Any good protestant books?

>tripfag
>defending Protestantism

Checks out

Nvm its Joyce

Rousseau converted several times.

>Defending
HA. No. Never.

Antitheist

Yes. We've been over this, many times before.

I always laughed at this scene, as it showed Daedalus ignorance about the various types of Protestantism (Joyce is so wonderfully subtle). I'm always disappointed (but never surprised) to find Veeky Forums fags misunderstanding this scene.

Most of the second half of the Western Canon is Protestant.

I hate this image. It really should have Osteen as "Evangelical." Those freaks are simply not the same as old school mainline. Episcopalians built industrial America and made it the most powerful country this works has ever seen.

Harry Potter, because you're clearly looking for an excuse to live in a fantasy world.

Moby-Dick, The Magic Mountain, Buddenbrooks, Emma, Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Bleak House, Great Expectations, The Pickwick Papers, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Absalom Absalom!, The Ambassadors, The Portrait of a Lady, Tristram Shandy, Molloy, Malone Dies, The Unnamable, The Scarlet Letter, The Red Badge of Courage, The Grapes of Wrath, My Antonia, The Last Chronicle of Barset, Robinson Crusoe, Waverley, Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Last of the Mohicans, Uncle Tom's Cabin

Paradise Lost, fag.

>I always laughed at this scene, as it showed Daedalus ignorance about the various types of Protestantism (Joyce is so wonderfully subtle). I'm always disappointed (but never surprised) to find Veeky Forums fags misunderstanding this scene.

Don't kid yourself. Veeky Forums is not the place for theological debates, but the Bible teaches neither sola scriptura nor sola fide; in fact, it expressly teaches the opposite of both (see 2 Thessalonians 2:15; and Galatians 5:6, 1 Corinthians 13:2, and James 2:20, respectively); nor would there even be a "Bible" absent the authority of the Catholic Church in determining the canon of scripture.

In short, Joyce/Daedalus hit the nail on the head in his remark, at least from his atheistical perspective -- the one system is logical and coherent, the other illogical and incoherent.

cucks. Try the redpill.

Protestantism = SJW, brainwashing, and multiculturalism, muh feels, degeneracy

Catholicism = white nationalism, tradition, hiarachy, women subservient to men, and races separate, logic and rationality

>protestants are heretic for not worshipping an idol
yep i mean it's not like malta legalised gay marriage or a gay orgy happened near the vatican

>races separate
tell that to all the catholic muds rushing the border you scrub

>the one system is logical and coherent, the other illogical and incoherent
Protestantism isn't one system, it's a label for many systems. Secondly, this either/or fallacy completely ignores the Orthodox church.

>Protestantism isn't one system, it's a label for many systems.

True dat. Every Protestant church is illogical and incoherent in its own way.

>Secondly, this either/or fallacy completely ignores the Orthodox church.

Orthodox church is not relevant to the conversation with Cranly, who specifically asks "you do not intend to become a protestant?"

hmm

nah, Protestants are heretics because they are literally defined by martin luther's theses against the catholic church. Protestants are a reactionary group that depends on an Other. Islam and Catholics, too, but to a lesser extent. Muhammad (pbuh) was the arab martin luther of his day, except he introduced the Neoplatonic concept of Christianity to Arabs under a new name having nothing to do with Catholicism. Catholics are super-official because they codified their brand of heresy as standing against Arianism to consolidate power under a failing Roman empire, but they're still just fags who added story books to the Tanakh.

This is just the way religion goes. Like in art or philosophy, every few generations tradition is overturned because of their contemporary experience. We're in it now with Science and atheism.

Melville
Hawthorne

Why do literate people go for the one true church? Hmm.

no.

get out heretic.

>There is no salvation outside the church. ~Saint Augustine

Bet he thought of that little gem while plagiarizing Plotinus. Augustine is a lame mystic who ruined Catholicism and helped inspire the deaths of millions.

>protestants
>good

what do you think?

anything by Kierkegaard

Yeah, Catholics should have rejected the just war policy because that worked so well for Tibet.

Double predestination is a heresy of the highest magnitude. This board is Catholic and Orthodox only, so go back to reading The Shack, mr "elect."

>tripfag is a fedorafag too
Checks out.

>so go back to reading The Shack, mr "elect."

He may also keep his copy of Left Behind, and his collection of Hal Lindsey cassettes.

>defends catholic just war
*suicide bomber explodes near you*
*time stops*
in this instant you can renounce deus vult and be saved or die for literally no reason

tbhwyfamilia crusades and war in the middle ages was just regular old war. the holy see was a power broker in europe, successful states contributed to its cause and were legitimized in turn. its not all bad i guess, we got trappist monks and a renaissance.

