Spurgeon's View of the MILLENNIUM

Pilgrim Pub. ^ | MARK A. MCNEIL

[CCWoody]

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.

Hey, Jerry, with arguments like this for your position, I'd stay on the sidelines as well.

Of course, you know that my goal this year was not to find an eschatological view, but to discover what the gospel is.

I just happen to believe that Christ must reign [over the kingdom of God] until He has put all enemies under His feet. And the end will come when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father and He will put an end to all rule and all authority and power.

It is a pity, though, as input from our thoughtful PreMill group would be nice....

[xzins]

i'm not jerry????

[the_doc]

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.

Another LIE, xzins. There are two parts to your lie.

Revelation 20 does not say that the resurrections are separated by a thousand years. You have merely presupposed that the first resurrection is a literal mass resurrections. But you can't even begin to prove that.

The problem is, Revelation 20 does not say that the first resurrection is a punctiliar episode. It is a phenomenon, but this does not make it a single (punctiliar) episode.

The whole thing is funny to the person who sees why you are confused. Heck, it's not an accident that you are confused. (See Psalm 2:4!)

I am sure you don't like for me to say that, but I am going on record that you incessantly scoff at the amills and you pontificate by accusing me of same--but this is merely because the Lord's trap has worked in your case. You were manifestly appointed to stumble in your carelessness, in your disrespect for God's Word.

Although Revelation 20 can be read in the amillennial way I have described above, John 5:28-29 can't be read as premillennial. Thus, John 5:25-29 doesn't merely offer a spiritually sensible explanation of the only passage in the Bible which explicitly refers to the millennium, it also rules out the premillennial interpretation of that same passage.

In other words, John 5:28-29 CLEARLY CONTRADICTS the premill theory for Revelation 20. You would see this if you weren't so carnally stubborn (1 Corinthians 3 again!).

You need to wake up and smell the coffee. Your hermeneutical judgment is TERRIBLE.

So, the second part of the LIE is your flatfooted claim that Revelation 20 controls John 5. This is idiotic, friend. But it is typical of the careless premills' hermeneutical confusion!

(And your lame comment about the binding of Satan is lame to the point of being blasphemous. Satan cannot prevent the spread of the gospel to the Gentile nations. Although that is a monumentally significant thing, worthy of mention in the prophetic vision, that's also ALL it is. [Ah, but you were appointed to stumble over that point, too. It's all part of a LOVELY trap.])

[xzins]

that's ridiculous.

John 5 reads BEST in a 2 resurrection, Rev 20 way.

And I don't have to run about trying to defend the indefensible.....that satan is currently imprisoned and that we are now in Christ's millenial age of peace.

I'll ask you again: according to the amil philosophy, what is it that satan is NOT able to do? Specifically.

[RnMomof7]

Spurgeon's premillennialism is actually a trap for carnal Christians--i.e., for those who don't really follow Sola Scriptura.

Come on doc.....LOL

[RnMomof7]

The restoration of Israel kills the AMil position xzings..Funny I was just thinking about that earlier today...you are right .

[the_doc]

You misunderstood my point. Revelation 20 is evidently cryptic. The fact that it came later doesn't offset that.

John 5:28-29 is explicit in affirming that there is one literal mass resurrection of all souls. There is a single occasion of judgment for unbelievers and believers at that time. (This is the reason why the goats will have to be separated from the sheep.)

And 2 Peter 3 definitely teaches that when the Lord returns, He will not usher in a materialistic millennium. On the contrary, He will destroy the world in a veritable flood of fire. (According to Peter, that's precisely the reason why He hasn't returned. Peter's language even alludes to the thousand years which Revelation 20 also mentions, and Peter says we are in that thousand years of the Lord's patience RIGHT NOW--which, of course, is the amillennial position rigorously derived from John 5:25-28.)

Premillennialism is a bigger mess than the premills have noticed. I say it's one of the nastier frauds in the history of Christianity.

We mustn't play games with the Scriptures. Even Spurgeon was not sober enough to see the mess he was leading people into.

(To his credit, he did not preach his premillennial views very vigorously--which is unlike some of the carnal Christian pastors we have in our day! They think getting people to become premills is the same as getting them converted to Christ. A lot of folks are going to be deceived in this. This is why LaHaye's books are ultimately very dangerous. By a decoy effect, many, many nominal churchgoers will stop short of real conversion. To use the Lord's Own language, they won't even FIND the narrow doorway of repentance unto life.)

[RnMomof7]

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.

I had a Christian friend with a Scofileld that pre dated WWII and I read his notes on the "prophecy" of the restoration of Israel...I was in awe..Our God is faithful and true to His word...and His word prophesied the return....That is not AMIl...

[RnMomof7]

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.

Connect...we are not mind numbed robots .We have areas of disagreement ...but we can all read the plain truth of election..we do not need Spurgeon to do that

[RnMomof7]

Hey Woody it was not long ago that you were pretty much without a position on all this stuff. Did the word of God change your mind or the power of personalities?

[the_doc]

Ah, dear sister, you really need to notice that I'm not laughing--and also why I'm not laughing.

The burden of responsibility which rests on a minister is EXTRAORDINARILY SERIOUS.

The fact is, when a Spurgeon messes up, some rather carnal dolts will trust him--and think they are trusting God's Word. (Shades of Papism, there!)

1 Corinthians 3 tells them not to make this mistake. But some folks are too carnal to hear the warnings of 1 Corinthians 3--which, of course, is one of the warnings inherent in 1 Corinthians 3.

That little irony reminds the thoughtful Christian that the whole mess is under the Lord's control. So, errors propagated by ministers are God-ordained traps. (It therefore behooves you to figure out WHETHER my postion is correct. Ah, but you haven't been willing to do that yet, have you?)

[RnMomof7]

It therefore behooves you to figure out WHETHER my postion is correct. Ah, but you haven't been willing to do that yet, have you?)

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh shades of a year ago:>)

I have read the threads more or less...some points to both sides...

I tend to agree with Pastor Jerry on this one...this is in the long run not a matter of salvation or living out our walks..BUT it is a trap set to divide and conquer the Calvinists...and uses the best of us (Spurgeon) as a weapon....

Good tactical move....

[the_doc]

John 5 reads BEST in a 2 resurrection, Rev 20 way.

Of course. But the "2 resurrection, Rev 20 way" definitely is the amillennial way.

My goodness, the ONLY two resurrections mentioned in John 5:25-29 are:

1) regeneration-unto-conversion--which is not a single event, but a phenomenon taking place throughout the gospel era (John 5:25); and

2) the single bodily resurrection of all the physically dead at the time of the single Judgment of believers and unbelievers (John 5:28-29).

The take-home point, for those who have wisdom, is that John 5:29 does not permit two worldwide bodily resurrection episodes. You have to LIE to fit a thousand years between the postulated literal, mass resurrection episodes.

IT RIGOROUSLY FOLLLOWS FROM THIS THAT THE FIRST RESURRECTION IN REVELATION 20 IS NOT A LITERAL RESURRECTION, BUT IS, INSTEAD,THE VERY THING WHICH THE LORD IS TALKING ABOUT IN JOHN 5:25.

This is not spiruitual rocket science. But it requires the kind of sobriety which carnal Christians just don't have.

And I don't have to run about trying to defend the indefensible.....that satan is currently imprisoned and that we are now in Christ's millenial age of peace.

Hey, I am at peace. I am seated with Christ on His throne right now.

I'll ask you again: according to the amil philosophy, what is it that satan is NOT able to do? Specifically.

Satan can do whatever God permits him to do. That includes fostering the premillennial lie, of course.

But he cannot block the spread of the gospel to Gentile nations.

[rdb3]

BUT it is a trap set to divide and conquer the Calvinists...and uses the best of us (Spurgeon) as a weapon....

Good point.

Premil, postmil, or amil, when is Christ coming back?

When the Father gives the nod.

Good enough for me.

[ksen]

The fact is, when a Spurgeon messes up, some rather carnal dolts will trust him--and think they are trusting God's Word. (Shades of Papism, there!)

The fact is, when a Spurgeon Calvin messes up, some rather carnal dolts will trust him--and think they are trusting God's Word. (Shades of Papism, there!)

[the_doc]

to divide and conquer the Calvinists...and uses the best of us (Spurgeon) as a weapon....Good tactical move....

This is PRECISELY why I will LOUDLY affirm that Spurgeon was NOT very good in eschatology, and why I point out that he even gave a pleasantly boneheaded endorsement to one of the more evil books ever written on eschatology.

I have a very, very high regard for Spurgeon. But I will deliberately knock him off the pedestal when I think there may be silly Spurgeonolators present.

Spurgeon himself would insist that I do so, of course.

[CCWoody]

Hey Woody it was not long ago that you were pretty much without a position on all this stuff. Did the word of God change your mind or the power of personalities?

Actually, ignoring the little jab, I figured out what the gospel really is; the kingdom of God. Christ must reign (now, today) until He has put all enemies under His feet.

Of course, I have desired to see intelligent arguments from both views so that I can make sure that this view is defensible with the Scriptures. Unfortunately, as you have seen the Premill arguments have not been intelligently put together. This is why I lament that our thoughtful Premills don't want to post--understandably so.

[RnMomof7]

You are wrong woody...:>)))

[sola gracia]

Spurgeon was an "historical Premillenialist." He believed in the mediatorial reign of Christ so we can have fellowship. He was certainly anti-Darby so he opposed dispensationalism - he hated it with a passion. "Darbyites" was his term for them.

[RnMomof7]

When the Father gives the nod. Good enough for me.

me too rdb...