Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spurgeon's View of the MILLENNIUM
Pilgrim Pub. ^ | MARK A. MCNEIL

Posted on 09/12/2002 7:19:20 AM PDT by 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)]



TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: amillennialism; burnservetus; calburnbibles; calvinism; falsedoctrine; heritics; millenium; postmillennialism; premillennialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,761-1,7801,781-1,8001,801-1,820 ... 2,721-2,722 next last
To: Matchett-PI; xzins; ksen; maestro; RnMomof7; Woodkirk
Was the Holocost or the RC Inquisition "history" when Matt. 24:21 was written?

The prophecy states For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time nor, ever shall be (Matt.24:21)

So, if greater persecutions followed the fall of Jerusalem, it could not have fulfilled that prophecy!

(isn't that special?) LOL!

1,781 posted on 09/25/2002 12:08:39 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1703 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Basic gospel stuff. ;-)

Are the amils the only ones with the saving gospel?

1,782 posted on 09/25/2002 12:13:34 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1776 | View Replies]

To: xzins; nobdysfool; RnMomof7; CCWoody; Matchett-PI; the_doc; OrthodoxPresbyterian; jude24; ...
"I didn't say they were postmillenialists."

I ~didn't~ say you ~said~ they ~were~ postmillennialists. I simply said you offered that as a possibility. I only mention this silly little point because of your continual misreading of posts and scripture and misrepresenting what they say. Those reading comprehension classes would do some good!

"I said your post by Justin Martyr doesn't say anything at all about those other Christians who don't believe in his brand of premillennialism."

So, now, you claim, Justin is remarking that "many" do not believe in his "brand of premellennialism".

Sorry, x, the entire point of Ch. 80 of Martyr's dialoge with Trypho is specifically addressing, not his "brand of premillennialism", but the issue ~specifically~ of a temprorary '1000' year reign on earth before the New Heavens and the New Earth.

It is to ~this~ that Martyr claims "many", who are pious Christians, do not believe.

~IN FACT~, the title to Ch. 80 is Chapter LXXX.-The Opinion of Justin with Regard to the Reign of a Thousand Years. Several Catholics Reject It.

So, this means that there are "many", according to Martyr who reject pre-millennialism!

"Nothing, nada, nichts. NOt a word. "

When making such sweeping universal statements about History which you have shown complete ignorance for in the past ~will~ come back to burn your britches! LOL!

"It isn't said. Since Justin doesn't say, it's safer to think they were a different variety of premill than anything else, since that variety of doctrine WAS EXPLICITLY acknowledged. "

~YES~, he ~DOES~ say -specifically-, as I have shown, that "many" do not believe in the temporary 1000 year earthly reign!

"But that doesn't change the fact that Justin Martyr NOPLACE mentions amillennialism....anywhere....ever. "

Of course he doesn't mention the name 'amillennialism' because that name did not exist until about 100 years ago. ~BUT~, he ~does~ mention specifically that "many" reject the 1000 year temporary reign on earth. This means that "many" were ~NOT~ premillennial, but 'post' millennial! And since RnMomof7 has already declared that the 1000 year earthly reign (I remind you, again, Rev 20 says nothing of this '1000' years taking place ~on earth~!) ~IS~ the issue, it matters little that these "many" Justin mentions are what today we would call "postmillennial" or the amillennial variety of 'post' millennialism.

And ~THEREFORE~, your continued claim that the early church was entirely and completely pre-millennial is a downright damned ~LIE~!

Jean

1,783 posted on 09/25/2002 12:14:57 PM PDT by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1419 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
I can see where it can be seen as a "sudden "judgement Woody...

My problem is with the "binding "of Satan...and a 2000 year millenium....

1,784 posted on 09/25/2002 12:17:46 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1776 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
You are still reading your PreMillennialism into the text:

So it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend,... and will cast them into the furnace of fire.

Look, the parable of the tares establishes that the separation of the wicked and the just will be at the end of this age.

