Book Review: A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger

Date January 17, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

As I’ve matured in my faith, I’ve changed my theological
views on a number of occasions. I grew up in a dispensational-premillennial
General Baptist church. In college, I became convinced of covenantal theology
(as opposed to dispensational). I went from Arminian to Molinist to Calvinist
and from believer baptism to infant and back to believer. Through all those
changes (and others), eschatology is one subject I never felt well equipped to
give an opinion about. That is, until I began learning from Dr. Kim
Riddlebarger, pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim. Dr. Riddlebarger was the first
person who made sense of the eschatological questions I had and helped me come
to solid conclusions about what the Bible’s talking about.

I offer that background as a caveat: I was convinced by the
author about his book’s thesis before reading his book. That said A Case for Amillennialism made me ever
more confident in the ammillenial interpretation of the Bible. The book is
divided into three parts. Part 1 lays the foundation for eschatological
discussion by defining terms, surveying the various views, and examining the
how prophecy is to be interpreted.

The second part of the book is the meat of the case for the
amillennial interpretation of the Bible. Dr. Riddlebarger deals with issues related
to covenant, prophecy, interpretation, the Kingdom
of God, Israel, and much more. If Part 2 is
the meat, then Part 3 is the bones as it examines four critical passages:
Daniel 9:24-27, The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24 & Mark 13), and Romans 11,
and Revelation 20.

While the whole book is a treasure, my favorite is the
beginning where Dr. Riddlebarger defines the terms and provides a survey of the
various views. Understanding the landscape of eschatology is utterly crucial to
studying it, but few people seem to have such understanding. There and throughout
the book, Dr. Kim Riddlebarger presents opposing views (pre- and post-millennial)
fairly and offers precise criticisms. Though he admits that much more could be
said, he presents a thoroughly compelling case for his position that cannot be
ignored by those with opposing views. A
Case for Amillennialism is a necessary read for anyone interested in
eschatological issues.

Related posts:

  1. Interview with Kim Riddlebarger, Part 1
  2. Interview with Kim Riddlebarger, Part 2
  3. Book Review: The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf
  4. Interview with Kim Riddlebarger, Part 3
  5. Book Review: Is the Bible Intolerant? By Amy Orr-Ewing
  6. Book Review: God of Promise by Michael Horton

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology

4 Responses to “Book Review: A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger”

  1. Anonymous said:

    May 28th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    I am reading this book and find it very excellent. I have come across one question in his argument in chapter 9 for the “Present Reality of the Kingdom”; wherein he list (page 109) a case for this: “A second sign of the presence of the kingdom was that Satan fell from heaven and was bound.” - citing Luke 10:18.
    I posted this on his blog, hoping for an answer: How does this line up with Isaiah 14:12? It appears to me that Isaiah and Jesus are referring to the same action, which predates His first advent, if not even the life of Job.
    Any feedback on this?

  2. Anonymous said:

    May 30th, 2008 at 11:29 pm

    Obviously it would be best if Kim were to clarify his own words, but here's what I understand him to be getting at..
    The Luke 10 and Isaiah 14 verses speak of Satan falling. The sign of the presence of the kingdom is more specifically the binding of Satan. Kim goes on to reference (actually page 108) the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-10 and the “restrainer” in 2 Thess. 2:7.

  3. Anonymous said:

    May 31st, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    Thanks for your reply and explanation. I agree - the binding of Satan is a sign of the first advent. Satan's expulsion from Heaven, methinks, is a sign of birth pains of the first advent.

  4. Anonymous said:

    June 1st, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    In this excellent book, there are 2 issues that weaken Riddlebarger's credibility.
    In the early going of this book, he advocates the proper view of using the NT to interpret the OT, as God's newer revelation gives additional insight. Then, without explaining why, he endorses the reverse - page 198, in describing how Exodus and Joel are key to understanding Revelation. This is a reasonable but unexplained exception. Minor gripe.
    Page 211 - a flat out error. He states, “Satan deceived Adam in Eden,” whereas the Lord reveals in 1 Tim 2:14 that Adam was NOT deceived, but Eve was. There is no reason for such an error and this - though unrelated to his thesis - hurts his credibility.
    All in all, I am enjoying this book greatly and am greatly benefiting from it.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.