While it may be true that he is coming from an amillenial position, this line of reasoning was adopted by Dispensationalists - that is primary what I was referring to. I guess whether it is old or new is not the issue, but whether we agree with it or not.

Thanks for the clarification,

Chris

My understanding is that Sam Waldron is coming from an amilliennial, not dispensational position. That being the case, the argument will be very different. Because the charismatic/cessationist discussion basically revolves around eschatology (how much different are the times before Christ to the times after Christ to the times after Christ’s return), it’s impossible to dress up a dispensational argument in amillennial clothes without altering it very significantly. That’s why I felt able to say it was a new approach.

You stated in your blog “It’s a new argument”. Actually, this is a resahping of the Dispensational argument that has been around for quite a while. Dr. Waldron has brought it back to the forefront.

I agree with you (and I have read the book) that he does not prove his viewpoint from Scripture and relies on a lot of assumptions.

Chris

Found your blog via the comments at Tim Challies’ place. Looks very interesting indeed.

You position on the continuist/cessationist debate is very similar to my own. I’m not pinning my colours to the mast yet, but I sure would like to see some much better arguments from both sides.

Blessings!

Andrew