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)]

[jude24]

My problem is the hyprocricy that rails against RC doctrine but embraces it...

I've been arguing, and still do, that to some extant, we all still do. YOu and I believe in the Trinity -- that could be (and has been)called a Catholic doctrine. The question should not be "Who else holds this?" but rather, "Is this Scriptural?"

and the hypocrites that rail against the Arminains and woman pastors as evil deception...when they say out of the other side of their mouths that Satan is bound and can not deceive the nations.

Now that is an interesting point, one I'd like to see the_doc or someone else address. I'll ping him.

Now maybe inconsistancy is not important to you ..it is to me.

It is of paramount importance to me. Thats why I'm trying to fairly evalulate what they're saying, and cautiously make a decision.

[BibChr]

Sister, anytime you think Nate "has a point," and he's doing anything other than reading the time off a clock you can see for yourself... you're in trouble!

Dan

[jude24]

See # 1061.

Would you address that question?

[jude24]

During the earthly millennial reign of Christ. Got to clarify that.

Good catch. You knew what I meant, thanks.

[nate4one]

Let's take the initial steps and questions one at a time and discuss their inconsistancies and possible solutions.
God was methodical and very consistant (for someone who NEVER changes, you would hope so).

Are you open to consistent ideas?

What issue comes to your mind first.

[CCWoody]

How do our hopes differ? Because your hope is of resurrection of the flesH? Or earthly dominion?

Neither!

[nate4one]

Mom, Adam is on his way to see the Doctor. He has already had one shunt flush due to blockage and may need another one today.

Please pray for him and pass it on for me to our Neverending friends.
Thanks much. I am on my way out with him now.

[xzins]

Yep. I knew. You did say Plymouth Brethren, didn't you?

I don't really know the Plymouth Brethren. Explain them to me.....wwwwwh (who, what, when, where, why, how)

[jude24]

Oh, boy. That could take a while. I'm gonna give you the very abbreviated.

Back in the 1800's, a group of men in Plymouth, England met together and expressed dismay at the state of the English church. They broke off and formed a group, which tried to be scruplously non-denominational.

Their initial major teachings were what they called "New Testament church principles," which included a radical departure from the clerical system throughout Christendom, choosing instead a structure based on several lay elders. The founders included J.N. Darby, a lawyer-turned-teacher.

Darby came up with the idea of dispensationalism, which is the basis of the modern premillenial view.

Of course, I skipped over several schisms which blot their history. To be honest, I feel little loyalty to the group. I am a Christian first, a Calvinist second, and Plymouth Brethren a distant third.

The branch I am affiliated with, the Open Brethren, is little different theologically than many independant Baptist groups -- fairly fundamentalist, openly dispensationalist, and so forth.

[xzins]

do they have a particular region of the US where they tend to live or are they all over the country?

[xzins]

prayer bump for Nate

[jude24]

Just a clarification:

I'll support the Assemblies (thats the other term we use to describe ourselves) as long as I remain convinced they promote sound doctrine and operate Biblically.

I came close to leaving when, in a Youth Conference setting (which is designed to reach out to unbelievers, carnal believers, and new believers), the keynote speaker saw fit (using shoddy exegesis) to attempt to disprove Definate atonement to an extremely impressionable group. (I jave no problem with discussion in the proper forum: that one was not).

Even if I become amillenial (and I will, if my studies lead me that way), I will stay there as long as they allow me, anda will not be divisive about it. Thats not a dealbreaker.

If I were forced to choose between my association with the Campus Crusade for Christ and the Assemblies (and that is not likely to happen, but not too far-fetched, either), I'd choose Crusade. (There is a sizable group in the Assemblies that consider Crusade too ecumenical).

[jude24]

They're pretty well spread about the US and Canada.

[the_doc]

So just to make sure I understand what you are saying, we should not even consider those men who learned their doctrine sitting at the Apostle's feet, but we should consider those men who had just come out of an apostate religious system, i.e. Roman Catholicism.

No, I did not say that. (Come on, now, think, ksen. Your word "consider" loaded the question!)

Besides, some of those very men who learned their doctrine at the feet of the apostles did NOT interpret the 1000 years literally. Justin Martyr acknowledged this. So, the whole thing is a wash, brother.

We have to be thoughtful enough to put aside arguments offered from the potentially misleading facts of doctrinal history and follow Sola Scriptura. That's all I am really trying to get you to do.

The Scriptures themselves are reliable. Moreover, the Scriptures are adequate. (Gosh, they even interpret themselves for the diligent Bible student.)

Moreover, Satan is dangerous. Doctrinal error is wicked stuff. It spreads in the Visible Church like leaven in dough.

Are you sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the men who learned directly from the Apostle's support the Pre-Mill position, while the men still tainted from Romanism support the Amill position?

I will cheerfully stipulate that the Reformers' brought a lot of Romish baggage with them. But this means nothing in the argument, even if you want to bring it in. The problem is, you are still trying to argue from Church tradition itself in a funny roundabout way. You are insinuating that the Refomers were probably wrong since Augustine was a prominent amill.

