Hey guys, real quick, before we get started, I have a small request. If you've been blessed by our

content and you like this show, would you take just a brief moment and leave us a five-star review?

This is quite possibly the most effective thing that you can do to ensure that this content

gets out to as many people as possible. Thanks.

Chris Matthews writes this, Could you speak to the relationship between post-millennialism

and theonomy? I see the appropriateness of desiring to apply God's standards in all areas of life,

but I do not see the scriptures necessarily saying that the outcome of

applying theonomic principles will play out in this world as the postmill position believes

it will. Can you have one without the other? In other words. So, great question. Basically,

can you be theonomic without being post-millennial?

And so I appreciate the question. Thank you, Chris Matthews, for writing in. This is what I would say.

First, I want to simply say I'm encouraged that it sounds like the emphasis that you're giving in your

question is to theonomy. And I think that this is right. I think that it is

biblically right. What we have for centuries and centuries within church history is not a lot of,

at least in the major historic creeds and confessions, no major consensus or specificity in regards to eschatology. And that was intentional. What we have to

realize is that throughout the last 2,000 years of church history, since the life, death,

resurrection, and ascension of Christ, we have a progressive sharpening of doctrine throughout church history. For the first

couple centuries, two, three, even four centuries, the church is still just trying to figure

out who Jesus is. They're trying to figure out the hypostatic union. They're trying to figure out,

you know, was Jesus God and what appeared to be

flesh was not actually flesh, but rather just a hologram or an apparition, right? Is it

Aryanism? Is it Dossitism? You know, there's all these heresies that creep up, the Utician heresy,

...