CBTS Logo
Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 1 

Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 1 

by | Apr 26, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology

Introduction:

When someone writes a book which critiques a position that you hold deeply and dearly, and mentions you by name in his critique, I suppose it would be easy to react defensively and see nothing good in (and say nothing good about) said book.  I suppose that is the temptation which I and other Amillennialists face in regard to Matt Waymeyer’s volume entitled, Amillennialism and the Age to Come, published in 2016 by Kress Biblical Resources.  I have the “honor” of being mentioned in the very first footnote of this extensive (325 page) critique of Amillennialism.  Also mentioned in its footnotes (and perhaps even more frequently than I am) are the fine defenses of Amillennialism written by Sam Storms and Kim Riddlebarger.

Waymeyer holds a Ph.D. from the Master’s Seminary and serves on the faculty of The Expositor’s Bible Seminary in Jupiter, Florida.  He (according to the back cover of the book) also serves on the pastoral staff of Grace Immanuel Bible Church.  Before that he taught Hermeneutics at the Master’s Seminary for several years.  After reading his book, I was not surprised to hear him say in an interview with Fred Zaspel: “But really, the book, itself, flowed out of my PhD dissertation which I wrote at the Masters Seminary.” [http://www.booksataglance.com/author-interviews/interview-matt-waymeyer-author-amillennialism-age-come/] The book certainly does reflect the thoroughness of a doctoral dissertation.  On the other hand, Waymeyer deserves commendation, I think, because this volume is quite readable.

But let me return to my original point about the danger I am in of defensiveness and seeing nothing good in Waymeyer’s book.  I can honestly say that this is not my reaction to this work.  Oh, of course, I do not agree with him.  In fact, at a number of points I emphatically disagree.  Yet, the fact is that there are number of things about his book that deserve appreciation and commendation.  In my next post I will enumerate those things about his book for which I am thankful.

Part 2

Peter Preached at Pentecost (part 3 of 3)

Peter Preached at Pentecost (part 3 of 3)

by | Dec 13, 2016 | Biblical Worship, Ecclesiology, Practical Theology, Worship

Ten Characteristics of True Preaching (6-10)

Preaching Is Scriptural!

It is clear from Peter’s proclamation and preaching that preaching necessarily centrally involves the exposition of Scripture.  This is clear from several aspects of Peter’s sermon.

  • It is clear from the way in which he opens his message by referring to Joel’s prophecy and expounding its relevance to what was happening on that Pentecost. Acts 2:16-21.
  • It is clear from the way in which he comments at length on the meaning of Psalm 16 in Acts 2:25-32.
  • It is clear from the recitation of the Apostolic witness to the words and deeds of Jesus the Christ in verses 22-24 and verses 33-36. What Peter says was not yet inscripturated, but it was tantamount to Scripture and would become Scripture.

Now, of course, all of this makes perfect sense—if you understand what I said in my first point.  Preaching is royal!  If preaching is a herald of the Divine King communicating His royal decree to His people, then, of course, the content of that preaching must be pervasively scriptural—It must be the Word of that King!

True preaching must be expository.  It may be consecutive expository preaching.  It may be topical expository preaching.  It must, however, be the exposition of the Word of God—or it is not preaching!  Clearly, if this is true, much of what is called preaching today, simply is not, because it is not the faithful exposition of God’s Word.

Preaching Is Practical!

What I mean is that preaching is not intended merely to inform people’s minds.  Now it is intended to do that, of course!  But preaching is intended by informing people’s mind to lead them to do something.  This becomes eminently clear in Peter’s preaching.

  • It is clear in his very practical denial of the wicked mockery of those who said the phenomena of the Pentecost were to be attributed to the drunken-ness of the Apostles. This stupid mockery stood in the way of what Peter wanted people to do as a result of his preaching and had to be refuted and put in its place.
  • It is clear from the response that Peter’s preaching actually had. The implications of Peter’s message were only too clear.  It made many in the multitude cry out, Brothers, what shall we do!  Yes, they had understood Peter’s preaching.  It was exactly intended to make them ask this very practical question.
  • It is also clear from the way Peter’s dialogue with them after his preaching was concluded is described. Look at verse 40.  “And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation!’”  He calls on them to save themselves from their accursed generation!
  • It is finally clear from the practical response to Peter’s preaching. They repented, were baptized, joined the church, and continued with the church in its worship.  Acts 2:41-42.  “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”

The question in your mind as you hear preaching should be practical.  It is not merely, What can I learn from the preaching?  It is rather, What must I do because of this preaching!  But this leads directly to my next point.

Preaching Is Consequential!

What I mean to convey by saying that preaching is consequential is that preaching has to do with very serious matters.  Also I mean that your response to preaching will have the most serious consequences!

  • This is conveyed by Peter at the outset of his message when he lifts up his voice and when he urges his hearers to give heed to what he is saying.
  • This is also made plain when in the dialogue at the end of his preaching he says plainly to his hearers that they must save themselves from the perverse generation in which they lived.

Preaching always has to do with your salvation.  Your response to preaching will save you or it will further your damnation.  Oh, dear friend, how do you hear preaching?  Do you realize how serious the consequences are of your response to the preaching of the Word of God?

Let us determine that we will rightly hear the preaching of God’s Word!  This means a number of very practical things.

  • We will train our children not to be a distraction in worship. Our children need to know that there is something important going on during the preaching, and that it is more important than their selfish desires.
  • We will strive to minimize anything that may distract us. We will use the restroom before the preaching.  We will make sure our children have all such needs attended to before the preaching of God’s Word.  We will not needlessly walk in and out during the preaching of God’s Word.  We will do all we can to cut down on such distractions during the preaching of God’s Word.  We will turn off our phones unless there is some emergency to which we may need to attend.
  • If we have to leave during the worship for some emergency, we will not linger and waste time. We will do our necessary business and get back to the worship of God.
  • We will focus our hearts and minds on what God is saying to us in the preaching! We will lock in our attention on the preaching of God’s Word.
  • We will come with properly rested hearts and minds to the worship of God by getting to bed early enough on Saturday evening. The right hearing of the preaching of God’s Word begins with getting to bed at a proper time the night before.
  • We will remind ourselves and our families of what preaching really is! It is God speaking to us through His appointed messenger.  We will set them an example of how to hear the Word of God!

Preaching Is Christological!

Another attribute of the true preaching of God’s Word is that it has a specific message.  That message is Christological.  By that big word I simply intend to say that true preaching is Christ-centered!  It is indisputable that Peter’s first message after the Spirit was poured out and the gospel age dawned focused on the life, words, deeds, and saving power of Jesus Christ.  His preaching in this passage is Christ-centered.

Now, of course, this important fact should not be distorted or misapplied.  It does not mean that we can never preach anything but the doctrines of grace.  It does not mean that we can never preach anything but justification by faith alone.  It does not mean that we can only preach the priestly work of Christ.  Christ has three offices—not just one!  Christ is our sanctifier as well as our justifier!  Christ orders His church by His law and ordinances.  There is more in the Bible than the doctrines of grace.  We may preach, for example, messages about the primacy of Peter and the propriety of preaching.

But having said that, we must never forget that all the diverse, rich, multi-faceted themes of the Bible lead back to Christ.  The primacy of Peter among the plurality of Apostles leads us back to the great singularity of Christ as the center of both the universal and local church!  The propriety of preaching requires that we finally say that true preaching is centered and focused on Christ!

What a condemnation this is of Christ-less preaching!  What a condemnation this is of preaching that goes no farther than telling you how to be healthy, wealthy, and wise by the standards of this world!  What a condemnation this is of preaching that does nothing more than moralize on the basis of a scriptural pretext!  Preaching must lead back to Christ.  As all roads led to Rome in the Roman Empire, so also in true preaching all true preaching leads back finally to Christ!

Preaching Is Universal!

Let me point out another further trait of true preaching.  It is universal.  It is not addressed only to God’s elect.  It is not addressed only to Christians.  It is not addressed only to those who show signs of being converted.  True preaching is to be addressed universally to all men.  We saw that, when he stepped forward, Peter addressed “the men of Judea and all who dwelt in Jerusalem.”  All were to be addressed with the message.  All were to be sincerely, freely, and with a well-meant offer called to save themselves from that perverse generation.

Preaching Is Effectual!

We are surrounded by people who think they are experts in religion, and those people tell us that preaching doesn’t work.  Small groups work, they think.  Contemporary music works, they think.  Dialogue works, they will tell you.  But preaching?  Standing up and simply declaring God’s Word in a long monologue to people?  They will tell you firmly, and with great sympathy for your naïveté and how out of touch you are, that preaching does not work!

But preaching did work on the Day of Pentecost!  Of course, it was and is only a means, but it is a divinely appointed means of grace.  And when Peter was done preaching on the Day of Pentecost, verse 41 tells us there were three thousand more Christians than there were before!  Let us trust God’s methods and close our ears to those who say that God’s appointed means of preaching will not work!

Final Thoughts:  Let me leave you with just three closing thoughts:

  • It is a glorious calling to be called to preach God’s Word. Do not turn a deaf ear if the Spirit is calling you to be a servant and preacher of the Word of God!  Do not run from the sacrifice to which such a calling commits you.
  • It is a serious calling to undertake to preach God’s Word. There are preparations to be made both in your life and in your mind.  There are standards of godliness.  There are standards of gift.  Both are set by the Word of God!  You must not lightly skip over those standards or those preparations in your eagerness to preach.  Neither should the church!  The church should exercise great care in who is allowed to preach God’s Word as the formal representatives of God and especially in the house of God itself!
  • It is a solemn thing to refuse the preaching of God’s Word! We are only the heralds of that great King.  But when men sit there unmoved and disobedient to the preaching they are not rejecting that King’s humble heralds merely!  They are rejecting the King of Kings!

Sam Waldron

Peter Preached at Pentecost part 1

Peter Preached at Pentecost part 2

Peter Preached on Pentecost (part 1 of 3)

Peter Preached on Pentecost (part 1 of 3)

by | Dec 6, 2016 | Biblical Worship, Ecclesiology, Practical Theology, Worship

Seven Features of Peter’s Preaching 

There are some things we do in church that go completely unquestioned—until they are.  Questioned, that is!  One such—usually unquestioned—part of worship is preaching.  You all know what preaching is.  Preaching is basically a monologue where one person addresses the whole congregation at some length from a place of prominence.  This has certainly been a conspicuous part of Reformed worship ever since the Reformation, and, in fact—I think—, a part of Christian worship since the dawn of Christianity.  But this idea of preaching has been questioned in recent decades.  I have been receiving a magazine for over 30 years now which argues that instead of such preaching we should all sit in a circle and discuss the meaning of the Bible.  Preaching is viewed as part and parcel of a clerical usurping of authority over God’s people.

But even where such views are not accepted, and a semblance of preaching remains in churches, its character is often misunderstood.  Sometimes “preachers” seem embarrassed to be preachers.  Even more frequently they drastically fail to understand the essentials of what they are supposed to be doing in that high pulpit in which they stand.  Often they seem to think that their job is to be comedians, entertainers, or moralizers; rather than preachers of God’s Word.  One of the things I want to do in this blog is to defend “preaching” as it is historically understood in the Reformed tradition by showing you that the tradition of Reformed (and Christian!) preaching is biblical and “got the Bible right!”

I think the propriety, primacy, and character of preaching are suggested by what Peter did in Acts 2:14-36.  This blog post and its sequels will focus on the introduction and initial part of Peter’s preaching on the Day of Pentecost found in verses 14-15, but will also glance at his preaching on Pentecost as a whole.  Verses 14-15 are the Circumstantial Description of Peter’s preaching.  Verses 14-15 read as follows:

“But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them:  “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words.”  15 “For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day…”

I believe there are seven things to notice in these verses.

The Voice Identified

Luke first tells us that one voice—one person—took the lead in what is often properly called the first Christian sermon.  It was the voice of Peter that spoke for the apostolic band and gave the apostolic explanation of Pentecost addressed to the whole multitude.

The text says that Peter took his stand.  Literally, it says, “Peter standing.”  The natural implication might seem to be that Peter was sitting and that now he stood.  This is probably wrong, however.  Since Peter was already speaking in tongues with the other eleven apostles, the implication is something else.  The implication is that at a certain point in the general confusion and uproar the Apostles gathered together and Peter stepped out into a place of prominence where he could be clearly seem by the whole assembled multitude that had come together.  Some have translated this phrase, Peter stepping forward!

The Verification Stated

The circumstances made clear that the assertions that Peter was about to utter were not merely his own.  We are told that the other eleven apostles were also standing with Peter in obvious support of what he was asserting.  Their standing with him was a visible verification that Peter spoke for them all.  Peter spoke not because he possessed a special office in contrast to them, but as their representative and spokesman.  They were all Apostles of Christ as much as he.  The authority with which Peter spoke was the authority of them all.  They all stood because they were all the chosen witnesses of the Christ and His resurrection.  Cf. Acts 1:2, 8, 26.  Incidentally, it is important to note that eleven apostles stood with Peter.  This is (as several interpreters point out) proof that Matthias’ selection as an Apostle was legitimate and owned by the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

The Volume Affirmed 

Luke then tells us that Peter did what you have to do in order to be heard when you are speaking to a large crowd.  He raised or lifted up his voice.  Behind this lifting up of his voice was the determination to be heard and to make known clearly to everyone some important news.  Thus, in the volume with which Peter spoke is manifested the urgency with which he spoke.

The Verbalization Asserted

When Peter raised his voice, he did not yell nonsensically.  He was not simply cheering loudly as if he were at a football game.  Rather, we are told that he loudly spoke certain words.  The text says, “and declared to them.”

The word used here is only used by Luke in the New Testament.  It is only used of public speech and never of private conversation.  It means to utter something publicly or to address a gathering in sensible language.  You can see this from its other two uses in the New Testament which (as I said) are both found in Luke.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

Acts 26:25 But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth.

As you can see in both these uses of the word, the word speaks of public utterance and verbally and propositionally addressing of a gathering.  The implication also seems to be present that the words spoken were spoken with seriousness and authority.

The Viewers Addressed

Peter addresses all those present.  They had seen the extraordinary signs.  They had viewed the Apostles speaking in tongues.  Now he addresses the crowd with two respectful descriptions.  He calls them first Jewish men, literally, adult Jewish males.  He also addresses them as well as all those living in Jerusalem.  This is the same word for living or dwelling as that used in Acts 2:5.

It is noteworthy that Peter addresses the whole assembly regardless of whether they were sympathetic, irrespective of whether they were Christians, and regardless of whether they showed any signs of being God’s elect.  He proclaims the gospel to them all.  Later, when they are struck with a sense of their guilt, he will tell them all to repent and be baptized.  We have here the indiscriminate, sincere, and well-meant preaching of the gospel.

The Value Underscored

Before beginning his sermon proper, Peter urges them to give the most careful attention to what he is about to say.  Peter says: “let this be known to you and give heed to my words.”  Notice especially the word translated, give heed.  This is the only occurrence of this word in the New Testament.  It is found in many places, however, in the LXX of the Old Testament.  For instance, it is found in Exodus 15:26:

And He said, “If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians; for I, the LORD, am your healer.”

The implication, then, of these words is that what Peter is about to say is very serious and very important and needs to be heard!

The Vice Denied

Peter begins his explanation of Pentecost by refuting the profane and foolish interpretation of the sign of tongues given by mockers in verse 13.  They had expressed the opinion that the Apostles were drunk.  Peter straightforwardly denies this interpretation.  The strange languages they were hearing were not a result of drunkenness.

A great deal of discussion, however, has taken place over the nature of Peter’s argument against this mocking interpretation of the sign of tongues.  Peter argues that they could not be drunk, “for it is only the third hour of the day…”  The question is, then, raised by interpreters as to what exactly Peter means to give as an argument against the Apostles being drunk.

Frankly, I think that the nature of Peter’s argument is perhaps too common and down to earth for some of the scholars to understand.  It is just, really, common sense.  Drunks are not walking around doing stuff at 8 or 9 in the morning.  (That is approximately what the third hour of the day would be.)  What are drunks doing at 8 or 9 in the morning?  They are not walking around speaking at all, let alone speaking in tongues.  They are, as everyone knows, “sleeping it off.”  I think this interpretation is confirmed by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:7: “For those who sleep do their sleeping at night, and those who get drunk get drunk at night.”  The theories of unbelief are not only wicked and wrong, in many cases (like the one here) they defy common sense.

Dr. Sam Waldron

Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (part 1)

by | Sep 13, 2016 | Announcements, Book, Books, Reformed Theology

The Manuscript for the 5th edition of A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith has been sent to the publisher!  Over the next few weeks we plan to share some insights, additions and improvements that you can expect to see in the new edition.

I want to enlarge on the improvements in the 5th edition of A Modern Exposition.

One of the major improvements, I hope, is in the expanded appendices at the end of the exposition.

Appendix A: The Historical Origin of the 1689 … corrects some historical inaccuracies owing to the primitive state of the sources I used to construct it in the original version of the Exposition.

Appendix B: The Analytical Outline of the 1689 … is a development of an outline I originally borrowed from Greg Nichols. It is now refined by the insights I have gleaned from Jim Renihan’s teaching on the structure of the Confession.

Appendix C: The Doctrinal Overview of the 1689 Baptist Confession is entirely new. It provides an argument that the Confession embodies a tradition which combines historic (catholic) orthodoxy with Reformed theology and Baptist principles.

Appendix D: The Proper Holding of the 1689 Baptist Confession is my response to the notion that the membership in a confessional church requires full subscription and that, therefore, the 1689 is too detailed to be a good, local church confession. I argue that elders must teach the Confession and thus fully subscribe, but members need only sweetly submit to the Confession and need not fully subscribe. This article has been posted on Founders.org  for some years now. How (and Why) Your Church Should Hold to the 1689 Confession

Sam Waldron

The Slick-Waldron Debate:  The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (part 5)

by | Jan 28, 2016 | Uncategorized

One or two more matters should come up for discussion before I finish my post-game analysis of the Slick-Waldron debate over the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and healing.  Here, I think, we pass from the good things I learned and the ugly of my confusion over the debate question to the bad.

I think Matt’s use of 1 Corinthians 1:7 was bad.  1 Corinthians 1:7 reads:  “so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  In this statement Paul congratulates the Corinthian church for the fact that they do not lack in any gift as they await the Second Coming.  Matt pressed the text as a proof that all the spiritual gifts given to the Corinthians are normative for all churches till the Second Coming.

Well, quite evidently the text teaches no such thing.  I actually asked Matt about this in the cross-examination.  The text is plainly not normative but descriptive.  Descriptive texts are not necessarily normative.  While sometimes descriptive texts do indirectly teach us biblical norms, using them this way is a lot more complicated than Matt seems to think.

The Book of Judges is a major, biblical case in point.  Judges is descriptive but not directly normative.  The text that says that Judas went out and hanged himself is descriptive, but not directly normative.  Even so 1 Corinthians says nothing about whether other churches should normatively have all the Corinthians’ spiritual gifts.  It only says the Corinthians did in the first century.  It says nothing about these gifts lasting till the Second Coming.  It only says that they had them while waiting for the Second Coming.  The text does not prove what Matt thinks, and the fact that he thinks so manifests bad hermeneutics in which the important distinction between descriptive and normative texts is ignored.

Another thing that I thought was really bad was the incredibly naïve way that Matt quoted a couple of statements from my book.  Perhaps the worst was his use of my tongue in cheek remark in my book that there is prophecy in the church today.  He seemed to take it as a kind of unintentional admission that I granted his argument.  I can’t see why else he would have raised the issue.  Here is the statement in the context of my book.  I think you will see why Matt’s use of it was so bad.  “I have something very shocking to say to you.  I can prove to you that there is prophecy in the church today!  I can prove it to you very simply. According to the Bibles you hold in your hands, and in particular Revelation 1:1-3, the book of Revelation is a prophecy.  We are a church.  There is, thus, prophecy in the church today.”  My point was, of course, that the ministry of apostles and prophets continues in the church today through their inscripturated words.  This helps us understand passages like Ephesians 4 where apostles and prophets are given (Ephesians 4:13) “until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.”  I certainly did not mean to say, and I think Matt should have known this, that there are living prophets in the world today.

Pin It on Pinterest