What do you think?
Rate this book
Common Sense: A New Approach to Understanding Scripture.
Written in a fluid, readable style, Bercot explains seven common sense principles of interpretation that will enable the reader to better understand Scripture. In particular, Bercot argues for the historical approach to Scripture interpretation, using the writings of the primitive Christians to arrive at the meaning intended by the apostles.
173 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1992
19 people are currently reading
41 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
April 20, 2016
This is one of the few books that my husband and I keep on hand to give to other Christians seeking to know the Lord and follow Him more closely. Most of Bercot's works are controversial in the American Church realm but I think an analogy in this book explains why:
Bercot tells that, having grown up on military bases, his only exposure to tomatoes was store-bought: pinky-red and crunchy. The first time country friends invited him (a young adult at the time) for lunch he was appalled by the tomatoes. They were blood red! Surely they were rotten. Then he took a bite, to be polite, and it dissolved in his mouth. Indeed, they must be rotten! How glad he was that he wasn't a poor country person, having to eat rotten tomatoes. Of course, he eventually discovered that those were the "real" tomatoes to be desired - and the others were a pathetic version. He writes:
"When it comes to Christianity, we have all grown up with the "store-bought" kind. It is all we have ever known, and we have grown accustomed to it. To us, real Christianity should taste, look, and feel like the kind we have. So when we first come face-to-face with genuine, primitive, "vine-ripened" Christianity, it doesn't look right to us. It doesn't taste like we want it to taste, and unless we are driven by deep spiritual hunger, we quickly reject it and go back to our store-bought variety."
Bercot tells that, having grown up on military bases, his only exposure to tomatoes was store-bought: pinky-red and crunchy. The first time country friends invited him (a young adult at the time) for lunch he was appalled by the tomatoes. They were blood red! Surely they were rotten. Then he took a bite, to be polite, and it dissolved in his mouth. Indeed, they must be rotten! How glad he was that he wasn't a poor country person, having to eat rotten tomatoes. Of course, he eventually discovered that those were the "real" tomatoes to be desired - and the others were a pathetic version. He writes:
"When it comes to Christianity, we have all grown up with the "store-bought" kind. It is all we have ever known, and we have grown accustomed to it. To us, real Christianity should taste, look, and feel like the kind we have. So when we first come face-to-face with genuine, primitive, "vine-ripened" Christianity, it doesn't look right to us. It doesn't taste like we want it to taste, and unless we are driven by deep spiritual hunger, we quickly reject it and go back to our store-bought variety."
June 27, 2015
This is the second time I've read a David Bercot book, both times at the suggestion of a good friend. And just like the first time, I found Bercot to be arrogant and overstate his case on the importance of the early Christians. Which is a shame, because he actually makes some really good points on how to study scripture. I also agree with him that Christians today, at least in the western world, overlook individuals like Tertullian and Polycarp. These early teachers have a lot of tell us. Unfortunately, Bercot comes across as if he's equating their words with those of Paul, James, and John. His tone towards the Reformation is also antagonistic. It's fine to point out faults or hypocrisy, but do so with the understanding of the obvious benefits it brought.
A very worthwhile read, but there are a few things in his writing that I just can't get past.
A very worthwhile read, but there are a few things in his writing that I just can't get past.
February 5, 2024
An uncomfortable read. Based on Bercot’s perspective, it would seem that the Bible as we have it is almost insufficient. In order to understand Scripture, we should be well versed in historical writings of which I have only been vaguely aware (e.g., The Ante-Nicene Fathers). Reading these primitive church documents is vital to our grasp of the context in which the New Testament was written.
An interesting perspective, and one which I will continue to consider.
An interesting perspective, and one which I will continue to consider.
Read
January 29, 2025David Bercot's book about a new approach to understanding scripture, which is really just another platform for him to scream: read the early Christians. He starts by explaining that Christianity is divided, even amongst Christian groups who all claim to be believing in just the Bible, and that part of the issue is that people are entrenched in their traditions to the point of having preconceived notions about how to interpret passages in scripture. The best way to overcome this is to apply his "Principles of Interpretation", which is basically reading scripture literally and without preconceived beliefs (starting with a blank slate). Where the scripture is not clear or seemingly has multiple interpretations (and yes, we have to admit that scripture can be interpreted in several ways), then the best way to clarify the meaning is to look at the early Christians. How the early Christians lived is the best testament to what the scriptures really mean, because they were closest to the apostles who wrote them. This is his basic thesis which he develops over several chapters of plenty of background and ground rules. The way he develops his point almost feels like he is backing you into a corner and you have no choice but to accept his position. The rest of the book is some specific doctrines that the early Christians had, and more about he early Christian writings. He makes a big deal about convincing the reader that we as Christians have moved so far away from primitive Christianity that it would take an upheaval of beliefs to restore true Christianity, and that is something the he has already done. The main issue I have with this book is that he comes across as arrogant - he has found truth, but we are all still far from it. Often I am not interested in his message because of his arrogance. Overall I found this book very thought provoking and challenging, and it did make me want to take the scriptures more literally. I think if we as a church took this message more seriously and read the scriptures more literally, we'd be closer to truth, but I am not convinced about how forceful he is about the Early Christian writings. After reading this, I did want to read the Early Christians more, but I don't have the time and energy right now. He makes some bold claims, which I am not sure I am comfortable with. Overall this is a good book, but this is not a "must read", so I don't recommend to the average reader. I'm not sure it will help some people's faith, but might more cause controversy and confusion in their minds. In either case, I recommend reading his first book, Will the Read Heretics Please Stand Up, before this book.
August 3, 2017
Excellent book that will challenge the way you think about Scripture. We say we don't have biases when we read the Bible, but the reality is that we all have some blinders put on by what we've read or heard about the Bible. This book will teach you how to correctly interpret Scripture.
March 24, 2019
David Bercot touches on many points that I never considered before. This book is both fascinating and challenging, and holds the potential to be life-changing--both to myself and to Western Christianity as a whole.
August 8, 2020
Thought Provoking
This was a very well presented case for a more ancient take on apostolic doctrine. I find myself yearning for such a faith.
This was a very well presented case for a more ancient take on apostolic doctrine. I find myself yearning for such a faith.
August 31, 2019
Interesting book, good read, but faulty argument and therefore bad conclusions...
After talking to a friend about the early church and how they didn’t believe in eternal security he recommended this book to me and I read it within a couple of days.
To be honest, it was quite interesting and gave me a lot of food for thought and he had some good points. He brings up the issue of us misunderstanding the first century culture and how we, if we as Christians want to be “one” again, should all adopt the views of the early church.
At first glance this sounds like a great idea, it’s just we don’t really have any documents by the early church, besides the New Testament which according to him isn’t clear enough, hence the different denominations.
As a former lawyer and at the time of the writing of the book his work is to do title examination. This means he reads through titles (documents) to determine what those documents really state and who owns the title to a property. And for this he says you always have to go to the primary sources, since secondary sources can be very wrong, which makes total sense.
Going back to theology now, his solution is the look at the next best sources which would be the second generation of Christians, the so called the Ante-Nicene Fathers. If we would all do that we would be “one” and would all agree.
Here is my criticism with all of that:
First of all he makes it sound like denominations are a bad thing. I disagree. I agree with the premise that if I will not have fellowship with a brother just because he believes something different about a headcovering or even spiritual gifts, God does not like that, and I don’t think we should do that. If I can fellowship with those people though and just disagree over minor issues that do not affect the gospel I have no problem with that and I don’t think God does. He calls us to unity and not uniformity!
I also disagree with the premise that the Ante-Nicene Fathers are a good source for “truth”. They might be right, but they might also be wrong. It might be helpful, in order to gain a better cultural or historic understanding of that time, to read their documents but they shouldn’t be the determining force in truth. The reason for that is simply that just as Bercot said, they are not the primary source and therefore they could be very wrong and they didn’t all agree anyway (and I know he has a way of going around the fact that they didn’t agree). If you have kids or have ever discipled somebody you know very well how people can believe something very different then you yourself, no matter what you teach them. I grew up catholic and would now consider myself evangelical. Maybe my parents are right or maybe I am, but I certainly don’t believe everything they told me, and neither do the people I disciple believe everything I tell them.
Here are some other points:
He says to begin with a blank slate, which sounds great, except the people who read the NT first were not blank slates. They came from a Jewish or Greek/Heathen background and had some spiritual “knowledge” or ideas.
He also says to start in the beginning, “with Jesus”. I disagree again. You will not understand the NT without OT knowledge, for example when John says his famous words: “Behold the lamb of God...” That doesn’t make any sense without knowing about the animal sacrifices in the OT, so start in the beginning, in Genesis!
My last criticism goes to the fact that the books seems to be very concerned with traditions and how to do things, outward behaviour rather than inward change. I do not want to accuse Bercot of these things since I haven’t read any of his other works but that is what I walked away with from this book.
There would be more things I agree or disagree with but I’ll leave it at that.
I might be totally wrong and he is totally right, but to say that a book is about truth and honesty in the beginning and then presenting your view as the only right one and therefore calling everyone else dishonest isn’t the nicest thing.
However I hope that if I’m wrong somebody will try to correct me and the Spirit will convict me and if you ever read the book, keep in mind what I have said here and look for yourself if it makes sense or if I am misrepresenting his book. Those were my honest thoughts and you don’t have to agree with them. In the end it’s God’s word that needs to determine truth, so go ahead and study to show yourself approved.
For another criticism of his works check out this link:
http://tektonics.org/af/bercot01.php
After talking to a friend about the early church and how they didn’t believe in eternal security he recommended this book to me and I read it within a couple of days.
To be honest, it was quite interesting and gave me a lot of food for thought and he had some good points. He brings up the issue of us misunderstanding the first century culture and how we, if we as Christians want to be “one” again, should all adopt the views of the early church.
At first glance this sounds like a great idea, it’s just we don’t really have any documents by the early church, besides the New Testament which according to him isn’t clear enough, hence the different denominations.
As a former lawyer and at the time of the writing of the book his work is to do title examination. This means he reads through titles (documents) to determine what those documents really state and who owns the title to a property. And for this he says you always have to go to the primary sources, since secondary sources can be very wrong, which makes total sense.
Going back to theology now, his solution is the look at the next best sources which would be the second generation of Christians, the so called the Ante-Nicene Fathers. If we would all do that we would be “one” and would all agree.
Here is my criticism with all of that:
First of all he makes it sound like denominations are a bad thing. I disagree. I agree with the premise that if I will not have fellowship with a brother just because he believes something different about a headcovering or even spiritual gifts, God does not like that, and I don’t think we should do that. If I can fellowship with those people though and just disagree over minor issues that do not affect the gospel I have no problem with that and I don’t think God does. He calls us to unity and not uniformity!
I also disagree with the premise that the Ante-Nicene Fathers are a good source for “truth”. They might be right, but they might also be wrong. It might be helpful, in order to gain a better cultural or historic understanding of that time, to read their documents but they shouldn’t be the determining force in truth. The reason for that is simply that just as Bercot said, they are not the primary source and therefore they could be very wrong and they didn’t all agree anyway (and I know he has a way of going around the fact that they didn’t agree). If you have kids or have ever discipled somebody you know very well how people can believe something very different then you yourself, no matter what you teach them. I grew up catholic and would now consider myself evangelical. Maybe my parents are right or maybe I am, but I certainly don’t believe everything they told me, and neither do the people I disciple believe everything I tell them.
Here are some other points:
He says to begin with a blank slate, which sounds great, except the people who read the NT first were not blank slates. They came from a Jewish or Greek/Heathen background and had some spiritual “knowledge” or ideas.
He also says to start in the beginning, “with Jesus”. I disagree again. You will not understand the NT without OT knowledge, for example when John says his famous words: “Behold the lamb of God...” That doesn’t make any sense without knowing about the animal sacrifices in the OT, so start in the beginning, in Genesis!
My last criticism goes to the fact that the books seems to be very concerned with traditions and how to do things, outward behaviour rather than inward change. I do not want to accuse Bercot of these things since I haven’t read any of his other works but that is what I walked away with from this book.
There would be more things I agree or disagree with but I’ll leave it at that.
I might be totally wrong and he is totally right, but to say that a book is about truth and honesty in the beginning and then presenting your view as the only right one and therefore calling everyone else dishonest isn’t the nicest thing.
However I hope that if I’m wrong somebody will try to correct me and the Spirit will convict me and if you ever read the book, keep in mind what I have said here and look for yourself if it makes sense or if I am misrepresenting his book. Those were my honest thoughts and you don’t have to agree with them. In the end it’s God’s word that needs to determine truth, so go ahead and study to show yourself approved.
For another criticism of his works check out this link:
http://tektonics.org/af/bercot01.php
July 28, 2016
I like Bercot.
He is an extremely informed lawyer who turned his analytical skills on the historic church, and I appreciate the attempt to write a book that would address problems with modern interpretive methods. So, he and I agree on the problem - and we even agree on the list of interpretive keys (i.e. primary sources, begin with a clean slate, etc.) - and yet it is one of the most dry books on the subject. The case studies he provided were random and didn't really have a strong flow that supported his many arguments.
Once again, Bercot is a great man whose great ideas have been hindered by a poorly written book.
He is an extremely informed lawyer who turned his analytical skills on the historic church, and I appreciate the attempt to write a book that would address problems with modern interpretive methods. So, he and I agree on the problem - and we even agree on the list of interpretive keys (i.e. primary sources, begin with a clean slate, etc.) - and yet it is one of the most dry books on the subject. The case studies he provided were random and didn't really have a strong flow that supported his many arguments.
Once again, Bercot is a great man whose great ideas have been hindered by a poorly written book.
June 21, 2011
This is one book I wish was still in print. The last time I checked you could get a PDF of it, but the actual book was no longer available. I did hear that David may edit it and bring it back at some point.
January 6, 2011
This book coupled with Will The Real Heretic, were influential to my conversion, which was not something Bercot was excited to hear when I mentioned it to him.
June 22, 2011
Where only the seeker of His Truth will tread. :-)
August 27, 2012
this book opened my eyes to the need to be catholic and i left the Mennonites to became a continuing Anglican! This happened in 1994.
June 8, 2014
Enjoyed this book but did not agree with most of it.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews