David Q. Santos*

Calvin wrote with regard to man’s innate awareness of God.¹ Other scholars recognize this same innate awareness of God that is found in all men. One such scholar, Carl F. H. Henry, expanded on this simple truth by writing, “The awareness of God rooted in conceptual knowledge carries over into the whole of life.”² Consequently, in Henry’s opinion, the awareness of God goes beyond simple knowledge. He explained that the awareness actually impacts life.

Henry added the importance of this knowledge of God: “The knowledge of God innately written on the nature of man is moral as well as rational.”³ The statement means that the knowledge of God has an impact on one’s moral behavior in addition to intellect. While man’s sin nature dominates his life, there is a moral conscience motivated by an awareness of his Creator and that Creator’s perfect moral nature. Obscured by the sin nature is a desire to know God and to live in His perfect original creation.

THE PERFECT CREATION

The Bible teaches that God provided a utopian world in the creation (Gen 2). The original world reflected the perfection of God and was the world in which God desired man to exist. God’s perfect creation was without sin and without death. Unfortunately, the perfect creation was lost through one man’s sin (Rom 5:12). The Bible also teaches that God will, in the future, restore the creation (Rom 8:21–23) and bring into existence a perfect society, a kingdom on earth (Rev 11:15). In that kingdom, Jesus Christ will rule and reign from His throne (Rev 3:21) with a rod of iron (Ps 2:9; Rev 19:15). Scripture does not reveal when the restoration will occur or when the kingdom will be established; it only reveals that it will occur when the Father chooses, and that He alone knows when that will be (Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32).

Both prior to the time of Christ’s ministry and since His ascension from earth to Heaven (Acts 1:9–11), men have tried to create this kingdom by their own power. By observation, one could suggest that along with man’s innate awareness of God comes a desire for His utopian kingdom. Mankind has tried to replace God with things such as intellectual endeavors, passions, and even good deeds. In like manner, humanity has designed multiple governmental schemes to replace God’s true plan for mankind. Within Christendom, this manner of thinking is commonly called Dominion Theology, which seeks to “reconstruct society to fit its template of Christian law and ethics.”⁴ Dominion Theology is best understood in postmillennial eschatology; it is the view that by action the church can do enough good in the world and force the kingdom of God to begin.

The dominionist philosophy is certainly not found in Christian theology only. Many humanistic approaches to government and ethics have been made to “bring in the kingdom,” a utopian nirvana without a god. The trouble with all of these systems of ethics and government is that they all fail to meet the problem of mankind and sin nature. The systems all perceive the world through the perspective of a man-centered reality. The systems affirm an evolutionary worldview and an anthropology that purports that men are inherently good. The systems rely upon the presupposition that both the world and mankind are getting better as a function of evolution. They could not agree with biblical anthropology, which points to unregenerate man as being a slave or dominated by his sin nature, as argued by the Apostle Paul (Rom 6:6, 16, 18, 20, 22).

The Greek philosopher Plato presented one such system. Plato’s Republic presented a utopian society with a three-cast system that would be efficient and complete. The casts would include producers (craftsmen, farmers, artisans, etc), warriors, and guardians who were to be philosopher kings that made social and legal decisions. Plato’s system did not place the burden of child rearing on individuals; it placed children into communal nurseries that would develop each child to its appropriate potential. The system took from individuals according to their ability to give. The premise—taking according to ability and giving according to need—is foundational to the modern system developed by Marxism.

THE MARXIST UTOPIA

Marxism sought to establish a utopia on earth without a god, presenting optimism and hope to the oppressed masses. Marxism is “the political and economic theories of Karl Marx (1818–83) and Friedrich Engels (1820–95), later developed to form the basis for the theory and practice of Communism.”⁵ Marxism is an “atheistic form of postmillennialism, as are other humanistic utopias.”⁶ The premise of Marxism is to remove all class distinctions with the presumed conclusion of a perfect society. The Communist Manifesto states that all existing society is the “history of class struggles.”⁷

Marxism contains the presupposition that only economics influence history. Harold J. Ockenga (in his article on Gustavus Adolphus, who was a Swedish ruler who militarily came to the aid of the reformers) indicated that the “Marxian maxim is that only the struggle for bread, or the philosophy of economic determinism controls history. Factors like religious faith, personal magnetism, military genius and statesmanship, to say nothing of romance, directly influence the events of history.”⁸ Marx (et al) regarded all struggles of history as only a struggle of existence. The struggle, in the Marxist view, is with two classes: the oppressed and the oppressors, or the bourgeoisie. Ockenga stated, “Marx made the struggle for a living the determining factor in political, legal and religious institutions. He believed that the self-interest of people led them to look primarily after their own welfare when left free, and that this economic self-interest expressing itself in relation to production and exchange was the stuff out of which history was made.”⁹ As found in other systems of government and ethics, self-interest causes the problems. Ockenga explained:

This interpretation of history supported the Marxian theory of “class struggle,” which prophesied struggles between different economic classes of society until all men became producers and then society would be emancipated, in his words, “from all exploitation, oppression, class-distinction and class struggle.”

The underlying causes of a community’s, a state’s or a nation’s development and decline may be sought in the field of their economic conditions. In the words of the Communist Manifesto, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.”¹⁰

Therefore, for Marxism, the concluding answer to class struggle is to remove all classes. The removal is accomplished by three means. The means are: “(1) the abolition of private property, (2) the abolition of classes (including any and all family relations), and (3) the abolition of religion.”¹¹ Marxism maintained several elements found in Plato’s Republic such as the state raising and educating children, giving according to ability, and centralized government. Marxism was presented as a governmental system by which all could be better. Many considered it a system of hope. In this author’s view, Marx (and others) were not very good students of history. It can be demonstrated that Marxism emphasizes many of the characteristics that led other governments and societies to fall. For example, in 1788, Edward Gibbon wrote with regard to the five points that brought ancient Rome to its decline; several of which are highlighted in Marxism. He described Rome’s fall as coming from:

1.    The undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis for human society;

2.    Higher and higher taxes; the spending of public money for free bread and circuses for the populace;

3.    The mad craze for pleasure;

4.    The building of great armaments when the real enemy was within the decay of individual responsibility;

5.    The decay of religion; faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, losing power to guide the people.…¹²

The parallel elements that caused the fall of Rome (and other societies) with Marxism should be exceedingly obvious. Destruction of family, removal of religion, and higher taxes provide an impetus (in addition to the removal of freedom that comes from ownership of property) that will doom any culture. Upon historical and political examination, the destructive reality of Marxism is evident. The utopia of a society in commune, or held by the state, has always morphed into a culture of tyranny with tyrants lording over the people; it exchanges individual opportunity for the hope of equality. Phillip Johnson described Marxism as “a liberation myth that has become a new justification for ordering people not to think for themselves.”¹³ The “liberation myth” attempts to establish a kingdom like the one that only God can provide, which abstemiously replaces God in their lives. If it is man that establishes the kingdom then those same men are only accountable to other men.

A government where the workers of the world could unite, giving what they have and taking according to their need, was never instituted. Instead, a new platform for dictators was designed with integral controls of the people, as their right to exist without the state was no longer intact. There was no right to property since ownership would lead to classes. Property ownership was deemed necessary for liberty. The philosopher John Locke argued property ownership is an essential component to ethics.

A much-overlooked impact of Marxism is how it affected Christian theology. Millard Erickson stated as follows: “Marxism as the world’s hope for a better future, has had great impact on various Christian theologians. They have felt challenged to set forth an alternative, superior basis for hope.”¹⁴ One must ask how this occurred. With such an anti-biblical worldview, how does Marxism infiltrate the church? The infiltration of the church occurred primarily through a misguided understanding of the church’s role in dealing with social problems and the single word “hope.” Marxism presents itself as a system of hope, and this theme seemed true to some in the Christian community.

Like all other beliefs, “Marxism [and liberation theology] needs to be subjected to the light of biblical authority.”¹⁵ In general, Christendom rejected the premises found in Marxism, and this rejection was primarily due to the anti-theistic worldview found in socialism. Following the Reformation, the world abounded with a revived theology that man did not need a human intercessor to intervene before God on his behalf. The same type of thinking was at least, in part, responsible for the revolutions of the eighteenth century, including the American Revolution. Essentially, if man did not need a religious hierarchy to approach the Almighty God, then they certainly could exist without a monarchy. The thought inspired writers, such as Thomas Payne, to rebel against both monarchies and centralized government without representation. Louis Berkhof wrote, “Questions of social reform there always have been, but never in all the history of the world have they forced themselves on the attention of all classes of men, as they do today.”¹⁶ He then cited the French Revolution and the philosophical and cultural changes across the world as one of the causes of this revolution. Berkhof cited two other changes in culture that influenced social unrest: the industrial revolution and the rise of socialism.

Marxian socialism maintained its desire for a utopian society with the promise of bringing an end to social injustice. Hillquit, a socialist proponent, explained how this utopian society would be established. He wrote, “The ethics of Socialism seeks not the ideal society through the ideal individual, but conversely the ideal individual through the ideal society.”¹⁷ Berkhof took note of other types of Marxian slogans such as, “The emancipation of the workingmen can only be accomplished by the workingmen themselves,” and, “Workingmen of all countries unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains, you have a world to gain!”¹⁸ Amidst the flattering promises of a better life, it is obvious why some would be enticed by this philosophy.

CHRISTIAN AND MARXIST RESPONSIBILITY

However, the church rejected socialism because it was seen as a return to placing personal authority and responsibility with the government. Christian dominated cultures were not willing to relinquish the rights and responsibilities they had fought to recover. It has not been until recent years that some Christian theologians began to consider the ethical problems of the world and allowing the possibility for Marxian socialism to be the solution. Theologians were considering social problems and the responsibilities of the church, with an emphasis upon determining the proper response to these problems. For some of these theologians, Marxian socialism seemed compatible with Christian ideals. Alan Hamilton made an interesting observation in his article addressing the social gospel. He observed that some Christians were embracing some of the tenants of Marxism. The “veil of hope” and equality became appealing to some. Indeed, one of these authors wrote that the only difference between Marxists and Christian responsibility was that the Marxists actually made an attempt to apply their beliefs. Hamilton wrote,

A recent student of the relationship between the ideas of Marx and those of Christian thought points out: “Marx recognized that in form of statement the criteria of justice, equality, the brotherhood of man and the primacy of human values over such standards as that of efficiency in production sound like Christian ideals. But the difference, he maintained, between him and Christian advocates of the same principles was that he expected to put them into practice, whereas Christians were content to leave them in an uncontaminated, transcendental sphere.”¹⁹

Hamilton made a rather harsh accusation that also holds a serious error. To believe that Christians are not effective in matters of humanitarian needs around the world is to be unaware of what the church is and has been doing. More importantly, however, it is to believe that the gospel message itself is ineffective in the world. Indeed, this author’s view is that areas that have received mass conversions by preaching a pure gospel have been more effective at curing social problems than social movements. However, even with its anti-theistic worldview, some theologians have concluded, “they agree his [Marx’s] ethical ideas are close to (if not identical with) the ideals of Christian ethics and that Marxism cannot be considered apart from its theological implications.”²⁰ Hamilton recognized that some theologians are willing to accept some of the premises or “ethical principals” of socialism. Harold Hagar adopted a more biblical approach to this topic. He regarded the modern social gospel for what it really is, that is, false doctrine. He wrote:

Among the worst of the testings that can come to a child of God are those borne on the winds of false doctrine in the forms of pseudo-Christianity so rapidly sweeping across our nation today. On every hand there are numerous cults and isms with attractive programs, and enticing promises to lure the Christian away from his faith. Modernism also is making headway like an army of termites among our churches, and the appeal to disparage doctrinal discernment and denominational distinctions and be united in Christ is heard on every hand. But the worst enemy of all is Marxism, in the form of a modern social-gospel projected on religious grounds, so subtle in its propaganda that many people are unaware of its danger and progress.²¹

Hagar recognized the many attacks on the church that are occurring today. The attacks are “weaving” false doctrine into the “tapestry” of Christendom, and normalizing anti-biblical worldviews. One should be reminded of the many warnings found in Scripture describing false teachers as “wolves” (Matt 7:15) who would secretly bring destructive heresies and would even deny the Lord that bought them (2 Pet 2:1). Nevertheless, Hagar still believes that Marxism, as presented in the form of the modern social gospel, is the worst enemy of all. The modern hieratical movement has a connection to liberation theology, dominion theology, and theonomy (all of which have been influenced by postmillennialism). The central theme in each is to inaugurate the kingdom through social action.

