twentieth century has been a time dominated by the outworking of one' s
eschatology. In addition to the
various eddies and movements within Christianity, just think of the impact that
Communism and Islam had on the last hundred years. Both are corrupted forms of a Christian, postmillennial
determinism. One' s view of the
future has tremendous impact upon what one believes an individual should do in
only the Bible looks ahead to the future as a time when life will be better than
in the past. All pagan religions
look to the past and think, " If only we could return to the good old days, then
that would be wonderful." " If we
could just return the days of the Pharaohs of Egypt." " If we could bring back the wonderful days of Nebuchadnezzar." " If we could just get back to the
50s." Only the Bible says the best
is yet to come.
think this way because all of their cultural experiences have started out on a
relatively high plan and then declined from there. When you survey the all pagan cultures, you quickly realize
that they usually experience their greatest success and development early in
their history and encounter decline and stagnation after that. Only in the Bible does history go from
a garden to a city where true progress is anticipated.
believe that the Book of Job, the earliest book in the canon of Scripture, is a
prolegomena of God' s plan for history.
In the life of Job we have played out the fate and destiny of God' s
elect people and the destiny of history itself. We see evil befalling Job in the first couple of chapters,
followed by endless human viewpoint explanations, only to have the Lord
intervene and set all strait with His sixty-two questions. In the end, Job was blessed with a
two-fold blessing compared to his beginning blessing. This is where the future is headed. God gives greater blessing in the end
than He provided at the beginning.
One' s view of eschatology matters!
It is important to get it right.
Show Me The Scripture
ago in my first book, Dominion Theology, with Wayne House, I made the following statement in
Chilton once offered me the following exegetical support for postmillennialism:
That' s why my
book started in Genesis. I wanted
to demonstrate that the Paradise Restored theme (i.e., postmillennialism) is
not dependent on any one passage, but is taught throughout Scripture . . .
. The fact is, postmillennialism
is on every page of the Bible.
challenge is simply this: Since
postmillennialism is on every page of the Bible, show me one passage that requires a postmillennial
interpretation and should not be taken in a premillennial sense. After fourteen years of study it is my
belief that there is not one passage anywhere in Scripture that would lead to
the postmillennial system. The
best postmillennialism can come up with is a position built upon an inference.
Gentry attempts an answer to my challenge in their book House Divided by 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. However, he could not do that without making multiple false
assumptions about the text. Thus,
he proved my point that they could not come up with a distinctly postmillennial
text. He only offered one. This strikes at the heart of the
problem with amillennialism and its close cousin, postmillennialism. It is not taught in the Bible! On the other hand, premillennialism is,
as has been demonstrated throughout this year' s conference by pervious
Three Major Views
are three major views of eschatology or
the study of last things. All
three revolve around the return of Christ in relation to the millennium (Lat. mille--"thousand" plus annus--"year") or the kingdom of God. The three systems are known as premillennialism, amillennialism and postmillennialism. Every view of eschatology must fit into
one of these three millennial categories. While these terms are widely used and
are the accepted labels for the three viewpoints, many think they can be
misleading if not understood properly.
Let us hear a brief description by a proponent of each category.
F. Walvoord describes his premillennial
faith as "an interpretation that the Second Coming of Christ will occur
before His literal reign of one thousand years on earth." After His victorious intervention into
history, Christ will personally reign from Jerusalem producing a time of peace,
prosperity and righteousness.
Premillennialists see the present era as the Church Age, which is a
separate and distinct work in God's plan from that of Israel. Christ's redemptive work is the only
basis for salvation regardless of the period of time a believer lives under.
Amillennialism is described by Floyd E. Hamilton as a view
"that Christ's millennial kingdom extends from His Resurrection from the
tomb to the time of His Second Coming on the clouds at the end of this
age". At no time will Christ reign on the
earth in Jerusalem. "On
earth, Christ's kingdom 'is not of this world,' but He reigns esp. in the
hearts of His people on earth, . . . for a 'thousand years,' the perfect,
complete time between the two comings of Christ." After the Second Coming of Christ,
believers from all of history will enter into heaven for eternity immediately
following the final and single judgment of all mankind.
Shepherd defines postmillennialism as "the view that Christ will return at
the end of an extended period of righteousness and prosperity (the
millennium)." Like the amillennialist, the
post-millennialist sees the current age as the kingdom of God. However, they see the reign of Christ
not just in the hearts of believers today, but as impacting society. Postmils believe that since the kingdom
was established at Christ' s first coming, it is currently being expanded
through the preaching of the gospel, until an overwhelming major, though not
all, will be converted to Christ.
Such Gospel success will create a climate of reception to the things of
Christ, like His mediated rule through the church of all the world. Shepherd further explains:
[The postmillennialist] expects
a future period when revealed truth will be diffused throughout the world and
accepted by the vast majority. The
millennial era will therefore be a time of peace, material prosperity, and
millennium will be of extended duration though not necessarily a precise 1,000
years. Because it is established
through means presently operative, its beginning is imperceptible. Some postmillennialists provide for a
gradual establishment of the millennium; others for a more abrupt
beginning. Most, but not all,
allow for a brief apostasy or resurgence of evil just prior to the advent and
in preparation for the judgment.
Even during the millennium, the world will not be entirely without sin,
and not every person will be converted.
Amillennialism and Postmillennialism Are Similar
has observed that "Premillennialism is obviously a viewpoint quite removed
from either amillennialism or postmillennialism."
This is so, he
maintains because premillennialists are more consistently literal in their
hermeneutical approach than the other two.
postmillennialists have noted their closer kinship with their amillennialist
brethren as well. David Chilton
links amillennialists and postmillennialists together because of their common
belief that the kingdom or millennium is the current age. premillennialists see it as
future. He declares, "orthodox
Christianity has always been postmillennialist.
. . . At the same time, orthodox
Christianity has always been amillennialist
(i.e., non-millenarian)." More to the point Chilton has written:
What I'm saying is this: Amillennialism
and Postmillennialism are the same thing. The only
fundamental difference is that
"postmils" believe the world will be converted, and "amils"
don't. Otherwise, I'm an amil . .
. Got it?
many senses, postmillennialism is simply an optimistic form of
amillennialism. This is why some
debate whether Augustine was an amillennialist or a postmillennialist. Or, whether he was an amillennialist
with some incipient postmillennial strands. The same has been true for classifying people like B. B.
Warfield and Oswald Allis. Both
were technically postmillennialist, but many refer to them as amillennial.
believe that the amillennial/postmillennial paradigm is what individuals come
up with who do not take into account God' s future for national Israel. This becomes clear when we look at the
historical development of these three eschatological systems.
Brief History of The Millennial Systems
need to focus on the historical development of the three systems since
amillennialism and postmillennialism really to not have exegetical support for
their views. Thus, this must mean
that extra-biblical factors account for their rise and development.
is generally conceded that premillennialism (known in the early church as
chiliasm) is the oldest of the three systems. The other two systems developed, in my opinion, as a
reaction to Ante-Nicene premillennialism.
or chiliasm as it was called in the early church, was the pervasive view of the
earliest orthodox fathers. This is
the consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars who are experts in
early Church theology. J. N. D.
Kelly, acknowledged internationally as an authority on patristic Christian
thought, is typical of the scholarly opinion on this question and notes that
the early Church was chiliastic or millenarian in her eschatology. Speaking of the eschatology of the
second century he observes,
clash with Judaism and paganism made it imperative to set out the bases of the
revealed dogmas more thoroughly.
The Gnostic tendency to dissolve Christian eschatology into the myth of
the soul's upward ascent and return to God had to be resisted. On the other hand millenarianism, or
the theory that the returned Christ would reign on earth for a thousand years,
came to find increasing support among Christian teachers. . . . This millenarian, or 'chiliastic',
doctrine was widely popular at this time.
asserts further that premillennialism or chiliasm was dominate through the
middle of the third century by observing the following: " The great theologians who followed the
Apologists, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, were primarily concerned to
defend the traditional eschatological scheme against Gnosticism. . . . They are all exponents of
millenarianism."  Still another historian says,
Christianity was marked by great chiliastic enthusiasm, . . . By chiliasm, strictly speaking, is
meant the belief that Christ was to return to earth and reign visibly for one
thousand years. That return was
commonly placed in the immediate future.
was not contradicted by a single orthodox church father until the beginning of
the third century, when Gaius (Caius) first launched an attack. Gaius is the first one in recorded
church history who interpreted the thousand years symbolically. Additionally, he also rejected the Book
of Revelation, holding that it was written by Cerinthus and should not be in
the canon. But even with Gaius' appearance,
premillennialism was still very much the eschatology of the day.
always like to point out that before the actual rise of amillennialism or
postmillennialism, there was anti-millennialism. What do I mean by anti-millennialism? Basically, people who just did not like
premillennialism. Hans Bietenhard,
after noting how the early church was solidly chiliastic in their
interpretation of Revelation 20 and other Scripture until the time of
Today, it is admitted on all
hands- except for a few Roman Catholic exegetes- that only an eschatological
interpretation [in the context meaning chiliastic one] is consistent with the
text. If the question is still
open whether the hope is to be maintained or not, it will now be decided by
other than exegetical and historical considerations.
point needs to be made that anti-millennialism did not arise from the study of
Scripture, but rather as a result of disturbed sensibilities of individuals who
were already affected by pagan thought.
The earliest reaction was not to come up with an alternate
interpretation of Revelation 20, since it appeared to clearly teach
premillennialism, but to claim that the book of Revelation did not belong in
the inspired New Testament canon.
was attacked by the Alexandrian school in Egypt during the middle of the third
century. In the East, Eusebius of
Caesarea (263-339), the court theologian to Constantine and theological heir of
Origen, was a strong leader in the rejection of apocalypticism. With the rise of Constantine and the
adoption of Christianity as the empire's official religion, alternate perspectives
fell into disfavor. Norman Cohn points
out the following:
Millenarism remained powerful in
the Christian Church so long as Christians were an unpopular minority
threatened with persecution. When
in the fourth century Christianity attained a position of supremacy in the
Mediterranean world and became the official religion of the empire, the Church
set out to eradicate millenarian beliefs.
Ayer agrees with Cohn and says,
During the third century the
belief in chiliasm as a part of the Church's faith died out in nearly all parts
of the Church. It did not seem called
for by the condition of the Church, which was rapidly adjusting itself to the
world in which it found itself.
The scientific theology, especially that of Alexandria, found no place
in its system for such an article as chiliasm. The belief lingered, however, in country places, and with it
went no little opposition to the "scientific" exegesis which by means
of allegory explained away the promises of a millennial kingdom.
of Alexandria and his pupil Origen, popularized not so much another view, as
much as an anti-chiliastic polemic.
Harry Bultema quotes the Dutch amillennialist, H. Hoekstra, who accuses
Origen and his viewpoint for having destroyed the Eastern churches.
The attack against Chiliasm by
these dissenters cannot meet with our approval, for they placed their
speculation above the Word of God and
distorted it according to their grandiloquent ideas, denying the resurrection
of the body and the future glorification of the material world, which was also
created by God; for according to them the material world, matter, contained sin
from which the spirit of man must liberate itself. It was only natural and a matter of course that they were
very much against Chiliasm, but they threw away, as a German saying goes, with
the bath water the baby also. They
were a kind of Hymenaeus and Philetus who had departed from the truth, saying
the resurrection was past already (2 Tim. 2:17). The success of the pernicious principles of this school was
the first and chief cause of the decline of Chiliasm.
Historically, allegorical interpreters
have commonly looked down on literal interpreters as stupid or slow since they
are unable to ascend to the deeper, spiritual insights of the allegorical
approach. A classic example of
this attitude is on display in the writings of the first historian of the early
church, Eusebius when writing about one who interpreted prophecy literally
named Papias (70-155).
Papias . . . says that there
will be a millennium after the resurrections of the dead, when the kingdom of
Christ will be set up in material form on this earth. I suppose that he got these notions by a perverse reading of
the apostolic accounts, not realizing that they had spoken mystically and
symbolically. For he was a man of
very little intelligence, as is clear form his books. But he is responsible for the fact that so many Christian
writers after him held the same opinion, relying on his antiquity, for instance
Irenaeus and whoever else appears to have held the same views.
the Latin West, Jerome (347-420) and Augustine (354-430) also reacted strongly
to prophetic interpretation. In
his commentary on Daniel, written shortly before the year 400, Jerome argued
that " The saints will in no wise have an earthly kingdom, but only a celestial
one; thus must cease the fable of one thousand years." 
