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)]

[Codie]

The book of Revelation is full of symbolic numbers - 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 24, 42, 666, 1,000, 1260, 1600, 7000, 12,000, 144,000, 200,000,000.

[fortheDeclaration]

And that these symbolic things symbolize literal events or people A literal reading of the bible recognizes legitimate symbology. Excellent point you make!!! The symbol isn't there just to fill space or for navel gazing; it represents a real message or a real person/place/thing/event.

Amen!

There are at least 6 ways to mess up scripture.

One, adding to the word of God

Two, subtracting.

Three, interpretating something to be figurative when it is literal

four, interpretating something literal when it should be interpretated figuratively

Five, dropping the context.

Six, not obeying the truth that has been already revealed to you. (See Ezek.14:4)

[editor-surveyor]

No, each of those was intended literally, and precisely. - If you start with the OT prophets, you will see that numbers are far too important to be symbolic.

Example, 666 is the calculated value of a particular man's name. It identifies one, and only one person if done according to the method employed in Hebrew commerce when they used those characters as numbers.

[CCWoody]

You have a theology that hinges on a stretch-job on a few verses of the Bible....

Jhn 5:28-9 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Ahem! We are not the ones who stretch this hour into 1000 or 1007 years.

As for Isaiah 11, unless you presuppose a 1000 years reign into the verses, they don't even occur when you say that they do. For instance: When will He strike the earth... and slay the wicked and does the nursing child play by the cobra's hole before or after He does this?

[editor-surveyor]

Tell me when it does happen; I'm all ears.

[CCWoody]

Where have you encountered symbolic numbers in the Bible?

Does this mean that the cattle on the 1001st hill do not belong to God (Psa 50:10)? And does this mean that in the 1001st generation that God will forget his covenant and his oath (Psa 105:8)?

[editor-surveyor]

Oops!

I re-read my #10, and I see that I let my mind get too far ahead of my fingers. Having left an entire clause out of the reply, I reversed my meaning. I ment to say that it would happen after.

[CCWoody]

Wasn't that my question to you? If I understand Premillenniumism correctly, Christ will return and then the child will play by the Cobra's hole. It is just your millennial presupposition that this occurs during the 1000 year earthly reign of Christ. However, Isaiah never says anything about the millennium. It simply, at least to me, says that Christ will strike the earth and the wolf shall dwell with the lamb. And that is exactly what I would expect since Peter tells us that on the Day of the Lord, He will melt the earth and we will get a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

[the_doc]

Again, how can we keep the things in the book if we cannot understand the things that are in the book.

The problem with your implied argument for literalism is is that we amills will respond that WE DO understand Revelation 20 rather well. We are actually flabbergasted at the number of obvious mistakes folks have made through the ages.

IMO, premills just ignore or twist John 5:25-29 to try to salvage their presupposed literal reading of Revelation 20. We amills refuse to do that, because there is nothing especially holy about presuming that the Lord has no right to encrypt His meaning in some situations--perhaps even more situations than the premills realize.

As a matter of fact, we notice that the Scriptures themselves say that "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter."

Does this mean that we go looking for meanings other than plain meanings? No, but we try to be very wary as to what texts are "plain" and what texts are not. We think that anything less would be hermeneutically irresponsible (even if this sober assessment is a step which premills often jump over!).

Being forewarned in our hermeneutical sobriety, we come up with different intepretive conclusions for certain texts.

Being forewarned, we are diligent in trying to get the reading right, not to agree with some Bible teacher or some set of study Bible footnotes. This diligence pays off, I believe, because the Scriptures promise that "the soul of the diligent shall be made fat."

Besides, it seems to me that there is very good reason to be wary about what is going on with the Book of Revelations. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. It strikes me as rather brattish and therefore foolish to assume that God has to accommodate Himself to my first-glance faculties of understanding (i.e., the ability to grasp the strictly literal stuff).

Speaking of the fear of God, I frankly think a lot of premills are complete fools--i.e., unregenerate. I'm sure there are some amill fools, too, but I worry that the conservative premillennial fools actually outnumber the liberal amillennial fools in our day.

