Why didn't he back it up with more Scripture or good theology?
341832
I really like this book and I agree with a lot of what he's saying esp. about the GOOD news and ALL things being reconciled to God. After reading it however, I watched some discussions that he had at various seminaries. One of my biggest complaints was that Rob doesn't back up these beautiful ideas with the Bible or with good theology, where he easily could! I also personally struggle with Rob's assumption of free will when he keeps saying "love demands freedom." I know it's a popular notion but I'm not fully sold on the idea that it's a Biblical one, still thinking...Since reading Rob Bell's books I have found a much better explanation of Biblical Universalism in Peter Hiett's books and sermons! His books allow me to not only hope that it is true but see a Biblical foundation for this idea and a history of the church believing it as well.
4623742
This is a good Systematic theology, perhaps as good as one can get outside of the Bible.  Yet, though his general perspective and bearing being superb, it is hampered by an unsophisticated approach.  This is to say, it is somewhat lightweight, if you will forgive the comment.  I was hoping for  a manuscript more substantial, even though I was at times pleasantly surprised by the leaning and vision of Dr. Berkhof.  Though as a Systematic, perhaps none is much better, from a Reformed point of view, as Calvin's Institutes.
4468531
Some of the lost books add details to scripture that, while may not necessarily be true, do not contradict the bible either. So, a few of the lost books add what one may consider historical filler concerning how people thought and what old stories may have been passed down to fill-in the blanks. After reading the Lost Books, the shorter books that are included in the Bible may have been chosen simply because there was too much detail in the Lost Books.  That much "detail" is difficult to verify when it is possible, due to the date a book was written, some areas were expanded to explain things not needing explanation.

Additionally, one particular book was just downright far left field written by Gnostics wanting to bring Christ down to the level of a prophet while disguising the work as being something else - disgusting. Proof left-wing dribble existed even then. Do not know why that was even given any credibility by Mr. Lumpkin.

Over all, worth the read as it will certainly open your eyes to what and how people thought back then and certainly will give you a new perspective - in a good way, on the challenges early believers had to overcome.
3116917
"Why weren't we told?"  That is a question I asked when, at age 50 and despite having been raised in a mainline and allegedly modern protestant denomination, I finally learned of the historical and critical biblical scholarship, and the information that scholars have known these past 200 years or more.  It is said that Mainline Minister is the only profession whose practitioners are told _not_ to disclose what they know (i.e. the scholarship they encounter in seminary).  But evidently there are good pastoral reasons for that, so I do not judge them.  In any case, thankfully there is abundant literature out there, such as this, that is ready to be read by people, after they become dissatisfied with the traditional understandings.
3219247
John Pavlovitz's A Bigger Table is a call for Christianity to expand its acceptance of other beliefs and lifestyles for the sake of the kingdom of God. Another popular Christian blogger, Pavlovitz is a master a crafting a well-honed sentence that strikes to the core of an issue (my copy is filled with highlighted text).

However, around the midway point, A Bigger Table becomes a little redundant. It was difficult for me to find a cohesive narrative throughout the book (it honestly felt like a collection of blogs strung together by a common theme). Also, for a book about honesty and vulnerability, I would've liked a bit more clarity on why he was dismissed from some of his church positions. It was obviously over theological reasons, but Pavlovitz paints himself as a victim of the system and leaves little room to suspect his attitude or delivery may have been partially at fault.

In spite of the book's flaws, Pavlotvitz does paint a compelling picture of what Church can look like for those who have been traditionally excommunicated from its gatherings. Pavlotvitz isn't going to win over any scholars with his scriptural exegesis, but he writes from the heart and his message deserves to resonate throughout the evangelical community whether you agree with it or not.
964803
I prefer a faster moving read and feel that the points could have been consolidated.  I would prefer more actual scriptures inserted so that another source isn't needed.
2535033
The New Testament holds SOOO much back from Christians and the world, and these books bring them out.  I never knew there was a gospel by Judas who was not the bad guy we've been taught in the regular Bible.  I also never knew there was a Gospel of Mary or this Gospel of Thomas who all knew Jesus better and in real time unlike the authors of most of the books of the New Testament who wrote their accounts more than 60 years after Jesus' crucifiction!  Still, it's difficult to understand because of the author's writing style.  He's a good author, but too deep for me.  I need to find a more basic, down-to-earth level to grasp this more fully.
608800
I am going to recommend Chris White's book, False Christ, even though I disagree with his main premise.  It can be good to read about views you disagree with.  White does try to take a very logical unbiased approach.  And he is not motivated by any Anti-Semitism, or The Church is now Israel, type doctrines, in-spite of those problem lie at the source of this theory.

So I encourage people to read his book with an open mind.  I will explain now some of my key objections.

