Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Jesus' Terrible Financial Advice - by John Thornton

This book, Jesus' Terrible Financial Advice, was in a list of books available for review in the book reviewing program of which I'm a member.   The description of this book caught my attention.  It was described as not being the book that the author, John Thornton, intended to write.  He wanted to write about how his family had gotten to a debt free state and wanted to back it up with biblical principles.  But then He went to the Bible to study the topic and found that Jesus' teachings on money shocked him, they really seemed like irresponsible teachings, teachings that didn't seem like the type of instructions that God would give wise stewards to follow.  He put off writing the book for a long time.   I was intrigued by this information and so I requested the book. 

Thornton later decided to dive in and write the book with this perspective,  "If my theology disagrees with God, one of us is wrong, and it's not Him."    Thornton directs us to think about why Christ came to the earth in the first place, "to glorify His Father".  And all of Jesus' teachings, including his teachings on money, stem from this purpose. God does not need money to get things done, and we Christians do not need money either because God supplies all our needs, and he does not need money to do that.

 Thornton makes it clear that being rich does not make you an evil person, nor does being poor make you a good person.  Money is not bad in and of itself, but it does have potential to become an idol when we look to it for peace, security and help.  Poor people can do this just as much as rich people.  The love of money is deceiving, it promises that money can supply all our needs, directing our focus to it rather than to God.  And many also may be deceived by thinking that the Lord's work cannot get done without money (look at all of the Christian ministries out there begging for money!). God can supply our needs however He wants, with or without money. 

Being a wise steward does not mean building up earthly treasure, but building up a heavenly treasure.   "Imagine if you were playing Monopoly, and you were offered the chance to trade in your pink fivers for real ones.  Or better yet, trade the yellow $100 Monopoly bills in for Benjamins.  You'd go straight to the bank and make the exchange.  And  you wouldn't ask how many of the Monopoly bills you could keep.  You'd trade in every last one."  The author demonstrates from the Bible that this is the perspective of a believer.  We are after real treasure, not fake treasure.  A believer doesn't care about storing up treasures on this earth, but storing up treasures in Heaven.  A believer doesn't care about gaining worldly acclaim, but commendation from His Father in Heaven.  A believer's goal is to glorify the Father, to do His will.  And Christ tells us how this is to be done, "Jesus explains how we can make the most of the lives He has given us…"  Many of the means by which Christ says we can glorify the Father are shocking to us, such as letting people sue you and giving them more than they demand of you, by giving to everyone who asks, by letting yourself be wronged financially, even by a brother in Christ, or rather, especially by a brother in Christ. There are some questions about how we are to implement the 'giving to everyone who asks you', and I think that Thornton addresses them pretty well by pointing out that it may be clarified by other biblical truths. 

In this book we are reminded that God wants us to run our whole race, the beginning and end of it, at full speed. This, among other things, involves being wise stewards of everything God has given us, including our use of any money He has allowed us to have.  We look to our Master to give us the standards for how we are to use His property and money, He defines what good stewardship looks like.  And we should not look on our growing old as permission to use God's gifts to us however we want. The thought should not even cross our mind that we will ever reach an age where we will be able to retire from being good stewards of the Lord's gifts. We should not look to slow down as we get old, and enjoy our earthly life, our goal should still be to serve the Father with all the strength He gives us, grasping any opportunity He gives us to serve Him and invest in eternal things.  Thornton laments that some older Christians do not desire to end their spiritual race at full speed, and yet hypocritically ,"We condemn our brother who squanders his early years, all the time longing to squander our later ones."

All in all, I think that this is an excellent book, pointing us back to the Lord as our Master, and reminding us that we are to live a life of faith.  We must trust that God really is infinitely wiser than we are, even when we think that His commands are not humanly logical.  As Thornton says, "God has a better plan for our lives than we do", God knows best whether or not our earthly richness or poorness will bring the most glory to Himself.  And we Christians desire to be content with His sovereign placement of us in this earthly life.  

Many thanks to MoodyPublishers for sending me a free review copy of this book (My review did not have to be favorable)

My rating:  5 out of 5 stars


This book may be purchased at (among other places), Christian Book Distributors and Amazon

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Quote of the Day

I am consistently struck during my travels how a bond is immediately created with other believers, regardless of the cultural, ethnic, and linguistic differences between us.    In many respects, this bond is stronger than the biological bonds that exist between father and son, or mother and daughter.  In face, Jesus plainly says that his advent will break such biological bonds, and if we are not willing to forsake these natural relationships when necessary, we have no business seeking a supernatural relationship with Christ.    

- Victor Kuligin

Quote from his book:

See more quotes on my quote collection blog:  https://snickerdoodlesquotes.blogspot.com/

Friday, August 4, 2017

Quote of the Day

Freedom from sin is only granted to Christians.  Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 10:13 tells  believers that they have not been seized by any temptation that cannot be overcome.  He is not talking to non-Christians, who Paul establishes elsewhere are controlled by the sinful flesh and cannot do anything spiritually pleasing to God (Rom. 8:7-8)...."...walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh..."(Gal 5:16-17).  Again, this command is to Christians.  Unbelievers cannot "walk by the Spirit."  However, believers walking by the Spirit have the ability  to "not gratify the desires of the flesh ."  If this is true, that no temptation has ever come across a Christian that is not common to all, and that sin is nothing more than a Christian yielding to his fleshly desires, then how can addiction as commonly understood (i.e., uncontrollable urges and impulses) actually exist for believers?
......Granted, sin can certainly feel irresistible, but perhaps it feels that way because we capitulate to it far too readily.  We have not built up the essential perseverance to repel it.  We have repeatedly said yes, and like muscles that have atrophied from disuse, our spirit has become weak because we have not exercised the fortitude to resist temptation as we ought.

- Victor Kuligin

Quote from his book:

See more quotes on my quote collection blog:  https://snickerdoodlesquotes.blogspot.com/

Monday, July 24, 2017

Evidence For the Rapture: A Biblical Case For Pretribulationism

(This is my full review - most of the other sites I posted an edited version as the full review could not be posted due to size limits) 
Evidence For the Rapture: A Biblical Case For Pretribulationism - General Editor John Hart is a compilation of several essays by several men in defense of the pretrib rapture.

