Customer Reviews

Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

In our pragmatic, outcomes oriented age, the church has begun to lose its way. "Theology" and "Doctrine" are considered too theoretical and impractical for the needs of today.

Milne reminds us that at the source of all practice is belief. He also reminds us that any movement away from basic Christian belief is to court disaster. Those who deride theology need to re-examine their hearts and submit to God's view of the world, rather than our own.

This book is fairly simple in its layout, and is valuable as a reference book for basic Christian beliefs - you can easily turn to one section and consult it without having to have read the rest of the book. It does not go into unnecessary detail, and reflects a conservative, evangelical and reformed position.

Part one examines authority - how do we know what is true and how can know what God is saying to us? Part two looks at God - his characteristics and his works. Part three examines humankind - what our nature is and how sin has affected us. Part four examines Jesus - who he was and why he came to die on the cross. Part Five looks at the Holy Spirit - who he is and what his role is in the Christian life. Part Six examines the Church - its identity, function and life. Finally, part Seven looks at the future - the return of Jesus and eternal life.

If you are a serious Christian who loves the Lord with head and heart, this book is invaluable.

Milne has produced a fine introduction to Christian truth (i.e. theology) and I found this book very useful. I think Milne was wise to begin with, "The final authority in matters of faith," namely the Bible. Milne says that there are two sources of special revelation: The Incarnate Word (i.e. Jesus Christ Himself) and the Word (which is the Bible). Milne then examines what Jesus said about the Bible, what the Apostles said about it, inspiration, and the ideas of infallible vs. inerrant and so on.

I particularly liked his section on ecclesiology (the doctrine of the Church); it is a field that I have not studied much and it was good to get a biblical introduction to it. The section on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ was very good as well; Milne affirms the orthodox position that Christ is 100% man and 100% God. Milne also examines many of the historical heresies that were advanced against this (e.g. the Doetic heresy; that Jesus was God and merely appeared to be human or the Ebionite heresy; that Jesus was just a human being and was not God) and how they fail to agree with the Bible. Milne addresses the most sensationalized of doctrines "the last things," (i.e. eschatology; especially in the Book of Revelation); he outlines what we know for certain from the Bible and what is less clear. He also examines different perspectives on the Millennium.

To comment on the approach the Milne uses throughout the book, I would have to say that he is very balanced and sober. Often, he will briefly look at a few views on an issue and consider the biblical texts cited in support. Milne is also cautious; he is not dogmatic on issues where the Bible is not dogmatic. Also, throughout the book, there are end of section review questions (if you wanted to lead an intensive series of Bible studies, these questions could be used), all the various Scriptures cited (and arranged by topic e.g. Atonement in the Old Testament, Christ the prophet, Christ the priest and justification) are helpful as well. Milne also has mini-Bibliographies at the end of every section. My only possible criticism is that many of the works he cites in his Bibliography are old, likely out of print books (i.e. from 1960's or 1970's). There is also an Index at the end of the book, which gives the book a ready-reference function. However, I am reading the 1982 edition of the book (ISBN 0-87784-392-9), so that "problem" might have been addressed in this new 1999 edition.

I would very much recommend this book to all new Christians to get a firm footing in Christian doctrine. The book could also be described as the Bible doctrinally arranged; Want to know who God is? Want to know the nature of humanity? Want to know what the Church is supposed to be?

Why is deception prevailing in the church today? A lack of solid biblical understanding of essential Christian doctrine. As a minister of God's word for almost twenty years, I can tell you that the root of all heresy, cults, occults and just down right silly thinking is the result of not knowing the truths of God's word.

This book lays out in a very systematic fashion the essential doctrines necessary for all Christians. It reads easy and is fairly simple to understand. Yet, it is the most profound book on the essentials of Christian faith that I have ever had the pleasure of studying.

Once you have completed this book, you will have a deep renewed appreciation of your faith in God. Reading and rereading this powerful book will ensure that you are never trapped by doctrines of devils and foolish myths which plague the Christian church today.

Want to grow in your spiritual walk with Christ? Then this book needs to be in your library and in your heart. Get it and Get "GOD SMART"!

God bless you.

Many books of theology are hard to read, and often do not entertain the possibility that anyone else's point of view could be correct.

I like Bruce Milne's book, because he writes in language that I can understand, and in discussing opposing points of view, while clearly expressing an evangelical interpretation of scripture, he allows for varying viewpoints within that compass. He even points out deficiencies in his own preferred view!

Milne's book fills a great need, because many people will not read the larger, more arcane works. [Including me!]

