Book Review "These Things You Ought To Know"

Book Review “These Things You Ought To Know” - Mike Easter

General review:

The irony of this book is written in the first sentence, “So many people today are Biblically illiterate.” The irony is that this book is filled with assumptions and opinions of what the author thinks the Bible says and rarely is any challenging Scripture addressed or even acknowledged. His hermeneutical system is assumed to be correct and any other view or interpretation of Scripture is scoffed at as irrelevant. The author also relies on straw man arguments about the motives and intentions of Christians who believe differently than him, painting them as carnal and lovers of darkness. This is not only a poor way to defend your theology, it's borderline cultic. Only the Biblically illiterate or those who trust in his authority as a Bible teacher will find this book beneficial.

(Although I read the entire book, I will only do a detailed review of the first two chapters because I was trying to keep it as short as possible. There could be more parts to this if I feel the need to review the rest of the book.)

Detailed Review: 

Chapter 1 - Salvation God’s Way

In chapter one he breaks up “how-to-be-saved” into 8 points, We must first believe God, We are saved by grace, we are saved by faith, we are saved by confession, we are saved by repentance, we are saved by baptism, we are saved by the Holy Ghost, and we are saved by endurance.

For the sake of time, I will not address these individually because the biggest problem comes immediately after this list.

“That answers the how-to-be-saved question, but now the question is what? What must I do to be saved? Fortunately, that same question was asked in Acts 2:37: “Men and brethren what must we do?” Here's the answer: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” - (Pg.18)

At this point, he presents the argument that this is the defining question in the Bible regarding salvation. But this is a flawed conclusion. In fact, there is another passage in the book of Acts that involves a lost person asking an even more direct question that is completely ignored by the author in this book.

In Acts 16 Paul and Silas are in jail and they sing praises to God, an earthquake causes the chains to fall off and the doors of the prison to open. Frantically the Philippian jailer tries to kill himself for letting the prisoners escape but Paul stops him and assures him that no one escaped and the jailer responded in Acts 16:29-31 “The jailer called for lights, rushed in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. He escorted them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? They said, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your household.”

This one passage in chapter 16 already undermines his point about Acts 2:37, the author intentionally presented his point as a prooftext for his theological view of salvation while ignoring other passages that at the minimum seem to contradict this argument. This is why I say that only the Biblically illiterate, or those who aren’t familiar enough with the text of Scripture, or those who trust his authority as a Biblical teacher will not see the issues with this book. But anyone with any kind of Biblical understanding will notice immediately that the author fails to address any passage that isn’t favorable to his position.

He says this,

“Follow the example of the Berean Bible students who examined everything the apostle Paul was telling them to see if it was true. With a world full of voices on every TV channel, in many pulpits, and countless denominations, all competing for your soul and telling you “this is the way to be saved,” simply look in your Bible and see what the apostles have clearly told us in Acts 2:37-40.” (Pg. 18-19)

In one breathe the author is rightfully asking the reader to study these issues out for themselves to see if it is true, but in the next breathe he points to Acts 2:37-40 as the passage that all other passages must be interpreted through. He doesn’t say this directly but by setting it up as the standard it is the obvious conclusion.

There are countless passages in the New Testament that address the issue of salvation, but for this author and his organization, an organization I spent 15 years of my life in, they refuse to accept any passage outside the book of Acts as authoritative on salvation. Everything must be filtered through the lens of the Narrative literature of Acts. 

He continues,

“There is no documented account in Scripture of anyone baptizing a person using the formula, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The Acts 2:38 message is the only documented plan of salvation given to the world by all of the apostles to make people like you and me ready for heaven.” (Pg. 19)

Again, the author is presenting Acts 2:38 as the only authoritative passage on salvation, nothing from the Gospels or the Epistles is sufficient to teach salvation, all the other passages must be filtered through this one proof text. The issue here is the author makes the claim that there is no documented account in Scripture of anyone baptizing someone using the Triune formula. However, we must acknowledge that the Bible doesn’t record a single account of anyone in the process of being baptized at all! There’s not a single example of an actual baptism taking place where someone says, I now baptize you in the name of …” regardless of which “formula" you think is correct.

Chapter 2 - These Things You Ought To Know

 

In chapter 2 the author goes to the Gospel of John and discusses the conversation Jesus has with Nicodemus. In John 3 Jesus is teaching Nicodemus the importance of being born again. For the author, he makes the argument that the reason most Christians cannot accept the truth of Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation is because Jesus said unless you are born of water and Spirit you will be unable to see. 

“The mind of those who refuse to believe and obey are blinded by the enemy. If one refuses to be born again, he or she cannot see (cannot make sense of) the kingdom of God. It is like an expectant mother attempting to feed her unborn baby with a bottle by tapping the bottle on her belly. The child must be born to get the bottle it needs to grow and be healthy.” (Pg. 25)

This is where his analogy goes off the rails, he contrasts a natural birth with being born again by making the claim that the baby is baptized in the amniotic fluid in the womb and baptized by the spirit in taking his breath. 

