Posted on 09/12/2002 7:19:20 AM PDT by xzins
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.