There is no logical contradiction between the fact that some nations covenant with Christ in the last days but yet Antichrist rules over some nations and wars with the saints. I think even a lot of Reformed people default to the Left Behind mindset that Antichrist rules the entire globe by a supercomputer.
This allows for several things. The amil wants to affirm the NT passages about falling away and a darkening of culture. The postmil wants to affirm the passages about nations coming to Christ. There is no logical contradiction between these two statements. Many historic premils have successfully affirmed both propositions.
I’ve defended historic premillennialism for the last five to seven years. I’m coming to a Reformed position–the Reformers’ position. I don’t want to say postmillennialism for a few reasons: 1) I am not persuaded that some forms of postmillennialism can account for certain NT passages and 2) too many people wrongly associate it with theonomy and the Christian Reconstruction movement. Granted, that is their ignorance and not my problem, but I don’t want to deal with the drama right now. I recently finished North’s Millennialism and Social Theory. Here is what I took from it:
- Does God impose sanctions on nations that break his Law? It appears that he does. While the causality between obedience and sanctions is not a strict 1:1, over the long run there is a pattern. As David Chilton points out in Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators, few (any?) Protestant nations have ever suffered a catastrophic famine. Not because they have never had bad weather or conditions, but because of the Puritan work ethic heritage they are able to save and adapt. By contrast, those countries whose religious conditions gave rise to Revolutionary socialism routinely experience these catastrophes.
- In Matthew 25 when Jesus is dividing the sheep and the goats, he does so in terms of nations. Of course, we don’t want to jettison the need for individual conversion and appearing before God, but the thrust of the passage seems to be on nations, not individual souls. It’s only a small step from here to social covenanting.
- Isaiah 2 says we will know the kingdom is advancing because nations abide by God’s law. (I challenged some Orthodox Bridge guys on God’s law and they never really responded). This is an epistemological argument: we will know the kingdom is advancing because of the specific outward conditions (other things being equal, of course).
- North gives a detailed analysis of Isaiah 65:20. It is a spear-thrust through the heart of any form of amillennialism.
I don’t think North’s sanctions-eschatology full defeats all of historic premillennialism, but it does serve as a good platform.