I just discovered a new version of the New Testament (actually from 2009) translated by one of the UK’s most respected Charismatic leaders, and a long time hero of mine, Colin Urquhart.
I have posted twice about this version at Better Bibles Blog: The Truth New Testament by Colin Urquhart and The Truth New Testament: A Review. Please follow the links to read what I wrote.
I am pleased that Colin Urquhart has taken the effort to produce this translation. He has thus given the lie to the old charge that Charismatics aren’t interested in serious study of the Bible. But I cannot recommend this as a general purpose Bible.
Do we really need another version of the Bible??
Doug, that’s a good question. I do think there are gaps in the English Bible market, in particular for a meaning based translation in good quality literary English. Actually Urquhart’s version might fit into this gap, if it were not for the over-interpretive readings, and the lack of an Old Testament. But the gap would be filled more adequately by a translation made by a committee which could ensure a neutral position on doctrinally disputable matters.
This doesn’t mean Charismatics are interested in proper Bible interpretation. They still have un-Biblical Christology (i.e. embrace kenosis), soteriology (they say you can be born again without being baptized in the Holy Spirit), and force Bible passages about the true gift of languages to mean pagan ecstatic speech! They are also semi-Pellagian and embrace Neo-Montanism. This is not Christianity.
Andrew, that sounds like a set of extreme generalizations about a very diverse group of “Charismatics”, some of whom may believe what you say they do while others certainly don’t believe them all. I suggest you look for example at the beliefs of “Reformed” charismatics like Adrian Warnock, and compare them to your caricature. But, more to the point, who are you to say, of the beliefs of people who call themselves Christians, that “This is not Christianity”?
Hi Peter. In response, I don’t believe there is any such thing as a REFORMED Charismatic. For example, reformed theology embraces the doctrine of unconditional election and salvation by grace through faith, both of which are denied by Charismatics since they are Arminian in their beliefs. Also, it IS possible to know who are Christians….just compare beliefs with what the Bible actually says and you can immediately discern that Charismatics embrace ‘doctrines of demons’. An example of this is that Charismatics say that you do not receive the Holy Spirit when you are born again but at a later date. Yet the Bible is clear that all believers are baptised into the Church by the Holy spirit at conversion.
Andrew (you are, I think, the same Andrew who commented in February), again please get your facts right before commenting here, and certainly before writing off a huge proportion of the world’s Christians.
First, not all Charismatics “are Arminian in their beliefs”. Most, including myself, are, but a significant minority are not. I named Adrian Warnock as a good example of a Reformed and Calvinistic Charismatic: here is his response to someone making similar points to yours. Anyway your argument here is ridiculous in its circularity, on the lines of “Black sheep do not exist because all sheep are white”.
Second, it is not true that “Charismatics say that you do not receive the Holy Spirit when you are born again but at a later date”. Maybe some have said this, without really thinking about it. But you will find many scholarly and popular works from Charismatic authors explaining how Christians receive the Holy Spirit when they are born again, but do not experience the fullness of his power and his gifts until they are willing for this.
Okay, thanks Peter 🙂