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)]

[George W. Bush]

First off, I am no Hal Lindsey booster, but why do you try to throw a past occupation in Hal's face like that is an excuse not to listen to him?

You're right. Actually, I just lifted it from something else I read. A memorable phrase that was nevertheless inappropriate.

You have made quite a few asides about dispensationalism and premillenialism. Would you tell us some of the particulars of these two positions which bother you?

It seems to me that in some way that I can't explain, that the combination of these two schools of thought leads to the greatest excesses. People get so focused on being raptured that it's the only spiritual thing they can talk about. My own house church is using the Left Behind series for Sunday night Bible study of Revelation. Now, it is just my opinion but I think there is a great deal more to Christian life than sitting around waiting for the Rapture. Would I love to be raptured (a word that isn't even a verb)? You bet! Am I certain that it will happen and that Christians in the final age will, alone in all of Christian history, escape death and persecution when even the apostles didn't? No. Do I have a concern that if there is no Rapture, that premill dispenationalists will refuse to recognize the Antichrist because they know the Antichrist can't take power before they are raptured? Yes, and I believe that in the tribulation (if we Christians are still here) there may be plenty of former brethren who persecute us. Believing in false prophecy (like insisting that the Rapture must precede the appearance of the Antichrist) might lead to this. Do I think a shameful amount of money is being spent on rapture wares and trivia that could do a lot more good for the cause of Christ in legitimate churches and particularly in missions work? Absolutely.

What was the result of all of those Christians a number of centuries back who were convinced that the sultan of the Ottoman empire was the Antichrist, that the Ottoman empire was cast in the Gog/Magog mold? Did subsequent events demonstrate that their prophetic hopes to be false? Was God glorified by it? Look back to the Reformation when Protestant eschatology kept identifying the current pope as the Antichrist? It was false. Those popes weren't Christian (their personal lives leads one to conclude they were atheists) but they weren't the Antichrist either.

I think about my grandmother who was very focused on the Rapture. She often cited the prophecy that the generation of Christians in which Israel was re-established would not die but would be raptured. She was still a young woman in 1946 so she took that pretty literally. To her, it meant that she couldn't die because she was of that generation. Up to her death a few years ago in her mid-nineties. She didn't like it when I pointed out that the prophecy might mean the generation just being born i.e., babies born after 1946 and that some of those babies could easily be expected to live at least 100 years. She liked it even less when I pointed out that the tiny sliver of land that we call Israel today is not the ancient kingdom of Israel which was much larger and which was God's decreed territory of Israel. What if the Israel of today is not the real Israel? And even today, the United States alone has more Jews than are in Israel. And there are millions more scattered around the globe. So it's difficult to argue that what we call Israel today fulfills that prophecy and we certainly can't say that the Jewish people have returned to Israel because the large majority simply haven't.

Having said all that, as a Southern Baptist, I insist that you have a right of Christian liberty in eschatology because it is not in the Baptist tradition to enforce any doctrine upon anyone which we do not find stated pretty unambiguously in scripture. But the modern teaching of some of these eschatological doctrines and the very serious questions about the promoters (writers and publishers) does not particularly recommend them. And I think that you can find many pastors who would agree with me on this matter. I try to judge, as best I can, the sort of fruit these vines are producing. The vine of premillenialism seems to have some problems and the branch of that vine which is dispensational seems to me to borne little sound fruit. That is not to say God has not used these things to draw His own near. He can use anything. But when we, as Christians, try to judge these matters (in cases where we do not feel strongly lead by prayer), it is hard to say that the premillennial dispensational vine has borne a good fruit.

I can understand you saying that about Lindsey, but Walvoord? That swipe was clearly undeserved unless you have something to back it up.

Writing sensationalist prophecy books for big bucks tends to put any celebrity christian on my suspect list. I used to be far more generous in my estimation. I finally learned better and no longer have any surprises from the celebrity christian types. The longer you observe their careers as celebrity Christians, the more I think you have to agree with me. In fact, I'm quite certain that you will, someday, agree with me on this matter.

