Finding the author to be from the USA, I figured there was a 95% chance of a dispensational, futurist, fundamentalist position. My guess was only partly right.
The book contains good arguments for those wanting to get a better handle on this muddied area of the believer's relationship to the Mosaic Law. There were points in there I hadn't considered, and I'm indebted to the brother for taking the time to study these things—and to God for revealing them to him. An example of a powerful point he makes that I hadn't considered was the superiority of the Abrahamic covenant over the Mosaic one.
Chris doesn't restrict himself to the King James Version, and I thought I heard particular redemtion implied, so that doesn't fit the typical Fundamentalist.
There was some disappointment, though. His Futurist views I find hard to take, having had something of an eschatological epiphany which brought me to a partial Preterist, Amillennial standpoint. Unless I'm mistaken, Chris believes in a literal thousand years, with a literal [giant] Jewish temple, and a reinstitution of animal sacrifices. Having made such a good case for the fulfilment of the Law in Christ, I believe he undermined his own argument with this belief of the mass slaughter of animals for a thousand years.
In one of the answers to potential objections to his Sabbath view, his view of Matthew 24 again weakens his argument. If he understood Jesus's prediction to be about the coming destruction of Jerusalem, the phrase "...pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day" would be easier to argue against. People back then would have been observing Sabbaths still.
Eschatology is a minefield, and I've thankfully given up being too certain of my views; but I'm currently convinced that there's no literal thousand years, no second chance for Jews, no special role for the state of Israel, no end-time antichrist, and certainly no animal sacrifices.
My complaints are too significant for me to be able to recommend the book. The author sounds genuine, and his narration is very easy to listen to; but his eschatological views prevent him from making as powerful argument as he could, and I shouldn't like to promote those doctrines in any case.