Spurgeon's View of the MILLENNIUM

Pilgrim Pub. ^ | MARK A. MCNEIL

[xzins]

---

CONFUSED ABOUT SPURGEON'S PROPHETIC VIEWS?

— WELL, NO LONGER!  HERE IS...

. Charles Haddon Spurgeon's VIEW OF THE
MILLENNIUM
	Annotated Summary by
	MARK A. MCNEIL

"I am not now going into millennial theories, or into any speculation as to dates. I do not know anything at all about such things, and I am not sure that I am called to spend my time in such researches. I am rather called to minister the gospel than to open prophecy. Those who are wise in such things doubtless prize their wisdom, but I have not the time to acquire it, nor any inclination to leave soul-winning pursuits for less arousing themes. I believe it is a great deal better to leave many of these promises, and many of these gracious out-looks of believers, to exercise their full force upon our minds, without depriving them of their simple glory by aiming to discover dates and figures. Let this be settled, however, that if there be meaning in words, Israel is yet to be restored. Israel is to have a SPIRITUAL RESTORATION or a CONVERSION."

[from The Restoration & Conversion of the Jews MTP Vol 10, Year 1864, pg. 429, Ezekiel 37:1-10 (age 30)]

INTRODUCTION

There has been some considerable difference of opinion regarding the position that C. H. Spurgeon, the great Baptist preacher from the 19th century, held in the area of Eschatology — regarding the doctrine of the Millennium. Each of the three major divisions within this area of doctrine have proponents who claim Spurgeon as one of their own. Many times authors claim a different millennial view than what Spurgeon actually believed.

It is not our task to sort out the arguments for each view. Such an assignment would take a very large volume (many are available) and the issue would still not be solved for all. We would simply like to define the basic positions and then demonstrate from Spurgeon's own words which one view he held.

PREMILLENNIALISM

The first view regarding the Millennium is that of PREMILLENNIALISM. The prefix, "Pre," denotes "before." The prefix is telling us at what point in relationship to the millennium that Christ will come. This view holds that our Lord will Literally return before a 1,000-year reign of Christ begins. The millennium of Revelation 20 is taken to be literal. If not literal, it at least is speaking of an indefinite period of time following the coming of Christ during which there will be perfect peace on the earth.

Within the premillennialist camp, there have come to be two identifiable views: the "dispensationalist" position, and the "historic" position. For further information defending each of these views, one should consult Reese's The Approaching Advent of Christ [historic] and Dwight Pentecost's Things to Come [dispensational]. Though the differences between the two are important, it is not within the scope of our purpose here to delve into such matters.

AMILLENNIALISM

The second view is called AMILLENNIALISM, or sometimes called "realized eschatology". The prefix, "A-," means "no". This would suggest that those who hold this view do not believe in a millennium. This is somewhat misleading, however. This view is the the product of a consistent Spiritual interpretation of prophetic literature. To those, the millennium is not some future physical reign, but the present reign of Christ in the hearts of believers. The "millennium" is an indefinite period of time (the present age) after which Christ will physically return. Prophecy in the Church, by Oswald Allis, is a standard work for the amillennial position.

This is the position of the Roman Catholic Church, also many other Protestant denominations. It grew out of St. Augustine's spiritualizing of these issues in his writings, and the tendency of many early Christian writers to see the Church as the "new Israel" and therefore the recipient of the promises of the Old Testament for the Jewish nation. Those who hold this view do not speak of the millennium as a future happening.  It is, to them, a Present Reality.

POSTMILLENNIALISM

The third, and last, major view is that of POSTMILLENNIALISM. The prefix "Post" speaks of "after." This teaching promotes the view that the physical return of Christ will Follow an actual millennium. The influence of Christianity will over-take the world for an extended period of time, then Christ will return.

This view appears to be a mixture of the principles that work to produce the first two views. It is not consistently spiritual or literal in its interpretation of the prophetic material relevant to this issue. Perhaps the foremost writing for this position today is The Millennium, by Loraine Boettner.

