Best Works on Church History from a Protestant Perspective?

JH

JH

Puritan Board Sophomore
Does anyone have insight as to what would be the best church history works from a Protestant (and hopefully Reformed) perspective? I am not looking for something specific like McCrie's Sketches on the Scottish Church, but something general. I figured I could read some biographies/history in my downtime, so to speak.

Currently I own Needham's set, but I don't know how sound he is on the matter. Obviously he disagreed with EP, and according to NP magazine (If I recall correctly) drew from Frame and other questionable resources for his perspective. Is Needham worth reading at all?
 
Brother, just because somebody is not EP and draws from “questionable sources” doesn’t mean their historical work is worthless. It’s like trying to find the perfect systematic theology. I have given up trying to find one that ticks all my boxes (though à Brakel is extremely close!).
 
It was just one thing I'm aware of is all, but I didn't know how sound he was in other matters. Wilhelmus is probably my favorite systematic theology, although Beeke's comes in at a close second.
 
Yeah, I understand. I’m the same way about these things, so it was an encouragement, not a rebuke. :)
 
From research -
Schaff (8 volumes) is an older though somewhat dated classic. He wasn’t reformed.
Needham is the popular modern reformed set. I thought volume 1 was pretty good, in vol. 2 now. I’m unaware of any other reformed authors of entire church history works.
Justo Gonzales’ work (2 vols) is also popular. He’s Methodist.
There are older sets that used to be popular amongst evangelicals like that of Latourette.
Then you have works more focused on theology and it’s development, like from Jaroslav Pelikan, who was Eastern Orthodox in later life. His work is highly praised.

I would advise sticking with Needham‘s set and going into primary and other secondary sources at points of interest.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Brother, just because somebody is not EP and draws from “questionable sources” doesn’t mean their historical work is worthless. It’s like trying to find the perfect systematic theology. I have given up trying to find one that ticks all my boxes (though à Brakel is extremely close!).
Click to expand...

Other than the justification bits.
 
JH said:
Does anyone have insight as to what would be the best church history works from a Protestant (and hopefully Reformed) perspective? I am not looking for something specific like McCrie's Sketches on the Scottish Church, but something general. I figured I could read some biographies/history in my downtime, so to speak.

Currently I own Needham's set, but I don't know how sound he is on the matter. Obviously he disagreed with EP, and according to NP magazine (If I recall correctly) drew from Frame and other questionable resources for his perspective. Is Needham worth reading at all?
Click to expand...

The PRC is using Needham as one amongst many for the church history course this upcoming semester.

Incorrect views in certain areas don’t invalidate all of someone’s work. John Murray was incorrect on the well meant offer and his reframing of the CoW, but that doesn’t negate my thorough enjoyment of many of his other works.
 
MChase said:
Incorrect views in certain areas don’t invalidate all of someone’s work. John Murray was incorrect on the well meant offer and his reframing of the CoW, but that doesn’t negate my thorough enjoyment of many of his other works.
Click to expand...
I think my original post has been poorly misunderstood. When I mentioned him disagreeing with EP, I said it in the context that I know nothing else of him otherwise. So I was asking if he was worth reading or not as a general question.
 
In terms of general survey stuff, you just want one that is fair to the evidence. Surveys can only give you so much. Gonzales is good. Everett Ferguson is really good and evangelical.
 
JH said:
I think my original post has been poorly misunderstood. When I mentioned him disagreeing with EP, I said it in the context that I know nothing else of him otherwise. So I was asking if he was worth reading or not as a general question.
Click to expand...

Yes, he is. His four (soon to be five) volume set is fantastic.
 
I've read through Needham's set and I also recommend it. He's a good writer so it's a very easy read. In general, he's also very irenic and charitable in presenting his material. In fact, I thought at times that he may have been a bit too charitable in his volume on the middle ages; though he did say in the introduction to that volume that he specifically hoped to get rid of the notion that the Church disappeared for 1000 years during that time.

Like others mentioned, a nice plus to those volumes are the extensive bibliographies at the end. I'm finding increasingly to be the case that, like @RamistThomist said, surveys can only do so much for you. History is too complicated to be understood via 30,000 flyovers.