We used this book with a correspondence course in theology, in which I shared leadership, ad it was accessible for those who had thought through the issues before, and for those who never had.

Highly recommended

What a valuable service this little book provides! Milne has the rare ability to present complex ideas in concise yet fully accurate ways. There is no polemic for any position other than that which is unabashedly orthodox - and yet he covers some hotly contested ground (see the table of contents) with refreshing honesty.

This book is very heavily footnoted with scripture within each section of text, and each chapter is followed by references to least a dozen works by scholars who have more thoroughly expounded the varying viewpoints. I found myself reading with my Bible open in order to verify Milne's exposition and I never found a single instance of scripture twisting.

Milne has opinions, but these are never shoved down the reader's throat, nor presented in such a way as to belittle other views within orthodox faith. Rather, Milne gives the scriptural support for each position AND also the scripture and interpretation which might mitigate against that position - even his own. Should the reader desire more information, the scripture in each section and the reference works at the end of the chapters provide a very good start.

Each chapter is also followed by discussion questions enabling the book to be used easily in a class discussion.

Milne also handles the cult and unorthodox position very well. He does not ridicule, but condemns frankly from scripture.

Well written and easy to understand. A good text book for anyone looking for a deeper understanding of their Christian faith.Hispoetry: Christian poems inspired by the Holy Spirit

Bruce Milne's book is a welcomed book on doctrine in a time when doctrinal material is sorely lacking. It is well organized and easy to read. It can serve as an excellent reference book. It also serves well one who simply wishes to think about God and his nature using the Scripture in a way it was intended to be use.

Know the Truth is a great volume to work through, or consult from time to time as needed. It covers so much ground, and in areas of contention presents the options clearly and with biblical faithfulness. One of the first books I turn to whenever I have a theological or practical question about Christianity.

Know the Truth is a great volume to work through, or consult from time to time as needed. It covers so much ground, and in areas of contention presents the options clearly and with biblical faithfulness. One of the first books I turn to whenever I have a theological or practical question about Christianity.

Reviewers of the book, Know the Truth, have raved over it, praising Milne's lack of "scripture twisting," his using the scriptures in a way "it was intended to be used," and presenting the "options clearly with biblical faithfulness." One of the reviewers made the claim: "Milne is also cautious; he is not dogmatic on issues where the Bible is not dogmatic." However, I think all have overstated Milne's Biblical judgment and scholarship. I will provide an example.

Chapter 7 is entitled, "The Work of Creation," with twelve pages devoted to this subject. On page 90, in discussing Genesis 1:1, Milne asserts, "God created the physical and spiritual universe at the first 'out of nothing' (Lat.: ex nihilo)." Next, he claims, "While the actual phrase `out of nothing' does not appear, the idea is clearly taught in the Bible." He includes a short list of proof texts to make his case.

In all fairness to the author, I must quickly state that he did not originate the claim of creation "out of nothing." Instead, he is simply parroting it and promoting it. Creatio ex nihilo is proclaimed in Bible Commentaries, taught in Sunday school classes around the world, preached from pulpits, expounded by radio and television preachers, and found on thousands of websites. It is one of the most basic claims of traditional Christianity. However, a claim is either true or it is false. In this instance, it appears to be false, because, despite the confident approach and self-assured declarations of those who promote it, it amounts to a mere assertion and is not supported by evidence of biblical proof. Those who assert "the idea is clearly taught in the Bible" (and there are many who do so), are misleading their readers by a false claim of strength. Why? Because they are not claiming that ex nihilo is clearly taught by Christian scholars, and they are not claiming that it is clearly taught in non-biblical sources. Instead, the claim is that it is clearly taught in the "BIBLE," and here the case is not only weak, it is virtually nonexistent. It is a sheer assertion, and the proof texts (including the ones not listed) do not support the claim.

The first proof text used is "In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). The word "created" is derived from a Hebrew word, which, transliterated into English, is "bara'." But this word does not mean and has never meant "created out of nothing" and is not a Hebrew equivalent of the Latin phrase "creatio ex nihilo."

According to "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" [key 1254], the word bara', when translated, means: "to create; to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes), - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat)."

In his famous "A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament" (page 172), Wilhelm Gesenius, professor of Theology at the University of Halle-Wittenbert, provided this definition: "to cut, to cut out, to carve, to form by cutting or carving; To form, to create, to produce, then to form, to create; To cut out, to cut or pare down, to plane and polish."

Compare with the "NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries," which reads: "to shape, create."

Please notice that none of these respected sources provide even a small hint of to "create out of nothing."

A Hebrew word may has several meanings, depending on the context, and the translator has the task of determining the proper meaning (but not invent one), in order to achieve an accurate understanding of what is actually meant.

Ask yourself why the translators of the various versions of the Bible have NEVER rendered Genesis 1:1 as "In the beginning God created out of nothing the heaven and the earth."

The phrase "created out of nothing" is a theological assertion, developed by Christian apologists in the second and third centuries. The Greek philosophers of the day claimed that God created from pre-existing matter. The Christian apologists, not to be outdone and in an effort to prove that the Christian God was more powerful than the god of the philosophers (i.e. my dad is stronger than your dad), claimed creation from nothing. Of course, this position disrespected and ignored the actual meaning of the word, bara', in favor of a philosophical assertion. Though the doctrine was in instant conflict with the Hebrew "bara'," it has survived 17 centuries. Today, because of its ripe old age, it is generally accepted as a fundamental premise of what is referred to as 'historical,' traditional,' or 'orthodox' Christianity.

Ex nihilo is also advocated in the ever popular "Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words." I must note, here, that after providing the actual definition ("to create, make"), Brother Vine should have stopped, but he didn't. Instead, he added to the definition by saying, "The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale." He adds further to the definition by proclaiming that the "technical meaning of bara'" is "to create out of nothing." A little further down the page, he makes another incredible statement: "A careful study of the passages where bara' occurs shows that in the few non-poetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material."

While Vine's claims are sheer mendacity, I must assume it is his contribution to the defense of the 'traditional' view of creation. While Bruce Milne said, "the idea is clearly taught in the Bible," Vine claims "an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation," "technical meaning of bara,'" "A careful study . . . shows," and "scientifically precise language."

But all this is simply wrong. To lend credence to the 'traditional' doctrine of "creation out of nothing," both, like so many others, have added to the meaning of bara', thus promoting a false definition. They have departed from theological truth to theological 'tradition.'

Creation out of nothing is also the subject of an ongoing debate among theologians, Bible scholars, and students of the Bible. The issue being disputed is the concept of "creatio ex nihilo" (creation out of nothing) versus "creatio ex material" (creation out of pre-existent matter). I find the very existence of this conflict very telling, because it seems obvious to me that if a doctrine is "clearly taught," it would be more than just an "idea," and it shouldn't need scholarly debates and shouldn't need defending.

"The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha" translates Genesis 1:1 differently: "In the beginning when god created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void. . . ."

A marginal note supplies alternate readings: "Or when God began to create or In the beginning God created."

Concerning verse one, the translators provide an interesting explanation: "Scholars differ on whether this verse is to be translated as an independent sentence summarizing what follows (e.g., "In the beginning God created") or as a temporal phrase describing what things were like when God started (e.g., "When God began to create . . . the earth was a formless void"). In either case, the text does not describe creation out of nothing. Instead, the story emphasizes how God creates order from a watery chaos."

"The Jewish Study Bible," a 20th-century translation of the Hebrew text by the Jewish Publication Society presents the first several verse of Genesis thusly: "When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the water, God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness..."

The truth is this: The Hebrews did not have a word that meant 'created out of nothing,' nor does the entomology of the word bara' generate that meaning, unless one becomes involved in a convoluted argumentation that requires assumptions that are nothing more than personal opinions. And when the argument is finished, we are left with the fact that the Hebrews did not have a word for a creation out of nothing, and the Hebrew bara' still is not the equivalent of creatio ex nihilo.

In her book, "On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Temple Symbolism in the New Testament" (34-35), Methodist Theologian and Old Testament scholar, Margaret Barker,wrote: "Genesis 1 does not describe a creation out of nothing. It is one of the commonest misreadings of the text to think that it does. It describes the ordering and transforming of an existing chaos. The word translated 'created' is a Hebrew word only used to describe the activity of God. . . . The Aramaic version of Genesis, which is thought to be the oldest we have giving the traditions of the Palestinian Jews, translates the opening verses of Genesis thus: 'From the beginning with Wisdom the Son of the LORD perfected [not created!] the heavens and the earth'" (brackets in the original).