I wanted to read this book primarily because it is a topic that our church is examining at the moment (we're in Matthew 24). We've been wrestling with the concept of the rapture and are actually leaning strongly in a Post-tribulational direction. My dad, a pastor has held a pretrib rapture stance for all of his life, until recently, and he wants to make sure that there is no compelling exegetical argument that he has not heard defending a pretrib rapture (and he's heard many arguments for it). I saw that this book was available for me to choose in the reviewing program I'm a part of and so I snatched it up.
Each chapter of the book deals with various arguments for a pretrib rapture, dealing with texts like 1 and 2nd Thessalonians, Matthew 24, and Revelation, and topics like the Day of the Lord and the separation of the church and Israel. Having read the arguments in this book I haven't been convinced that we need to stop heading in the direction of a posttrib rapture. I'll give some of my reasoning below:

One of the first arguments given is the "imminence" of the return of Christ. We are told in God's Word that no one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son, but only the Father. (Mat 24:36) We are told that His coming will be like a thief in the night (Matt 24:43-44). The author of this particular chapter, dealing with Matthew 24, Robert L. Thomas, argues that verses like these (and others) indicate that this particular coming of Christ will be without any warning. As to the verses in Matthew 24 that seem to indicate that there will be signs to be looked for that will be indicators of His returning to the earth in a short time (Matt24:33), Thomas explains that he believes that certain parts of Matthew 24 (like 24:4-28) are dealing with the time WITHIN Daniel's 70th week, and are speaking of one being able to realize the nearness of His return to earth (parable of the fig tree "then ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh") in the 2nd Coming. Other parts (after vs. 36) are dealing with the BEGINNING of the 70th week of Daniel, which in Thomas' view, also includes Christ's return to gather up His church in the rapture, has NO signs, could begin at any moment, and is inaugurated by the snatching away of the church from the earth. "…the beginning of the week will catch everyone by surprise."

But I am not seeing, in the text, how one can, all while keeping the context in tact, separate the coming of the Son of Man into two comings or two "phases" of one coming, as one of the writers put it. And I don't see any warrant for seeing one of the 'comings' as only a partial return to earth. The text of Matthew 24 seems to indicate that Christ is speaking about one coming of Christ, and that this coming of Christ will be a return to the earth. It also indicates there will be certain signs that "He is near" and yet we do not "know the day or the hour". When you think about it, even at the time when the signs of His nearness are seen we will still not necessarily know the day or the hour of His return. Yes the Abomination of Desolation marks the middle of the week, but we are given two countdowns at the end of Daniel, both of which seem to count down from the time the abomination of desolation is set up (Daniel 12:11-12). If we say that Christ is returning immediately at the end of the three and a half years, do we count down from the very hour and minute that the Abomination is set up? Or are we counting days in general? Perhaps Christ will come at midnight at the beginning of the day immediately following 3 1/2 years. Or perhaps he will come at noon on that day. And what time are we using? If we are in America at the time that this happens then Israel is in a different time zone than we are. So, do we calculate from the time it is set up in our time? What calendar are we using? Jewish,Gregorian,babylonian?(assuming there will be such a thing at the time).

The essay writers point out that Christ uses the example of a thief breaking into a house, and that He also says that it will be as in the days of Noah. But It seems that those illustrations are more for demonstrating what it will be like for the unbelievers, those who are not watching. We know that believers (whom we presume will be watching) will not necessarily be overtaken by that day as a thief (1st Thess 5:4), though it will overtake the unbelievers like one. As to the days of Noah, yes unbelievers were ignorant of the day and the hour of the flood and were in the midst of daily activity when it came but a friend recently pointed out to me that Noah ended up knowing the day of the flood before hand. He was told when it would happen seven days before (Gen 7:4). He did not necessarily know the hour, but he knew the day and was told what to do before that day (go in to the ark).

This book contains some rather fascinating arguments, some that I had never thought of before. One such argument, by George A. Gunn, uses John 14:1-3: "Let not your heart be troubled: believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." (Joh 14:1-3) Gunn essentially makes a case that there must be a pretrib rapture as this prophecy cannot happen at the 2nd coming because at that time Christ will be returning to the earth, not to the dwelling places He prepared for Christians in His Father's house, and it is presumed that Christ will return to the earth to bring Christians to those dwelling places in the Father's house, which is in Heaven. "Since the destination points to a venue in heaven, not earth, the promise cannot point to a postribulation rapture and is most consistent with a pretribulation rapture." I do not see that this section of Scripture negates a pretrib rapture. I'll give one plausible reason at this moment: what about the New Jerusalem that apparently comes down from Heaven onto the earth? What if the mansions/dwelling places for Christians are in that City? Then Christ could prepare a place for us, come back to earth in the 2nd Coming and bring the New Jerusalem to earth as well.

One of the most recurring arguments pretribulatonists use, included in the arguments in this book, is that the church must not experience the wrath of God. One of the verses used for this position is 1 Th 5:9: "For God appointed us not unto wrath, but unto the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ". One of the essay writers, Kevin D. Zuber, uses 1 Thessolonians 5 to argue that since we are not appointed to wrath and since we are not of the "realm of darkness" that unbelievers are in and are children of the light(see 1 Th 5:4-5), therefore we will be raptured out of the world before the wrath of the Lord is dealt out upon the earth. Here are some of his statements: "Since the rapture will take all living saints to be with the Lord at the same time that the day of the Lord commences, no believer need fear that he will be found in the day of the Lord." "...neither they nor any saint will enter the day of the Lord". "Since believers are nonparticipants in the realm of darkness, they have 'the promise of non-participation in "the day of the Lord"".

