Spurgeon's View of the MILLENNIUM

Pilgrim Pub. ^ | MARK A. MCNEIL

[xzins]

It's obvious that Charles Haddon Spurgeon was a premillennialist.

Not that he's the final word on things, but thought you'd be interested.

[Jerry_M]

You just proved my last point, over on the other thread. You really don't have anything better to do, do you?

[the_doc]

Spurgeon also admitted that eschatology was not his strong suit. And he actually avoided preaching his premillennial views.

In other words, the Lord was not pleased to bless Spurgeon with much detailed insight in millennial eschatology but was pleased to block any vigorous assertion by Spurgeon of the views which he did happen to hold.

[xzins]

My response from the other thread is also appropriate here:

I have started most of the eschatology threads in recent days at least. They've received fairly solid discussion.

A lot of times I do it to learn. I always do it to sharpen my understanding.

Isn't bible study the point of these threads?

[xzins]

I am certainly no Spurgeon scholar, but many hold him as a very significant Christian in the history of the church.

I do think his bible knowledge was so broad that his opinions must be taken seriously. There's no requirement to bow to Spurgeon's opinions on any subject, but it would be wrong to say his opinions were ill considered. (Even on election.)

Jerry asked an earlier question about the impact of millennial views. I have an article on that subject that I'll shortly post. (I'm a military retiree on an outstanding pension....today's my day off -- and so is tomorrow -- ...I have nothing better to do. ROTFLOL!!)

[the_doc]

As a follow-up, I would offer an amplification.

If you look at the texts which Spurgeon preached from the Book of Revelations, you will discover that he ordinarily just looked for evangelistic applications. He ordinarily did not do what today's prophecy preachers do--which is to elucidate zillions of doctrinal details concerning the supposed future millennium.

He specifically loathed the prevailing practice of trying to "peep between the folded leaves of destiny." He called his own era's speculations concerning Europe's position in the Lord's timetable as "the veriest drivel, mere bones for dogs." He said that the people who thought they had any of the details worked out for the timing of the Lord's return were destined for the inglorious revelation that they didn't know what they were talking about.

This is not to say that Spurgeon never presented his own position. He did. The article demonstrates that. But the article does not bring out the fact that Spurgeon admitted that eschatology was his weak suit.

(Having read Spurgeon's devotional Bible, I don't recall that he said very much at all about his millennial position in that devotional Bible.)

Another thing which the article does not bring out is that Spurgeon really was weak in eschatology. He seriously irked conservative preachers by endorsing one of the most monstrous books ever written on the topic of eschatology.

I am referring here to James Stuart Russell's infamous book The Parousia. This is the most famous defense of full preterism. It really is an incredibly nasty book of exhaustively stupid interpretations.

Spurgeon did not agree with the full preterist position, but he said that the book was interesting and harmless. But it's actually nauseating and dangerous.

[the_doc]

My bottom-line point is that we'd better follow Sola Scriptura. Spurgeon's premillennialism is actually a trap for carnal Christians--i.e., for those who don't really follow Sola Scriptura.

[xzins]

The meaning of our text, as opened up by the context, is most evidently, if words mean anything, first, that there shall be a political restoration of the Jews to their own land and to their own nationality; and then, secondly, there is in the text, and in the context, a most plain declaration, that there shall be a spiritual restoration, a conversion in fact, of the tribes of Israel.

This is the part that struck me.

This is dispensational....at least aligned with the fact that promises were made to Israel that must be honored.

[editor-surveyor]

"Isn't bible study the point of these threads?"

It should be plain for all to see that there are those among us who esteem themselves sufficiently that they feel no need for further study.

To the A-mil, and similar Israel replacers, I wish to remind you of Isaiah ch. 11

" 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea."

Does anyone seriously believe that these conditions exist? - These are still future events, before the great war over Jerusalem.

[kjam22]

It's obvious that Charles Haddon Spurgeon was a premillennialist.

LOL. I can think of a few around here who will not appreciate you saying that about their hero!

