Study of the Bible

[Arial]

Think that the Spurgeon model of Historical premil has better scripture support than traditional Dispy pre mil would have

Great discussion point. Would you present for the thread the Spurgeon model so we can take a gander at it?
Thanks.

 

[JesusFan]

I'm inclined to agree. I think I might say they are exegetically-minded because that would include an orientation toward reason/logic applied to scripture and the method of study thereof. That's why White is so respected, even among Arms. That is why Hunt is not respected, even among Arms , and why he comes off looking so bad anytime the two men get together to debate a matter. As you observed previously, there may be nothing inherently wrong about looking at history and dividing/structuring it for the purpose of understanding scripture but the fundamental difference between Dispies and everyone else is that most subordinate history to scripture and not the other way around (which is what modern futurists do). Nearly every thread in the Prophecy/Eschatology boards demonstrates this. We read it every day every time some Dispy uses the latest newscast is proof of some end times prophecy.

The news does not define scripture.

That premise is a faulty presupposition. If we start with scripture and ask ourselves, "What does scripture state about that event," then we conclude with an understanding of events (history) defines by scripture and not an understanding of scripture that is constantly redefined by imposing newscasts on scripture. If we were going to start with a historical structure/schema/categorization then we should first start with that which scripture itself provides, which would be the covenant. If we wanted to examine history through another structure, then we should require and make sure whatever schema or categorization we developed/invented was one defined by scripture (in addition to the covenantal structure already provided by scripture). We most definitely would not want to define the structure contrary to scripture and that is what Dispensational Premillennialism does. It is literally a new and radically different theology that runs into direct conflict with long-standing and well-established core doctrines of Christianity, beginning with its different Christology and different soteriology. Simply put, if DPism is true then what Christianity has been teaching all the way back to the first century is incorrect. Dispensationalism and historic orthodoxy are incompatible. This is readily observable once we begin studying scripture with consistency in hermeneutics, exegesis and interpretation.

Dispensationalism and historic orthodoxy are incompatible. but would say while not the best system to understand the scriptures from, would not be heretical or not a Christian view though, just incomplete and not as well as could be

 

[JesusFan]

Great discussion point. Would you present for the thread the Spurgeon model so we can take a gander at it?
Thanks.

Here one of them is, and with Spurgeon , he has been regarded by some as Post or premil, but think real theology view would be Historical premil
Spurgeon's Millennial View

 

[Josheb]

Dispy Calvinists would be like a Dr MacArthur was, and where it get very interesting would those like myself who would hold to Covenant theology as a Reformed Baptist, but do still see God not totally finished with national Israel, as a premil like Spurgeon was in Eschatology

That won't solve the many problems within DPism. Many Dispensationalist preachers appear to have a sound Christology, soteriology, hamartiology, etc. but when their views are examined closely a number of conflicts with scripture and core Christian doctrine occur. MacArthur never resolved these conflicts. He continued to teach them all the way up to his last breath.

One of the most obvious, examples would be the bad ecclesiology Dispensational Premillennialism (and the other modern futurisms) teach. First of all, Dispensationalism elevates ecclesiology and eschatology above other previously esteemed doctrines (like the aforementioned Christology and soteriology). God has two peoples, not one. A simple word search readily shows God never speaks of two peoples having two separate purposes and two separate sets of divine goals. It is an invention, a man-made invention of modern futurism that contradicts God's word and 2000 years of long-held, well-established orthodoxy. That might be considered a minor matter were it not for the fact that division, in turn, is foundational to a two different ways to become saved, which is a bad soteriology.

"Two different ways to get saved, you say?" Yes, I do say .

Dispensational Premillennialists (like John MacArthur teach Ephesians 2 = salvation by grace through faith. As @makesends has already observed, DPers are becoming increasingly synergist but that's not the problem. JMac was a classic monergist, for the most part. Where DPism goes way off the tracks of orthodoxy in in its teaching a Jew could come to salvation by grace through faith at any time..... the bulk of them will not. Instead, geo-political nation-state Israel and its bloodline Jews will have to capture all the promised land, build a temple, reconstitute the Levitical priesthood, and begin animal sacrifices. Different modern futurists may place these events at different points along their timeline, but the important feature is the Jews of Israel won't become converts to Christ until those milestones are accomplished. Such a thing is not possible because DPism holds to many teachings that can't be reconciled with Calvinist teaching or Covenant Theology.