We agree on this, we just have a MINOR 1,000-year difference of opinion. ;^)

Plus, you are taking a uniquely gospel era idea, that of fishing for men, and making it into a Millennial reign term. Now, as an Amil, this is not at all offensive to me, but as a PreMil, you are not allowed to do this. There will be no preaching of the gospel the PreMill tells us during the Reign of Christ for all will know the Lord.

In Mt 13:47-50 the fish are not being gathered by the Gospel, they are being gathered in order to separate the good from the bad. The good go to Heaven, the bad go to the Lake of Fire.

And the Matthew 25 separation of the sheep and goats occurs when the Son of Man comes with all His angels. The sheep will inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world and the goats will head into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. This is exactly what Matthew 13:49-50 is describing. This is the same identical thing.

Right.

Unfortunately, you need this to say that the goats are sent from the lord to Hades (the abode of the dead) to wait for them to be cast into the Lake of Fire. But this is not where they go. This would not make sense anyway. Why would the graves, i.e. Hades, give up her dead only to receive them again for 1000 more years. They are heading to the everlasting fire just exactly as the text says, also called geenna, hell fire, the Lake of fire, the furnace of fire.

No, at this separation I have said the goats are sent to the Lake of Fire. If I posted something different I must have mispoken.

And another slam dunk is 1 Co 15:26 which identifies Death as an enemy of God. So it as well will be cast into the furnace of fire at the end of this age.

Again we agree. What we disagree on is when the age ends. I maintain it ends after Jesus reigns on earth for a thousand years after His return. You maintain that it ends immediately upon His return.

1,785 posted on 09/25/2002 12:21:22 PM PDT by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1776 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; CCWoody
One last thought for you today.

As you can see I am of the already, but not yet school of eschatology. What I meant for you to see with the thief, is that he and the one on the left, who rejected Jesus, represents all of us.Sheep and goats. You are one or the other. Salvation-history is a dynamic relationship between God and His people. His grace means that history is open and there can be no eschatological timetable. The heart of eschatology is not when, or what, but WHO, not a schedule or a plan, but a PERSON. The Gospels move us to contemplate the future not by giving us a blueprint, but by relating all to Jesus, Messiah and Son of man.

1,786 posted on 09/25/2002 12:39:11 PM PDT by JesseShurun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1782 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; CCWoody; Matchett-PI; OrthodoxPresbyterian; the_doc; jude24
" Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.

Close of Vision...now the explaination of it end of the vision(again past tense)"

So your defense that John 'closes' his vision is that he claims that vs 4 is the 'first resurrection'???? That's it? Why does the fact that John makes mention that vs 4 is the "first resurrection" ~necessitate~ a 'closing' of the vision? I don't get it.

Furthermore, you now claim that the "future" tense in vs 6-9 ~necissitate~ the understanding that these verses are simply an 'explanation' or 'interpretation' of the previous 5 verses???

That leaves you with a big problem. In 8b and 9 we see the mention of the 'war' of Gog/Magog. This was ~NOT~ mentioned before in Rev 20. It is ~new~ to the vision. ~IF~ this were a recapitulation of John's previous vision, then we ~MUST~ conclude that this is an explanation of 19:17-21.

Unfortunatley, this would require you to reject Historic Premillennialims claim of a battle at the end of the millennium since this is 'obviously' an explanation of John's previous statements of the battle in Ch. 19!

~Rather~, vs 8b and 9 are ~NEW~ descriptions of events to take place which were in relation to the previously mentioned future release of Satan from his binding to 'deceive the nations again'. Notice, in vs 3 we ~also~ have the description of Satan's release spoken of as a prediction of the future from John's standpoint in his vision. It uses, as does vs 6, future tense to describe the realities to come to pass of something from John's relative point of refernce in the vision.

'Future tense' in Revelelation does ~NOT~ indicate a recapitulation or interpretation or explanation of the events previously discussed.

It would be kind of silly for John in an "explanation" or "interpretation" of vs 4's "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" that "they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years".