“That joyful sound - our baby’s cry - was confirmation that all was well. Bethany was born of the water and of the spirit (breath), and along with that came the sound. Portia and I didn’t know what the baby was saying, but it sure did sound good!  Likewise is every one that is born of the Spirit! There is a certain sound that comes with being born again! Hallelujah!” (Pg. 28)

This is the author's attempt to prove that John 3:3-5 is teaching the same plan of salvation he repeatedly points to in Acts 2:37-40. Again, in order to prove his point, every passage must be filtered through the lens of his understanding of this one passage. To the author, it is the only passage that can be authoritative on the subject. Here’s another example;

“The gospel Jesus preached - that being born of the water and the Spirit - is the fundamental truth of salvation. This is something you ought to know. With no exceptions, you must be born again of the water and of the Spirit. How is this done? What must you do to be saved? I refer you to the scriptural passage where the question was asked: 

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

Acts 2:37-38

You may observe that I continually refer to the same verses. Why? Because the Scriptures are the foundation of all truth, They serve as our example, our guide, and our teacher.” (Pg. 29)

This is subtle but extremely flawed. The author claims he keeps referring to Acts 2:37-40 because the Scriptures are the foundation of all truth. That these passages serve as our example, our guide, and our teacher. To back this up he quotes a few other passages so let’s look at these in context.

1st Corinthians 10:11 “These things happened to them as examples for us. They were written down to warn us who live at the end of the age.” 

Is this passage referring to anything written in the book of Acts? NO! Chapter 10 starts with a warning from Israel’s past and the first 10 verses are talking about the evil desires the Children of Israel had and a warning for us to not have those same desires.

Romans 15:4 “Such things were written long ago to teach us. And the Scriptures give us hope and encouragement as we wait patiently for God’s promises to be fulfilled.”

Again, the reference has nothing to do with Acts 2. Verse three quotes from Psalm 69:9 in reference to Christ, then Paul says these things were written long ago to teach us. 

To be fair, I don’t believe the author actually meant to say that Acts 2:37-40 was the foundation of all truth and that he meant all Scripture. However, I have to point out that the only passage he is consistently referring to is that of Acts 2:37-40. 

Conclusion

In just these two chapters the author portrays his position as the most logical and plain reading of the Bible. His assumption is that if you disagree with him then you are simply unable to see or are willfully rejecting plain truth. This is a huge issue, the church has existed for over 2,000 years and since the beginning, there has been debate and disagreement over what the Bible actually teaches about a number of topics. 

To make the claim that you alone are free from traditions of men and denominational bias is laughable. The author is a member of the United Pentecostal Church, an organization that I was a part of for years. I understand the denominational bias that exists in not only the UPC but in all denominations. There is a quote I heard but I can’t remember the source, it says, “The man who says he has no traditions is the man that is bound by the most of them.” To assume that you are reading the Bible without any implicit bias or through the lens of tradition is arrogant and dangerous. 

We must be willing to acknowledge our traditions and biases and compare them to the Scripture to make sure that we are interpreting the Bible correctly.

The author uses John 3:3-5 to point to Acts 2:38 but ignores the rest of that conversation including John 3:14-18 “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his Only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Also, the author uses Luke’s Acts narrative to interpret the meaning of being born of water and Spirit instead of seeing how John uses water and Spirit elsewhere in his gospel.

I’ll quote two sources to show that the author’s assumption about John 3:3-5 is incorrect.

E.W. Bullinger, in Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. p. 664, says that in this context we are dealing with a figure of speech called hendiadys, which literally indicates “one by means of two.” In a hendiadys, two words - in this case, ‘water’ and ‘spirit’ - are employed to get the point across, but only one idea is intended. One of the words, ‘Spirit,’ expresses the point, but the other word, ‘water,’ intensifies ‘Spirit’ to the superlative degree.

John 6:63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 

This statement clarifies: the water, the Word, and the Holy Spirit must be considered together, as one element, that precipitates the new birth, all being given from above.

Gary T Manning Jr. Ph.D. and professor of New Testament Language and Literature wrote a book titled Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period. In chapter 5, Pg 194 of this book “Summary of the Use of Water as Spirit in John”, he wrote,

"As I have emphasized before, John’s use of water symbolism cannot be firmly connected to any one source in the OT. However, John primarily uses water to symbolize the giving of the Spirit through Jesus. Thus, John’s use of water symbolism is related to, and perhaps dependent on, OT passages that use water as a metaphor for the ‘new covenant’ or for the giving of God’s spirit (for example, Isa. 44:3; Ezek. 36:25–27; 47:1–12). 

John explains that his primary meaning for ‘water’ is the Holy Spirit in Jn 7:39; this meaning can probably be applied to other passages that use water symbolism, such as Jn 3:5; 4:10, 13–14; and 19:34. In John 3, new birth through ‘water and Spirit’ is the prerequisite for entry into the kingdom, suggesting that only those who received God’s promised outpouring of the Spirit would be eligible for membership in the messianic kingdom. This association of water with the promised Spirit is reminiscent of the promises in Isa. 44:3 and Ezek. 36:25–27. 

In John 4, Jesus promises to give this water; his description of a new worshiping community, empowered by this living water, again suggests the fulfillment of the ‘new covenant’ promises of Isa. 44:3 and Ezek. 36:25–27. Jn 7:37–39 uses the imagery of the life-giving river from the Temple, in words drawn from Ezek. 47:1–12; Joel 3:18; and Zech. 14:8, to describe the outpouring of the Spirit on all who believe in Jesus. 

In the last two of these occurrences of water symbolism in John, it is clear that the water, the Spirit, will be available only after the death of Jesus. The fulfillment of this promise is seen, at least symbolically, in the flow of blood and water from Jesus’ side in 19:34. The miraculous catch of fish (Jn 21:1–11) may also symbolize the power of the river from the Temple, and thus of the giving of the Spirit through Jesus. Thus, the use of water to symbolize the Spirit in John is closely tied to Ezekiel’s use of water to describe God’s plans to purify and restore his people (Ezek. 36:25–27; 47:1–12)."

It is my opinion that the author failed to adequately present his case for Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation. Instead, he assumes the validity of his own argument beforehand and by doing that ignores the passages that seem to disagree with his conclusion.