Book Details:
• Editor: John R. Kohlenberger III
• Category: Bibles
• Publisher: Zondervan (2012)
• Format: hardcover
• Page Count: 976
• ISBN#: 9780310495901
• List Price: $52.99
• Rating: Highly Recommended
Review:
The NIV Greek and English New Testament is a Greek student’s dream. In one volume both the Greek and English New Testaments are beautifully presented for devotional reading. The 2012 edition, contains the text of the newly updated New International Version (NIV) on one side, and its underlying Greek testament on the other. An introduction to the NIV Greek and English New Testament is included along with the preface to the 2011 NIV. To make the volume complete, at the back is a condensed Greek-English dictionary, edited by William D. Mounce.
The text of this volume is clear and readable, and the margin is nice and wide at 1 inch. It uses a single column format and includes some footnotes, although nothing compared to what one would find in a study Bible or a Greek NT apparatus. The Greek footnotes primarily document differences between the NA27/UBS4 Greek text and the text given which underlies the NIV (600+ differences). They also provide the underlying Greek text for some of the additional variant readings the NIV text footnotes, often involving differences from the text of the King James Bible. The complete English text footnotes are included on the right side of the leaf, where the English text is found. This book is available in imitation leather bound, but works nicely in hardback, as I have it. The pages are thin and lay smooth, yet are of a slightly heavier weight than those found in a typical New Testament. This makes them suitable for the wear and tear of a highlighter and pen, yet still light enough to turn easily for devotional reading.
The presentation of the book is first-rate, but it is not meant to supplant the place of a standard United Bible Societies (UBS) or Nestle-Aland (NA) Greek New Testament. This book came out just as the NA28 hit the presses. But with so few changes in the NA28 from the NA27, this should not harm the value of this study tool. Of course, it would not have provided the NA28 text since the NIV 2011 was not based on it – but it could have included footnotes to the differences between its text and that of the NA28. I am confident that future editions of this resource will do so, provided the NA28 meets the widespread acclaim that its predecessor has.
Another drawback to this work is that it does not footnote all significant differences. Sometimes a significant variant between the KJV and the NIV receives no comment in the English or the Greek footnotes, as in the case of 1 Tim. 3:16 (ος “he who” vs. θεος “God”). In other places, the NIV footnote points out a difference, but the Greek footnotes do not provide the underlying KJV Greek text, as in Jn. 1:18 (μονογενης υιος “only Son” vs. μονογενης θεος “only God”). Sometimes it is unclear if the NIV is referring to an obscure manuscript reading which is not in a published text or not, and the lack of a Greek note makes this more difficult to determine, as at Rom. 8:11 and 1 Cor. 8:2-3. Equally frustrating to someone turning to this resource for help with the Greek text, are places where the NIV mentions textual differences yet the Greek footnote tells the researcher to look up Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the desired information. This is found at Jude 22-23, where it must be noted that plenty of white space exists for the delineation of a few of the textual variants the English footnote alludes to.
Ultimately, however, it is unfair to complain that this tool is not the be-all, end-all resource for textual criticism. It was not designed to be this, after all. It will not replace your Greek testament’s apparatus, but it will make for an easier trip to class or Sunday service. Instead of bringing along a Greek New Testament and your English version of choice, you can tout your NIV Greek and English New Testament and follow along, making a few trips to the dictionary in the back if you get stuck.
Now, not everyone is going to fall in love with the 2011 NIV. Many of us prefer our ESV, or the 1984 NIV, thank you very much! But this tool will meet the needs of some and may warm others up to the fresh NIV translation. Not many translations today provide their underlying Greek, but the NIV does. And in places where you think the new translation gets it wrong, there is plenty of room for jotting your observation down in the margin. This is a fine volume and a useful resource for anyone who is familiar with NT Greek (or hopes to be). I highly recommend it.
Author Info: John R. Kohlenberger III (MA, Western Seminary) is the author or coeditor of more than three dozen biblical reference books and study Bibles, including The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, NRSV Concordance Unabridged, Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament, Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old Testament, and the Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Abridged Edition. He has taught at Multnomah Bible College and Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon.