~WOW~! That really really cleared things up! I didn't know what John meant by 'they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years'. Now, thanks to John's explanation, I know that 'they lived and reinged with Christ a thousand years' means that 'they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years'. That really cleared things up! I wouldn't have been able to see what John was talking about without that explanation! (Sarcasm intended -but with all due respect- to make a point).

Talk about 'stating the obvious'!

Mom, Rev is 'filled' with referneces to future events from John's relative perspective in his vision:

Revelation 5:10
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. Is -this- an explanation of John's previous vision? Or Or Is it a prophetic glimpse of things to come which have not yet taken place with respect to John's relative place in his vision?

Revelation 7:17
For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Is this an explanation of John's previous vision? Or Is it a prophetic glimpse of things to come which have not yet taken place with respect to John's relative place in his vision?

1,787 posted on 09/25/2002 12:40:00 PM PDT by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1439 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Well, because you have a definite time gap of 1000 years between the return of the Lord and the gathering of offensive things out of the Lord's kingdom. So, unless you are going to maintain that your "paradise" is full of porn and murder and all things offensive, your reading is not helped by appealing to the JKV rendering of "world" for aion.

I’m not sure what the wickedness will be. There will be some because we are told that Satan is loosed for a time at the end and will deceive many.

1,788 posted on 09/25/2002 12:48:32 PM PDT by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1780 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin; RnMomof7; drstevej; fortheDeclaration; winstonchurchill; ShadowAce; P-Marlowe; ...
~IN FACT~, the title to Ch. 80 is Chapter LXXX.-The Opinion of Justin with Regard to the Reign of a Thousand Years. Several Catholics Reject It.

Jean, do you think that Justin gave that title to that chapter? Or do you think it was given later?

The piece you posted occurs shortly after the beginning of the chapter, Jean. The beginning has Trypho ask Justin if he thinks JERUSALEM WILL BE REBUILT AND THE PEOPLE GATHERED TOGETHER WITH CHRIST AND THE PATRIARCHS....Now, the piece you posted, was Justin's answer to this question about the rebuilt Jerusalem: ...I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise...."

He is answering about the people being gathered together by Christ in a rebuilt Jerusalem. He goes ON TO TALK ABOUT THE 1000 YEAR REIGN.

MOREOVER, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish....For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. FOR IF YOU HAVE FALLEN IN WITH SOME WHO ARE CALLED CHRISTIANS, BUT WHO DO NOT ADMIT THIS [TRUTH], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians....BUT I AND OTHERS, WHO ARE RIGHT-MINDED CHRISTIANS ON ALL POINTS, ARE ASSURED THAT THERE WILL BE A RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, AND A THOUSAND YEARS IN JERUSALEM, WHICH WILL THEN BE BUILT, ADORNED, AND ENLARGED, [AS] THE PROPHETS EZEKIEL AND ISAIAH AND OTHERS DECLARE.

1,789 posted on 09/25/2002 12:50:00 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1783 | View Replies]

To: xzins; nobdysfool; CCWoody; Matchett-PI; the_doc; OrthodoxPresbyterian; jude24
"Eusebius (c. 260 - c. 340 A.D.; Bishop of Caeserea), author of Ecclesiastic History in 325 A.D., records:

I'm glad to see that you are such a big fan of Eusebius!

For he records:

XIX. The same Domitian gave orders for the execution of those of the family of David and an ancient story goes that some heretics accused the grandsons of Judas (who is said to have been the brother, according to the flesh, of the Savior) saying that they were of the family of David and related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates this exactly as follows. XX. “Now there still survived of the family of the Lord grandsons of Judas, who was said to have been his brother according to the flesh and they were delated as being of the family of David. These the officer brought to Domitian Caesar, for, like Herod, he was afraid of the coming of the Christ. He asked them if they were of the house of David and they admitted it…They were asked concerning the Christ and his kingdom, its nature, origin, and time of appearance, and explained that it was neither of the world nor earthly, but heavenly and angelic, and it would be at the end of the world, when he would come in glory to judge the living and the dead and to reward every man according to his deeds. At this Domitian did not condemn them at all, but despised them as simple folk, released them, and decreed an end to the persecution against the church. But when they were released they were the leaders of the churches, both for their testimony and for their relation to the Lord, and remained alive in the peace which ensued until Trajan.
(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, xix-xx, p237-239, Harvard University Press, London/Cambridge, Mass, 1926)

