For the Eschatological Reader:

If you’re not familiar with TheologicalStudies.Org, you really should be—lots of good stuff from Michael Vlach, assistant professor of theology at The Master’s Seminary. Some recent additions include book reviews by Vlach and some of his students:



On Wednesday and Thursday, I’m planning to post a two-part response to something that Sam Waldron addressed in his book, MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto. But until then, you’ve got some reading to do!

8 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Scott Christensen on April 27, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    I recently read “A Case for Historic Premillenialism” and was quite dissapointed. It really was not a case at all. It was a series of symposium addresses put in book form (The DS guys intend to publish future such works) that are wide-ranging from broad perspectives on the issue and a number of more specialized studies. There is really no comprehensive defense of their position. Rather it is based more on assumptions and as the reviewer said a broad side attack on popular forms of Dispensationalism. There is no interaction with serious dispensational scholarship. If one wants a much more serious and well crafted defense of Premillennialism check out the older work by Campbell and Townsend entitled “A Case for Premillennialism.”

  2. Posted by Danan Leab on April 27, 2009 at 10:26 pm

    From Mollica’s view of Riddlebarger’s book: “May God give grace to those open-minded readers who are undecided in their view on the millennium that they might not fall into the same traps Riddlebarger has.”

    It’s hard for me to see how such a statement helps the Premil-Amil dialogue that Mollica hopes for, especially if Mollica envisioned his review being published outside his own eschatological camp. I’m sure Riddlebarger sees the traps differently, and has probably bemoaned it as such. It made me wonder–if both Premil Disp. and Amil. were actually wrong (hypothetically speaking of course), would either side actually be willing to concede?

  3. Posted by Chris Poe on April 27, 2009 at 11:59 pm

    Thanks for the heads up. I haven’t visited the site in a while and don’t remember these reviews being there the last time I was there.

  4. I am currently doing a long, (long,long,long) series on eschatology at my blog. I have barely started, but hope to touch on the various systems and how they interact with the relevant biblical texts. Don’t look to me to be witheringly detailed in the academics; my main audience are lay people. None the less, I hope they will be helpful as introductory for the uninitiated.

    At any rate, I have truly come to appreciate Robert Duncan Culver’s work on premillennialism. His book, “Daniel and the Latter-days” is probably the most refreshing work defending premillennialism from a biblical perspective that I have read in some time. The first part of the book is his outline of what premillennialism is. The second part deals with key prophetic texts from the book of Daniel and why premillennialism is the only eschatological system able to explain them exegetically.

    The book is regrettably out of print, but is findable as used on Amazon at a reasonable price. The text is also available on line, too. I have it linked from my Fred’s Bible Talk website.

  5. Scott: I’m two chapters into the book and having the same experience, even regretting that I spent the money on it.

    Fred: Keep up the good work at your blog; I’m planning to link the entire series when it’s finished. Thanks also for the recommendation of Culver’s book.

  6. Another resource is the SLJ Institute, which includes transcripts to all of the messages. I’m working my way through his 37 message series “The Divine Purpose.”

  7. Posted by Massimo Mollica on April 29, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    I feel no need to respond to Danan above. I just wanted to chime in on Culver’s book “Daniel and the Latter Days.” I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation. Culver’s little book is often overlooked, but it is one of the clearest treatments of premillennialism. He is honest with his own presuppositions, recognizes the arguments of non-premills, and goes about providing clear thinking to address them. Also, George Peter’s massive work “The Theocratic Kingdom”, if you can endure it, is refreshing as well.

  8. Posted by Massimo Mollica on April 30, 2009 at 1:08 am

    Danan, sorry about the comment above. After reading my comment, I realized that it probably didn’t come across right. I didn’t intend it to sound as cold as it does. Initially, I wasn’t intending on providing a response to your comment in this blog, but I thought it strange for me to comment on this blog about something else and not at least acknowledge your comment. But now that I have chimed in, its probably not fair for me to not respond to what you said. Don’t read too much into that statement in my critique as it was simply a closing statement to wrap up the critique. The statement does not add or detract too much to the substance of what I said.

    All that to say, I believe that there are some tricky pitfalls in Riddlebarger’s thinking (i.e. the one’s I listed throughout the critique) that I know an undecided and open-minded reader might not recognize. I’ve had friends become amillennialists as a result of reading Riddlebarger’s book and they have been unable to recognize some of the things I mentioned. My last statement was simply a prayer of acknowledgement that only by God’s grace do we come to a proper understanding of Scripture and I hoped that the undecided wouldn’t fall into those same traps. Whether the statement is useful to the critique, I hadn’t thought about too much. Thanks for expressing your opinion, I’ll keep it in mind as I write other critiques.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: