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)]

[fortheDeclaration]

As a professing "Christian behavior corrector", you, too may be suited for a stint on SNL as a representative of the lovable "Church Lady" character. One of her recent comments: "I know people who don't love their fellow man and I hate people like that."

Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way, and he that hateth reproof shall die (Pr.15:10)

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen to the Gospel of salvation!

[ReformedBeckite]

why would he place the event in the future tense?

I've pretty much stayed out of this debate, eschatology is not my strong point, besides I haven't had the time to participate as I would of liked to. I’m really not sure what I am anymore. But anyway I’ve been slowly picking up bits and pieces of eschatology over the last two years or so. But anyway all for that, I just wanted to comment on tenses for verses that go with prophecy. I’m not so sure that when dealing with verses that imply a certain time within Rev. are to be always interrupted in just on tense like past but not future, or present. And vice versa. Etc. But maybe could be interrupted as both or all three. What I’m thinking of is since God doesn’t live on a time frame he still has to translate his thinking to humans in a time frame. That was the reason for my interruption of the gathering of the wheat and tares. Salvation is talked about in a past, present and future tense within the Bible. Though I don’t know if it is ever talked about in all three tenses though in one place. Anyway I was thinking that maybe the Second Resurrections could be interrupted that way to, or in one verse it is talked about in one tense while another verse elsewhere it is talked about in another tense. Anyway it would be interesting to see if anyone else has looked at it this way or if they will think I’m all washed up. This time I may have everyone calling me a heretic.

[ReformedBeckite]

I my last reply I just threw in some of the main players in the To: slot and one else feel free to comment as usual.

[the_doc]

Ok, here's one for you, CC. What is the soul? Is it distinct from the body and the spirit? How do you deal with Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."? That would seem to imply that a soul is not something man possesses, but rather something that he IS. So when Rev 20 speaks of the souls of those beheaded, it is referring to the people themselves, not just some part of them.

On previous threads, I have argued, using the Genesis text which you cited, that the soul is the person himself. I do not regard the human being as trichotomous.

I would say that the constitution of man involves only one compartment (the soul), involving two different substances (body and spirit), and leaving us with three different constitutional ideas (soul and body and spirit).

Most of today's Christians are trichotomous. I have tried to point out on the earlier threads the reason for the confusion. The paragraph immediately above helps to explain the confusion. But it doesn't explain all of it. This is important for us to concede as we try to help the trichotomists.

The idea of soul is an idea of personhood. The soul entails a personhood which, after having been formed, persists even after the separation of the life-force from the body. For this very reason, perhaps, the Bible uses the soul in another way. The spirit is often used as a rhetorical surrogate for the soul, since the spirit persists after it leaves the body.

This is what really confuses the trichotomists, in my opinion. And those of us who are not trichotomists need to notice what is going on. The Bible does use the word "soul" in different ways. No doubt about it.

But that also means that the premills still have a big problem on their hands with the reference to "the souls of those who were beheaded."

To say "I saw the souls of the souls" just doesn't work. The very redundancy in that idea is a warning that the text is using the word souls to talk about their persons apart from the embodiment which they had in the present life.

So, even if you are not a trichotomist, as most Calvinists are not, the text of Revelation 20 still militates against the premill reading. John was looking at persons apart from physical bodies.

(See also Eph 1:18-2:7. Paul was definitely not saying that our physical bodies are already seated with Christ in heaven. But he definitely was saying that our spiritual persons are already seated with Christ in heaven.)

[nobdysfool]

Thanks! Bookmarked and ready to use. Now, if I just had more time...too much to do, not enough time to do it in...we've all been there, eh? :o)

[the_doc]

ping to my 1365.

[the_doc]

In my 1365, I said, "For this very reason, perhaps, the Bible uses the soul in another way. The spirit is often used as a rhetorical surrogate for the soul, since the spirit persists after it leaves the body."

What I should have said is that the distinction between soul and spirit is not always clearly maintained in the Bible. They are different, but Hebrews 4 warns us that there are potentially confusing intersections of the ideas of personhood and life-force.

In many situations, the distinctions between one's soul (personhood) and one's spirit (life-force) are not important. As most Reformed theologians have argued, the soul and the spirit are often used in a virtually interchangeable way. (Not every Bible passage is an exacting treatise on the constitutional nature of man, of course!)

We could even say that the idea of one's spirit is often used as a rhetorical surrogate for the soul, since the personhood persists even when the body is dead. But that means that when the soul is considered as to its spirituality, one's soul can be used as a word for the spirit itself.

When your body is decomposed, of course, all your person has left is a spirit. So, your person is the spirit in that situation. For this obvious reason, the soul can be used to refer to the spirit. This is not systematically fastidious theology on the constitutional nature of man, but it is not incorrect--because it actually follows from that theology as it applies to the matter of personhood.

But that still leaves the premills in trouble with their interpretation of Revelation 20.

[The Grammarian]

What you fail to realize is that the word that is translated as souls in Rev 20 is the greek word psuche {psoo-khay'}. And that word literally means breath, i.e. spirit.

Actually, psuche doesn't translate as breath (it never does in the KJV, according to The Strongest Strong's). It is translated as soul, mind, heart, and life. The Strongest Strong's sometimes provides the translation "breath" to the Greek pneuma, spirit, however. I say this despite the fact that I am inclined to believe man is not a tripartite being.

[nobdysfool]

So, maybe we could say that the interface of the spirit and body gives rise to the soul, the essence of individual personhood that each person is, and that "soul" (to use the term in that light) is forever entwined with the spirit that gave rise to it. That would explain the survival of the person apart from the body.

It also makes way for the idea that the soul (person) will be again housed in a body, either the resurrected corruptible body (for the unbeliever) or the new incorruptible body like unto Christ's own body (for the believer, i.e."saved"). It would seem that man is made to inhabit a body, in one form or another, although he can survive apart from the body.

What you explained is pretty much the way I've come to believe. I have a slightly different take on the passage in Ephesians, in that I believe we are "in Christ" the same way we were "in Adam", and in that sense, wherever Christ is, is where we are in a legal sense. Obviously we are still on this earth, and I believe our spirits are here with us as well. If our spirit were not here, we would be dead! When the scripture says we are seated with Christ in the heavenlies, it is referring to our legal position, in Christ. The term "in Adam" must be taken in a legal sense, because Adam is no longer here. If we were literally in Adam, we'd be just as dead, physically, as he is. It is this legal standing, this legal placement, that give us access to the Father, through Jesus, and allows us to partake of the benefits of Christ and the promises to Abraham in this life. There is coming a day when we will literally and physically be with Christ, but that day is not yet. In the meantime, we have the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, to guide us, teach us, and empower us to live a Godly life in a fallen world.

[nobdysfool]

Just to clear up an unclear point: We are either "in Adam" or "in Christ" legally. It is not possible to be in both at the same time. In Adam, we were dead, spiritually, in trespasses and sin, with the ultimate end of physical death. In Christ, we are dead to sin and alive unto righteousness, with the ultimate end being the redemption of our bodies as well as our soul (personhood).

I didn't want to give the impression that we could be in Adam and in Christ at the same time.

[RnMomof7]

What I’m thinking of is since God doesn’t live on a time frame he still has to translate his thinking to humans in a time frame.

Very Clinton like...depends on what you mean by is

RB..God knows human future from human past..

If we go where you want to take us we had better not assume that the prophecies iof Jesus in the OT were future eithor

How about we trust God when He speaks huh? He is not Bill Clinton..or should I say Bill Clinton is not God:>)

[the_doc]

I completely agree with your first two paragraphs. They basically lay out the very same position which I presented on an earlier thread.

But again, we definitely do need to see why most of today's Christians (who are trichotomists [I wrongly called them trichotomous in #1365]) can't see what we are talking about. It's largely because one's "spirit" often is styled one's "soul." This practice started in the Old Testament--even though it's not really what Genesis 2 upholds concerning the true constitutional nature of man.

This evolution of the usage of language has caused a lot of confusion--especially for those who do not respect the hermeneutical rule of "first mention" (i.e., the reference to "soul" in Genesis 2)--not the least of which confusion involves the fact that a lot of folks have wound up wrongly concluding that one has a soul as a constituent substance in addition to the more easily appreciated substances of flesh and spirit. These confused folks don't notice that the passages which are confusing them are just considering man's personhood as to its spiritual character--and hence, assigning man's spiritually considered personhood to man's spirit [since a person is more than his mere flesh]. They don't realize that the controversial passages are essentially just calling the spirit the soul.

Again, Hebrews 4 implicitly acknowledges the fact of this way of speaking about soul and spirit even while Hebrews 4 is ultimately saying that a failure to distinguish between soul and spirit is not theologically fastidious in the higher sense of high doctrine.

If we non-trichotomists are not prepared to stipulate that the Bible sometimes does use the word "soul" to refer to man's spiritually considered personhood,--and hence to man's (flesh-imprinted?) spirit, then we won't be able to help the trichotomists understand the constitutional nature of man.

And if we do not appreciate the fact that one's spirit is sometimes called one's soul--even when non-embodied--we will not even see what is, in my sober opinion, quite evidently wrong with the literal/material reading of Revelation 20.

The problem is, it is awkward to think that John saw the souls of the souls. The only way out of this awkwardness is to realize that he saw persons considered as to their spirituality--but also to realize that the extra words are used by John to AVOID saying that he saw them as physically embodied.

There is no other good way to explain the fact that he used the extra words inherent in "souls of those who."

***

Your final paragraph is interesting for the position which you are taking, a position which is primarily federal in nature. I think you might want to consider an alternative viewpoint for the doctrine of original sin--one which is not primarily federal (if federal at all). I will try to dig up some links for you when I get a chance.

[RnMomof7]

But that still leaves the premills in trouble with their interpretation of Revelation 20.




How do you deal with the change from to the future tense in verse 6?

[Jean Chauvin]

"How do you address the change in tense to future in 20:6? Up to 5 it is Johns vision...Verse 6 on is John explaning the vision.."

I don't see anywhere that John 'leaves' his 'vision' from verse 5 to verse 6. It reads continuously. It continues to be his vision and he is fortelling of future events with respect to his current time in his vision.

Just as he tells us that Satan "must be loosed a little season", he also tells us that those who take part in the 'first resurrection' (something which has already happened in John's vision) "shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.". This is a future and different event than verse 4.

Of course, the Pre-Mill position needs vs. 6 to be a paranthetical, but it isn't.

"...that explaination is in the future tense..Seeing that John was already in the Kingdom by the amil position why would he place the event in the future tense? "

Look at Eph 2:

Paul tells us in vs 4,5: "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;);"

Paul is referring to a spiritual resurrection, just as John does in John 5:24,25 and John 11:25,26. Notice, especially, the connection in John 11:25,26 to Rev 20:4. John tells us in Rev 20:4 that these 'souls' lived and reigned.

In Rev 20:4, John uses the Greek word zao in it's past tenst term to mean 'lived'. That term ~never~ ~ever~ is used in the N.T. for the act of a lifeless body rising from the dead.

John uses the very same Greek word in John 5:25 and John 11:25,25 to describe our state of being ~before~ we are to be resurrected bodily/materially from the dead. John says in both verses that even though we may die that we will live and that, in a spiritual sense, we will ~never~ die.

In Eph 2, Paul refers to this as having already happened. Paul then goes on to say in verse 6 "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus"

Of course, I must note the similarities (again) to Rev 20:4 "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them"

. Again, Paul refers to this as having already happened.

Paul then goes on to say that all of us who God has ~already~ quickened and has ~already~ seated in heavenly places "That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus."

John is saying the very same thing in vs 6. John just got done describing the ~already happened~ state of the 'souls' as having 'lived' and 'reigned'. He calls this the 'First Resurrection', using the same Greek word for 'resurrection' he uses to describe our regeneration in John 11:25,26: anastasis.

John then goes on to say that those who have experienced the 'first resurrection' "~shall~ be priests" and "~shall~ reign". This, in a normal, straightforward reading refers to our future glory we will experience when Christ ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth in which we will live for all eternity.

Jean

[RnMomof7]

So, please calm down and quit saying that I am a false teacher, don't know the gospel, etc.

Woody you have been saying that the amil position is the gospel.There is a clear implication in your words that is..IF you do not agree you do not know the gospel...now if you do not know the TRUE gospel that means you know a FALSE gospel...If you know a false gospel you are not saved.

You have told us that THIS is the gospel..so Pastor Woody that leaves lots of Arminian and Calvinists doomed to hell....

There is one question though how could we all be so deceived when Satan is bound...we are all gentiles

[RnMomof7]

Read it again Jean...up to vs 5 is the vision...after that John expalins the vision...

[CCWoody]

You have told us that THIS is the gospel..so Pastor Woody that leaves lots of Arminian and Calvinists doomed to hell....

No, I have not said this. I have quoted the gospel and said I can't help what Millennial view this sounds like. And that is a far different thing. So, it leaves you confused as to what the fulness of the kingdom of God is.

I simply refuse to reinterpret every single eschatological teaching from Christ's lips based on a single verse of scripture.

There is one question though how could we all be so deceived when Satan is bound...we are all gentiles

Evidently it happens.

[Matchett-PI]

ftD: "Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way, and he that hateth reproof shall die (Pr.15:10)"

That Scripture you posted above on what happens to people who refuse to be "corrected", reminded me of a story I heard recently about what happened to a FReeper a while back by the screen name 'SecondPerson'.

As the story goes, for those who didn't hear it and are interested, SecondPerson had apparently been a lurker (watching the ones he called "Pharisee-wanna-bes" on the Free Republic religion forum) for quite a while before he registered to post.

They say that after he started posting, he had to be constantly on his guard since some were always trying to trap him and find a reason to get him kicked off the forum.

But things really headed downhill for him on the day he posted this: "Beware of the teachers of the law... such men will be punished most severely." And then he proceeded to show some examples of what he was talking about.

Almost immediately one of the P.C. Pharisee-wanna-bes loudly complained and jumped on his case by posting Scriptures.

He posted Proverbs 13:17 "A wicked messenger falls into trouble, but a trustworthy envoy brings healing." And he told everybody that if SecondPerson was really a Christian as he claimed, then he would write and speak in more "LOVING, and HEALING" terms. He railed on and on about how love and tolerance was sadly lacking in anyone who would make such comments about others.

SecondPerson responded to that post by also quoting Scripture: "Do you think I am on here to bring peace...? No, I tell you, but division...".

Well!!! Man oh, man! Did that ever set them off!!! One sent a post in all caps screaming "SEE???? We tried to tell you what sort of person this guy REEEEEEALLY is!! Don't believe a word he says!! How in the world could he say that he loves people when he turns around and in the same breath wants to divide them???"

He self-righteously hurried to post Scriptures like Psalm 133:1 "How good and how pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity." And Ephesians 4:3. He posted Proverbs 10:11 "The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but violence overwhelms the mouth of the wicked." And Proverbs 13:10 "Pride only breeds quarrels, but wisdom is is found in those who take advice."

(Some perceptive Freepers thought that the ~"those who take advice"~ comment was just a thinly veiled threat to SecondPerson warning him that if he was "wise" he would keep his mouth shut, and stop arguing --- forcing them to be angry ...... or else.)

SecondPerson responded that he was bold in what he wrote because he knew TRUTH was backing him up. He also said that he knew that truth wasn't something that legalists were interested in and therefore it was no wonder their buttons were being pushed at every turn.

SecondPerson suggested to the Pharisee-wanna-bes that they would *feel* much better if they just ignored his posts and not read what he wrote being as they were so offended by them; a very simple, peaceful, easy solution.

But the P.C. Pharisee-wanna-bes protested that they weren't so much offended by what he said as they were with the WAY he said it. If he force them to become so angry and he would be much more acceptable in their fellowship.

They told him that if he was smart, he would know that he could catch a lot more flies with honey than he could with vinegar.

Apparently SecondPerson just didn't listen to ~reason~ because, as the story goes, his next thread got him in even MORE trouble! He entitled it: "Hypocrites, Snakes and Vipers".

He figured that when they saw that heading (and noticed who posted it), they would decide it would not be anything they would want to read and would just bypass it without opening it. But man oh man! They could NOT leave well enough alone. They INSISTED upon opening it.

Of course, just as they suspected, he was back at it again telling FReepers that the Pharisee-wanna-bes looked good on the outside, just like "whited tombs", but "the inside" was a different story.

They just could not believe it!! This guy could NOT let up!! In his post, he was accusing them of trying to chase off all the wise men that God sent to teach them from the Scriptures.

In his post he called the P.C. legalists blind men, blind Pharisees, blind guides, blind fools, hypocrites, snakes, vipers, and told the Freepers that everything the legalists did was only for show ... was only to impress people.

WOW!!! Hell hath no fury like a politically correct Pharisee-wanna-be scorned!!! Immediately a flurry of posts from them hit the list. One of them accused SecondPerson of hate instead of love and posted a quote from Proverbs 10:12 "Hatred stirs up dissension but love covers over all wrongs."

Another Pharisee-wanna-be also accused SecondPerson of being a liar, a fool and of engaging in hate speech. Then he quoted Proverbs 10:18: "He who conceals his hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool".

Another Freeper (one of the SNL "Church Lady" types) who is an expert at knowing what is the loving, righteous thing to do in all human relations, accused SecondPerson of being a perverse, wicked person and quoted Proverbs 10:32 to prove it: "The lips of the righteous know what is fitting, but the mouth of the wicked only what is perverse".

From then on SecondPerson was a "marked man" on the forum. No matter what he posted, the Pharisee-wanna-bes could not abide it .... but refused to ignore his posts and not read them. They were bound and determined to get rid of him. They conspired in private FReepmail with each other as to the best way to proceed. Their posts became more and more threatening because SecondPerson would not permit them to shut him up.

No matter what SecondPerson posted, the P.C. legalist's tried to use the Scriptures against him and stepped up posting their veiled threats.

They posted things like: Proverbs 10:13 "Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks judgement".

Proverbs 13:3 "He who guards his lips guards his life, but he who speaks rashly will come to ruin."

This went on for months.

Then all of a sudden it dawned on people that SecondPerson hadn't posted anything for quite a while. Some FReepers were very concerned and a flurry of posts from them hit the list. "Where is he?", they asked. "I hope he's OK.", said some others. Someone checked his screen name and told everyone that "SecondPerson" was no longer a registered FReeper.

It wasn't long before one of the Pharisee-wanna-be Freepers posted a prayer request asking for prayers for SecondPerson's family. They said that they heard that he had been double-crossed by one he thought was his friend who had turned him in to the authorities on trumped up charges, gave false testimony about him at his trial, and before anyone could turn around, he was quickly executed on the same day as a couple of other criminals were.

The addresses for his mother and other family members were compiled and pinged to all on the FReeper "prayer list" so that cards of condolences could be sent.

The notes in the cards that the Pharisee-wanna-bes sent to SecondPerson's family members were particularly touching. It was said that none of the messages that were sent were as loving, sensitive, or showing such depth of concern, as their's were.

And for quite a while, the religion forum that SecondPerson had been participating in was loving and peaceful because even though those who were on it were of two minds, they just pretended that they weren't.

That way .... nobody has to get killed.

Isn't that special? LOL

[RnMomof7]

You have told us that THIS is the gospel..so Pastor Woody that leaves lots of Arminian and Calvinists doomed to hell....
No, I have not said this. I have quoted the gospel and said I can't help what Millennial view this sounds like. And that is a far different thing. So, it leaves you confused as to what the fulness of the kingdom of God is.

Do you deny you said it "is the gospel"?Is the pre mil position the gospel?

I simply refuse to reinterpret every single eschatological teaching from Christ's lips based on a single verse of scripture.

How bout chapters??Peter 3, Rev 20....