Journal: Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies
Volume: JIRBS 04:1 (NA 2017)
Article: Amillennialism And The Age To Come: "A Premillennial Critique Of The Two-Age Model," A Review Article
Author: Samuel E. Waldron

JIRBS 4 (2017) p. 101

Amillennialism And The Age To Come:
A Premillennial Critique Of The Two-Age Model,
A Review Article

Sam Waldron*

* Sam Waldron, Ph.D. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Th.M. Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary, is a pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Owensboro, KY, and Dean and President of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.

This review article is structured as follows: Preliminary Considerations; Overview of the Book; Critical Reflections; and Theological Conclusions.

Preliminary Considerations

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.1 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 (i.e., Thy Kingdom Come) and Kim Riddlebarger (i.e., A Case for Amillennialism).

Waymeyer holds a Ph.D. from The Master’s Seminary and serves on the faculty of The Expositor’s Bible Seminary in Jupiter, Florida. According to the back cover of the book, he 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 he did with Fred Zaspel: “But really, the book, itself, flowed out of my PhD

JIRBS 4 (2017) p. 102

dissertation which I wrote at the Masters Seminary.”2 The book certainly does reflect the thoroughness of a doctoral dissertation. On the other hand, the author deserves commendation because his 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 this book. I can honestly say that this is not my reaction to Waymeyer’s work. Oh, of course, I do not agree with his critique. In fact, at a number of points I emphatically disagree. Yet, the fact is that there are a number of things about his book that deserve appreciation and commendation.

First, I agree with Waymeyer’s rejection of eschatological agnosticism. His Preface disapp...