Years ago I read Alva McClain’s book “The Greatness of the Kingdom” for a class. McClain (1888-1968) was one of the founders and presidents of Grace College and Seminary, Winona Lake, IN. He was also a dispensational premillennialist. I took issue with many parts of his book since I am neither a dispensationalist nor a premillennialist.
However, there was a short essay (5 pages) in the appendix that left an impression on me: “A Premillennial Philosophy of History.” This was the first time I ever heard of the term “philosophy of history.” Today, when people argue about eschatology this is usually what they are arguing about.
In many ways this essay made me Amil (I have answers to McClain’s characterizations of it). Maybe it will make you Premil? Postmil? Maybe it will show you that each view has far more in common than not?
I share McClain’s essay because not only did he sharpen my own philosophy of history, he did it in 5 pages. And I find the brevity appropriate to the subject. After all, King David was a man who ended up central to the history of the world, yet he said, “Nor do I involve myself in great matters, or in things too difficult for me,” (Ps 131:1).
I wanted to end my post here, but because philosophy of history is organically related to political theory –which is being discussed elsewhere– I will end with this: It seems to me the Church militant’s marching orders are far less carnal than we want them to be.
Blessings,