From God to Us- How We Got Our Bible - By Norman Geisler and William Nix

This is an excellent look into the transmission of God's Word.  Instead of starting out with material proofs or by appealing to ones feelings regarding the inspiration of the Bible,  Geisler and Nix hold the Holy Scriptures as the ultimate authority and use the Bible as the main and first proof of its own inspiration and authenticity.  Their method reminds me of a quote I read once that went something along these lines: "The Scriptures revolve on their own axis.  They do not disdain indirect assistance, from secular investigations; but they mainly depend on their own inexhaustible resources and treasures."(E. W. Grinfield)  The authors of this examination use the prophets and apostles own references and quotations of each others God given Scriptures as evidence.  And in regards to the Old and New Testaments they use Christ's quoting and referencing it as special proof.  They first emphasize belief in the God of the Bible and in Jesus' divinity, and then demonstrate that Christ's usage of Scripture as God's Word leads to a logical imperative conclusion that the Scriptures are therefore the Word of God.  "Jesus said, 'Scripture cannot be broken' (John 10:35). On numerous occasions our Lord appealed to the written Word of God as final arbitrator for faith and practice.  He claimed Scripture as His authority for cleansing the temple(Mark 11:17), for rebuking the tradition of Pharisees(Matt. 15:3, 4);.. for settling doctrinal disputes(Matt. 22:29).."   

After letting the God's Word be its own proof, the authors then move on to secondary matters, other logical reasons as to the Bible being the truth.  I like that with these secondary proofs, such as Archaeological evidence supporting the Bibles claims, the authors make sure to point out that this evidence is merely supporting evidence, this evidence does not make the Bible true, the Bible is true regardless.  This is the same way they treat the development of the Canon, "Canonicity is determined by God and discovered by man." The Words of God are inspired whether or not man has come to the conclusion that they are inspired.  I like those points. 

Moving on to the development of the Canon, the collection of books that we hold as God's Word, they then look into its transmission and translations down through the centuries.   This is not a high level overview of the Bible, it is an intricate look at how God has chosen to preserve and compile His Word by means of human beings copying, translating, and collecting it, examining older copies of it  and collating its  manuscripts.  It gets quite detailed about the various old manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments  we have to work from.  But I found those details very interesting.  Also, Geisler and Nix keep repeating what various manuscript symbols mean, they don't just assume you'll remember them after merely seeing them one time.  And having short-term memory I appreciate that.

 Now as I say(or at least think) with regards to any book I have read besides the Bible, there are things that I do not agree with in this book, but overall it was very informative.   Speaking of not completely agreeing with any other book, the quote I want to end with from this one fits very well:

 "No article of faith may be based on any noncanonical work, regardless of its religious value. 

The divinely inspired and authoritative books are the sole basis for doctrine and practice.  Whatever complimentary support canonical truth derives from other books, it in no way lends canonical value to those books.  The support is purely historical and has no authoritative theological value.  The truth of inspired Scripture alone is the canon or foundation of the truths of faith."

I received a copy of this book from the publisher for the purpose of this

review. Thanks MoodyPublishers! 

Christ's Prophetic Plans - A Premillennial Primer

Christ's Prophetic Plans is an excellent introduction to Dispensationalism or as the authors also entitle it,

"Futuristic Premillennialism".  John Macarthur, Michael Vlach, Richard Mayhue, Nathan Busentiz and Mathew Waymeyer team up to defend the grammatical-historical hermeneutic in the interpretation of prophecy.  They start by removing misconceptions about Dispensationalism, such as the idea that Premillennialists believe that there are two-ways of salvation, and they define what Dispensationalism/Futuristic Premillennialism really is.   "… dispensationalism shapes one's eschatology and ecclesiology.  That is the extent of it.  Pure Dispensationalism has no ramifications for the doctrines of God, man, sin, or sanctification.  More significantly, true Dispensationalism makes no relevant contribution to soteriology, or the doctrine of salvation."

They then go through and show that their eschatology is exegetically derived from Scripture, and not from a misinterpretation of the texts.  They focus  particularly on Israel, as they point out that ""What distinguishes dispensationalists…is that they believe not only in the salvation of Israel but also in the restoration of Israel…'Restoration' involves the idea of Israel being reinstalled as a nation, in her land…In other words, in a literal, earthly kingdom - a millennium."   They defend God's right  to distinguish nations/races in His New Covenant plan and not just to distinguish individual people(such as men and women). 

Critiquing  Covenant Theology's imposition of a theological system on prophetic texts, they point out that the hermeneutic of Futuristic Premillennialists  is  not derived from their creeds or theology.  "If one's hermeneutic is one's theology, then one's theology determines one's hermeneutic…A theology is not a hermeneutic...For Futuristic Premillennialism, a consistent grammatical- historical hermeneutic to interpret all of Scripture is a presupposition, not a determined theology. "  Part of Macarthur's contribution is a reiteration of his  controversial , and in my opinion excellent, message, 'Why Every Self Respecting Calvinist Should Be A Premillennialist'. 