>tfw the miraculous age of sail was just the crusades going in the other direction

Well the Orthodox Church has largely been ignored in the west until very recently. Besides, Orthodox and Catholic doctrine are both fairly similar, other than sticking points such as Filioque, and are both what Joyce may call "coherent."

...

This is the greatest contemporary Catholic book. Protestants cannot compete.

The Bible

The OP is asking for protestant books, not Catholic.

The faerie queene

>the bible
>Protestant
It's like they don't even read the epistles.

Is there anyone more cucked than Protestants?

>the Bible
>Catholic
It's like they don't even read the Gospels.

You mean the Gospels where Christ institutes the Church upon the head of Peter, and also initiates the Eucharist, which is his literal body and blood?

There are lots. I have to crash now, but if the thread is still up tomorrow, I'll contribute more.

Here are a few authors to look at:

>Oswald Chambers
>Francis Frangipane
>John White
>Andrew Murray

Sure:
Paradise Lost (John Milton)
Jon Wesley's Sermons: Anthology
Pilgrim's Progress (John Bunyan)
Around the Wicket Gate (Charles Spurgeon)
The Pursuit of God (A.W. Tozer)
Institutes of the Christian Religion (Calvin)
Saved From What? (R.C. Sproul)

>Catholicism is heresy in that it is rooted in paganism
By their fruit you shall know them. St. Paul alludes to Greek literature on the road of Damascus.
>and materialism in some odd ways.
How is this?

>Peter was head of the believers in Jerusalem
>Therefore he's the bishop of Rome
Makes total sense

He was the head of the Church across the Roman world. Christ gave this office to him. And he became Bishop of Rome before he died. So the Bishop of Rome--that is, the pope--derives particular authority from his descent from Peter.

One of the few church fathers that wasn't anti-Semitic though

Granted, when Augustine wrote that the church was the only place that could be trusted to interpret the Bible. The Canon wasn't even established separating apocrypha until after Confessions was written

>*Exposes your hypocrisy*

Pshh, nothing personal kid.

...

No one has said Faust

>and also initiates the Eucharist, which is his literal body and blood?

OG Protestants don't have a problem with that

None of those works is shaped by the author's piety and Mann was a Catholic if I'm not mistaken.

The great controversy by Ellen white

Anti Semitism is the absolutely most retarded way of saying anti Jewish the Jews could think of. Semites aren't only Jews and the Church Fathers were anti Jewish, not anti semite.

Why did American protestantism go off the deep end?

Because it's Protestantism.

Osteen is a Word of Faith (fake) Protestant. Any megachurch is fake, doctrinally-unsound, spiritually corrupt. Literally the SJWs of Christendom, focusing on muh feelz over biblical exposition, exegesis and interpretation.

>this is what protestants actually believe

Then why is Protestantism in Europe so sensible?

It's really not. There's this protestant church where I live where the local pastor is a butch lesbian and has written academic articles in theology trying to justify gay marriage.

Yes, like I said, sensible. As in secular. Unlike the American variation which is more fundamentalist.

Well you also have the opposite end in Northern Ireland. People who advocated genocide rather than avoiding gay marriage.

The deal with protestantism is that becoming a minister or a pastor is way more easier than becoming a priest.

>The love of money is the root of all e-
>*Releases dozens of shitty ghost written self help money grab books.*
>Pssh, nothing personal my fellow protestants.

Hilary Mantel's novels about Thomas Cromwell - Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies - sum up pretty nicely a protestant's frustration with the Catholic church's backwardness, corruption and anti-intellectualism during the Reformation. Back when you could get burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English.

You mean dead?
I can agree with that, only sensible Protestantism is dead.

Moby Dick and The Recognitions ya fuckin swine

Papal Infallibility and Divine Simplicity made the Catholic Church in error, and its all gone further and further into heresy since then. Im not Christian but what I know of theology is that Orthodoxy is the one true church.

All heretics protestantfags will spend an enternity in purgatory

>I always laughed at this scene, as it showed Daedalus ignorance about the various types of Protestantism (Joyce is so wonderfully subtle). I'm always disappointed (but never surprised) to find Veeky Forums fags misunderstanding this scene.

Joyce LITERALLY read a page of Aquinas every day (in the original latin) and scoffed at his friends for reading nietzsche

I started to read A Canticle for Leibowitz several years ago, mostly because of the meme that it's a Catholic book. At a certain point, I didn't like it, and just skimmed through it to the end. My memory of it is now slight.

But although I don't recall the particulars, it strikes that A Canticle for Leibowitz is as critical, in its own and different way, of Catholicism as Tolstoy is of Orthodoxy in, e.g., the pages from Resurrection posted here and here .

Am I right on this, or have I misunderstood A Canticle for Leibowitz?