Why do I dare to say that about the problem of lost premills? Because I used to be one. And I know other folks who would say the same thing about their own spiritual odyssey.

I did not immediately leave premillennialism after I was finally converted to Christ for real, and, of course, I don't make eschatology a litmus test of Christianity. I just think we have an unknowably bad mess on our hands.

(The ones who really worry me are the dispensational premills. The very worst sermon I have ever heard in more than 25 years as a Christian was preached by a department head from a major dispensational seminary. The guy did not understand the gospel at all. He was actually doing more harm than good in the pulpit. The problem is, many dispensationalists just can't seem to grasp that many of their so-called "carnal Christian" converts aren't really Christians in the first place.)

***

Back to what I was trying to say at the top of this post, let me emphasize that there are some difficult interpretive points in Revelation 20, but we say that there are not as difficult as the premills have made them by a kind of hyper-literal stubbornness.

(As I said in my most recent post to you, I think the dyed-in-the-wool literalist is doomed to come up with an interpretation which is complicated, tortured, hermeneutically dubious, and eisegetical.)

I'm trying not to sound smug, brother, but I think that your appeal to some overarching need for Revelation 20 to be understandable backfires on you. I say Revelation 20 is understandable only if you quit equating "literal" with "understandable." In other words, I say that a godly FEAR, which teaches us to respect God's sovereign prerogatives as a communicator in Holy Scripture, is the key to the kind of WISDOM which John himself warns us that we'd better have for understanding his Revelation.

So, again, I believe that we amills understand Revelation 20 better than you premills do. We amills regard the two resurrections in Revelation 20 as being among the very clearest things in the Bible. And we think that it is spectacularly clear that the first resurrection is regeneration-unto-conversion--and not a bodily resurrection at all.

(Many of today's premills say "Hey, it can't be all that clear, because I have never seen it--and it's not in my study Bible! Therefore, the amills are bound to be wrong!" [Yeah, sure])

[editor-surveyor]

"Does this mean that the cattle on the 1001st hill do not belong to God (Psa 50:10)? And does this mean that in the 1001st generation that God will forget his covenant and his oath (Psa 105:8)?"

But that is not symbology, is it? - It's generalization, a big difference.

[Woodkirk]

Post #82 is for you, Woody ----

[CCWoody]

1000 hills... 1000 generations... 1000 years....

you would never contest the cattle on the 1001st hill and you would never question the covenant null in the 1001st generation so why insist that the 1000 years is literally 1000 years? It does seem like you have a consistency problem.

[the_doc]

I'm not buying. It doesn't look cryptic to me, and that is the standard answer when someone is trying to twist the Word into something that it's not.

I think Satan is more deceptive than you realize.

Please see my #76 and #89.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

From the get-go, the author misstates the basic idea of postmillinealism. He states that there will be a LITERAL kingdom followed by the return of Jesus. There are many shades in the post-mill camp. I believe that this kingdom may be an increasing influence of the evangel throughout the world. But this does not point to a literal kingdom.

In the end, this whole subject must deal with two issues:

1st. If we have an eschatological view in which matters become increasingly worse, what does that say about the lordship of King Jesus? Isn't His kingdom an everlasting kingdom.

2d. We must address the question of why the book of Revelation was written. Was it written to give a road map of events that would not be fulfilled until the "end of the age." Or, was the book written primarily for first cent. Christians with implications and applications for our day?

I can read the book of Revelation and find a reading that offers hope and comfort to the persecuted church, that Chist will avenge His and our enemies, and that He shall reign forever.

It is undeniable that the most prevailing reading of eschatology, throughout church history, is post-millenial. I believe it is a view most in keeping with the sovereignty of God and His omnipotence.

[the_doc]

Occam's Razor is about choosing the obvious. You IGNORE the obvious.

Occam's Razor is a logical/philosophical principle popularized by an otherwise obscure Scholastic theologian, Willem of Ockham. (I believe that is the majority spelling, anyway.) And it's not about "choosing the obvious." Rather, it is about finding and selecting the simplest explanation for a problem having many features.

The "obvious" way to read Revelation 20, according to your level of discernment, at least, is to read the first resurrection as a bodily (material) resurrection just like the second resurrection.

But the materialistic interpretation of the first resurrection in Revelation 20 forces you to jump through a lot of hoops to set aside what would certainly appear to be the obvious implications of John 5:25-29 and 2 Peter 3.

Besides, your interpretation doesn't mesh in a very satisfactory way with the two-resurrection form which we do see in John 5:25 (spiritual) and 5:28-29 (carnal). By the same token, your interpretation doesn't exactly mesh with what Paul says in Ephesians 1 and 2, either!

My intepretation fits ALL of these points--John 5, 2 Peter 3 and Ephesians 1-2. And my interpretation is SIMPLE.

According to Occam's Razor, my interpretation is to be preferred.

(Actually, I was just being polite to ksen when I cited Occam's Razor. I actually maintain that John 5 and 2 Peter 3:9 completely rule out the premill position.)

***

The stumbling block for many people is that they equate a premillennial belief system with saving faith. Many premills can't abandon their premill system--because they would have no faith at all if they did.

Those folks on their way to hell, IMO. Remember: The Pharisees were folks who were inclined to take Christ literally when they shouldn't have.

(Notice that I didn't say all premills are lost. I just maintain that premillennialism is often substituted for the gospel by careless pastors.)

[the_doc]

I forgot to mention that my very simple interpretation also explains one of the odder things about the larger interpretive problem.

I am referring to the odd fact that you can't seem to come around to the amill position--no matter how simple and elegant it is.

How does my very simple theory account for that? Gosh, it automatically accounts for it. As I read the text of Revelation 20, I conclude that it was encrypted to cause you to stumble, xzins.

[Matchett-PI]

"To the ...Israel replacers.."

I haven't seen any who hold such a position posting on these threads. Apparently you have, so would you name them please so that we can attempt to reason them out of such false ideas?

[Woodkirk]

I know who he's thinking of, maybe. Who was that guy who posted that article the other day in which the author claimed that Paul had redefined the term "all Israel" to mean the "Church" ? Who was that? You know? I can see his name right in front of me. Oh -- it was you.

You guys are too much ===

[nobdysfool]

This is why I lament that our thoughtful Premills don't want to post--understandably so.

No, At least for me, I'm just going to sit back and let the_doc pull out enough rope to hang himself...and he's on his way....

I've stated my position, and I have read those texts more times in the last week than I have in the last 6 months. I have looked them up in other translations, looked online for other materials to broaden my knowledge and to understand the amil position. The more I read, the more I dig, and the more I pray about it, the more convinced I am that the amil position is wrong. The one benefit that has accrued from all this is it has driven me deeper into the Word, and into study. That's a good thing in and of itself. I wish I had more time to post, but I rarely have time at work, and my evenings are not always free.

I really would like the _doc to quit being so dad-blamed abrasive, insulting, and uppity when he posts. My first impression is that he is quite angry with everyone. then I think, naw, he's just really enthusiastic about his beliefs. But as I see him castigate people time and again, I think that he does have a problem with patience. If his posts were the only ones in support of the amil position, there's NO WAY I'd even listen to him, because I don't like to be shouted at, told I'm carnal, stupid, and immature, and I certainly don't like being told that I'm maybe not even born again, some 31 years after a very real encounter with Jesus, where I gave Him my heart and my life. The reality of Jesus in my life is precious to me, and He has led me through some very difficult times in my life. To have that questioned over a doctrine that is not even central to my eternal fate is offensive, rude, and certainly not being gentle, apt to teach, patient, and instructing in meekness and humility.

I fully expect another round of castigation and abuse from the_doc for my saying this publicly, but I will not back down from what I know is right and good. The Lord is my shield and strength, and in Him I place my trust.

[hopespringseternal]

the_doc says: literal reading is a trap for the enemies of God

That is a remarkable statement; a position birthed in a liberal mindset.

I'd say it's a vote for tossing out the bible.

Literal reading of selective scripture is how people arrive at Calvinism.

Besides, I don't know of a single premellenialist who accepts very much literally. Really, premellenialist vs. amellenialist is more about what to literalize and to figurize, not literal vs. figurative.