Rating: 
Summary: An Excellent Introduction to Covenant Theology
Review: The book shows the fatal defects of dispensationalism as a system of interpreting the Bible. Covenant theology gives justice to the great prophecies in the Bible.
Rating: 
Summary: Beware the Creedalism
Review: THEIR DOOM AND GLOOM CONTINUESThe Hyper-Creedalists and their false gospel continue. Mr. Mathison makes the unscriptural claim that if the time statement is not there then it is not near. One wonders if he has read the bible-specifically Ezekiel 12:25 "For I the LORD will speak, and whatever word I speak will be performed. It will no longer be delayed, for in your days, O rebellious house, I will speak the word and perform it," declares the Lord GOD. In Mr. Mathison's books " Postmillennialism " and " The Shape of Sola Scriptura ", he shows himself not to be a defender of the gospel as taught in scripture at all, but rather a pseudo-intellectual needing a remedial course in logic. Mr. Mathison and his ilk (Gentry, Sandlin, Crisler, West, North, Sproul Jr., Seraiah, Hill, Pratt, Adams, Wilson, Jones, Strimple, Riddlebarger and all the other self-appointed defenders of their revisionist view of orthodoxy) are Creedalists pushing their Creedalism- not bible believing Christians contending for the faith that " was once for all " entrusted to the saints- as they want you to believe! In what follows, these claims will be supported. In appendix three of his book "Postmillennialism" you find "A Brief Critique of Full Preterism" where he accuses preterists of attacking the creeds, not distinguishing between ecumenical creeds and denominational confessions and seriously misunderstanding the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura. Mathison claims biblical interpretation "necessarily sinks into the sea of subjectivity" if creedal orthodoxy is not maintained as a boundary. He quotes Mr. Sandlin from his paper Hymenaeus Resurrected, "Sola Scriptura means that the Bible in the context of Christian orthodoxy is the sole, ultimate touchstone for faith and practice." Really? Notice the complete absence of subjectivity and vicious circularity in that quote, all us hypers should become hypo-preterists immediately-DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200.00!-NOT!! Mr. Mathison and ilk-GET THEE TO A LOGIC CLASS!!! One should not miss the arrogance in Mathison's reply to a recent preterist post -not that arrogance is completely absent here ("Answer the fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit") - and the ad hominem approach taken by the aforementioned writers. About this book Mathison writes, "The project is a critique of hyper-preterism (not preterism)...." as if they are the only ones that correctly use the term. He further states about the author of the article, that he raises, "...some questions that adherents of biblical Christianity cannot answer...." No sir, Mr. Mathison, only adherents of Creedalism cannot answer the questions. Mr. West writes that preterists are full of satanic pride. Gentry says preterists are all unemployed but have internet access (Golly, I wonder how we pay for it, Mr. Gentry?) When informing his "flock" about Walt Hibbert's alleged mis-interpretation of Jesus pronouncement in Luke 21:22 that when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies it was for the fulfillment, "...of all that was written....", Gentry said "all does not mean all" and, "...when you answer one preterist fly all the other preterist flies come to his funeral. The reports of our death are greatly exaggerated!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Makes Postmillenialism viable and respectable
Review: This book by Mathison is one of the better contemporary apologies for postmillenialism available. The book touches upon many aspects of the eschatology debate, and rightfully spends some time laying the groundwork for meaningful eschatology. The goal of this book is to demonstrate that postmillenialism is the eschatology that is the most faithful to the whole counsel of Scripture and that it is an end times view that has been held by several prominent evangelicals for centuries. To help demonstrate these things, Mathison spends a fair amount of time at the outset charting the historical progression of eschatological thought in the church as well as advocating a decidedly covenantal approach to biblical theology. Once this foundation is laid, he then proceeds to argue for a partial preterist postmillenialism. As one who picked up this book who was decidedly unimpressed with the respectability of postmillenialism, I thought that Mathison did a good job of demonstrating that postmillenialism is not a wishful thinking eschatology with no Biblical or theological rationale, but is in fact a very viable eschatological perspective that deserves serious attention and consideration. Among the strengths of the book are the myriad of issues covered, including a very timely critique of full preterism at the end, as well as a systematic approach to dealing with many relevant Scripture passages. But while Mathison's approach was very good, his execution could have been better in some areas, thus, the 4 star rating I'm giving the book. There were 2 main weaknesses in this book that should give readers pause before wholeheartedly subscribing to postmillenialism based solely on Mathison's work here. First, the broadness of Mathison's approach to Scripture is impressive, but his depth of exegesis isn't always so. In particular, his analysis of Revelation chapter 20 was quite weak, in my view. The basic problem that has long plagued both postmillenialism and amillenialism is in trying to justify their view that the 1,000 years described in Revelation 20 is an inter-advental period as opposed to a purely future event. Hoekema probably did the best job of arguing for this position, but I felt Mathison simply punted on the whole issue by insisting that the difficulty of the passage should not make it a primary proof text for any particular eschatological view. And while this is a view I sympathize with, the inability to offer a plausible alternative based upon exegesis of that passage is problematic. The second biggest weakness of this book is that Mathison regularly lumps both historic and dispensational premillenialism into one bucket. Mathison clearly knows the difference between the two, but by lumping historic premil into dispensationalism, it allowed Mathison to avoid having to deal with the most articulate modern advocate of historic premil, George Eldon Ladd. Throughout the book, and especially in Mathison's critique of premillenialism, I was waiting for Mathison to meaningfully interact with Ladd. But for the most part, he doesn't. This is problematic to say the least, since Mathison himself acknowledges Ladd as being the best defender of the historic premil view, but then doesn't interact with him hardly at all. So while this is a solid articulation of postmillenialism and voices many views and theological methods that I sympathize with, the book has enough substantive weaknesses in it to make less than a slam dunk case.
