The Narnia 3 Book Review Blog

To Purchase Click on Image

Michael J. Vlach. Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths. Los Angeles: Theological Studies Press, 2008. Paper 71pp. $8.95.

This is a well needed and highly useful little booklet by my friend and colleague at The Master’s Seminary, Dr. Michael Vlach. It seems like there are entire ministries that are designed with the sole purpose of maligning Dispensationalism. They are often operated by individuals who claim to be “former dispensationalists” or who “went to a dispensational school,” and the like. Honestly, over the years, in reviewing their works I have great doubts that they ever actually understood Dispensational Theology at all. Others have written in such a manner that it is clear that they haven’t read anything about the subject since their class notes in seminary (or worse someone else's notes from seminary).

In such an environment Dispensationalism and dispensationalists have been accused of things that are actually quite incredible. I have been treated to assertions that “You dispensationalists believe such and such a thing,” when that thing has nothing to do with dispensationalism at all. It is a sort of scare-mongering that occurs when dispensationalism is attached to all sorts of other theological positions that have no connection;that is they are not logically or necessarily connected (one does not imply the other), or even inferred by dispensationalism.

In this book the author presents in a very readable form what dispensationalism is and isn’t. He presents a short history of dispensational theology, details the actual essential theological construct of dispensational theology, and then debunks the “Myths About Dispensationalism.” He concludes with a helpful FAQ section.

This book is a helpful guide to the basics of dispensational theology. Vlach states,

The second error [about understanding dispensationalism] involves treating secondary beliefs as foundational and thus seeing the validity of dispensationalism as standing or falling on these issues. Feinberg is correct that both “proponents and critics [of dispensationalism] have too often treated applications of the system like foundational principles. For example showing that the Sermon on the Mount is for today or showing that the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are the same does not mean one has defeated dispensationalism. The same is true for belief in seven dispensations.

This is a book that should be widely read; for those who affirm dispensational theology so they can see what it essentially is, and what is not; and those who oppose dispensational theology so they can at least actually understand what they are opposing.

To Purchase Click on Image

The theological aberration that is hyper-preterism (hereafter HP) continues to be a thorn in the side of pastors and ministries whose members have been affected by the publications and web pages touting their position. In short, the HP position, called “Full Preterism” by its proponents, is the notion that Jesus returned in 70 AD and that all biblical prophecy has been fulfilled and that believers are now enjoying the benefits of the New Heaven and New Earth (for a fuller examination of this view from a premillennial perspective, see this reviewers article, “International Preterist Association: Reformation or Retrogression?” in TMSJ 15:1 [Spring 2004], 39-58).

While this movement has not made significant inroads within those ministries holding to a futurist premillennial position, it has been a bane in Reformed circles and among those of the traditional or classic preterist mode of prophetic interpretation and within the historicist position. This current work is a series of essays by leading Reformed scholars (both of the theonomist and non-theonomist position) pointedly critiquing the hyper-preterist position on several fronts. There are seven essays by Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Charles E. Hill, Richard L. Pratt, Keith A. Mathison, Simon J. Kistemaker, Douglas Wilson and Robert B. Strimple.

The work is well constructed with excellent footnotes and contains useful (but brief) indexes of names, subjects, scripture and ancient literature. The work lacks a bibliography, which in our view would have been a helpful addition, so the reader is left the cull out the references from the footnotes. The contributors center their arguments against the writings of perhaps the four leading proponents of HP’ism Max King, Timothy King, Ed Stevens and John Noe (the last two of which operate the International Preterist Association).

Mathison, the general editor, admits that the contributors “to this volume do not completely agree in their interpretations of every eschatological text” (p. 155). He notes “some of the contributors are amillenialists, while some are postmillennialists” (ibid). All of the contributors are united against the HP position, because, as Strimple states, “In order to maintain their heretical doctrine of the resurrection, the hyper-preterists have devised heretical doctrines of creation, man, sin and its consequences, the person and redemptive work of Christ, and the nature of salvation. Much more than eschatology narrowly defined is at stake in this debate” (p. 352).

Several of the essays are especially noteworthy. Gentry’s examination of the historic church creeds as over against the Hp position is particularly well done (pp. 1-61). He thoroughly debunks the HP constant claim of “No creed but the Bible” (p. 61). He states that the adherent of HP “feigns ‘scholarship’ and claims ‘consistency’ as a lure to theologically immature Christians” (ibid). Interestingly, hard line fundamentalists have often used the same arguments to keep their own sub-biblical teachings above Scriptural and theological scrutiny.