Spurgeon's VIEW  

With basic definitions before us, then, let's look at some quotes from Spurgeon to see what his position was on the Millennium.

"If I read the word aright, and it is honest to admit that there is much room for difference of opinion here, the day will come, when the Lord Jesus will descend from heaven with a shout, with the trump of the archangel and the voice of God. Some think that this descent of the Lord will be Post-millennial — that is, 'after the thousand years' of his reign. I CANNOT THINK SO. I conceive that the advent will be PRE-millennial — that He will come first; and then will come the millennium as the result of his personal reign upon earth. But whether or no, this much is the fact, that Christ will suddenly come, come to reign, and come to judge the earth in righteousness." [from Justification & Glory MTP Vol 11, Year 1865, pg. 249, Romans 8:30 (age 31)]

Spurgeon here specifically identifies the Postmillennial view with a clear DENIAL of any adherence to it! Those who attempt to claim Spurgeon for this viewpoint do not demonstrate their contention by referring to clear comparisons such as this one. They rather go to sermons not specifically dealing with both positions and pull out of them ideas that are "compatible" with Postmillennial thinking. This is a faulty way of proving a point, however* — especially when they meet squarely with a Spurgeon statement like the one above, and those below.

*NOTE: Furthur, a few postmillennialists (especially GARY NORTH), are guilty of misrepresenting Spurgeon constantly in articles and books; NORTH has repeatedly alleged that "Spurgeon was Postmillennial" — yet neither his supplied quotations "say" so, and/or he deliberately does not present a statement by Spurgeon that North will speculate "implies" a Postmillennial position. Our advice is to ignore anything North states regarding Spurgeon's views and Prophecy!

Again, consider Spurgeon's View here in light of 'Postmillennial' teaching...

"Paul does not paint the future with rose-colour: he is no smooth-tongued prophet of a golden age, into which this dull earth may be imagined to be glowing. There are sanguine brethren who are looking forward to everything growing better and better and better, until, at last, this present age ripens into a millennium. They will not be able to sustain their hopes, for Scripture gives them no solid basis to rest upon. We who believe that there will be no millennial reign without the King, and who expect no rule of righteousness except from the appearing of the righteous Lord, are nearer the mark. Apart from the second Advent of our Lord, the world is more likely to sink into a pandemonium than to rise into a millennium. A divine interposition seems to me the hope set before us in Scripture, and, indeed, to be the only hope adequate to the occasion. We look to the darkening down of things; the state of mankind, however improved politically, may yet grow worse and worse spiritually." [from The Form of Godliness Without the Power MTP Vol 35, Year 1889, pg. 301, 2 Timothy 3:5 (age 54)]

"We are to expect the literal advent of Jesus Christ, for he himself by his angel told us, 'This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven,' which must mean literally and in person. We expect a reigning Christ on earth; that seems to us to be very plain, and to be put so literally that we dare not spiritualise it. We anticipate a first and a second resurrection; a first resurrection of the righteous, and a second resurrection of the ungodly, who shall be judged, condemned, and punished for ever by the sentence of the great King." [from Things to Come MTP Vol 15, Year 1869, pg. 329, 1 Corinthians 3:22 (age 35)]

Here, stress is laid upon the Literal Nature of the second coming.  Also, after this literal return is stressed a reigning upon the earth.

"We have done once for all with the foolish ideas of certain of the early heretics, that Christ's appearance upon earth was but a phantom. We know that he was really, personally, and physically here on earth. But it is not quite so clear to some persons that he is to come really, personally, and literally, the second time. I know there are some who are labouring to get rid of the fact of a personal reign, but as I take it, the coming and the reign are so connected together, that we must have a spiritual coming if we are to have a spiritual reign. Now we believe and hold that Christ shall come a second time suddenly, to raise his saints at the first judgment, and they shall reign with him afterwards. The rest of the dead live not till after the thousand years are finished. Then shall they rise from their tombs at the sounding of the trumpet, and their judgment shall come and they shall receive the deeds which they have done in their bodies." [from The Two Advents of Christ MTP Vol 8, Year 1862, pg. 39, Hebrews 9:27-28 (age 28)]

[from The Sinner's End MTP Vol 8, Year 1862, pgs. 712-713, Psalms 73:17-18 (age 28)], Spurgeon is discussing the final condition of the sinner — "Let us go on to consider their end. The day of days, that dreadful day has come. The millennial rest is over, the righteous have had their thousand years of glory upon earth."