Perhaps no chapter in the Old Testament is more foundational to the cause of Jewish evangelism than Isaiah 53. In The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology editors Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser bring together an impressive group of scholars to discuss this text in full detail. The result is an academic work that aims to equip church leaders for effectively using this pivotal chapter in Jewish evangelism.
The book is divided into three sections. Part 1 coves Christian and Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53. These first two chapters were most informative and really are worth the price of the book. Richard Averbeck surveys a wide variety of Christian interpretations, and Michael Brown masterfully gives a thorough treatment of Jewish opinions on this passage.
Part 2 is a collection of various essays on Isaiah 53 and is the weakest part of the book in my opinion. The essays themselves are fine, but there is repetition and disparity between them. Most of them spend some time discussing whether the Suffering Servant is collectively understood as Israel or should be viewed as an individual Messianic figure. These essays are written independently and not situated in the flow of the book well, so we cover the same ground over and over again. That being said, the articles do make some important points and cover different points of emphases when it comes to Isaiah 53’s development in the New Testament.
Part 3 covers Isaiah 53 in practical theology and is quite good. Mitch Glaser’s piece on using Isaiah 53 in Jewish Evangelism is excellent. His explanation of orthodox Jewish objections to Isaiah 53’s use by Christians as opposed to the average Jewish person’s more secular outlook to the passage is priceless. Too often, we assume that Jews think like Christians when it comes to God’s holiness and personal sin, blood atonement and the like, and Glaser assures us this is not the case.
The book ends with an odd concluding chapter, in which Darrell Bock excerpts several paragraphs from each of the chapters in the book. It seems a strange way to conclude a book, but I wonder if it is an attempt to forge a greater unity between disparate pieces? An appendix then includes two sample sermons on Isaiah 53.
The book points us to numerous additional resources throughout, and really does cover Isaiah 53 well. It definitely accomplishes the task it sets out to achieve. Yet the book is clearly directed toward a more scholarly audience and I believe this will limit its effectiveness. There are no transliterations of Hebrew and Greek terms provided, and sometimes there are not even short lexical definitions of them included either. The interaction with scholarly literature, too, is much more than the average lay leader is equipped to handle. Still there is a lot of value to be had in the book, and I was thankful to be reminded of how important this single chapter is for Jewish evangelism.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Kregel Academic. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.
About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.
Today, I wanted to give an excerpt from a helpful booklet from Wheaton College entitled Understanding Homosexuality. Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian (Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Studies, Emeritus, Wheaton College) challenges the Christian Church on our attitude toward homosexuals at the conclusion of his article in the above mentioned booklet “Part 1: Biblical and Theological Understanding”.
Dr. Bilezikian’s concerns are especially poignant for the more conservative side of evangelicalism. Many fundamental Baptists seem to have such a view of homosexuality by default. It’s easy for any of us to stoop to this perspective. I hope these remarks, however, can help us be careful not to despise homosexuals but rather be positioned to actually serve them as Christ would.
And now a word to the rest of us who are not battling homosexuality. I suppose we represent a broad variety of attitudes, from thoughtless unconcern to violent revulsion. Both of these extremes are sinful. The biblical command, regarding our response to a brother or sister who struggles with a problem we do not have is for the strong to help the weak””neither indifference nor rejection, but the extension of God’s redemptive and restoring love. Particularly grievous among Christians is the sin of homophobia””the hatred of homosexuals, a judgmental, censorious spirit expressed in ridicule, queer jokes, impersonation of gay mannerisms, macho stories of gay-bashing.
I would like Christ himself to speak to this kind of attitude as he does in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7. “Judge not, that you be not judged.” An absolute, categorical prohibition on the part of Jesus. Can’t we make exceptions in the case of gays? Isn’t that sin bad enough so we can allow ourselves to judge? It’s as if Jesus were saying, “Read my lips! Judge not.” And that is exactly what he means, “Judge not.” In fact, Paul adds to this as he says in I Corinthians, chapter 5, verses 11-12, “Don’t even judge outsiders, because that is God’s business. You are not in the business of judging. You take care of yourself and of your community.” And Christ adds a warning, “So that you will not be judged.” In other words, the same harshness that you apply to your judging will be applied to your sins. The Scripture reminds us that judgment is without mercy to those who have shown no mercy. And Jesus gives reasons for his absolute prohibition, “for with the judgments you pronounce, you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you’ll get.” He says there is no double standard with God. With us, there is. We have a tendency to be hard on others, easy on ourselves. Not with God!
The second reason, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye but do not see the log which is in your eye?” What is your real motivation for judging? It indicates that you have problems yourself and that you are trying to mask them with this kind of diversionary tactic by your attacks on other people. Often most hate-filled critics of homosexuals are people who feel insecure about their own sexuality.
And the third reason Jesus gives for not judging is, “How can you say to your brother, let me take the speck out of your eye when there is a log in your own eye?” This question addresses the issue of competency. Are you competent to judge? Do you know what is going on in the soul of that brother or that sister? Can you identify the composites of their background, understand their upbringing, the decisions that have been made in the past, identify with their compulsions, with the intensity of their addictions? Can you understand that? In I Corinthians, chapter 4, verse 5, the apostle Paul tells us that God can do that because he knows the secrets in the hearts of humans. But can you stand in someone else’s shoes, and can you say, “I would have done better under the same circumstances” ? What is the proper attitude? Jesus says, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” He says, “First take care of yourself. Clean up your act, and when you are righteous, you may address your brother. Only then, may you take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” You will not judge but help the person.
And there are different ways of helping the person. There are patterns in the Scriptures for exhorting each other, for rebuking each other on an individual basis first, and then getting the community involved, and confronting in love. When that doesn’t work, the offending person becomes to us “like a publican and a Gentile,” said Jesus (Matt. 18: 15-17). What does that mean? Jesus loved Gentiles and publicans. He ministered to them, and he died for them. So this doesn’t mean we are supposed to reject them. It means that we make the redeeming love of God real to them. We start again from the ground up, from square one. We don’t give up. God is not in the business of rejecting people. He wants all people to be saved because they matter to him. Each one of us needs to present himself or herself before God, whether we are struggling with this problem or with another problem which may be just as grievous in the eyes of God as homosexuality.
We need to confess to God that we are all partakers in fallen humanity, and that we are often stuck in our sinful state. Sometimes our sins are flagrant, sometimes they are hidden in the secret places of our souls. We need to confess the sins that pertain to the misuse of our sexuality, one way or the other, even the sins that pertain to our thought life. The apostle Paul put in the same category the sin of homosexuality and those of greed and reviling. Some of us have to confess that by reviling homosexuals we have entered that same category of gravity of offense before God.
We need to come to God as a community but also as individuals. We must ask him to search our hearts and to cause us grief where there is need for repentance. But we need also to remember that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. And yet, if we confess our sin, God is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [emphasis added]
Recently, I read a fascinating review of the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible by Albertus Pieters, written in 1938. The book is small, since it was actually a lecture delivered to the Ministerial Association of the Christian Reformed Church at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI.
One of the points which most struck me, was Pieters’ objection to “the oracular and authoritative tone employed throughout” Scofield’s work. I see the same tendency among conservative pastors and teachers. I call the problem “homiletical certainty”.
In matters where a variance of opinion exists among Bible-believing evangelical Christians, I think pastors ought to be somewhat tentative in affirming their own position. Instead, the mere existence of differing interpretations is rarely even acknowledged, let alone mentioned. There is a sense that ministers have a duty to be dogmatic on every point they address behind the pulpit. I’m not so sure that this dogmatism really serves the church in the end.
I am not postmodern or emergent by any stretch, mind you. But a certain amount of theological and homiletical uncertainty is healthy. What is wrong with saying, “this is my opinion for these reasons, but other good Christians disagree”? In fact, finding out why others think the way they do, helps us to truly understand the opposing view. And even when we disagree, we can appreciate differing perspectives. We shouldn’t fear the truth, and if our position really is true, it will withstand any test.
So with this in mind, let me provide some excerpts from Albertus Pieters’ speech about the Scofield Bible. This isn’t so much a rant on Scofield as it is a corrective for the homiletical practices of many preachers today.
Another thing that goes far to explain the widespread use and great influence of this work, is the oracular and authoritative tone employed throughout. Here we come to something we can not praise, although we admit its effectiveness with superficial Bible students — as most people are. Dr. Scofield never by any chance intimates that he may be mistaken, or that any other view is possible but the one he lays down. In one place I did find him presenting three possible alternative explanations, without deciding which was right, but this is a rare exception. For the most part, no infallible Pope could speak with greater certainty and authority than he; and this is true no matter what the subject under discussion. Whether dealing with the great doctrines which are the common confession of all Christendom, or with obscure and doubtful points of eschatology, where the most learned and competent expositors confess themselves at a loss, everywhere it is the same “ipse dixit” style….
In line with this authoritative attitude, and necessitated by it, is the fact that Dr. Scofield never argues, never explains, never apologizes, and never assigns any reasons for asserting that this or that is true…. Had he given his reasons, the intelligent reader would have begun to judge whether these reasons were convincing: by withholding all reasons he gives the impression that, if he did give them, they would be found satisfactory….
Now there are certainly times, places, and circumstances where this is the correct procedure. In teaching small children one can speak thus. The man who proclaims the great Christian doctrines is entitled to speak positively and with authority. He has the Holy Scriptures and the consensus of the Christian church from the beginning with him and behind him as he preaches these truths…. Besides this, any one called to the office of a Christian pastor in a given denomination has both the right and the duty to affirm, in his own pulpit, the distinctive doctrines of his own denomination, without qualification or apology. That is what he is there for; what he has been called to do; what his people want him to do, and understand that he is doing. He speaks not as an individual, but as an official teacher, the mouth-piece of his denomination….
In the case of the Scofield Bible, however, these considerations do not apply. He is not dealing with children, nor is he speaking in any sense in an official and representative capacity. In his presentation of the great central doctrines, he has the whole church behind him, but in a large part of his teachings he represents a minority of a minority, teaching a millennialism which no Christian church has ever admitted to its creed, and of that millennialism a special form which many of the wisest millenarians repudiate. Yet in all of this, as also in his remarks on chronology, and general Bible knowledge, he maintains the same oracular “I know it all” attitude. As a method of inspiring confidence among ignorant people, the method has merits, its effectiveness can not be denied; but from a moral standpoint it deserves severe condemnation. Dr. Scofield had no right thus to assume superiority over his brethren, to whom the Holy Spirit was given as well as to him, and many of whom had qualifications of scholarship far beyond anything he could claim.
In the field of Systematic Theology he is good, for there he utilizes the fruits of the standard Protestant and Calvinistic thinking; but in general Bible knowledge he makes many mistakes, and in his eschatology he goes far astray from anything the church has ever believed. Undoubtedly this oracular and authoritative manner has been effective, but it is not to be excused for that reason. It seems like a harsh judgement, but in the interests of truth it must be uttered: Dr. Scofield in this was acting the part of an intellectual charlatan, a fraud who pretends to knowledge which he does not possess; like a quack doctor, who is ready with a confident diagnosis in many cases where a competent physician is unable to decide. (pg. 7-11)
The title of a new book by James Payton is sure to raise some eyebrows: Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings. This new book from Inter-Varsity Press does more than merely challenge long held assumptions. In 272 short pages, it provides a comprehensive and accessible overview of the Protestant Reformation.
As someone who looks favorably on Reformed theology, I was somewhat skeptical going into this book. But Payton’s calm and careful approach won me over. He adds meat to the skeletal concepts many have of the Reformation. And along the way upholds the basic Protestant view that the Reformation was a good thing. He does correct some misunderstandings, however. He gives a lesson in Church history to challenge conservative, evangelical Protestants in some needed ways.
