|
Dominionists, sensu stricto, are post-millennialists. Many mainstream denominations are at least nominally post-millennialist. Dominionism started in Calvinism.
Some older (pre-)Reformation denominations are amillennialist, de jure or de facto.
All denominations accepting a 'rapture' or something like it are pre-millennialists. Pre-millennialism is usually associated with Anabaptist-derived sects and Xian denominations formed in the last 200 years or so.
Typical proof-text for ruling w/ Christ:
Revelation 20:4 (King James Version) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
My old denomination was firmly pre-millennialist, so I understand (and have always rejected) the "rapture". However, it was far fron antinomian ("Judaizing" is a good word for it), so I understood the Dominionist philosophising in the '70s and '80s and early '90s, and found a lot of it insightful in some ways. However, I rejected the basic idea as contrary to anything that could be found in the Bible, because they were post- and I was pre-Millennial in doctrine. In other words, it's a theory-internal sort of wrangling of no interest to those outside the theory. The theory-internal quibble is that a pro-Law Xianity could never spread sufficiently for theonomy to be accepted willingly and gladly by the consent of the governed, making the entire enterprise futile and pointless, not to mention wrong-headed; the error I assigned to them is that this can only be assumed by erroneously taking verses referring to the Millennium and thereafter to be pre-Millennial. A different set of assumptions guts their reasoning; defangs their politics, too, because the basic claim is voluntary adoption (a point left out, but quite salient and explicit in Ahmanson, Rushdoony, and North's writings up to maybe 1990). I think my church got a sermon redundantly dissing it (a minister saw me reading one of Rushdoony's books ... had he seen me reading Calvin's "Institutes" he'd probably have pronounced an equally useless anti-Calvinist sermon).
How Dominionism's been propagated since the early '90s, I don't know; I've seen claims, but many are specious, quoting from what I did read and ignoring rather large and important parts of the writings, so I don't trust how they portray developments since then. I figure the term's like "Bol'shevik" at this point: It refers to a specific group with specific views. Later any Communist was called a bolshevik by outsiders who didn't understand the nuances and needed a good scare term; and many CPSU members called themselves bol'sheviks because it was trendy and a word everybody knew, not because they actually adhered to the original political line. So it's easy to call somebody a Dominionist, and there are people using the word to describe themselves in ways at odds with the original canon of writings and probably with little connection to the original movement.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
