Dominionism

I think that there are dominionists in baptist circles. I suppose it all comes down to your view of eschatology. If you believe that the Church has to bring in the kingdom before Christ returns then you would probably be in the dominionist camp.
I wonder if Rick Warren has some shades of that in his theology. He is fixxing to release the P.E.A.C.E. plan where the church has its hands into everything. I think he wants to bring about not only the spreading of the Gospel but also wide reaching social uplift or reform through the church. Why would you be interested in trying to bring about such a sweeping reformation of how the church operates unless you believed that the Church was responsible for bringing in the kingdom in order for Christ to return.

I'm glad you raised this question. It is one I wanted to post myself. I just thought some would think I was a little off.

Would a preterist be into dominionism theology?

 

This would be my view.

I believe all Christians should be brought under the rule of God and his Word. I have no desire to shove this upon those who don't wish it. This is one reason I don't support mandated school prayer and faith based initiatives funded by the government. This is the reason I think the first ammendment is a good thing: Government does not become a Church (Think England and the Anglican Church), but neither does it restrict the Church.

Shannon,

I am not sure I understand how preterist theology figures into the dominionist ideology. Perhaps, you could connect the dots for me?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I don't know Joseph. I was just wondering if a person who held to a preterist view would be inclined to be interesed in dominion theology type thinking more so than say a pre-mill kinda guy. I was just wondering if there might be some co-relation between the two. That sort of thing.
I haven't read a whole lot yet about the preterist view. I just know a few things. So I was just looking for some feedback that is all.

 

I don'[t think this has anything to do with Eschatology. Christ said that He came to establish a Heavenly kingdom not an earthly one. Certainly He didn't do ANYTHING during his ministry that would lead to taking over the existing civil government. In fact, He severely admonished those who suggested that He had come to reestablish the dominance of Israel. Dominion theology is directly opposed to Christ's stated objective in my opinion.

 

Are you referring to a full or a partial preterist?

 

The Creed of Christian Reconstructionism
Rev. Andrew Sandlin

A Christian Reconstructionist is a Calvinist. He holds to historic, orthodox, catholic Christianity and the great Reformed confessions. He believes God, not man, is the center of the universe--and beyond; God, not man, controls whatever comes to pass; God, not man, must be pleased and obeyed. He believes God saves sinners--He does not help them save themselves. A Christian Reconstructionist believes the Faith should apply to all of life, not just the "spiritual" side. It applies to art, education, technology, and politics no less than to church, prayer, evangelism, and Bible study.

A Christian Reconstructionist is a Theonomist. Theonomy means "God's law." A Christian Reconstructionist believes God's law is found in the Bible. It has not been abolished as a standard of righteousness. It no longer accuses the Christian, since Christ bore its penalty on the cross for him. But the law is a description of God's righteous character. It cannot change any more than God can change. God's law is used for three main purposes: First, to drive the sinner to trust in Christ alone, the only perfect law-keeper. Second, to provide a standard of obedience for the Christian, by which he may judge his progress in sanctification. And third, to maintain order in society, restraining and arresting civil evil.

A Christian Reconstructionist is a Presuppositionalist. He does not try to "prove" that God exists or that the Bible is true. He holds to the Faith because the Bible says so, not because he can "prove" it. He does not try to convince the unconverted that the gospel is true. They already know it is true. They need repentance, not evidence. Of course, the Christian Reconstructionist believes there is evidence for the Faith--in fact, there is nothing but evidence for the Faith. The problem for the unconverted, though, is not a lack of evidence, but a lack of submission. The Christian Reconstructionist begins and ends with the Bible. He does not defend "natural theology," and other inventions designed to find some agreement with covenant-breaking, apostate mankind.

A Christian Reconstructionist is a Postmillennialist. He believes Christ will return to earth only after the Holy Spirit has empowered the church to advance Christ's kingdom in time and history. He has faith that God's purposes to bring all nations--though not every individual--in subjection to Christ cannot fail. The Christian Reconstructionist is not utopian. He does not believe the kingdom will advance quickly or painlessly. He knows that we enter the kingdom through much tribulation. He knows Christians are in the fight for the "long haul." He believes the church may yet be in her infancy. But he believes the Faith will triumph. Under the power of the Spirit of God, it cannot but triumph.

A Christian Reconstructionist is a Dominionist. He takes seriously the Bible's commands to the godly to take dominion in the earth. This is the goal of the gospel and the Great Commission. The Christian Reconstructionist believes the earth and all its fulness is the Lord's--that every area dominated by sin must be "reconstructed" in terms of the Bible. This includes, first, the individual; second, the family; third, the church; and fourth, the wider society, including the state. The Christian Reconstructionist therefore believes fervently in Christian civilization. He firmly believes in the separation of church and state, but not the separation of the state--or anything else--from God. He is not a revolutionary; he does not believe in the militant, forced overthrow of human government. He has infinitely more powerful weapons than guns and bombs--he has the invincible Spirit of God, the infallible word of God, and the incomparable gospel of God, none of which can fail.

He presses the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ in every sphere, expecting eventual triumph.

- SOURCE

I find nothing in the above that I would disagree with, except that I am not sure I am willing yet to totally embrace postmillennialism but optimistic amillennialism would fit in there as well.

 

Absolutley there are, and often they well believe that what they are doing is right. It depends on I suppose how far involved they are going to get and what they have to comprimise on in their Christian faith in order to achieve a goal. For example being a part of a political party that is permissive of Abortion requires that Christian to comprimise hence, the dominionism is a false hope of achieving anything.

What bothers me is that Christians are so willing to be into this, but go and tell someone about the Gospel! Well that is all just to hard. If the church put their political effort into Evangalism, we may well achieve a lot more.

 

All these years I've thought that the goal of the gospel and the Great Commission was to seek and to save those that were lost. How could I have been so confused? Of course it really means to seize political power. (sarcasm intended.)

 

So I believe I'm on the right track in surmising that those who lean pretrib,premill are not as interested in dominionism as a postmill thinker would be. A postmill's eschatology would fit well with the ideas of dominionism. Where as the theology involving the premill,pretrib would clash with dominionism.
The reason I'm curious about dominionism is I think the church really needs to rexamine our first obligation which is to spread the gospel.
I realize we need to be "salt" which preserves, as much as we need to be "light". Sometimes I wonder have we put more faith in politics than we have the power of God to change the lives of people. Are we more concerned with passing the right legislation than we are with seeing folk regenerated by the power of the Gospel.
I totally agree that we should try to promote the candidate with the better moral view. However in so doing have we sold a little bit of ourselves so to speak, to the lobbiests on captital hill?
I've just been pondering things like that lately.

Is it the church's mission to save america? Or is it to spread the Gospel. Sometimes it seems to me that we may have it backwards. Again, these are just thoughts i wonder about at times. God has called me to the mission field I know what my mission is.

Anybody have any thoughts?

 

This would be my view.

I believe all Christians should be brought under the rule of God and his Word. I have no desire to shove this upon those who don't wish it. This is one reason I don't support mandated school prayer and faith based initiatives funded by the government. This is the reason I think the first ammendment is a good thing: Government does not become a Church (Think England and the Anglican Church), but neither does it restrict the Church.

Shannon,

I am not sure I understand how preterist theology figures into the dominionist ideology. Perhaps, you could connect the dots for me?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]

 

You are incorrect. From the leading Dominionist website:

We believe in regeneration , not in revolution. Men are not changed fundamentally by politics, but by the power of God. Men's hearts are changed by regeneration (Jn. 3:3). They are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. 1:13). From that point, they progressively work to reorient their lives and every sphere they touch in terms of God's holy, infallible Word. Long-term, pervasive social change is the result of extensive regeneration and obedience by the people of God. This means, of course, that there can be no Christian society of any significance or longevity unless a large number of its members are Christians.

We do encourage Christian political involvement, but not for the reason that many people suppose. In fact, we believe it is important for Christians to get involved in politics because we do not believe politics is too important. The great problem with modern politics is that it is used as an instrument of social change. We at Chalcedon passionately oppose this. The role of the state is in essence to defend and protect, in the words of the early American Republic, life, liberty, and property. It is to reward the externally obedient by protecting them from the externally disobedient (Rom. 13:1-7). Its role is not to make men virtuous; we have a name for civil governments that attempt to create a virtuous society: totalitarian. Biblically, the role of the state is to suppress external evil: murder, theft, rape, and so forth. Its role is not to redistribute wealth, furnish medical care, or educate its citizens' children.

We do believe that the state one day will be Christian, but this no way implies that the role of the state is to Christianize its citizens. The Christian state is highly decentralized (localized). Our objective, therefore, in supporting Christian political involvement is to scale down the massive state in Western democracies, reducing it to its Biblical limits. We do not believe in political salvation of any kind.

- www.chalcedon.edu/credo.php

 

Ken,

The only problem I have with this statement is that in light of passages like:

Matthew 7:13-14

...the statement seems a bit optimistic about the final destination of society here on earth.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Yes, I know. That would be an entire discussion of the basis for postmillennial eschatology - which I am studying but I am not yet ready to defend in toto.

 

My understanding is that Christian Reconsructionism believes that it is up to Christians to set up God's Kingdom so that Jesus can come back. That is basically what is being said above - I don't see a biblical basis for this.

Do you also endorse Theonomy, which, as I understand it, proposes that the civil law and the OT law be one and the same? I think that there is a hardcore Reformed guy named Bransen who believes this, though I may have the name wrong.

 

1) I think you may have missed the operative phrase - "the Holy Spirit has empowered the church".

2) I don't know enough about Theonomy to say. I prefer to read about issues thoroughly before making up my mind.

 

Some may recall that postmill theology was real popular until WWI came along. Then WWII really sent it packing.

 

You are correct, shannonL. Fortunately, it, and optimistic amillennialism, are making a comeback.

 

Marcia,
From what small amount of reading I've been doing on Christian Reconstructionism I understand it to be the way you described.