Spurgeon's View of the MILLENNIUM

Pilgrim Pub. ^ | MARK A. MCNEIL

[xzins]

Effective....???? LOL!!

Guess you all still want to slice Rev 20 out of the bible like Woody suggested! That, m'lad, is hardly effective.

Premillennialism is irrefutable because of Rev 5, Rev 20, 1 Co 15. All you offer in response is "death in the new heavens and new earth" AND a "symbolic" rather than actual return of Jesus Christ.

[theAmbassador]

It is only irrefutable if you ignore every Biblical argument against it. I have 3 currently that you have completely ignored. #2642, 2646, 2694.

BTW, considering this so called "slice Rev 20 out of the bible"--you might want to consider that the 1000 years cruical to Premillennialism is a single witness. I was under the impression that 2 or 3 witnesses were needed to establish every word. Go figure my suprise that I just can't seem to find this all important 1000 years anywhere else in the Bible.

[Wrigley]

Ephesians 2:8

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

Its really too bad that you Mormons really don't believe that. Your salvation is based on works.

[irishtenor]

I have never, I repeat, NEVER heard a liberal of any religious stripe hold to an authentic Amil position. As to the word refute: You have refuted many thing on here, but have never proven anything.

[xzins]

There is a distinction between "refute" and "irrefutable." Refute can sometimes mean "to argue a point." However, to say something is "irrefutable" is to highlight "refute's" primary definition which is "to prove." Something can be "irrefutable" meaning "not able to be disproven."

There are very few things in life which are "unarguable." Even a lousy argument is an argument. Therefore, the secondary meaning of "refute" (to argue) really doesn't apply to the word "irrefutable."

[irishtenor]

To assert something and then to claim it as irrefutable (without proving it)is the height of arrogance. You have put your slant on a few verses and claim to know the truth. Others do the same, Amil, Post-mil, Preterist, etc (I am not just picking on you). You may say that you believe that it is true, but to claim it as the only truth is absurd. If I were a learned scholar (which I am not) even then I would say that it was my opinion, not the absolute truth.

[xzins]

Oh, come on, Irish, it ain't all that bad. There aren't many things in the bible that are irrefutable but this is one of them. (Another is eternal security....cannot be "disproven.") There's nothing arrogant about it at all; it's just a fact.

[irishtenor]

Gee, that's funny, my FACTS tell me Amil is correct. (See what I mean?) :>)

[RnMomof7]

(Another is eternal security....cannot be "disproven.") There's nothing arrogant about it at all; it's just a fact.

When was the premil/rapture doctrine first taught?

[winstonchurchill]

When was the premil/rapture doctrine first taught?

If they have the answer to yours, let them try this: "Who is John Nelson Darby and why is he important to you?" [Hint: He is the 'inventor' of dispensationalism.]

[xzins]

When was the premil/rapture doctrine first taught?

In the earliest church. It was the earliest doctrine of the church on this subject. Rn, way back early in this thread, Jean and I were trading quotes from Justin Martyr. Justin said he learned from John the facts we call today premillennialism.

Historical Premillennialism: This belief was held by a large percentage of Christians "during the first three centuries of the Christian era, and is found in the works of Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Methodius, Commodianus, and Lactanitus."

The Antichrist first appears on earth and the seven year Tribulation begins. Next comes the Rapture. Christ and his Church return to earth to rule for a Millennium. The forces of evil will be conquered. The faithful will live during this thousand years of peace in Jerusalem, while occupying spiritual bodies. After this period, all people are judged. The faithful will spend eternity on a new earth, (not in heaven). After Christianity became the official religion of Rome in the fourth century CE, this was declared a heresy and suppressed. 484 posted on 9/16/02 5:00 PM Eastern by RnMomof7 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

ksen post #980

Here is some grist for the mill:

It can not be refuted that the early Christian Church believed in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ that would occur after His 2nd coming. Barnabus, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Papius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hippolytus and Irenaeus, all espouced such views. These are the pre-nicene Church fathers, many of whom were students of the Apostles and were eventually martyred for Christ. This was the catacomb Church. Gieseler, a non-Chiliast himself, states in volume 1, page 66 of his book "Church History", that in all the writings of the first two centuries, Chiliasm comes so clearly to the fore that we may view it as the commonly held belief.

This view was not held in one limited geographical region, but it was the general understanding held throughout all Christendom. Justin in Palistine, Papius in Phrgia, Clement in Rome, Victorinus in Carthage, Hippoltyus and Lacanticus in Rome, Victorinus in Pettau, and so on. Chiliasm in the first three centuries was the teaching of the entire Church.

To determine why the doctrine of Millennialism was eventually rejected, we must first look at who spoke out against millennialism. This was primarily a Roman response. The bishop of Rome, Damasus, being first among equals had a particular desire to visualize the Church as Christ's Kingdom on earth. To suggest that the kingdom is yet to come, limits Holy Church to the role of martyr. But isn't that what we are called to be?

Damasus issued a proclamation against chiliasm. Jerome and Augustine were two Church Fathers who loudly proclaimed their rejection of the doctrine. One thing to keep in mind, is that Jerome was the secretary to Damasus. The fact that he and Damasus agreed, was not surprising. Augustine is noted for his departure from orthodoxy on many doctrines, in fact he is not recognized as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even so, they do accept his views on chiliasm. Origen is another early Father who is known to have many doctrinal errors attributed to him, yet the Eastern Church quotes him in his rejection of this doctrine.

On what basis is the doctrine of Chiliasm denounced? Was it rejected on the basis of a sound theological argument regarding written and oral tradition? No. We already discovered that both the written and oral traditions of the Church before the third century were rooted in chiliasm. How then did these men justify this departure from orthodoxy? This is a good question that puzzles us even today. In order to justify their rejection of chiliasm, and their desire to be a part of the present Kingdom of God, they had to reject both oral and written traditions of the Church.

In attacking the oral tradition, Eusebius in his "Church Hstory" created a story that Papius was addle-minded, and a weakling, misleading those who assumed he had heard this doctrine from the Apostle John. Yet in another letter, Eusebius refers to Papius as "eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures". Putting this contradiction aside, Polycarp learned the same doctrine from John. Was he decieving us as well? What about the students of Paul who claim that they too were taught this? Was the entire Apostolic Church corrupt? I think not.

We see that it was impossible to attack chiliasm on oral tradition, without defaming those students of the Apostles. But would these men who rejected chiliasm go so far as to discredit the oral traditions, if they were not true? We know they did, because they also attacked the written traditions that taught chiliasm.

To disprove the offending doctrine from a written tradition, these men attacked the book of Revelation. The first Church Father to ever attack Chiliasm was Caius of Rome. He did not deny that Revelation taught Chiliasm, but instead attacked the book of Revelation, calling it a "composition of monstrous fables". Origen viewed Revelation as "a collection of wild dreams which nobody could understand". In the year 360, the local council of Laodicea, under these anti-chiliasts, excluded "Revelation" from the canon. One justification used was that a heretic, not the Apostle John, wrote Revelation

Without doubt, the oral and written traditions support chiliasm. To discredit chiliasm, one had to discredit both oral and written tradition. This began the move toward a "developing" Church. Both the east and west are guilty of redefining scripture and oral traditions to justify their own preferred perspectives. Even today, Eastern Orthodox do not read from the book of Revelation during the Liturgy.

As Orthodox Christians, we believe that the Holy Spirit was active in the seven ecumenical councils of the undivided Church. If Chiliasm was such a heresy, which ecumenical council denounced it? Surely the Council of Nicea, in the year 325 would have addressed the issue. It did not. In fact the explanation that accompanies the last article of the Nicene Creed, suggests a very strong "chiliastic" perspective.