John 5:43 I come in my Father's name, and yes receive me not: if another come shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

This is the core verse to teaching that The Antichrist will be a Messianic Claimant that the Jews will accept.  The Problem is, elsewhere in this same book White's discussion of both Micah 5's Assyrian and Psalm 83 points out how those are in purely hypothetical contexts and therefore we shouldn't build Prophetic Doctrine on them.  Yet in terms of this verse he completely ignores the use of the word if.  This verse is also hypothetical and not one to build Prophetic doctrine on.

If it is Prophetic at all, I see it as Bar-Kochba.  White says none of the early post 70 A.D. Messianic claimants were significant enough to possibly fit this verse.  I find that disappointing, the significance of Bar-Kockba is sadly greatly underestimated.

Bar-Kochba persecuted Christians when they wouldnt accept him as The Messiah.  This persecution is when the full schism between Judaism and Christianity really happened.  The earliest Christians faced persecution from Jews documented in The Book of Acts, but they had no trouble following the example of Stephen. Father lay not this Sin to their Charge.

Lots of Anti-Semitic ideas entered the Early Church after this period.  It wasn't till after this revolt for example that any Christians started teaching that The Lord's Day was Sunday rather then Saturday/The Jewish Sabbath.  And started insisting on separating Easter from Passover.

And that brings me to White's discussion of the Early Church Fathers.  If he had a single example that could be proven to predate the Bar-Kochba revolt I'd be much more impressed.  But he doesn't, the earliest is Tertullian and Ireaneus.  The Didache makes no connection to him being Jewish, it's brief study on Eschatology just calls him the World Deceiver.  Other early Apocryphal works like the Ascension of Isaiah only talk about his connection to Rome, no Jewish link.

Tertullian's scenario with the Jewish and real Antichrist defeating a resurrected Nero makes him sound a lot like Bar-Kochba.  Bar-Kochba gave the Roman Empire one of the most humiliating military defeats in their history.

In the case of Hippolytus, White misrepresents his views.  I've read Hippolytus and I don't recall him saying anything about The Antichrist being a Messiah the Jews will accept, just that he'll be descended from the Tribes of Israel.  And the quotations White provided don't contradict my memory.  White insists the Tribe of Dan thing is a pet theory but is not the reason Hippolytus holds the view he does.  I'm afraid that's simply wrong, Hippolytus's discussion of The Antichrist begins with Jacob's prophecy of Dan in Genesis 49, just as his discussion of Messianic prophecy begins with Jacob's prophecy for Judah.  Dan was the foundation of how Hippolytus viewed The Antichrist.

As for Daniel 11:37.  The typical debate about this is a waste.  I agree it implies a Judeo-Christian background.  But what everyone overlooks is he's an Apostate.  I personally believe he's an Apostate to Islam.

On Tumblr and Twitter I'm JaredMithrandir.  I have an Invisionfree forum called MithrandirOlorinBlog  I have many Bible Studies there where I address the many other flaws of this theory.  Including one on Jerusalem, Babylon and Throne of the Beast.

I do agree actually, for the most part, about the Gog and Magog invasion being Post-Millennial.  So that part of the book I can highly recommend.
1245576
I felt Neal was very polite in his conversations with God, but I also felt he was too easy on him. There were many times that God gave him a perfect opportunity to challenge some of God's  comments, but he just let them pass him by. Often times what I would have asked were answered in God's response to the previous question, but often, it was never answered. I feel the books are very enlightening and are filled with many good ideas. I still have many unanswered questions.
3660766
Scott has some good ideas which he expresses clearly, but he does not back up his claims with enough evidence, he repeats himself in several places, and is generally not reliable as a scholar in my opinion. This is unfortunate, because his thesis might be true. But I preferred the more careful work of Henri Pirenne (Mohammed and Charlemagne) and the recent work of Dario Morera (The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise) and found their evidence much more thorough.
3458008
What you have in John Dominic Crossan is a disgruntled priest who thought he could travel the world as a priest, but his superiors thought he was best suited in a particular place he did not want. Eventually, he wanted to marry, so asked to leave the priesthood in order to do so. These are a few background details you should know about an author who has spent his life trying to prove or disprove that Jesus was the Son of God, the Christ, the Messiah, was he or wasn't he risen from the dead, all of which are central tenets to the Christian belief.
What he lacks is faith, belief without proof. That is also an essential tenet to not only Christianity but of God. This is not a condemnation of him as a fellow human searching for the/his truth. Rather, everything that I have read of his writings revealed to me a man who simply wants to try and prove/disprove Jesus' divinity/resurrection.
My primary problem is that as a man of God (I don't believe clergy get the choice to be ordained and then say never mind in the sense of being then able to eschew disbelief) that is blasphemy, a sin against God. No one can prove or disprove the resurrection. No one can prove or disprove that Jesus, the Christ, was a healer, a miracle worker. Yet, that is exactly what he, intensely, tries to do. He goes as far as to tell you he does  not believe that Jesus rose from the dead.  Therefore, he is not, as he and others proclaim, the historical expert on Jesus. He is simply telling you that he, in all of his study, does not think Jesus is who Christians, and other faiths, proclaim him to be.
My advice is if you are looking for answers to the mysteries of life, faith and the bible, Dr. Crossan is not offering any.
I have sent him an email expressing my belief that he is no different than the rest of us who lack faith, that he is different than us in that he is trying to get back at those who feels trample on his aspirations when a priest and that he should take another look, away from his books. The only ones who know whether Jesus was risen, absolutely for certain, had to be there when it happened, whether they saw him days after the Crucifixion or not.
3502392
Knowing the author and his heart for people particularly where it concerns the eternal place for their soul it is difficult for me to be critical of this book! However, also knowing what Scripture says regarding man the "if" doctrine proposed in this book does not promote sound teaching or sound comfort!

