Item description for When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism by Keith A. Mathison...
Overview When Shall These Things be? counters the view of "full preterism," which contends that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. Although the full preterist (or hyper-preterist) view has gained an avid following for its eschatology, this volume questions whether such a view does justice to the full promise of Scripture concerning the end times. Such questions relating to the fulfillment of the Great Commission, Christ's final return, and a future bodily resurrection may prove difficult for hyper-preterism to answer. Contributors such as Kenneth Gentry, Charles Hill, Richard Pratt, Simon Kistemaker, and Douglas Wilson critically examine hyper-preterist views, affirming Christ's future return, the resurrection of our bodies, the final judgment, and our eternal hope.
Publishers Description Pratt, Kistemaker, Strimple, and others refute the teaching that all biblical prophecy (second coming, general resurrection, and final judgment) was fulfilled in the first century.
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Studio: P & R Publishing
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 9" Width: 6.16" Height: 0.85" Weight: 1.17 lbs.
Release Date Feb 20, 2004
Publisher P & R PUBLISHING #97
ISBN 0875525520 ISBN13 9780875525525
Availability 0 units.
More About Keith A. Mathison
Mathison received a B.A. in Christianity and political science from Houston Baptist University and then studied at Dallas Theological Seminary for two years before completing his M.A. in theological studies from Reformed Theological Seminary. He earned a PhD in Christian thought from Whitefield Theological Seminary. He is director of curriculum development for Ligonier Ministries.
Reviews - What do customers think about When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism?
Thinking of Buying into Hyper-Preterism, then buy this book Mar 11, 2007
If you are thinking of buying into hyper-preterism, then I think this book is a worthy purchase and read, especially for Strimple's chapter on the resurrection. This, I believe, is at heart in the issue with hyper-preterism. The FACT that Jesus Christ, the second Adam, rose bodily (self-same body he was crucified, dead, and buried with), bringing immortality to light and all who are in the Messiah will be like him settles the issue.
With that said, I had to give it three stars because I don't believe this book quite hits the mark for several reasons. First, the conglomeration of authors do not set forward a positive eschatology. Obviously, the point of this book is not to positively set forth an eschatology in toto, but to critique hyper-preterism without really offering an alternative is not that helpful. The critique would have been strengthened by positively setting forth an eschatlogy. Second, the conglomeration of authors personally offer different perspectives on eschatology. For example, Ken Gentry, whose chapter on the creeds is excellent and well worthwhile, is a strong advocate of a pre-ad 70 dating for the book of Revelation and, as far as I know, so is Keith Mathison. Then why would Keith Mathison, the editor of this work, include a chapter by Kistemaker arguing, at least in part, for a late date of Revelation? Granted, I can accept a late date for Revelation and this would do away with hyper-preterism, but to a layman versed in basic eschatology you are left asking, "What does this intramural debate mean to these authors?" Third, I wish the authors would have done more Biblical and exegetical work. Strimple's chapter, I believe, does the best job interacting with hyper-preterists and exegeting 1 Corinthians 15 as well. Mathison's chapter touches on this, but the other chapters aren't as thorough as I would've liked. The other chapters are all good, worthwhile reads, but if you are a hyper-preterist or thinking about hyper-preterism, then I really don't think these chapters are as convincing as they could be.
Overall, I give the book three stars. It is good, but not great.
Hunka Oct 14, 2005
The book is generally THE WORST HUNKA SKUBALOS EVER WRITTEN. Of course it is not perfect, what book is (except the Bible, of course)? I think the biggest weakness was having ANY chapters on the creeds; None would suffice. Strimple's and Hill's chapters were probably the best EXAMPLES OF SKUBALOS. What is interesting is that Hill shows that the first and second generation of Christians still expected a future comming! Why would Jude's grandson, for example, not know that it [the second comming] already happened READ SAM FROST'S "MISPLACED HOPE" YOU SILLY PINATA ? Indeed, why would the majority of 1st and 2nd century Christians not know a HUGE eschatological event like this??? The counter is absurd. A non-Biblical assumption that the first century Christians fell into some sort of theological stupper (examine this claim with Ephesians 4 and the *building* up of the CHURCH). I am thankful for the above posts since they show how intellectually silly these hyPO-preterists are. Did everyone notice the overheated way in which they typed? They serve as a prime example of docrine affecting life. If, as the hyper-preterists say, we are already sanctified...then why strive?
Finally, hypO-preterism has been destroyed by the "transcendental argument against hyper preterism"
UNBIBLICAL May 22, 2005
(...) Denies the perspicuity of scripture. http://www.pharisees.org This book edited by Dr. Mathison IS FULL OF THE DOCTRINES OF DEMONS. The severE theologians who have contributed to this work really expose HypO-Preterism as a dangerous and heretical movement.
If you want to COMMIT THE "2000 years" FALLACY of ESCHATOLOGICAL Christian WAFFLING, maybe HypO-Preterism is for you! If you prefer a biblical and EXEGETical approach to Christianity, steer clear of the HYPOS. Mathison has SHOWN THIS in this book!
Besides a decided arrogance among many of its proponents, HypO-Preterism is trying to DIVIDE the Christian faith. They are deNYING that the Second Coming of Christ occurred in the first century -- but that nobody noticed it! Though the Apostles taught about Jesus' Return the entire church has missed it until this Internet-based cult pointed it out to us.
The various chapters in Mathison's book APPROVE this new movement for its many errors. Dr. Strimple shows that the movement has several different views of the resurrection of believers. The only thing uniting their various views is that they all deny the BIBLICAL resurrection of the dead! Even though this is so clearly taught in Scripture and so widely declared in Christian history.
This book also shows that the new movement is recommending a new Christian holiday: A celebration of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70!
It shows that the movement is also denying that human death is a result of sin coming into the world through Adam's fall. The Preterists believe that death was a part of God's creation from the beginning in Eden!
Read the reviews that speak POSItively of this book. Notice how difficult the reviews are to understand, how little sense they make, and how mean-spirited they are. I have heard many stories of Christians who have had people from this movement try to infiltrate their churches. I now see from some of the POSITIVE reviews the attitude that flows from this movement.
HOPEFULLY DR. MATHISON WILL NOT INFILTRATE YOUR CHURCH!!!
PHYSICAL DEATH SHALL CONTINUE FOREVER
THE HUMAN ENEMY IS NOT SEPARATION FROM OUR BODIES
THE SEPARATION FROM GOD IS THE DEATH THAT IS ETERNAL
JESUS "APPEARED A SECOND TIME W/O DEALING WITH SIN TO BRING THOSE WHO EAGERLY WAITED" SALVATIon.
For some years now there has been a serious need for a Biblical attempt at a refutation of a true, scriptural teaching that has been gaining adherents among the theologically reforming.
This is not it!
That teaching, commonly known as Preterism, proclaims that the Final Advent has been completely misunderstood by 99.9% of ALL theologians over the past 2000 years. We show from scripture that it is to be totally identified with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and hence there is NO future (we would say "third") coming of Christ.
Although advocates of this view enlist the names of men like Spurgeon, John Owen, and Philip Mauro into their ranks, the fact is, there are many more Bible scholars and theologians that have advocated the doctrines of Preterism as they are currently propagated. And for GOOD reason: this teaching spells the end of Pharisaical, unbiblical Christianity. This is one reason why Hypo-Preterism is in a doctrinal decay, with new eisegesis, ever more bizarre teachings, and heretofore unknown "discoveries" from the pages of Scripture.
Dr. Keith Mathison and Dr. Ken Gentry are to be condemned for their efforts at dividing Christians in order to keep their jobs as Pharisees and HIGH Priests of the obsolete Old Covenant.
Some of the finest Bible scholars and theologians in today's Reforming churches show quite clearly the serious problems with unorthodox Hypo-Preterism. Potential buyers should not be swayed by scurrilous attacks on the book and its authors by the Hypo-Preterists who have posted insulting and condescending reviews. Here is a book by people stuck in the sixteenth century and unwilling to reform. It is eisegetical, unsound, and denies the perspicuity of scripture. The contributors brazenly ignore the fact that you can't prove anything from history.
Gentry and Mathison show themselves to be creedolaters without shame. Along with the positive reviews, Gentry and Mathison dismantle the Bible WORD by WORD.
So Mathison and Gentry went to Whitefield in Florida, what accreditation does that seminary have?
Save your money and wait for a book that exegetes scripture
A Mixed Bag, really Mar 25, 2005
I was a hyper-preterist. Then I read this book. I read it in order to refute it. I could not. I can attest to the accuracy of the contributor's statements regarding hyper-preterism, and I'm thankful I was pulled from the clutches of it before I had sunk deeper.
This book constitutes the first detailed and in-depth response to the movement known as "full preterism" but better called "hyper preterism." Naturally, because it is the first, it will stumble in some areas. But there are also positives.
By far the best contributions are the chapters by Gentry ("The Historical Problem with Hyper-Preterism"), Hill ("Eschatology in the Wake of Jerusalem's Fall"), Wilson ("Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesiastical Authority"), and Stimple ("Hyper-Preterism on the Resurrection of the Body"). They are the best because they are tightly reasoned and exegetically based (I don't know if I've seen more scripture quoted in a book before. They can constitute a third or half of a page on occasion).
The remaining chapters are certainly ok, but not spectacular. That said, there is one chapter that completely stands out as being the worst contribution to this book, but also the worst explanation of the prophetic time texts I have read to date. It is Pratt's chapter ("Hyper-Preterism and Unfolding Biblical Eschatology"). The entire chapter's argument can be presented as follows: "Biblical prophesy and prediction do not need to be fulfilled in the manner, or the timing, made by the initial prophesy." Thus, his best defense becomes the worst offense. No, his best defense is to have no offense at all. Pratt's argument seems to go like this: "when confronted with a dissenting opinion to orthodoxy, we ought to exterminate everyone on earth."
The entire premise of his poorly-argued and naive exegesis is that, if we can establish that prophesies don't need to be fulfilled in the manner in which they were prophesied, we can simply disregard the "soon" time-texts cited by the hyper-preterists because even though they were prophesied to occur at a certain time, Jesus decided not to fulfill it at that time without informing anyone. (How is this different from simply claiming Jesus was in error, as many liberals do? Either way, intentionally or accidentally, Jesus still didn't return when He SAID He would.)
Yes, this idea might stop hyper-preterism dead in its tracks, but it also stops every other eschatology as well. Were we to follow this suggestion to its logical conclusion, we would not be able to even claim a FUTURE return of Christ, since, if Jesus can alter the fulfillment of a prophesy (turning it, then, into nothing more than a guess or a hope) he can certainly decide not to fulfill a given prophesy at all! Every eschatological system collapses into a pile of rubble. Prophesy, by its very definition, must come to pass exactly as stated (unless God explicitely states he's going to alter it, as He does in the OT) or it is not a prophesy.
Overall, the book has a schizophenic feel to it, since its contributors are of all eschatological systems, including amillenialism, premillenialism, postmillenialism, and orthodox preterist postmillenialism. Some contributors attack beliefs that are orthodox preteristic in nature and not restricted to hyper-preterists (such as Nero's being the Beast of Revelation and Revelation being written before A.D. 70), including legitimate orthodox beliefs under the blanket of hyper-preterism (without addressing the evidence amassed by orthodox preterists to defend these things). Such is Hill who (p. 63) categorically denies the pre-A.D. 70 date for the completion of Revelation, without presenting evidence, nor acknowledging that his fellow contributor, Ken Gentry, was the man who first proposed and defended the early date for Revelation (in his book "Before Jerusalem Fell"). Neither does Hill explain why Gentry is wrong in his theological, exegetical, and historical analyses. He simply states an opinion.
Had the contributors been a little more closely tied eschatologically, these contradictions would have been avoided. Also, they might have avoided criticing orthodox preterism in the process of refuting hyper-preterism (when you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail, I suppose). Still, they attempt to also refute ideas put forward by fellow orthodox preterist Gary DeMar (while never making mention of his significant contribution to orthodox preterist postmillenialism). Further, where are DeMar, Sandlin, North, and other's contributions to this book? Their insights would have proved enlightening as well.
Taken as a whole, though, the majority of the book is worth reading and constititutes a good first book on the problems with hyper-preterism. No doubt more will follow.
Not Even Close Mar 2, 2005
I give this book one star for the sad effort put out by the author(s) to discredit what they believe to be heresy. Much of the book was based on church creeds and the church fathers, but very little on scriptural texts. The sad part is that none of these guys have the nerve to debate any of the full-preterist advocates except James Jordan, who as a reformed scholar, said that it was wrong to call full-preterists heretical. Hang On Though, there's a BIG surprise coming soon, and I'm not talking about the futurist view of the second coming of Christ. In the meantime, answer these two questions: 1) In Rev.22, if this is the eternal state where there is no more curse or night in the new heavens and earth, then why do the nations still need healing(vs.2)?? 2) Why is it in 1 Cor.15,(a text that is used by futurists to prove a FUTURE, BODILY, RESURRECTION), the Greek shows that the resurrection was presently taking place in the first century even as Paul wrote the letter?? Read vss.29-49 very carefully and see how often the present tense is used in reference to the resurrection.