The only councils in which the doctrine was declared a heresy, were local councils. The council of Laodicea in 360, and the Council of Rome in 373, in which the enemies of chiliasm were gathered for that very reason. These were not ecumenical councils, and therefore it was not authoritative Church wide. Thank God for that, or the book of Revelation would be absent from Scripture. It appears that these anti-chiliasts had more in common with Luther than orthodoxy, since he too considered Revelation to be a book of straw. Of the seven recognized ecumenical councils, the ancient doctrine of Chiliasm has not been an issue of debate.

980 posted on 9/19/02 11:41 AM Eastern by ksen [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 973 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[The Grammarian]

There aren't many things in the bible that are irrefutable but this is one of them. (Another is eternal security....cannot be "disproven.")

*Cough.* Tell that to Wesley, Watson, Asbury and Coke. (On both counts--the premillenial position and "once saved always saved.")

[JesseShurun]

Even funnier re the sniper.... The media knew they had two black suspects, one was named Mohammed, but because they were digging up a yard in Washington State, one of the reporters, CNN of course, actually said that they "were probably White Supremacists!" Who needs comedy with news like that!

[xzins]

Asbury, et al, argued against "eternal security." Had they PROVEN it wrong, it wouldn't still be around as a serious doctrine. Apparently, they simply "proved" it wrong to their own satisfaction.

I do believe that it is in that class of doctrine that is "irrefutable." One cannot prove it right, BUT it can't be proven wrong either. (That's the point I was trying to make.)

[the_doc]

In my next post, I want to begin detailing what 2 Peter 3 is saying.

BUT FIRST, for the benefit of those who might be irritated by my slow way of setting up the argument, let me SLOW DOWN (grin).

Let me first speculate as to the two main reasons why people would become irritated:

1) They realize that I am opposing their position. (Hmmm....)

2) They want to dismiss any of my really important points as less-than-worthwhile. (Hmmmmmmmm...)

Notice that these two reasons are related to each other.

So, let me use the present post to be tedious again. Let me EXPLAIN what I think such folks should have gleaned from my first three posts. And let me EXPLAIN why it was IMPORTANT.

***

The eschatology of the professing Church is pretty lousy. Manifestly, it is somehow so confused that the professing Church does not even know how to respond to the full-preterists. For example, I have seen Christians on FreeRepublic treat full-preterists as though they were probably saved but just carnally “confused.” This is the WRONG approach.

The full-preterists should be confronted and--if they don’t recant--quickly disfellowshipped. They should not be coddled in their error. They should be branded as heretics. (As a Calvinist, I maintain that this is necessary even if they are “Calvinists”!)

Part of the problem of our inability to effectively discipline outright heretics is that even the more orthodox professing Christians are horribly divided in several ways. We need at least a practical unanimity, but in seemingly orthodox eschatology, we have not only premills and post-mills and amills, but also several identifiable subsets of these--especially among the premills.

We need to put a stop to this counterproductive and downright dangerous confusion. That is why I have dared to point out that we have a serious problem and why I have insisted that we address the problem forthrightly. (Ah, but it has taken an awful lot to get the premills' attention even a little bit. So, who owes whom an apology [grin]?)

Notice also that I am not willing to quickly default to the time-worn approach of “agreeing to disagree.” This is certainly the correct approach in some situations--certainly in matters of conscience--but it is used FAR TOO MUCH IN OUR DAY. (Gosh, this is seen in the fact that some seemingly orthodox FReepers are too lazy and thoughtless--and “lovey-dovey”—to disfellowship truly gangrenous members of the professing Body of Christ.)