I do not see that that is what Paul was getting at. Paul tells the Thessalonians ""For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall in no wise escape. "(1Th 5:2-3) This sudden destruction comes upon UNBELIEVERS (those of the darkness) as a thief in the night. "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief: for ye are all sons of light, and sons of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness; so then let us not sleep, as do the rest, but let us watch and be sober."(1Th 5:4-6) It doesn't even look as though Paul is even hinting that they would not go through the tribulation. He tells them that they are not in darkness, and that therefore the day shouldn't come as a surprise to the believers, but it doesn't say that God will remove them from the earth at that time. Believers will not be those saying, "peace and safety", and they will have things to watch for, such as the Abomination of desolation, and must be very careful not to apostatize from the faith (at that time there will be many extremely good deceivers leading people astray - Matt 24:23-24). If they are in Jerusalem, at the time that it is set u,p then they will obey Christ's command to flee to the mountains. If they are anywhere else, then perhaps they will hide as well, but no matter where they are in the world, they will not take the mark of the beast. To unbelievers living at that time these events will be "sudden destruction; and they shall in no wise escape", but to believers living at this time these horrible things are apparently signs of coming redemption for them, and are not "sudden destruction":

"But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads; because your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable: Behold the fig tree, and all the trees: when they now shoot forth, ye see it and know of your own selves that the summer is now nigh. Even so ye also, when ye see these things coming to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh. (Luk 21:28-31) 

 "even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors." (Mat 24:33)
When Paul tells the Thessalonians that they are not destined for wrath but for salvation through Christ, we know that this is talking about our soul's salvation from the eternal wrath of God, not the temporary wrath that He will pour out upon the earth at the end. Zuber argues that Christians will not be on the earth during the temporary wrath of God upon the world. But we know that this is not the case. It looks as though perhaps millions (or more) of believers (apparently not just Jewish Christians) will be on the earth during that time (Rev 7:9-14, Rev 6:9-11,Rev 12:17, Dan 7:21-27). There will be Christian martyrs during the tribulation, but this does not mean that those martyred are experiencing God's wrath, but rather the wrath of Satan. If one holds to the view that only those who are in darkness are the ones that live through the tribulation then they would need to believe that those who become believers once the tribulation begins are among those who are "appointed unto wrath"! Are the so-called "tribulation saints" living in darkness rather than the light? Are the 144,000 Jewish believers "appointed unto wrath" and "living in darkness"? I do not see how one can biblically hold that view.

Related to this is the last essay in this book, by Michael Rydelnik, dealing with the distinction between the church and Israel, and because of this distinction how the church must be gone by the time the tribulation begins because God will be refocusing His attention on Israel. He says that "The distinction between the church and Israel should yield a belief that the rapture of the church will take place before the tribulation of the end of days (a pretribulation rapture)." Also, "It is 'a time of trouble for Jacob' (suggesting that the church will have already been removed)." But we also know that it will be a time of trouble for multitudes of Gentile believers, "After these things I saw, and behold, A GREAT MULTITUDE, WHICH NO MAN COULD NUMBER, out of EVERY nation and of ALL tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands….he said to me, These are they that come out of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (Rev 7:9, 14 emphasis added, ). One could also make the case that the saints spoken of in Daniel, who are persecuted by the Antichrist, include Gentile believers (Daniel 7:21-27;see also Rev 13:7, 17:6) That's a HUGE amount of believing Gentiles, which seems to indicate that, though the tribulation will be a time of trouble for Israel, this does not necessitate the church being absent during this time.

Another of the arguments given in this book is that," Paul routinely described the church ,or the body of Christ, as consisting of all people from all nations on equal footing as join heirs in one new man or spiritual organism….(quotes Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female…. " and Eph 2:14) "…Thus national barriers or boundaries no longer positionally divide believers from one another in the church age. Today, the preeminent servant of God is no longer national, ethnic Israel but rather the church, or the body of Christ, consisting of believers in Jesus from all nations…." the argument goes on making the case that the book of Revelation tells of "a time when national barriers will once again be erected as God will again use national Israel as His special instrument to bless the world…the Pauline concept of the church as a body with no national barriers is also absent from this time period."

When I look at those passages I do not see that it says that God broke down ethnicities, but rather that He included Gentiles, as Gentiles, in the people of God, thus making salvation by grace through faith and available to all people, breaking the wall of hostility between the Jews, who had the God-given law and ordinances to set them apart from the nations/Gentiles. This fits with passages like Acts 15, where the Apostle Peter is dealing with Jews who insist that Gentiles must keep the law of Moses in order to be saved, "And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." (Act 15:7-11)

Yes, in Christ there is no Jew, Greek, male or female, but this apparently does not mean that there are no Jews, Greeks, Males or females in the church, nor does it mean that they cannot have distinct roles. If this is what being in the church means then females would be allowed to be pastors and to hold authority over men because gender barriers would be broken down, as well as ethnic barriers. If gender has no relevance in the church then passages like 1 Tim 2:11-15 and Eph 5:22 contradict Galatians 3:28.

It would seem then that the Gentiles and Jews have been brought together in one body, all while staying Jews and Gentiles in the process. The Jews are saved as Jews and the Gentiles as Gentiles. This fits with what the Scripture tells us of the church,

"But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh: for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father. So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit. (Eph 2:13-22)

"This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel." (Eph 3:6)

Israel appears to exist even during the "times of the Gentiles", and the so-called church age. Paul speaks about how "he is a Jew who is one inwardly" (Romans 2:29), not merely with the outward qualifications but with the inward "circumcision" of the heart(but still with those outward qualifications). If there are no Jews in the church then why did Paul use the term? Yes we have verses like "For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel…" (Rom 9:6), but, and I know most pretrib folks would agree with me in this, members of Israel to whom God has chosen to show mercy, they are Israel (Romans 11:7). God did not cast off all of Israel, Paul himself pointed out that he himself was an Israelite and that there was, even at that time, a remnant of Israel who believed (Romans 11:5). The believing remnant of Israel, then and now, is the "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16, and, here is where I differ from pretrib rapture people, the "Israel of God" is apparently a part of the church. God is the God of both Jews and Gentiles, not by taking away their ethnic identity but by saving both by faith, thus making it possible to save Jews and Gentiles as Jews and Gentiles. The church is not a body of indistinguishable parts, but a body made up of many parts with different functions (1Cor 12:14-21).