POSTMILLENNIAL THOUGHT IN RELATION TO MARXISM

Postmillennialism is an eschatological view that Christ returns after the millennium; it presents itself as an optimistic view of the church and its role in establishing the kingdom of God. Postmillennial author Keith A Mathison wrote, “God has promised the church that the gates of hell will not prevail against her, that all the ends of the earth will turn to the Lord, and that all the families of the nations will worship before Him.”²² Mathison summarized:

Postmillennialism teaches that the “thousand years” of Revelation 20 occurs prior to the Second coming. Some postmillennialists teach that the millennial age is the entire period of time between Christ’s first and second advents, while others teach that it is the last one thousand years of the present age. According to Postmillennialism, in the present age the Holy Spirit will draw unprecedented multitudes to Christ through the faithful preaching of the gospel. Among the multitudes who will be converted are the ethnic Israelites who have thus far rejected the Messiah. At the end of the present age, Christ will return, there will be a general resurrection of the just and unjust, and the final judgment will take place.²³

The essence is that there will be a gradual movement of the church through the age that establishes the kingdom of God. Postmillennialists argue that the church will introduce the kingdom by the preaching of the gospel to the world in order that the Great Commission can be fulfilled. It is only after this manmade millennium is complete that Jesus Christ will return. During this millennium, Jesus will continue to reign from heaven while the world is “Christianized.” Even though it is as Mathison indicated with regard to the gates of hell not prevailing against the church, there may be significant opposition in the meantime. Louis Berkhof described this process as being like a “gradual fermentation wrought by the leaven” as opposed to a quick geologic event.²⁴

Thomas Ice wrote an article that examined neopostmillennialism, wherein he noted that there are two types of postmillennialism: (1) conservative (after the Puritan tradition and B. B. Warfield of Princeton); or, (2) after the liberal view which led to modern theonomy, dominion theology, liberation theology, and Reconstructionism. “Liberation theology is an ethical theology that grew out of social awareness and the desire to act.”²⁵ Reconstructionism “is the name given to the movement within Reformed Theology which seeks to reconstruct society to fit its template of Christian law and ethics.…”²⁶

“Reconstructionists believe that the ‘theonomic mandate’ demands an optimistic view of the subjugation of the kosmos by the Gospel prior to the Second Advent.”²⁷ They believe that while the church is waiting for Christ’s return, the command given to Adam to subdue the earth is still in effect (Gen 1:28). The optimism is that the church will overtake and dominate the world through its engagement. Therefore, they must rid the world of injustice and inequality, and force the world to accept living under biblical law with both its rewards and punishments. As one author stated, “It is impossible, we are told by … dominion-theology advocates, to have the law of God without accepting all of its sanctions and penalties as well.… As surely as law embodies the essential ideas of command and obligation, it must likewise embody the idea of sanction.”²⁸ The quote provided demonstrates the desire by adherents of liberation theology to impose biblical law with both its rewards and punishments to advance a social agenda. In making a similar case, Bahnsen wrote, “God’s law is binding in every detail until and unless the Lawgiver reveals otherwise … the civil magistrate today ought to apply the penal sanctions of the Old Testament law to criminals in our society.”²⁹ It might seem obvious to some that this error can only be made by those with a covenant theological persuasion, since Old Testament law is being applied to the church as though the church is Israel. Such a realization may help in understanding the origin, motivation, and hermeneutics of reconstructionists.

The beginning of the social gospel is related to the Baptist pastor Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918) and his work entitled, Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21^st Century.³⁰ Rauschenbusch was reared as a biblical literalist by his father, who was a German preacher but as an adult departed from that view. In his work, Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21^st Century, Rauschenbusch demonstrated his admiration for communism and his ignorance of social political systems. Rauschenbusch’s view of the gospel, the kingdom of God, and his view of humanistic world systems can be summarized in his own words.

But after all this has been said, it still remained a social hope. The kingdom of God is still a collective conception, involving the whole social life of man. It is not a matter of saving human atoms, but of saving the social organism. It is not a matter of getting individuals to heaven, but of transforming the life on earth into the harmony of heaven [emphasis added].³¹

Rauschenbusch believed that Jesus Himself was a prophet, who sought to accomplish social awareness, and through His faith, “transform the common hope.”³² He found biblical authority in his belief that Scripture was tainted by oral tradition³³ and that the kingdom is already here.³⁴ Rauschenbusch argued that communism is what freed the peasant from the feudal lord and that all social benefits like parks and water systems are functions of communistic thought. His premise was that the home, the state, and the church are communistic and should be embraced. His eventual conclusion was “that one of the greatest services which Christianity could render to humanity in the throes of the present transition would be to aid those social forces which are making for the increase of communism.”³⁵

Rauschenbusch desired to amalgamate the church with communism with the intention of ending social problems and establishing the kingdom of God in all of its fullness. Rauschenbusch failed to recognize the intrinsic problems of communism. The problems are all related to anthropology. In order for Rauschenbusch’s premise to be correct (i.e. man can inaugurate a utopia through hope and social reform) human beings would have to be innately good. Scripture, however, teaches just the opposite: the natural man is dominated by his sin nature and no matter what social system is employed, the fallen nature will eventually come to prevail. Therefore, the result will always be simply exchanging one oppressor—the bourgeois—for another, such as a central government.