Good stories and what if's are not solid ground. The whole counsel of Scripture does not line up with the loving intentions offered in this book. Man is truly offered salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone; while in this life, eternal life or the wrath of God await man after his life here.
4269805
My pastor is a "strict" communionist, and so this subject greatly interested me in learning more as I do not share his views on the matter.  I wanted to know if I was wrong, or if he had learned and accepted this doctrine uncritically.

To understand this book, one must know and understand some of the history of J.R. Graves.  History records that he was an extremely contentious man, and that he pursued the implementation of his peculiar doctrines with a passion equal to that of the apostle Paul.

As I read the book, I was amazed that his views had gotten hold of so many good men.  The book gives us an open window into his thinking, and reveals that he taught views which were not Biblical.  For example, on page 19 and 20 he states that Christ taught that His kingdom was of THIS WORLD.  This is a most absurd claim that runs contrary to Christ' own words.

In the book, Graves states: "Christ, in definite terms, declared that his kingdom was present; and [that his kingdom was] upon the soil of Judea, and [that specifically, his kingdom was] within the jurisdiction of King Herod."

Yet, in Christ's own words, Jesus declares that He is not of this world.  Speaking to antagonistic Jews, Jesus said: "You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23)

Again, in John 18, Pilate was questioning Jesus, and he demanded to know if He was claiming to be the King of the Jews.  Jesus answered him, saying: "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would I call my servants to fight, so that I would not be delivered to the Jews..." (vs. 36)

There is a reason that Graves misquotes Jesus here:  he hates the concept that there is a universal aspect to all those Christians - past, present and future - who belong to Christ.  Rightly understood, all of those who belong to Christ constitute the citizens of His kingdom.  But such a kingdom is spiritual, and not earthly bound.

In order for Graves doctrine of "strict" communion to be true, it must have a foundation built upon the Bible.  There is no foundational material in God's Word to support such a view, so Graves deliberately misquotes Jesus to say that His kingdom is OF THIS WORLD.  What this does is to allow Graves to further claim that since Jesus' kingdom is of this world, that it is represented in the LOCAL church ONLY.  If someone should try to explain to Graves that there is a universal aspect to the church of God, then Graves can quickly dismiss their criticism by saying that communion is ONLY to be represented in a local assembly, because there is no such thing as a universal aspect to the church.

His argumentation (and book) is quite extensive, but merely an exercise in repetitive claims based in great part upon the concept that there is no such thing as a universal aspect to the Church of God.

The book was primarily written as an apologetic against paedobaptism, and so the greater part of its work is toward that end.  It was during the majority of the 19th century that tensions between Presbyterians and Baptists were the greatest, and yet many paedobaptists and Baptist churches were sharing the Lord's Table.  Graves saw this as unscriptural, and he sought to inform his Baptist brethren of their error.

While there is Scriptural warrant for closing the table to paedobaptists, this book does not have the Biblical answer.  This book is based upon several doctrines which are in error, not the least of which are the concepts supportive of Landmarkism.