And this fits the picture of the bride of the Lamb, in Revelation 21, "And there came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls, who were laden with the seven last plagues; and he spake with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God" (vs 9-10) This city has twelve gates with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel and the wall of the city has 12 foundations with the names of the 12 Apostles of the Lamb (see vs. 12-14).

I do not see that it is biblical to believe that God will set up the "wall of enmity" between Jews and Gentiles again in the future, nor to think that that believing Gentiles of that time will be made "strangers and aliens" yet again. Rather it appears more biblical to believe that any believing Gentile at that time will still have "access in one Spirit", with the Jews, to "the Father"(Eph 2:13-22). They will still be reconciled to God together, as Jews and Gentiles, "in one body through the cross(vs 16)". This body will still be "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone"(Eph 2:20). I repeat: that fits with the picture of the bride of the Lamb pictured in Revelation 21: 9-14 which includes the twelve sons of Israel.

I am still a premilennialist who has strong dispensational leanings, I still believe that God has a plan for Israel, that they will repent when Christ comes again and that He will give them the promised earthly land of Israel in the future and that Christ will reign over them for a thousand years on this earth. But I think that it is biblical to believe that even that this saved Israel of the future will be a part of Christ's body, the church. The Israel of God is a separate entity from Gentiles who are chosen of God, but they are 'separate' and yet in one body, the church. 
In other words, I believe that it is biblically consistent to think that the church will be on the earth during the tribulation, and that living believers will be gathered up/raptured with the resurrected saints when Christ comes again to the earth at the end of the tribulation. 
I thought that the writers of this book did a good job at defending their points, they made sense, they just didn't make enough biblical sense to me, for reasons like the ones given above. I just wasn't convinced. But It was a very interesting and intriguing read, I would recommend it to anyone wanting to study the pre-trib rapture position.

Many thanks to the folks at MoodyNewsroom for sending me a free review copy of this book! (My review did not have to be favorable)

This book may be purchased at (among other websites):  Amazon and Christian Book Distributors

Sunday, July 9, 2017

God's Smuggler - Young Reader's Edition

God's Smuggler by Brother Andrew with John and Elizabeth Sherrill: Young Reader's Edition is quite an interesting read.
It gives you an overview of the life of 'Brother Andrew, as he later became known, he was a Bible smuggler.

Andrew, like everyone, did not start out life as a Christian, he was struggling with life-purpose into his early adulthood.  He became a Christian and had a growing desire for knowledge of the Word of God and an eagerness to put into practice what he learned and to share the Gospel with others.

After becoming a Christian, Andrew became aware of, and concerned with the peril of churches in countries that were under communist rule.  He found that the Bible, in many of those countries, was scarce and hard to obtain, despite the idea being touted by the communists that they promoted freedom of religion.  In some countries there were no Bibles being printed, in others there were plenty of Bibles available but hardly anyone was interested in owning one, and in one country the communists advertised that they were printing their own translation of the Bible, but they delayed its publication and did not allow any other publication of Bibles.  Andrew sees a ministry opportunity in this need for Bibles and starts smuggling Bibles into those countries.  This book details many of the ways that God protected Andrew and his co-workers in their getting the Bibles past the various country borders.

 I do need to mention a couple of things that I didn't feel comfortable with the prophetic 'impressions' that Andrew and other people had about certain things: Feeling positive that God would give a car, or getting a confident thought that God would not let authorities harm them on a certain day.  How does one know that one's confidence is in God at those moments and not merely in one's own feelings/desires? Perhaps this may be considered a drastic example, but what if I am locked up in jail for being a Christian and I'm not given any food.  I will  think that I need food, I may even have an impression that God will supply it, but what if it turns out that God wants me to starve, die and be with Him?  That was my problem, and the fact that Andrew never seemed to believe that God would ever say "no" to anything he asked (like getting a helpmeet for instance).  I know that they didn't mean it this way but it could come across to a kid as if God will give you any material, earth-based thing for which you ask. 

But other than those things I really liked the book.  One of my favorite parts to read was of a time before Andrew became a Bible smuggler.  He went to a missionary training school, and quite a unique one!  The school actually sounded like a real mission school based on faith in God and His provision rather than teaching potential missionaries to solicit people for funds and help.  "The real purpose of this training….is to teach our students that they can trust God to do what He said.  He would do……They cannot be effective if they are afraid or if they doubt that God really means what He says in His Word."   On their practice Evangelistic trips they would be sent out with only one pound, and would rely upon God to supply their needs and His supplying did not merely take the form of money, it also took the form of food and clothes being given at just the right time.  That seems to be a more biblical form of missionary activity than what one sees nowadays, and more faith-based.  I know that all missionaries are not like this, but many come across as if they focus on money  and the help of people   If they really are called to the mission field, God will give the needed supplies even without them going to people for help.   So I was very refreshed to see the perspective of the people in this book in regards to their trust in God to supply all their needs.

 I believe that I would have liked this account a lot as a kid and a teenager.  It was very well written, intriguing and it left me wanting more.  It is quite fascinating to see what God has done in the lives of other Christians and to see the various circumstances God put them in in order to conform them to the image of Christ and to bring the Gospel to other people.   I think that this was an abridgment of the original work and so one can probably find an unabridged copy of this account if one wants to learn more (which I will probably end up doing).

Many thanks to the folks at Cross Focused Reviews for the free review copy! 

A couple of the websites where one may purchase this book are Amazon.com and Christian Book Distributors


Thursday, June 1, 2017

God With Us - By Glenn r. Kreider

I was talking with one of my uncles some months ago and he was lamenting the lack of good Christian books out there, pointing out that the only good 'Christian' books are the ones that lead you to read the Bible itself instead of more books about the Bible. God with Us: Exploring God's Personal Interactions with His People Throughout the Bible by Glenn R. Kreider is one such book.  I don't believe that I had heard of this book before, or at least if I had it didn't catch my attention at the time.  A friend gave it to me and I ended up being very pleased with it.