And that is a salvation by works soteriology.

At best we might be able to say it is a salvation by grace plus works salvation. Since the works precede the conversion, their doctrine is NOT orthodox. Therefore, even while JMac was preaching salvation by grace through faith he was also, inadvertently perhaps, teaching salvation by works. All Dispensational Premillennialists preach this God forsaken soteriology. Most of them do not recognize their doing so but if the matter is broach then ad hominem, tu quoque, red herring and a pile of misused scripture ensue. I have personally (briefly) spoken to JMac, David Jeremiah, Gary Hamrick, and Ravi Zacharias about this. They were polite and respectful, but their answers were cliche and without much substance. They held firm to the DP teaching asserting their view is still a salvation by grace through faith only viewpoint.

None of us had to build a temple before coming to Christ .

No Jew has to do so. No Muslim has to do so. No Buddhist has to do so. No Israeli, no Mexican, no Zimbabwean, no one has to build a temple before being saved by grace through faith for works. Salvation is never by works, not even a little bit. There are, therefore, really no such thing as Calvinist Dispensational Premillennialists.

 

[Arial]

Here one of them is, and with Spurgeon , he has been regarded by some as Post or premil, but think real theology view would be Historical premil
Spurgeon's Millennial View

Here is a quote from Spurgeon from that link. He is arguing against postmillennialism which purports that Christ's second coming is preceded by an extended period of time when Christianity overtakes the world. I believe Jonathan Edwards had that view also. I think it was fairly common, especially in the US, simply because it seemed plausible, until along came two world wars and a continuous moral downward trend etc. It did spark worldwide missions however.

Personally I don't agree with it because I see the Bible declaring just the opposite.



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)]




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)]

​

 

[Carbon]

Think that the Spurgeon model of Historical premil has better scripture support than traditional Dispy pre mil would have

Well, that may be because the dipsys put a lot of emphasis on dispensationalism, some even go as far as making claims that one isn't born again if they do not agree with their dipsyism. Where Spurgeon, on the other hand, I think leaned more historical premil as you mentioned. But we have to look hard because his eschatological beliefs aren't easy to figure out. His focus was on preaching God's word and the doctrines of grace.
Personally, I believe if Spurgeon decided to put a lot of study into Eschatology (which I do not think he did), he would have been or would have become an Amillennialist.

 

[Arial]

Well, that may be because the dipsys put a lot of emphasis on dispensationalism, some even go as far as making claims that one isn't born again if they do not agree with their dipsyism. Where Spurgeon, on the other hand, I think leaned more historical premil as you mentioned. But we have to look hard because his eschatological beliefs aren't easy to figure out. His focus was on preaching God's word and the doctrines of grace.
Personally, I believe if Spurgeon decided to put a lot of study into Eschatology (which I do not think he did), he would have been or would have become an Amillennialist.

Spurgeon openly said on the link that JF gave, that it was beyond his wheelhouse, and had done very little delving into it. That he was called, as you said, to preaching the gospel. I agree that had he done so, he likely would have been amil. His comments in that link were only disputing post mil and its belief that Christianity would overtake the world and that would usher in Christ's return.

 

[makesends]

Here is a quote from Spurgeon from that link. He is arguing against postmillennialism which purports that Christ's second coming is preceded by an extended period of time when Christianity overtakes the world. I believe Jonathan Edwards had that view also. I think it was fairly common, especially in the US, simply because it seemed plausible, until along came two world wars and a continuous moral downward trend etc. It did spark worldwide missions however.

Personally I don't agree with it because I see the Bible declaring just the opposite.



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)]




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)]

​

"For the darkness will turn to dawning, and the dawning to noon day bright. And Christ's great kingdom will come to earth, the kingdom of love and light."