Interesting, isn't it, that the grandnephews of our Lord tell us that Jesus' kingdom is ~NOT~ 'earthly' and will appear "at the end of the world, when he would come in glory to judge the living and the dead". Hmmmm...the grandnephews of our Lord said Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead -just like 2 Peter 3. (Notice, ~NOT ONE~ mention of the alleged 1000 year temporary earthly reign. Not even a way to read it into this one!)

Yup, not even a ~hint~ of amillennialism. LOL!

Eusebius goes on to say:

XXVIIII. We have received the tradition that at the time under discussion Cerinthus founded another heresy. Gaius, whose words I have quoted before, in the inquiry attributed to him writes as follows about Cerinthus. “Moreover, Cerinthus, who through revelations attributed to the writing of a great apostle, ~lyingly~ introduces portents to us as though shown him by angels, and says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be on earth and that humanity living in Jerusalem will again be the slave of lust and pleasure He is the enemy of the scriptures of God and in his desire to deceive says that the marriage feast will last a thousand years.” Dionysius, too, who held the bishopric of the diocese of Alexandria in our time, in the second book of his Promises makes some remarks about the Apocalypse of John as though from ancient tradition and refers to the same Cerinthus in these words, “ Cerinthus too, who founded the Cerinthian heresy named after him, wished to attach a name worthy of credit to his own invention, for the doctrine of his teaching was this, that the kingdom of Christ would be on earth, and being fond of his body and very carnal he dreamt of a future according to his own desires, given up to the indulgence of the flesh, that is, eating and drinking and marrying, and to those things which seem a euphemism for these things, feasts and sacrifices and the slaughter of victims.”
Dionysius said this and Irenaeus in his first book Against Heresies quoted some of his more abominable errors, and in the third book has committed to writing a narrative, which deserves not to be forgotten, stating how, according to the tradition of Polycarp, the apostle John once went into the bath-house to wash, but when he knew that Cerinthus was within leapt out of the place and fled from the door, for he did not endure to be even under the same roof with him, and enjoined on those who were with him to do the same thing, saying, “Let us flee, lest the bath-house fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”
(Ibid., Book III, Ch. XXVIII, p.263-67)

Notice, it is said that Cerinthus "~lyingly~" attributes this 1000 year temporary earthly reign to the apostles!

Yup, not even a 'hint' of amillennialism! LOL!

Jean

1,790 posted on 09/25/2002 12:55:06 PM PDT by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1663 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
This is no BIG revelation Woody..I have too many "senior" moments to have huge revelations:>)

It is just every time I read of the covenant cut by God between Him and Abram..I would get caught up with the symbolism of the smoking oven and the torch

We know from earlier and later writings that fire and smoke are a sign of Gods presence, so that was a given..and I have been told that the furnace was a symbol of the of God the Father (judgement) , and the torch was Jesus (Mercy). So the covenant was cut between the Father and Jesus with Abraham.

I just accepted that and moved on with no understanding of the furnace..( I could understand the torch as Jesus as ...the light of the world..a light unto our path)...but the furnace kept hanging me up why a furnace..I kept asking and asking anytime it came up (even survey teachers) no one had an answer..

When I read the scriptures from Matthew you posted I just understood..why the furnace was a sign of the judgement of God...   

  Rev 9:2   And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

     Rev 9:3   And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

Mat 13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Yes I did know that the Gospel was preached to Abraham...in Gen 3...

The oven had me hung up..it was like hitting a wall..

