would be a great starting point for someone new to Baptist Covenant Theology:

The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault
This is probably the ultimate historical work on Baptist Covenant Theology, and, what's more, it leads you to a list of very useful primary sources on the subject from the 17th century.


A Reformed Baptist Manifesto by Sam Waldron and Richard Barcellos
There are areas of theology that I disagree with these two men on very strongly. However, their work in the area of is essential, because it so succinctly presents the infrastructure Reformed Baptist response to several theological schools of thought, and does so very well.

A Discourse of the Covenants that God made with men before the law by Nehemiah Coxe
The link is actually a text that also includes a pieces by congregational paedobaptist John Owen, because the CT is so very similar. However, it's the Coxe work that I want to draw attention to. Nehemiah Coxe is one of the greatest Baptist theologians who ever lived, and he's essential reading for anyone wanting to understand the Reformed Baptist position on Covenant Theology.

The Marrow of True Justification by Benjamin Keach
One of the reasons why the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith was written was to show the groups in 17th century England that had persecuted the Baptists and labeled them as heretics that these Particular Baptists held to the same orthodox faith that the paedobaptists did. This book is a good example of why that claim was true.

Devoted to the Service of the Temple: Piety, Persecution, and Ministry in the Writings of Hercules Collins by Michael Haykin
This text gives an inside look at one of the great catechizers of Reformed Baptist history. Along the way, it also gives insight into the suffering that the movement had to endure to survive in the face of paedobaptistic (I say it that way only because there were at least three major paedobaptist groups in England who oppressed the Baptists) and it also gives a telling glimpse into what life in the Reformed Baptist church looked like, historically.

The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller
This collection is important to understanding how some of the elements of the 17th century Baptist movement prospered in the generations that followed the initial writing of the 1689 Confession.

Abstract of Systematic Theology by JP Boyce
This might be the greatest systematic work ever written by a Reformed Baptist. Also, please do not confuse this author with Presbyterian JM Boice, who, I should say, was a splendid theologian in his own right.

"An Essay on the Kingdom of God" by Abraham Booth
This is actually not the first time I've recommended this essay. It also appears on my discussion on how Reformed Baptists interact with Theonomy. But Booth's work here is a really great example of the Baptist notion of Covenant Theology in an application mode, and for that it's worth bringing up again. He also has a great set of books called Paedobaptism Examined, but those are incredibly hard to find in print, unfortunately.

The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism by: Jeffrey Johnson
Why do we believe in Covenant Theology but reject what some call 'Covenant Baptism'? Here's why. (And by the way, Reformed Baptist baptism, I would argue, is Covenant Baptism, because we baptize those who are actually in the Covenant according to Galatians 3.)

Recovering a Covenantal Heritage Edited by Richard Barcellos
What's great about this text is that it has about 15 articles by many different Reformed Baptist scholars, so it's a great way to get a feel for the basics at play in the questions of Covenant Theology from a Reformed Baptist perspective.

The Covenants by RBC Howell
Howell was the second president in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention, he also happened to be a very strong Reformed Baptist. This is a wonderful exposition of Covenant Theology from a Reformed Baptist perspective.

More resources:

I wanted to include more of the 17th century Baptists than I did. The issue is, it's very hard to find them in print, especially at a reasonable price. But, things are improving on that front. If you happen to have Logos Bible software, search the name Samuel Renihan, and you'll get some reasources on the 17th century Baptists that are really hard to find, elsewhere. You can also find it by searching 'London Baptist Covenant Theology'. 

Also, I would be remiss if I did not like you to www.1689federalism.com. There are multiple schools of thought in Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology, but this one, I believe, holds the most historical precedent and so for the purpose of understanding the position historically I think this site is the most helpful.

And, no, I didn't include Spurgeon and no, it was not a mistake. Spurgeon was the Prince of Preachers, but he was a footsoldier of systematic theologians. 

TO THE REFORMED BAPTISTS READING THIS!

Do your homework, too! Know the authors listed above, and, just as importantly, know the paedobaptist position as well. The perfect place to start with that is Michael Horton's Introducing Covenant Theology. Do NOT try to debate paedobaptists unless you truly understand their position, and, at the same time, educate them on our position.

