{"id":1677,"date":"2026-05-03T17:45:36","date_gmt":"2026-05-03T16:45:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/?page_id=1677"},"modified":"2026-05-04T17:29:25","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T16:29:25","slug":"last-days","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/dominion-theology-recovering-our-social-and-political-responsibility\/last-days\/","title":{"rendered":"The Three Main Divisions of \u201cLast Days\u201d Thinking (Eschatology) and Their Relation to Dominion Theology"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

The Three Main Divisions of \u201cLast Days\u201d Thinking (Eschatology) and Their Relation to Dominion Theology<\/h2>\n

Overview and Scope<\/h3>\n

In this chapter, eschatology\u00a0is defined as the theological discipline of the thought regarding the \u201clast days\u201d and the three main divisions within it are outlined. It is not intended in this chapter to give a thorough review of the variations of eschatology within each broad category as they are vexed and nuanced but, rather, it is to identify some high-level philosophical and theological distinctives for each division, which are relevant to the closing discussion of the chapter and the wider analytical theme of the book. We are not concerned with these vexatious nuances held with searing passion by their advocates because this is not a book about the \u201clast days\u201d per se<\/em> but, that said, you cannot<\/em> avoid a discussion of the \u201clast days\u201d when analyzing and seeking to understand.[1]<\/a> This is because each eschatological viewpoint implies a particular philosophy of history governing the significance of the text of Scripture\u00a0regarding not just the final destination<\/em> of creation but also how the church should exist<\/em> on Earth<\/em>. By understanding this dynamic, it becomes clear as to why dominion theology\u00a0has been predicated upon and historically associated with a particular set of eschatological views.
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

Definition<\/h3>\n

\u201cEschatology\u201d from the Koine<\/em>\u00a0Greek eschaton<\/em> is the doctrine of the \u201clast things\u201d or \u201clast days.\u201d[2]<\/a> Eschatological discourse has centered on the one thousand years (\u201cthe millennium\u201d) referred to six times in Rev 20. However, this is immediately subject to a hermeneutical caveat\u2014what<\/em> the millennium is and when<\/em> it occurs or even whether<\/em> it is \u201crealized\u201d (and not just a literary symbol) in the present age is a function<\/em> of the eschatological view. In this respect, there are three basic divisions of eschatological thinking: premillennial<\/em>, amillennial<\/em>, and postmillennial.<\/em> For the premillennial and postmillennial viewpoints, the millennium is normally viewed as a definite historical event that will occur at some point in the future.[3]<\/a> In contrast, the amillennial view posits one, more, or even all of the following:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. It has already been \u201crealized\u201d[4]<\/a> in a mystical or symbolic way, fully in the present<\/em> church age.<\/li>\n
  2. It is the growing presence of eternity in the present.[5]<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. It pertains only to the saints in heaven.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Thus, the millennial concept shapes the arguments regarding the significance and role of the church in the present with respect to the world. This is why it becomes so significant in the understanding of dominion theology, and it is appropriate to examine these perspectives more closely.<\/p>\n

    Amillennialism<\/h3>\n

    Amillennialism\u00a0is the largest of the eschatological groupings.[6]<\/a> Various forms of amillennialism\u00a0have enjoyed a continuing and serious presence up to and including the contemporary period, becoming firmly established <\/a>in the third century AD but with earlier pre-Christian historical precursors that we discuss shortly.[7]<\/a> The Western Catholic\u00a0church adopted Augustinian\u00a0amillennialism\u00a0and, subsequently, Reformed\u00a0denominations were institutionally amillennial at their foundation, varying little from the Augustinian\u00a0position as they sought to return to Augustinianism\u00a0more generally in their understanding of the Christian church.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

    That is, Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon\u00a0were traditionally<\/em> thought of as amillennialist; Price noted an apparent oddness that the Reformers jettisoned almost everything of Roman Catholicism\u00a0except<\/em> its eschatological perspective.[9]<\/a> However, this is readily mitigated in that the Catholic\u00a0church had largely departed in many matters of theology and philosophy from Augustine\u00a0to Aquinas\u2019s appropriation of Aristotle\u00a0but had<\/em> retained Augustine\u2019s eschatology; the Reformers sought to return to Augustine\u00a0more generally<\/em> and purge the scholastic incorporation of Aristotle\u00a0in matters of theology and philosophy.<\/p>\n

    The Allegorical Method<\/h4>\n

    Amillennialism, in all its forms, is founded on an allegorical<\/em> view of Scripture\u2014what is intended to be communicated by Scripture is something other than its \u201cplain (literal) sense.\u201d In other words, there is some \u201chidden\u201d or \u201ceternal,\u201d \u201ctimeless,\u201d \u201cdeep meaning,\u201d or symbology employed in the text by the author to communicate beyond the limitations of the text itself. Although this might sound elaborate and sophisticated, it has been and remains very common as a literary device employed as long as there has been literature, occurring across people groups and eras, spanning<\/a> various genres of literature (including, very definitely, some biblical books such as Proverbs), and other Jewish literature of the same period. Indeed, some Jewish midrashic commentaries on the biblical Hebrew text argue that the most significant \u201cmeaning\u201d of a biblical text is often one beyond the \u201cliteral\u201d one.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

    Thus, as a school, it cannot be summarily dismissed prima facie as some fundamentalists and other conservative evangelicals have done, and are still prone to do, when discussing it. The Bible\u00a0is, after all, also<\/em> literature, with a human as well as a divine history. It is also an important philosophical point that even if you accept allegory<\/em>, it does not necessarily<\/em>, in the logical sense, commit you to the amillennial eschatological view. Most commentators would accept that the book of Revelation uses allegory in some<\/em> passages, regardless of their governing eschatological perspective or approach to scriptural interpretation.[11]<\/a> However, the point remains that allegory is central to the amillennialist view and is applied most comprehensively within it.<\/p>\n

     
    \n    <\/a>
    \nHistorically, Philo (30 BC\u2013AD 40) was first to develop the foundational allegorical hermeneutic and Origen (AD 185\u2013254) was the first church father to apply it to eschatology\u00a0in preference to Jewish premillennialism (considered later). This permitted his Hellenization of the biblical texts to reflect the primarily Hellenic context of the church after AD 100.    [12]<\/a> It permitted the spiritualization of potentially problematic prophetic passages regarding the future deliverance of Israel or the progress of the people of God as applicable to the church only<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    That is, amillennialism\u00a0allegorizes the church as the \u201ckingdom of God\u201d and it is the church <\/em>that has become the putative heirs to all<\/em> the promises made to Israel within the Hebrew Scriptures. The physical nation of Israel and the ethnic Jews have passed entirely<\/em> from the purposes of God; the reformation in the twentieth century of a political nation-state called Israel was of no<\/em> prophetic or spiritual significance. The church, in this dispensation of the kingdom, has inherited all the blessings of Abraham. Price, in discussing this view, offered this Scripture\u00a0as the \u201cproof text\u201d:<\/p>\n

    For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that matters is a new creation! And all who will behave in accordance with this rule, peace and mercy be on them, and on the Israel of God<\/em>. (Gal 6:15\u201316 NET; emphasis added)[13]<\/a><\/p>\n

    With such a long history, there have been variations and important developments within amillennialism\u00a0that we consider now, but they all share this basic identification of \u201cIsrael\u201d with the church; that is, a \u201creplacement theology.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Classical Amillennialism<\/h4>\n

    In the classical amillennial system, the final judgment and eternity is viewed to begin with the second coming of Christ (the parousia<\/em>).[14]<\/a>
    \n    <\/a>
    \nImportantly, it is not preceded by a literal thousand-year earthly reign of the Jewish Messiah, but the Church age itself is viewed as symbolized by the millennial concept. For Augustine\u00a0and the early Latin church that followed him, this numerus perfectus<\/em> (10 \u00d7 10 \u00d7 10) was a symbolic, indefinite period of time in which there is a perfection of God\u2019s law; it was the unfolding of the kingdom government of God in the Church Age.    [15]<\/a> Christ\u2019s reign is expressed through the church in the progression of historia sacra<\/em> (sacred history) in which \u201cradical regeneration takes place.\u201d[16]<\/a> It is with his City of God <\/em>(c. 412) that the view received its fullest expression.[17]<\/a> Augustinian\u00a0amillennialism envisaged increasing glory within the church (\u201cthe City of God\u201d) set against the increasing wickedness in the world but viewed the church as ultimately victorious.[18]<\/a><\/p>\n

    Augustine\u00a0showed an astute awareness of previous \u201cdate setting\u201d for the return of Christ in the early church (particularly amongst the chiliasts<\/em>, the primitive premillennialists) and stated that, in principle, the Church Age is of indefinite duration:<\/p>\n

    The sixth is now passing, and cannot be measured by any number of generations, as it has been said, \u201cIt is not for you to know the times, which the Father hath put in His own power.\u201d[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

    However, it is also clear that he did<\/em> expect the return of Christ before<\/em> AD 1000, perhaps as early as AD 650,[20]<\/a> and it is this \u201cfailure\u201d of his predictions that is believed by some twentieth-century commentators to have led to the changes within modern amillennialism: \u201cIt is the failure <\/a>of amillennialism . . . to meet the facts of history.\u201d[21]<\/a> The nineteenth and twentieth centuries were times of transition and change for amillennialism. There were conservative and liberal versions of modern amillennialism that took a very different approach in their allegorizing of Scripture.<\/p>\n

    Modern Conservative Amillennialism<\/h4>\n

    As indicated above, it is often proposed that it was the perceived failure of Augustinianism\u00a0that precipitated the changes in amillennialism. I believe this is only half of a half-truth, for the Reformation\u00a0had reaffirmed the essentials of the Augustinian\u00a0view despite these \u201cfailures,\u201d it was rather that the pressure for change came from a wider cultural crisis in late modernity, which is examined more specifically in the next chapter. For now, it is sufficient to say that for Western theologians, there was a crisis of orthodox faith generally<\/em> in response to Darwinism and a crisis of confidence in the power of humankind to reform\u00a0itself as political liberalism collapsed in response to the outbreak of major and brutal conflicts amongst the \u201ccivilized\u201d Europeans.<\/p>\n

    Faced with this challenge, amillennialism\u00a0generally became increasingly pietistic and pessimistic regarding modern culture. Though some like Masselink and Hamilton remained exponents of the traditional Calvinistic view of increasing victory within the church, by the end of the nineteenth century, D\u00fcsterdieck and Kliefoth had spiritualized the millennium as a \u201cheavenly reality\u201d to accommodate the perceived negative track of history.[22]<\/a> Warfield also incorporated this idea of the triumph of the church as a heavenly<\/em> event into his eschatology.[23]<\/a> It was a solution that allowed the earth to atrophy yet maintained a glorious end for the saint, \u201ca state of blessedness of the saints in heaven.\u201d[24]<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

    Modern Liberal Amillennialism<\/h4>\n

    Liberal amillennialism\u00a0was the second modern response to the failure of classical amillennialism. In general, it is known for its secularization<\/em> of the biblical texts, such that the resurrection and the second advent are not considered actual<\/em> events but spiritual pictures<\/em> to be realized within the life of the church or by individuals alone. It, like conservative amillennialism, had both theologically optimistic and pessimistic forms:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The \u201csocial gospel\u201d movement of Rauschenbusch was a positive, optimistic view with the emphasis on the church as salt and light within \u201cthe world.\u201d[25]<\/a> Here, \u201cthe world\u201d is taken to mean the social structures and sociopolitical processes. Salvation and kingdom-building was the salvation of society through both church and state rather than the individual. The socialistic emphasis of the model led to its discrediting as the practice of socialism in the twentieth-century Communist states became totalitarian.[26]<\/a><\/li>\n
    2. Dodd, Schweitzer, and Bultmann, to various degrees, represented the \u201cliberal historicist\u201d school. They maintained, in varying emphases and senses, a \u201crealized\u201d eschatologyof the timeless and eternal manifested in the current age in space and time rather than in any future age.[27]<\/a> This historicism waned with the twentieth century as logical positivism\u00a0came to dominate many academic fields.[28]<\/a><\/li>\n
    3. <\/a>Niebuhr, though arguably neo-orthodox in his general approach to Christianity, was a major exponent of the liberal method of secularization of the biblical narrative and possessed a pessimistic view of human progress.[29]<\/a> This pessimism became the dominant mode of thinking for the post-liberal theologian.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Contemporary Amillennialism<\/h4>\n

      Thus, in brief, a cultural pessimism, particularly regarding the present age and an extended theological piety had become the de facto<\/em> amillennial position in both its conservative and liberal forms during the 20th century.<\/p>\n

      Premillennialism<\/h3>\n

      Premillennialism as Apostolic<\/h4>\n

      Premillennialism was, according to the compendium of Peters (which cites a consensus of historical work), the exclusive position (though in a primitive form known as \u201cchiliasm\u201d[30]<\/a>) of both Judaism and the early church fathers for the first 250 years of the church.[31]<\/a> This is because the early believers, as predominantly Jewish, adopted the Jewish eschatology\u00a0with some Christian reinterpretation. Jewish eschatology held, in an uneasy tension,<\/a> the ideas of the coming Messiah as both<\/em> the suffering servant of Isa 53 and the glorious coming of the King with power and glory.[32]<\/a> Which view prevailed at a particular point in history was very much subject to the conditions in the nation; during times of great prosperity and military strength, the conqueror was preferred; during occupation and subjugation, the suffering servant was thought to symbolize the nation, but there was still the hope that the deliverer would arise. This conquering Messiah vanquished Israel\u2019s enemies, oversaw a restoration of the Davidic kingdom, and the establishment of his earthly reign throughout all the world.[33]<\/a> This was also clearly the expectation of Jesus\u2019 early disciples:<\/p>\n

      So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, \u201cLord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?\u201d7<\/sup> He told them, \u201cYou are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority.\u201d (Acts 4:19\u20137 NET)<\/p>\n

      So, Christian premillennialism interpreted Jesus\u2019 first advent as the suffering servant, and for classical premillennialism, his second advent was to be as triumphant king and judge in contrast to his \u201cmeek and lowly\u201d first advent. This represented a distinct solution to the tension present in the Jewish eschatology and became the apostolic position, viewing the struggle of the church against the Roman Empire as an extension of the \u201csufferings of Christ\u201d[34]<\/a> but on the path to final victory.<\/p>\n

      The Decline of Premillennialism<\/h4>\n

      Premillennialism\u00a0waned with the \u201caccommodation of Constantine\u201d (AD 313), which fundamentally changed the way the church related to the Roman Empire as it effectively became the favored state religion.[35]<\/a> The rationale of suffering and the Roman emperor as the antichrist\u00a0beast of Revelation underpinning the premillennial eschatological formulation collapsed, with the result that it was virtually absent from the church from the sixth century to the early nineteenth century. It was also one of the few<\/a> areas of thought not revised as part of the Reformation\u00a0tradition, which had generally followed the amillennial Augustinian\u00a0position, with Calvin\u00a0dismissing premillennialism with the few, curt words: \u201cThis fiction is too puerile to need or to deserve refutation.\u201d[36]<\/a> Similarly, Luther\u00a0had also explicitly rejected the \u201ctriumphalism\u201d associated with some medieval scholars, viewing it as a \u201ctrick of the devil.\u201d[37]<\/a><\/p>\n

      Dispensationalism<\/h4>\n

      However, premillennialism reemerged in the 1820s in a modern and radically distinctive form with, first, Irving\u00a0and then Darby\u00a0(the founder of the Plymouth brethren), which became known as dispensationalism.[38]<\/a> Irving divided the age of the church into distinctive ages corresponding to the characteristics of the churches as described in the first three chapters of Revelation.[39]<\/a> The final age, which Irving considered the church had entered, was the Laodicean or \u201clukewarm\u201d era in which the church apostatized.[40]<\/a> Darby developed Irving and formalized the rapture\u00a0doctrine\u2014a removal and rescue of the persecuted remnant church just before its final defeat. This is, at once, the most controversial and cherished doctrine of dispensationalism:<\/p>\n

      [The] idea of a mass Rapture is considered by many to be the most preposterous belief held by Christians. At the same time, it is the Blessed Hope of many Christians today.[41]<\/a><\/p>\n

      Popular dispensationalist narratives of the twentieth century became progressively dominated with the imminence of the rapture, captured by Hal Lindsey\u2019s bestsellers during the 1970s and the 1980s.[42]<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      The second distinctive feature of dispensationalism\u00a0is the church age as a parenthesis of history between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week of Dan 9:27, which was considered an interlude between the histories of Israel.[43]<\/a> Dispensationalism is known for its support of the current state of Israel as fulfillment of biblical prophecy and a pessimistic belief in the increasing lawlessness of the age until the sudden appearance of Christ to rescue the chosen remnant who have not apostatized or succumbed to the antichrist\u2019s kingdom. The dispensationalist view was popularized in the Scofield Reference Bibles of 1909 and 1917, where it has since enjoyed substantial support within fundamentalist\u00a0scholarship during the twentieth century. Indeed, for early fundamentalists, it was considered a test of orthodoxy, alongside explicit support for the reformation of the state of Israel as a prerequisite to Christ\u2019s return.[44]<\/a> From there, its support was maintained in various movements influenced by fundamentalism, such as the main Pentecostal\u00a0denominations and the later Word of Faith\u00a0movement.[45]<\/a> The later charismatic and \u201chouse\u201d churches, originating within <\/a>the mainline Protestant\u00a0and Catholic\u00a0denominations, tended to remain amillennial and rejected any support for the state of Israel during the periodic conflicts since its reformation.[46]<\/a><\/p>\n

      Premillennial Hermeneutics<\/h4>\n

      The premillennial approach to Scripture\u00a0and interpretation was one of its most attractive, cohering, and distinctive features. Premillennial dispensationalism\u00a0employed a \u201cplain meaning,\u201d \u201cgrammatical-historical method,\u201d which strongly emphasized a \u201cliteral\u201d textual hermeneutic.[47]<\/a> The overwhelming logic and self-confidence of premillennialism enjoyed by dispensationalists up until the late 1980s was summarized by Price:<\/p>\n

      Most independent Bible\u00a0scholars are premillennial [dispensationalists] . . . 80% of Bible prophecy has been fulfilled literally. It is illogical to view that the remaining 20% be allegorized and is not fulfilled literally.[48]<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

      Dispensationalism as Heterodox<\/h4>\n

      Yet, it should be clear that this dispensationalist view bears little resemblance to classical premillennialism, which had emphasized the corporate eschatology\u00a0of the victorious messianic king, even if there was conflict and apostasy before his appearing.[49]<\/a> In effect, the second advent is seen as a rescue from the kingdom of the antichrist\u00a0rather than a triumphant return.[50]<\/a> It is extremely culturally pessimistic, and its rapture\u00a0escapism has been the source of criticism from within those who prefer a classical premillennialism.[51]<\/a> Though successful and well established within the modern evangelical\u00a0movement, it has been profoundly challenged as a clearly modern and previously unknown innovation in the history of the church.[52]<\/a><\/p>\n

      However, with the dramatic changes in human civilization in the last two hundred years, some consider the advent of novel doctrines in the \u201clast days\u201d as a fulfillment of Daniel\u2019s \u201cincrease in knowledge\u201d (Dan 12:4) and so something \u201cpreviously unknown\u201d in the history of the church is not a priori<\/em> dismissed. Even if we were to accept that, to be theologically responsible, the evidence for the inference would need to be overwhelming. That does not seem to be the case with the rapture\u00a0doctrine; it is seldom argued in a systematic or rigorous fashion but is frequently sloganized, with any Scriptures speaking of the return of the Lord (which is not the issue) called in support of a rapture. However, those Scriptures are talking about the return of the Lord, additional strong scriptural evidence needs to be produced for the secret rapture, otherwise you are just assuming that which is supposed to be proved. Missler probably comes the closest there, but his reasoning is <\/a>elaborate and granular; the previous perspicuity of the premillennial view is lost in his reinterpretation of it.<\/p>\n

      It is also a worthwhile theological observation that Paul\u00a0also spoke to Timothy of \u201cdoctrines of demons\u201d (1 Tim 4:1) manifesting as innovation of doctrine in the last days. Such a radical innovation of thought without precedent in the history of the church should be viewed as unsafe, without overwhelming evidence to the contrary.<\/p>\n

      Postmillennialism<\/h3>\n

      In essence, postmillennialism\u00a0is the belief that the church on Earth becomes more glorious as time passes and its influence grows until the entire Earth is Christianized; the government and rulership of God through the church is established throughout every domain of culture. The Earth then transitions into the millennial period and the Lord returns at the end of that period:<\/p>\n

      They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. . . . Cry aloud and shout for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great [exalted, enthroned] in your midst is the Holy One of Israel. (Isaiah 11:9; 12:6; amplification mine)[53]<\/a><\/p>\n

      Thus, the postmillennial view has an optimistic and triumphant view of the church and is militant regarding its outreach to the world. It expects evangelism to succeed and nations to be discipled.<\/p>\n

      The Scholarly Rejection of Postmillennialism<\/h4>\n

      With that brief synopsis, some introductory remarks are immediately necessary before we consider the details, owing to the scholarly prejudice against postmillennialism. The prevalence of amillennialism\u00a0within the Reformed\u00a0denominational churches and the domination of premillennial<\/a> dispensationalism\u00a0within the modern evangelical\u00a0movement has meant that postmillennialism has been largely ignored and dismissed by many biblical scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Subsequently, there is a problem with accurately understanding and assessing postmillennialism because of its misrepresentation within the pietistic and pessimistic eschatology\u00a0so prevalent during this recent period, Rushdoony\u00a0describing the problem thus:<\/p>\n

      Although postmillennialism\u00a0has a long history as a major, and perhaps a central, interpretation, it is summarily read out of court by many on non-Biblical grounds.[54]<\/a><\/p>\n

      That is, just because it has had this minority status and was effectively excommunicated from scholarly discourse does not mean it is without merit or is illegitimate in principle.<\/em> Just because a doctrine or experience was missing from the general Christian consciousness for centuries does not disqualify it from being legitimately Christian. We need only consider the Pentecostal\u00a0experience of speaking in tongues, which was virtually absent for centuries of the church but reemerged in the closing years of the nineteenth century within the Holiness movement.[55]<\/a>
      \n      <\/a>
      \nSo, our first observation is that the optimism and practical program of the postmillennial view is the exact conceptual opposite of the pietistic emphasis and the pessimism of the modern iterations of the alternative positions. This explains its marginalization and absence from many scholarly discussions rather than any implicit intellectual deficit or incoherence. Some have attempted to argue postmillennialism\u00a0is fundamentally incoherent in response to the worsening of societal and cultural conditions, but such an argument is logically fallacious and reflects their own subjective biases and prejudices.      [56]<\/a> Just because a society is in a state of decay does not mean the church cannot become radical and militant, leading to a restored and prosperous world, fit for the King to inherit. You may not believe that, but that is not a matter of logic; it is a matter of belief and faith in God to change the world.<\/p>\n

      However, the decay of our society and culture is necessary to put in a proper context to build a reform\u00a0program as dominion theology seeks to do, and the underlying cultural reasons for this malaise I engage within the next chapter. In this section, we want to give special attention to the theology of the view. The purpose is to describe how postmillennialism\u00a0has been conceived and then to reveal what I think really<\/em> characterizes the view so that it becomes useful for the closing discussion of the chapter.<\/p>\n

      Postmillennialism as Modified Amillennialism<\/h4>\n

      For proponents of this view, postmillennialism\u00a0was generated from the problem posed for medieval amillennialists by the perceived failure of Augustinian\u00a0eschatology. As we saw, for neo-Augustinians, the problem of cultural decay is solved by reimagining Augustine\u2019s dualism. The cycle of falling away is matched by a greater cycle of revival. There is increasing victory in the church. Eventually, the City of God prevails throughout the whole earth. So, for example, Walvoord asserts that for the most literal of the postmillennialists, \u201c[they differ] only from the amillennial concept [of the millennium] in the idea of growing triumph and final victory before the Second Advent.<\/em>\u201d [57]<\/a> Similarly, the influential amillennial systematic theologian Berkhof identified a group of scholars in the Netherlands during the sixteenth and seventeenth century that he considered the first to be <\/a>postmillennial on the basis of their envisaging of an eventual earthly<\/em> triumph of the church in a far future.[58]<\/a><\/p>\n

      It must also be noted in opposition to this that the converse is also posited by both Walvoord and Riddlebarger.[59]<\/a> That is, postmillennialism\u00a0reverts to amillennialism\u00a0under the weight of cultural decay. For Riddlebarger, it is seen as an innovation from the historical<\/em> postmillennialism within the old Princeton school.[60]<\/a> She then identifies Warfield as the transitionary figure representing its reversion into amillennialism\u00a0by his supernaturalization of the glorious state of the saints to simply a heavenly, rather than earthly, reality. This seems the more plausible view, particularly with the parallel decay of triumphant classical premillennialism into culturally pessimistic dispensationalism.<\/p>\n

      Postmillennialism as Heterodox and a Product of Philosophical Modernism<\/h4>\n

      For proponents of this view, the radical optimism that is said to characterize postmillennialism\u00a0is viewed as rooted in the Enlightenment\u00a0view of the inevitability of progress and the \u201cearly modern\u201d confidence of man to solve his own problems with the application of the faculty of reason. So, for example, Price gives only a two-hundred-year window for its history and suggests Daniel\u00a0Whitby as the founder.[61]<\/a> Similarly, Walvoord identifies Whitby as the Unitarian founder and enumerates Snowden and Brown as embracing and incorporating the evolutionism of nineteenth-century science\u00a0with its view of the inevitability human progress.[62]<\/a> Both Price and Walvoord argue that the tendency of postmillennialism is towards theological liberalism and Price asserts that the postmillennialist sentiment is the precursor of both fascist and communist conceptions of a golden age.<\/p>\n

      Assessing Postmillennialism<\/h4>\n

      To be theologically responsible, the question to be answered is whether the salient features of postmillennialism\u00a0are seen throughout the history of the <\/a>church or whether it was simply, as suggested in the models above, generated by theological pressures and responses to the zeitgeist<\/em> of the middle and late modern age. The latter is clearly a far weaker theological position than the former position. However, I believe the criticisms presented above are weak and inconclusive, and we can safely assert that postmillennialism has a solid, continuous presence in the great theologians of the church. Let us consider the weakness of these arguments and the refutations in detail.<\/p>\n

      Firstly, Whitby was not an orthodox Christian in any respect but was first a Unitarian and his liberal postmillennialism, which converged easily with classical political liberalism and the reforming priorities of amillennialism, reflected a general cultural optimism rather than a view arrived at through theological analysis and reconstruction.[63]<\/a> It must also be said that from a logical point of view, even if<\/em> the secularization or dechristianization of the millennial concept was applied within utopian fascist or liberal theological thought, that does not invalidate the authentic<\/em> postmillennial position.<\/p>\n

      So, for example, in what was the twilight of British classical liberalism at the close of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, it was not unusual to hold the political ideal that the \u201ckingdom of God\u201d could be legislated<\/em> into existence by the \u201cMother of all Parliaments\u201d; the British Empire would indeed \u201cendure for a thousand years.\u201d[64]<\/a> This figure <\/a>was a deliberate biblical allusion, and it was no coincidence that the Balfour Declaration, indicating the British support for a Jewish homeland, belonged to this period.[65]<\/a> Thus, the clear distinction between the two is exemplified succinctly by Boettner:<\/p>\n

      This [authentic postmillennialist] view is . . . to be distinguished from that optimistic but false view of human betterment and progress held by Modernists and Liberals which teaches that the Kingdom of God\u00a0on earth will be achieved through a natural process by which mankind will be improved and social institutions will be reformed and brought to a higher level of culture and efficiency. This latter view presents a spurious or pseudoPostmillennialism and regards the Kingdom of God as the product of natural laws in an evolutionary process, whereas orthodox Postmillennialism regards the Kingdom of God as the product of the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit in connection with the preaching of the Gospel.[66]<\/a><\/p>\n

      This failure to be granular in the treatment of postmillennial thought is surely sufficient to justify the proposition that so-called liberal \u201cpostmillennialism\u201d is radically different from theologically conservative postmillennialism, and the former cannot be applied as an effective argument in rapidly dismissing postmillennialism generally.<\/em> Similarly, Berkhof\u2019s remarkable brevity regarding the nature of theological<\/em> nineteenth-century and pre-WWI postmillennialism and his equation of \u201cmodern\u201d postmillennialism with the \u201csocial gospel\u201d seems to be committing, and satisfied with, the same category error.[67]<\/a> This is a serious omission as this period had been described as the previous height of its popularity by both Walvoord and Price.<\/p>\n

      Secondly, the general support for the thesis that the failure of Augustinianism\u00a0generated postmillennialism\u00a0seems very weak for the following reasons:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. There seems little evidence of an immediate reaction to the failure of Augustinianexpectations. To assert that Joachim of Fiore (b. 1132) was postmillennial seems to be another example of improper use of the designation. His eschatologywas radically heterodox and is viewed by <\/a>some postmillennialists as radically dispensationalist because of his conception of the ages of the Father (Law), Son, and Spirit (grace).[68]<\/a><\/li>\n
      2. Although suggested as a \u201cpost-Reformation\u201d movement, history seems to show that the Reformation thinkers were content to adopt the view that they could resume the building of the kingdomas envisaged by Augustine<\/em>now that a correct foundation had been restored.[69]<\/a> Both Luther\u00a0and Calvin\u00a0believed that the progress of the gospel was inevitable once the proper ministration had been restored, which, of course, is well documented as the origin of Luther\u2019s polemic in the failure to convert the Jews.[70]<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        However, Riddlebarger\u2019s view of Warfield\u2019s position in proposing amillennialism\u00a0was simply an aberration of postmillennialism\u00a0is, at first appearance, stronger. Her assertion is accurate that though Warfield considered himself a postmillennialist, he certainly spiritualized postmillennial concepts, allowing some of his immediate heirs to move straightforwardly to an amillennial position.[71]<\/a> Nevertheless, she neglects to mention that Warfield was also<\/em> important to the developing fundamentalist\u00a0movement and, in contrast, his putative heirs in that movement were dispensationalist premillennialists.[72]<\/a> Thus, it would be contradictory to assert that his eschatology\u00a0inevitably collapsed into amillennialism. Rather, it appears that with postmillennialism, we are dealing with a distinctive<\/em> category, and it is to the analysis of this category that we now turn.<\/p>\n

        Postmillennialism on Its Own Terms<\/h4>\n

        The counterarguments presented above are not considered to be definitive or exhaustive. They are simply posited to demonstrate that the original arguments were not sufficient to dismiss postmillennialism\u00a0in the arbitrary manner it has been dismissed. Postmillennialism is at least possible<\/em> to posit as a distinct analytic category. However, it is now expedient<\/a> to advance the positive argument in and of itself to establish the strong case for postmillennialism as a distinct theological category. As part of our argument, we identify that modern iterations of eschatological thought have tended to obscure previous historical similarities and attitudes towards the \u201clast things.\u201d Eschatological orthodoxies have become more like ideological prejudices to which allegiance is demanded; this prevents a recognition of there being far more in common between the positions than is often admitted in contemporary dogma.<\/p>\n

        At the most basic level, postmillennialism\u00a0is the chronologically opposite position to premillennialism. It believes in the return of Christ after<\/em> the millennial period. The millennial period is that in which the church had previously established the fullness of the kingdom\u00a0on Earth, considering the Great Commission of Matt 28 as literally fulfilled. Disciples have been made of all nations in their entirety. Jesus then returns and is welcomed to take his place in the kingdom on earth, with the final judgment at that point and eternity beginning. There is no concept of a remnant or a rapture, for<\/p>\n

        The LORD owns the earth and all it contains, the world and all who live in it. (Ps 24:1 NET)<\/p>\n

        For there will be universal submission to the LORD\u2019s sovereignty, just as the waters completely cover the sea. (Isa 11:9 NET)<\/p>\n

        Gentry summarizes the postmillennial view in this way:<\/p>\n

        [Postmillennialism is] the view that Christ will return to the earth after the Spirit-blessed Gospel has had overwhelming success in bringing the world to the adoption of Christianity.[73]<\/a><\/p>\n

        I would concur with Gentry here, but I would add that the evidence supports the view that the distinct and authentic contemporary postmillennial position reasserts the primitive triumphalism of both<\/em> the early premillennialists<\/em> and augments it with the kingdom-building spirit of the amillennialist<\/em> Reformers. It is the recapturing of a common radical optimism, an engagement with the world to convert and reclaim it rather than retreat or separate from it. It is, in this important sense, part of the apostolic vision of the church at its foundation to \u201cgo into the world and make disciples of all nations.\u201d[74]<\/a> Discipling is taken to mean a distinctive \u201cChristian culture\u201d:<\/p>\n

        <\/a>If we believe that the main and final goal of the Christian life is heaven, or the salvation of our souls, we will be indifferent to history and the world around us. . . . The goal is God\u2019s Kingdom, His purpose for humanity and the world.[75]<\/a><\/p>\n

        Although allegory and spiritualization are widely applied in postmillennial hermeneutics, in contrast to the early period of the church, which we have already seen was premillennial in outlook, the task or responsibility of the church in Matt 28 is probably taken in the most literal<\/em> and emphatic<\/em> manner by the modern postmillennialists, in contrast to the cultural pessimism and cynicism of dispensationalism\u00a0and modern amillennialism.<\/p>\n

        Postmillennialism is a presuppositional position of victory in every realm, not just the \u201cCity of God\u201d as in Augustine. It is<\/em> a much stronger hermeneutic than simply a general parallel progress of history the of world and a church eventually<\/em> triumphant, as might be seen in Augustinian\u00a0theology. Augustine\u00a0was dualistic and this important philosophical distinction, I believe, classifies his theology as predominantly amillennial.[76]<\/a> In contrast, postmillennialism\u00a0uses the perceived triumph of Christ as a present reality within the life of the church on Earth, not deferred to heaven or considered as a spiritual picture as we saw in some of the modern Augustinians, such as Warfield. The church is not the ark of the Catholic\u00a0church, the chosen remnant of the Protestant\u00a0dispensationalists, or the mystical kingdom\u00a0of the saints in heaven of modern amillennialists:<\/p>\n

        If I believe that Christ will soon rapture\u00a0me from this evil world, this will have a practical effect on my life very different from a belief that I shall see the world get worse and worse, and live through a fearful tribulation. Again, if I believe that the world will see the progressive triumph of Christ\u2019s people until the whole world is Christian and a glorious material and spiritual era unfolds, I shall be motivated very much differently from either a premillennial or an amillennial believer.[77]<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

        Rather, it is the entirety of human culture that is to be redeemed and converted by Christian action in every sphere, not just the church:<\/p>\n

        [It] is also an error to make the church central to God\u2019s plan and purpose . . . and therefore [see] the church as the sphere of victory. This led to a very high doctrine of the church, both in Rome and Protestantism. If our hope for the futures of man and Christ\u2019s world is only in the church, then we will stress the church as man\u2019s hope. The church will be over-stressed because it is man\u2019s only hope. Neither the state, the Christian family, nor the school, nor any other institution offers hope, and none are seen as therefore central or important.[78]<\/a><\/p>\n

        Postmillennialism argues for the complete and total victory of Christ in the current world:<\/p>\n

        [P]ostmillennialism is the eschatology\u00a0of victory. . . . The notion of defeat does not go well with the fact of an omnipotent God and a conquering Christ. [Postmillennialism] takes with total seriousness and a totality of meaning the validity of Romans 8:28, \u201cAnd we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.\u201d[79]<\/a><\/p>\n

        It rejects, in its entirety, the apocalyptic dualism of Hellenistic Western Christianity:<\/p>\n

        [T]here is an Implicit Manichaeanism in premillennialism and in amillennialism. The material world is surrendered to Satan, and the spiritual world is reserved to God.[80]<\/a><\/p>\n

        Postmillennialism, in common with amillennialism\u00a0on this point, rejects the biblical literalism of premillennialism as inapplicable to prophecy as a matter of interpretative principle:<\/p>\n

        [I]t must be noted that premillennialism violates one of the most basic principles of sound biblical hermeneutics. . . . The fact that so many other scriptures are interpreted to fit in with a particular [literal] understanding of Revelation 20 indicates that far too much weight is being placed on a single text [and] requires the book as a whole be interpreted futuristically. . . .The truth or <\/a>falsity of amillennialism\u00a0or postmillennialism\u00a0does not [require] the futuristic approach.[81]<\/a><\/p>\n

        In this respect, Postmillennialists generally favor a partial-preterist view of the book of Revelation and of prophecy in general. It should be noted that preterism is not limited to postmillennialism\u00a0but is a general view of prophecy. The full preterist view holds that \u201cthe tribulation\u201d of Revelation occurred in our distant past, in the first century, and the millennium has already passed.[82]<\/a> The former is accepted but the latter is rejected by postmillennialists. Postmillennialists view prophecy as progressively fulfilled or prefigured in previous ages and generally favor covenant theology, which posits a single continuing intratrinitarian covenant of redemption that structures history from the creation mandate of Adam to eternity.[83]<\/a> However, postmillennialists agree with the preterists that a literalistic approach to prophecy is na\u00efve and immature: \u201cliteralism leads to absurdity in Revelation.\u201d[84]<\/a><\/p>\n

        Thus, being also covenant theologians, postmillennialists are hostile to any form of dispensationalism\u00a0that divides history up into distinct ages in which God deals with man according to a distinct set of principles in each:<\/p>\n

        Dispensationalism limits the Bible\u00a0and its relevance; it wrongly divides the word of truth. It denies the wholeness of Scripture, and the fact that God does not change, nor does His law, nor His plan of salvation, change from age to age. [85]<\/a><\/p>\n

        Postmillennialism also takes issue with the amillennial view about the nature of the interadvental period. It objects to both forms of contemporary amillennialism\u00a0that either internalizes the \u201ckingdom\u201d as a spiritual entity or limits it to the heavenly state of saints in heaven:<\/p>\n

        Scripture\u00a0makes it abundantly clear that this<\/em> earth . . . is a part of the kingdom. Christ\u2019s messianic authority\u00a0and reign extend over all<\/em> of heaven and earth. . . . Every nation on earth is presently under the dominion of Christ. . . .Amillennialism fails to deal with<\/a> these scriptural truths satisfactorily. . . . [It] fails to deal with the many passages that tell us about the progressive growth of the messianic kingdom\u00a0. . . that grows to fill the whole earth.\u201d[86]<\/a><\/p>\n

        In contrast to the mysticism\u00a0that finds its way into premillennial dispensationalism\u00a0(particularly within the charismatic churches) and the spiritualization embedded in Old Princetonian amillennialism, postmillennialists who adopt the Calvinistic Reformation\u00a0position tend to emphasize Christian humanism\u00a0rather than supernaturalism:<\/p>\n

        We don\u2019t have God-ordained prophets anymore. Jesus Christ was the final prophet, priest and king. . . . Yet all men have a prophetic task . . . [the] successful proclamation of the word [into] every sphere of life.[87]<\/a><\/p>\n

        Summary<\/h4>\n

        So, we can see, even in our brief exploration of postmillennialism, that it stands on a far more robust theological and scriptural foundation than its opponents have been prepared to admit. We have written far more in our brief treatment above than some of the most influential systematic theologies of the twentieth century. It is of little surprise, then, that so little understanding of the tenor and the approach to Scripture\u00a0of postmillennialism has been demonstrated in those works. Importantly, we also identified that the attitudinal orientation to and presumption of Christian triumph was historically common to most eschatological thought; it is a modern aberration that it descended into mysticism\u00a0and pessimism.<\/p>\n

        Eschatology and Dominionism<\/h3>\n

        The purpose of this section is to focus the previous explanations and to establish which of the eschatological viewpoints has served as the historical antecedent to the dominion theology of the twentieth century. It is only necessary to briefly examine the attitude of the modern form of each eschatological position to the concept of societal reconstruction within the twentieth century for it to become obvious which viewpoint was the<\/a> historical antecedent to the modern form of dominion theology, which began to emerge during the 1960s.<\/p>\n

        Premillennialism<\/h4>\n

        In the previous section, it was seen that dispensationalist premillennialism viewed the closure of the age in apostasy and the time of the antichrist. This historical pessimism was seen most strongly in the early fundamentalists of the 1920s, who effectively withdrew from social engagement in American public life after the intellectual humiliation of the Scopes \u201cevolution\u201d trial.[88]<\/a> Their radical dispensationalism\u00a0created a \u201choly remnant\u201d mentality that they were the holy faithful at the end of the age that would be raptured away.<\/p>\n

        Culture was considered apostate; the only hope was revivalism\u00a0to save as many souls as possible before the imminent coming of the Lord.[89]<\/a> Social action was considered a distraction from the real task of evangelism and the social gospel of Rauschenbusch as liberal-modernist apostasy.[90]<\/a> Thus, during the 1950s, the premillennial dispensationalist and prominent radio preacher Rev. J. Vernon McGee declared, \u201cYou don\u2019t polish brass on a sinking ship.\u201d[91]<\/a> The implication was clear\u2014civilization was sinking, so social action was meaningless\u2014the Christian should be concerned with revivalism alone.[92]<\/a> Thus, it should be obvious at this point that twentieth-century dispensational premillennialism would be philosophically opposed to the cultural optimism of dominion theology\u00a0and would consider it theologically heretical.<\/a><\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        Amillennialism<\/h4>\n

        Amillennialism, with its emphasis on the kingdom hermeneutic and its adoption by the Reformation\u00a0churches, might be considered more amenable to the reformist program of dominion theology. However, during the twentieth century, the failure of classical messianic liberalism and the cultural pessimism regarding the possibility of human progress meant the direct heirs of Princeton moved from postmillennialism\u00a0to emphasizing the pietistic aspect of Warfield\u2019s transitional eschatology.[93]<\/a> This perceived cultural decay and lawlessness of the century favored the view of the \u201cother worldliness\u201d of the kingdom and the escape to the inner life of a believer, a pietistic rumination on the \u201ckingdom\u201d of the saints in heaven. During the 1930s, the pietistic emphasis gained almost complete ascendancy in modern amillennialism. Rushdoony\u00a0characterized modern amillennialism thus:<\/p>\n

        In reality, amillennialism holds that the major area of growth and power is in Satan\u2019s Kingdom, because the world is seen as progressively falling away to Satan, the church\u2019s trials and tribulations increasing, and the end of the world finding the church lonely and sorely beset. There is no such thing as a millennium or a triumph of Christ and His Kingdom in history. The role of the saints is at best to grin and bear it, and more likely to be victims and martyrs. The world will go from bad to worse. . . . The Christian must retreat from the world of action in the realization that there is no hope for this world, no world-wide victory of Christ\u2019s cause, nor world peace and righteousness. . . . The material world is surrendered to Satan, and the spiritual world is reserved to God.[94]<\/a><\/p>\n

        Hence, it should also be clear that though amillennialists may have once spoken the language of modern dominion theology with its emphasis on kingdom-building in the present Church age, it has retreated into mysticism\u00a0and pietism. Its new emphasis is the kingdom within and among believers<\/em>.<\/p>\n

        <\/a><\/p>\n

        Postmillennialism<\/h4>\n

        Thus, by default, we must look to postmillennialism\u00a0as the true historical antecedent to dominion theology, and it is possible to establish, without question, that the burden of evidence supports this view. I proposed in an earlier section that distilled down to what it represents in attitudinal and theological terms, it is the recapturing of the primitive triumphalism of both the early premillennialists and the kingdom-building spirit of the amillennialist Reformers. This has been elaborated during its revival in the second part of the twentieth century in the work of Rousas Rushdoony. Rushdoony, considered the father of the modern dominionist movement, had an obvious postmillennial eschatology. He summarizes the interpretation of postmillennialism as the call to fulfill the creation mandate of Genesis by redeeming the nations and institutions of the world:<\/p>\n

        [P]ostmillennialism . . . sees salvation as victory and health in time and eternity, it sees therefore a responsibility of the man of God for the whole of life. . . . People out of every tongue, tribe, and nation shall be converted, and the word of God shall prevail and rule in every part of the earth. There is therefore a necessity for [social and political] action, and an assurance of victory.[95]<\/a><\/p>\n

        A single qualification is worth mentioning here as reflected in our discussion so far. Though most dominionists are<\/em> postmillennial in operational terms and in theology, there is no logical<\/em> necessity that they be so; it is rather that postmillennialism\u00a0remains the only modern<\/em> position that encourages a positive psychological disposition to and faith for the future. We shall see as we progress in our discussion that there were and are dominionists who are operationally<\/em> postmillennial but are not theologically<\/em> postmillennial.<\/p>\n

        Summary and Concluding Remarks<\/h3>\n

        We began this chapter by considering the definition and history of the three main eschatological views: premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. We noted that postmillennialism had been dismissed as simplistic, na\u00efve, mystical, and guilty of ignoring the realities of history because of its radical optimism.[96]<\/a> I then asserted that those many critiques <\/a>miss the salient point that postmillennialism is recovering the triumphal emphasis of both the classical forms of amillennialism\u00a0and premillennialism. Hence, it is possible to understand why Rushdoony\u00a0and Mathison, both scathing critics of premillennial dispensationalism, can illustrate that the early historical creeds, including those of the classical premillennialists, viewed a triumphant king coming in glory and not, as in modern iterations of the positions, on a rescue mission to the remnant.[97]<\/a><\/p>\n

        Consequently, it was possible for Bahnsen\u00a0to argue extensively for John Calvin\u00a0holding a postmillennial, rather than the amillennial, view commonly ascribed to him. He cited recent scholarly research that emphasized his reforming role, both within the civic culture and within theology, was based upon a conviction of Christian progress and victory within history.[98]<\/a> Mathison was similarly emphatic in this unwavering belief in the Christian triumph in history: \u201cToday\u2019s newspaper is then [not] an excuse for anxiety or apathy.\u201d[99]<\/a> Finally, owing to the mysticism\u00a0and pessimism incorporated into the dispensationalist and amillennial view, it was possible for Rushdoony\u00a0to argue that they have succumbed to the principle of reason\u00a0and contemporary experience as the arbiter of all things, adopting the philosophical position from the Enlightenment\u00a0rather than one rooted in a Christian philosophy of history.[100]<\/a> In contrast, the proper use of reason\u00a0by the Christian is to elevate the promises of Scripture\u00a0as our expectation.<\/p>\n

        Thus, my key argument in concluding this chapter is that postmillennialism\u00a0alone in its conservative form retains the historic vision of Christian victory as its central hermeneutic, that was once held far more generally within the Christian church. The concept of Christian victory is not a modern aberration peculiar to postmillennialism but had historical expression in premillennialism\u00a0and amillennialism. However, it is<\/em> the absolute opposite intellectual position to both in their modern<\/em> forms, premillennial dispensationalism\u00a0and amillennial mysticism. Though postmillennialism is conceptually distinct from dominion theology, it finds natural expression through the militant language of dominion theology because of the practical implications<\/em> of the viewpoint. The next chapter <\/a>examines how the humanistic component of the cultural equation emerged before considering, in the following chapter, how it combined with the postmillennial viewpoint to mark the emergence of dominionism.<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        [1]<\/a> For example, questions within the premillennial view of \u201care you pre, post, or mid-tribulation rapture?\u201d are not of interest to us as they do not help us move the main argument regarding dominionism\u00a0along, but they are certainly interesting questions if a full understanding of \u201clast days\u201d is your interest.<\/p>\n

        [2]<\/a> \u201cKoine\u201d or \u201ccommon Greek\u201d is the name given to the composite Greek dialect associated first with the conquest of Alexander the Great. As his army was drawn from throughout the Greek provinces, the nuances of the provincial languages tended to get lost in the name of military efficiency and the language became more explicit.<\/p>\n

        [3]<\/a> Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom<\/em>, 4.<\/p>\n

        [4]<\/a> The term \u201crealized eschatology\u201d is associated with the work of C. H. Dodd, who first published his ideas in The Parables of the Kingdom <\/em>(1935). Additional comments on this term are found in his revised 1961 edition, especially viii, 164.<\/p>\n

        [5]<\/a> Bultmann, \u201cProblem of Eschatology (A),\u201d in History and Eschatology<\/em>, 38\u201355.<\/p>\n

        [6]<\/a> Price, \u201cMillennial Issue,\u201d 7\u201310.<\/p>\n

        [7]<\/a> Notable modern amillennialists have been Bishop Christopher Wordsworth (b. 1807), Abraham Kuyper\u00a0(b. 1837), Louis Berkhof (b. 1873), Albert Schweitzer (b. 1875), C. H. Dodd (b. 1884), William Hendriksen (b. 1900), and Malcolm Smith (b. 1940). Berkhof\u2019s amillennial Systematic Theology<\/em> (1932 and 1949) was highly influential within modern Calvinism. A snapshot of this continuing influence can be found in this review of a digitization of his work: https:\/\/www.logos.com\/product\/5084\/louis-berkhofcollection. William Hendriksen\u2019s Israel and the Bible<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>(1968) is considered the \u201cclassic representation of replacement theology\u201d (Horner, \u201cReformed\u00a0Eschatology,\u201d 4); Malcolm is still living: his website is https:\/\/unconditionallovefellowship.com\/.<\/p>\n

        [8]<\/a> Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom<\/em>, 49\u201355.<\/p>\n

        [9]<\/a> Calvin\u00a0was historically thought of as amillennial (Price, \u201cThree Views\u201d) but has also been cited as foundational for postmillennialists (Bahnsen, \u201cCalvin\u00a0and Postmillennialism\u201d). As noted shortly, some view the amillennial position as derived from the postmillennial position, with the millennium pushed into the distant future.<\/p>\n

        [10]<\/a> To the philosophically minded reader, this might sound like \u201cpostmodernism.\u201d However, many postmodern approaches to texts, such as found in the deconstructionist movements, deny that a text holds any<\/em> objective (or \u201cinherent,\u201d or fixed) meaning.<\/em> This approach to a text is clearly a far more extreme position and the logical consequence of this is that God could not<\/em> use a text (in this case, the Bible) to teach the people his law or communicate spiritual truths. Though there were attempts to bring such \u201cpostmodern hermeneutics\u201d into biblical interpretation, the weaknesses and limitations of the postmodern school is exegeted by philosophical theologians such as Thiselton, Hermeneutics<\/em>, \u00a7\u00a715\u201317 and postmodernism generally is comprehensively critiqued by Blackburn, both from an ethical perspective, Practical Reason<\/em>, \u00a79, and as a matter of epistemology\u00a0(the possibility of knowing anything<\/em> at all), Truth<\/em>, 250.<\/p>\n

        Though such extreme views were very popular in the heyday of postmodernism (1980\u20132010) and will still find defenders today, few will argue that a text has such a \u201cplasticity\u201d of meaning that it must always<\/em> fail to communicate what the author is saying. As Blackburn pointed out, the irony of postmodernists arguing about translations of their works exposes the ridiculousness of their own claims. The very reason why you write as an author is because you believe you can<\/em> communicate meaning within your prose.<\/p>\n

        The secondary absurdity of the position is that it otherwise makes nonsense of not just religious literature claiming to be the word of God but all kinds of technical and instructional materials also. That is not to deny there is ambiguity; your skill as a writer constantly works to overcome it as you understand where your readers have misunderstood you. As the philosopher Wittgenstein\u00a0noted, if we do our philosophy in the real world rather than in the abstract of the ivory tower of the academy, we avoid such indulgent and ridiculous excesses of belief.<\/p>\n

        [11]<\/a> Though there are many disputes as to how many passages are allegorical, the critical passages are Rev 18\u201320 (and perhaps 21); see Price, \u201cThree Views\u201d and \u201cPremillennialism.\u201d<\/p>\n

        [12]<\/a> The first one hundred years of the church saw it move from a predominantly ethnically Jewish composition to a predominantly Gentile (non-Jewish) composition. This track is already seen in the narrative of the book of Acts, when Paul and Barnabas declare \u201cthey go now to the Gentiles\u201d (Acts 18:6). The cultural separation from Judaism was accelerated when the Roman Emperor Nero understood \u201cChristians\u201d were not just another Jewish sect and removed from them the protection afforded to the \u201cofficial\u201d religions (of which Judaism was one).<\/p>\n

        [13]<\/a> Price, \u201cThree Views.\u201d<\/p>\n

        [14]<\/a> Parousia<\/em> is a direct borrowing from the original Greek word, with the literal meaning of \u201cbeing present\u201d in the sense of \u201carrival,\u201d and used in Christian theology for the return of Christ.<\/p>\n

        [15]<\/a> O\u2019Daly, Augustine\u2019s City of God<\/em>, 168. O\u2019Daly speculates that ten is the number of the law.<\/p>\n

        [16]<\/a> Van Oort, \u201c<\/em>End Is Now,\u201d 3\u20135.<\/p>\n

        [17]<\/a> Date of composition is given as 412\u2013426\/7 in van Oort.<\/p>\n

        [18]<\/a> It is this eventual triumph of the church that connects it with postmillennialism\u00a0in the mind of some commentators and why some see it fundamentally as a degeneration from the postmillennial position in response to a collapse in cultural optimism and humanity\u2019s ability to reform itself. The reciprocal view is also held, that some view postmillennialism as modified amillennialism; we consider the reasons for both positions in the subsequent discussion of postmillennialism.<\/p>\n

        [19]<\/a> Augustine, Complete Works<\/em>, loc. 23756 [1699].<\/p>\n

        [20]<\/a> Walvoord (1959) alleges 650, 1,000, and 1,044 in the iterations of post-Augustinian thought in response to the \u201cfailures\u201d of Christ to return.<\/p>\n

        [21]<\/a> Pentecost, Things to Come<\/em>, 384.<\/p>\n

        [22]<\/a> Masselink, Why a Thousand Years?<\/em>; Hamilton, Millennial Faith<\/em>; D\u00fcsterdieck, Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch<\/em>; Kliefoth, Offenbarung des Johannes<\/em>.<\/p>\n

        [23]<\/a> Warfield was often understood as having a postmillennial orientation in his theology that emphasized the triumph of Christianity in history, which is why some consider amillennialism\u00a0as a degraded form of postmillennialism, spiritualizing events traditionally viewed by the postmillennialists as realized on Earth. We examine this in more detail shortly.<\/p>\n

        [24]<\/a> Walvoord, \u201cMillennium Issue,\u201d 430.<\/p>\n

        [25]<\/a> Rauschenbusch, Theology for the Social Gospel<\/em> and Social Principles of Jesus<\/em>, both published in 1917.<\/p>\n

        [26]<\/a> Rauschenbusch, in his early work, enthusiastically endorses and defends a communist version of socialism, with private property viewed as a \u201ctransitional phase\u201d of human organization. In his later work, this was far more muted, but it remains a fact of history that many subsequent advocates of the social gospel were socialist progressives politically. It is also notable, though, that he personally remained relatively orthodox in his view of the redemptive work of Christ and the need for personal salvation, in stark contrast to some of his successors that viewed \u201csin\u201d as societal against<\/em> the individual, rather than something the individual commits in offense to God. In our modern parlance, this is expressed when someone argues that many \u201ccriminals\u201d are in fact \u201cvictims\u201d of a society that has wronged them.<\/p>\n