In the book, Kreider focuses upon the humility of God.  He goes through the different periods of Biblical history pointing out many instances of God's graciousness towards mankind.  I'll list some particular snippets that I found fascinating:

First, in his section on Abraham Kreider points out that God could have responded in anger for Abraham's asking how he would know that he will gain possession of the land (instead of just accepting that it would happen), but He didn't, "God's response is compassionate, gracious and kind.  He cuts a covenant with Abram.…..The covenant does not make the promises of God more secure, but it does give Abram something he knows and understands." God didn't have to make a covenant at all, but He graciously did so.  And despite Abraham's flaws, God condescends to be known as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (who also were very flawed).

 Later on, in His call to Moses God condescends to answer Moses' objections to being chosen to lead his people out of Egypt, and has already provided a helper for Moses in the person of Aaron - This made me realize too that God could have made Aaron the leader of His people.  But even though Moses objected so much, God graciously still used Moses. 

And then of course, the amazing condescension of God to send His Son to earth as a human being….and as an infant, not an adult. Kreider says that for a while he had a hard time with the account given by Luke of when Jesus was 12 years old and deliberately stays behind in Jerusalem when His parents leave for home - in particular, Mary's apparently frustrated response towards Him, "My Son, Why have you treated us like this?..."   How could she dare do that seeing that she had been told beforehand that Jesus was "the Son of God"? And then he explains that his conclusion, " "Anyone who was in the presence of God in the flesh would recognize his deity, I thought.  I Now believe that this story reveals to us that Jesus' deity was well concealed.  Apparently, the difference between Jesus and her other children was not as obvious to Mary as I had thought.  Jesus never sinned, never rebelled against her; he never behaved in a depraved way."  He goes on to explain that, in a way, Jesus was, as it were, 'immature'(not meaning to indicate that Christ's action in staying behind was immature).  In other words, He still grew in wisdom, as that chapter points out, though in the process of growing in wisdom/'maturing'  He never sinned. And so Mary apparently had trouble perceiving His divinity because of this, despite having seen His perfect goodness.  I thought that was an interesting point. 

I also loved the concept that God has condescended to have His Son be in human form forever, "he humbles himself by adding to his complete deity complete humanity, not temporarily but permanently."  And not only this, but that Christ will be with His people forever on the new earth,  "The hope of redeemed humanity is not heaven but earth.  Heaven is a temporary home until the day of resurrection, when heaven will come down to earth and the God of heaven will make the earth his home (Rev. 21:3).  When the work of redemption is completed, the triune God will condescend to dwell eternally on this planet."

All in all I thought that it was quite thought provoking.  There were some things (as in any book other than the Bible) that bothered me a bit: such as Kreider's stating that, ""Although sin and rebellion will continue, God promises never to respond as harshly as he did in the flood." - I guess that he doesn't think that the future judgments to come upon the earth are not that bad? That confused me - especially as he says that he is premillennial.  And then he says that "Since the Scriptures testify about Jesus, any reading that fails to hear Jesus, any interpretation that fails to elevate Jesus, and any bible study that fails to focus on Jesus is incorrect and worthy of judgment." But what if certain passages elevate God the Father? What if they focus upon Him and not upon Christ…or what if they focus upon the Trinity as a whole? * Sigh*….. 

But I still liked the book.  Kreider does a good job of pointing out this other attribute of God, humility, that we ought to emulate, and that we will emulate because we have God- The Holy Spirit living inside of us.  It makes you want to take another look at the Bible with, not necessarily a new perspective, but with a heightened desire to notice God's condescension and humility towards humanity  that is revealed therein.  

Some of the websites where this book may be purchased are Christianbook.com and Amazon.com

My Rating:  5 out of 5 Stars *****

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Amillennialism and the Age to Come - by Matt Waymeyer

Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model by Matt
Waymeyer is an excellent critique of Amillennialism and, in the process, an excellent defense of Premillennialism.

I learned a lot about Amillennialism and grew even more confident (if that's even possible) in Premillennialism.  One of the key things that seems to mark the Amillennial view is that they apparently believe that many Old Testament passages that speak of a this-earth Millennium are symbolic, not literal in their content. They believe that the New Testament is the key to understanding Old Testament prophecies in their true symbolic meaning.  In other words, you shouldn't take these passages at face value.  The New Testament (excepting Revelation) is the section of the Bible that is the literal key to the symbolic Old Testament.

Waymeyer goes through and defends a literal interpretation of these OT passages, showing that the literal interpretation is the most biblical hermeneutic and the one that harmonizes best with the Bible as a whole.

He addresses many of the passages that Amillennialists think definitively rule out a 1000 year millennium  on this earth (which includes death, marriage and births happening under the earthly reign of the Messiah).  They think that these passages render it impossible.

One of their big proof texts is Matthew 12:32, "And whoever may speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven to him, but whoever may speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is coming.", they put a great emphasis upon "this age and the age to come" concept, basically saying that a this-earthly millennium would indicate that there are three ages, not two.  But Christ only spoke of two, therefore there cannot be a 1000 year Millennial Kingdom and therefore we cannot take the passages that appear to be speaking of a Millennial reign on this earth literally, they must be figurative.

One of their other texts is in Luke 20 where the Pharisees try to trick Christ with a question about marriage at the resurrection of the dead.  Part of Christ's answer is that there will be no marriage in the resurrection.  The Amillennialists believe that this rules out a Millennial Kingdom that includes people getting married and having children.  Waymeyer provides a good answer (I'll leave that for you to read when you get this book) and then in his conclusion says,: "If this were the only passage in Scripture describing the age to come one might understandably conclude that there could be no physical birth or death at any point during this time.  But with the testimony of the Old Testament prophets regarding the existence of sin, death, and procreation I the coming kingdom……..the need to harmonize the entirety of biblical teaching leads to the conclusion that Luke 20:34-36 is compatible with the millennial kingdom of premillennialism."

The only real problem I would have with this book is that Waymeyer does not address the, apparently future, sacrifices in Ezekiel (the section with the chapters in the 40s) that are described as "sin offerings". He does address the sacrifices offered at the Feast of Booths that are mentioned in Zechariah, but he doesn't address the ones in Ezekiel, which are one of the major questions even I, as a premillennialist, wonder as to how they will work out.   He doesn't even say, "I don't know what to make of them", which I would have preferred.  We don't need to know the answer to every question, but I would rather he would have addressed that section of Ezekiel even if he didn't come to a conclusion as to how they would potentially harmonize with books like Hebrews.

Assuming that these Ezekiel passages are Millennial, I don't doubt that they are perfectly compatible with the Millennial Kingdom. I just don't know how they are - this side of the Millennium.  The Premillennial view does have some questions that we do not know the exact answer to, but we know that these are paradoxes that will be explained at the time of Christ's 2nd Coming.  Just as the paradoxes of the first coming of the Messiah were cleared up at that time (how would the Messiah be a Conquering King and yet be rejected, and be pierced? Rule as King over Israel, conquering her enemies and yet be rejected and "cut off from the land of the living? ) by the realization that the Messiah would come twice.

Overall though, I think that Waymeyer does a great job in his critique.  One of the points that he thinks we should recognize is that "no single prophetic or narrative account is an exhaustive description of what has happened or will happen."  The prophecies complement and build on each other, they do not contradict each other.  And I think that that is one of the best arguments that Waymeyer makes throughout this book:  that, because of the passages that speak of a Kingdom on this earth, it is our duty to try to harmonize them with other passages that give us more information about the future, it is not our duty to allegorize them away when we are not given any prerogative to do so in the Bible.  We trust that somehow they all fit together perfectly, even if we do not see how at the moment.

I highly recommend this book, it is very well written (I read it in about two days), highly informative with intriguing and thought provoking arguments.  It has a lot of footnotes too, which I like in a work like this (especially when one spots quotes from, and references to, other books one may one to read) .  I think that it is very helpful and a great critique of the Amillennial position. 

Among other places this book may be purchased at the Christian Book Distributors web site and also at Amazon.com and KressBiblical.com

My rating: 5 out of 5 stars

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

1777: Tipping Point at Saratoga - by Dean Snow

One of my favorite ways to learn history is by reading  books that focus on an individual event in that history.  I like overviews too, but I especially  like to "zoom in", as it were.  One of the ways in which I like to do that is by reading biographies of individuals in that time.  One of the other ways is to read books that focus on various individuals experiencing the same event. 1777: Tipping Point at Saratoga, by Dean Snow, is one of the latter.

The time period is that of the American War of Independence, the year is 1777.  General Burgoyne is heading toward Albany in an attempt to cut off New England from the other Colonies.  It is a risky move that may end up with him being cut off from supplies.  General Horatio Gates is waiting for him to show up.  The two armies end up clashing and Burgoyne finds that he is cut off from supplies and that all his enemy has to do is wait for him and his men to get hungry enough to either surrender.  The whole while the continental army is growing day by day.

It is quite an interesting read, switching in between the perspectives of various people on both sides.  There are the two opposing generals, there are other officers of both sides, and several couples on the British side (some women joined their husbands and followed the army around).  The narrative generally moves day by day, showing you particular characters in certain hours of the day and what had led up to that hour.  All in all, it's quite intriguing and carries one along - you really want to know what is going to happen to the various people, 

There are a few problems that  I had with the book.  First, take a look at this paragraph: "The founders tended to be Deists, or at least sympathetic to Deism, people who were skeptical of religious ideology, skeptical of institutionalized religion in general and of Christian doctrines in particular."  I feel wary about those statements, I have never gotten that impression from the history that I've read, but perhaps I just haven't delved into it enough. Anyway, he goes on to say, "This predisposed them to favor flexible democratic processes over rigid absolutes.  The Constitution eventually accomplished the intended objective, emerging as an amendable document subject to improvement."  That makes the constitution seem more like a suggestion than a standard of law.

Also there was one instance that I know of fiction, an elderly woman helping her husband by loading muskets who then cannot resist peeking over the top of the rampart and gets hit in the face by a musket ball.  The beginning of the book mentions that a skeleton of an elderly woman had been found with her face blown out.  The theory of how she died is, of course, a plausible theory but not known fact.  I would rather that that that would have been incorporated as theory in the narrative, not stated as fact.  It just makes me wonder if there are other places in the book that are fictional guesses as to what happened.  I do believe in rigid absolutes in certain areas, including the topic of history, and something factual happened to that woman, it isn't up to those who follow her in history to make up their own story of her death and present it as fact.

One more thing, I had some trouble understanding the maps with indicators of where the armies were in the map.  It's probably just me though, others will probably understand it well.

Otherwise I really enjoyed reading it.  I liked seeing the different perspectives and events of that section of days in 1777. 

I won an advanced reading copy of this book in a LibraryThing Giveaway (from Oxford University Press), I was not required to review the book (at all, either positively or negatively).  Many thanks to LibraryThing and Oxford University Press!! 

One of the places where this book may be purchased is on Amazon.com

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

CSB (Holman) - Ultrathin Reference Bible - Brown Leathertouch

The Christian Standard Bible is a new revision of the Holman Christian Standard Bible.  They have made some changes, and it seems to me that many of those changes are toward a more literal translation, which is a good thing. 

Here are some samples:

In Matthew 19:28 the HCSB renders it:
"Jesus said to them, 'I assure you: in the Messianic Age, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne…" This new revision has it as, "Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, In the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne…'" - CSB

Not that I'm disputing that the renewal of all things references the Messianic age, it's just that "the renewal of all things" is a more literal rendition of what Christ said, more toward a formal equivalence rather than a dynamic one - which I believe is a safer route.

To some degree the same holds true with the following:

Daniel 9:25:"Know and understand this:  From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince will be seven weeks and 62 weeks…" HCSB

"Know and understand this:  From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an Anointed One, the ruler, will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks" CSB

1 Peter 3:1-2: "In the same way, wives, submit yourselves to your own  husbands so that, even if some disobey the Christian message, they may be won over without a message by the way their wives live when they observe your pure, reverent lives." HCSB

"In the same way, wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by the way their wives live when they observe your pure, reverent lives."  CSB

The translators also switched "languages" in 1 Corinthians 14 to "tongues", though I still think that Languages was a good translation.

There are also noticeable changes in the way the translators interpret the text, for example, in 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul is explaining that if a husband or a wife has an unbelieving spouse who wants to leave them, that they should let them leave, they then translate his next words as, "Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband.  Husband, for all you know you might save your wife." CSB  Whereas the HCSB said, "For you, wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband?  Or you, husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?"  - 1 Cor 7:16?   Which is a rather significant change.

There were some things that I did not like about this translation.  For instance, they seem to have caved a little bit more on the gender inclusive language - 1 John 3:17  "If anyone has this worlds goods and sees a fellow believer in need but withholds compassion from him -how does God's love reside in him?" CSB

"If anyone has this world's goods and sees his brother in need but closes his eyes to his need - how can God's love reside in him?"   HCSB  They do note that their goal is to translate the Bible faithfully, they simply change some gender specific language to gender inclusive when the text itself allows for it. I still don't think that that is necessary, but okay.   

And then there is a problem that I had with the HCSB that I still have with this revision.  One of which is that, despite saying in their introduction that their "OT Textual notes show IMPORTANT differences among Hebrew (HB) manuscripts and ancient OT versions, such as the Septuagint…(emphasis mine)", they do not include the LXX variant of Psalm 40:6, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a BODY hast thou prepared me: (Brenton- Emphasis added), Whereas the Masoretic text (which only goes back to about 900 A.D. [or CE]), the text the Majority of our Old Testaments are based on, says, Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; MINE EARS HAST THOU OPENED: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." (KJV - emphasis added).  The difference is extremely significant as the writer of Hebrews quotation of that verse matches the Septuagint and not our Masoretic text in that it says that God prepared a body for the speaker rather than opened his ears.   And yet they include a manuscript variant of the number of the beast, 616 - which variant is quite suspect as Irenaeus (a person who lived in the earlier days of the church who is thought to have been a follower of Polycarp a follower of the Apostle John) said that this variant was false, and that the older manuscripts did not contain it nor did those who knew the Apostles support it.  If they included this variant of the number of the beast then I do not  understand how they did not give the variant of Psalm 40 which is supported by the writer of Hebrews in the Bible!

One other thing that confused me:  The CSB is presented as having been translated directly from the original languages rather than using an existing translation as its basis. There is a chart on the website for this translation showing many translations and separating them on the basis of whether or not they are translated directly from the ancient languages as opposed to using an existing English translation as the basis.  The CSB is shown to be a translation not based upon an existing translation. But to me this seems to be contradicted by the admission that the CSB is a revision of the HCSB.   That just struck me as rather deceptive.  Perhaps I simply didn't understand the chart….

Otherwise, this is quite a nice translation  Also, this Bible is very nicely bound, with a LeatherTouch cover (it feels very nice).  The text is in two columns with a center column cross reference.  There is also a concordance at the back as well as full color maps.  All in all, very nice.

Many thanks to the folks at B&H publishers for sending me a free review copy of this book (My review did not have to be favorable).

My rating: 5 out of 5 stars

Among other websites you may purchase this Bible at Christianbook.com and on Amazon.com

Friday, March 31, 2017

The French Revolution - Ian Davidson

Did you know that Thomas Paine was a part of a constitution writing convention of the French Revolution?  Neither did I.  Actually, I really didn't know much about the French Revolution at all.  This book, The French Revolution: From Enlightenment to Tyranny by Ian Davidson sounded like a good resource for discovering more about this historic event.

This book was quite helpful, taking you through the many events that made up that period in French history, some of these events being: a National Assembly coming into power subordinating the King to a Constitution, France going to war with Austria, the King being condemned to death and executed, various uprisings of the people, the Terror, many public beheadings (apparently so common that they became boring) and the ultimate execution of Robespierre himself. 

I learned that the Revolution did not start with the people wanting the King overthrown (I guess I sort of assumed that they were all for Regicide), the move was made at first to keep the King but subordinate him to a Constitution. He would no longer be the ultimate authority, rather there would be a National Assembly which would have the power to vote on things - I think the King was given some sort of veto power, but that didn't last long.   Even after the  monarchy was completely removed not all Frenchmen wanted the former King executed (the lack of that desire caused trouble for them later on), but they were overruled. 

Robespierre eventually comes into power and the Terror begins, and it truly sounds as though it would have been quite terrifying.  Ultimately it came down to utter lawlessness,  if one was accused of being against the government, you didn't even need proof of guilt.  It was basically a matter of one's being presumed guilty simply because one was accused.  ""the tribunal could only choose between two verdicts, acquittal or death, and that based not on evidence but on the moral conviction of the jurors."  Ironically, Thomas Paine was supposed to be executed (due to various events) but was saved by a mistake.  Davidson does not focus on the Terror part of the history (It only takes up about one chapter), the Terror was simply one part of the whole Revolution…or 'revolutions' of power in France, and it actually didn't last as long as I had presumed.

The history in and of itself is a bit overwhelming as there are so many changes of power, various political inclinations of the characters involved, and many constitutions and other political documents produced, but the author of this history does a pretty good job of talking you through what was happening.  it's still hard for me to keep track of all that happened in retrospect, but that's where the timeline at the beginning of the book comes in handy.  

I want write a few notes here, about the book, first, there is an awkward discussion in one of the notes at the end of the book, that I don't quite see as relevant to the history - or at least is not something that I felt the need to know. And also there are pictures in the middle of the book, two of which (paintings) are not decent (some nudity).  

On another note, there were  several helpful maps included in the book, a timeline and also an interesting list, compiled by Davidson, of people of note in the revolution. His list "suggests" that "anyone who did anything in the Revolution that could come to the attention of later historians had a 43 percent chance of a violent death".  

One of the things that I found striking about the French Revolution, as opposed to the American one, is that it appears that it was quite atheistic in its endeavors.  Robespierre tried to remedy this by coming up with something called the Supreme Being, but even then, Robespierre seemed to consider himself the supreme being rather than any supernatural entity. That seems to be the 'thing' about the French revolutionary leaders: they were themselves the moral reference rather than anything outside of themselves - which is perhaps why events were so mixed up,  because the people, with their varying opinions, were themselves the standard rather than any fixed point.  They really were not governed by any fixed law, rather it was the laws made up by whoever was in power at the time.  The people governed the law rather than vice-versa.

