Stop Calling Postmillennials "Judaizers” - Part 1

Part 1: Postmillennial Glory and Premillennial Glory, Radical Differences

Let me start by addressing this quote in the article that says, “People regularly say that amillennialism is ‘pessimistic’ but postmillennialism is ‘optimistic.’” I cannot speak for others but I can speak for myself in saying that I believe that some Amillennials are pessimistic while others are optimistic. If you are an optimistic Amillennial, I do not consider you a pessimist though you would not consider yourself postmillennial. Someone like Dr. Clark would fall into the category of the pessimistic Amillennial; however, his view of Amillennialism does not represent the full spectrum of the position. Why do I say this about Dr. Clark? Simply because any talk about the extent of the gospel and its effects on society leads him to call the person making such arguments a dispensationalist, a chiliast, a glory theologian, a TheoRecon, and a Judaizer. If that is how you respond to any discussion of the extensiveness and effects of the gospel, you are indeed overly pessimistic. One of the first things that Dr. Clark does in his article and ministry overall is to collapse the chiliast (Premill) position with the Postmillennial position. Our only difference (Postmill and Premill), according to Dr. Clark, is that the Reformed Postmillennial position’s thousand years is lacking a literal interpretation while the Chiliast position indeed speaks to a literal thousand years. According to Dr. Clark’s position, Calvin, the Puritans, and I are nothing more than allegorical Premillennials. He says, “Our postmillennial friends reject a literal millennium but they agree with the chiliasts that there will be a period of earthly glory.” It is at this point that Dr. Clark proves to not understand the Postmillennial position with his connection of the Postmillennial to earthly glory in a manner that is parallel to the Premillennial. Let me show you the differences between the thousand years of the Chiliast and the Postmillennial.

The Chiliast generally believes that the glory of the Kingdom will come in a revived, geopolitical, earthly Israel (there are different versions of this); however, the Postmillennial believes that the Kingdom is coming and will come through Eschatological Israel (church) which is heavenly (Heb. 12:22). The Chiliast believes that Christ’s thousand year rule will be by Christ returning in military-like dominance and earthly force. However, the Postmillennial believes that Christ will rule from heaven in the power of the Spirit through the incremental progress of the gospel. The Chiliasts believe that a revival of the earthly Mosaic Theocracy (again, there are different versions of this) will comprise the thousand year reign of Christ, while the Postmillennial believes that God’s rule and reign from heaven on the earth will be in the final administration of the covenant of grace (new covenant). The earthly glory that the Chiliast speaks of concerning the thousand year reign of Christ is indeed of an earthly nature. However, for the Postmillennial, the metaphorical thousand years of Christ’s reign on earth is essentially Christological, Pneumatological, and Kerygmatic; its consequential effects are societal. The historic Postmillennial position does not see Christ’s thousand year reign as a metaphorical time period in which geopolitical, earthly, Theocratic Israel will be revived from its sleep through the means of cultural-transformational measures. The Chiliast position is generally geopolitical-Israel-centric and often lacks a high Ecclesiology. Dr. Clark tactically brings up the TheoRecons in this section; this is due to his inability to separate the novel, so-called “Postmillennial” from the historic ones. One of the ways that people like myself are discredited by Dr. Clark in these positions is by dumping us into the TheoRecon crowd. The idea is somewhat like this, “You are Post-mill? You do not want to be a TheoRecon, do you?” “Are you a Shepherdite?” Such conclusions and methods are quite unpersuasive to someone who knows our historic roots. Dr. Clark seems to see “earthly” kingdom to be simply understood as a kingdom that exists tangibly on the earth in some spatially verifiable way. However, the Bible and the Reformed tradition see the earthly kingdom as being a kingdom that you speak of on earth, and not simply a kingdom that is tangible on earth in a measurable way (Galatians 4:21-31). In the passage mentioned, both the heavenly and earthly Jerusalem are tangibly on the earth. However, the difference is one of Eschatological and Soteriological quality not simply a tangible existence on the earth. Satan’s Kingdom and God’s are both on the earth in a spatial and tangible sense; however, they are on the earth tangibly with different qualities, trajectories, and paradigms. An earthly institution like family being tangibly and visibly affected by the gospel does not make the Kingdom “earthly.” Paul addressing how law and gospel tangibly and visibly affect earthly institutions such as the family and vocation does not make his kingdom views earthly. For Paul, earthly is not about what is visual or measurable on the earth but rather what is not Christological on the earth. Contrary to what Dr. Clark says, the heavenly kingdom affecting the earth does not make it “earthly.” When you read Dr. Clark’s article, at times you get the impression that he is saying that the Old Testament Kingdom is purely earthly and the New Testament Kingdom is purely spiritual (similar arguments made by Anabaptists against Calvin). However, the Kingdom of God (both in Old and New covenants) is never unhinged from Creation. The New Testament Kingdom and the Old Testament typological and anticipatory Kingdom, are both earthly and spiritual, i.e, the New Testament Kingdom is both Eschatological and earthly-spiritual. Bodies, children, families, vocation, and the civil sphere do not fall out of the Kingdom conversation in the name of so-called New Testament gospel-centeredness. It seems that Dr. Clark believes that earthly things are purely things that are particular to the Old Testament Kingdom, which is why whenever the Postmillennial brings up how God’s Kingdom affects Creation, he throws down the Judaizer card. Why? In the New Testament Kingdom of God, we have left behind all those spatial, societal, and creational things. Sadly, it seems that the thousands of pastors from 1500’s to 1800’s would disagree. Sure, Dr. Clark can quote you a person here and there who holds to this radical discontinuity between the earthly Old Testament and the spiritual New Testament; however, my position has much backing from many in the Reformed tradition.

Earthly and Heavenly Glory?

In the next section Dr. Clark then writes, “Augustinian Amillennialists, as Bauckham describes them, reject the idea of a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ after his return (chiliasm) and they expect no earthly glory age (e.g., a converted world) before Christ returns.” Notice that Dr. Clark is claiming that an earthly glory age is understood as an age where there is a largely converted world. I find this definition of “worldly” most amusing considering what the Bible teaches about the supernatural nature of conversion. By this logic, lots of conversions means an “earthly” glory age. How on earth can conversions that are from above in the power of the Spirit through the means of grace be connected to “earthly” glory? There is nothing earthly about conversions as they are entirely heavenly (John 3:5-8). A large amount of heavenly, supernatural conversions on earth isn’t any more earthly than one conversion on earth is. The numerical abundance of conversions has nothing to do with earthly glory! Unless you are a Remonstrant (which Dr. Clark is not), who believes that nature has intrinsic qualities conducive to conversion? Every conversion, whether one or many, is about the glory of heaven. One conversion on earth is heavenly and 5 billion conversions on earth are also heavenly. Lest you define “heavenly" as being a matter of smaller percentages and numbers. The more I hear from Dr. Clark it seems that “less and loss” are what make up “heavenly” and its opposite is “earthly.” I suppose that Dr. Clark would call Moses a “glory theologian” when he said that the Abrahamic promises can be likened to the amounts of stars in the heavens. I also suppose that Dr. Clark would call the prophets like Isaiah and the apostle John “glory theologian’s’ due to the astronomical expectations they had about conversions. Why do I say this? Because when someone like myself talks about the numerical, overwhelming increase of conversions in the time period in between Christ’s comings, Dr. Clark says that such things are Judaistic glory nonsense. Am I putting words in his mouth? Dr. Clark writes,“Augustinian Amillennialists, as Bauckham describes them, reject the idea of a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ after his return (chiliasm) and they expect no earthly glory age (e.g., a converted world) before Christ returns.” My Amillennial brothers, you are free to not agree with the increasing conversions that the Postmillennial holds to. However, you are not free to, as Scott does, call us “earthly glory theologians” because we do.