Jerome was not
alone in his attack on literal interpretation and millennial expectations. In Augustine's City of God, any hope for an earthly or physical millennial
kingdom is repeatedly dismissed. Through the writings of men such as
Jerome, Julian of Toledo, Gregory the Great, and most notably Augustine,
literal interpretation of the Bible, and especially Daniel and Revelation,
quickly faded. The Augustinian influence in the West
eclipsed many perspectives, some orthodox and some unorthodox or
heretical. The result was that
views deemed unacceptable were subsequently eradicated or ignored. Lerner observes that Augustine's
influence was so strong that " it suffices to say that a prohibition against
applying Apocalypse 20 to the future was established during the late patristic
era and remained in force for centuries thereafter." 
hurdle that anti-millennialists needed to overcome was that Revelation 20:4-6
speaks of multiple resurrections.
This cannot be if anti-millennialism was to gain a foothold. It was the Donatist theologian,
Tyconius, who suggested an allegorical interpretation of Revelation 20. Augustine adopted Tyconius'
interpretation of Revelation 20 and produced the earliest form of amillennial
theology. Thus, Augustine, in Book
XX of The City of God, was the first to
actually spell-out a positive statement of amillennialism, which at the same
time produced some incipient principles upon which postmillennialism would
philosophy was evident in the denial of the resurrection in at least two
instances in the ministry of Paul.
The sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17 shows their violent reaction as Paul
preached " the resurrection of the dead" (v. 32). A more extensive defense of the Christian resurrection is
given by Paul in I Corinthians 15.
Because of the Greek denial of the importance of the physical realm,
they denied the whole idea that resurrection was possible. This anti-physical bias was the basis
for rejection of a future physical kingdom of God on earth, and Greek
philosophy was the conduit. Eric
the early Christian centuries Chiliasm first weakened with the strengthening
among the Christians of Greek philosophical thought. Especially through Clement and Origen . . . it came in the
West, for the official Church, to the extinction of Chiliasm, and the doctrine
of the last things came to be a vacuum for official Church theology. Greek sentiment and thought opposed
even the conception of a final historical drama and a real Millennial kingdom
on this earth.
final theology that developed is that of postmillennialism. As noted earlier, it too is built upon
anti-millennialism, but with a positive twist. Since the foundation of postmillennialism requires a
kingdom-now base, which it shares with amillennialism, it was logically the
last system to develop. As noted
earlier, postmillennialism is positive amillennialism. When people become optimistic about the
progress of the church age they usually gravitate to postmillennialism. Eschatological optimism does not necessarily
relate to current events. I think
one of the sociological reasons why there began to be a revival of
postmillennialism is because of the rise of new age optimism in the 1970s to
almost died out after the two world wars left only a handful of advocates. However, the last 25 to 30 years have
witnessed a renewed emphasis on postmillennialism. The Christian Reconstruction movement
of the last three decades has been the primary catalyst for the recent
resurgence of postmillennialism. " Indeed, it is no accident," declares a
Reformed writer explaining the recent rise of postmillennialism, " that both
postmillennialism and theonomy . . . have sprouted in the soil of a strong
Reformed revival." 
postmillennialist Gary North admits:
Optimism is not enough!
In fact, optimism alone is highly dangerous. The Communists have a doctrine of inevitable victory; so do
most Muslims. So did a group of
revolutionary communist murderers and polygamists, the Anabaptists who captured
the German city of Munster from 1525- 35, before they were defeated militarily
by Christian forces. Optimism in the wrong hands is a dangerous weapon.
This misguided optimism is a major
error in postmillennialism. In the
last century postmillennialism provided the optimistic climate in which the
social gospel grew. Gary Scott
Smith has argued that evangelicals were perhaps the leading force in many of
the social gospel issues.
Evangelical Christians provided the example, inspiration, and
principles for much of the Social Gospel. . . . the
evangelical ideology of the millennium merged without a break into what came to
be called the social gospel in the years after 1870. . . . these evangelicals
worked as vigorously for social betterment as did the Social Gospel leaders.
