RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
by C. Marvin Pate. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2010
This is a *very* basic primer on eschatology. Pate, however, does manage to add some insights that aren't covered in Erickson and Grenz. He surveys all of the millennial options, noting where they agree on hermeneutics and noting difficulties in all of the options. He eventually sides with premillennialism, noting that the premillennial reading of chapters 19-20 makes the most sense of the lexigraphy and grammar, and I think he is right.
He made the strongest critique of postmillennialism. However, he seems to think that all postmillennialists are partial-preterists, yet this is not true. I suppose it doesn't matter, since non-preterist postmillennialism is actually the weakest of all eschatological positions. He forces postmillennialist to logically accept the claims of hyper-preterism and takes the argument to full-preterism. There is no reason why a postmillennialist should stop the partial-preterist wagon at Revelation 18 and not say that Rev. 19-22 also applies to the destruction of Jerusalem. If, however, he does, the following absurdities arise:
1. The second coming actually happened in A.D. 70 and your position is now heretical.
2. If (1) we are no longer in Revelation 20, but actually chapters 21-22 (since 19-20 is the 2nd Coming/Millennium, which happened at the fall of Jerusalem). If that is the case, we are currently in the eternal state.
His take on amillennialism is actually the weakest in the book. Besides the critique based on Revelation 20, he doesn't offer one. True, he brings in the claim that post-Augustine, there was an abandoning of literal hermeneutics in favor of Alexandrian, Platonic ones, and I think there is something to this, but he doesn't develop it. This is odd since premillennialists usually act like it's open-season on amillennialism, yet he pulls all of his punches.
Varieties of Premillennialism:
This chapter was interesting. I only caught this on the second reading through. Pate patiently explains the nuances between pretribulationalism, post-trib, and midtrib/prewrath rapture. I was impressed and it made me want to go read the Zondervan Counterpoints book Three Views on the Rapture. He does a nice job explaining how on the post-trib view various sections of Paul's epistles line up with the Olivet Discourse (a claim that most millennial adherents would affirm). Surprisingly, he begins to offer criticisms of his own position, admitting to potential weaknesses. This is a welcome admission given that some adherents to different systems claim that their's is the only one that protects the gospel (I"ve actually seen this claim on Klinean message boards).
Pate ends his book with an analysis of the Jesus seminar and current gnosticisms in the American university setting.
This book is fair, but suffers from a number of problems: the analysis isn't always thorough and Pate writes in an annoying populist manner. Other weaknesses include the identification of idealism with amillennialism, but this is faulty because Rushdoony (a postmillennialist) was an idealist and Jay Adams (an amillennialist) is a partial preterist.
This is a *very* basic primer on eschatology. Pate, however, does manage to add some insights that aren't covered in Erickson and Grenz. He surveys all of the millennial options, noting where they agree on hermeneutics and noting difficulties in all of the options. He eventually sides with premillennialism, noting that the premillennial reading of chapters 19-20 makes the most sense of the lexigraphy and grammar, and I think he is right.
He made the strongest critique of postmillennialism. However, he seems to think that all postmillennialists are partial-preterists, yet this is not true. I suppose it doesn't matter, since non-preterist postmillennialism is actually the weakest of all eschatological positions. He forces postmillennialist to logically accept the claims of hyper-preterism and takes the argument to full-preterism. There is no reason why a postmillennialist should stop the partial-preterist wagon at Revelation 18 and not say that Rev. 19-22 also applies to the destruction of Jerusalem. If, however, he does, the following absurdities arise:
1. The second coming actually happened in A.D. 70 and your position is now heretical.
2. If (1) we are no longer in Revelation 20, but actually chapters 21-22 (since 19-20 is the 2nd Coming/Millennium, which happened at the fall of Jerusalem). If that is the case, we are currently in the eternal state.
His take on amillennialism is actually the weakest in the book. Besides the critique based on Revelation 20, he doesn't offer one. True, he brings in the claim that post-Augustine, there was an abandoning of literal hermeneutics in favor of Alexandrian, Platonic ones, and I think there is something to this, but he doesn't develop it. This is odd since premillennialists usually act like it's open-season on amillennialism, yet he pulls all of his punches.
Varieties of Premillennialism:
This chapter was interesting. I only caught this on the second reading through. Pate patiently explains the nuances between pretribulationalism, post-trib, and midtrib/prewrath rapture. I was impressed and it made me want to go read the Zondervan Counterpoints book Three Views on the Rapture. He does a nice job explaining how on the post-trib view various sections of Paul's epistles line up with the Olivet Discourse (a claim that most millennial adherents would affirm). Surprisingly, he begins to offer criticisms of his own position, admitting to potential weaknesses. This is a welcome admission given that some adherents to different systems claim that their's is the only one that protects the gospel (I"ve actually seen this claim on Klinean message boards).
Pate ends his book with an analysis of the Jesus seminar and current gnosticisms in the American university setting.
This book is fair, but suffers from a number of problems: the analysis isn't always thorough and Pate writes in an annoying populist manner. Other weaknesses include the identification of idealism with amillennialism, but this is faulty because Rushdoony (a postmillennialist) was an idealist and Jay Adams (an amillennialist) is a partial preterist.