0 of 7 people found the following review helpful
Doctrinaire with logical leaps,
This review is from: A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles (Paperback)I have not purchased this book and have only read the excerpt. However, if the rest of the book follows the same pattern, I would just encourage readers to choose a different reference work for their study.
Chapter two reads like an unchallenged presentation of one doctrinal position. Rather than sticking to the facts, the author interprets historical occurences to support his own dispensational theology.
His discussion of kainos and neos uses the words therefore, but and must. These give the sense of a scientific examination and certainty. The author should have said, "If my bias is correct, then the language must mean what I say it means." No honest scholar would give such weight to the argument made. In other words, what the author says about these words is true if his supposition is true. However, the supposition is what is in question. (See Mark's use of kainos in 1:27, 14:24.) For a better comparison of these two words see Kittle's discussion of kainos.
Secondly, the author seems to violate his own stated hermeneutics on at least one occaision...
"It is a solid rule of Biblical Interpretation that the meaning of clear passages must interpret the meaning of obscure passages. Acts 2 is a clear passage which clearly describes the gift of tongues." p. 38
It should be noted that this passage does not describe the gift of tongues in any definitive way. It only reports what happened.
A passage that seems more definitive is 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.(1) This verse seems to say that no man understands the language but that God does. (This could seem to contradict the Acts 2 account. However, there is a sound principle of Biblical interpretation which can allow for both implications to be true.)
No doubt the author could explain why 1 Corinthians 14:2 may not mean what I have stated. But this is the point. There are acceptable countering positions on most of the passages dealing with this subject. Unfortunately, the author does not indicate this in any way.
There are other logical leaps in the chapter that are simply a result of presuppositional exegesis.
It is fine for any author to write a book presenting his views on a subject. However, this author should not present this book as a general handbook for the book of Acts.
I think the book would be fine if the title read, "A Dispensational Interpretation of the Book of Acts."
(1) The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Co 14:2). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 29, 2013 7:07:15 PM PST
"i have not read the book but i'll give you a review of what's wrong with it."
Yup, that about sums it up. Thanks for sharing, Billy.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›