Social Network Links
Powered by Squarespace
Search the Riddleblog
"Amillennialism 101" -- Audio and On-Line Resources
« "His Son" -- Hebrews 1:1-14 | Main | This Week at Christ Reformed Church (November 11-17) »

My Review of Sam Storm's "Kingdom Come"

I recently reviewed Sam Storm's important new book on amillennialism, Kingdom Come:  The Amillennial Alternative for Modern Reformation magazine (Nov./Dec. 2013
Volume: 22 Issue: 6).

The editors of Modern Reformation have given me permission to link to that review in its entirety



There are a number of books currently in print that make the case for an amillennial understanding of biblical eschatology. Sam Storms's Kingdom Come is an important addition to a list that includes O. T. Allis's Prophecy & the Church (P&R, 1945); Anthony Hoekema's The Bible & the Future (Eerdmans, 1979); Cornel Venema's The Promise of the Future (Banner, 2000); as well as my own, A Case for Amillennialism (Baker, 2003/2013). But Sam Storms's Kingdom Come does not merely replicate the arguments of those writing before him. As he recounts in his introduction, Storms was a student at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS)—the bastion of dispensationalism—and studied under dispensationalism's most capable advocates: John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, and J. Dwight Pentecost (10). By 1985, Storms had given up dispensationalism, and subsequently premillennialism, which he recounted in a manuscript that he developed—after much honing and reflection—some twenty-eight years later into this current volume (12).

As a DTS insider, Sam Storms knows well the problems with dispensationalism and premillennialism. His unique perspective on the topic, I submit, explains why Kingdom Come is more of a refutation of dispensationalism and premillennialism, than it is a statement and defense of amillennialism (characteristic of the previously mentioned books on the subject).

This is precisely why Storms's book is such a welcome addition to the field. Although dispensationalism has serious flaws, it stills survives as a system of interpretation largely because the previous volumes are not comprehensive in terms of fleshing out and exposing the particular exegetical details and problems underlying the dispensational premillennial system. As long as dispensationalists can argue that the details of the system remain intact, they are not likely to give it up—despite the "big picture" criticisms raised against the entire system. Storms's invaluable contribution does precisely this as he painstakingly fleshes out those details, explaining why both dispensationalism and premillennialism fail to properly explain the meaning of a number of biblical passages. In the process, Storms accumulates an impressive amount of evidence as to why amillennialism provides a better way to make sense of the eschatology of the Bible.

To read the rest of this review, Click Here

Reader Comments (3)


Thanks for calling attention to this book. It has been long time coming to print, and I hope folks find it worthy of their time. Some 20 years ago, Sam shared some chapters with me, and, though he had to wait for the market place to welcome another eschatology book, I'm so glad he found a publisher willing to put out a defense of amillennialism. Your point that dispensationalism is the principal foil in the book is on target, I believe, as is your point about the hole left by the absence of a covenantal framing of the issues. That said, his work on Rom 11 is a real highlight, from where I sit. Thanks again.
November 14, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterrfwhite
Did you notice that you seriously misquoted Sam in your review of "Kingdom Come"?

About halfway through your review your say, "Storms does an excellent job of marshaling the overwhelming New Testament data, concluding that "there is only one people of God, the Church, comprised of Jews and believing Gentiles" (226)."

What Sam really said in his book was, "there is only one people of God, the Church, comprised of believing Jews and believing Gentiles".

I'm sure this was just an innocent oversight on your part but the two statements make claims that are worlds apart.

I urge you to correct this misquote in your review.
November 15, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterGary McElroy

No I hadn't noticed that I "seriously" misquoted Dr. Storms. Had I noticed . . .

I do thank you for pointing this out--it is indeed a misquote and error on my part--but since the hard copy review in Modern Reformation has gone to press, nothing I can do about it now.

I double and triple check citations, but missed this one.
November 15, 2013 | Registered CommenterKim Riddlebarger

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.