Taking Responsibility for Tragedy and Identifying the Real Problem: A Response to the Charleston Shooting

It happened, again. Senseless violence in America ending the lives of nine people. This time, it happens to be racism. In other instances we chalk it up to mental illness or some other notion of intolerance we've set up, and we begin to stand on our soap box and declare why we should take steps A-Z to fix the problem. 'Gun control', 'changing media bias', 'changing the conversation about race' or 'changing the conversation about mental disease'... it happens every time, the people who are leaders in the various spheres of influence in this country come up with their program that's going to solve the problem, and the huddled masses follow after them like sheep, blindly repeating the rhetoric.

I want to share two words, one which addresses a very serious criticism of the American church in light of this specific tragedy, and then one that builds on that to flesh out what the root of the problem actually is. So first, let's look in the mirror. The church that this murderer stepped into is 'historically Black'. Why? Well, a big part of the reason why that is the case is because white, conservative, Christians were racist for a very long time. I'm a white, conservative, Christian so that really resonates at my core. On the other hand, as racial wounds have begun to at least somewhat heal in this country and Christian groups (such as my own Southern Baptist Convention) started to own and take responsibility for their dark, racist pasts, there is very little effort on the part of most churches, especially where I am from in the South, to integrate racially.

This is ridiculous. We're supposed to be part of the same body, right? When this murderer (and no, I don't plan on using his name because I don't think he deserves to have it mentioned) walked into a Bible study to kill people of a very specific skin color, why on earth were there not White and Hispanic and Native American brothers and sisters in the Lord there to either stop him, or at least share in the sufferings as one body. This man was able to select his target so easily precisely because even after all this time White folks and Black folks can't seem to get over their own comfort zones and racial biases enough to worship their common Savior together. That is a tragedy in itself on top of the terrible grief we already experience as a country because this sort of thing still happens.

But why does it happen? This division within the body happens for the same reason why the secular society around us can't get the solution right. It all stems from having too weak a sense of human sin and and the role of the Gospel in every possible human good. First of all, man does evil things because man is evil. Without the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, the 'righteousness' of man is filthy rags. This means that whatever strategy man comes up with to solve these problems, if there' no Holy Spirit, it's not a righteous strategy, it's insufficient, it's God-less, literally. The fact that our strategies to overcome issues like the murders in Charleston are pretty obvious. However, what is less obvious, but still as vital, is that the segregation in our churches just as driven by the fact that we don't put the Holy Spirit in the middle of how we build our churches and how we address the race problems in our church.

If our solutions God-less, what hope do we really have for it working? We don't. So what do we do instead? Well, quite simply, the answer is we share the Gospel. It may sound simple, but if our problem is that our solutions are not righteous without God, then the key has to be getting God into the lives of the people, and sharing the Gospel, and making the Gospel truly central to our churches. If you're listening to your preferred pundit and they are rooting the problem in 'media bias' or 'racism' then they're deceived, and they are missing the true issue. We should address racism, we should address fair-minded media coverage, but we don't truly fix these things without the work of the Holy Spirit and the Gospel message. Any solution without that, is a lie. We as Christians shouldn't promote it, and we as Christians should be critical of those among us who try to do so.

When the Holy Spirit renews us, and makes us new creatures, only then do we have any hope of making real changes to our society. Promote the Gospel, not the lies of our society that try to fix things through secular activism and legislation without the necessary foundation of the work of the Holy Spirit. 

10 Books, Besides the Bible, that Every Christian Should Read

Initial Apologies:

If someone were to attempt to list all the books that could be beneficial to the life of every single Christian, the list would take days to read, because God, in his wonderful grace, has used many people to communicate the truth about him very beautifully. These ten texts are simply a start, I encourage everyone to be consistently involved in reading wise and godly Christians from the history of the church. So, I am sorry for the essential incomplete nature of this list, but hopefully it will be a strong start for those looking to bolster their reading of texts that seek to teach about our Holy, Triune God. All links below lead to places where the texts can be acquired. The numbers are not a ranking of how I rate the quality of each in relation to the others. 