“Agreeing to disagree,” in fact, is often the very device by which sinners THWART doctrinal progress (and protect heretics, of course). This is why the most carnal brats in a given doctrinal controversy often prove to be the NASTIEST complainers about matters of “tone” and overall presentational “style.” (Look at the RC threads and the Calvinism threads if you don’t believe me.) These brats are self-deceived in their carping spirit of opposition to more mature, more serious Christians. Every time the mature, earnest Christian takes a clear and earnest position—even in a way of relative gentleness!—he offends some decidedly childish Christian (or, as the case may be, pseudo-Christian)!

The self-deception to which I just referred consists largely in the fact that unteachable Christians almost invariably adopt for themselves a carnal approximation of a spiritually healthy attitude and behavior. It ordinarily involves the self-deceiving pretense that they have staked out the high spiritual ground of sweetness and light--whereas they are actually just being viciously stubborn.

This is the REAL reason why they quickly malign anyone who dares to intensify the nouthetic energy of a given point of earnest doctrinal contention. By their knee-jerk charges against more serious contenders for the faith, childish churchgoers are usually just trying to use spiritual protocols which they don’t even understand as a way of thwarting any attempts to address their own dullness.

I think that such childishness becomes downright funny when they run too quickly to 2 Timothy 2:25-26 in an attempt to blast someone who is actually being more reasonable and ultimately more gracious than they are. Why do I think this is funny? It's because Paul wrote 2 Timothy 2, and he still wound up offending the Corinthians. (Do you suppose they said "Hey, fellow, you need to read 2 Timothy 2!"?)

I must admit that I am often inclined to respond to the complainers, “I’m glad you see the applicability of 2 Timothy 2:25-26. By using that text to condemn my very earnestness in presenting God’s Truth, you are essentially admitting that you are opposing a carnally fallible but generally faithful teacher from God (v.25a); that you are in need of repentance (v.25b); that your refusal to repent is blocking the knowledge of the Truth (v.25b); that you are spiritually senseless (v.26a); that you are stuck in a demonic trap (v.26b); and that you are doing Satan’s will (v.26c).”

(Well...I try to resist the temptation to tell them all of that [LOL].)

Anyway, my point is that disagreements are bound to happen (1 Corinthians 11:19), and we ought to be mature enough to be able to stretch the corporate bonds of peace, on occasion, to deal with pretty serious errors. Alas, in our day, very few Protestants and no Romanists are spiritual enough to handle any of the friction which their own doctrinal errors generate. So, we often default to “Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree”--which often just perpetuates a Corinthian mockery of true Spiritual unity.

What I am saying, then, is that the overuse of the “agree to disagree” maxim amounts to a kind of fraudulent charity. Its abusers get close to the Truth in some ways, but they ultimately wind up betraying the Truth with a lovey-dovey kiss. The whole thing often proves to be spiritually queer.

***

So, brethren, we have a serious problem. We need to have a more profound attachment to the Truth. The theology of the Godhead is very profound, but it is still inarguably true that the precious Spirit of love, joy, and peace spirates from the One Who is the Truth--not the other way around. That being the case, we need to work honestly to resolve our eschatological disagreements, not perpetuate idolatrous, divisive stupidity and call it lovely stuff.

***

Again, I say that we have a serious problem. Some of you really are operating under the control of a nasty, self-righteous spirit rooted in an insidious denominational pride. And as a Biblical predestinarian, I am compelled to point out that you will not necessarily realize this about yourselves. You will regard yourselves as the Defenders of the Truth, when, in fact, you are only resisting the Truth which happens to be opposed to your carnal notions, your misunderstandings of God’s Word. So, apart from the supernatural grace of God, you will not be at all willing to face the fact of your unteachableness.

Even if I were to point out that you have been wrong about things in God’s Word in the past, it would probably just make most of you mad. (So, I certainly won’t do that [grin]!)

As a matter of fact, I assume that the first instinct of some of you premills will be to try to turn the tables on me, to try to say that I’m the one who is being nasty and self-righteous and wickedly proud. But look again at what I have said. My warnings are correct. Furthermore, they are self-evidently correct. It follows that you need to quit worrying about whether I am taking my own warnings seriously. You need to take them seriously yourselves.