And if I am right then what I mean to say is, A Canticle for Leibowitz is a book that has Catholic motifs and themes, and a critique of Catholicism, but it's not really "a Catholic book" in the sense that, say, Brideshead Revisited or The Power and the Glory might be considered "Catholic books."

I never got the impression that the book is critical of the Church, and I don't think anybody can call it anti-Catholic in any sense. Especially considering the ending with the Mary symbolism and biblical reference to Matthew 10:14. Miller treats the philosophical issues very seriously by giving the pro-euthanasia and or "enlightenment scientist" genuinely good arguments but I think that's more in the interest of fairness rather than a serious critique of the Church. It's a mark of good writing.

But Luther never wanted to start a new church, he never even left the Catholic church voluntarily.

Moby Dick comes out of the mind of a skeptic -- a skeptic who was born and raised a Protestant and whose skepticism is accordingly bent along peculiarly Protestant lines, but who was not, I think, a believing Protestant when he wrote the book. Thus the book was not written by a Protestant in the ordinary sense of being written by a Protestant Christian in the way that the Divine Comedy was written by someone who was almost certainly a believing Catholic Christian. Moby Dick is nonetheless indelibly shaped by and probably could only have been written by someone whose sensibility was formed and deeply impressed with a distinctively Protestant way of thinking about God.

In the end, I suppose it's fair to say that Moby Dick is a "Protestant book," but it is not one in any simple or straightforward way.

>Its greatness may be seen not in its sometimes cumbersome literary structure or its excursions into technicalia about the nature and function of whales (cetology). No, its greatness is found in its unparalleled theological symbolism...

>In a personal letter to Nathaniel Hawthorne upon completing this novel, Melville said, “I have written an evil book.” What is it about the book that Melville considered evil? I think the answer to that question lies in the meaning of the central symbolic character of the novel, Moby Dick, the great white whale.

>I believe that the greatest chapter ever written in the English language is the chapter of Moby Dick titled “The Whiteness of the Whale.” Here we gain an insight into the profound symbolism that Melville employs in his novel. He explores how whiteness is used in history, in religion, and in nature. The terms he uses to describe the appearance of whiteness in these areas include elusive, ghastly, and transcendent horror, as well as sweet, honorable, and pure. All of these are descriptive terms that are symbolized in one way or another by the presence of whiteness...

>If the whale embodies everything that is symbolized by whiteness—that which is terrifying; that which is pure; that which is excellent; that which is horrible and ghastly; that which is mysterious and incomprehensible—does he not embody those traits that are found in the fullness of the perfections in the being of God Himself?

>Who can survive the pursuit of such a being if the pursuit is driven by hostility? Only those who have experienced the sweetness of reconciling grace can look at the overwhelming power, sovereignty, and immutability of a transcendent God and find there peace rather than a drive for vengeance. Read Moby Dick, and then read it again.
-R.C. Sproul, ligonier.org/learn/articles/unholy-pursuit-god-moby-dick/

Papal infallibility is a dogma proclaimed in the late 19th century and divine simplicity is not a dogma, even if it is a dominant thomistic doctrine.
Why is every Orthodox poster on the internet an uneducated philistine?

By denying any dogma formally a Catholic is ipso facto excommunicated and he could not have been unaware of this. You can't deny a dogma and say that you didn't want to leave it.

You mean a joke or dead?

>hated jews
>flawed

>like you and me

t. wasp

Mostly because the Protestants that we left alive belong to our individual state churches, and were controlled by our monarchs.

England was awash with blood getting rid of all the sectarian filth that escaped to the US. We still have crazies, but they can't really compete when everyone is raised in a toothless sunday tea atmosphere with the local vicar mainly preaching to grannies.

Honestly this. Paradise Lost is a Puritan masterpiece.

The Faery Queene by Edmund Spenser

>this cancerous thread

It's hard to say which is more cringe-inducing, edgy pseudo-Papist "FOR THE EMPRAH XDDD" larpers or degenerate crypto-satanist fedora-tippers

Stop repeating quotes from this one book, Martin Luther changed his tune and began praising the Jews after wealthy Jewish bankers started funding his rebellion against the Catholic Church (which Jews have always hated more than anything).

Phenomenology of Spirit

Probably has something to do with the whole 'they killed jesus our lord and saviour' bit, huh?

The Almost Christian Discovered

The Jews did kill Jesus, and they are ALL going to burn in hell. That's why massacring the Jews would be a mercy, because it would prevent so many unborn children who would be raised to follow Jewish teachings from going to hell.

Jesus and his early followers were Jews too. Plus the Romans had a big part in Jesus' execution too

>but he washed his hands!
Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution for treason, the sanhedrin had no power to unilaterally have someone crucified.

>Jesus and his early followers were Jews

No, they were Christian.

>they were Christian

>...before the resurrection of Christ

>frog image

Go back to plebbit please.