|
Review Summary: Good but not great |
Date: 2008-10-13 |
|
| |
Details: The title of this book caught my attention because for the first 30 years of my life I lived in a church/school culture which believed that dispensationalism was the best framework for understanding the Bible properly.
The subtitle -- Rightly Dividing the People of God? -- is a play on words:
1) Dispensationalism distinguishes itself from other theological grids by seeing a distinction between the Old Testament "people of God" (the nation of Israel) and the New Testament "people of God" (the Church)
2) Dispensationalism (like every other teaching over which there is no Christian consensus) divides God's people
The book, published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing in 1995, consists of 160 pages and four major parts.
Part 1 defines dispensationalism and examines its roots in church history. Mathison helpfully defines dispensationalism in terms of what makes it unique among theological systems: it is "that system of theology which sees a fundamental distinction between Israel and the church." Its roots go back to the late 19th century Bible Conference Movement.
Part 2 argues strongly for the unity of believers throughout all of history. Where dispensationalism sees a critical discontinuity between believers of the Old Testament and believers in the "church age," Mathison sees an essential continuity.
Part 3 refutes "the dispensational doctrine of salvation" by defending point by point the Calvinist doctrine of salvation. It was here that I felt the book lost its focus a bit. While a semi-Pelagian view of salvation is no doubt common among dispensationalists, Mathison fails to prove that it is a necessary teaching of dispensationalism. As such, these 60+ pages dilute the impact of the book.
Part 4 argues against "the dispensational doctrine of the last things." Mathison offers reasons why the dispensationalist teaching of the rapture is not correct. Additionally, he explains why the dispensationalist understanding of the Millennium is suspect.
I appreciated Mathison's attempts throughout the book to prove his points with Scripture. Although he occasionally appeals to church history to support his arguments, he insists that Scripture trumps the church's historical understanding of any given teaching.
Though I am sympathetic to many of Mathison's viewpoints, and though this book provides helpful insight into areas that deserve concentrated consideration, I'm not convinced that Mathison's overview of the subject proves as much as he thinks it does. His rhetoric at times seems stronger than his proof.
Mathison concludes the book with this exhortation: "True Christians are thus faced with a choice. The decision is whether to submit to the compelling witness of Scripture or to continue believing in a doctrinal system void of biblical basis simply because that system is what one has always been taught. I urge my dispensationalist brothers and sisters to consider this choice prayerfully, and to eagerly embrace the Word of truth."
I suspect a sincere dispensationalist would offer similar advice at the end of a book *defending* dispensationalism. |
| |
|
Review Summary: The Dispensationalist hermeneutic is analagous to looking at Bible through a Kaleidoscope |
Date: 2008-01-19 |
|
| |
Details: ~Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?~ takes a look at the current popularity of seeking fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the Middle East and the state of Israel.
What is dispensationalism? My working definition...
Dispensationalism: A system of biblical interpretation that is virtually analogous to looking at the Bible through the lens of a kaleidoscope.
I was naive enough in my youth to interpret the Bible through the heuristic of dispensationalism. Ironically I never even heard of the phrasing dispensationalism at the time, and yet I absorbed its basic premises through the shallow evangelical subculture as if by osmosis. Interpreting the Scriptures through this heuristic is analogous to looking at the Bible through the lens of a kaleidoscope. Dispensationalism is a deeply flawed, specious, ahistorical overthrow of historic Reformation theology. Many of its core tenets were contrivances of Darby and Scofield with no historic basis in Scripture or the Reformation.
Keith Mathison is a Reformed theologian and tackles dispensationalism for its perceived errors in ecclesiology (i.e., doctrine of the church,) eschatology (i.e., doctrine of last things, Bible prophecy,) and soteriology (i.e., doctrine of salvation.) This book essentially is a refutation of the dubious dispensationalist notion that God has two plans of redemption: plan A for Israel and a plan B for the Gentiles. Dispensationalists presuppose a "secret rapture" of Gentile believers of faith around the time of a Great Tribulation while the Jews will be subjected first to the delusions and then to persecutions of the Anti-Christ. Mathison shuns these presuppositions, which emanate from the hermeneutical framework of Bible interpretation known as dispensationalism that is wildly popular with American evangelicals. Dispensationalism made its assent with the works of Darby and Scofield in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It reached a fevered pitch in the later twentieth century, with the rise of prophecy teachers like Hal Lindsay and Tim LaHaye.
Who is the Israel of the Bible and who are the heirs of the covenant promises? The Scriptures purport a profound unity within the body of Christ, which includes peoples of all nations (Eph 2:12-14; Heb 11:24-26; Rom 11:16-17). Deriving a cogent ecclesiology (i.e., doctrine of the church) entails an exegetical reading of he third chapter of Paul's letter to the Galatians. God in his forbearance has by no means cast his people off. The true Promised Land for Jews and Gentiles of faith is a celestial or heavenly kingdom! Israel is an anti-type foreshadowing the celestial kingdom. It's no coincidence that Moses dropped dead before reaching the so called Promised Land; it wasn't just because of disobedience, but was a prescient revealing of what the Promised Land and God's Grace really is.
In his letter to the Galatians, the Apostle Paul explains that all those of faith are heirs to the covenant promises of Abraham: 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ... 19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator... 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus... 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Galatians 3:16,19,26,28,29)
I went to Christian colleges such as Liberty and Regent and it's good to get a break from dispensationalist dogma and let the Word speak for itself. This is not what dispensationalists pejoratively denigrate as "replacement theology" but rather it is "expansion theology." As the Apostle Paul makes clear, God has not cast his first people off by any means, but there is a remnant according to election (Rom. 11:1-8). Standing up for the truth of the Gospel means standing against flawed hermneutical frameworks like Dispensationism.
On the downside, Mathison's book probably could have left out the eschatology, and his claims for postmillennialism are subject for a whole other debate. I think the focus on a book refuting dispensationalism should just be to do so, while only scratching the surface of the varieties of alternative views within a covenant theology framework. There are viable alternatives to dispensational eschatology besides his theonomic postmillennialism. Vern Poythress has written another refutation of dispensationalism, which is worth considering.
I would be happy to point out the flaws of dispensationalism to any Christian who cares to interact with me in the comments form, or via e-mail. |
| |
|
Review Summary: A Book Worth Reading |
Date: 2007-10-17 |
|
| |
Details: This book, while it is very challenging, is much worth the read. Having been brought up with a Dispensational backround, I found that Keith Mathison identified with Dispensational beliefs very well and was able to articulate how and why Dispensationalist have dropped the ball on some very key doctrines of the Church.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone seeking the truth of the Scriptures. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Better on ecclesiology than eschatology. |
Date: 2007-08-04 |
|
|
| |
Details: Keith Mathison raises the question of whether or not dispensationalism is an accurate way to interpret the Bible. He makes some good points: a. Dispensationalism's anthropology depicts saved human people who have a civil war going on inside of themselves with the new nature versus the sin nature and the system doesn't seem to allow for consistently victorious living in this life (although, Galatians 5:16-18 does seem to capture what dispensationalists are trying to say).
Mathison also points out how there is only one people of God according to the New Testament (as opposed to dispensationalism's teaching that there are two peoples), and he makes his strongest case from Romans 11:11-24, where he shows that the one olive tree represents the one people of faith.
Keith also correctly identifies how most dispensationalists are more Arminian than Calvinist. However, he errs in his faulty definition of Arminianism, preferring to identify it with Semi-Pelagianism. I get ticked when Reformed people do this, because Arminius believed in the total depravity of man and the complete inability of humanity to lift a hand or a foot toward their own salvation apart from the prevenient grace of God.
Mathison does a better job of critiquing dispensational ecclesiology than he does with dispensational eschatology. For example, when discussing the rapture, he never brings up John 14, which clearly teaches that Christ is coming back to take believers with Him to the Father's house.
Moreover, Mathison completely sidesteps the passages of scripture which teach that the Lord could come back at any time (Luke 12:35-48; James 5:7-10, 1 Thessalonians 5:1-2, etc). In addition, his teaching about the millennium in Revelation 20 just doesn't make any sense of the text, the premillennial interpretation is much to be preferred, in my opinion.
Keith does a good job of avoiding ad hominem argumentation, but he totally misunderstands and mispresents Arminianism, and he fails to grasp dispensational eschatology as well as he should have. 3 stars. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? |
Date: 2006-03-19 |
|
|
| |
Details: Very good book. I was looking into is Dispensationalist theology biblical, after being taught this without even knowing that this was a modern teaching since the late 1800's. Actually I thought it was the only way to look at the end times. After much study I'm leaning with the Amillenial way of understanding Rev 20. It was an awesome study for the last few months, and I learned much.
Jimmy from NJ |
| |
|
out of 22 Reviews
