Before Jerusalem Fell

APPENDIX
A RESPONSE TO HOUSE AND ICE
After the manuscript for this book had been sent to the typesetter,
an interesting critical analysis of the early date view of Revelation
came to my attention. This ardysis is contained in a book by Dallas
Seminary professor H. Wayne House and Pastor Thomas D. Ice,
entitled Dominion Thology: Blessing or Curse? In this work, the authors
offer a neo-dispensationalist analysis and refutation of those Christians
who hold to the doctrinal complex of Calvinistic soteriology,
presuppositional apologetics, theonomic ethics, postmillennial eschatology,
and covenantal commitment. 1 As a theological system, this
doctrinal complex has come to be associated with the broader theological
movement known as “Dominion Theology”; as a theological
framework for Christian social theory, it is known as Christian Reconstruction.
Chapter 12 of House and Ice’s work is entitled “‘Rightly Dividing’
the Book of Revelation,” and it is directly relevant to the present
work. In Chapter 12, the authors critique the @-eterist approach to the
book of Revelation, which understands most of Revelation’s prophecies
as being fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This view
has been revived recently by some Reconstructionists, and is becoming
increasingly popular among others, even among many outside of
Reconstructionism. In the first half of Chapter 12, the authors critique
David Chilton’s Day of Vengeance, focusing much of their attention
on his brief notes regarding Revelation’s date.
1. H. Wayne House and Thomas D. Ice, Dominion Tbologv: Blessing or Curse?
(Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1988), p, 17. Probably we should speak of a capital “R
Rcconstructionism when we mean that system which employs these five points. Small
“r” reccmstructionism might be used to refer to those who desire a Christian reconstructed
society, whether or not they hold to these five points (perhaps Francis Schaefer
is a good example of a small “r” reccmstructionist).
339