On March 4, 1971, Dr. RJ Rushdoony wrote this introduction of J. Marcellus Kik’s An Eschatology of Victory (Amazon Link). In this book Kik argues that Postmillennialism was the dominant and default eschatological position among historic Reformed Christians, particularly at Princeton Theological Seminary. Focusing on Matthew 24 and Revelation 20, Kik presents a compelling case for an optimistic view of Christ’s kingdom advancing throughout history.

Between 1927 and 1928, J. Marcellus Kik studied at Princeton Theological Seminary before becoming part of Westminster Theological Seminary’s inaugural graduating class in 1930. He went on to serve as a pastor in Canada for 22 years, during which he also hosted a weekly radio program for 13 years. In addition to his pastoral work, Kik authored several religious books and contributed to theological education by serving on the Board of Trustees for both Westminster Seminary and Gordon College and Divinity School. Kik was also one of the first three members of the editorial staff of Christianity Today, from its inception in 1955.

Introduction by Rushdoony

One of the intellectual curiosities of the twentieth century is the unwillingness of scholars and Christian leaders to admit the existence of a major school of Biblical interpretation. Although postmillennialism has a long history as a major, and perhaps the central, interpretation of Biblical eschatology, it is summarily read out of court by many on non-Biblical grounds.

According to Unger, “This theory, largely disproved by the progress of history, is practically a dead issue.” This note resounds in the critical literature, the appeal, not to Scripture but to history to read postmillennialism out of court.

Note, for example, the comments of Adams, ostensibly a Reformed scholar, when he touches briefly on the subject:

The advent of two World Wars not only transformed yesterday’s optimistic modernism into today’s pessimistic Neo-orthodoxy, but virtually rang the death knell upon conservative postmillennialism as well…Currently, postmillennialism is considered all but a dead issue. It is spurned as highly unrealistic because it predicts a golden age around the corner in a day in which the world nervously anticipates momentary destruction by nuclear warfare.

Such comments are in principle modernistic, in that they assess Scripture, not in terms of itself, but in terms of the times, the modern age. In terms of this emphasis, Adams gives some attention to criticizing premillennialism, which seems relevant, he recognizes, because of its pessimism concerning history, and gives no attention to postmillennialism because history, not exegesis, has virtually made it “a dead issue” for him. This constitutes Biblical interpretation according to the state of world affairs!

Not only are such newspaper exegetes neglectful of the primacy of Scripture as its own interpreter, but they also seriously misrepresent the facts. Witness the comment of Lindsey:

There used to be a group called “postmillennialists.” They believed that the Christians would root out the evil in the world, abolish godless rulers, and convert the world through ever increasing evangelism until they brought about the Kingdom of God on earth through their own efforts. Then after 1000 years of the institutional church reigning on earth with peace, equality, and righteousness, Christ would return and time would end. These people rejected much of the Scripture as being literal and believed in the inherent goodness of man. World War I greatly disheartened this group and World War II virtually wiped out this viewpoint. No self-respecting scholar who looks at the world conditions and the accelerating decline of Christian influence today is a “postmillennialist.”

Here again we have an implicit modernism: The “self-respecting scholar…looks at world conditions” rather that Scripture in order to decide on his eschatology!

The errors in Lindsey’s brief statement are many, but one will suffice in this context. Which of the postmillennial scholars held to “the inherent goodness of man”? Did Calvin, Alexander, Charles Hodge, Warfield, or others? In our day, does this belief in the fallen man’s goodness characterize Kik, Boettner, or this writer? Such a statement as Lindsey makes has no foundation in fact and maligns a great and growing school of thought.

Postmillennial thought will flourish because it is Biblical and is therefore the eschatology of victory, or of salvation in its full sense. It takes seriously all of Scripture and the resurrection. Christ’s victory is in time and eternity, in the world of matter as well as in the realm of the spirit. “The accelerating decline of Christian influence today” of which Lindsey speaks is a product of Christian irrelevance. It was not World War I which led to an eclipse of postmillennialism; rather, the growing modernism and atheism led to a rejection by the natural man of that faith which asserted the “Crown Rights of King Jesus” over the world. False eschatologies, by surrendering history to the devil, hastened the retreat of Christian influence and power. Any true revival of Biblical faith will also be a revival of postmillennialism.

The sources of the modern dilemma are in part Manichaean. Basic to Manichaeanism is the belief that the world is divided into two realms, the realm of spirit, light, goodness, and the good god, and the realm of matter, darkness, evil, and the bad god. In terms of this faith, man’s mission is not a missionary conquest of all things but withdrawal from a hopelessly evil and satanic world into the world of spirit and light. Asceticism has been a major expression of neo-Manichaeanism thinking, and, in the early and medieval church, exercised a major influence. In modern Protestantism, neo-Manichaeanism manifests itself in eschatologies which surrender the world to the devil.

During the course of the past few years, this writer has been told repeatedly by persons dissenting with his postmillennialism that the world is ruled by Satan, and therefore postmillennialism is impossible. In the minds of church members, this conclusion that Satan is ruler of time, matter, and history brings logical and radical conclusions. It means the surrender of the world to the enemy, the denial of the possibility of social reform, and a hostility to any note of victory in preaching. (“Victorious living” becomes a neo-Manichaean flight into the realm of spirit.) A prominent premillennialist preacher has declared, “You don’t polish brass on a sinking ship,” thereby denying the validity of any involvement in history. Others have insisted that Satan rules the world and history. The Christian hope has been turned into flight and despair.

Postmillennialism will again prevail, however, because it is the truth of God and His enscriptured word. As an eschatology of victory, it will inspire men with the power of God, and, as with great saints of old, and the Puritans of yesteryears, lead again and more enduringly to the triumph of Christ in every area, bringing every sphere of thought and action into captivity to Christ.

The writings of J. M. Kik give us that eschatology of victory which Scripture sets forth.

Steve Macias

Reformed Episcopal Priest. Rector at Saint Paul’s & Headmaster at Canterbury School.

See Full Bio