In the chapter on “Eschatology in the Wake of Jerusalem’s Fall,” (63-119) Hill takes the “bible” of the HP interpretative scheme, J. Stewart Russell’s The Parousia, to task. The Parousia was originally published anonymously and then with Russell’s name (London: Daldy, Isbiter & Co., 1878) and (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1887). Besides influencing Milton Terry and his methodology toward prophetic interpretation in his Biblical Hermeneutics, Russell’s work made little impact and was largely out of print for nearly 100 years, until Walter Hibbard of Great Christian Books (who himself had adopted the HP position) arranged with Baker Book House to reprint the work in 1983. Hill notes that Russell’s work is “as brilliant as it is bizarre,” and that, “his solution [to the rapture] is almost too fantastic to deserve a response” (p. 92). Hill demonstrates from early church history that Russell’s 70 A.D. “rapture” simply could not have occurred.

The work of Kistemaker on HP and their view of the Book of Revelation is also noteworthy as he deals with their schema of prophecy, but is most decisive on dealing with the key issue of the dating of Revelation. HP fails entirely if the traditional or “late date” of the composition of the book is correct. He notes, “both the evidence from Revelation itself and the accounts of the church father favor a late date for the writing” (p. 236). The work of Mathison on the “Eschatological Time Texts of the New Testament” is also a highlight of this work (even for those of us who take a dispensational and futurist approach to those texts). Strimple’s chapter on HP and the resurrection is a devastating expose to the HP heresy on this vital doctrine. The one weak chapter in this work is that of Douglas Wilson. While it does not display some of his notable theological oddities, it really does not say anything that Gentry had not said in his chapter. The notations are weak and it reads more like a sermon than a theological essay.

That minor criticism aside this is a valuable and much needed work exposing the heresy of Hyper-Preterism. Even approaching the subject from eschatological and interpretative viewpoints we might disagree with, we agree that this is a common enemy of the church for both the Covenantal and Dispensational evangelical. This is a work that pastors should avail themselves of as the HP error continues to creep into assemblies through those influenced by their material and Internet activity. We highly recommend it.

Noe, John. Beyond the End Times: The Rest of the Greatest Story Ever Told. Bradford, PA: Preterist Resources, 1999. xii + 301pp (paper) $19.95

For a more thorough discussion of this movement, Click Here.

To borrow the popular catch-phrase, �just when you thought it was safe to�� just when you might have thought that you could safely say that you had seen every possible variation of eschatological schema, something new comes on the scene.

For several years a small group, known mainly around the Internet and email theological discussion lists, called the International Preterist Association has been advocating what has been called �consistent preterism,� �full-preterism,� or �hyper-preterism.� In brief this is a position that advances the traditional Preterist understanding of prophecy to postulate that all Biblical prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 and that there is no aspect of any Biblical prophecy yet awaiting fulfillment. Edward E. Stevens, president of this association, says on the cover that this book is �A compelling introduction to past-fulfillment of Bible prophecy.�

The author, John Noe has made a living as a motivational speaker and entrepreneur and has become a chief spokesman for the �full-preterism� position. In the introduction it is said of Noe that he �is not a professional theologian. He has had no formal seminary training, but that may be an advantage �it might have handicapped his communication style� (p. x). This seems to be both a startling admission and the first of a virtually endless set of logical fallacies strewn throughout this book.

It would be impossible in the amount of space available for this reviewer to detail all of the problems of this book in terms of argumentation and documentation. A few examples will have to suffice.

Beginning with research methodology, mention must be made regarding the documentation and endnotes utilized in this work. There is seemingly not even an attempt at some standard form of documentation; the formatting style practically changes from note to note. Citations are often incomplete (e.g. 282 note 11; 283 note 1); when referencing a periodical the story or article title is never mentioned (e.g. 282 note 2-4); books are referenced with either incomplete or no bibliographic information (e.g. 282 note 5); the use of underlining, italicizing or quotation marks to set off book or article titles is incoherently random (compare 283 note 8 to 287 note 5), publisher names are misspelled (e.g. 283 note 1 for chapter 6). Beyond this there are numerous typographical errors both in the notes and within the text itself. There are also no indexes and, more problematic, no bibliography or listing of works cited.

In terms of content the notations do not rise to a high level either. The author constantly makes references to secondary sources for information (e.g. 291, note 1 for chapter 11; 292 note 3). He references several works of antiquity (Josephus� History of the Jews; Eusebius;� Ecclesiastical History; and essays by Athanasius and Augustine) without any clear citation as to which edition of those works he is referencing at any given point. Sometimes the information he presents is simply untrue. In note 5 for chapter 3 (p. 283) he states, �From Columbus� Book of Prophecies, which is only available in Spanish and has never been published in this country.� The fact is that a parallel Spanish-English edition, with commentary, was printed in 1997 (The Book of Prophecies edited by Christopher Columbus, Berkley, California: The University of California Press) , a full two years before this present work was published. In dealing with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (63 and 283, note 2 for Chapter 4), he lifts a selected quotation from The World Book Encyclopedia (a nice high school level reference work) to prove his point and then procedes to give the wrong page number for the article.

Throughout the notes the author overuses vague ad populum pronouncements such as �Some Bible scholars maintain,� �Some liberal scholars have insisted,� �Some Jewish scholars,� �Some interpreters,� �Many interpreters,� and so on. Despite the author�s admitted lack of training he makes numerous pronouncements on the proper translation of the Greek and Hebrew text and their lexical meanings, although the only source ever cited is one reference to the dictionary in Strong�s Concordance (291 note 28).

In terms of the content of the book itself is thoroughly disappointing as well. The structure is confusing and there is no attempt at a coherent outline. The text is jumbled with �bullet points� and collections of �Top 12 List,� �Eight Confirmatory Insights,� �Five Side-Stepping Devices,� in which the author continually interrupts his own flow of thought. The author begins by stringing together a list of anecdotal evidence to demonstrate the dangers of any end of the world scenario. The author states that:

Prior to the 20th century, the church was culturally relevant, involved, and positive. Not so anymore. After the turn of the century, Hal Lindsey�s brand of premillennialism and its doomsday mentality spread like a wildfire through Christianity�s evangelical ranks and devastated postmillennial gains (38-39).

Of course the anachronistic fallacy is evident, since Hal Lindsey foray into prophetic writing did not begin until the late 1960�s. That the author would be concerned that postmillennial gains were �devastated� is also interesting since he also places postmillennialists into the futurist camp that he opposes (271). Since all of the eschatological positions, except his, are posited as �futurists� apparently the author believes that all of Christianity represented by either a premillennial, postmillennial, or amillennial eschatology are culturally irrelevant, uninvolved and negative.

The foundational thesis of this work is that all events related to the Return of Christ have already occurred. That is, the Return of Christ, the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust, the casting of Satan into the Lake of Fire and the establishment of the New Heavens and New Earth along with any other Biblical prophecy that might be mentioned, all occurred at or about AD 70. One chapter of the book is entitled, �Why the World Will Never End� in which the author that eternality is an attribute of the creation (50). He makes amazing claims about scientific theory (such as the earth not being subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics) with essentially no support (63). If someone might ask how he could imagine that the world�s resources can continue without end, he na�vely states,

If a little more sun or cosmic substance of any kind is someday needed, He will simply speak it into existence. Likewise, if the speed of light slows down too much �as some scientists worry about�� He could give it a boost. These divine acts would only be minor tweaks compared to creating it all in the first place (63).

To make his system work the author tragically reduces the New Heaven, the New Earth, and the New Jerusalem to a spiritual abstraction that he equates to the present Christian life or �New Covenant life� (262-63). He states, �Although God never intended New Covenant life to be either the end of all human difficulties, or an escape from the frailties of the physical plane, the Holy City�s symbolic description in Revelation 21 and 22 is given to encourage all saints of every generation� (263). But this is no encouragement at all. Revelation 21-22 talks about the fact that �there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain� (Rev. 21:4); and �there shall no longer be any curse and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His bond-servants shall serve Him� (22:3).

The author�s treatment of Daniel 9 and Daniel�s �Seventy Weeks,� which he concludes ended with the Stoning of Stephen (88), and Matthew 24, which he claims that none of the three basic millennial schemes interpret correctly, are also extremely disappointing.

For what is billed as a �compelling introduction to past-fulfillment of Bible prophecy� the book amazingly fails to deal with some basic issues or objections. First of all he nowhere even mentions how his view is not to be compared with the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus who also claimed that the resurrection was already past (2 Timothy 2:17-18). In fact �full-preterism� has been called a return to the heresy of Hymenaeus (MacArthur, The Second Coming [Crossway Books, 2000], 13). He also nowhere meaningfully deals with Acts 1:9-11 which speaks of exactly the manner in which Christ would return. Amazingly, the entire issue of the dating of the New Testament writings is dismissed with a sentence in an endnote (298 note 3). He states there that his opinion is that the early date of Revelation is �far superior� but also that the �dating debate will not be addressed in this book, however.� For an �introduction� into this new eschatological scheme is amazing insomuch that if the traditional dating of Revelation (AD 95) is correct the author�s entire thesis is reduced to a tragic waste of time and paper. Also there is no discussion as to the problem of evil and obvious Satanic and demonic activity in the world today if, as the author asserts, Satan and his minions have been cast into the Lake of Fire. Additionally, if the resurrection has already occurred, then what of believers in this age? What also of the fate of unbelievers since the judgments have already been carried out? None of these issues are addressed.