And as to not reading historians whom you differ with theologically, I was rid of that notion after finding out much later that one of my favorite biographies of Luther (Here I Stand) was written by a Unitarian!
 
I've read Gonzales's History of Christian Doctrine (3 vol.). The first and second volumes are good, except where he says John was not written by the Apostle John. He generally has a liberal or neo-orthodox view of Scripture. But it's a work of history, not doctrine, so for the most part it doesn't come to the surface.
Volume 3 is ok when he talks about Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism in the post-Reformation period, but he buys too much into the Calvin vs the Calvinists thesis for the section on the Reformed to be of any use. It really is quite bad. He thinks it's a mark of unbiblical scholasticism when predestination is discussed with the doctrine of God. Only Calvin did it right in treating it with the doctrine of salvation. And so even the Westminster Confession is unfaithful to Calvin's legacy, or something like that. As if the point of our Confession is to be faithful to Calvin, rather than the Scripture.
In conclusion, the first two volumes are useful. For the post-Reformation, at least as far as the Reformed are concerned, Muller is better.
 
Jerrod

We use Needham (all volumes) in our Church History course over 3 years, as well as some other works as well for particular bits and pieces. I found it generally good, though weak in some areas, I think he's slightly too uncritical of middle age Catholicism for example (that's not to say he agrees with them, because of course he doesn't).

I'd say one of the advantages is that at the end of each chapter he gives primary literature from the time period he is dealing with - this is really good and helpful.

I really enjoyed this book - but it only covers a short period of history. Great writing though. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Churches-R...73&sprefix=shaw+church+history,aps,165&sr=8-5
 
If you are looking for the whole 2000 year scope, Schaff or Latourette are fine - I have both and they are good generic references. Reading through volume by volume would give a wonderful perspective for the great growth of the Church. Latourette is more recent and so less Euro-centric if you are looking for a broader balance between coverage of the early Church, Middle Ages, and Reformation and the colonial/post-colonial spread to the Americas, Australia, and the rest of Africa.

I haven't updated to Needham or anyone more modern but I like that they provide the primary sources. I find digging in to a particular period with the best of that day (d'Aubigne on the Reformation era in France/Switzerland, for example) is most rewarding. Then again, reading through a larger scoped work alerts you to particular periods you are unfamiliar with.
 
I forgot about Schaff. Just pick which era interests you the most. Schaff's prose is delightful and he does not pretend to be unbiased. He has his own blindspots, but reading him is a treat.
 
I am surprised J. A. Wylie hasn't been named yet. His History of Protestantism is a few thousand pages, but it is fascinating in that it chronicles the germ of Protestantism arising against the mystery of iniquity from the earliest days of that audacious little horn. I bought the Kindle version for a few dollars and have been slowly working through it for a couple years.
 
Parakaleo said:
I am surprised J. A. Wylie hasn't been named yet. His History of Protestantism is a few thousand pages, but it is fascinating in that it chronicles the germ of Protestantism arising against the mystery of iniquity from the earliest days of that audacious little horn. I bought the Kindle version for a few dollars and have been slowly working through it for a couple years.
Click to expand...

I would guess probably because it isn't widely available (depending, of course, on one's thoughts about kindle) and its focus on the papacy doesn't allow it to cover other details in perhaps the depth they need. That's not a criticism. Just an observation.
 
Wylie is in print from Inheritance Publications, I believe. Or here in the UK we have a set for sale in two volumes (Mourne Missionarfy Trust, 1985) https://www.peterreynoldsbooks.com/product/42746/
cost GBP 50 (approx. US $60) plus post/packing GBP 6.50 in UK or GBP 17 to USA (airmail M Bag).

I first started selling second-hand Christain books as an independent business in Dingwall where Nick Needham lectures in Church History. He is a Reformed Baptist from England teaching at a college which is probably largely Presbyterian. I spoke to him in the street a couple of times back then and got on well with him.
 
I appreciate this thread as I have not read a survey of church history since I was RC nearly two decades ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top