John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001), 879 pages, ISBN 9781581348118.

In the 1970s, Paul E. Little wrote an excellent book entitled, Know What and Why You Believe. In clear simple language, he presented various doctrines of the Bible in a way that could be easily understood by young Christians. It was in many ways a practical guide in apologetics. Now there is a book that takes the doctrines of the Bible to a new level.

No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God by John S. Feinberg presents an in-depth look at the teachings of God while providing readers with an indispensable tool for defending their faith. On one level, it challenges Christians to think critically and even philosophically; on another level, it inspires them see God as He is revealed in Scripture.

Feinberg is the general editor of Crossway’s Foundations of Evangelical Theology series. He is the author of a number of books, including The Many Faces of Evil, and Ethics for a Brave New World (with Paul D. Feinberg). John S. Feinberg is Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology and chairman of that department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

John S. Feinberg, PhD (University of Chicago) is department chair and professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Concerned about the changes in today’s society and the rise of postmodern thought, Feinberg felt the need for a book that would answer current questions about God. Process theology and openness theology are just two of the many issues he tackles. He writes:

The advent and growing entrenchment of the postmodern mindset, not only in our universities but also in culture more broadly, have had dramatic implications for our very understanding of who and what God is. Theologians and non-theologians alike are clamoring for a God who is engaged in our lives and responsive to our needs (p. xxv).

Keith Augustus Burton, The Blessing of Africa: The Bible and African Christianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 294 pages, ISBN 9780830827626.

The recent increase of books about the African continent might seem almost mind boggling for readers interested in learning about Africa and its relevance to Christian theology. Just where does one begin? Thankfully, a reader might just want to begin here.

To an ever increasing collection of media comes a short yet comprehensive perspective for beginners and experts alike. While Burton’s viewpoint is by no means exhaustive or encyclopedic, it offers “a brief survey of the historical place of the Bible in the rhetorical land of Ham.” It offers information “…about biblical ‘Africans’ and significant ‘African people’ and events throughout the history of humanity.” It also places the story of the Bible and African Christianity in the wider global context (13).

Keith Augustus Burton, Ph.D., (Northwestern) is president of Life Heritage Ministries. He is also adjunct instructor of religion at the Florida Hospital College of Health Sciences and coordinator for the Center for Adventist-Muslim Relations at Oakwood University, where he previously served as a professor of theology.

Burton also promises that this book lacks “a reactionary Afro centric agenda.” He stresses that it does not seek to repudiate, but rather to agitate and educate (12). His work truly provides a perspective about the seamless relationship of Africa to the Biblical world, a connection that has been too often ignored by Western thinkers. So as a result, his work serves an ecumenical purpose. He wishes to draw Black Africans into greater solidarity “with their lighter skinned Hamitic siblings in the northernmost sections of modern continental Africa and the Middle East” (13).

Burton has divided his book into six parts. The first part gives a definition of Biblical Africa. The second part discusses the relationship between African ethnicity and geographical location. This is then followed by the third section which explains the openness of Africans to the gospel message. The fourth division sketches the development and spread of Islam in the Biblical land. In part five Burton explores the influence of European colonialism, and then concludes with an evaluation of the Bible in modern land of Ham.

Editor Introduction: Postmodernism, The Church, and The Future

Postmodernism, The Church, and The Future
A Pneuma Review discussion about how the church should respond to postmodernism

Suggestions for Further Reading

Tim Keel, “An Efficient Gospel?: The modern world was inclined toward reduction, efficiency, and things you can count” Leadership Journal (Winter 2008). http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/001/3.19.html

Earl G. Creps, “Moving Target: Reframing Discipleship for Postmoderns” Enrichment (Winter 2008), pages 68-73.    http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200801/200801_068_MovTarget.cfm

TS says, “Christianity Today has a number of articles that seem to apply to this discussion. Here are a few I’ve seen.”

• J. Todd Billings, “What Makes a Church Missional?: Freedom from cultural captivity does not mean freedom from tradition” Christianity Today (March 2008). http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/march/16.56.html

• “You Have Heard It Said: Caputo’s What Would Jesus Deconstruct? sends us to take another look at Jesus” in February 2008 is a review by Bruce Ellis Benson. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/februaryweb-only/107-12.0.html

• Richard J. Mouw, “An Open-Handed Gospel: We have to decide whether we have a stingy or a generous God” Christianity Today (April, 2008). http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/15.44.html

Hear Jamie Smith speaking at Northwest University for the 2006 Pentecostal Lectureship Series presenting his paper “Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? Azusa Street as Postmodern Revival.” The lecture may be downloaded here: http://eagle.northwestu.edu/chapel_mp3/20060207e.mp3 [link unavailable as of October 23, 2014].