The book is "valuable" as a resource for understanding the teachings of the father of Landmarkism, and as a view into Baptist history, of which Graves is most certainly a part.  But the buyer should use extreme prejudice in examining the statements of Graves.
3832954
John Shelby Spong is a well-intentioned secular theologian.  He has turned away from God and is preaching a "new gospel" of his own.  This book, as are all his others, very well written, but the truthfulness of his message is questionable.  I would be less troubled by this book, and his other writings, if he did not call himself a Christian.  Anyone who does not believe in the Trinity and believes that God has no interest in our personal lives cannot be inspired by the Holy Spirit.  If we are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, we will fall into the hands of Satan.  Is there any doubt that this is happening in our world today?  Jesus is real.  He lives today.  He allowed Himself to be crucified.  Why"  The Bible tells us why.  The Bible tells us the story and the meaning of life.  There can be no new Christianity or a Bible for a Non-Religious World.  The Bible is the sacred book of Christianity.  If we try to change the meaning, it is no longer the Bible.  Call the new meaning by another  name.  The Bible was written to and for those who believe God.  I would advise anyone who reads this book to pray to God for discernment and guidance.
4440131
I greatly admire John MacArthur's articulate and passionate defense of biblical truth.  This is an important book for the Body of Christ because of its subject matter and its exposure of the Emerging Church movement.  But it left me a little cold.  It seems like I've read this book from MacArthur before, and I have; it was his most recent book, Hard to Believe.  I'm grateful for MacArthur's ministry, but I hope he covers new ground in his next book.
2624067
Though Anthony has made great inroads into employing Hebrew thought in biblical interpretation and I can personally thank him for this as he greatly helped me at the beginning of my journey, his theology in respect of the Torah, salvation and covenants is still very much mainstream Christian theology.

Covenants are valid as long as both parties are alive, and since neither God nor the Jewish people ceased to exist, their covenant could not be replaced by another. However, they broke their covenant *relationship* with God when they sinned and this covenant relationship had to be *renewed*. Jesus stated that he didn't come to call the righteous, but the lost to repentance. Those Jews that heard the call, returned to God and carefully observed His Torah (instructions for righteous living) renewed their covenant relationship with Him. The Torah is perfect and good, according to apostle Paul, and what is perfect and good cannot be replaced with a "better" one, for nothing can be better than what is already *perfect*. According to Paul "by the Torah is the knowledge of sin", so what do you need to do *not to sin*? Don't you obey God's Torah (instructions for righteous living)? Do you not sin when you live contrary to its requirements?

Jesus and Paul reacted against the legalistic approach of the religious leadership of the day that taught that one became righteous by observing the Torah. This was incorrect and produced only self-righteousness.

A criminal doesn't become a good citizen by observing the laws of the country he lives in. There needs to be a change of heart, else he only obeys so much as to avoid getting caught again.

You don't become a *good citizen* by obeying the law. You obey the law *because* you are a good citizen. You don't abrogate the law because people disobey it. The problem is not with the law, but with the heart. This is what Christians don't seem to understand.
3275034
I had a hard time staying interested in The Necessity of an Enemy by Ron Carpenter, Jr.  The book makes suggestions about how enemies are necessary for personal growth.  His suggestions are built on the framework of a personal narrative.  I have a hard time appreciating a minister who spends most of his time telling his personal story.  I am not suggesting that one's personal story is unimportant, but when a minister spends more time talking about himself than the Lord, I get a little nervous.

I get even more nervous when that minister doesn't get God's story right.  Here are a few examples. First, Carpenter says that Jesus called Judas "friend" on the night of his betrayal because Judas was helping him accomplish God's purpose (p. 4).  On the contrary, Jesus was not congratulating Judas for assisting him in accomplishing God's purpose.  This word "friend" is not the usual word for an intimate friend in the New Testament.  Interestingly, every place this word is used in the New Testament, there is a disagreement or conflict between the person speaking and the person addressed (Matthew 20:12; 22:12; 26:50).  Second, Carpenter suggests that Jesus asked John to remove his mother from the scene at the cross because her weeping was hindering him from fulfilling God's purpose, which was to die (p. 135).  In this case, Carpenter adds more to John19:26 than is in the text.  More likely Jesus was making arrangements for the Mary's comfort and safety.  Finally, Carpenter says that although John the Baptist had formerly respected Jesus, he was offended when Jesus sent messengers to see John in prison instead of visiting him himself (p. 146).  Here Carpenter has the story turned around.  It was John who sent messengers to Jesus when John had become disillusioned in prison.  Jesus sent a reassuring message back to John (Matthew 11:2 ff.).

I was also uneasy with Carpenter's use of Greek and Hebrew lexicons.  Here are several examples. First, he says the New Testament word for "glory" means "likeness" or "to resemble" (p. 33), but I could not find those definitions in any of the standard lexicons (Thayer, BDAG, Louw & Nida).  Second, he suggests that "anointing" means "fatness," but instead of citing a passage where the usual word for anointing is used, he cites Isaiah 10:27 where the KJV translates a different word with "anointing" (p. 82).  The word in Isaiah 10:27 may have nothing to do with "anointing," as suggested by many other translations, and certainly has nothing to do with the anointing received by Christians.  Finally, Carpenter says that "wait" in Habakkuk 2:3 means to "wait in ambush" (p. 67).  While the word can have that meaning, it probably is not the preferred meaning in this context.  Its meaning is probably more like "wait in anticipation."

Although the thesis of Carpenter's book is good, I cannot recommend the book.  I give it a rating of one out of five.

I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review.