Though I don't agree with all of their views, such as Christ being the 'true Israel', or the statement that Reformed Theology is not related to any particular Eschatology, I think that the authors did a good job with this 'Primer' on Futuristic Premillennialism.

I received a copy of this book from the publisher for the purpose of this review.

Thanks Moody Publishers!

Revelation and the Anti-Christ

I am sorry to say that I was not impressed with this book.  The best thing about it was the comparing of various scriptures throughout the New Testament to passages/events/personages in the book of Revelation. 

 First of all, the commentary was rather meager.  Not that there wasn't much written, but what was written often seemed to be a mere paraphrase of the text he just quoted.  But there was some commentary, and here is where the author diverges from Scripture several times.  First of all, he rejects a millennial reign of Christ, saying instead that, "The Scriptures indicate that Christ has continuously reigned over the church from heaven from its beginning in the first century and will reign over the church in a new heaven and a new earth beginning with the end of time.  Ever since the first century, the church has always been the kingdom of Christ on earth…." , "Christ will not return to earth to set up an earthly kingdom; the kingdom is here now."   And, "The Kingdom began after the resurrection and ascension of Christ in the first century."  Mr. Dewberry seems quite emphatic that there will be no material kingdom on this earth. But Christ did not say this, rather, when  His Apostles/disciples asked Him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?"  Christ replied "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. "(Act 1:6-7 ESV)   One would think that Christ would have pointed them immediately to the supposed fact that Israel would not have a Kingdom, that they should be looking for the invisible Kingdom about to come into existence when He ascends into Heaven.

 And so, what about the thousand years that Satan is bound?  "The thousand years that Satan was bound in the Abyss is referred to as the millennium, a figurative term denoting the period of time from the first century when Satan was confined to the Abyss to the time that Satan is released from the Abyss during the end time.  We are still living in that time period so no one know the date when Satan will be released and the end time will begin.  That time is symbolized by one thousand years.  After the time symbolized by the one thousand years comes, the end time will begin.  The exact, literal length of that time is unknown by anyone but God."   A thousand years symbolizes an unknown amount of time(and Satan is not prowling around like a roaring lion? 1 Peter 5:8)?  These odd symbolic numbers are elsewhere in the book, as we see when he reaches Revelation 11 which speaks of the two witnesses, "There may be any number of people proclaiming the word of God at that time.  The number two is most likely a symbolic number for all those who are proclaiming the word."   But in a mere glance at the chapter, these two witnesses seem to be antitypes rather than types as we read, "'And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.' THESE ARE the TWO olive trees and the TWO lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. (Rev 11:3-4 ESV)  The olive trees and lamp stands seem to be symbols of these witnesses, and both groups of objects are groups of two, which rather seems to emphasize how many witnesses there are. 

He also takes the number of the 144,000 to be "symbolic of the complete number - not the literal number"  of God's people.  And these 144,000 are not descendants of Israel(despite detail being given about the number from specific tribes of Israel), but rather symbolic of saved people "from many cultures."  According to Mr. Dewberry, "The reason John identified the redeemed at the end of time with the twelve tribes of Israel is because when he wrote Revelation, the church was predominantly Jewish and could identify wit the symbolic descriptions he used."  If the numbers are symbolic, were various numbers used?  Why do numbers in Revelation like 1000, 144,000 and 2 all symbolize an unknown number?  Why was John so specific when he could have used a more vague description as he does elsewhere in Revelation when he says:  "a great multitude that no one could number(Rev.7:9)"?  Besides, when commenting on Revelation 17, speaking of the woman who rides the beast, he says, "The woman in verses nine and ten is the Roman Empire that was supported by Satan.  Rome, the capital of the Roman empire, was built on seven hills."  Why should the number seven be taken literally?  Based on the apparent use of other numbers in Revelation, shouldn't it be taken figuratively as well? 

I agree that Revelation is made up of symbolism, but doesn't Biblical symbolism have something literal about it?  Otherwise every single thing in it is vague and useless to us because it all pictures something without using anything literal(such as numbers) to work with.   If an allegory is completely vague, then we will come to a vague conclusion: The Bible doesn't mean what it says,  It means the Church, not Israel, it means a vague amount of time, not  1,000,  the 144,000 are not virgins, "The expression 'were not defiled with women' means they were not idolaters".  In that case everything becomes open to figurative interpretation,  I could ask, "what if 144,000 isn't really a symbol of a number, what if it is actually the figurative name of the Antichrist that the vague number 666 was actually symbolizing? "  And what do we conclude?  Nothing.  If in an allegory a specific number symbolizes a vague number then we have an allegorical type that leads to another type, an allegory of an allegory, a symbol of a symbol.  If that is the case then Revelation doesn't reveal it actually conceals.  

 I received this book as a complimentary copy from BookSneeze® in exchange for my review(which does not have to be favorable).