postmillennialism is to be distinguished from the liberal form. However, one cannot overlook the role
that postmillennialism in general played in the rise and development of the
" social gospel." Postmillenarians
blame dispensationalism for creating a climate of retreat from social and
political issues. Are they denying
that postmillennialism, an eschatology which they say has had great effect on
Western culture, contributed to the optimism of the 1800s? David Chilton does admit to some
postmillennial heresy. " Examples
of the Postmillenarian heresy would be easy to name as well: the Munster Revolt
of 1534, Nazism, and Marxism (whether ' Christian' or otherwise)."  Nazism and Marxism are undesirable
movements. Why then does Chilton
not admit the relationship of postmillennialism to the " social gospel"
Walvoord was asked a few years ago " what do you predict will be the most
significant theological issues over the next ten years?" His answer included the following: " the hermeneutical problem of not
interpreting the Bible literally, especially the prophetic areas. The church today is engulfed in the
idea that one cannot interpret prophecy literally."  Such is the trend ten years later. Today too many evangelicals want to
blend so-called " literal" and non-literal hermeneutics. According to Dr. Walvoord, it cannot be
legitimately done, without producing a confused and contradictory mix of
The real reason why amillennialist and
postmillennialists believe what they do is because of a refusal to interpret
the entire Bible, especially prophecy, literally. This is it! In
some of their more candid moments, opponents of the literal interpretation of
prophecy admit that if our approach is followed then it does rightly lead to
premillennial theology. Floyd
Hamilton said the following:
we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament
prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as
the premillennialist pictures.
That was the kind of Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of
Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal interpretation of the Old
In the same vein, Oswald
Allis admits, " the Old Testament prophecies if literally interpreted cannot be
regarded as having been yet fulfilled or as being capable of fulfilment in this
present age." 
the fact that people want to mix hermeneutics in the area of eschatology
demonstrates to me that they do not rightly understand literal interpretation
to begin with. If one follows
proper hermeneutics, then recognizing symbols and figures or speech will become
obvious through the literal approach.
Instead, it is because people don' t like what the text says. Thus, they have to front-load the
interpretive process with all kinds of ideas that they bring from outside of
the text of Scripture.
In their presentations of their views,
amillennialism and postmillennialism both spend a lot of time explaining why
they are opposed to premillennialism, especially
Just as in the early church, so modern amillennialists and
postmillennialists always start by setting their views against
premillennialism. Yet many
premillennial presentations can be found that do not even mention
amillennialism and postmillennialism.
Why? A positive
presentation for premillennialism can be made from the Bible, while
amillennialism and postmillennialism cannot.
The best defense is a good
offense. This is especially true
in relation to combating the false theologies of amillennialism and
postmillennialism. By simply
presenting a detailed exposition of the Scriptures, it will naturally follow
that premillennialism is the perspective taught in the Bible- both Old and New
A number of years ago, one of our
original members of the Pre-Trib Study Group, Dr. Gerald Stanton,
gave me a syllabus that he had prepared for teaching the overall field of
eschatology called Prophetic Highways. Dr. Stanton summarized support for
premillennialism with the following points:
Consistent literal interpretation
Unconditional nature of the covenants (Abrahamic)
The Abrahamic Covenant
The Old Testament teaches a literal earthly kingdom
The kingdom is carried unchanged into the New Testament
Christ also supports and earth kingdom
There are multiple resurrections in Scripture
Revelation 20 teaches premillennialism
The early church was premillennial
The failure of amillennialism and postmillennialism
Premillennialism harmonizes the entire Bible
Only premillennialism provides a satisfactory
conclusion to history
much more can be said about amillennialism and
postmillennialism, but suffice it to say that neither is taught in the
Bible. Show me a single text that
teaches it. Premillennialism can
be inductively gleaned from Revelation 20. In fact, there is why we have the terms premillennialism,
amillennialism and postmillennialism; because Revelation 20 speaks of a
thousand year reign of Christ in Revelation 20 that will take place after His
return in Revelation 19. Since
sound theology should be developed from the Bible itself, and since the Bible
teach only a single viewpoint on any issue, amillennialism and
postmillennialism are nowhere to be found, but premillennialism is found on
every page of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. The strength of premillennialism is the text of
Scripture. Study it! Teach it! Proclaim it! Hope in it! Live it!
 Personal letter from David Chilton to Thomas Ice,
December 2, 1986, p. 5.
 H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice, Dominion
Theology: Blessing or Cruse? An Analysis of Christian
Reconstructionism (Portland: Multnomah, 1988), p. 9.
 Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., House
Divided: The Break-Up of
Dispensational Theology (Tyler,
TX: Institute for Christian
Economics, 1989), p. 214.
 With the rise of preterism, there are some who truly
do not fit into one of the three historic views and that is those who could be
classified as transmillennialists.
