Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
91 of 100 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A good introductory response to Dispensationalism, January 19, 2000
For about the last hundred years, the evangelical church has taken the hermeneutical system of Dispensationalism for granted. The best known feature of the Dispensational system is its pretribulational, premillennial Rapture, but the essence of Dispensationalism is a division of history into two or more (typically seven) "dispensations," or divine economies, which necessarily includes a sharp distinction between God's chosen people, the children of Israel, and the Christian Church. Mathison's Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? is a good, basic introduction and critique of the Dispensational system. He begins by examining the Dispensational doctrine of the Church - that God has separate redemptive plans for Israel and the Church. By contrast, Mathison shows how believers in the Old Testament and New Testament eras are united in Christ, the only way of salvation, and how the covenants and promises made to Israel are fulfilled in the Church. The middle section of the book, in which Mathison critiques the Dispensational doctrine of salvation, is weaker. While the Dispensational theologians he chooses to interact with do have defective views of the doctrines of grace, I do not believe this is true of Dispensationalists in general. John Macarthur, for example, is a committed Dispensationalist, though not of the Scofield/Chafer variety, and Reformed in his soteriology. It does not seem to me that the two camps are mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, the chapter on Lordship salvation does an excellent job of highlighting the antinomianism of many prominent Dispensational theologians. One thing Mathison doesn't bring out, but could have, is that the Lordship controversy is basically an internal squabble amongst Dispensationalists. Outside the Dispensational camp, those who are Christ's see no conflict between Law and Gospel. But Mathison bounces back with his section on eschatology, showing the weak foundation on which the Rapture teaching rests. Virtually all the proof-texts used to defend the Rapture contrast the wrath of God against unbelievers (eternal punishment) with salvation in Christ (eternal life), yet the Dispensationalists would have us believe they contrast Tribulation with Rapture. As a historic Premillennialist, I find Mathison's implicit postmillennialism less convincing, but he does make some good points about the interpretation of key eschatological passages as Revelation 20 and Matthew 24. On the whole, there are probably better and more technical critiques of the Dispensational system available, but I haven't yet read them. Mathison's book is a good overview, aimed at laymen. Dispensationalism is at least partly responsible for the refusal of Christians to apply their time and minds to an active participation in, and interaction with, all aspects of our society. After all, why attempt to turn the world upside-down if we're going to get Raptured moments before the Antichrist trashes everything? But those who are genuinely seeking God's truth owe it to themselves to buy or borrow this book, read it, and search the Scriptures to see if what Mathison says is so.
|
|
|
28 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
my testimonial: how this book changed my thinking, June 18, 2002
By A Customer
Most of my childhood pastors (and my present one) graduated from Dallas, and I graduated from dispensationalist Moody Bible Institute. But somehow I had never heard a clear presentation of what dispensationalism believed. When I started becoming informed of Reformed theology, I was interested, but I had some questions lingering from my dispensational background. I decided it was most fair to read what dispensationalists themselves said before I read what "the other side" said about them, so I started by skimming through Charles Ryrie's Dispensationalism. Reading Dispensationalism, I was really quite surprised at the false arguments (such as that only dispensationalists care about an accurate interpretation of Scripture because they take it "literally" and other people don't), the clear misinterpretations of Scripture, and the assertion that dispensationalists care more about God's glory than others do (God's glory was what attracted me most to Reformed doctrine--I had been a Christian 25 years and had never seen how "big" God is).Finally I was at a conference at which this book was sold. Although I'd not managed to get through Dispensationalism, I decided to buy this book and read it, and to get back to dispensationalism later. But by the time I finished this book, all my questions about both positions had been answered, with the exception of not going into much detail on end-times issues. Part of what resonated with me, however, is that the focus here is on the Cross, not on end times, which seems to fit better with Scripture. I'm beginning to see that Jews at the time of Christ were surprised because Jesus didn't fit their expectations for a Messiah and to realize we might also be surprised because the end times don't happen exactly as we expect. (Ironically, it seems to me that dispensationalism continues the first-century Jews' mistaken idea of what Jesus was supposed to do when He came!) I don't think prophecy is necessarily supposed to fill in all the details ahead of time--it's supposed to make sense when it has been fulfilled. The thought that somehow Jews who believed in Jesus and Gentile Christians remained separate religious bodies even after the Cross, apparently forever, had continued to bug me, so it was good to see Scripture after Scripture that validated that Christ really has torn down the wall. One point dispensationalists make is that there has to be a future literal Millennium because God has never completely kept His promise to give designated land to Israel. Mathison points out Joshua 21:43-45, which seems to try to use "all" as many times as possible so that this accusation can never be made. (So much for a "literal interpretation of Scripture.") That's just one example of an argument that was absolutely demolished by Scripture as I read this book. Immediately after reading this book I had to do a study project that included detailed reading of a dispensational theology text that is heavily critiqued in this book. I looked up each Scripture the author of that book quotes and saw many places where gaps came in his theological reasoning, but I also saw that Mathison had been fair and accurate in his representation of the book. So really I did my reading on dispensationalism after all. But by that time I was no longer a dispensationalist because it was clear that Scripture had to be twisted too strangely to make it fit the position. Later I got a chance to ask a leading dispensationalist some of the questions Mathison raised, and instead of answering he said only that the system is sound and that apparently we disagree.
|
|
|
28 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Mathison's treatment is complete and concise, October 8, 1998
I was lent this book expecting from the title to find a caustic and shallow treatment of a "straw man" position. Instead I found the exact opposite. Coming from a strong dispensational orientation, I can affirm this is no straw man, and Mathison doesn't leave out Arminian verses he doesn't like. This is a fair, thorough analysis of the dispensationalist doctrines of the church, salvation, and end times, and belongs open and off to the side of the desk of every truth-seeking thinker - with the Bible in the center of course. It also happens to be very readable, so the average parishoner need not fear the language. The highlight of the book for me was the huge collection of verses on both sides of the much-disputed "Five Points." I'd have bought it for one of those chapters alone.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Michael D. Williams
by Vern S. Poythress
by Charles Ryrie
by R. Sproul
by Keith A. Mathison