Another perspective in this conversation: see the review of Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis by Robert Huckleberry in this issue.

Editor Introduction: Postmodernism, The Church, and The Future

From Pneuma Review Summer 2008

Postmodernism, The Church, and The Future
A Pneuma Review discussion about how the church should respond to postmodernism

The modern era has past us by. Modernism stood in stark contradiction to the Christian faith. It asserted that man’s scientific and objective knowledge could save the problems of the world. God wasn’t necessary.

In fact, according to the tenants of modernism, God didn’t even exist. Why? Because modernism arrogantly taught that only that which can be verified by the physical senses could be trusted. Since God stands outside the realm of the physical senses, His existence could not be proven, thus there was no rational reason to believe in Him.

Modernism is all but gone, and it failed to deliver its promises. It did not solve the problems of the world. In fact, with the creation of nuclear and biological weapons, it made it far easier to destroy the world it claimed to save.

Enter the postmodern world.

In many ways, postmodernism is much more friendly to the Christian faith than its predecessor which denied the spiritual world.

Postmodernism is difficult to define. Pundits, professors, and philosophers disagree on its precise meaning. Nevertheless, here are some of the basic characteristics of the postmodern mind.

1. Experience, personal testimony, and spiritual encounter are more persuasive than objective, logical argumentation.

2. Authentic relationships, connectedness, and community are more appealing than Western individualism and rugged independence.

3. A humble attitude that respects and gives an open ear to the views of others is more attractive than the conceited claims of those who say they are completely right and everyone else is wrong.

Intolerance, racism, sexism, bigotry are all rejected in favor of love, respect, and concern for others regardless of the outward barriers that separate us humans.

The Church in the Postmodern World

What is needed is a new kind of church for a new kind of world.

Interestingly, the new kind of church I’m speaking of is really not new at all. It’s the church that we find in the New Testament. Unfortunately, through centuries of religious tradition, the modern church has departed from its Biblical roots.

Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss, How To Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 170 pages, ISBN 0310278767.

This is the third “how to” book that Gordon Fee has written. The first two books were How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth and How To Read the Bible Book By Book, both of which were coauthored with Douglas Stuart, Fee’s former colleague at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. For this third book Fee has teamed up with Mark Strauss. Fee and Strauss are both New Testament scholars and both have been involved in the work of bible translation.

In some places in the world a book like How To Choose a Translation for All Its Worth would not be needed. There are places where a variety of bible translations are not available; in fact some people groups only have one translation of the bible (or select Scripture portions). In the United States, and other English speaking countries, this is not the case; there are a lot of different English bible translations from which one can choose. The wealth of translations that are available is a blessing, but it can also be a problematic, it causes many believers to ask the question “which one is the best?” The problem is compounded by the fact that not everyone agrees on which translation is best or the most faithful to the biblical text. One of the more obvious indications of this is the “King James Only Debate.”

In this book Fee and Strauss explain some of the challenges faced by bible translators as well as the different philosophies that guide translators in the making a translation. The book is divided into four parts. Part one is “The Task of Translation.” Under this section the authors address the need for translation and the meaning and task of translation. Part two is titled “Making Words Work.” In this section they address the subject of translating words, giving special attention to figurative language-such as idioms, metaphors and poetry; they also address the problem of translating the Greek genitive. Part three is “Translation and Culture.” In this section they deal with cultural issues related to translation and the issue of using gender inclusive language in bible translation. Part four is titled “The Bible in English” which gives a short history of English translations of the bible. In this section the authors also set forth the strengths and weakness of some of the more well-known English translations and give their recommendations for the best translations.