Rating:
Summary: Makes Postmillenialism viable and respectable
Review: This book by Mathison is one of the better contemporary apologies for postmillenialism available. The book touches upon many aspects of the eschatology debate, and rightfully spends some time laying the groundwork for meaningful eschatology. The goal of this book is to demonstrate that postmillenialism is the eschatology that is the most faithful to the whole counsel of Scripture and that it is an end times view that has been held by several prominent evangelicals for centuries. To help demonstrate these things, Mathison spends a fair amount of time at the outset charting the historical progression of eschatological thought in the church as well as advocating a decidedly covenantal approach to biblical theology. Once this foundation is laid, he then proceeds to argue for a partial preterist postmillenialism. As one who picked up this book who was decidedly unimpressed with the respectability of postmillenialism, I thought that Mathison did a good job of demonstrating that postmillenialism is not a wishful thinking eschatology with no Biblical or theological rationale, but is in fact a very viable eschatological perspective that deserves serious attention and consideration. Among the strengths of the book are the myriad of issues covered, including a very timely critique of full preterism at the end, as well as a systematic approach to dealing with many relevant Scripture passages. But while Mathison's approach was very good, his execution could have been better in some areas, thus, the 4 star rating I'm giving the book. There were 2 main weaknesses in this book that should give readers pause before wholeheartedly subscribing to postmillenialism based solely on Mathison's work here. First, the broadness of Mathison's approach to Scripture is impressive, but his depth of exegesis isn't always so. In particular, his analysis of Revelation chapter 20 was quite weak, in my view. The basic problem that has long plagued both postmillenialism and amillenialism is in trying to justify their view that the 1,000 years described in Revelation 20 is an inter-advental period as opposed to a purely future event. Hoekema probably did the best job of arguing for this position, but I felt Mathison simply punted on the whole issue by insisting that the difficulty of the passage should not make it a primary proof text for any particular eschatological view. And while this is a view I sympathize with, the inability to offer a plausible alternative based upon exegesis of that passage is problematic. The second biggest weakness of this book is that Mathison regularly lumps both historic and dispensational premillenialism into one bucket. Mathison clearly knows the difference between the two, but by lumping historic premil into dispensationalism, it allowed Mathison to avoid having to deal with the most articulate modern advocate of historic premil, George Eldon Ladd. Throughout the book, and especially in Mathison's critique of premillenialism, I was waiting for Mathison to meaningfully interact with Ladd. But for the most part, he doesn't. This is problematic to say the least, since Mathison himself acknowledges Ladd as being the best defender of the historic premil view, but then doesn't interact with him hardly at all. So while this is a solid articulation of postmillenialism and voices many views and theological methods that I sympathize with, the book has enough substantive weaknesses in it to make less than a slam dunk case.
Rating:
Summary: Illumination After Theological Rubble
Review: This book was a providential bulldozer that cleared out my at the time demolished and abandoned dispensational eschatology and helped strengthen and illuminate my understanding of and towards covenant theology. It was sweet music to this recovering dispensationalist at the right time. Mathison does an excellent service to God's people in laying out in an easy to follow orderly manner the case for an optimistic eschatology. After laying the groundwork of interpretive presuppositions he leads the reader through the history of the church's eschaton, then from Genesis to Revelation makes the biblical case for postmillenialism. He then addresses various conflicts with other millenial views and seemingly opposing scriptural passages. Two of the appendices served well in clearing out much debris regarding the passages from Thessalonians and Daniel 9. Another appendice addressed (a currently intensifying situation in presbyterian and reformed circles) full-preterism. I highly recommend this book to any student of the Bible. It's one of my favorites to hand-sell at the bookstore I work at... (gasp! actual bookstores still exist)
Rating:
Summary: The true destiny of Christ's Triumphant Church!
Review: Those who know who Mathison is are quick to notice the wonderful scholarship he put into this work. Even if you differ from him radically on doctrine, as I do, it is difficult to debate eschatology with him. He points out the historicity of the postmillennial view of eschatology showing that it is one of the oldest ways of interpreting prophecy as we know it ( dating to Eusebius in the first century). The real clencher is his scriptural argumentation. There is absolutely no way around it. In fact, i was fervently against his position 5 years ago. I changed my positions a yeat ago due to the his scholarship and others like him (Gary deMar, David Chilton). It is a real shame that uneducated people right critical reviews without giving any sound reasons. By the way, R. C. Sproul has recently adopted the position that Mathison expounds in this book. It is sure to deepen your view of prophecy.
| 