That is a supernaturally serious warning in itself. You must not even dare to scoff at my warning. Millennial doctrine aside, my warning about the supernatural difference between the mature Christian and the carnal brat is from God Himself.

And I will dare to tell you that my overall burden in this controversy has been laid upon me by the Lord Himself. I don’t have any choice but to confront you under the circumstances which I have been outlining. As they say, it’s a thankless job, but somebody has to do it. The eschatology of today’s professing Church really is a brattish mess. When it comes to eschatology, most professing Christians really don’t know what they are talking about. (Even when they realize that the full-preterists can’t be correct, they don’t know what to do with them. Ah, but we amills know what to do with them—even if Spurgeon didn’t!)

And remember: Most of us amills used to be premills. I’m afraid that we do know--in general terms, at least--what’s wrong with your spirit. We’ve been where you are. (Well, I guess I’d have to admit that I behaved a little better than some of you premill guys [grin].)

***

In view of what I have said above, you definitely need to arrive at a Scripturally solid understanding of the millennium. And inasmuch as several generally credible Calvinists on this thread, including several former premills, are warning you that premillennialism is a God-ordained Satanic trap, you’d better not play party-spirit games. Gosh, the biggest problem with the premills seems to be a denominational pride—which is the main reason why the trap exists, of course! (Been there; done that.)

My point is that until you are TRULY willing to believe that your denominational position might VERY WELL be a worthless load of DEMONIC CRAP, you don’t stand a CHANCE of embracing the amillennial position. You will just LOATHE amillennialism (and its sincere, ardent exponents--for their very frankness in opposing you, of course!).

You will pretend to be Berean, of course (since that is part of the self-deception!), but you will be irritable spiritual cranks. You will pretend to be “nice,” whereas you will be viciously opposing the Truth. (Ah, some of you nicey-nice guys are much bigger jerks than I am [serious grin here].)

Notice that I am not being “politically correct” in the way I approach the bad spirit which I have seen on this thread. I am rather horrified to see the way some of you have behaved toward imperfect but generally careful Bible teachers. Under the circumstances of the massive fraud which I have seen taking place on these millennial threads for literally MONTHS now, I am not concerned about being “nice” according to the modern and warped definitions of proper deportment. Rather, I intend to be gracious enough to confront the bad spirit for what it really is. I furthermore insist that you be mature enough to see that. The fact is, I am a great deal more serious about the Truth than some of my detractors are. And I say that this controversy has gone on for too long already. The spirit of phony Bereanism which the premills have displayed needs to stop.

***

But that means that you need to appreciate what I am daring to label as phony Bereanism.

Phony Bereanism has to do with the fact that premills are at least nominal Protestants. As Protestants, they are taught to search the Scriptures throughout controversies such as ours. But I submit that premills (especially dispensational premills) do this “searching” in the maniacal, dishonest way of denominational stubbornness. (In my sober opinion, they actually behave like Romanists in their use of Scripture, not as born-again Protestants.)

Alas, apart from the supernatural, predestinarian grace of God, sinners can’t help but be maniacal and dishonest and stubborn. This is one of the reasons why I am as patient as I am. But I try not to let my patience make a complete fool out of me. I specifically try to make sure that it doesn’t completely paralyze me in the prosecution of God’s work of the doctrinal maturation of the Body of Christ. That being the case, I have discovered that I need to be forthright enough to tell sinners--whether Romanists or Protestants--that I am not terribly impressed by their childishly dishonest proof-texting. In other words, I will ordinarily tell phony Bereans that I am not all impressed with the way they go about “searching the Scriptures.”

To underscore this point, let me remind you of Christ’s warnings to the lost Jews in John 5:39-40. They “searched the Scriptures,” but they were LOST. And if they refused to heed His warnings about their spiritually fraudulent way of approaching the Scriptures, they STAYED lost.