This book contains some very helpful information. One thing that the authors make clear is that no one translation has it all, that is; there is no perfect bible translation. Every translation is by its very nature already an interpretation. Translators read the biblical text, either in Hebrew or in Greek, and then seek to find appropriate words in English to convey the meaning of the text. This is not always easy because sometimes there are not words that are exact equivalents. In cases where there are exact equivalents translators, at times, do not use the exact equivalent because doing so would make the translation difficult, if not unintelligible in English. Bible translations typically fall into one of two categories. Form equivalents seek to be very literal while functional equivalents are more concerned with trying to convey the sense of the text rather than a word-for-word translation. Bible readers are divided over which is the better translation to use. The authors demonstrate that even the literal translations are not always really literal. Fee and Strauss think that the best translations are those that convey the meaning of the text they say: “Accuracy in translation relates to equivalent meaning, not equivalent form” (page 27). In their view, this is what being faithful to the biblical text is.

A review essay by pastor, scholar Tony Richie about the new perspective on Paul.

Simon Gathercole, “What Did Paul Really Mean?: ‘New perspective’ scholars argue that we need, well, a new perspective on justification by faith” Christianity Today (August 2007), pages 22-28.

Simon Gathercole is a NT scholar and former Senior Lecturer in New Testament at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. In 2007, he joined the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge. Gathercole received his MA at Cambridge, and then completed a MATH and PhD under James Dunn, a renowned NT scholar himself, at the University of Durham. While Dunn is a founding proponent of the so-called “New Perspective on Paul,” Gathercole opposes it. Drawn from his dissertation, his book Where is Boasting? (2002), is a critique of NPP. In this succinct CT article, with a title probably playing on NPP advocate Tom Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said (1997), Gathercole capably sums up the major issues at stake in the debate, and circumspectly presents his own view. He is appreciative of elements of NPP but ultimately rejects its fundamental thesis. Though at times technical (for those of us who are not NT scholars), as it touches on some of the most complex and important ideas in the NT and in Christian doctrine, especially the nature of justification and faith, this discussion will interest scholars and clergy alike, along with well-informed laity. I recommend it to readers of The Pneuma Review as an exceptional introduction/overview on a complex topic. It is probably not, however, fit fodder for the theologically faint of heart.

The CT editors do a good job of prefacing Gathercole’s article with some explanatory information that will help readers new to the discussion follow along. However, Gathercole himself is adept enough at putting NPP into perspective in the body of the article. One of the main aims of the editorial input is its framing of the debate in terms not confined to Reformed Christianity. Yet, as shown later this may be a debatable point itself. At its deepest level, this is a debate about the question: what is “truly biblical?” The author points out that NPP is not a new topic, but has been around for nearly 30 years (he does not mention antecedents around as early as 1900). It essentially argues that elements of the Protestant Reformation approach were “either wrong or ill-directed.” These concerns controversially include the doctrine of justification. Some Evangelicals, notably James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright, think NPP is “a key to unlocking Paul’s original intent.” Gathercole stresses that NPP is not really about Paul’s overall teaching; it is more narrowly about his doctrine of justification, in particular on justification by faith. It explicitly examines Paul’s understanding of works versus works of the law.

Roger E. Olson, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 152 pages, ISBN 9780830827060.

In sixteen short chapters, Olson (Ph.D., Rice University) provides us with historical essays that cover the origination, development, and maturation of Evangelical theology within North America. The introductory chapter, composed of only fifteen pages, is worth the price of the book. Olson offers seven different possibilities of the meaning of the term Evangelical. Evangelical could merely refer to someone who proclaims the “good news” of Jesus Christ, a code word for “Protestant,” and historically refers to the “low” churches within the communion of the Church of England. The term Evangelical has similarly been used in the past to refer to the adherents to the Pietist movements within the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In the early twentieth century, the term Evangelical generally referred to the fundamentalist movement. In the middle of the twentieth century, the term Evangelical was applied to the postfoundationalist school of thinking. The term Evangelical has also often been used as a term of derision in the twentieth century in reference to certain scholarly or historical figures that were deemed to be enthusiastic, fanatical, or aggressive. Finding these terms lacking, Olson offers the idea that an Evangelical is an orthodox Trinitarian who affirms the possibility of supernaturalism, who deems the Bible authoritative in all that it teaches and affirms, that Jesus of Nazareth is the unique revelation of the God of Israel, that humanity is fallen, and that the only way for humanity to be reconciled is through the agency of God’s Son (entailing His suffering, death, and resurrection). Moreover, Olson asserts that an Evangelical recognizes the necessity of personal conversion, the importance of regular devotional time, the urgency of evangelism amongst a decaying world, and the ultimate return of Jesus Christ that will usher in the Kingdom of God. Olson explains the roots of Evangelical theology coming from Pietism, revival movements, as well as Wesleyanism. He then goes on to demonstrate the relation between Holiness Pentecostalism and Evangelical theology. Olson covers the relation, if any, of fundamentalism and Evangelical theology. Olson mentions four representative theologians of the twentieth century within the Evangelical movement (Carl F. H. Henry, E. J. Carnell, Bernard Ramm, Donald Bloesch). In the later chapters, Olson offers a projection of where Evangelical theology may go from here (he mentions Postconservative theology in chapter 15), as well as mentioning several existing tensions found within Evangelical theology today. This small text would be ideal for adult studies at the local church, as it gives a succinct, accurate, and expandable introduction to the history of Evangelicalism.

Reviewed by Bradford McCall

Preview Pocket History of Evangelical Theology: http://books.google.com/books?id=nVfdAzBOUSIC

Stephen J. Nichols, For Us and for Our Salvation: The Doctrine of Christ in the Early Church (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2007), 172 pages, ISBN 1581348673.

Stephen Nichols has prepared an excellent primer for the study of the history of the early Christian Church. This book is appropriate for use in an undergraduate classroom or for self-guided study of early church history. However, Nichols has written much of this book in reference to the recent popular book and movie, the Da Vinci Code. While this is an appropriate topic for today, it is likely to loose relevance quickly as it fades from popular memory.

In this book, Nichols does not assume that the reader will recognize the theological words and terms. He paused often to insert either a parenthetical definition or a sidebar description of unfamiliar words. When it is appropriate, he has illustrated his point with a simple chart to help the reader sort through the good and the bad, the saint and the heretic. Additionally, Nichols has added a helpful glossary at the end of the book that will aid the reader to grasp key names, events, and ideas more fully. Further, Nichols has supplied the reader with two appendixes that will guide those who might desire to continue to study any of the varied topics.

Stephen J. Nichols was named the new President of Reformation Bible College and Chief Academic Officer of Ligonier Ministries in March, 2014. ReligionNews.com press release

Not only has Nichols divided the study of early church history into easy-to-grasp segments, he has also provided minimal commentary; commenting just enough to help the reader focus on the big picture. Moreover, instead of giving his own interpretation, Nichols introduces readers to the writings of those central to early church history, letting them speak for themselves by first citing a contemporary source and then including their own words.

Nichols’ book is a succinct introduction to the earliest attempts to understand the mystery of the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. Nichols has uncluttered the landscape for his student; he has provided help for his students to sort through the most important events and ideas. He will help to bring understanding to the early theological ideas, and thereby he will prepare the student to have a more complete understanding of the theological ideas of today.

Reviewed by John R. Miller

Preview the book here: http://books.google.com/books?id=cmCPb3IQkzUC

Publisher’s page: http://www.crossway.org/books/for-us-and-for-our-salvation-tpb/

The Power of the Cross: The Biblical Place of Healing and Gift-Based Ministry in Proclaiming the Gospel

Many stories in Christian history are filled with accounts of charismatic gifts, miracles, signs and wonders.

The emergence of the Pentecostal, the neoPentecostal or charismatic, and third wave movements in our century has raised a variety of vital questions that demand answers. Among these is the issue of whether the spiritual gifts enumerated by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 remained active in the Church after the first century. Equally crucial is the question of whether these gifts, if still active, were vitally related to the proclamation of the gospel in the Church during the formative centuries.

Protestant Cessationism

From the Reformation era onwards, leading Protestant theologians have popularized the view that the work of the Holy Spirit in evangelism after the apostolic age was limited to dynamic proclamation of the Word of God, rather than the exercise of spiritual gifts. This was the position of Martin Luther, who openly rejected the schwärmer or enthusiasts of his day—who claimed gifts of prophecy and gave higher credence to the “inner voice” of the Spirit than to the “external word” or Scriptures.¹

Voices of cessationism still are with us, and presently are aimed at the healing and gift-based ministries of Pentecostals, charismatics, and third wave churches. Cessationists argue that miracles had little to do with the gospel or were incidental to the proclamation of the gospel in the New Testament. Further, they insist that gifts of healing as well as the other charismata ceased at or near the end of the first century A.D. For example, the claim has been made that “the Church Fathers, who came almost entirely from the East, believed that the apostolic gifts had ceased.”² Such a claim is simply not true, as the evidence presented below shows.

John J. Collins, Encounters With Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 243 pages, ISBN 0800637690.

