Within Christianity, there are
varying beliefs and thoughts as to how exactly this world will come to an end.
Will there be a rapture? Seven-year tribulation? Thousand-year rule of Christ?
Some of you reading this may not even know what any of those things are. Others
of you, like myself, have spent so much time and energy thinking and wrestling
with subjects like this that it would be hard to convince you of a different side.
As such, I must admit that this
book has caused me to exercise more energy than I could have ever expected when
I first checked it out from the library. While I do not agree with Storms in
his approach to the Scriptures, I do believe that I have benefited from
reading his book, Kingdom Come, in
being further sharpened in my own understanding of God’s Word.
A major strength of Storms is
that he is a very clear writer. Although, I believe he could summarize his
statements a little more, I do believe that, now having finished the book, I
have a much clearer understanding of what Amillennialism is and what it is not.
On the flipside, the major weakness of his book is found in his thoughts and
even tone towards those of us who disagree with him [Dispensational
Premillennialists]. For example:
Sam Storms believes that the Dispensational
Premillennial viewpoint is “flatly illogical” [p. 141], “bizarre and
unbiblical” [p. 158], “baseless” [p. 162], and “embarrassing” [p. 515].
Now, this is fine. I am perfectly
okay with him having an opinion. I think the exact same things about his belief
as well. However, he lost me as a reader when he stated, “…Dispensationalists
find a gap in Daniel 9 because they are predisposed
to find one in order to justify an already existent theological construct.”[1]
This statement is not an intellectual statement, but an emotional one. In other
words, I could turn this statement around and say this about him already being predisposed to find things in Scripture
in order to justify his own already existent theological construct. A statement
like this is only made by one who has lost their ability to be civil in order
to attack the person whom they disagree with.
Nevertheless, in the same way
that Sam Storms [wicked cool last name by the way] thinks that I am
“hermeneutically unmethodical”[2] in
the way I read Scripture, I see him as being hermeneutically irreverent in the
way he reads Scripture. And you know what, though it kills me to say this,
there is a level in which that is somewhat okay. Neither of us have all the
answers and we will never have all the answers while on this earth. Though we
disagree on the events surrounding our Lord’s coming, we both agree and look
forward to that glorious day when He will come to rescue His people from this
fallen world and receive us as His bride.
What would I challenge Sam Storms to do?
I would encourage him to come out
with another edition. However, this time I would like to see him write in a
more humble way. Also, I do not intend this to be mean but, I felt that the
whole book was rather weak. I had been told by friends who subscribe to the Amillennial
interpretation that, if I read anything, then I should read Storms’ book.
However, I found there to be a clear answer to almost all of his arguments and
the basis for much of his content suffered evidence upon further reflection.
For example, on page 482 he
contradicted himself in who he believes to be the people of God. According to
Amillennialism, he believes that the ethnic Israel of God morphed into the
Church on the day of Pentecost. The Church did not replace Israel, but the true
Israel became the Church. However, in view of the book of Revelation and the
beast, he believes that the Apostle John was referring to the destruction of
the temple in 70 A.D. Thus, he does not see this apocalyptic book as having any
future fulfillment.
The problem with this
interpretation is that the beast is said to make war with the saints (Rev. 13:5-7)
and thus he views this as trampling the holy city [i.e., the people of God].
However, Jerusalem, at this time was not filled with the people of God because,
according to Amillennialism, the Jewish people were no longer the people of God
and, as such, Sam must come up with a better explanation in my opinion. It may
even be safe to say, from a Scriptural standpoint, that the majority of
Christians in the world were not in Jerusalem during the Roman conquest.
What would I challenge you to do?
Take God’s Word at face value.
Allow it to speak for itself. Storms spoke often of how much easier it is to
believe in Amillennialism, but I found the complete opposite to be true. He
attempts to explain too much of God’s Word away and make it seem like
everything is symbolic but, based on God’s Word, I cannot accept that line of
thinking. As I read his book, I became even more convinced that the truth of
Scripture’s account of eschatology is greatly supported through the
Dispensational Premillennialism interpretation. Though we may not have all the
exact dots lined up in the correct order, it really is the only end-times model
that makes sense. Thus, I must say that Amillennialism is a theology that is
forced on the scriptures.
No comments:
Post a Comment