1,791 posted on 09/25/2002 1:01:18 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1777 | View Replies]

To: xzins; CCWoody; Matchett-PI; the_doc
"Jean, do you think that Justin gave that title to that chapter? Or do you think it was given later? "

There is no reason why I would ~assume~ either way. In otherwords, "presuming" this title was added by others. You could say, then, that those who do not lack reading comprehension skills as you have frequently shown you lack, see this chapter ~NOT~ as Justin suggesting that "many" don't agree with his "brand of premillennialism" but with "premillennialism" in general.

But, I'm sure I can find a hard copy interlinear (as is the case with the Eusebius book I have) which would help us out. -that is if you find a need to parse things that much!

"He is answering about the people being gathered together by Christ in a rebuilt Jerusalem. He goes ON TO TALK ABOUT THE 1000 YEAR REIGN. "

Isn't that all part of premillennialism? Can premillennialism exist without Jerusalem being rebuilt???

Only a deceivious need to 'parse' this chapter would result in the reading you claim.

"MOREOVER, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish....For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. FOR IF YOU HAVE FALLEN IN WITH SOME WHO ARE CALLED CHRISTIANS, BUT WHO DO NOT ADMIT THIS [TRUTH], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians....BUT I AND OTHERS, WHO ARE RIGHT-MINDED CHRISTIANS ON ALL POINTS, ARE ASSURED THAT THERE WILL BE A RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, AND A THOUSAND YEARS IN JERUSALEM, WHICH WILL THEN BE BUILT, ADORNED, AND ENLARGED, [AS] THE PROPHETS EZEKIEL AND ISAIAH AND OTHERS DECLARE. "

Of course, with your low reading comprehension, I ~EXPECTED~ you to emphasize this. Notice he defines these 'non' Christians as those who reject the resurrection of the body. These Justin declares to be outside of the orthodox faith is in complete contrast to the previous staments of Justin of the "many" who disagree with premillennialism: "but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the ~pure~ and ~pious~ faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise"

Those who Martyr calls heretics are those who "who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven" (i.e. Gnostics). This is a far different group than the "many" who are "pure" and "pious" who disagree with premillennialism.

Reading comprehension, xzins -go for it!

Jean

1,792 posted on 09/25/2002 1:12:44 PM PDT by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1789 | View Replies]

To: Ready2go
"Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and sitting on them were those who had been given the right to judge. "

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but the Greek (Nestle or T.R.) do not support this translation.

The Greek says that the 'souls' were given "krima" (Strong's 2917). Krima ~never~ means 'authority to judge' or 'right to judge'. Krima literally means 'verdict'. In otherwords, the 'souls' were given a verdict

The Greek reads: "And I saw thrones; and they sat upon them, and judgment as given to them; and the souls of those beheaded on account of the testimony of Jesus...."

Jean

1,793 posted on 09/25/2002 1:22:45 PM PDT by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1693 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin
Why do you attack me when you post? I understand sarcasm, but why demean me?
1,794 posted on 09/25/2002 1:28:38 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1792 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Since it is also apparent that the thief on the cross never really repented, though he did acknowledge that he was a brigand, it appears that with God's saving grace, there are times when just believing is sufficient. His grace is sufficient.

Therefore the gospel is not Repent and believe, but Believe, My grace is sufficient for thee.

1,795 posted on 09/25/2002 1:30:42 PM PDT by JesseShurun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1780 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun; CCWoody
How do you know he did not repent?

Faith is a gift from God..God does not hear the prayers of sinners..therefore if the thief had a saving faith it was a gift from God..and it followed His repentance

1,796 posted on 09/25/2002 1:34:52 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1795 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
The heart of eschatology is not when, or what, but WHO, not a schedule or a plan, but a PERSON. The Gospels move us to contemplate the future not by giving us a blueprint, but by relating all to Jesus, Messiah and Son of man.

Jessie that has always been my position...I hate end times discussions..we are to be looking in joyful expectation for the return of Christ. We that are in Him can be joyful and without fear regardless of the plan...or the timetable ...He is God!