In the book Encounters with Biblical Theology,¹ author John Collins offers a collection of essays on different aspects of the Biblical Theology movement. Collins is the Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale University, and has written ably in the field of biblical theology. The essays in this volume are selections of Collins’ work, spread over a period of some thirty years; each engaging a different element of biblical theology, and addressing a variety of theoretical issues. Collins, himself, humbly concedes that, “taken together, they have the character of probes and soundings.”²

Fifteen essays that make up the book are clustered under four distinct headings. First, are those that deal with “Theoretical Issues” within biblical theology (e.g., the very viability of a “Critical Biblical Theology,” etc.—pp. 11-46). Second, are topics in the Pentateuch (e.g. Faith and works in the command to sacrifice Isaac, the Exodus of the Israelites, etc.—pp. 47-88). Third, is the category of “Wisdom and Biblical Theology” (e.g., the biblical “Precedent” for natural theology, how the “biblical theology” movement all but ignored the Wisdom literature—pp. 91-117). And fourth, are works dealing with “Apocalyptic Literature” (e.g., the Legacy of apocalyptic literature and how it was used politically, both in ancient Israel and in the modern United States, etc.—129-189). Collins provides the reader with a brief survey of the biblical theology movement. Beginning with J.P. Gabler and Ernst Troeltsch, Collins moves to Wilhelm Wrede, G.E. Wright, Brevard Childs, and to a general examination of historical criticism. The task of the biblical theologian, Collins suggests, is “the critical evaluation of biblical speech about God”³ This, he insists, includes not only historical narrative within the Bible but other genres as well.

John J. Collins is Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale Divinity School.

Like James Barr, Collins believes that historical criticism is not, strictly speaking, a method, but a collection of methods, such as source criticism, redaction criticism, sociological criticism. He states that throughout this work his goal is uncompromising “objectivity.” Yet, Collins himself acknowledges that objectivity is an elusive characteristic; easy to describe but difficult to attain. He states in the “Introduction” that although he strives for an impartial neutrality (and he believes such objectivity to be obtainable),⁴ such detachment cannot be attained by those who approach the Bible from a confessional or believing approach. “A confessional approach…wants to privilege certain positions…thus in effect taking biblical theology out of the public discussion.”⁵ Obviously, this goal for objectivity in interpretation did not begin with Collins but can be traced to the early 1960s.

In an article on biblical theology in 1962, Krister Stendahl posited a sharp distinction between what the Bible meant and what the Bible means.⁶ Since that time, this characteristic has come to be the accepted norm in virtually all conservative, evangelical interpretation. Popular New Testament author Gordon Fee states as much when he states, “[T]the task of interpreting involves the student/reader at two levels. First, one has to hear the Word they [i.e., the original audience] heard; you must try to understand what was said to them back then and there (exegesis). Second, you must learn to hear the same Word in the here and now (hermeneutics).⁷ This initial step seeks to be rigorously objective, thrusting all personal and ecclesiastical biases aside. Yet with the rise of postmodernism the claim to “objectivity” has come under intense scrutiny, and has, in many cases, been dismissed as a misguided goal that is little more than a fool’s errand.⁸ Although some believe Collins to have been successful in his quest for objectivity,⁹ it does not appear that such unbiased detachment was ultimately achieved by the Yale professor, as he approaches the biblical text with a “hermeneutics of suspicion.” Such suspicion, or mistrust, can be seen in the following examples. Collins writes:

“It is no longer possible to defend the historicity of the stories of Abraham…it cannot be the historical truth” (p. 57); “…the historicity of the individual (Bible) stories cannot be defended” (p. 203); “The story (of Exodus) has a ‘history-like’ character, but nowhere in the biblical corpus has the ‘collapse of history’ been more painfully obvious…” (p. 67); “The Bible cannot support the claim to transcendent authority…The Bible can no more provide us with objective, transcendent moral certainties than can natural law” (p. 78); “Christianity is not a deposit of timeless truth but a religious tradition that derives its identity from continuity with the past” (p. 79); “Daniel 2 was not actually written in the Babylonian era, but some centuries later, under the fourth kingdom…and it does not report the actual dream of a Babylonian king, but a Jewish fabrication” (p. 134); “It is, of course, a notorious fact that the kingdoms predicted in apocalyptic visions (including Revelation) never come, and so…are…nourishing illusions” (p. 140); etc.