Postmillennial dominion theology is a hope-centered theology that places its hope in social reform. Its popularity ebbs and flows with the state of the world and the church. For example, after World War II there were nearly no postmillenarians. Until that point, however, optimism abounded in many circles and had social impact. Ice indicated that some postmillenarians admit that the “optimism” of postmillennial theology aided the rise of both Nazism and Marxism and also noted that some postmillenarians have tried to separate themselves from the social gospel movement.

[O]ne cannot overlook the role that postmillennialism in general played in the rise and development of the “social gospel.…” Chilton [postmillenarian] 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” movement?³⁶

It was man-centered optimism, even with the backdrop of Christian ethics, that allowed for the rise of Marxian Socialism. Some have used the phrase “Christian Utopianism” to try and describe the philosophy of dominion theology. Christian Utopianism held a strong influence in Latin America. “Its missionaries attended to the faith, culture, and experiences of the people, while drinking from the wells of theologians and the 16^th century humanist-utopian thinkers.”³⁷ They drew upon humanistic thinking and amalgamated it with Christian ethics. The combination produced a theology that was more concerned about human struggle and its remedies than the biblical truth. Such a perspective is derived from the belief that the world must be won by the church for Christ to return. “Today’s liberation theologians have related their own work to this utopian school, which they call “theology from below,” a type of theological reflection that accounts for people’s faith, culture, struggles, and human rights.³⁸ Latin American liberation theology has used prophetic texts to “substantiate the ‘preferential option for the poor’ and their critique of unjust social and economic structures.”³⁹

Liberation Theology has challenged Christian churches and leaders to take up a “prophetic voice.” To be prophetic, in this view, means denouncing injustice in solidarity with the poor, raising their consciousness about their suffering and the possibility for change, and announcing the hope of an achievable, historical utopia that would bring a new sociopolitical, economic, and cultural order.⁴⁰

Once again, hope has been used as the enticement for a philosophy that promises the kingdom through domination. The focus is upon the injustices of the world for the purpose of gaining support, and the argument is that class warfare is the answer to the injustices of the world. The presupposition is that the church must engage—not ministering to the needy—but rather in overthrowing the oppressors who Marx called the bourgeois.

Postmillennialism has presently found its niche among denominational groups that are inclined to themes of optimism and cultural engagement as a means for hastening the return of Christ, which is evident in the acceptance of postmillennial eschatology as presented by Reconstructionism within the charismatic movement.

The wedding between certain errant charismatic theologies and current neopostmillennialism may be similar to the deterioration of Puritan postmillennialism into the social gospel movement. If this is happening, then one may expect to see the spread of optimistic eschatology at the expense of historic orthodoxy. And again the tendency of postmillennialism to raise false hopes will have occurred.⁴¹

The potential is great for false hope to be elevated to a point where biblical authority is disregarded for a social theological tumult of reform and reconstruction with the intention being social reengineering. The tumult can be observed in the “positive confession” charismatic movement, which embraces social reform and modern ecumenical theology. Such hope and optimism places the total substance of the kingdom of God on their ability to change the world. “They seem to ignore the thought of any kind of divine intervention in the curative process. The divinity developed in liberation theology is the “divinity” to be found in all mankind.”⁴²

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, it is the innate awareness of God and the desire to exist in His perfect garden that motives men to make the attempt to establish a kingdom after their own image. Christians who maintain a biblical worldview anticipate their king’s return imminently, at any moment. Those that do not maintain this view still have the desire for the original creation. Even people in their natural state have an awareness of this perfect world. Whether it is Marxism or postmillennialism, the kingdom of God will not be accomplished by man’s will. Newell wrote, “The end of governmental things is at hand. Kings lost their majesty to democracy; aristocracy lost its dignity to socialism, finally to communism. This all comes, of course, to tyranny under a dictator like Napoleon on the ruins of the French Revolution, Stalin succeeding Marxism.”⁴³ The promise of a perfect world government will be the mantra of the Antichrist who will rule the world for a time that God has sovereignly decreed.