Transmillennialists are those who believe that we are currently beyond
the millennium of Revelation 20 and into the new heavens and new earth. Some partial preterists believe this,
while it appears that all full preterists would fall into this classification.
 John F. Walvoord, s.v. " Premillennialism" in The
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Editor Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House: 1975), Vol. 4, pp. 845-6.
 Floyd E. Hamilton, s.v. " Amillennialism" in The
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 129.
 Hamilton, " Amillennialism," Vol. 1, p. 129.
 Norman Shepherd, s.v.
" Postmillennialism" , in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Editor Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House: 1975), Vol. 4, p. 822.
 Shepherd, " Postmillennialism," Vol. 4, p. 822.
 Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House:
1959), p. 6.
 David Chilton, Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth:
Dominion Press, 1987), p. 494.
 Chilton, Letter to Thomas Ice dated December 17,
1986, p. 4.
 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1978), p. 465.
 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 467 & 469.
 Joseph Cullen Ayer, A Source Book for Ancient
Church History: From the Apostolic
Age to the Close of the Conciliar Period
(New York: AMS Press, 1970), p.
 The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Editor F.L. Cross (London: Oxford University Press, 1957), s.v. "Gaius", p.
 Hans Bietenhard, " The Millennial Hope in the Early
Church" , Scottish Journal of Theology,
(No. 6, 1953), p. 30.
 Norman Cohn, " Medieval Millenarism: Its Bearing on
the Comparative Study of Millenarian Movements," in Millennial Dreams in
Action: Essays in Comparative Study,
ed. Sylvia L. Thrupp (The Hague:
Mouton & Co., 1962), p. 33.
 Ayer, Source Book, p. 219.
 (emphasis added), H. Hoekstra, cited in., Harry
Bultema, Maranatha! A Study of
Unfulfilled Prophecy (Grand
Rapids: Kregel Publications,
1985), p. 296.
 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vol. I, translated by Kirsopp Lake, Loeb
Classical Library, vol. 153
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1926), pp. 295, 297.
 Quoted by Robert E. Lerner, " The Medieval Return to
the Thousand-Year Sabbath," in The Apocalypse in the Middle Ages, ed. Richard K. Emmerson and Bernard McGinn (Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), p.
 See Augustine, De civitate Dei, 18.52-53; 20.7, 9, 19.
 For a summary of this shift, especially as related to
Revelation, see E. Ann Matter, " The Apocalypse in Early Medieval Exegesis," in The
Apocalypse in the Middle Ages, ed.
Richard K. Emmerson and Bernard McGinn, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1992), pp. 38-50.
 Lerner, " The Medieval Return," p. 53. Further
confirmation of the duration of this influence is given by Matter, who writes,
" All the Apocalypse commentaries from the Carolingian world thus show the
continuing assumption of the text as an allegory of the Church, and a
continuing process of filtering specific interpretations from earlier
commentaries to support that assumption," p. 49.
 For an in depth presentation of the views of Tyconius
on this matter see Paula Fredriksen, " Tyconius and Augustine on the
Apocalypse," in Emmerson and McGinn, Apocalypse, pp. 20-37.
 Erich Sauer, From Eternity to Eternity (Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p. 141.
 According to a survey of Christianity Today readers, nine percent of those who responded said
they think Christ will come after the millennium (February 6, 1987, p. 9-I).
 For an extensive presentation and critique of the
Reconstructionism see House and Ice, Dominion Theology.
 Aiken Taylor, " Postmillennialism Revisited,"
Presbyterian Journal, September 6, 1978, p. 11.
 Gary North, " Chilton, Sutton, and Dominion Theology,"
an essay in the January 1987 Institute for Christian Economics monthly mailing,
 Gary Scott Smith, " The Men and Religion Forward
Movement of 1911-12," Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 49 (Spring 1987), pp92-93.
 David Chilton, " Orthodox Christianity and the
Millenarian Heresy," Geneva Review, No. 19 (June 1985), p. 3.
 " An Interview:
Dr. John F. Walvoord Looks at Dallas Seminary," Dallas Connection (Winter 1994, Vol. 1, No. 3), p. 4.
 Floyd E. Hamilton, The Basis of Millennial Faith (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1942), p. 38.
 Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing,  1947), p. 238.
 Dr. Stanton has made one of the best contributions to
pretribulationism in his book, Kept From the Hour: Biblical Evidence for the Pretribulational Return of Christ, 4th ed. (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle Publishing Company,