 Davidson is an interesting writer, he keeps the attention quite well and is not afraid to give his own opinions and speculations on the various events of the Revolution. I didn't necessarily agree with all of his opinions of the events he is recounting, but it was interesting to see what he thought.  Before I read this book, I mainly thought of the French Revolution  as a chaotic, murderous, disorganized attempt at mimicking the American one.   In a way that is true (at least in my opinion), but it was more organized than I thought, though there were many conflicts as to how it should be organized (thus multiple constitutions and changes of power), it was, perhaps, a little less murderous than I thought, though it still struck me as rather violent during pretty much every stage, and it wasn't quite as chaotic as I had thought, at the beginning, though it still seemed to get more and more chaotic as the Revolution progressed.

All in all, it was quite the fascinating read. 

Many Thanks to the folks at Pegasus Books for sending me a free review copy of this book!  - My review did not have  to be positive

My Rating:  4 out of 5 Stars

Here are a couple (there are more of course) of websites where this book may be purchased:  Amazon and Barnes and Noble

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Answers to Prayer - George Muller

Answers to Prayer by George Müller is part of the Read & Reflect With the Classics Series (I am reviewing the hardcover version) which provides thought provoking questions and also prayers at the end of each chapter.   Müller's book details various accounts of God's all sufficient grace in the works that God had prepared for him to do.

The way that Mueller approached the ministries that God graciously gave him is very unique compared to most present day Christian ministries (and perhaps most ministries in Müller's day as well).  Ministries today are very focused and reliant upon, money.  They  hold fundraising drives, have commercials on the radio asking for people's support, and some will send tons of letters and emails begging for monetary help. I think of one ministry in particular, which, although its founders believe in God's absolute sovereignty, they contradict their belief by implying that their ministry cannot continue without the help of people, that "your support makes ministry happen". 

Many ministries act as if they are the most important ministry in God's Kingdom and that if you do not give money and they expire, that God's Word will not be given out any more.  Muller did not act like that.  He knew that God did not need human beings in order to get His work done. 

Müller took a more faith-based approach, relying upon God rather than upon people for help.  He would not ask people for help with ministries, he asked God, period.  And God provided.  "Never since the Orphan work has been in existence have I asked one single human being for any help for this work; and yet, unasked for, simply in answer to prayer, from so many parts of the world, as has been stated, the donations have come in, and that very frequently at a time of the greatest need."

He also came to the conclusion that one should not rely on people's promises to give money and that one should not even think about those promises: "Now this morning it came to my mind, that such promises ought to be valued, in a certain sense, as nothing, i.e., that the mind ought never for a moment to be directed to them, but to the living God, and to the living God only.  I saw that such promises ought not to be of the value of one farthing, so far as it regards to thinking about them for help."  This is quite a contrast to ministries who beg for pledges of money, and put large or regular donors names up on plaques.  They make more of the people, more of the tools,  that God uses than the Supplier Himself!  God is the One who supplies all our need, and though he may use people to do it, they are but channels (think "Channels Only").  God doesn't need people, or their money, AT ALL in order to supply our needs!

As Müller puts it, "Earthly friends may lose their ability to help us, however much they desire so to do; but He remains throughout eternity the Infinitely Rich One.  Earthly friends may have their minds after a time diverted to other objects, and, as they cannot help everywhere, much as they may desire it, they may, though reluctantly, have to discontinue to help us; but He is able, in all directions, though the requirements were multiplied a million times, to supply all that can possibly be needed, and does it with delight, where His work is carried on, and where He is confided in.  Earthly friends may be removed by death, and thus we may lose their help, but He lives forever, He cannot die.  In this latter point of view, I have especially, during the past 40 years, in connection with this Institution, seen the blessedness of trusting in the Living God alone.  Not one nor two, nor even five nor ten, but many more, who once helped me much with their means, have been removed by death; but have the operations of the Institution been stopped on that account?  No.  And how came this? Because I trusted in God, and in God alone."

Müller would at times give updates on God's provision for the ministries in times of great need, but this was to encourage Christians in the faith, not to work on their emotions to make them feel compelled to give supplies.  At least one time Muller and his fellow workers put off giving an update because at the time they were, from a human perspective, in desperate straits, and they did not want other people to know it, wanting to rely solely on God for help.

Many ministries want God to give them a yearly supply rather than just their daily bread.  The ministries that God gave Müller charge over lived day by day in reliance upon God's supply, many times literally being given the means for their daily needs DAILY on the day they were needed, rather than in advance.

I really liked this book. The only thing that I didn't quite like were the prayers that were added at the end of each chapter.  I would rather that they have been commentary rather than prewritten ways that we can use to talk to God. Yes, we do not know how to pray as we ought, but neither does the person who wrote those prayers.  Though I don't think that using other people's prayers is necessarily wrong, Christians ought not to rely upon other Christians to write their prayers for them, we have the best Helper of all in the Holy Spirit who is our Interceder in our prayers (Romans 8:26-27).    There are good concepts in them though, "You provide what I need, and if I don't have it, I can absolutely trust that I don't need it. "

Before I end, and I really need to end because this is quite long, at the end of the book there is an appendix containing an article by Muller on "The Careful and Consecutive Reading of the Holy Scriptures".  It is an excellent read, and describes Muller's goal in writing this book.  He advocates the consistent daily reading of the Scriptures, over and above any other book.  He describes how he once slacked in that area and how he had gotten into the habit of reading other books, including Christian ones, instead of the Scripture.  "…thus, like many believers, I practically preferred, for the first four years of my divine life, the works of uninspired men to the oracles of the living God."  As he put it, "God himself has condescended to become an author" and this is the "book of books" containing all that we ought to know!  We should not value Christian books (including this one) above the Scriptures, the Scriptures themselves should be our delight. 

Many thanks to the folks at B&H Publishers for sending me a free review copy of this book (My review did not have to be favorable).

My rating:  5 out of 5 stars

This book may be purchased at (among other websites) the Christian Book Distributors website and Amazon.com