Common Sense: A New Approach to Understanding Scripture.

Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Book
Review: Common sense is a good book that every Christian should read. Since the Reformation, Christianity has broken into 25,000 + denominations, some claiming to be the only true church and most claiming to be "more correct" than the other denominations. If all these groups only use Scripture to determine their beliefs, then why all the division? Bercot argues it is because we need a new system of Scripture interpretation.

Bercot begins by outlining the traditional Protestant principles of biblical interpretation (e.g. clear passages interpret unclear and going to the root of words). Then, he lists his common sense principles, which include beginning with a "blank slate" and using apostolic tradition to interpret difficult passages. He then uses examples from the Bible to show the superiority of his common sense principles to the traditional Protestant method.

Next, he lists what he calls "surprises" and "bombshells." First, he claims that many doctrines and practices of the Reformers did not line up with primitive Christianity and he gives many examples to support his claims. He also discusses the value of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which the early Church almost always used, but which was replaced with the Latin text by the Roman Catholics and the Hebrew by the Protestants. He also explains the role of the Old and New Testament apocrypha and why he believes they are important, although not necessarily on the same level as the current Protestant canon. He discusses "spiritual" interpretation of the Bible and other views of the Greek Fathers. His biggest bombshell is his comments on the "myth" of sola scriptura. He shows clearly why this is a myth and how even Protestants do not really follow this doctrine in practice. Finally he discusses why the New Testament Church didn't go apostate immediately after the death of the apostles (a belief held in common by many cults and even some fundamentalist Christians).

Bercot's book is quite an eye opener. Granted, I don't agree with everything in it (e.g. he practically ignores any interpretation of the Nicene or Post-Nicene Fathers and those in later church history), but he makes some extremely important observations. His ideas could be considered somewhat radical to many Protestants, but they are always well supported. In many ways his views are similar to traditional Anglican belief or a watered down Greek Orthodoxy. He always deals with the issues in a "Come let us reason together" approach that is never hostile or incendiary, although he tends to over-generalize about conservative Protestant belief systems. Also, Bercot is not a Catholic or an adherent of Greek Orthodoxy; he is a former Anglican, but is not currently associated with a denomination. Overall, I highly recommend this book, especially to those who are disillusioned by the many different denominations and the divisive nature of modern, Post-Reformation Christianity.

Rating:
Summary: Good follow up
Review: The good thing about the book is that it tries to provide a simple approach to interpreting the Bible. Unfortunately, it is an inconsistent and incomplete approach. I give two stars because he at least tries to get us to consider difficult topics that many brush over.

His simple 7-step approach is given differently in different parts of the book. For instance, when he introduces step #5 on page 51, he states it as

"When Scripture is ambiguous, look at the course of performance of the disciples of the apostles."

But, when he restates that on page 72 (as step #6!), he says

"Look at the 'course of performance': how the first several generations of Christians understood the Scripture."

Putting the steps in a different order is important to his approach, as is how he words the step. Those subtle changes in wording are crucial, but he is not careful enough to consistently describe his steps. It makes you wonder what else is sloppy about his approach. Bercot also never tells us to go back to the original Greek or Hebrew. He likes whatever was filtered to us through the Septuagint. For all his emphasis on relying on primary sources, this seems a glaring error.

He tells us to ignore modern commentaries, yet it is okay to read the commentaries of early Christians. The problem with this is that the commentaries still need interpreting themselves, and the writings of the early Christians often conflict. He never gives us a framework for resolving those conflicts.

In essence, instead of helping us understand how to interpret the Scriptures, he moves the problem to trying to interpret the writings of the early Christians.

He is missing something major in his approach when he first tells us to consider each statement separately but never tells us how to put them together into a coherent whole. He only hints at how to do this. This is the most important aspect of interpretation, but he fails to address it.

Bercot also does not provide nearly enough examples to understand how his approach works.

But the biggest problem I have with Bercot's approach is that he deals with interpretation from the head, not the heart. It doesn't matter what we know or how well we can interpret the Bible if it doesn't lead us any closer to Christ. Bercot's book does not lead me to believe his approach really is a result of a heartfelt desire to know Christ.

Rating:
Summary: Original, but incomplete and inconsistent
Review: The good thing about the book is that it tries to provide a simple approach to interpreting the Bible. Unfortunately, it is an inconsistent and incomplete approach. I give two stars because he at least tries to get us to consider difficult topics that many brush over.

His simple 7-step approach is given differently in different parts of the book. For instance, when he introduces step #5 on page 51, he states it as

"When Scripture is ambiguous, look at the course of performance of the disciples of the apostles."

But, when he restates that on page 72 (as step #6!), he says

"Look at the 'course of performance': how the first several generations of Christians understood the Scripture."

Putting the steps in a different order is important to his approach, as is how he words the step. Those subtle changes in wording are crucial, but he is not careful enough to consistently describe his steps. It makes you wonder what else is sloppy about his approach. Bercot also never tells us to go back to the original Greek or Hebrew. He likes whatever was filtered to us through the Septuagint. For all his emphasis on relying on primary sources, this seems a glaring error.

He tells us to ignore modern commentaries, yet it is okay to read the commentaries of early Christians. The problem with this is that the commentaries still need interpreting themselves, and the writings of the early Christians often conflict. He never gives us a framework for resolving those conflicts.

In essence, instead of helping us understand how to interpret the Scriptures, he moves the problem to trying to interpret the writings of the early Christians.

He is missing something major in his approach when he first tells us to consider each statement separately but never tells us how to put them together into a coherent whole. He only hints at how to do this. This is the most important aspect of interpretation, but he fails to address it.

Bercot also does not provide nearly enough examples to understand how his approach works.

But the biggest problem I have with Bercot's approach is that he deals with interpretation from the head, not the heart. It doesn't matter what we know or how well we can interpret the Bible if it doesn't lead us any closer to Christ. Bercot's book does not lead me to believe his approach really is a result of a heartfelt desire to know Christ.

Rating:
Summary: Good follow up
Review: This is a good follow up to "Will the real heretics please stand up". One can quible about supposed inconsistencies is writing style..but it is a lot harder to discount the reasoning behind the "course of performance" idea of interpretation. Does one rely on this "interpretation" ideology 100%. NO! But it is a good way to rethink any possible biases one may have at the start.

Bercots books got my interest started...but it was after actually going after and reading the early fathers writings that I discovered most of what he states is more true than I ever wanted to admit. These books started for me a "search for the truth" involving many other sources of history such as the Qu'mran(Dead Sea Scrolls)writings. Evidence such as this has lead me to see some obvious "Protestant" as well as RC and Orthodox biases..especially in aspects of validity of different texts such as the Septuagint(which was translated from older copies than anything the massoractic text can claim). More importantly, I have become extremely wary and discerning of modern "commentaries". I have come across dogmatic statements and "lesson plans", referring to early father writings or Qu'mran info, from those such as Giesler, Nix, Lutzer etc. etc., that are out and out lies or 180 degree misquotes. Either that or they themselves are relying on flawed, biases, commentaries for their research. Its amazing how many "expert theologians" we have that can't even verify their own opinions.

Bercots interpretation method is not easy and does, to get a FULL effect, require a lot of research and reading....this is where I believe most "theologians" have gotten lazy and rely on biased filtered "opinions". If nothing else, I would hope this book would at least get one to start "thinking for themselves" and not be afraid to challenge everything they hear or read. At best, half of "early church" theology is the same as any "denominations" and is amazingly contradictory to much of American "conservative fundamentalism". Did God change...or did WE!!!