In the quotes above, the order of events fits perfectly the PREmillennial point of view. The final end of the sinner is faced after the righteous have enjoyed a thousand years with Christ.

.
	"Our Hope is the Personal PRE-MILLENNIAL RETURN of the   Lord Jesus Christ in Glory."
	— August 1891, age 58

Of the various articles and writings by those who deny the conclusion that we feel is obvious, none that I have found bases itself on the same type of quotes we have produced (many others could have been given — see those that follow). To the contrary, their's are based on "interpreting" Spurgeon's statements apart from such quotes that we have given.

.

We feel safe in concluding, then,

that of the three views we began with,

Spurgeon expressly states that he believes in a

Literal Return of Jesus Christ

BEFORE

a Literal Millennium on the Earth.

———————————————————————————

.

Written by Mark A. McNeil (Houston TX USA), B.A., M.A., & PhD. Student

Author of An Evaluation of the 'Oneness Pentecostal' Movement

$3 + $1 shipping — Published by Pilgrim Publications

— also Read C. H. SPURGEON on "PRETERISM" <<< Click Link

  Join our company... Psalm 68:11 "The Lord gave the WORD:

Great was the COMPANY of those that PUBLISHED it."

Please, Copy this article, pass it on, and mail to others.

Permission granted by Bob L. Ross — No Copyright

NOTES OF INTEREST

Watching and Waiting Magazine

                                          by C. W. H. Griffiths

Published by Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony

1 Donald Way, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 9JB United Kingdom

Stephen A. Toms, secretary

— Write and Request the Complete Article            

From the Summer 1990 issue of this magazine, C. W. H. Griffiths states Spurgeon "was a valued standard bearer for historic Pre-millennialism," and then presents an excellent article defending his Pre-millennial position.

Documenting additional quotations which we have added and expanded below —

Spurgeon (age 43) — There is moreover to be a reign of Christ. I cannot read the Scriptures without perceiving that there is to be a pre-millennial reign, as I believe, upon the earth and that there shall be new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness...

Spurgeon (age 49) — Then all His people who are alive at the time of His coming shall be suddenly transformed, so as to be delivered from all the frailties and imperfections of their mortal bodies: The dead shall be raised incorruptible and we shall be changed. Then we shall be presented spirit, soul, and body without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; in the clear and absolute perfection of our sanctified manhood, presented unto Christ Himself.

Spurgeon (age 50) — When the Lord comes there will be no more death; we who are alive and remain (as some of us may be — we cannot tell) will undergo a sudden transformation — for flesh and blood, as they are, cannot inherit the kingdom of God — and by that transformation our bodies shall be made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.

Spurgeon (age 52) — His coming will cause great sorrow. What does the text say about his coming? All kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him. Then this sorrow will be very general.

Spurgeon (age 30) [from The Restoration & Conversion of the Jews MTP Vol 10, Year 1864, pgs. 427-430, Ezekiel  37:1-10] — Under the preaching of the Word the vilest sinners can be reclaimed, the most stubborn wills can be subdued, the most unholy lives can be sanctified. When the holy "breath" comes from the four winds, when the divine Spirit descends to own the Word, then multitudes of sinners, as on Pentecost's hallowed day, stand up upon their feet, an exceeding great army, to praise the Lord their God. But, mark you, this is not the first and proper interpretation of the text; it is indeed nothing more than a very striking parallel case to the one before us. It is not the case itself; it is only a similar one, for the way in which God restores a nation is, practically, the way in which he restores an individual. The way in which Israel shall be saved is the same by which any one individual sinner shall be saved. It is not, however, the one case which the prophet is aiming at; he is looking at the vast mass of cases, the multitudes of instances to be found among the Jewish people, of gracious quickening, and holy resurrection. His first and primary intention was to speak of them, and though it is right and lawful to take a passage in its widest possible meaning, since "no Scripture is of private interpretation," yet I hold it to be treason to God's Word to neglect its primary meaning, and constantly to say — "Such-and-such is the primary meaning, but it is of no consequence, and I shall use the words for another object." The preacher of God's truth should not give up the Holy Ghost's meaning; he should take care that he does not even put it in the back ground. The first meaning of a text, the Spirit's meaning, is that which would be brought out first, and though the rest may fairly spring out of it, yet the first sense should have the chief place. Let it have the uppermost place in the synagogue, let it be looked upon as at least not inferior, either in interest or importance, to any other meaning which may come out of the text.

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.

The promise is that they shall renounce their idols, and, behold, they have already done so. "Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols." Whatever faults the Jew may have besides, he certainly has no idolatry. "The Lord thy God is one God," is a truth far better conceived by the Jew than by any other man on earth except the Christian. Weaned for ever from the worship of all images, of whatever sort, the Jewish nation has now become infatuated with traditions or duped by philosophy. She is to have, however, instead of these delusions, a spiritual religion: she is to love her God. "They shall be my people, and I will be their God." The unseen but omnipotent Jehovah is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth by his ancient people; they are to come before him in his own appointed way, accepting the Mediator whom their sires rejected; coming into covenant relation with God, for so our text tells us — "I will make a covenant of peace with them," and Jesus is our peace, therefore we gather that Jehovah shall enter into the covenant of grace with them, that covenant of which Christ is the federal head, the substance, and the surety. They are to walk in God's ordinances and statutes, and so exhibit the practical effects of being united to Christ who hath given them peace. All these promises certainly imply that the people of Israel are to be converted to God, and that this conversion is to be permanent, for the tabernacle of God is to be with them, the Most High is, in an especial manner, to have his sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore; so that whatever nations may apostatize and turn from the Lord in these latter days, the nation of Israel never can, for she shall be effectually and permanently converted, the hearts of the fathers shall be turned with the hearts of the children unto the Lord their God, and they shall be the people of God, world without end.

We look forward, then, for these two things. I am not going to theorize upon which of them will come first, whether they shall be restored first, and converted afterwards, or converted first, and then restored. They are to be restored, and they are to be converted too. Let the Lord send these blessings in his own order, and we shall be well content whichever way they shall come. We take this for our joy and our comfort, that this thing shall be, and that both in the spiritual and in the temporal throne, the King Messiah shall sit, and reign among his people gloriously.

