Do We Really Need Another Book on Amillennialism?

It can go with the rest of the fiction books. That is the craze after all.

I have a question, and it is sincere. Does TGC have no room for the presentation of dispensational views? Would they ever allow an unqualified rejoinder to Storms?

Not many dispensationalists in TGC that I saw. However, the reply to amill fantasy doesn’t have to be a dispensationalist.

I believe it is a mistake for fundamentalism to identify, almost exclusively, with Dispensationalism. This has not always been the case, but seems to have become the current norm. Most fundamental churches and schools enshrine Dispensationalism in their doctrinal statement, and even those that do not, often act as if Dispensationalism is a non-negotiable component of the Christian Faith.

Is Dispensationalism, or its various components such as the pre-tribulation rapture, a fundamental of the faith? If you act as if it is, please do not be surprised if some young fundamentalists find themselves seeking new areas of fellowship. If they, through personal study, come to a non-dispensational understanding of Scripture, and their fundamentalist friends will no longer allow them to wear the fundamentalists label, or be welcomed in fundamental circles, what would you expect them to do? It’s easy enough to denounce them as compromising non-separatists, but is it possible that they are simply historic fundamentalists who have been excluded by a non-fundamental dogma?

We need to keep reviewing this basic question, “What is a Fundamentalist”?

Most fundamental churches and schools enshrine Dispensationalism in their doctrinal statement, and even those that do not, often act as if Dispensationalism is a non-negotiable component of the Christian Faith.

Yes, it is wrong to make it central to the faith, and not respect those who sincerely differ. But the same ought to be true for Amil schools and churches with Amil doctrinal statements. TGC ought to welcome robust and friendly debate on this topic, since many who hold to their view of the Gospel are Dispensational.

I agree that amillenialists should not make their position a fundamental of the faith, any more than dispensationalists. But I can’t, off-hand, recall ever reading an amill doctrinal statement. Perhaps such a thing exists, but it must be rare. What you often find is a general statement about the literal, physical return of Christ that allows for various positions. However, many dispensationalists assume that such a statement is amill because it does not affirm the pre-tribulation rapture of the Church. Many dispensationalists do not understand the difference between amillenialism, postmillenalism, and historic premillenialism.

To many dispensationalists, the absence of a conscipulously dispensational statement is evidence of amillenialism, and therefore heresy. This way of thinking is what prompted my original post. Dispensationalists cannot act as if dispensationalism is an essential of the Christian faith, and then be surprised if those who differ feel they have been excluded.

Again, “What is a Fundamentalist?”

Greg,

You have two separate questions here. Is dispensationalism a fundamental of the faith? No. However, can (should?) a church describe its eschatological position in its own doctrinal statement? Yes. Should it remain charitable toward those who might wish to attend while holding a different position? Yes, but there is nothing wrong with explaining the position (and consequent teaching) that a church has chosen to uphold within their congregational life.

Chip,

I agree. What I am challenging is the practice of such churches treating dispensationalism as a fundamental of the faith outside their churches, within pastors fellowships and fundamental organizations of various kinds.

I hear fundamentalists asking why so many young fundamentalists are leaving. I’m trying to provide one answer. Some are leaving because they are no longer dispensationalists, and many fundemantalists shun non-dispensationalists.

I am using one issue to address the bigger issue of what is a fundamentalist? Fundamentalists cannot keep drawing the circle smaller, and then be surprised when some former comrades find themselves outside the circle. Who’s to blame if those who formerly were within the circle are now outside because the circle has gotten smaller? Many blame those who are outside. They are assumed to be compromisers. But these men didn’t draw a bigger circle. Others draw a smaller one.

I heard a theologian, jokingly, say he subscribed to the Pan view of eschatology - “It’ll all pan out in the end!”

I do not believe dispensationalism is an intrinsic part of fundamentalism. I believe the following are a good start to a discussion on what fundmentalism really is;

1. Unqualified obedience and submission to the Scriptures,

2. Adherence to the traditional five fundamentals of the faith

3. Strong, Biblical stance on personal and ecclesiastical separation

4. Willingness to stand for the above truths in the marketplace - or to be militant when the above are being compromised.

I am a dispensationalist, but cheerfully would count a Reformed guy (or gal) as my friend.

I agree with your comment about dispensationalist fundamentalists drawing their circle narrower and narrower. This is not a cause for separation, in my opinion.

Has anyone commenting here besides James read Storms’ article in TGC? What is all this nonsense about Dispensationalism being / not being a fundamental of the faith? I was only asking whether there was any latitude in TGC for dispensationalists to express their views like Storms has in the opposite direction. Wrong venue for the question, I think.

I apologize that your initial comment sparked a brief segue into other issues. If the matter is very pressing to you, perhaps you should contact TGC and offer to write a response to Storms’ article.

I’m looking forward to Storms’ book. I’ve been asking those key questions he asks for many, many years.

Why wait? Let’s look at them here:

1 • You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s second coming.

2 • You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ’s second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the Fall of man.

3 • You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

4 • You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.

5 • You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

6 • You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

1. This is because the Bible itself tells us this will happen. Isaiah 65:17-20 make it clear that death is present at the beginning of the New Heavens and Earth. To flip this, Sam Storms must necessarily believe that people are still dying in eternity.

2. Until eternity rolls in, death and decay will be a reality. However, during the Millennium, the earth will experience an Edenlike quality. Ezekiel 36:35:

“Then they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden. The cities that were once ruined, desolate, and destroyed are now fortified and inhabited.”

3. False. This betrays how little Storms even knows. Some dispensationalists believe the Millennium is the first part of the New Heavens and Earth.

4. Yes, because Revelation 20 speaks of a people who are present in the Millennium who rebel against God. Since no unbeliever goes alive into the kingdom, they must be people born to those who did enter the kingdom. I seriously feel like Paul who had to speak as a fool to address such silliness.

5. Yes, because that is exactly the Biblical order of events. All unbelievers of all time are resurrected at the end of the Millennium to face judgment along with Satan.

6. Yes, see No. 5.

Honestly, the only people who could read Storms and be convinced of amill would be those poisoned against what dispensationalism actually is.

No offense James (I do not even know you), but it is not wise to answer so quickly without even reading the book. The temptation to give quick, off the cuff answers is one reason I do not prefer blogs.

Our millennial positions are not fundamental to the faith. Let love be our primary motive that we might build each other in the faith of the Gospel. I fellowship with godly and holy men of various millennial positions and there is a serious study and healthy edification. Jesus will come again and reign as King - we all agree on that. May that be in our vision and motivation instead of the temptation to bicker and give hasty, undeveloped answers or forget that knowledge can puff us up if it is not tempered with love for our brothers.

BTW, I would say that Sam Storms having earned a ThM from a premier dispensational school would have the benefit of the doubt when understanding dispensationalism. No need to answer this, I likely will not be inclined to participate. Perhaps we can have a book study of Storms’ book together (wink).