There is a blessed hope in the future. The Apostle Peter taught that the church should be submissive to its authorities while waiting for Christ’s return. However, the emphasis is still upon 1) waiting and watching for Christ’s return to establish His kingdom, and 2) preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ as presented in the sure word of God. Peter did not teach that the church is to arise and become a political entity that holds the power to overthrow governments and exchange a less desirable ruler for another. In the culmination of the end times, there will not be theonomy but rather a theocracy when Christ returns. In the meantime, humanity embraces one system of government for another; they receive one leader who proposes hope to the next; humanity is drawn by optimism that their salvation will be found. They hope that they will gain enough momentum this time to establish a utopia in which everyone can exist in harmony. Those that know Jesus Christ patiently wait for His imminent return. All men know that they are responsible to something beyond themselves. Mankind longs to have the creation restored and the world to be ruled by the true king, Jesus Christ. However, the rebelliousness of the human heart rejects the moral and ethical standards of God. Therefore, they establish themselves as gods and develop man-centered governments. However, at the culmination of the present age, every tongue will confess and every knee will bow to Jesus Christ as Lord.

---

* David Q. Santos, pastor, Mid Valley Baptist Church, Durham, California; and, graduate student, Tyndale Theological Seminary

¹ Christopher Cone, Life Beyond the Sun: An Introduction to Worldview & Philosophy Through the Lens of Ecclesiastes (Fort Worth, TX: Tyndale Seminary Press, 2009) 417.

² Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, 6 vols. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1999) 1:341.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Paul Martin Henebury, “The Eschatology of Covenant Theology,” Journal of Dispensational Theology 10 (September 2006): 14.

⁵ Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11^th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

⁶ Norman Geisler, “A Premillennial View of Law and Government,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (July–September 1985): 255.

⁷ Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party: Chapter 1,” (Marxists Internet Archive, accessed 23 December 2009) available from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm.

⁸ Harold J. Ockenga, “The Reformation and Gustavus Adolphus,” Bibliotheca Sacra 104 (October 1947): 472.

⁹ Kenneth M. Monroe, “Biblical Philosophy of History,” Bibliotheca Sacra 91 (July 1934): 321.

¹⁰ Ibid. 321.

¹¹ Cone, Life Beyond the Sun, 252.

¹² Roy Wallace, Studies from Revelation (Shreveport, LA: LinWel, 2002) 151–52

¹³ Phillip E. Johnson, “Separating Materialist Philosophy from Science,” Bible and Spade 10 (Spring 1997): 34.

¹⁴ Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 1158.

¹⁵ J. Ronald Blue, “Major Flaws in Liberation Theology,” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (January–March 1990): 102.

¹⁶ Louis Berkhof, The Church and Social Problems (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1913) (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009) 5.

¹⁷ Ibid. 65.

¹⁸ Ibid. 6.

¹⁹ Alan H. Hamilton, “The Social Gospel Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 108 (January–March 1951): 92–93, as quoted by Elizabeth Paxton Lam, The Place of Marx in Christian Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939) 148.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Harry Hager, “The Amazing Power of Unbelief in the World Today,” Bibliotheca Sacra 110 (April 1953): 170.

²² Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999) xi.

²³ Ibid. 10.

²⁴ Berkhof, Church and Social Problems, 3.

²⁵ Thomas G. Sanders, “The Theology of Liberation: Christian Utopianism,” Christianity and Crisis 33 (17 September 1973): 168.

²⁶ Henebury, “Eschatology of Covenant Theology,” 14. Their great foundational text is Matthew 5:17–19 though they strive to translate plerosai as “confirm.”

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “God’s Promise Plan and His Gracious Law,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (July–September 1990): 291.

²⁹ Ibid. 292.

³⁰ Walter Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009) [eBook, Kindle version]. Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918) was the leading proponent of the Social Gospel Movement whose mission was to reform society to meet the social needs of the poor through the ministrations of the institutional church. “PBS recently called him ‘one of the most influential American religious leaders of the last 100 years’ ” (backcover).

³¹ Ibid. 53.

³² Ibid.

³³ Ibid. 52.

³⁴ Ibid. 51.

³⁵ Ibid. 320.

³⁶ Thomas Ice, “An Evaluation of Theonomic Neopostmillennialism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (July–September 1988): 290.

³⁷ Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, eds., The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 1999, 2003) 3:188.

³⁸ Ibid.

³⁹ M. Daniel Carol R., “Considering the Case for ‘Prophetic Ethics’, Surveying Options and Recognizing Obstacles,” Ashland Theological Journal 36 (2004): 3.

⁴⁰ Ibid. 3.

⁴¹ Ice, “Theonomic Postmillennialism,” 290.

⁴² Blue, “Major Flaws in Liberation Theology,” 95.

⁴³ Williams R. Newell, “The End of All Things is at Hand,” Bibliotheca Sacra 109 (July–September 1952): 252.