Tweet
Thoughts on this book on decision making.
Link
----
What do I think of Ron Sandison's book published by Electio Publishing? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
I want to thank Ron Sandison for sending me his book. He and I share that we are both on the Autism spectrum seeing as I have Aspergers and we both have a love of apologetics. I think I am one of the first to get this book seeing as I couldn't even find it on Goodreads when I started reading it.
Yet as I started going through, I think if anything, the word that described my reading was, confused. You see, the book is supposed to be about decision-making that releases the Holy Spirit's power. Yet as I read through, I did not really see anything that I considered major guidance on how to make decisions.
The book centers around what is called the tripolarity theory. It says three agents are involved in any event. The devil, the human free-will, and God. I wonder though about other things still and where they fall in, such as external circumstances that have no direct cause from any agent.
I also get concerned with too much being made of the devil. I think that the devil is already bound and his activity is severely lacking. That does not mean that there is no demonic activity going on, but it means it is severely limited, especially wherever the Kingdom of God spreads.
So I go through many chapters and I wonder what the point is. The material can be interesting, but why is it here? Why do I have a chapter about Sully and the miracle on the Hudson? Why do I need to know about the origins of the devil and the operations of Judas? Reading about the death of Madalyn Murray O'Hair was fascinating and enjoyable due to hearing about how the mystery was solved and all that led up to it, but what was the point of it?
I also found that Ron and I disagree on many areas. For instance, I don't think that all death began at the Fall or that all creatures were herbivores. Did mayflies live forever? Why did a porcupine have quills? I honestly do not find young-earth creationism to be a defensible position, but even if I did, what does that have to do with decision making?
My biggest disagreement would probably be on eschatology. Readers of my work know that I am an orthodox Preterist and I think a future antichrist, rebuilding of a temple, one-world government, etc. have no basis. I have to ask also that if we can interpret Rev. 13 as saying the devil rose the beast from the dead, what is to help us when our Jewish friends who say that Jesus is a false prophet say the same thing about the resurrection of Jesus?
This isn't to say that there isn't some good advice in here and some noteworthy quotes and such, but overall, I found myself confused. I was wondering why I was reading what I was reading much of the time. I also don't really see any reason to tie decision-making in with non-essentials, such as eschatology or the age of the Earth.
If this book is redone, I would like to see more focused on decision making. The material can be interesting, but it doesn't seem relevant. That makes it a distraction too often.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
Link
----
What do I think of Ron Sandison's book published by Electio Publishing? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
I want to thank Ron Sandison for sending me his book. He and I share that we are both on the Autism spectrum seeing as I have Aspergers and we both have a love of apologetics. I think I am one of the first to get this book seeing as I couldn't even find it on Goodreads when I started reading it.
Yet as I started going through, I think if anything, the word that described my reading was, confused. You see, the book is supposed to be about decision-making that releases the Holy Spirit's power. Yet as I read through, I did not really see anything that I considered major guidance on how to make decisions.
The book centers around what is called the tripolarity theory. It says three agents are involved in any event. The devil, the human free-will, and God. I wonder though about other things still and where they fall in, such as external circumstances that have no direct cause from any agent.
I also get concerned with too much being made of the devil. I think that the devil is already bound and his activity is severely lacking. That does not mean that there is no demonic activity going on, but it means it is severely limited, especially wherever the Kingdom of God spreads.
So I go through many chapters and I wonder what the point is. The material can be interesting, but why is it here? Why do I have a chapter about Sully and the miracle on the Hudson? Why do I need to know about the origins of the devil and the operations of Judas? Reading about the death of Madalyn Murray O'Hair was fascinating and enjoyable due to hearing about how the mystery was solved and all that led up to it, but what was the point of it?
I also found that Ron and I disagree on many areas. For instance, I don't think that all death began at the Fall or that all creatures were herbivores. Did mayflies live forever? Why did a porcupine have quills? I honestly do not find young-earth creationism to be a defensible position, but even if I did, what does that have to do with decision making?
My biggest disagreement would probably be on eschatology. Readers of my work know that I am an orthodox Preterist and I think a future antichrist, rebuilding of a temple, one-world government, etc. have no basis. I have to ask also that if we can interpret Rev. 13 as saying the devil rose the beast from the dead, what is to help us when our Jewish friends who say that Jesus is a false prophet say the same thing about the resurrection of Jesus?
This isn't to say that there isn't some good advice in here and some noteworthy quotes and such, but overall, I found myself confused. I was wondering why I was reading what I was reading much of the time. I also don't really see any reason to tie decision-making in with non-essentials, such as eschatology or the age of the Earth.
If this book is redone, I would like to see more focused on decision making. The material can be interesting, but it doesn't seem relevant. That makes it a distraction too often.
In Christ,
Nick Peters