        [27]<\/a> Schweitzer, Historical Jesus<\/em>, 478\u201387; Bultmann, Presence of Eternity<\/em>, 138\u201355; Dodd, Parables<\/em>, 163\u201369.<\/p>\n

        [28]<\/a> \u201cHistoricism,\u201d more generally, was the view that there were deterministic \u201claws\u201d that governed the course of history. History was moving towards an inevitable consummation. This view of history was associated most vividly with the \u201cleft wing,\u201d revolutionary Hegelians and was highly influential on Marx and his successors, who believed the destination of history was the communist utopia. As communism failed and philosophical positivism\u00a0came to dominate mid-twentieth century science\u00a0and thought, the historicist theses, with their metaphysical underpinnings, were viewed as fundamentally flawed and \u201cnonsensical.\u201d See Macneil, Foundations<\/em>, 62\u201367.<\/p>\n

        [29]<\/a> Niebuhr, Nature and Destiny<\/em>. This was the archetypal post-liberal synthesis of Reformation\u00a0and Renaissance\u00a0ideas.<\/p>\n

        [30]<\/a> Peters, Theocratic Kingdom<\/em>, 482\u201383 (this is a public domain work, and there are digitized versions out there of various quality but no official versions; the version I have is a scanned version of the book itself from a university of library). Chilias<\/em> is Latin for \u201cone thousand.\u201d The Latin word \u201cmille\u201d also means one thousand, hence the term \u201cmillennium\u201d in modern parlance. The central belief of the chiliasts was a belief in a period of a thousand years known as the millennium. In contrast, modern premillennialism is a system of theology and is far more comprehensive, but chiliasts are still considered as representative of early premillennialism.<\/p>\n

        [31]<\/a> See Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, John, James, Matthew, Aristio, and John the<\/p>\n

        Presbyter (all these named as such by ancient historian Papias). In the period AD 100\u2013 200, the list includes Clement of Rome, Barnabus, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias (both disciples of John). In the period AD 200\u2013300, Pothinus, Justin Martyr, Melito, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Apollinaris. See Pentecost, Things to Come<\/em>, 373\u201380.<\/p>\n

        [32]<\/a> Price, in \u201cPremillennialism,\u201d argued that the tension was so strong that sometimes there was a split into two different events, or perhaps a Jewish and a Gentile messiah.<\/p>\n

        [33]<\/a> See, for example, Isa 2:1\u20135.<\/p>\n

        [34]<\/a> 1 Pet 4:13; suffering as a believer and the response to it is a recurrent feature of 1 Peter.<\/p>\n

        [35]<\/a> Wright, \u201cEdict of Milan,\u201d 313.<\/p>\n

        [36]<\/a> Calvin, Institutes<\/em>, loc. 20132.<\/p>\n

        [37]<\/a> Joachim of Fiore (1135\u20131202) was the most important example of what is argued by some, such as Price, as the precursor for modern postmillennialism. We discuss this in more detail shortly.<\/p>\n

        [38]<\/a> Boettner, Postmillennialism<\/em>, loc. 67 (this Kindle edition is an abridged form of the original print book The Millennium<\/em>).<\/p>\n

        [39]<\/a> There is clearly some spiritual insight demonstrated by Irving\u00a0here. You can even accept these passages as demonstrating features of the Christian and the Christian life without accepting they are a linear, historical sequence as he asserted.<\/p>\n

        [40]<\/a> MacPherson, Rapture Plot<\/em>, 74; 124.<\/p>\n

        [41]<\/a> Missler, Rapture<\/em>, loc. 28.<\/p>\n

        [42]<\/a> These are listed in the bibliography.<\/p>\n

        [43]<\/a> Dispensationalists argue that the book of Revelation reflects this structure literally<\/em> and sequentially<\/em>\u2014the first three chapters are the church age, followed by the rapture\u00a0event of 4:1 (\u201ccome up here\u201d), the resumption of the history of Israel paused in Daniel\u00a0(the period of the antichrist\u00a0being the \u201c70th week\u201d), a second coming in Rev 19, and final judgment in Rev 20. As we note immediately below, its most attractive, cohering, and distinctive feature is the straightforward mapping to scriptural events. It is of note in Daniel that the word \u201cweek\u201d is often an interpretation by the translator of an unqualified Hebrew \u201cseven,\u201d leading some, like Price, \u201cPremillennialism,\u201d to argue that both years and weeks are intended\u2014there were two distinct fulfillments of the passages, one using \u201cweeks\u201d that was fulfilled shortly after the book was written, and another viewed in terms of \u201cyears\u201d after the prophetic clock had restarted.<\/p>\n

        [44]<\/a> Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism<\/em>, 198\u2013200.<\/p>\n

        [45]<\/a> The early history of Pentecostalism\u00a0is slightly contested, with many marking the beginning of the movement as the Azusa street outpouring of 1906\u20139, out of which many of the large Pentecostal\u00a0denominations mark as their beginning. However, some Holiness churches had previously added the \u201cthird blessing\u201d of speaking in tongues, the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) was founded in 1897, and the Pentecostal Holiness Church (PHC) was founded in 1898. The earliest Pentecostals were known as \u201cHoliness Pentecostals\u201d because of their connection with the Holiness movement.<\/p>\n

        The Word of Faith\u00a0movement was most immediately associated with the ministry of Kenneth E. Hagin, who effectively founded it as an independent movement with the establishment of Rhema\u00a0Bible Training Center in 1963. Though Rhema continues today with multinational campuses, many would consider Kenneth Copeland Ministries\u00a0(founded 1967) as the \u201csecond wave\u201d of the Word of Faith movement, though Copeland himself maintains strong, personal connections with the Rhema movement. However, importantly, the designation is not really denominational in the traditional governmental sense but rather reflects a networked association of autonomous organizations.<\/p>\n

        This lack of central authority has been both the strength and weakness of the movement, with some of the most egregious scandals originating in its ranks; but owing to this loose, voluntary model, they did not prove fatal to the movement. It should be emphasized that this model of decentralized organization is not confined to just religious organizations in the modern world but is now found widely in business and political contexts.<\/p>\n

        [46]<\/a> On occasions, the issue of the status of the modern state of Israel was an explosive controversy within these movements, with some influential magazines strongly arguing against the premillennial view and dismissing the need for support for the modern Jews of the state of Israel. Price, an influential member of the British House church movement, discussed this at length in his \u201cPremillennialism\u201d series, arguing that the shuttering of these publications was a direct result of their refusal to support the modern state of Israel.<\/p>\n

        It is of note that the issue is once again extremely politically sensitive amongst the Christian right because of the war in Gaza, with a clear separation between those that support Israel and those who do not. Having listened to many discussions on this subject, it is evident that even if the scriptural injunctions to \u201cbless the Jews\u201d are acknowledged, they seem to be sidestepped, either by<\/p>\n

        citing replacement theology, which, as we have already seen, recasts the church as Israel, thus granting no significance to a political state in the Middle East now known as Israel; or<\/p>\n

        separating the support for the government of the modern secular state of \u201cIsrael\u201d from the support for the Jewish people.<\/p>\n

        I examine the Israel-Gaza war in detail here: Macneil, \u201cHAMAS vs Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n

        [47]<\/a> Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom<\/em>, 129. Here, Walvoord admits the necessity of permitting fundamentally symbolic language in the apocalyptic genre. Some other premillennialists, such as Price, reject this, insisting on a strict literalism.<\/p>\n

        [48]<\/a> Price, \u201cPremillennialism,\u201d pt. 1, 02:00.<\/p>\n

        [49]<\/a> Rushdoony, \u201cPostmillennialism 1 and 2.\u201d<\/p>\n

        [50]<\/a> The IHOP Church holds uniquely that it is the church that orchestrates the tribulation via a worldwide prayer movement and so remains closest to this victorious coming of the King Jesus after the pattern of the classical premillennialists. Although now \u201cdisgraced\u201d because of historical sexual abuse allegations, the founder Mike Bickle spent an enormous amount of time in the book of Revelation and in expounding it.<\/p>\n

        [51]<\/a> Bahnsen\u00a0and Gentry, House Divided<\/em>, 365\u201366.<\/p>\n

        [52]<\/a> Gary North, \u201cPublishers Forward,\u201d in Bahnsen\u00a0and Gentry, House Divided<\/em>, ix\u2013lii.<\/p>\n

        See also appendix B, \u201cLate Jesus.\u201d<\/p>\n

        [53]<\/a> Isaiah 11\u201312 are recognized as passages important to eschatological thinking. Premillennialists consider them a picture of the millennial period itself, in which there has been a renewed and transformed ecology. Some amillennialists would see it as a picture of the growth of the church age. Most postmillennialists would site this verse as supporting a postmillennial view. Here lies the challenge of the hermeneutic you bring to a biblical passage\u2014prophetic passages sometimes do not have sufficient data to stand on their own and will be interpreted according to your framework of understanding.<\/p>\n

        [54]<\/a> Kik, Eschatology of Victory<\/em>, vii\u2013ix.<\/p>\n

        [55]<\/a> This is an obvious departure from the cessationism common within Reformed\u00a0thought. However, having spent many years in churches and fellowships where the \u201cspiritual gifts\u201d of 1 Cor 12 were commonplace, this proposition is not problematic for me. Additionally, spiritual gifts are often characteristic of revivals and renewals in Reformed\u00a0contexts, even if they are not acknowledged as such. Of rather more interest is the question as to why Calvin\u00a0rejected the supernatural manifestations and the \u201cmiraculous,\u201d this helps us understand his position. He reacted against the reliance of the Catholics on \u201cmiraculous\u201d signs, such as weeping Marys, levitating saints, and what he saw in the rituals of the \u201cstage players\u201d acting like the apostles in the laying on of hands, despite the obvious defectiveness and corruption of their doctrine and character.<\/p>\n

        I concur strongly with him that spiritual gifts and the miraculous have been and continue to be used illegitimately by those seeking to justify their entire ministry on this supernatural basis, and that the word of God should be the standard by which a ministry is judged. However, I would also argue that he was too quick to declare the gifts redundant, even on his own logic. See Macneil, Foundations<\/em>, 76, 76n30.<\/p>\n

        The point I make there is that Calvin\u00a0had assumed the church had spread to all parts of the earth and was thus established, and therefore<\/em>, the gifts were redundant; that was and is not accurate. Conversely, because there were and are so many \u201cunreached\u201d ethnic groups yet to hear the gospel, the need for the gifts is as strong as it was at the foundation of the church. Each generation needs a demonstration of the power of God, or it, like the second generation of Israel that came out of Egypt, will turn away from God to idols.<\/p>\n

        [56]<\/a> See also Riddlebarger, \u201cPrinceton and the Millennium.\u201d<\/p>\n

        [57]<\/a> Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom<\/em>, 25.<\/p>\n

        [58]<\/a> Berkhof, Systematic Theology<\/em>, 716.<\/p>\n

        [59]<\/a> Riddlebarger, \u201cPrinceton and the Millennium,\u201d 36.<\/p>\n

        [60]<\/a> The very fact that the major Princeton seminary was postmillennial in its outlook should also furnish evidence against it as only a minor school of thought.<\/p>\n

        [61]<\/a> Price, \u201cThree Views.\u201d<\/p>\n

        [62]<\/a> Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom<\/em>, 28\u201332.<\/p>\n

        [63]<\/a> Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom<\/em>, 22\u201323.<\/p>\n

        [64]<\/a> This phrase was made famous in the wartime speech of Sir Winston Churchill on June 18, 1940. The British Empire had already endured for around five hundred years, and the British believed it would endure as a matter of \u201cManifest Destiny.\u201d Thus, reading the speech, you can tell he was using a phrase from the consciousness of the British liberal elite of Europe for the previous century. An interesting window on this period of British history is found on https:\/\/www.britishempire.co.uk\/. Equally compelling is the dramatic collapse of the British Empire and the power of Britain generally that was to occur in the subsequent decades to this speech, to the degree that, in 1976, Britain was reduced to an IMF bailout to stabilize its economy and suffered major social unrest until the Thatcher election of 1979, which dealt directly with the impact of large-scale immigration.<\/p>\n

        This ushered in a period of major reforms and recovery for the next decade, though punctuated with left-wing violence and unrest up to her reelection in 1982 with the largest majority for a peacetime leader; she then assaulted the hold of left-wing unions on public life and transformed the economic relations and expectations of the people. The election of Reagan in the US, who had similar \u201cmonetarist\u201d and anti-socialist social ideals, began what was called the \u201cspecial relationship\u201d between the nations, though recent British prime ministers have burnt that bridge in their close alignment with the EU. An in-depth study of this period and the obvious resemblance to the current position of the UK, which is undeniably in political and social decline, is found in Chadha, \u201cMight the UK Really Need.\u201d<\/p>\n

        [65]<\/a> Macneil, \u201cHAMAS vs Israel,\u201d \u00a74.2.<\/p>\n

        [66]<\/a> Boettner, Postmillennialism<\/em>, loc. 74.<\/p>\n

        [67]<\/a> Berkhof, Systematic Theology<\/em>, 794\u201397.<\/p>\n

        [68]<\/a> Joachim, Expositio in Apocalypsim<\/em>; Rushdoony, God\u2019s Plan for Victory<\/em>, loc. 119; Anderson, \u201cJoachim of Fiore,\u201d 2.<\/p>\n

        [69]<\/a> Pentecost, Things to Come<\/em>, 26\u201333.<\/p>\n

        [70]<\/a> Luther, \u201cEfficacy of the Gospel\u201d and \u201cVorrede auff die Epistel [Preface to the letter].\u201d<\/p>\n

        [71]<\/a> Riddlebarger, \u201cPrinceton and the Millennium,\u201d 21.<\/p>\n

        [72]<\/a> Barr, Fundamentalism<\/em>, 262\u201363.<\/p>\n

        [73]<\/a> Gentry, Dominion<\/em>, 79.<\/p>\n

        [74]<\/a> Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15. (This is my translation of the first clause of the Greek; BYZ\/BGT are identical except for punctuation.)<\/p>\n

        [75]<\/a> Cope, God and Political Justice<\/em>, loc. 359; Rushdoony, God\u2019s Plan for Victory<\/em>, loc. 36\u201339.<\/p>\n

        [76]<\/a> Boettner, Postmillennialism<\/em>, loc. 162. Augustine, in his younger days, had been attracted to Manichaeanism, which was highly dualistic and emphasized the polarities of good and evil, spirit and flesh.<\/p>\n

        [77]<\/a> Rushdoony, God\u2019s Plan for Victory<\/em>, loc. 72\u201377.<\/p>\n

        [78]<\/a> Rushdoony, God\u2019s Plan for Victory<\/em>, loc. 44.<\/p>\n

        [79]<\/a> Rushdoony, God\u2019s Plan for Victory<\/em>, loc. 58\u201360.<\/p>\n

        [80]<\/a> Rushdoony, God\u2019s Plan for Victory<\/em>, loc. 204.<\/p>\n

        [81]<\/a> Mathison, Postmillennialism<\/em>, 176\u201377. See also Boettner, Postmillennialism<\/em>, loc. 95.<\/p>\n

        [82]<\/a> Ice and Gentry, Great Tribulation<\/em>, 11.<\/p>\n

        [83]<\/a> Rushdoony, \u201cHistory I\u201d; Mathison, Dispensationalism<\/em>, 13\u201319.<\/p>\n

        [84]<\/a> Ice and Gentry, Great Tribulation<\/em>, 173.<\/p>\n

        [85]<\/a> Rushdoony, God\u2019s Plan for Victory<\/em>, loc. 119.<\/p>\n

        [86]<\/a> Mathison, Postmillennialism<\/em>, 180. Emphasis added in first instance.<\/p>\n

        [87]<\/a> North, \u201cImportance of the 700 Club.\u201d Of course, I can disagree with North regarding the spiritual gifts but agree with him regarding the prophetic task.<\/p>\n

        [88]<\/a> Barr, Fundamentalism<\/em>, 349n6.<\/p>\n

        [89]<\/a> Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism<\/em>, 5\u20138.<\/p>\n

        [90]<\/a> Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism<\/em>, 71.<\/p>\n

        [91]<\/a> Quoted in Rushdoony, God\u2019s Plan for Victory<\/em>, loc. 175.<\/p>\n

        [92]<\/a> Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism<\/em>, 7. This makes the interesting point of how social action was not always excluded from classic premillennialism. The dispensationalism\u00a0of the fundamentalists is perhaps one of the key differences between conservative evangelicalism\u00a0and fundamentalism. It should also be noted that some dispensationalists do<\/em> now combine their revivalism\u00a0with social action and political involvement; it is arguable that one of the biggest changes in the last decade since I first wrote the dissertation this book is based on has been an increasing sense of social responsibility amongst many believers of different traditions. We consider both issues further in a later section.<\/p>\n

        [93]<\/a> Riddlebarger, \u201cPrinceton and the Millennium.\u201d<\/p>\n

        [94]<\/a> Rushdoony, God\u2019s Plan for Victory<\/em>, loc. 164, 202.<\/p>\n

        [95]<\/a> Rushdoony, God\u2019s Plan for Victory<\/em>, loc. 219.<\/p>\n

        [96]<\/a> Mathison, Dispensationalism<\/em>, xi; Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom<\/em>, 34\u201336; Rushdoony, \u201cPostmillennialism 1 and 2.\u201d<\/p>\n

        [97]<\/a> Mathison, Dispensationalism<\/em>, 245\u201348; Rushdoony, \u201cPostmillennialism 1 and 2.\u201d<\/p>\n

        [98]<\/a> Bahnsen, \u201cCalvin\u00a0and Postmillennialism,\u201d 32\u201396. It should be noted that Luther\u00a0explicitly emphasized the wider salvific effects of the gospel on the culture, but rejected (according to Price, \u201cThree Views\u201d) the postmillennial vision of the total triumph of the church.<\/p>\n

        [99]<\/a> Mathison, Postmillennialism<\/em>, xii.<\/p>\n

        [100]<\/a> Rushdoony, \u201cIntroduction\u201d in Marcellus, Eschatology of Victory<\/em>, vii\u2013ix.<\/p>\n

        \n
        \n
        Introduction<\/a><\/div>\n
        Precursors<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        The Three Main Divisions of \u201cLast Days\u201d Thinking (Eschatology) and Their Relation to Dominion Theology Overview and Scope In this chapter, eschatology\u00a0is defined as the theological discipline of the thought regarding the \u201clast days\u201d and the three main divisions within it are outlined. It is not intended in this chapter to give a thorough review […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1624,"parent":1636,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1677","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1677","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1677"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1677\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1732,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1677\/revisions\/1732"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1636"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1624"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1677"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}