Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (part 3)

A wonderful defense of the importance of creeds and confessions has stood at the opening of A Modern Exposition since its first publication in 1989 (the 300th anniversary of its first adoption in London in 1689). I did not write that defense. It was written by Dr. Robert Paul Martin who went to be with the Lord a few months ago in 2016.

I have always wondered if “Dr. Bob” received sufficient credit for this fine essay. In my preface to the Fifth Edition of A Modern Exposition I attempt to make sure he does. Here is what I say:

“Finally, let me dedicate to Dr. Robert Paul Martin and his family this 5th Edition of A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession. His Introduction on the Legitimacy and Use of Confessions has stood at the beginning of A Modern Exposition in each of its editions including the present one. He has in my view never received the credit he deserves for that outstanding little essay. “Dr. Bob” passed away a few months ago in 2016, but his godliness and labors for Christ’s Kingdom are not forgotten.”

Dr. Sam Waldron

Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (part 2)

Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (part 2)

From the new preface to the 5th Edition of A Modern Exposition:

“Let me say something about the reason and necessity for this 5th Edition. In the 2nd and 3rd Editions of A Modern Exposition a number of important improvements to the first edition were made. Somehow in the 4th Edition published in 2009 these improvements were forgotten and the manuscript reverted to its original (1st Edition) form with all of its inaccuracies. I only discovered the extent of the problem in the last year. Graham Hind of Evangelical Press immediately responded to the problem by withdrawing the remaining unsold copies of the 4th Edition from circulation for sale. They also agreed to publish this 5th Edition as soon as I could prepare it for publication.

In this 5th Edition of A Modern Exposition the improvements found in the 2nd and 3rd Editions are restored. I have made further (what I think to be) improvements by revising two appendices found in previous editions and adding two more. The reader (in my opinion) will be greatly helped if he turns to the back of the book and reads these appendices first.”

Dr. Sam Waldron

The Slick-Waldron Debate:  The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (part 1)

I have not previously blogged about debates I have been asked to participate in.  But since this was a social media event of sorts, and some things worthy of comment happened, I have decided to write some blog posts about my debate with Matt Slick.

Matt Slick and I had an opportunity to talk before our recent debate.  He seems to be an amiable guy and genuine Christian.  He says he is “Reformed” and even Amillennial like myself.  He attends (I really am not sure how, given these convictions, but I guess that is his business.) a Calvary Chapel in Boise, Idaho.  He is the man behind CARM.ORG, something which a number of my younger Reformed brothers seem to know.  My brief perusal of the site seemed to indicate that it had a wise and moderate tone about most things.  It does advocate for the continuation of the charismatic gifts, but not the continuation of Apostles of Christ.  I would characterize his view as Third Wave.  Matt also made clear that he wanted to distance himself from more extreme Charismatics and their ungodly antics.

It might seem to me—if I were you—that to rehash a debate that has already taken place is like Monday morning quarterbacking.  Hey, Bub, you either won or you didn’t. So just let it go.  I guess that attitude would be right if debates were about winning or losing.  But if that is what they are about, I will “never eat meat again” (debate).  But I made clear in my opening statement that for me that is not what debates should be about.  Here is what I said:

“I am kind of the “anti-debater.”  I take the opportunity to speak at debates only when asked and only because it gives me the chance to teach and expound what I believe to be the truth of God’s Word.  What I do not like about debates is the tendency and motivation they create in the debaters to say anything to win—whether they know it to be true or not.  I hope never to be guilty of that kind of violation of the command; Thou shalt not bear false witness.  I take this evening to be about truth—not winning—and will try to say nothing that I do not verily believe to be the truth of God’s Word.”

To try to make issues related to truth clear is never Monday morning quarterbacking.  It is simply “buying the truth and selling it not” (Proverbs 23:23).

That being said, I am going to take the time and effort in several blog posts to talk about “The Slick-Waldron Debate:  The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.”  I do this, as I said, in the interest of what I take to be the truth.

The Ugly

We will start with the “Ugly” first.  The “Ugly” had to do with a misunderstanding on my part of the actual question in the debate.  In my statement I talked about that question as follows:  “All that being said, let me summarize in my remaining time my response to the question of the hour.  That question is: ‘Have the Gifts of Prophecy, Tongues and Healing Ceased?’  I respond in the affirmative: Yes, the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and healing have ceased!”

As you will see, if you watch the debate which is now available on YouTube, I was not allowed to speak first as is customary for the affirmative.  Rather, I spoke second.  This was my fault.  The original question which Pastor McClanahan submitted to Matt Slick and I was exactly as I here stated it.  Matt asked for the question to be changed in subsequent emails.  I agreed to this over some reluctance on the part of Pastor McClanahan.  But then I promptly forgot about the subsequent change.  I guess it did not seem significant at that time.  In the mass of other responsibilities it simply slipped my mind.  Thus, I prepared for the original question and not the one finally agreed upon.

The new question was finally—after some discussion:  “Does the Bible teach that the charismatic gifts are for today?”  This put Matt in the affirmative. It also allowed him to play with the word charismatic in the debate in a way which became central to his argument.  I learned a valuable lesson.  If I am asked to debate in the future, I will pay careful attention to the question!  I also learned some things about why Matt wanted that word, charismatic, in the question.  I want to talk about that later in these blog posts.  More next time!

 

Pin It on Pinterest