Spurgeon (age 30) [from The Lamb — the Light MTP Vol 10, Year 1864, pg. 439, Revelation 21:23] — (Spurgeon says of the millennial earth), They shall not say one to another, "Know the Lord: for all shall know him, from the least to the greatest." There may be even in that period certain solemn assemblies and Sabbath-days, but they will not be of the same kind as we have now; for the whole earth will be a temple, every day will be a Sabbath, the avocations of men will all be priestly, they shall be a nation of priests — distinctly so, and they shall day without night serve God in his temple, so that everything to which they set their hand shall be a part of the song which shall go up to the Most High. Oh! blessed day. Would God it had dawned, when these temples should be left, because the whole world should be a temple for God. But whatever may be the splendours of that day — and truly here is a temptation to let our imagination revel — however bright may be the walls set with chalcedony and amethyst, however splendid the gates which are of one pearl, whatever may be the magnificence set forth by the "streets of gold," this we know, that the sum and substance, the light and glory of the whole will be the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, "for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." Now, I want the Christian to meditate over this. In the highest, holiest, and happiest era that shall ever dawn upon this poor earth, Christ is to be her light. When she puts on her wedding garments, and adorns herself as a bride is adorned with jewels, Christ is to be her glory and her beauty. There shall be no ear-rings in her ears made with other gold than that which cometh from his mine of love; there shall be no crown set upon her brow fashioned by any other hand than his hands of wisdom and of grace. She sits to reign, but it shall be upon his throne; she feeds, but it shall be upon his bread; she triumphs, but it shall be because of the might which ever belongs to him who is the Rock of Ages. Come then, Christian, contemplate for a moment thy beloved Lord. Jesus, in a millennial age, shall be the light and the glory of the city of the new Jerusalem. Observe then, that Jesus makes the light of the millennium, because his presence will be that which distinguishes that age from the present. That age is to be akin to paradise. Paradise God first made upon earth, and paradise God will last make. Satan destroyed it; and God will never have defeated his enemy until he has re-established paradise, until once again a new Eden shall bless the eyes of God's creatures. Now, the very glory and privilege of Eden I take to be not the river which flowed through it with its four branches, nor that it came from the land of Havilah which hath dust of gold — I do not think the glory of Eden lay in its grassy walks, or in the boughs bending with luscious fruit — but its glory lay in this, that the "Lord God walked in the garden in the cool of the day." Here was Adam's highest privilege, that he had companionship with the Most High. In those days angels sweetly sang that the tabernacle of God was with man, and that he did dwell amongst them. Brethren, the paradise which is to be regained for us will have this for its essential and distinguishing mark, that the Lord shall dwell amongst us. This is the name by which the city is to be called — Jehovah Shammah, the Lord is there. It is true we have the presence of Christ in the Church now — "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." We have the promise of his constant indwelling: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." But still that is vicariously by his Spirit, but soon he is to be personally with us. That very man who once died upon Calvary is to live here. He — that same Jesus — who was taken up from us, shall come in like manner as he was taken up from the gazers of Galilee. Rejoice, rejoice, beloved, that he comes, actually and really comes; and this shall be the joy of that age, that he is among his saints, and dwelleth in them, with them, and talketh and walketh in their midst.

"If I read the word aright, and it is honest to admit that there is much room for difference of opinion here, the day will come, when the Lord Jesus will descend from heaven with a shout, with the trump of the archangel and the voice of God. Some think that this descent of the Lord will be Post-millennial — that is, 'after the thousand years' of his reign. I CANNOT THINK SO. I conceive that the advent will be PRE-millennial — that He will come first; and then will come the millennium as the result of his personal reign upon earth. But whether or no, this much is the fact, that Christ will suddenly come, come to reign, and come to judge the earth in righteousness." [from Justification & Glory MTP Vol 11, Year 1865, pg. 249, Romans 8:30 (age 31)]

[Matchett-PI]

So I was right. LOL

[the_doc]

In my previous post, I maintained that 2 Peter 3 is an extraordinarily serious text. I used the mess which the full-preterists are in to illustrate its seriousness. I pointed out that Peter is warning people who don’t seem to have any faculty for hearing his warnings.

In effect, they are scoffing at Peter.

***

As an important aside, let me point out that I conceded that even heretics like the full-preterists sometimes grasp some things in the Bible. They just get a bad case of brain-fog in the really crucial areas.

Remember: James Stuart Russell was correct in pointing out that the Bible itself definitely caused the people of the apostolic period to hope that the Lord would return for them soon. But Russell never figured out what that idea of soonness meant. Russell had zillions of proof-texts for his position, but Peter bluntly overrules Russell’s overall interpretation. (It’s actually rather funny when you think about it.)

Am I saying that Russell ignored 2 Peter 3? You bet I am.

Am I saying that Russell did not even expound 2 Peter 3? No, he definitely did expound it. But he expounded it in a completely asinine way which ultimately IGNORED what Peter was saying.

Again, Russell was a scoffer. And by his carnal stupidity in the way he “interpreted” 2 Peter 3, Russell really was scoffing at Peter.

***

I want you to see from all of this stuff that eschatological scoffing is damnably serious. And since the premills often claim that the amills are ungodly eschatological scoffers--and occasionally vice versa!—we ought to be willing to go to considerable lengths to find out which side is guilty of carnal scoffing.

I would also dare to suggest that the overall outline of the mess which the full-preterists like Russell are in should be used as the outline for our investigation. Specifically, we need to keep in mind that

1) Russell was CHARITABLY REGARDED by many if not most of his ministerial colleagues as a Christian, when he should have been quickly disiplined as a heretic. POINT: There really are eschatological scoffers within the professing Church. And the Church has not been apostolically bold in confronting them (not even the really BAD guys like smarmy, lying Mr. Russell).

In other words, the Church as a whole has not followed Peter’s apostolic lead in denouncing eschatological scoffers very much better than the scoffers themselves have followed Peter’s lead. We need to change this! That being the case, if anyone thinks that this millennial topic is too divisive for serious, even confrontational discussion, I say that they need to change their carnal minds. They need to be a whole lot more apostolic. (The really brattish folks are the ones who inscessantly gripe at any serious and Scripturally faithful discussion leader as surely just a decidedly awful troublemaker!)

2) Russell had ZILLIONS of proof-texts for his full-preterism. POINT: You can have lots of proof-texts and still miss the point of what these texts are saying. And I say that this is the case with either the premills or the amills in the present controversy. (I cheerfully admit that I am leaving out the post-mills. I am an amill, of course, and my really serious disagreement is with the premills. The sub-controversy between amills and post-mills can be worked out elsewhere. Besides, the amills and the post-mills are relatively close together anyway.)

3) Russell DID expound 2 Peter 3. But his exposition was asinine. He was just trying to expound 2 Peter 3 in a way which propped up his larger eschatological error. In this way, he ignored what Peter was really saying. POINT: One of the two factions in the present controversy between the premills and the amills is WRONG in its interpretation of 2 Peter 3. One of the two factions is being weirdly DISHONEST concerning what Peter is saying.

The really scary thing about this is that the bad interpretation of 2 Peter 3 is succeeding in the overall deception. There is a nasty party spirit which has made one of the parties carnally stupid in regard to what Peter is actually saying. (Hey, Russell’s goofy and much-too-smug followers also think his exposition of 2 Peter 3 is lovely--when it is nothing but sheer crap.)

***

I trust that you will appreciate my tedious approach. I will not continue to bash Russell incessantly in the remainder of my posts concerning 2 Peter 3. I just want you to realize that this investigation of the matter of eschatological scoffing is much too serious for treating as a chatty coffee-table discussion. By my willingness to attack Russell’s camp with all vigor, I want you to see that my approach to exposition is one of application. I say that we must not try to interpret Scripture in a way which is intellectually and spiritually isolated from the controversy we are trying to address.

To conclude this e-mail, I would say that I intend to key on my Point #3, presented above.

Why? It’s BECAUSE of what I said in my previous two points. We need to get SERIOUS about following Peter’s apostolic lead. We need to make sure we DON’T make the carnal mistake of bringing Biblically confused presuppositions to 2 Peter 3.

In other words, we need to figure out WHICH side in the present controversy is “interpreting” 2 Peter 3 in a way which inadvertently SCOFFS at what PETER is saying.

(Having framed the controversy in that way, you should already see that the amills are correct. No kidding. But some of you party-spirit folks are spiritually dull. No kidding [grin].)

More later.

[Jean Chauvin]

You are not answering Isaiah 65:22!

If this is obviously a description of the millennial kingdom...

(and your argument on that matter -1 Cor 15, Rev 5:10, Rev 20- is ~far~ from irrefutuable -LOL! -again, you yourself are not yet convinced, but you want to be so you are using these terms like "irrefutable" to attempt to convince yourself)

...and if ~God's~ people live forever beginning at their resurrection and or reception of glorified bodies, then why does Isaiah 65:22 tell us that God's people will live only as long as trees?????

This one really blew up in your face, x. Just face it! LOL!

You can't deal with the tense change in Rev 20:6.
You can't deal with that Rev 5:10 is speaking, not of 20:4,5, but of Rev 22:5.
You can't deal with the fact that the people who are alive in the body which John sees in 20:4 cannot possibly be participants in the Resurrection of the ~DEAD~ since they are not dead and the 'resurrection of the ~DEAD~ only happens to an individual who has died!
1 Cor 15 doesn't help you out in any way! LOL!
You've found the need to lie about the theology of the early church by claiming they were all Pre-Millennialists!

The arguments which you have so far presented are all rather silly and are leading me to the conclusion that you still have not been, in reality, convinced of pre-millennialism but are so desperate to convince yourself -thus you speak the way you speak -"irrefutable" et. al.

In otherwords, your claim of an "irrefutable argument" is classic projection! You are not yet convinced yourself, but you so desperately want to be that you intentionally misread passages like 2 Peter 3 and Isaiah 65 when they are quite clearly descriptions which contradict your desired Pre-Millennialism!

Jean

[the_doc]

Yuk (grin).

[the_doc]

Boy, you didn't understand anything he said, did you?

[Jean Chauvin]

"xzins, you are a great and funny guy, but sometimes the Calvinists just don't have anything on you when it comes to stubborn refusal to see things any way but your own."

That's why I'm coming to the conclusion that he has not yet convinced himself, but so desires to be convinced of Pre-Millennialism.

If you go back and read his arguments on this thread he is arguing as if he is convinced....THEN....he finds an artical that ~confirms~ his position (his "Millennium" thread) and he gets so very excited as if he is finally becoming convinced. Then he sees his arguments blow up in his face and he gets testy and calls the bible a "lie from the pit of hell"

If it were not so sad, it would be quite amusing!

Jean

[fortheDeclaration]

Jean Chauvin said: Isaiah 65:22 tells us that ~GOD'S~ people will live only as long as trees! You are preaching heresy!

Now, there's a shock!

[fortheDeclaration]

You have just reduced Christianity to myth! That is why amillennialism is the preferred teaching of religious liberals.

Amen!

[fortheDeclaration]

if He were on earth, He would not be a priest. So are you saying there is no 2nd Coming of Christ...that's he's not allowed to return to the earth?

Christ had three roles, Prophet, Priest and King.

He accomplished the first, is in the midst of the second and will fulfill the third at the Second Advent.

We move from an altar, to a table (Lord's Supper) to a Throne

[fortheDeclaration]

Isaiah mixes the Millennial reign with the eternal reign, as he does the First and Second advents (Isa.61:1-2 cf Lk 4:18).

The book of Revelation clarifies the order.

In Isa 65:20 you have not only death mentioned but sin, which cannot exist in the final New Heavens and Earth (a Kingdom of Righteousness).

Moreover, vs.22 is not speaking of 'death' but the length of time the Jews will inhabit the land.

The Tree metaphor is used to show a continual prosperity (Psa.1:3)

[JesseShurun]

Just that you would ask a question like this causes me to wonder what kind of church you are associated with. Surely not one that is spiritual and considers the command to be holy as God is holy, of any importance. As a disciple of Christ's, doing His will, should be your main focus. Every single day a disciple should pray constantly to do the Father's will. Christ taught that in the disciple's prayer. If you don't know this and/or don't do this, you are not in the Kingdom and so your wait, and your hope, is in vain.

[theAmbassador]

...(I gotta do it Ambassador)...

Hey, no problem. I had actually planned to handle it differently and come back to Isaiah 65, but it seems as if the Lord actually had something else in mind for xzins. It does appear at this point as if the Lord is removing His hand of restraint from xzins and allowing him to do that which is unfitting.

This actually demonstrates just how contemptibly some of these Premillennialists handle the Word. It takes someone carnally stupid to actually insist upon a literal reading of a passage and then call it a "lie from the pit of hell" when someone actually reads that passage the way the Premillennialists insists. I'm sure that all the lurkers out there are taking note of who is careful with the word and who gets a hair's width from actually Blaspheming the Word.