Does this mean that I am simplistically pronouncing premills lost? No. But make no mistake about my serious point. I am saying that there are spiritual frauds in professing Christianity. These involve exceedingly nasty deceptions. And whether you currently agree with me or not, I am constrained to tell you that I think that premillennialism is one of the nastiest doctrinal frauds in the history of Christianity. It entered the Church very early--when the Body of Christ was very immature--and it now fools many if not most churchgoers in our age of rather dopey doctrine. And by the very nature of the God-ordained fraud, the devotees of the premillennial position have a GRAND time “searching the Scriptures.” (Unfortunately, they have gotten almost everything in their eschatology WRONG.)

It’s rather funny when you think about it. The very exercise of searching the Scriptures, an exercise which is so often identified with the Bereans in Acts 17:11, can function as part of a Satanic deception of religious pride.

But HOW can this be the case? As I have said before, it’s because the literal reading of Revelation 20:4 is part of an enormous spiritual TRAP. It’s a predestinarian thing. No kidding. It is very much like the transubstantiation trap for the Romanists in John 6. The Lord was deliberate in speaking words which He KNEW would be misunderstood.

You have never honestly, thoroughly considered that possibility with regard to Revelation 20. Well, now, guess what THAT means? It means that ALL of your hermeneutical BETS are OFF.

That ought to humble you. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that the Berean spirit involves a deeeper humility than some premills have at any point. I have already given you John 5:39-40 as a warning; but if you still don’t understand the truly Berean spirit, look at the inspired description of the Bereans in Acts 17:11. Notice that the idea of “searching the Scriptures” is in v.11b. Ah, but the truly Berean spirit includes the quality mentioned in v.11a.

And THAT quality of RECEPTIVENESS is what some of you folks LACK in the present controversy.

As a Calvinist, I would even go so far as to tell you that if the Spirit of Truth does not supernaturally correct this problem, you will remain devoid of the Berean spirit. You will be carnal and think you are spiritual. So, as a minimum, you need to learn quite a bit more respect for the Spirit of Christ. You need to quit trusting bad teachers. You need to quit trusting your bad denominational backgrounds with their bad hermeneutics.

Suffice it to say that some of you need to repent. You need to repent of the childish, cranky things you have said to fellow Christians who really do understand eschatology better than you do. (Remember: Most of us amills used to be premills.)

***

Based on what I have seen, I believe that the above “sermon” was necessary.

Although I have tried to be careful, even when I have been confrontational, I must confess that I am getting close to the point where I find myself saying that if my remarks only harden you, then so be it. That being the case, I believe that it’s a good time for me to switch away from the sermonic material and go back to the specific matter of 2 Peter 3 (see below).

***

One of the things which we should learn from 2 Peter 3 is that eschatological scoffing is, to say the very least, an ugly thing. And although Peter was talking about scoffers who were outright heretics--which is why I spent so much time talking about the full-preterists--we need to realize that there are other ungodly forms of eschatological scoffing.

Inasmuch as the full-preterists PRETEND to embrace 2 Peter 3 when they are actually SCOFFING at 2 Peter 3, I think we need to see if we can find any other group which PRETENDS to embrace 3 Peter 3 while actually SCOFFING at it.

And as you know, I propose to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that today’s profoundly confused premills are SCOFFING at Peter’s warning concerning the Second Coming of Christ. In other words, although it has been falsely alleged that my argument hinges on 2 Peter 3, I will cheerfully use it to devastating polemical advantage in the present controversy.

(As I have said over and over and over on these threads, I arrived at the amillennial position without even noticing the implications of 2 Peter 3. I discovered that the premillennial hermeneutic is an undisciplined, eisegetical mess masquerading as a wise approach to interpretation. I specifically looked at the premills' claim that the materialistic reading of the first resurrection in Revelation 20 fits the Bible as a whole much better than does the amill reading; I discovered to my amazement, even horror, that this is a very, very nasty lie. And I reached this conclusion by carefully examining Revelation 20 itself.)