At the end of the book the author calls for a Reformation in the church based on the �full-preterist� position. He states that, �This reformation could become as significant as the 16th-century Protestant Reformation� (271). This kind of bluster, combined with a complete disregard for hermeneutics, playing fast and loose with factual information, and an abandonment of the rules of logic, does not qualify the author to be an reliable guide as to the meaning of Scripture. Unfortunately, publications such as this (which present the appearance of thorough Biblical and scholarly research) and the ubiquitous nature of the Internet means that this current revival of the heresy of Hymenaeus will likely continue to be a bane for churches and pastors, whether they are premillennial, postmillennial or amillennial in their doctrinal stance, for some time to come.

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2000. ix + 204pp. (paper) $12.99.

The ongoing political struggles in the land of Israel continue to be cause of great concern for world leaders and a never-ending source of material for modern prophecy �experts.� The �prophecy by current event� genre of literature creates a great deal of excitement, sells a lot of books and now even creates movie screenplays. Fortunately a more safe and sane approach to prophetic matters still is to be found where the Scriptures are examined carefully and thoroughly.

One such book is this effort from the longtime professor of Old Testament at Knox Seminary. Robertson has examined the concept of �The Israel of God� from five directions: Land, People, Worship, Lifestyle, the Coming of the Kingdom and a detailed examination of Romans 11. He concludes with a series of 12 propositions that summarize the key points of his thesis. He affirms the standard amillennial viewpoint that, �the promised messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ has come� (195).

In keeping with the amillennial perspective, Robertson makes a strong presentation that any theological viewpoint that sees a restoration of Israel to the land or Christ reigning in an earthly kingdom is a �retrogression� (31) and views those of us who believe and teach that viewpoint as becoming a �primary tool in misdirecting their [Jewish people�s] faith and expectation� (ibid). He affirms that the �in the realm of new covenant fulfillments, the land has expanded to encompass the whole world� (ibid). In doing this Robertson seems to have abandoned his previously published view that the land promises to Israel were previously fulfilled in the reign of Solomon (Understanding the Land of the Bible [Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1996], 9, 19). Interesting as well, is that he never deals with the key New Covenant passage, Jeremiah 31 in relation to either God�s affirmation of the perpetuity of Israel (35-37) or the geographic expansion of Jerusalem (38-40). In relation to the land issue, while Robertson notes several works, he fails to interact with the important work by Robert L. Wilkin, The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992) or Israel: The Land and the People, edited by H. Wayne House (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998); both of which would challenge his thesis at several levels.

In dealing with the subject of the People, Robertson presents a detailed explanation of Galatians 6:16 and all of the possible interpretations. While we would disagree with his conclusion (that Jews and Gentiles combined constitute the Israel of God), even if his interpretation were correct it seems that he is attempting to pack far too much theological freight into an admittedly difficult and somewhat obscure phrase.

The final two chapters (the Coming Kingdom and Romans 11) are a natural continuation of the author�s amillennial presentation. He postulates that since �Israel� is rarely mentioned in the Book of Revelation that he states, �Nowhere in this book are the Jewish people described as having a distinctive part in this kingdom� (165). However, in the totality of Scripture passages abound that discuss the distinct role of Israel in the future kingdom (Is. 61:6 et al). In dealing with Romans 11, Robertson asserts that, �nothing in this chapter says anything about the restoration of an earthly Davidic kingdom, or of a return to the land of the Bible, or of a restoration of a national state of Israel� (191). While that may be true, the chapter does say, �the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable� (Romans 11:29). Romans 11 makes it clear that God is not through with Israel as a people and yet in the future the totality of all the promises made to national and physical Israel will be fulfilled in a national and physical manner.

Despite the clear disagreements we would have with the conclusions of this work, it remains a worthy addition to the library of those who are studying this important theological subject. It will certainly become a standard text for those affirming Covenant Theology and an amillennial approach to Biblical eschatology that cannot be ignored by those who affirm dispensational hermeneutics and premillennialism.