1,797 posted on 09/25/2002 1:39:23 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1786 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin
Nice post Jean..but you have still not explained why John stopped in the middle of his discourse and changed tenses..
1,798 posted on 09/25/2002 1:47:14 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1787 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; JesseShurun
Are the amils the only ones with the saving gospel?

No, of course not. Matthew had it too. ;-)

But, serious, all I am doing is repeating exactly what Matthew is saying.

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. ~ JessieShurun
I have a problem with calling Jesus THE gospel. I have to think on that.it seems a convienient turn of words. ~ RnMomof7

I wanted to wait until I got home before I responded to this statement of yours. Now, I have said, and quoted, that the gospel is the kingdom of God and Jessie has said that the gospel is Christ. I hope you realize that both are entirely true statements. I'll let you mull over this for a while....
1,799 posted on 09/25/2002 1:57:40 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1782 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; Frumanchu; OrthodoxPresbyterian; drstevej; RnMomof7; George W. Bush; Jean Chauvin; ...
You amils tend to gloss over the part about the bottomless pit, the shutting up, and the seal. What exactly do those things signify, since obviously in your world, they aren't literal. Tell us if you know!

No one wants to tackle explaining that , huh? I'm not surprised.

I haven't kept up completely with the thread due to time constraints, but one thing I see that I find a little curious: There are a lot of loooonnnnggg posts by the amil camp, and in trying to read through them, I see inaccuracies in the quotation of the Premil positions, and the overall impression I'm getting is that the amils are trying to win the argument with a ton of verbage and writing, to basically wear down and frustrate the Premil until they just give up and quit arguing, at which time the amils will claim to have "won" the argument. It's all well and good that both sides cite other writings in support of their positions, but ultimately, those writings mean nothing, as they are just the opinions of men. The Bible is the authority, not other men.

The basic problem, as I see it, is one of interpretation. Using scripture to interpret scripture is good, but you have to rightly divide scripture to arrive at the correct interpretation, do you not? You cannot take one scripture and use it as the standard to judge all other scriptures by, you must take scripture as a whole, i.e. all the verses addressing a given subject,. and from them all arrive at the interpretation. At any point where your theory and scripture diverge, it is your theory that must change, rather than trying to find a way to interpret scripture to make it say what you want it to. This applies to Premils as well as amils. You also must understand that when Jesus, Paul, Peter or John make a statement or detail a portion of doctrine, it is not meant to be an exhaustive dissertation on that doctrinal point. 2 Peter 3 comes to mind. To take that statement, and build a whole doctrine around it is missing the fact that Peter was not trying to make a definitive doctrinal statement about the subject, he was referring to one aspect of that doctrine.

Another example is this: Jesus cried out on the cross "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken Me?", and thousands of sermons, books, and doctrinal dissertations have been made about how Christ was forsaken on the cross by the Father, in order for Christ to bear our punishment for sin. In reality, Jesus was quoting the first verse of Psalm 22, which is a prophecy concerning Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus wasn't experiencing separation from the Father at that point, He was telling the onlookers that they were seeing prophecy fulfilled before their very eyes! For those who would have recognized the reference, they could have believed on Jesus and been saved at that very moment. they had proof positive that He was the Son of God, right in front of them. But look at all the confusion that has resulted from that, up to and including teaching that Jesus died spiritually, that Jesus went to Hell for 3 days, etc.

The problem I have with the amil position overall is that it is not clear, that it forces some presuppositions on the reader in order to see the position. I want to spend more time researching it, and will as time allows, but for now, I have not seen anything that causes me to concede. I haven't even seen a really clear, cogent, or comprehensive detailing of the Premil position, either, and I think that's got to be a place to start. One thing I do not need is an amil telling me what the Premil position is, and vice-versa.

1,800 posted on 09/25/2002 2:02:00 PM PDT by nobdysfool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1595 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,761-1,7801,781-1,8001,801-1,820 ... 2,721-2,722 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson