Cool books that are (IMO) fraught with delightful errors

I find some books are extremely cool even though I am in basic disagreement with their theme. For example, consider the famous fundamentalist evangelist Jack Hyles. In his book (online version) Let’s Go Soul Winning (a rare 10 on the title-coolness scale) he gives this advice to door-to-door evangelists:

"There are two or three things a soul winner ought to watch. A soul winner ought to always watch his odor. That is tremendously important. Not only watch about your body odor, but you ought to be careful about your breath. One thing that will hurt more than most anything else in soul winning is bad breath. I would suggest that you carry mints with you. We men have a little pocket on the inside of our pocket. Put some mints in there. I always put one in my mouth before I conduct the invitation on Sunday and meet folks at the altar. So keep some mints handy. There are other ways you can help your breath. Gum is good if you can chew it when no one sees you. Someone said the only difference between a gum-chewing flapper and a cud-chewing cow is the intelligent look on the face of the cow! You can also use Sen-Sen. I used to get a bottle of Listerine to keep in my car and between each visit I gargled."

Good advice! Hard to argue against it. Except when you are simultaneously arguing that what is at stake here is the eternal destination of a person. Then you are effectively asserting that the sovereign god who created the universe can be thwarted by a piece of yummy garlic toast.

Another must-have book for any serious reader is The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism No. 2. This volume (the second of four) is at the level of preparing Catholic Children for confirmation, typically around age seven. What is fantastic about this book is that it is both informative and yet delightfully anachronistic. For example, in a section on "Occasions of Sin" there is a picture of a boy reaching for a pack of cigarettes on a dresser, with an ashtray and matches nearby. The boy reminds himself: "These are my father’s cigarettes. But he told me not to smoke, I'm too young..."

On the inside cover of the catechism we read:

"The faithful who devote twenty minutes to a half hour to teaching or studying Christian Doctrine may gain: An indulgence of 3 years. A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions twice a month, if the above practice is carried out at least twice a month. --Apostolic Brief, March 12, 1930; S. P. Ap., May 26, 1949. "

In teaching about the Eucharist and transubstantiation, the catechism states:

 351. Is Jesus Christ whole and entire both under the appearances of bread and under the appearances of wine? Jesus Christ is whole and entire both under the appearances of bread and under the appearances of wine. 

Notice what it states, for it is substantive: it argues that the body and the blood are both present in the bread and wine separately. The bread is not only body, and the the wine is not only blood. The reason for this doctrine, which is to defend the historic practice of withholding the wine from the laity (because they have a tendency to spill it, which necessitates special cleansing) is not mentioned. If the blood is also present in the bread and not just the wine, then the bread constitutes a complete meal, and the laity is not missing anything by not drinking the wine, so no spills to worry about.

I found quite interesting an explanation as to why transubstantiation doesn't go all the way--that is, why only the substance of the bread changes, but not the appearances:

The appearances of bread would also change into those of Christ if God did not prevent this by a miracle. When the priest says, "This is my body," at Mass, you would immediately see Christ, and not the appearances of bread, if God did not prevent it by a miracle. He keeps the appearances of bread in existence to enable us to eat the flesh of Christ without difficulty. (p. 165) 

Awesome.

These are both fantastic books--but the undisputed gold medalist in this genre (cool wrong books) is the Scofield Bible.

click to enlarge

C. I. Scofield was a genius. A misguided genius, but nevertheless a genius. Scofield did something that was a novel innovation. He published his Scofield Reference Bible (1909, rev. 1917) in which he embedded his notes and extensive cross-referencing scheme--unambiguously written from a dispensational viewpoint, into the biblical text rather than in a separate commentary. Combined with the fact that his notes were written with an air of absolute authority left many believers with the impression that Scofield's commentary had been vetted by ages and sages.

Some trivia about Scofield, especially given the types of churches that still adhere to dispensational premillennialism (which is cool but wrong in its own right ) is that he was an Old Earth Creationist. It is interesting--dispensationalism is the only systematic theology developed in the scientific era. As such, Scofield was well aware of fact that geology teaches us that the earth is old. So he embedded a particular form of OEC into his notes: the gap theory. He taught of an unknowable (from scripture, at least) long period of time between the first verse of the bible and the second. When he picks it up in the second verse he sounds like a garden variety YEC--he taught literal 24-hour days and even included Bishop Usher's calculations (with the dreaded 4004 BC result) in his original notes. So many people think was a YEC. But he wasn't.

 Note to church librarian: why are these classics not available in our book nook?