The book starts out with an explanation of how the study of history has advanced over the years. Historians are consciously aware of their self prejudices today, as they attempt to uncover what actually happened in the past. In the past, authors often erred in trying to see past eras too much through the lenses of their current age, or else they mistakenly thought pure objectivity was attainable through modernistic rationalism. Payton shows how the initial studies of the Reformation had some clear deficiencies, even though many of the findings from that era of scholarship are still parroted in many circles, both in the church and in the classroom, today. He aims to bring fresh discoveries from decades of research into the original documents of the period to light, and set the record straight while holding up contemporary views of the Reformation to close scrutiny.
He goes on to give a masterful treatment of the medieval background to the Reformation, as well as the connection it has with the Renaissance. He shows how from all quarters in the church, a strong call for reform was raised in the years preceding the Reformation. Reformatio in capite et membris — “reform in head and members” was the clarion call. This was hastened along by the dreadful scourge of the bubonic plague and how the clergy often would desert their posts in fear of the coming devastation. In his discussion of the Renaissance, he disproves a widely held notion that the Renaissance was a human-centered movement for reform, whereas the Reformation was God-centered. This myth comes from a misunderstanding of the term “humanism” when referring to the movement to study the classic literature of ages past as the best way to learn helpful lessons for the problems of the day. In part this was a reaction to the medieval scholasticism which emphasized philosophy to the neglect of more practical sciences. Humanism was the birth of liberal arts studies. But like everything else in Europe in the 14 and 1500s, it was very much compatible with deep-seated religious faith. In fact the Reformation very much grew out of this renewed zeal for studying the humanities, as Payton explains:
By the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, all but one of the more than thirty Protestant religious leaders in the Lutheran camp had been trained in northern Christian humanism. Similarly, all those who became leaders in the nascent Reformed movement (following Zwingli in Zurich, Bucer in Strasbourg, and Oecolampadius in Basel) had been devoted adherents of the northern Renaissance. It is no exaggeration to state that, aside from Luther himself, the leadership of the Reformation was in the hands of northern Christian humanists. (pg. 70)
Payton next explains the rise of the Reformation focusing on Luther. He dispels the myth that Luther’s theology was fully developed when he nailed the 95 Theses on the Wittenburg Church door. He shows how Luther and what became his movement, was carried along by numerous misunderstandings. People saw what they wanted to in Luther. And Luther was growing in his own understandings too. Luther was backed as a hero by discontent peasants, many of whom rebelled in a lawless, bloody riot. He was backed by princes and land-owners who saw his views as a way to gain autonomy and ascendancy. All of this was used in God’s providence to spur on the growth of the Reformation movement and give it freedom to grow until it was too large to stop.
Many aspects of life in the 1500s are brought to life through Payton’s book. Particularly important is his discussion of the peculiar challenges to life in medieval cities. Luther’s distance from city life may have influenced his strong law-gospel antithesis and emphasis on the two distinct kingdoms of Church and State. The Law shouldn’t impact life in the State. But other early reformers, such as Zwingli, Bucer and Oecolampadius “laid heavy emphasis on the transformation of society; social ethics was a prime consideration for them” because they were each leading pastors of a struggling city (pg. 106). Another aspect he illuminates is scholastic thought, in which various theologians (and Luther held the privileged Doctor of Theology degree) would build a coherent logical system of thought from one principle idea. Luther did this with justification by faith, and this primary idea influenced his view of law and the two-kingdom approach to society. It also slowed his pace of reform, as he was reluctant to go on to more conforming of church practice to Scripture until everyone thoroughly absorbed the first principle of grace.
After explaining how the early Reformers had various conflicts which kept them apart, the book goes on to challenge popular misconceptions of the Reformation ideas of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. He explains how faith was lauded as the sole ground of our justification. The Reformers were unified in this tenant, which is still the predominant Protestant view today. He points out how the Reformers also insisted that faith always is accompanied by works, however. He offers several substantiating quotes, but this one by Zwingli from his book An Exposition of the Faith (1530) is my favorite: “Where there is true faith, works necessarily result, just as fire necessarily brings with it heat.” In discussing this point, Payton takes on a widespread problem in the evangelical church today. Payton explains:
This notion of solitary faith nonetheless has led many pastors and evangelists to call their hearers… to be sure they can recount the date and the hour when.. they “prayed the sinner’s prayer’ and thus were eternally saved, no matter what they might do in the rest of their lives. This calls people to rely on a spiritual birth certificate to know they are alive; the Reformers called them to live…. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone. (pg. 131)
The misconception Payton attacks regarding Sola Scriptura centers on: “A simplistic ‘Scripture good, tradition bad’ notion” (pg. 133). He shows how the Reformers urged the Scripture as the primary authority but did not spurn other sources of authority. Luther summarized his entire program by urging, “Back to the Bible, to Augustine and to the church fathers!” (pg. 138). The Reformers were scholars of the church fathers and took pains to show their teaching as supported by the church fathers. They viewed the era of the early fathers as the “golden age” of church history, actually. He uses this point to challenge the evangelical neglect of the church fathers and of church history in general. Let me quote some of his conclusion on this point:
For the Reformers, sola scriptura found its boundaries in the faithful teaching of the church fathers, the ancient creeds and the doctrinal decrees of the ecumenical councils. Exposition of Scripture which remained within those limits could be expansive and imaginitive. However, to wander outside those limits and produce something “new” was for the Reformers not the mark of someone reading Scripture responsibly and using its authority rightly. How often, though, do Christians in the contemporary world hear about the allegedly scriptural “principle of seed faith” used to invite investment in a ministry? And what about “green prosperity prayer cloths” or the “health and wealth” gospel? None of these (nor similar aberrations) find any support whatsoever from the Protestant Reformation’s material principle of sola scriptura. (pg. 159)
After a treatment of the counter-Reformation which highlights some of the positive changes to the Roman Catholic church brought about by the Reformation age (while still not neglecting the negative reactions against evangelical beliefs from the Council of Trent), and after a treatment on the many-headed ana-Baptist movement (which he argues is not directly related to the Baptists of today), Payton goes on to critique the years following the Reformation. He sees the Reformer’s successors’ return to scholasticism and Aristotlean logic as a way to defend the newly recovered faith as largely a failure. He sees the systematization of the faith as necessarily losing some of the actual life of the Biblical faith of the Reformers. He points out how sin became defined as an infraction of God’s law, whereas the Reformers first saw it as “unfaithfulness toward God and estrangement from him” (pg. 208). Payton elaborates on the difference between the Reformers and their scholastic heirs on another topic, that of faith:
Under Protestant scholasticism, faith was depersonalized to the acceptance of right doctrine–which could be objectively and convincingly laid out for others to see. For the Reformers, though, faith was first and foremost personal bonding to God–cleaving to him, assured of his loving embrace. Again, these two conceptions of faith need not exclude each other; the important issue is which one receives the chief place…. (pg. 208)
Payton doesn’t stop where he could, but digs in even deeper to challenge how we should view the Reformation. Was it a success? He documents the Reformers’ own disappointment with the movements of their day. He also shows how the infighting in Protestantism gave way to bloodshed and warfare even, and how some errors like unitarianism found avenues to come to light through the rise of Protestantism. He cautions against viewing any era as a “golden age” and urges a recovery of the study of the church fathers. He also challenges the disunity and fighting which characterizes so much of Protestantism today: “It is at least a horrendous anomaly that the sixteenth-century Reformation got rid of the clutter that obscured the foundation of the Christian faith, only to have Protestants cover that foundation again with the clutter of our manifold division.” (pg. 256-257)
Payton spares no punches, and his book presents numerous challenges to today’s evangelical Christianity. Yet he brings the world of the Reformation to light, and gives life to that era of history. He shows how we shouldn’t revere that time as a magical age of impossible heroes; rather they should be seen with their failures and flaws, and be imitated to the degree that they remained faithful to the truth.
One will not agree with all of Payton’s emphases and may disagree with some of his claims. But Getting the Reformation Wrong will certainly encourage a critical engagement with the Reformation. My hope is that I’ll get it right. I applaud Payton’s zeal for the truth and his insightful analysis of many of our contemporary blind-spots. A careful reading of his book will help us see ourselves more clearly, and may help us achieve a needed Reformation of today’s church. May God be pleased to grant that!
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Inter-Varsity Press for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.
Book Details:
Recently, I read 