In the book, "Vital Old Testament Issues: Examining Textual and Topical Questions" (edited by Roy B. Zuck), Theologian Mark F. Rooker, Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Criswell College, Dallas, Texas, while being a defender of creatio ex nihilo, makes a revealing statement concerning the absence of Biblical support for the doctrine. On pages 21-22, he writes, "[The] argument that the verb [bara'] does not inherently mean creation ex nihilo is besides [sic] the point, as it is doubtful that any word in any language does. The point is that while this is not the inherent meaning of this word or of any word, for that matter, [bara'] would be the best candidate from the semantic pool of Hebrew verbs for expressing a creation that is unprecedented, namely, creatio ex nihilo."

With stunning honesty, Rooker admits that the word "bara'" does NOT express the concept of creation ex nihilo (and for him that's beside the point), but we're supposed to pretend that it does. It is exactly this kind of incredibly incoherent thinking that causes Bruce Milne to make the misleading statement that the "idea is clearly taught in the Bible." The problem here is that the idea of creation "out of nothing" hinges on the definition of the Hebrew verb bara' (to create). If, in truth, the word does not mean "created out of nothing" (and Rooker insists that it doesn't), then the whole concept is bogus, and no amount of clever sophistry will transform it into biblical truth.

On his website, another ex nihilo defender, James Patrick Holding, author of, "Trusting the New Testament," quotes Milne's book as evidence for the doctrine. But after argumentation, Holding neatly scuttles his own witness by stating, "We have seen that creation ex nihilo is neither scriptural nor unscriptural. . . ." But this doesn't bother him as he pursues non-biblical sources to find what he perceives as evidence. At the end of the arguments, the writer sinks himself and Brother Milne's boat even deeper, when, as part of the conclusion, he writes, "One may perhaps argue justly that there is nothing in the Bible that indicates a belief in creation ex nihilo." (google: tektonics ex nihilo).

What happened to Brother Milne's "clearly taught?"

None of the proof texts, including Genesis 1:1 (where the poster word "bara'" is first found), automatically generate an "idea" that is so readily perceptible to the mind, so obvious, so plain and evident, so lacking in subtlety, and so free from ambiguity that the reader automatically begins to realize a creation "out of nothing." If the doctrine is there, it is much too vague to be sensed, therefore it is not clear. So, I do not get the point. Milne's claim of "clearly taught" appears to be nothing but sophistry, a necessary phrase used to bolster a claim that lacks support, a method of clever argumentation that seems true, but is academically flawed.

A person who has never, first, been told the Bible teaches creation "out of nothing" is not likely to make that conclusion on his/her own. The idea is not going to just pop into his/her mind. I was fourteen, when I first read the Bible, front to back, but I did so without having an "ex nihilo" tradition to shape my thoughts. I had not been taught that the earth had or had not been created "out of nothing." I had never given it a thought. As a result, my reading of the Bible did not produce the idea that matter was created ex nihilo. Of course, if I had been indoctrinated, first, it might have been different. I might have believed and never questioned.

On pages 25-26 of his book, Milne asks an important question: "How do we decide what is correct Christian teaching? To what can we appeal to resolve differences and conflict? What is our criterion of truth? These are the questions which must first claim our attention."

On page 29, he reveals the true source of authority: "The ultimate source of authority, however, is the triune God himself, as he is made known to us through the words of the Bible. . . . The Bible is to be received as God's words to us and revered and obeyed as such."

At this point, I can invoke Bruce Milne's most excellent observation, found on page 28 of his book:

"Few would entirely exclude rational considerations in formulating Christian truth; but it will not serve as our ultimate authority. Fallen humanity's perception of truth, particularly in the moral and spiritual sphere, is severely limited; the mind of the creature cannot measure the Creator; and this approach always fails to capture the vitality of authentic biblical religion."

Based on his argument about the Bible being the source of authority for correct Christian teaching, I suspect Milne would be in agreement with this statement: When a doctrine has its origin from non-scriptural sources, it becomes a non-scriptural doctrine. I must conclude that, since he has not proved his case from the Bible, it is, therefore, not authentic biblical religion and is his personal (inherited?) opinion.

Having said all this, am I a Christian? Yes. Jesus is my Lord and my Savior. I believe that Christ was crucified for our sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead for our glorification (1 Cor 15:3-4).

Do I believe that in the beginning God created [bara'] the heaven and the earth? Yes.

Do I believe the earth was created "ex nihilo" (out of nothing)? No. Why? Because it is not a scriptural doctrine.

On the positive side, Bruce Milne can be praised for penning a very interesting book that is well organized and easy to read. There is much in it that I accept. He is an excellent, expressive writer, easily understood and, if you are a 'traditional' Christian, you will find this book to be an informative, enjoyable study.

By the way, all books referred to, above, are available on Amazon.com.