You can't do that. It doesn't work that way. It would be like the Arminian Baptist who can't embrace the doctrine of predestination merely because Calvin and Luther and Augustine were paedobaptists. (Hey, I'm a Baptist, but I will do my level best to sort through their teachings. And I have discovered that they were right about a lot of things which today's Arminian Baptists don't understand.)

So, we must follow the Word of God in an oddly exclusive devotion evenas we consider the teachings of our forefathers. Why? Because the saved sinner's direct relationship with Christ as the Word of God is necessarily one of COMPLETE reliance on the Scriptures. A person who is only half-converted is like a person who is only half-married--which is no marriage at all.

Conversion to Christ involves a marriage-union which forsakes all other suitors for the sinner's devotion in trust.

So, church tradition means nothing pro or con in the way of argument. We are to follow the Scriptures themselves and the Scriptures Only.

In other words, Church tradition has no authority whatsoever. It does not even have "secondary" authority. (We should read our forefathers' arguments in a Berean way, but that's different from what xzins was trying to pull off in the way of argument.)

We have to resist temptations to follow other "human reasonings" and style them as wonderfully spiritual. Any failure in this regard is a sin of spiritual harlotry. We are to cling to Christ and Christ Alone, by faith (and faith alone) in the Scriptures and the Scriptures Alone.

Ah, but according to the axiom of Grace and Grace Alone, some folks will not be able to do that. (Of course, you are humanly responsible to make sure this isn't true of you.)

***

And if premills are going to continue to dare to argue from church history that the premill theory is bound to be correct, I will continue to tease the premills with my own tongue-in-cheek argument that it's "bound" to be wrong!.

I will continue to say premillennialism is discovered to be a highly popular position only at the two "ends" of the present age--i.e., when the Church was immature and when the professing Church won't endure sound doctrine anyway.

So, quit arguing from Church tradition. Stick to the Scriptures themselves. Do read Justin Martyr's expositions arguing that the 1000 years is a literal thousand years, if you can find any such expositions, but don't put credence in his opinions.

We need to be more like the Bereans, who, oddly enough, didn't even trust APOSTLES apart from examining the Scriptures to see if they were correct in their positions. YOU NEED TO FFIGURE OUT FROM THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES WHETHER JUSTIN MARTYR'S OPINION IS FAITHFUL TO THE SCRIPTURES. Any other approach is, to put it mildly, spiritually lazy. [And to keep you sober in the exercise, you should at least keep in mind that some of Justin Martyr's apostolic period contemporaries didn't agree with him.])

[the_doc]

Doc says that the "majority position of the early church" is of no importance.

Another lie from the Methodist minister.

(Look, I would call it a "misrepresentation" or maybe even just a misunderstanding, but the truth is, you misstate our positions all the time. Alas, almost ALL of the premills do this, just as the Arminians misstate the Calvinists' positions every time we turn around.)

The illogic of that statement is underwhelming.

You sure blew that joke. Read your statement again.

[ksen]

(Come on, now, think, ksen. Your word "consider" loaded the question!)

I know. ;^)

We need to be more like the Bereans, who, oddly enough, didn't even trust APOSTLES apart from examining the Scriptures to see if they were correct in their positions. YOU NEED TO FFIGURE OUT FROM THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES WHETHER JUSTIN MARTYR'S OPINION IS FAITHFUL TO THE SCRIPTURES. Any other approach is, to put it mildly, spiritually lazy. [And to keep you sober in the exercise, you should at least keep in mind that some of Justin Martyr's apostolic period contemporaries didn't agree with him.])

I agree with everything you have said about where our reliance should lie. I certainly wouldn’t base any of my doctrines on the church fathers if the doctrine cannot be shown to have a biblical basis (which Premillenialism does ;^).

I merely thought it was interesting that the concept of a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ has been present since at least Apostolic times.

[maestro]

Your# 938)..............................BTTT

Maranatha!

[jude24]

So, church tradition means nothing pro or con in the way of argument. We are to follow the Scriptures themselves and the Scriptures Only. In other words, Church tradition has no authority whatsoever. It does not even have "secondary" authority. (We should read our forefathers' arguments in a Berean way, but that's different from what xzins was trying to pull off in the way of argument.)

Nor does it have a "reverse authority." Just because some group teaches it doesnt make it wrong.

ALthough for a personal rule when involving using Greek, it's been to always assume 2,000 years of Church history is right, not someone who was never really taught Greek, but just stumbled his way thru part of Machen.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen!

[fortheDeclaration]

The most striking point in the eschatology of the anteNicene age is the prominant chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgement. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinquished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Lactantius, while Caius, Origen, Dionysius the Great, Eusebius (as afterwards Jerome and Augustine) opposed it.... But the crushing blow came from the great change in the social conditions and prospects of the church in the Nicene age. After Christianity, contrary to all expections, triumphed in the Roman Empire, was embraced by the Ceasars themselves, the millennial reign, instead of being anxiously waited and prayed for, began to be dated either from the first appearance of Christ, or from the conversion of Constantine and the downfall of paganism and to be regarded as realized in the glory of the dominant imperial state-church. Augustin, who himself had formely etertained chiliastic hopes, framed the new theory which reflected the social change and was generally accepted. (History of the Christian Church, Schaff, Vol.2, p.614,619)

In other words, the church sold her soul for a mess of pottage!