It should be a wake-up call for all Premillennialists to note just how warped it is to insist upon reading passages like Isaiah 65 the way that they do. It will blow up in their face every single time.

[xzins]

Amen! ftD!!

But amillennialism won't permit him to come back to earth, apparently. They say that he's now High Priest and cannot return.

Amillennialism teaches a symbolic satan, a symbolic return, a symbolic king, in a symbolic city.

All anyone can hope for with them is a "symbolic" salvation to a symbolic god. the musical instruments of choice in their symbolic heaven will, of course, be CYMBALS!!

[editor-surveyor]

"In response to the Pharisees, Christ specifically declared that the kingdom does not come visibly and gloriously (as the dispensational construction would have it!)"

A light has just come on in my noggin!

For weeks now I have been baffled by this debate between people who normally are in agreement here. Sometimes it is difficult to truly understand what others are thinking, no matter how much you read their posts. Here is what is hanging us up:

Some here are viewing the millenial reign as the same event as the Lord's Kingdom. - This is wrong, apples and oranges = fruit salad. - The Lord's Kingdom is eternal, and it did indeed begin 2000 years ago, but it is not the same as the millenial reign. - The millenial reign is a one day (one day = 1000 years) event here on Earth that has been foretold by the prophets of the OT as well as Peter, Paul and John. - Paul placed no definate length on it, while John gives it as 1000 years, and Peter, somewhat cryptically tells us that it will be 1000 years, but the point is that it is not the Kingdom. When it's over, it's over! OK?

[drstevej]

your response in incorrect and illogical. rethink it.

[xzins]

Let's clarify.

The dying from Is 65 happens where?

Jean said it happened in the new heavens and the new earth. That is heresy.

I said it happens to those still in earthly bodies during the millennial reign of Christ. That is biblical.

Are you on the side of dying taking place in the New Heavens and New Earth? Is that your biblical position? Or are you on the side of this being another "symbol?" The comedy of symbols of amillennialism. At the end, everything is a symbolic....heaven, earth, satan, trees, rivers, gold, angels, return, Christ, God.....all the way to symbolic salvation.

With your interpretive method it is no longer possible to interpret anything in the bible. Everytime a difficulty crops up.....just make it a symbol.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amillennialism teaches a symbolic satan, a symbolic return, a symbolic king, in a symbolic city.

That is because they are using a symoblic Bible.

[fortheDeclaration]

If the kingdom has already come, is His will now being done on earth as it is now being done in Heaven? -- Matthew 6:10

Well, dr. according to the more 'extreme' Calvinists it is, since they believe God has directly willed everything (good and bad) not allowing for a permissive will (as I believe you do)

[the_doc]

It takes someone carnally stupid to actually insist upon a literal reading of a passage and then call it a "lie from the pit of hell" when someone actually reads that passage the way the Premillennialists insists.

BUMP.

[fortheDeclaration]

Some here are viewing the millenial reign as the same event as the Lord's Kingdom. - This is wrong, apples and oranges = fruit salad. - The Lord's Kingdom is eternal, and it did indeed begin 2000 years ago, but it is not the same as the millenial reign. - The millenial reign is a one day (one day = 1000 years) event here on Earth that has been foretold by the prophets of the OT as well as Peter, Paul and John. - Paul placed no definate length on it, while John gives it as 1000 years, and Peter, somewhat cryptically tells us that it will be 1000 years, but the point is that it is not the Kingdom. When it's over, it's over! OK?

What you are really saying is that there are two aspects to the Kingdom.

There is the Kingdom of God which is a Spiritual kingdom (Rom.14:17) and the Kingdom of Heaven, a literal, physical kingdom, only mentioned to Israel in the book of Matthew as Christ was their Messiah.

The Kingdom of God is being built by the growth of the body of Christ the Church.

The Kingdom of Heaven, the literal physical rule of Christ as the Son of David will happen when He returns (Rev.19) and sets up His Millennial rule with His Church (His Bride)