1. THE FUNDAMENTALS: A TESTIMONY TO THE TRUTH

If you ever wonder where the term 'Fundamentalist' comes from, this text is it. BEFORE you immediately disregard it based on your negative perception of the term 'Fundamentalist', bear with me, please. Originally released as a series of essays from the Bible Institute of Los Angelos, (my personal copy is a two volume set) this text seeks to lay out the core essentials of what the Christian faith is in a collection of essays by a variety of scholars from various denominational backgrounds. Notable authors included B.B. Warfield, Thomas Spurgeon, R.A. Torrey, A.C. Dixon, C.I Scofield, and Charles R. Erdman. It addresses numerous topics from atheism to the Trinity, to the nature of Scripture and the Atonement. You can find it on Kindle for $0.99 or on ntslibrary.com for free. 

2. THE PILGRIM'S PROGRESS

This text is possibly the greatest Christian allegory ever written. It is the masterpiece of English Baptist John Bunyan, and it powerfully resonates with those on the Christian walk. Filled with great theological content woven into the fabric of an original story, it is a book that can be of great benefit to children and adults alike. It can be bought rather inexpensively on Amazon or found online for free at ccel.org.

3. FOXE'S BOOK OF MARTYRS

It is vital that Christians understand what their predecessors have suffered for the sake of the Gospel. To lose sight of the all-consuming passion in which those before us have striven to preserve the truth in the face of cultural oppression is to risk allowing ourselves to be lulled to sleep by the rejections of the Gospel in our own culture and era. Time and again, people promoting themselves as 'Christians' have simultaneously promoted the sins and heresies of the world. Such action is not only disrespectful to God, but also to those who died so that we could have the Gospel, today. This book, by John Foxe, is but one of many great texts that draw attention to the struggles of Christians past, and it can be found for as cheaply as $1.00 on Kindle or for free on ccel.  

4. THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: ARE THEY RELIABLE?

F.F. Bruce demonstrates in this concise but brilliant piece of scholarship, that the texts of the New Testament are reliable despite what liberal and atheist scholars have tried to say to the contrary. Being aware of Bruce's argument in this text is a great tool for every Christian to have. This book is $2.00 on Kindle and can be purchased rather cheaply in other formats as well. 

5. THE UNEASY CONSCIENCE OF MODERN FUNDAMENTALISM

Carl F.H. Henry agreed with the theology laid out in The Fundamentals, but he realized that the movement had lost its ability to engage the culture with that truth. In less than ninety pages, he kick-started conservative evangelicalism. This book can be found on Amazon. 

6. ORATIONS AGAINST THE ARIANS

For over half a century Athanasius defended the doctrine of the Trinity against Arianism. This text is the summary of his defense of true Christianity against that heresy. The paperback can be found on Amazon or it can be found on ccel.org for free. 

7. DESIRING GOD

What does it mean to be a Christian hedonist? Essentially, as John Piper argues in his most influential book, it is to fulfill the chief end of man which is to 'glorify God and enjoy him forever'. How does a Christian do this? He tells us that 'God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.' A book centered wholly on the glory of God, this text challenges everything about the modern inclinations of natural man and exhorts him to look heavenward for his satisfaction. This book, and a study guide to go with it, can be found for free at desiringgod.org or can be bought at Amazon.

8. SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD

Easily the shortest inclusion on our list, but nevertheless essential. This sermon by Jonathan Edwards should remind us why the Grace of God is so necessary in our own lives, and why the Gospel is so needed by the world around us. Beyond that, it is considered a classic piece of American literary history. It is free, here, it is read online, here. It can be bought, here.

9. A Christian Manifesto

There are many precise presentations of the Christian faith, and what it means to live it, out there, but Francis Schaeffer provides us with one of the very best in his Manifesto. It is just as relevant now as it was when he first wrote it, and it will continue to be so by virtue of the truth it conveys. This book can be found on Amazon. 

10. THE EARLY CHURCH

Every Christian should know the history of the early church, and Henry Chadwick delivers it to us in a masterful way in this text. This text can be found on Amazon.

Final Thoughts:

As I said, it is impossible to make an exhaustive list of this sort, but I have tried to provide a varied list that addresses the various needs of the Christian life, and I tried to include texts that would helpful both to Christians of a more academic persuasion and also those who simply wish to be faithful laymen in the service of God. How did I do? What would you include that I did not? Which books were you disappointed to see on my list?