Davis A. Young. The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. xiii + 327 pp. $19.99 (paper).

For a lengthy article length interaction with Young and this (and other of his) works click here. Tis article originally appeared in the Journal of Christian Apologetics 2:1 (Summer 1998), 3-24.

The author, professor of geology at Calvin College, has collected an impressive array of information on the history of interpretation of the Genesis flood account. He chronicles the interpretation of the flood in Christian and Jewish thought with an emphasis on how Christians have interacted with "extrabiblical" evidence related to the flood.

Young categorically rejects the notion of a "universal flood," interpreting Genesis 6�9 instead as "language to describe an event that devastated or disrupted Mesopotamian civilization" (312), i.e., a local flood. Young reaches this conclusion based entirely on "scientific evidence," that is, data from various disciplines including geology, paleontology, and zoology. This reviewer sees two flawed assumptions underlying Young's conclusions: (1) General Revelation is self-defining in terms of its scope and authority apart from Special Revelation, and (2) General Revelation has sufficient authority to inform and correct Special Revelation.

Young includes in general revelation all types of human intellectual pursuits leading to the discovery of "truth." Discovery of
truth is revelatory and falls into the category of general revelation or as Young often calls it, "extrabiblical evidence" (xi). This expanded view of general revelation is the foundation for various "integrationist" proposals, which the author favors. In the final chapter he calls for an exegetical methodology that integrates "discoveries" in various academic disciplines with Scripture as equals (313). Thus general revelation has the authority to inform Scripture or even correct it (308).

Admitting that Christians for 1700 years have interpreted Genesis 6�9 to refer to a global flood, Young declares on the basis of his view of general revelation, "The extrabiblical data pertaining to the flood have been pushing the church to develop a better approach to the flood story and indeed to all the early chapters of Genesis" (310). He admits that some years ago he believed that the "biblical data favor an essentially global flood" (272); but elsewhere concludes, "The cumulative pressure of general revelation can be ignored for only so long" (309).

He spends considerable space discussing John Whitcomb's and Henry Morris' The Genesis Flood, but does so at a superficial level. He calls their conclusions "obviously incorrect" (311), based on "untested and untestable speculations that have a more solid grounding in the imagination than in God's creation" (265), and their handling of the evidence "highly prejudicial" (262). Yet he never interacts with their substantive discussions. Young also mistakenly contends that only "Whitcomb and Morris have attempted to address the serious problems posed [by a global-flood view] of biogeography and
anthropology" (265), ignoring the extensive work of scientists from such institutions as the Creation Research Society and The Institute for Creation Research.

Pejorative terminology and a condescending spirit characterize Young's summary of the views of modern commentators who favor a universal flood (280-93). He also displays a consistent antipathy towards "flood geology" and the notion of a "young earth." He refers to flood geology as a "pseudo-science" (215) and "reactionary science" (244), in which "scientific competence, sophistication and integrity" are lacking (266). He describes the proponents of flood geology as those who are "typically self-taught and lack the requisite qualifications for discussing geology" (244). This animosity is clearly visible on pp. 274-76 where he introduces a discussion between Stephen A. Austin of ICR and Donald Boardman of Wheaton College, but he expounds only the conclusions of Boardman. As another reviewer has noted, Young has also mishandled the works of Gerhard Charles Aalders and Oswald T. Allis (David J. Engelsma, Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 29/1 [November 1995]:59-60), saying they are "agnostic about the extent of the deluge" (293).

Young has opted for a dichotomy between Scriptural declarations on matters of faith (theology) and matters touching other disciplines (science, history, etc.). He states, "The doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of providence, the two natures of Christ, and the concept of God's saving grace in Christ" must be affirmed "no matter what�simply because Scripture teaches them" (308). However, Young is just as ready to recommend the abandonment of the "traditional interpretation of the Bible in the face of a mass of conflicting extra-biblical evidence when the issue is a matter of a more historical, geographical, or scientific character" (ibid). He admits that the NT presents the flood as unique and global and Noah and the flood as historical, but he strongly implies that the NT is in error on those points (15, 29-30).

Scholars and theologians who properly understand the nature and scope of general revelation as presented in Scripture and the interrelationship between special and general revelation must address the questions raised by The Biblical Flood. Though Young calls for a "reinterpretation" of the Genesis flood account, this reviewer thinks that his re-interpretation is simply a rejection of the historicity and reliability of Scripture and of the historic Christian view of the doctrine of inspiration.