Can I get a book recommendation on early church history?

[Butterflylady]

(I hope this is the right forum for this... Wasn't sure where to put it.)

Can anyone recommend a book on early church history? (First 100-500 years... something like that) Something not super complicated, but that is accurate. I looked around on some book sites and in the book store last weekend, but they all kind of made my head spin. Has anyone actually read any of these type of books that they could recommend?


Thanks. :):

YSIC

[Christianmomof3]

Miller's Church History is good.

[Butterflylady]

Miller's Church History is good.


Thanks!

Edit: Found one! It's 1000 pages. Oh my...

[Mommy2KandM]

I just bought "Church History In plain Language" by Bruce L. Shelley from my husbands seminary bookstore. I have not started reading it yet, but know a couple people who are. Both says it is a very good book and easy to read. :thumb

[Butterflylady]

I just bought "Church History In plain Language" by Bruce L. Shelley from my husbands seminary bookstore. I have not started reading it yet, but know a couple people who are. Both says it is a very good book and easy to read. :thumb

I'll look into that one too. Thanks!

[zooplankton77]

There are tons. I waded through the Library. Good cheap source if your looking to save $$.

[countmeworthy]

I agree w/Christianmomof 3's assessment on Miller's Church History. It is long & some of it dry, perhaps but there is alot of excellent insight.

I particularyly LOVED how Paul's preaching on "Mars Hill" was highlighted. What a Wise man of God, using every opportunity to preach the gospel !

[Rebecki]

I just bought "Church History In plain Language" by Bruce L. Shelley from my husbands seminary bookstore. I have not started reading it yet, but know a couple people who are. Both says it is a very good book and easy to read. :thumb

I have that one! We did a study on church history using it. Pretty good, and not filled with $10 words. Easy read.

:thumb

[scottruff]

New Testament History by F.F. Bruce is very good. I read this a number of years ago. Highly recommended.

[antsinmypants]

The Hibbert Lectures 1888 by Edwin Hatch; A. M. Fairbain

There's one to start with.... I do have others....

[70thWeek]

The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez, though it covers more than just early church.

[Butterflylady]

Thanks all. :): It certainly is amazing what the early believers had to go through to spread the Good News... It makes me feel really humble.

Thanks for the recommendations... I think I'll get them all! :nod

[blitzkreig]

Butterflylady I know it is a little earlier than the period you mentioned in your first post ... but in terms of describing the formation of the early Church there is no better book than "Acts of the Apostles". Go and get an exhaustive study guide of Acts, I can see if I can locate some in my trove if you like ...

To your comment that "It makes me feel really humble" if you ever wish to culture that feeling ... try reading "Foxe's Book of Martyrs (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/martyrs/)".

.

[Timothy]

While my comments should not be taken as being cynical, my view is that finding any "good" books on "church history" is sort of an oxymoron. The vast majority of so-called "church history" is written by those who were predominant in power or sympathetic to those in power. If you casually read so-called "church history," you will be told and get the impression that the only doctrines and denominations that remained consistent through the centuries is the Roman Catholic church. That obviously, is not true, in multiple ways.

As I've participated in a variety of message boards the last several years, I can personally attest that if I pro-actively label myself and my views, I will occasionlly be accused of believing all sorts of things that I don't believe. That fact must be remembered in regards to reading "church history" - that you are reading what someone else thought or said about someone else, and in many cases this information is third-hand, fourth-hand, etc. And obviously, even in Paul's own day, his Apostleship and grace was maligned, slandered, etc. Even today, the preaching of the "gospel of grace" (grace through faith alone) is the minority, so even in current "church history," it would be but a footnote.

I'm a bit rusty, but one example comes to mind, that of the Paulicians from the 600's. If you read common church history, according to them they were absolute heretics. But they got that label by rejecting the Catholic church, obviously, and many of their views are maligned (misrepresented) as a result. For example, they were maligned as "dualists", but that was due to their recognition of the two natures of the believer. They believed grace through faith.

It sounds funny, but in some cases, you want to be looking at who the heretics are, as the heretics were the ones preaching truth!

:pound

[antsinmypants]

I agree Timothy, which is exactly why I reccommended the book I did.

[Big Daddy]

Halleys Bible Dictionary is kinda neat.

[valerie]

Yeah, Halley's is a cool book. ! Lot's of info concisely written. Sort of like an almanac. I'm looking at one right now in my stack of books on my desk.

I also have before me a very short and concise booklet, great for an overview and simply getting your feet wet without overwhelming you. It's called "The Kregel Pictorial Guide to Church History" by John D. Hannah.

The poster who mentioned the sources was correct as well. Many books have a decidedly Catholic slant. That's because they organised themselves over the house churches back then, so it looked like the official representation of the church. They took their name from the Greek word, katholikos, which simply meant the universal church. Nice how they just claimed that for themselves. lol However, it is a misinterpretation of the facts.

I am actually doing a series for our church newsletter on early church history. It is fascinating and scares most people off. It's good to just start with overviews and easy stuff, so you don't overwhelm yourself. I get lots of what I'm writing from Halley's info.

[JoelH]

I recommend a book by K.G. Powderly of the Calvary Chapel called "One Faith - Many Transitions". It is solidly evangelical and pre-trib free grace in perspective. As antsinmypants and Timothy have said, almost all establishment/mainstream works on church history are Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican or Lutheran state church or their descendants (such as the Methodist/Wesleyan church), or Reformed (Calvinist or Arminian) in perspective, which regards church tradition as having a more or less binding doctrinal authority over individual believers. They often overlook the apostasy of Christendom in much of the church age (in particular, none of them ever critique what many ECFs did in error) and are triumphalist in opinions.

Powderly's book could be read online at this link:

http://calvarychapel.com/riorancho/old_site/Library/Church%20History%20Transitions/Transitions_main.htm

It goes far beyond the early post-Apostle years and in fact leads to our times as well. In addition, it is also one of the rare works that critique errors of Eastern Orthodoxy from a Bible Christian perspective with understanding that Eastern Orthodox beliefs is very distinct from Catholic thoughts.

YBIC,

Joel

[70thWeek]

I recommend a book by K.G. Powderly of the Calvary Chapel called "One Faith - Many Transitions". It is solidly evangelical and pre-trib free grace in perspective. As antsinmypants and Timothy have said, almost all establishment/mainstream works on church history are Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican or Lutheran state church or their descendants (such as the Methodist/Wesleyan church), or Reformed (Calvinist or Arminian) in perspective, which regards church tradition as having a more or less binding doctrinal authority over individual believers. They often overlook the apostasy of Christendom in much of the church age (in particular, none of them ever critique what many ECFs did in error) and are triumphalist in opinions.

Powderly's book could be read online at this link:

http://calvarychapel.com/riorancho/old_site/Library/Church%20History%20Transitions/Transitions_main.htm

It goes far beyond the early post-Apostle years and in fact leads to our times as well. In addition, it is also one of the rare works that critique errors of Eastern Orthodoxy from a Bible Christian perspective with understanding that Eastern Orthodox beliefs is very distinct from Catholic thoughts.

YBIC,

Joel


I think that it's important to listen to what the history of interpretation is. All churches, whether they know it or not, are influenced by some sort of tradition.

[JoelH]

I think that it's important to listen to what the history of interpretation is. All churches, whether they know it or not, are influenced by some sort of tradition.

I agree, although we have here an important difference here between mainline Protestant churches and evangelical, Charismatic, or Baptist churches: we are far more critical towards what many Christians (or professing "Christians") in church history did on proclaiming what teaching is Christian. Augustine, for instance, is uncritically accepted as a saint (I mean as a good Christian, not the "canonized" Catholic/Eastern Orthodox definition) by Alister McGrath or J.I. Packer etc, but Powderly did not shy away from mentioning his flaws on Christian teachings. And indeed fundamentalist Baptist churches consider Augustine as a heretic! The same (probably more) could be said of ECF.

This arises from a difference between what we see as meaning of the Kingdom parable in Luke 13:20-21. The establishment interpretation is that "the kingdom of God would eventually push outward until the whole world is changed". But we see the correct interpretation should be "corrupting influences would eventually find their way into the visible expression of his kingdom here on earth in this present age - the Church". We believe the church age testifies repeatedly again and again how people are saved inspite of the overwhelming false doctrines in the church.

YBIC,

Joel

[70thWeek]

I agree, although we have here an important difference here between mainline Protestant churches and evangelical, Charismatic, or Baptist churches: we are far more critical towards what many Christians (or professing "Christians") in church history did on proclaiming what teaching is Christian. Augustine, for instance, is uncritically accepted as a saint (I mean as a good Christian, not the "canonized" Catholic/Eastern Orthodox definition) by Alister McGrath or J.I. Packer etc, but Powderly did not shy away from mentioning his flaws on Christian teachings. And indeed fundamentalist Baptist churches consider Augustine as a heretic! The same (probably more) could be said of ECF.

This arises from a difference between what we see as meaning of the Kingdom parable in Luke 13:20-21. The establishment interpretation is that "the kingdom of God would eventually push outward until the whole world is changed". But we see the correct interpretation should be "corrupting influences would eventually find their way into the visible expression of his kingdom here on earth in this present age - the Church". We believe the church age testifies repeatedly again and again how people are saved inspite of the overwhelming false doctrines in the church.

YBIC,

Joel

I disagree with Augstine on a few things, but certainly consider him to be orthodox, the same goes for most of the ECF's. The heretics got dealt with, but their heresies keep popping up again. Not being a fundamentalist baptist, I know of some (one church right down the street in fact) that would probably question my salvation!

[JoelH]

I disagree with Augstine on a few things, but certainly consider him to be orthodox, the same goes for most of the ECF's. The heretics got dealt with, but their heresies keep popping up again. Not being a fundamentalist baptist, I know of some (one church right down the street in fact) that would probably question my salvation!

We again differ here. :): Augustine was doctrinally deeply flawed - he could well be truly saved, but what he taught was borderlining on false doctrines - "Christianized" neo-Platonism and its descendents - Calvinism and Arminianism - gained ascendy in Christendom largely because of his writings. I would consider his doctrinal legacy to be more negative than positive. The ECFs were no better - things were already going bad in fulfillment of Luke 13:20-21 when we see what Ignatius of Antioch supported.

YBIC,

Joel