So, if you have been sincerely praying for wisdom from God as to the correct doctrine of the millennium, get ready. It’s coming.

And I respectfully urge you to resist the temptation to respond to this post until you have read my detailed arguments concerning 2 Peter 3. You see, if I am correct about the implications of 2 Peter 3, then all of my other charges against the premills suddenly STICK.

[xzins]

This was not the exposition was it?

But it was the diatribe that precedes the exposition, perhaps? Or is it a bratty diatribe to precede a phoney diatribe? (grin)

[the_doc]

In my #2715, I said:

I think that such childishness becomes downright funny when they run too quickly to 2 Timothy 2:25-26 in an attempt to blast someone who is actually being more reasonable and ultimately more gracious than they are. Why do I think this is funny? It's because Paul wrote 2 Timothy 2, and he still wound up offending the Corinthians. (Do you suppose they said "Hey, fellow, you need to read 2 Timothy 2!"?)

I should have said "he still wound up offending the Corinthian church members."

(For what it's worth, the churches which I have noticed as being most profoundly offended by doctrinal confrontations are Methodist churches and dispensational churches.)

[RnMomof7]

The early church was looking for an immediate return .There was no dispensationalism...actually it seems what they were looking for was a return of Christ to be the earthly King of Israel because they did not really understand that was never Jesus role..

I have a concern about the fact that in some ways the teaching of the Millennial reign of Christ presents a picture of a failed plan of God..an after thought..troubling to me as I consider it

[xzins]

Does that include methodist derivatives: Nazarene, Holiness, Wesleyan, and 2nd & 3rd Generation -- Evangelical Congregational, United Brethren, Assembly of God, Church of God (Anderson), Church of God (Cleveland); Church of Christ in Christian Union; etc.????

[the_doc]

On one of the recent RC threads, you and I wound up talking to one of FR’s Romanists about the idea of a Berean spirit. As I recall, he protested that he does have a Berean spirit. He specifically based this on the fact that he does search the Scriptures.

Please notice what I said in my #2715. It explains what I was trying to tell that Romanist. A willingness to search the Scriptures means nothing. According to John 5:39-40, it doesn’t even indicate that a person is saved. And it goes without saying that a willingness to search the Scriptures is no guarantee that a person will wind up with a correct understanding of those Scriptures.

The RCs whom I have met seem to be completely devoid of the Spirit of regeneration. They are profoundly unreceptive to the Truth, even when they occasionally seem to get close. As a matter of fact, they seem to spend all of their time in the Satanic traps which God has ordained for the realm of His Word.

***

Although Protestants realize this when they encounter Romanists who play endless proof-texting games with us, they sometimes forget its warning value for Protestants.

Because of the deceitfulness of the heart, confessing allegiance to the Scriptures will not even save a sinner. For precisely the same awful reason, confessing Sola Scriptura will not even save a sinner.

I am persuaded that some Protestants are wrongly complacent about what I would call their “Sola Scripturaism.” Based on what I have discovered about sin and Satan, based on what I have noticed about fallen sinners’ sheer religiosity, I am afraid that there are more tares in the Protestant movement than most Protestants would dream possible.

This is why it is so worrisome to me when I run across Protestants who confess Sola Scriptura (or even Sola Gratia) but who only trust their Bible teachers’ interpretations of those Scriptures (until they have a falling out with them, perhaps!). I am specifically alarmed when I run across someone who always and only gets his interpretive position from commentators. According to 1 John 2:27, that is inconsistent with regeneration.

Maybe such a person is just a “carnal Christian.” But maybe he is no Christian at all.

***

This is what really concerns me about the easy-believism movements. The problem of the tares has become unknowably bad in such movements. The fact that they confess the “Solas” means nothing if they aren’t really converted after all.