You should understand that I have come to believe that God is not ready for primetime and He never will be. That is His choice. There is something incompatible between the media world and the things of God. For this reason, I hold almost any faithful sound Baptist preacher (like Jerry_M despite our past personal differences or the lay preacher of my own house church) in far higher regard than someone like Billy Graham. But then, I don't have much reason to believe that I am any more likely to see Billy Graham in heaven than I am to see John Paul II there. They are allies, you know. But the relatively unknown humble servants of our Lord, like Jerry or my own pastor, I have some confidence that I may see again in eternity. The Lord seems to have a pronounced preference for using humble and what the world thinks as very ordinary persons to do great things for Him and I think He does to show His glory. To show His glory and mercy to the children of God, to show the hosts of hell that they shall not prevail, to show the world that He is still the One who said "I am that I am.".

I think that there are a lot of celebrity christians waiting to fill itching ears with anything but sound doctrine and the full counsel of God's Word. Instead, we see Late Great Planet Earth and Prayer of Jabez and nutty rapture books and spiritual/angelic warfare books, preachers who tell us to turn to psychology instead of Christ, leaders like Sproul and Bill Bright and Chuck Colson who led a lot of deluded people into ECT and thinking that the church of Rome had changed its spots until the pope pulled the rug out from under them like the popes always do to their ecumentical victims. (My only surprise and disappointment here was that Sproul fell for it. I was starting to hope he was sound enough to be generally trusted. No more.) How busy and entertaining they all are. But do they produce a good fruit? What really are the results of all these fads?

I doubt that the hawkers of such wares are preaching the true Gospel. Even if God chooses to use such poor vessels and teachings to draw His own to repentance, it can hardly be a credit to them because He will have saved those souls despite the poor testimony offered by such vessels.

[drstevej]

Bill Moyers:

The Bible is a closed book unless you approach it with an open heart. And if you are alarmed or disarmed by what others say about your faith, instead of learning from them, instead of taking in and thinking about it, then you're probably not on very strong ground in the first place, in terms of your doctrine or you theology. Doctrine and theology are a lot less important to me than the experience that comes from actually thinking about, talking about, trying to live, your beliefs.

I am a Christian. I was raised in a Christian church; I still find the story of Christianity my own story, but I've learned so much over the years from listening to other religions. From Buddhism I've learned the importance of serenity and contemplation, and the mindfulness of the present moment. I was raised to think only of eternity, the life after, but I missed a lot of life because of that, so Buddhists have taught me about the importance of the present experience.

From the Confucianists I've learned a lot about the importance of composing the social, of the importance of harmony within before you get any harmony in society. The teachings of Confucius, who was clearly no god, kept 900 million people of the planet together as a coherent society for a long time. And their emphasis on the ethical relationship between us in a society has meant a great deal to me.

From Judaism I've gotten this magnificent emphasis upon the prophetic voice, the importance of conscience, the fact that speaking truth to power grows out of a deep idea of who your god is. That's been very important to me, even in my own shortcomings, it's been of great importance to me.

From the Sufi Muslims I've learned the incredible notion of the union with God. This yearning for intimacy with God is something that means a great deal to me.

From the Taoists I've gotten this notion of yin and yang, of how melded and mixed our human natures are, with the black dot in the white matrix and the white dot in the black matrix. I was taught that life is good or bad, that people are good or evil, when, in fact, we all contain good and bad. We all contain good and evil, and from the Taoists, I've taken this.

So the point I'm making is that, no matter how firm you are in your own foundation, you can listen to other people talk about their experience of reality and get something from it that grows your own understanding of your own religion. And as Houston Smith said in that series of interviews I did with him, you don't have to abandon your own religious tradition in order to hear other people. You just have to go deeper into it, because underneath all of these, particularly these six enduring traditions, is a common water table of humanity. Belief may flower, as I've said earlier, in a thousand blooms, but, underneath it is a common aspiration to experience a transcendent reality and to find meaning in life. So listening to others and having them listen to you is a way to grow your own faith.

[xzins]

Gentry

Isn't he a full-blown preterist?

Author

The traditional author of Revelation is John the Apostle. However, in recent years, some scholars have questioned apostolic authorship. (The author refers to himself simply as "John" (Rev. 1:1, 1:4, 1:9, 22:8)). As backing for a non-apostolic authorship, some scholars point to the fact that Revelation is written in a crude, Greek style significantly different than the Gospel of John. (One counter-theory is that Revelation was originally written in Aramaic, and (crudely) translated into the Greek version we have today.)

The John the Apostle connection comes from this passage in the first Chapter of Revelation:

“I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” (NIV, Rev. 1:9)

There is a great body of early church tradition that identifies the author as being John the Apostle (see section “The authority of Revelation”), and also associating John the Apostle with an exile on Patmos.

According to Hippolytus (170-236 A.D.), John was banished by Domitian to the Isle of Patmos, and later died in Ephesus (one of the 7 churches referenced in Revelation):

“John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.”

Eusebius (c. 260 - c. 340 A.D.; Bishop of Caeserea), author of Ecclesiastic History in 325 A.D., records:

“...Asia to John, who, after he had lived some time there, died at Ephesus.” (Book 3, Chapter 1)

“IT is said that in this persecution [Domitian] the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.” (Book 3, Chapter 17)

Eusebius also records that John outlived Domitian:

“AT that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island... [Irenaeus] in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes as follows: ‘And all the elders that associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan.’” (Book 3, Chapter 23)

Given that the emperor Domitian began his rule in 81 A.D., and died in 96 A.D., is it possible that John the Apostle could have still been alive by 96 A.D.? If John was in his late teens at the time of the death of Jesus in c. 30 A.D, he would have been in his 80s or 90s when he died. Certainly a reasonable possibility

Eusebius also records the words of Clement of Alexandria regarding the preaching and establishment of churches in Asia by John the Apostle:

“For when, after the tyrant’s death, he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Spirit...” (Book 3, Chapter 23)

There is no compelling evidence to doubt that John the Apostle was the author of Revelation.

Date

Most scholars put the date of the writing of Revelation at the end of the reign of Roman Emperor Domitian (95/96 A.D.) Early Church Father Iranaeus reported that it had been written during the reign of Domitian (81-96 A.D.). Some scholars think it could have been as early as Nero's reign (68 A.D.), based on a literal interpretation of Rev. 11:1-2 (Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D.)

I’d prefer a date in the late 80s/early 90s, making it the last book of what later became the New Testament to be written.

[drstevej]

***Writing sensationalist prophecy books for big bucks tends to put any celebrity christian on my suspect list. I used to be far more generous in my estimation. I finally learned better and no longer have any surprises from the celebrity christian types. The longer you observe their careers as celebrity Christians, the more I think you have to agree with me. In fact, I'm quite certain that you will, someday, agree with me on this matter.
***

Your swipe at Walvoord was not well substantiated. You do not know him. You have no idea how much he makes or what he does with what he does make.

I do know him. I have studied under him. I have watched his demeanor among faculty and students for over four years. I have heard many of his close friends (including his successor Don Campbell) speak of his character and dedicated service to the Lord.

GWB, I ask you to publically retract your generalizations about and caricature of Dr. Walvoord. You are dead wrong about him and need to be honest enough to admit it.

[the_doc]

The truth is that premillennialists, amillennialists and postmillennialists all believe that Scripture should be interpreted literally at times and symbolically at other times, depending on the context of the passage and intent of the author.

Premillennialist authors tell their readers that they interpret the Bible literally.

But if you read their books, scenes with bows, arrows and horses become future battles with tanks, helicopters and airplanes. The mark of the beast becomes a computer chip or bar code. The locusts from the bottomless pit (Rev. 9) supposedly become attack helicopters, and so on.

Are there any premillennial authors or commentators who believe that the beast from the sea with seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 13) is a literal creature? The point is, premillennialists, amillennialists and postmillennialists all interpret some passages symbolically and some passages literally.

The only way to determine who has the best interpretation is to use sound biblical principles of interpretation in examining the passages in question.

This means that the context, the audience, the author’s intent, the time of the writing, and so on, must be considered.

This deserves a bump.

And it is probably worth mentioning that 2 Peter 3 manifestly maintains in literal fashion that when the Lord comes to earth the next time, the world will be quickly destroyed.

2 Peter 3 is by no means the only passage which militates against the literal reading of Revelation 20. It's just one of the clearer passages.

So, either you read 2 Peter 3 literally or you read Revelation 20 literally. You can't have it both ways. (And when you discover all of the other arguments against the premillennial position--for example, Acts 2; the Jeconiah curse, the "souls of those" language in Revelation 20, and the verb tense changes in Revelation 20--the evidence against the premill position becomes overwhelming.

And since the postmill position doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion, we ought to wind up as amills.

[George W. Bush]

Bill Moyers:

For a second there, I didn't realize that you were quoting Moyers and actually thought all the rest that followed was your own personal testimony.

My poor late night reading raised my blood pressure at least 50 points and nearly resulted in a reply to you that would be scorching even by my own admittedly low standards.

Please don't do that again unless you trying to give me a stroke.

I'm very glad these were Moyers' words and not those of any poster on this thread. Whatever other differences any of us may hold on various doctrine, at least we all seem to share what I call the orthodox Christian view that reaches back all the way to the apostles.

A close call.

[George W. Bush]

But if you read their books, scenes with bows, arrows and horses become future battles with tanks, helicopters and airplanes. The mark of the beast becomes a computer chip or bar code. The locusts from the bottomless pit (Rev. 9) supposedly become attack helicopters, and so on.

the_doc's quote reminded me of your perceptive post. I thought I'd point out that it is historically typical of premillennial dispensationalists of the more sensationalist variety to seize upon almost anything to support their position. For instance, during our invasion of Afghanistan, our troops were forced by rugged terrain to use horses. This was seized upon as a demonstration of how the final great battle in history could be fought on horseback instead of with modern armored equipment. One also sees a tendency to seize upon "popular science" or speculative science magazines popular with young people to envision how all modern weapons will become useless in the final battle and force a return to ancient weaponry. When you examine it, it starts to read like some sort of strange religious science fiction. I won't even attempt to describe what Texe Marrs and Jack Van Impe are doing these days.

This tendency in the more sensational premill literature is growing observably more extreme. It's difficult for me personally to believe that God intends us to spend our time this way. Quite honestly, I can't afford to be distracted by such things. I need to remember to pray, to turn to the Lord, to avoid doing things or dwelling in thoughts that revive carnal thinking and to let Christ be my master and not keep letting my sin nature make of me a liar in my promise that Christ is my Lord. Sometimes I wonder if it's just me and all the rest of you are so much more spiritually than I am. And it may be true. But to me, so much of the eschatology and many other disputes pulls me away from letting Christ be the center of my life. So easy to find all sorts of Christian entertainments that effectively unseat Christ from His rightful throne over me.

Perhaps one of my biggest concerns is that I know people who I think have as a big a struggle as I do with these things but they devote themselves to Rapture books and such. Personally, I've had to strongly retract from the Calvinist threads and FR in general because it had become too distracting. Discussing doctrine can be helpful but it simply is not the object of Christian living. So easy to be distracted, given our (or at least my) nature.

[drstevej]

GWB, I ask you to publically retract your generalizations about and caricature of Dr. Walvoord. You are dead wrong about him and need to be honest enough to admit it.

[Matchett-PI]

"Isn't he a full-blown preterist?"

No, he isn't. Gentry is a post-mill who believes that Christians have many great things to accomplish for Christ before He returns bodily to earth.

He believes that as the world becomes more and more Christianized during this *realized millenial period* that things will get better and better and the result will be a long period of peace and prosperity. Satan will be loosed for a short period just before Christ returns.

I don't see any historical evidence that would cause me to believe that things will get "better and better" as time goes on. On the contrary ... looking back over history, what I see are cycles from good to evil to good to evil, etc., etc.

That's why I believe in a parallel growth of good and evil during the *Realized Millennium" with the church continuing to endure Tribulation during this church age (times of the Gentiles). The Tribulation will increase when Satan is loosed for a short time just before the second coming of Christ, and the setting up of the new heavens and the new earth.

[George W. Bush]

I just noticed that my last post was 1666. Worried, I quickly checked who posted #666 on this thread.

It was you.

One can only imagine the number of FReepmails flying furiously by now, the general gist of which might be characterized as "A-HA!".

Of course, many people are unaware of a pronounced and documented tendency in the Bible Belt to refuse license plates and phone numbers that contain the number 666. Further, business people in some regions relate that people have refused purchases whose total is $6.66 and other strange numerical phobias. Eschatological numerology is really quite amazing.

Time for bed. A long and exciting day today.

[drstevej]

GWB, I ask you to publically retract your generalizations about and caricature of Dr. Walvoord. You are dead wrong about him and need to be honest enough to admit it.

[George W. Bush]

GWB, I ask you to publically retract your generalizations about and caricature of Dr. Walvoord...

I'm very familiar with the history of demanded apologies in these threads. At least you haven't demanded that I apologize to you for offending Christ or the Gospel, the more familiar tactic from the past.

That dog ain't going to hunt. And I think you already know this. Your pursuit of it is likely calculated to other ends than the one declared.

[drstevej]

***Your pursuit of it is likely calculated to other ends than the one declared. ***

This too is wrong.

[George W. Bush]

Admittedly, my past experience at FR may make me rather suspicious. I take everything at FR with a big grain of salt unless I have substantial personal and spiritual correspondence or personal contact with a fellow-FReeper. I was once far more trusting.

[fortheDeclaration]

The persecutions by Nero were the worst in human history? (Matt.24:21)

Was the destruction of Jerusalem worse then the Holocost?

How about the Roman Catholic Inquisition which killed more Christians then did the Roman Pagan persecutions?

[fortheDeclaration]

Now I have tried to get a firm YES or NO from Woody if believing that the AMIL is the one and only gospel if we (that would include his false gospel teaching pastor and church elders.) are lost

Maybe he needs to find out what OP and Doc think first! :>)

[fortheDeclaration]

To say that God has two separate peoples is to implicitly assert that Christ has two brides. LOL

No, Israel is the Father's Bride, not Christs (the Son)

[fortheDeclaration]

But if chapter 19 is taken literally, there are no nations for Christ to rule over in chapter 20.

Ofcourse, there are, they are there in Rev.21. These are the 'sheep' nations of Matt.25:32. LOL!

[fortheDeclaration]

If you don't believe me, read 1 Enoch for yourself.

The book of Enoch is a spurious, non-canonical book!

[JesseShurun]

It would help if we agreed more or less on just what the kingdom is wouldn't it? A kingdom implies a realm of some kind, someplace and with a king ruling over it. It likely has subjects that are ruled. There is some kind of "there" there.

Now we know that the kingdom of God has been prepared from the beginning for its inhabitants. Like God and Jesus Christ, it was, is, and will be, forever. It is also a transcendent realm, outside of time. Our time frame is meaningless there. Do we agree on that?

There is a key to it, correct? As good disciples of the Lord, you know what this key is. After all, to you are given the understanding of the parables.

The John who wrote Revelation thought in terms of Hebrew theology though he wrote it in Greek. You have to have a very complete understanding of the OT to understand what he is saying.

It would be good if you knew the full implications of the terms the son of man and the Day of the Lord.

The book begins on the Lord's Day and ends with the eucharist. It unfolds in time, but which time exactly? Time is a relative term, do we agree on that?

There's a microcosm and a macrocosm involved, past, present and future and the eternal present.

There's a war waging in heaven right now, do we agree on that? There's a war that did rage and another one that will rage. I suspect if we were outside time, or, in the kingdom, the transcendent realm, the events would seem simultaneous to us on some level. Do we agree on that?

After death, whatever time it takes on earth for one to awaken, the next thing you see will be heaven or hell. When the thief woke up, he was with the Lord, but even on earth, while hanging on the cross, he was saved, safe in Christ and therefore a member of the kingdom. His belief and response to the Lord gained for him, the Presence of God.

The Presence is in the kingdom, do we agree on that? After all, He is the One who rules. You can't have a kingdom without Him. If you are not in the kingdom,if you yourself are not the kingdom, then you must be in hell.

The kingdom and hell co-exist in time, do we agree on that? One has the Presence and one does not. It has Satan as its ruler. We have fought against him, are fighting against him and will fight against him in the future. The Lord says He came to bind the strong man and to plunder his possessions. As long as people are being saved, Satan is bound. The Lord will take as many of us as He wants.

The kingdom was, is and will be, an ongoing process. There are people like the good thief in it, there are people like say, oh I don't know, Woody in it, and there will be people not yet born, in it. Do we agree on that?

A person's response to Christ, who is the gospel, who preached the gospel and who lived the gospel, decides whether they are saved or not. That decision to believe Him, renders them worthy to act as the standard by which the rest of mankind is judged, but in effect, we judge ourselves by our response to Him. Therefore it is possible for the redeemed to share the throne with Him even now, and sit on thrones, now, judging others.

Do you get my drift in all this? Three tenses run throughout the book, not just in Rev 20.