I do appreciate you starting eschatology threads now and then. They are always interesting reads.... and gives us the opportunity to clarify differences and agreements we have with others.

[xzins]

Editor, something just dawned on me after I posted to doc a few posts up. I'd copy/pasted this:

The meaning of our text, as opened up by the context, is most evidently, if words mean anything, first, that there shall be a political restoration of the Jews to their own land and to their own nationality; and then, secondly, there is in the text, and in the context, a most plain declaration, that there shall be a spiritual restoration, a conversion in fact, of the tribes of Israel.

And then it hit me.

Spurgeon wrote that in 1865 or so.

Israel was NOT at that point restored to their identity and their land. In fact, that didn't happen until about 80 years AFTERWARDS, and AFTER Spurgeon's death!

Spurgeon was looking to the FUTURE for that event.

And, HALELUJAH!!...It occurred according to the power of God EXACTLY as Spurgeon's PREMILLENIAL view of his beloved BIBLE said it would.

[xzins]

I do appreciate you starting eschatology threads now and then. They are always interesting reads.... and gives us the opportunity to clarify differences and agreements we have with others

Thanks. I, too, like to discuss the whole bible. Eschatology is part of our bible (a huge part, actually.)

There are all kinds of other topics we haven't touched on these threads.

We've been so hung up on predestination/free will that we haven't even begun to do justice to the vast reservoir of revelation given us in God's Book! Thanks for the kind words.

[the_doc]

This is dispensational....

Relax. It is also the position of many amills and many postmills.

***

You are starting in the wrong place. You are making the same mistake which Spurgeon made. (Remember: Spurgeon did not know what to make of the position of the heretical full preterists. He really was confused.)

Before you start tackling the details of millennial prophecy, you need to figure out what the millennium IS.

And the passage which defines the millennium is in ONE place in the Bible. And when we let clear Scriptures interpret more obscure Scriptures--which principle, of course, is one of the most important principles of hermeneutics--we discover that John 5 is the clear text which interprets Revelation 20.

Furthermore, John 5 does not merely offer amillennialism as an interpretive option for Revelation 20. Heck, John 5 demands it. John 5 flatly contradicts the premillennial position.

The reason why Spurgeon was so confused--even to the point of endorsing Russell's book as interesting and harmless--is because he never noticed all of the implications of John 5.

[the_doc]

Please see my #14.

[xzins]

There's a whole discussion on the 2 resurrections over on the church/israel thread.

The basic point is that Rev 20 clearly states 2 resurrections that are separated by a thousand years. These control John 5; not the other way around.

And those who hold the Rev 20 view don't have to run around trying to argue that satan is imprisoned (an absurd notion) during the here and now.

[editor-surveyor]

"Spurgeon wrote that in 1865 or so."

And it needs to be noted that the commentaries by Darby, and Scofield were written long before the fulfillments occurred, and essentially as they interpreted them.

These were true men of God, who were guided by the Holy Spirit to show the people of their day the correct reading of God's word. - It is the words of their detractors that are a demonic trap.

[BibChr]

The heart-rending thing is, if these good brothers read soteriological or Christological passages the same way they read prophetic passages, they'd all be universalistic pantheists -- or worse.

I know from experience. I was in a New Age cult when the Lord saved me in 1973. It was approaching the Scripture along the lines of plain-sense ("literal") hermeneutics that led to my salvation.

When I later learned that there were Christians who approached Biblical prophecy exactly as I had done in my cultic days ("'Israel' doesn't really mean 'Israel' -- no no, it has a deeper meaning...."), I was shocked.

Guess I still am.

Dan
Biblical Christianity web site

[connectthedots]

I find it interesting that a few Calvinists on this thread question Spurgeon on his view of the Millennium, yet rush to use his quotes to support their extremist Calvinism views.

Personally, I think Spurgeon was wise to note that time spent pondering the millennium would be better used to spread the Gospel.

[editor-surveyor]

I don't see what you seem to in John 5, but it is a fact that the Gospel was written many years before the Apocalypse, and it is Rev. 20 that interprets the ideas of John 5, not the reverse.