Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/12/2002 7:19:20 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: fortheDeclaration; winstonchurchill; ShadowAce; P-Marlowe; Revelation 911; The Grammarian; ...
It's obvious that Charles Haddon Spurgeon was a premillennialist.

Not that he's the final word on things, but thought you'd be interested.
2 posted on 09/12/2002 7:21:06 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
You just proved my last point, over on the other thread. You really don't have anything better to do, do you?
3 posted on 09/12/2002 7:23:38 AM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ksen; RnMomof7; nobdysfool; Frumanchu; Jean Chauvin; Matchett-PI; CCWoody; Wrigley; jude24; ...
We are not finished with this thread, folks. The premills and pan-mills need to come all the way out of the mire of error.

(ksen, what was the number of your exposition of 2 Peter 3? I will address it myself when I get a chance next week.)

I decided to post this reminder while I was reading post #1169 by philman_36 on the thread "The True Eucharist of Jesus Christ."

In that post, philman_36 said I didn't read all the comments, but the article was great. To me The Eucharist, as "explained" by the RCC, is wrong and I'll laugh at "the joke being played" on some. What a sense of humor Jesus had! I guess some are too ignorant to know they've "been had"!

Puh-leez think about what is going on with the RCs and their doctrine of transubstantiation. The materialistic reading of the "eat and drink" passage in John 6 is a divinely ordained TRAP.

The Lord KNEW that the carnal Romanists would try to read the passage literalistically. That's precisely why He chose the words which John recorded.

The Lord has done this sort of thing more often than today's less-than-thoughtful churchgoers realize. The literal/material reading of the millennium idea in Revelation 20 is another example of the very same kind of TRAP.

The "first resurrection" mentioned in Revelation 20 sounds like a material resurrection to careless readers because it was designed to sound that way. And the idea of Satan being bound was designed to choke some folks.

You must not make the mistake of reading the first resurrection materialistically. The materialistic reading of Revelation 20 is the CARNAL reading. It is the reading which Satan wants you to follow.

I cannot apologize for warning you about this, for telling you that the premill position is that of immature Christians (not to mention quite a few reprobates, I'm afraid). The premillennial position is one of the more deceptive errors in Christendom. Alas, some of the Lord's friends have gotten fooled by what really does amount to a JOKE on the part of the Lord.

So, when I hear an ardent premill arguing against the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation, I laugh with the Lord at the premills. (Of course, as an amill, I definitely get to sit in the heavens with Him while He is laughing.)

1,978 posted on 10/12/2002 4:46:37 PM PDT by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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