SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Just "Normal" earthquake activity?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Well, PP, if you're going to make those connections, I gotta also point out, isn't it also ironic that the Amil/Replacement Theology guys made the grievous error or promoting murder of the Jewish people? "No murderer has any part in the kingdom of God". "You have heard it said, you shall not murder, but I say to you, if you hate your neighbor without a cause, you have committed murder in your heart.." Which is worse if you're going to make those type of connections?

Mine actually has real teeth. Yours is making a very loose association between Premillinealists and the Pharisees. Are you implying Spurgeon, Bunyan, Bonar, Katz & all those guys are heretics & Christ killers? Because the replacement theology & Amil guys actually incited the persecution & killing of the Jewish people. It goes both ways (& not in the favor of your persuausion).

 2016/4/21 15:42
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re:

Jeff wrote : ///I already addressed that PP & quoted which ones (like Ireaneas, Justin Martyr, etc.) were Premillinealists///

You are responding to what you thought that I was implying instead of responding to what I wrote : I was not refuting the idea that ante-nicene held to chiliasm

I wrote :
" I was specifically addressing : "distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papia, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian...etc.
Find me one christian writing before Moses Maimonides, that taught that the nation of Israel had any significants in the end times.
We over 1,000 years of no record of anyone that taught that the nation of Israel had any significants in the end times."

David Bercot : "a practicing attorney, author, and church historian. Outside of law, his special field of interest and study has been the early church (particularly the church prior to the Council of Nicaea, A. D. 325)"

Bercot has a teaching on What the Early Christians Believed About Israel in Prophecy :

"What the Early Christians Believed About Israel in Prophecy. Millions of Christians have it all figured out how various Old Testament prophecies are being fulfilled today—or how they will be fulfilled in the future—through the nation of Israel. But are we understanding those prophecies correctly?" http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/product2814.html


 2016/4/21 15:42Profile









 Re:

You have heard of John Bunyan right? He was pretty respected too in the church. He wrote a myriad of books on grace, love, humility, etc. & wrote Pilgrim's Progress. The second most read book in history to the Bible.

Judeo-Centric Premillinaelism, Chapter on Future Millineum
http://bunyanministries.org/books/prophetical_landmarks_bonar/07_the_proofs_of_premill_advent.pdf

 2016/4/21 15:49









 Re:

Or Haratius Bonar, the well known theologian who wrote books on the Everlasting Righteousness, Gods Way Of Peace, etc. & wrote many hymns we still sing today:

Horatius Bonar,

I am one of those who believe in Israel’s restoration and conversion; who receive it as a future certainty, that all Israel shall be gathered, and that all Israel shall be saved. As I believe in Israel’s present degradation, so do I believe in Israel’s coming glory and preeminence. I believe that God’s purpose regarding our world can only be understood by understanding God’s purpose as to Israel. I believe that all human calculations as to the earth’s future, whether political or scientific, or philosophical or religious, must be failures, if not taking for their data or basis God’s great purpose regarding the latter-day standing of Israel. I believe that it is not possible to enter God’s mind regarding the destiny of man, without taking as our key or our guide His mind regarding the ancient nation—that nation whose history, so far from being ended, or nearly ended, is only about to begin. And if any one may superciliously ask, What can the Jews have to do with the world’s history?—may we not correctly philosophize on that coming history, and take the bearing of the world’s course, leaving Israel out of the consideration altogether? We say, nay; but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Art thou the framer of the earth’s strange annals, either past or future? Art thou the creator of those events which make up these annals, or the producer of those latent springs or seeds of which these arise?

He only to whom the future belongs can reveal it. He only can announce the principles on which that future is to be developed. And if He set Israel as the great nation of the future, and Jerusalem as the great metropolis of earth, who are we, that, with our philosophy of science, we should set aside the divine arrangements, and substitute for them a theory of man? Human guesses of the future are the most uncertain of all uncertainties; and human hopes, built upon these guesses, are sure to turn out the most disappointing, if not the most disastrous, of all failures.

I believe that the sons of Abraham are to re-inherit Palestine, and that the forfeited fertility will yet return to that land; that the wilderness and the solitary places shall be glad for them, and the desert will rejoice and blossom as the rose. I believe that, meanwhile, Israel shall not only be wanderers, but that everywhere only a remnant, a small remnant, shall be saved; and that it is for the gathering in of this remnant that our missionaries go forth. I believe that these times of ours (as also all the times of the four monarchies [Dan. 2]) are the times of the Gentiles; and that Jerusalem and Israel shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. I believe that, with the filling up of these times of the Gentile pre-eminence, and the completion of what the apostle calls the fullness of the Gentiles, will be the signal for the judgments which are to usher in the crisis of earth’s history, and the deliverance of Israel, and the long-expected kingdom.

How the Jew, so long in abeyance, shall resume pre-eminence, I do not know; but that he shall do so, seems written plainly enough in the prophetic Word. How Jewish history shall once more emerge into its old place of grandeur and miracle, and how it shall unwind from itself the bright future of all nations, I know not. But so it is fore-written, “What shall be the reconciling of them be, but life from the dead?” [Rom. 11:15] “Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit” [Isa. 27:6].

 2016/4/21 15:53









 Re:

Or Charles Spurgeon, "The Prince of Preachers". He wasn't a deceived heretic or anything?

Spurgeon's Statements on Eschatology

Introduction


As has been clearly demonstrated, the emphasis in the preaching of Charles H. Spurgeon, certainly did not find its center in the arena of eschatology. The entire idea of using prophecy or "prophetic conferences" as an evangelistic tool, would not have received much of a hearing with him. He also did not see the particular value of extended preaching on prophetic themes as a regular part of the Lord's day services. "A prophetical preacher enlarged so much on 'the little horn' of Daniel, that one Sabbath morning he had but seven hearers remaining."167 He taught his students that their chief concern in preaching should not be prophetical speculations, but rather the gospel message and practical godliness.
Salvation is a theme for which I would fain enlist every holy tongue. I am greedy after witnesses for the glorious gospel of the blessed God. O that Christ crucified were the universal burden of men of God. Your guess at the number of the beast, your Napoleonic speculations, your conjectures concerning a personal Antichrist —forgive me, I count them but mere bones for dogs; while men are dying, and hell is filling, it seems to me the veriest drivel to be muttering about an Armageddon at Sebastopol or Sadowa or Sedan, and peeping between the folded leaves of destiny to discover the fate of Germany. Blessed are they who read and hear the words of the prophecy of the Revelation, but the like blessing has evidently not fallen on those who pretend to expound it, for generation after generation of them have been proven to be in error by the mere lapse of time, and the present race will follow to the same inglorious sepulcher.168

Nonetheless, Spurgeon could say along with the Apostle Paul that he, "did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God" (Acts 20:27). Again his own testimony on this matter is sufficient:
You will bear me witness, my friends, that it is exceedingly seldom I ever intrude into the mysteries of the future with regard either to the second advent, the millennial reign, or the first and second resurrection. As often as we come about it in our expositions, we do not turn aside from the point, but if guilty at all on this point, it is rather in being too silent than saying too much.169

It seems clear that even if Spurgeon's statement on matters of "the second advent, the millennial reign, or the first and second resurrection" were infrequent, they were not imprecise. Spurgeon clearly understood all of the features of eschatology as presented in the Scripture, although he did not give a great deal of his time to their "chronological arrangement." On September 18th, 1876, he presented to the Metropolitan Tabernacle congregation this overview of eschatological events:
I am no prophet, nor the son of a prophet; neither do I profess to be able to explain all the prophecies in this blessed Book. I believe that many of them will only be explained as the events occur which they foretell. Yet there are some things which are plain even to the most superficial reader. It is plain, for instance, that it is certainly foretold that the power of Antichrist shall be utterly and eternally destroyed, and that Babylon, that is to say, the Papal system, with all its abominations, shall be cast like a millstone into the flood, to rise no more for ever. It is also certain that the Jews, as a people, will yet own Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of David, as their King, and that they will return to their own land, "and they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the old cities, the desolations of many generations." It is certain also that our Lord Jesus Christ will come again to this earth, and that he will reign amongst his ancients gloriously, and that there will be a thousand years of joy and peace such as were never known on this earth before. It is also certain that there will be a great and general judgment, when all nations shall be gathered before the Son of man sitting upon the throne of his glory; and his final award concerning those upon his left hand will be, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment;" and concerning those upon his right hand, "but the righteous into eternal life." How all these great events are to be chronologically arranged, I cannot tell170 [emphasis ours].

This tendency of Spurgeon, to reject tightly knit chronological sequences of eschatological events, remained with him his entire life. Drummond gives a good summary of Spurgeon's attitude on the subject:
He refused to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing, for example the relationship of the rapture to the tribulation period, or like points of eschatological nuance. An elaborate dispensational chart would have little or no appeal to Spurgeon. Any dispensational framework that has a tendency to divide the Scriptures into segments, some applicable to contemporary life and some not, did not get his attention at all. He probably would have rejected any such scheme. He kept to the basics of future things.171

It has already been shown eschatology was a secondary issue with Spurgeon; a valuable endeavor, but one which should never "overlay the commonplaces of practical godliness,"172 or start before "first you see to it that your children are brought to the saviour's feet."173 It was also, as has already been demonstrated, not an issue which came between Spurgeon and other major theologians such as Calvin, Hodge, Dixon, etc.
The purpose of this chapter is to examine Spurgeon's statements relating directly and sometimes indirectly to the area of the millennial kingdom and the events surrounding it. As already demonstrated, the vast majority of Spurgeon's statement on this matter are to be found in his sermons; however, his other writings must be consulted as well. In this endeavor this author does not pretend to have read the totality of the Spurgeonic corpus. That legacy took him a lifetime to produce and would take longer to digest and assimilate. An extensive examination of Spurgeon's works has been made; sufficiently thorough, it is hoped, that the contents of this chapter will demonstrate a level of interaction with the Spurgeonic literary legacy sufficient to present a valid conclusion as to his thoughts on this matter. The danger always exists of basing a conclusion on too few passages. Dr. Peter Masters, the current pastor of Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle and an ardent amillennialist, criticized two writers for just this by drawing conclusions based on too few references.174 This author would not wish to fall victim to the same criticism.
The conclusions offered here are presented decisively, yet with a tentative spirit for as previously stated, there is always room for additional scholarly work and interaction in this area. Since Spurgeon did not attempt to systematize his views on eschatology, the investigator into this area must cull out data from all sources. He must also be careful not to put words into the mouth of Spurgeon or go beyond his thoughts. The critical issue becomes most clearly not only the volume of material interacted with; but also how that material is assimilated and interpreted.
Part One: Spurgeon's Sermons


The primary outlet for Spurgeon's theology was of course his preaching. His preaching style was normally a topical or textual approach, although as one visitor to his home and study remarked about Spurgeon's work:
I was at first surprised to find Mr. Spurgeon consulting both the Hebrew and Greek texts. "They say," said he, "that I am ignorant and unlearned. Well let them say it; and in everything, by my ignorance, and by my knowledge, let God be glorified." His exegesis was seldom wrong. He spared no pains to be sure of the exact meaning of his text.175

Spurgeon was in the broad sense of the term, an expositor of the text of scripture. He was also a great systematizer of thought and theology; and delivered his messages in clear, forthright English. In this section Spurgeon's own statements, as quoted in the introduction, will be utilized and those statements will be examined in three eschatological areas: (1) The Second Advent, (2) The Millennial Reign, and (3) The First and Second Resurrections.
Section A: Spurgeon's Sermons Discussing "The Second Advent of Christ
"The first key feature which Spurgeon identified as foundational eschatological issues is The Second Advent of Christ. That Spurgeon believed in the personal and literal return of Christ to the earth is a fact which cannot be disputed. He looked forward to this great event with anticipation and announced it to his congregation with regularity.
We know that Christ 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. . . Now, we believe that the Christ who shall sit on the throne of his father David, and whose feet shall stand upon Mount Olivet, is as much a personal Christ as the Christ who came to Bethlehem and wept in the manger.176

On June 13, 1869, he told his congregation:
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 [emphasis his] as ye have seen him go into heaven," which must mean literally and in person.177

He also commented on the Second Advent when he told the congregation at New Park Street Chapel:
And, moreover, the Christian may await to-morrow with even more than simple hope and joy; he may look forward to it with ecstasy in some measure, for he does not know but that to- morrow his Lord may come. To-morrow Christ may be upon this earth, "for such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh."178

Spurgeon had a great facility with the English language and his ability to create picturesque scenes in his sermons was unsurpassed. On December 28, 1884, he presented to his congregation:
Our great Captain is still heading the conflict; he has ridden into another part of the field, but he will be back again, perhaps in the twinkling of an eye. . . He went up not in spirit, but in person; he will come down again in person. . . "This same Jesus" literally went up. "This same Jesus" will literally come again. He will descend in clouds even as he went up in clouds; and "he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth" even as he stood beforehand. . . Brethren, do not let anybody spiritualize away all this from you. Jesus is coming as a matter of fact, therefore go down to your sphere of service as a matter of fact.179

He also stated clearly:
Brethren, no truth ought to be more frequently proclaimed, next to the first coming of the Lord, than his second coming; and you cannot thoroughly set forth all the ends and bearings of the first advent if you forget the second. At the Lord's Supper, there is no discerning the Lord's body unless you discern his first coming; but there is no drinking into his cup to its fullness, unless you hear him say, "Until I come." You must look forward, as well as backward. So must it be with all our ministries; they must look to him on the cross and on the throne. We must vividly realize that he,. who has once come, is coming yet again, or else our testimony will be marred, and one- sided. We shall make lame work of preaching and teaching if we leave out either advent.180

Certainly there can be no doubt about Spurgeon's belief in the literal and physical return of Christ. But what did he have to say regarding this thesis' main topic, the Millennial Reign?
Section B: Spurgeon's Sermons Discussing "The Millennial Reign"
Regarding the Millennial reign of Christ, Spurgeon was far from silent. It was not a topic that he gave a great deal of attention to, but when he did speak of it he spoke with a consistent view. In 1865 he stated this:
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 earth181 [emphasis ours].

This comment not only seems to clearly demonstrate Spurgeon's position on the subject, but makes it clear that he was conversant with other millennial positions and their key features. In the same sermon Spurgeon also spoke of the millennial reign in these terms:
Now, while speaking of glory, I think I must divide the glory which God gives to the justified into three parts. There is, first of all, the glory which disembodied spirits are enjoying even now; there is, secondly, the resurrection glory, which they will enjoy when the soul and body shall be re-united, and when, through the millennium, they shall be "for ever with the Lord;" and then there is "the eternal weight of glory," which is to be revealed both in body and soul, in the never-ending state of bliss which God has prepared for his people.182

In another sermon he made this oft-quoted remark regarding the millennial reign:
Just as the twelve tribes, serving God day and night, looked for the first coming, so ought all the tribes of our Israel, day and night, without ceasing, to wait for the Lord from heaven. We are looking for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. "Even so, come, Lord Jesus" is the desire of every instructed saint. I shall not go into any details about when he will come: I will not espouse the cause of the pre-millennial or the post-millennial advent; it will suffice me just now to observe that the Redeemer's coming is the desire of the entire church; and "unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."183

Spurgeon's disclaimer to not "espouse the cause" of two different millennial positions is attributed by Iain Murray as an example of Spurgeon admitting, "a fundamental uncertainty in his mind;"184 however, this seems to be an unwarranted conclusion as pointed out by Masters' in his review of Murray, where he states this passage simply means that Spurgeon, "did not propose to espouse any particular millennial view in that particular sermon."185 Later in the same sermon Spurgeon made this statement:
To my mind the doctrine of the coming of Christ ought to inflame the zeal of every believer who seeks the conversion of his fellow men, and how can he be a believer if he does not seeks this end? The Lord cometh quickly: O sinner come quickly to the Lord, or it may be too late for you to come. We who call you may soon be silenced by his advent, and mercy may have no more to say to you. . . Stand in a Popish country and see them altogether given to their idols, and worshipping crosses and relics, and you will soon cry, "Come Lord Jesus. Let antichrist be hurled like a millstone into the flood, never to rise again." The vehemence of your desire for the destruction of evil and the setting up of the kingdom of Christ will drive you to that grand hope of the church, and make you cry out for its fulfillment.186

Regarding the nature and location of the millennial reign he stated this:
There is, moreover, to be a reign of Christ. I cannot read the Scriptures without perceiving that there is to be a millennial reign, as I believe, upon the earth, and that there shall be new heavens and new earth wherein dwell righteousness.187

He also was not of the opinion that the millennium on earth was to be identified with the eternal existence in heaven. He clearly made a distinction between the two. Beginning a sermon on the text, "Throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it" (Revelation 22:3), he stated, "We shall take these words as referring to heaven. Certainly it is most true of the celestial city, as well as of the millennial city, that the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it"188 [emphasis ours].
Discussing the relation of the timing of the Return of Christ to the millennium; and its necessity to commence that millennium, Spurgeon was certainly clear as he said:
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 the last this present age ripens into a millennium. They will not be able to sustain their hopes, for Scripture give 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 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 situation. We look to the darkening down of things; the state of mankind, however improved politically, may yet grow worse and worse spiritually.189

He also stated this in a sermon while he was at New Park Street Chapel and printed in his sermon series in 1899:
There are some men who have not seen Elias yet; they do not understand the prophecies. They think they perceive in the future a great progress of civilization, and they expect to see the spread of the gospel; they expect to hear of great agencies employed, of multitudes of ministers going forth to preach the Word, and a gradual conversion of the world to the religion of Christ; but he who understands the prophets, and has seen Elias, believes not in the immediate conversion of the world, nor in universal peace; he believes in "Jesus Only;" he expects that Jesus will first come; and, to him, the great hope of the future is the coming of the Son of man.190

Thus it is clear that Charles Spurgeon believed in a earthly millennium which would be founded on and preceded by the Second Advent of Christ. While he apparently never commented directly on the literalness of the 1,000 year duration of the millennium, his emphasis on the literal interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10 would indicate that he would view the 1,000 as actual and not simply symbolic years.
Finally, Spurgeon, in keeping with his normal attitude towards things eschatological, presented a clear perspective on the practical nature of the Second Advent as he said:
Jesus is not coming in a sort of mythical, misty, hazy way, he is literally and actually coming, and he will literally and actually call upon you to give an account of your stewardship. Therefore, now, to-day, literally not symbolically, personally and not by deputy, go out through that portion of the world which you can reach, and preach the gospel to every creature according as you have opportunity.191

The third investigation of this section, the Resurrections of the just and the wicked, is something that Spurgeon was equally clear about in his preaching.
Section C: Spurgeon's Sermons Discussing "The First and Second Resurrections"
A foundational concept in Spurgeon's eschatology was his belief in the resurrection of believers and unbelievers. Throughout his ministry he presented the truth that there would be separate resurrections of the just and unjust. It has already been noted that he makes a distinction between "the first and second resurrection."192 One of the key features that is unmistakable in his sermons is the fact that Spurgeon saw the resurrection of the just before the millennium and the unjust after the millennium. That he believed in a literal and physical resurrection cannot be denied as is shown in this following sermon:
Yet this Paul believed, and this he preached —that there would be a resurrection of the dead, both the just and the unjust, not that the just and the unjust would merely live as to their souls, but that their bodies should be restored from the grave, and that a resurrection, as well as an immortality, should be the entail of every man of woman born, whatever his character might be.193

In the same sermon Spurgeon clearly declared that the resurrections would be distinct, separated by 1,000 years.
Notice that this reaping comes first, and I think it comes first in order of time. If I read the Scriptures aright, there are to be two resurrections, and the first will be the resurrection of the righteous; for it is written, "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power."194

He also declared very clearly this fact:
We expect a reigning Christ on earth; that seems to us to be very plain, and put so literally that we dare not spiritualise it. We anticipate a first and 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.195

Interestingly enough, and probably in keeping with what has already has been seen of Spurgeon's avoidance of prophetic preaching, he only preached two sermons in his entire ministry with a primary text in Revelation 20, admittedly the key passage related to the millennium. He preached on Revelation 20:4-6,12 (skipping over the verses that one might have wished him to comment upon) in an 1861 sermon and Revelation 20:11 in 1866. He also never preached from any portion of Daniel 12, where one might have wished to see his interpretation of the first two verses. In this respect he very much followed in the steps of Calvin, who also largely ignored these passages.196 Despite this he firmly declared his belief that the two resurrections would be separated by the 1,000 year millennial reign. In 1861 he told his congregation this:
You have perhaps imagined that all men will rise at the same moment; that the trump of the archangel will break open every grave at the same instant, and sound in the ear of every sleeper at the identical moment. Such I do not think is the testimony of the Word of God. I think that the Word of God teaches, and teaches indisputably, that the saints shall rise first. And be the interval of time whatever it may, whether the thousand years are literal years, or a very long period of time, I am not now about to determine; I have nothing to do except with the fact that there are two resurrections, a resurrection of the just, and afterwards of the unjust, —a time when the saints of God shall rise, an after time when the wicked shall rise to the resurrection of damnation.197

In the same sermon he points to his belief that both resurrections are literal and physical. He attacks the position of the famous American Presbyterian commentator, Albert Barnes (1798-1870), who was amillennial in his eschatology,198 as he states:
I must remark that two modes of understanding of this verse [Revelation 20:4-6, 12] have been proposed, both of which I think are untenable. I have been reading carefully through Albert Barnes. He gives it, as his opinion, that the first resurrection here spoken of is a resurrection of principles, —a resurrection of the patience, the undaunted courage, the holy boldness and constancy of the ancient martyrs. He says these great principles have been forgotten, and, as it were, buried; and that during the spiritual reign of Christ which is to come, these great principles will have a resurrection. Now I appeal to you, would you, in reading that passage, think this to be the meaning? Would any man believe that to be its meaning, if he had not some thesis to defend? The fact is, we sometimes read Scripture, thinking of what it ought to say, rather that what it does say. I do not hesitate to affirm that any simple-minded person, who was intent upon discovering the mind of the Spirit, and not upon finding a method by which the words could be compelled to express his own mind, would say that the resurrection of principles, or the resurrection of doctrines, does not give the fair meaning of the words here stated. . . It is —we have no doubt whatever— a literal resurrection of the saints of God, and not of principles nor of doctrines. But another interpretation has been proposed. I once had the misfortune to listen to an excellent friend of mine who was preaching upon this text, and I must confess, I did not attend with very great patience to his exposition. He said it meant blessed and holy is he who has been born again, who has been regenerated, and so has had a resurrection from dead works by the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. All the while he was preaching, I could not help wishing that I could propose to him the difficulty, how he would make this metaphorical interpretation agree with the literal fact, that the rest of the dead lived not till the thousand years were finished? For if the first resurrection here spoken of is a metaphorical, or spiritual, or typical resurrection, why the next where it speaks of the resurrection of the dead must be spiritual, and mystical, and metaphorical too. . . The fact is, in reading this passage with an unbiased judgment, having no purpose whatever to serve, having no theory to defend, —and I confess I have none, for I know very little about mysteries to come,— I could not help seeing there are two literal resurrections here spoken of, one of the spirits of the just, and the other of the bodies of the wicked; one of the saints who sleep in Jesus, whom God shall bring with him, and another of those who live and die impenitent, who perish in their sins.199

It is clear that Spurgeon comments on the two resurrections, separated by the 1,000 years; are not as Murray states, "far from common in his sermons,"200 but a regular and consistent theme, when he dealt with the topic. Here is a final example of his statements on this subject:
Now we believe and hold that Christ shall come a second time suddenly, to raise his saints at the first resurrection; this shall be the commencement of the grand judgment, and they shall reign with him afterwards. The rest of the dead live not till the thousand years are finished. Then they shall rise from their tombs and they shall receive the deeds which they have done in the body201 [emphasis ours].

There is one other prophetic theme which requires some attention. Spurgeon's view on the future of Israel as a people and as a nation bears some attention in this discussion. It has already mentioned that he believed that:
It is also certain that the Jews, as a people, will yet own Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of David, as their King, and that they will return to their own land, "and they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the old cities, the desolations of many generations.202

At a special meeting at The Metropolitan Tabernacle on June 16, 1864, Spurgeon preached on "The Restoration and Conversion of the Jews," on behalf of the British Society for the Propagation of the Gospel amongst the Jews. In this sermon he laid out several important statements about the future of the Jewish people. First of all he believed that the Jews would physically and literally return to inhabit and have political control over their ancient land. He stated:
There will be a native government again; there will again be the form of a body politic; a state shall be incorporated, and a king shall reign. Israel has now become alienated from her own land. Her sons, though they can never forget the sacred dust of Palestine, yet die at a hopeless distance from her consecrated shores. But it shall not be so for ever, for her sons shall again rejoice in her: her land shall be called Beulah, for as a young man marrieth a virgin so shall her sons marry her. "I will place you in your own land," is God's promise to them. . . They are to have a national prosperity which shall make them famous; nay, so glorious shall they be that Egypt, and Tyre, and Greece, and Rome, shall all forget their glory in the greater splendour of the throne of David. . . I there be anything clear and plain, the literal sense and meaning of this passage [Ezekiel 37:1-10] —a meaning not to be spirited or spiritualized away— must be evident that both the two and the ten tribes of Israel are to be restored to their own land, and that a king is to rule over them.203

He also believed that the conversion of the Jews was to come through Christian preaching by means of the church and other societies and mission agencies that God might raise up for that task.204
In this section it has been demonstrated that in his sermons Spurgeon presented a clear and consistent view of key eschatological events. First of all, he believed that the "Return of Christ" would be literal, personal and it would be to the earth. While he taught that the Second Advent would precede the millennium; he also taught that the exact timing of this return was completely unknowable to human speculation; that it was foolish at best, and wicked at worst, to delve into such speculation. Secondly, in relation to the "Millennial Reign," Spurgeon believed again that it was Christ's return that would mark the beginning of the Millennium. The Millennium was to be a period of Christ's personal rule on earth, and that it was not to be equated with the eternal state. Finally he believed it was only the "divine interposition," which is the Coming of Christ and the establishment of His Kingdom, that would bring to a culmination the Church Age.

 2016/4/21 15:57
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: Jeff

All of these where post Moses Maimonides

I asked :

"Find me one christian writing before Moses Maimonides, that taught that the nation of Israel had any significants in the end times.

You are reaffirming my research thus far that we have over 1,000 years of no record of anyone that taught that the nation of Israel had any significants in the end times."





 2016/4/21 15:59Profile









 Re: Jeff

Or Art Katz all over SI

The prophecies of Zephaniah, as is true with all the prophets of Israel, speak not only to the present condition and immediate future of the nation, but also its eschatological future and end. So one is warned of the Babylonian judgment then pressing at the door but at the same time an intimation of a similar judgment that is future, bearing many of the same aspects, but having wider implications for all the nations as well as Israel itself. What remarkably distinguishes the latter from the former, are statements of finality, of annihilatory devastation followed by miraculous recovery and return by a remnant of the survivors and then an enduring, never-again-to-be troubled peace and security and a world-recognized glorification and honoring of the nation formerly despised and ill-treated. That such conditions are yet unknown to Israel indicate that they are yet future.
The pattern of Biblical prophecy, invariably includes a severe condemnation of Jerusalem’s depravity and debasement—a reflection of the nation’s total, now irremediable condition. This invites a fierce and extensive judgment, but as Zeph. 3:.8 indicates, the same is intended to other nations (“The whole world will be consumed by the fire of my jealous anger” NIV). Israel’s surviving remnant who also “trust in the name of the Lord”(v.12) is assured of an abiding safety (“never again will you fear any harm… Do not fear O Zion” vv. 13-16) as the recently experienced sorrow and despair (“do not let your hands hang limp”) is forever abolished.
This judgment alive in the recent memory of the surviving remnant is described as a “punishment” (v.15) inflicted by the “enemy” who are then judged by God for their oppression(v.19). God Himself then gathers “the lame” and the “scattered” (v.19) “from the most distant area imaginable” (“beyond the rivers of Cush”, v.10, see NIV note).That this ingathering is to be distinguished from that of the pre-judged Israel, 1948-93 [time of this writing] is signified by the frequently repeated eschatological phrase “at that time”; (vv. 19, 20; see also “On that day” vv. 11,16); that it is performed exclusively and supernaturally by God Himself [To distinguish it from the Zionist effort that preceded it?] by the emphasized “I will gather you; at that time I will bring you home” (v.20); to altogether verify that all this is yet future [but not distant in my expectation] is the mention of undeserved honor before all the world ["I will give you honor and praise among all the peoples of the earth"—the antithesis of present Israel's reception by the nations today] as God’s own exclusive work “before your very eyes” (v.20).
What is remarkable and needs to be pointed out in the Redemption preaching of the same prophets that had announced the judgments, is that “forgiveness is promised… utterly without suggestion that it had the people’s repentance as its precondition. This was a different kind of faith than was required to accept Judah’s death.” [In my opinion exactly the same!]… “Now, with no empirical basis that Judah would ever be enabled to return from Exile, with no real moral transformation among the chastened but disheartened survivors of the Exile, they began to promise God’s deliverance… out of the mouths of the two prophets [Jeremiah and Ezekiel] who had so rigorously denied any hope of escape from judgment”(pp. 106-7)!
Raitt enumerates the distinctives of this unprecedented prophetic declaration:
1. “There is a remembrance of the time of judgment” [as recent in the experience of those now obtaining deliverance]. 2. “God gives to the people or creates in them a new capacity to respond to him ["A new heart I will put within you"]“.3. Knowing God and obeying God “is specified as another goal of the divine intervention”. 4. “God restores their fortunes [and] returns them to the Land” .5. “The saving act involves repentance and turning toward God not as a prerequisite but as a consequence. The divine initiative: “his ‘I will’ comes prior to the mention of any human initiative” (pp. 116-7). God’s gracious initiative is unconditional as it must be, for what condition can a devastated Israel supply? (While we were yet sinners “dead in transgression and sin” CHRIST DIED FOR US).
Thus, “the mercy of the deliverance did not ignore the integrity of the judgment. In other words, this was perhaps the way that early deliverance preaching was shown to be distinct from false prophecy.” “Jeremiah and Ezekiel trusted God unto death—the death of their state, the death of Judah’s historical mission, the death of their countrymen. They trusted God’s goodness, justice, and His effective plan for history [my emphasis as it is so critical for prophetic consciousness of the Endtime Church] as they faced the abyss. And they did not promise what, if anything, was to come afterward (i.e., when they proclaimed the judgments). Judah was asked by them to accept its end, on faith, without assurance of anything beyond”(p.103).God alone must be that assurance and that faith alone is true faith when that death is the death of one’s own previous views and assurances about God! It is as if to the degree that we honor and accept unbegrudgingly the judgments, to that degree also do we ‘see’ and have the privilege to proclaim the Restoration. Perhaps this is exactly what is at stake in making prophets prophets [i.e. the Church the Church!], not only to see, not only to proclaim, but by that proclamation to establish it!(Ez.37) As with the prophet Samuel (a deliverer for Israel in time of extremity, because he did not allow the word of judgment to Eli to fall to the ground), neither will He allow our word to fail—even that final and ultimate word that raises the dead from their graves— if we do not withhold the earlier words of judgment!
Indeed, at the final impasse of history, nothing less than a resurrected people will suffice. “Because God’s will for the redemption of history can no longer tolerate the imperfection (sic) of His people as His revelatory vehicle, He says: ‘I will give them a heart to know that I am the Lord’(Jer. 24:7); I will put my law within them’(31:33); ‘I will take the stony heart… and give them a heart of flesh’(Ez. 11:19)… [in a word], “God takes the initiative to make Israel both want to obey and capable of obeying… the self-determination of His creatures is placed in abeyance as the Creator God works a deliverance in the very heart of man” (pp. 132-3). “[This] redemption has cosmic dimensions. God’s act of Transformation is amplified so that God as Creator perfects and refashions all of nature as well as Israel’s inner condition… because God has the power to create, He has the power to redeem (p.141). God brings about an eschatological improvement [transfiguration?] in both the human and nonhuman parts of His creation.”
This divine intervention, Raitt points out, has no “reason” to commend it… “In human terms, that intervention is not founded upon anything reasonable… God’s intervention is its own explanation (p.145).God’s initiative, God’s prerogative stand alone. The whole thing is God’s show (p.146)… Israel’s failures do not defeat God” (p.150) Reason enough to see Israel’s role as ‘witness nation’ in an entirely other way? It is her failure that is the cause of demonstrating God’s ultimate glory and not her success. Where is boasting then? It is abolished!
It becomes increasingly evident that the knowledge of God, as He in fact is, is a critical and strategic matter for Him in His dealings with Israel. Evidently, nothing more challenges and expands or deepens that knowledge than the issue of judgment itself. How do we reconcile the God of love, mercy and kindness with the God who himself performs acts of devastation unto annihilation upon those He calls “My people”? Yet more mind-boggling is that “Jeremiah and Ezekiel combined in their sayings an uncompromising message of judgment and an unconditional message of deliverance… neither negate one another, nor contradict one another.” What needs to be asked is “Are the rules by which God operates really changed?”[Israel demonstrating in itself at the end of the age what the world and the church have failed rightly to understand; the centrality of Calvary in the pivotal principle of death and resurrection!] Raitt asks if such messages “move us into a new era for God’s plan within history?”(pp. 174-5).
The question of God brings one invariably to the question of man. The two are inextricably joined and the error in the one invariably distorts the view of the other. Raitt therefore rightly asks whether the initiative taken by God toward man to fit him for redemption independent even of the capacity for repentance is not a statement about the “hopelessness of natural man” himself. And it no longer matters what man does, nothing is any longer conditional upon that… God as Creator changes the situation… so that God the Redeemer can act fully. “Deliverance creates a transformation which produces the repentance expected of God’s elect… When people are brought to that level, then re-election is possible. But God brings them to that level by himself. God creates both salvation and the preconditions for it, both repentance and the preconditions for it, both forgiveness and the preconditions for it, both a new election relationship and the preconditions for it”(my emphasis, p.178).
“Never before has the Old testament presented such a comprehensive structure of deliverance; never before has it dealt so profoundly with the inner condition of man; never before was deliverance articulated not merely as temporary relief but as a full ongoing plan for the future… Just what can follow the kind of judgment which Jeremiah and Ezekiel preached? Only this can follow. This kind of judgment necessitates this kind of salvation (p.179). It is not enough for God to cleanse [Israel] in an act of forgiveness. God has to deal with their proven and enduring tendency toward waywardness. Perhaps in this respect, above all else, the deliverance is truly radical in what it undertakes” (p.181). [What is especially significant for us as Jews who have long presumed to being morally and ethically superior to others is that this creative and redemptive act of God brings a new millennial obedience not on the basis of our "moral achievement, but as a consequence of the act of redemption"(From Frohrer's Ezechiel, quoted by Raitt in a footnote, p.260)] “For of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things—to whom be glory forever”..
“The forgiveness, therefore, is purely an act of God’s intervention, an exercise of his divine prerogative, an assertion of his freedom… Forgiveness is taken out of the sphere of religion and become once again part of the mystery of God. In religion people think they can formulate an understanding of the terms of God’s action, the cause and effect relationships, the preconditions of divine favor. But here as in Hos. 11:8-9, God is merciful because he is God. This cannot be institutionalized. The whole deliverance message compels the recognition that God is now recapturing his God-ness, that God is reestablishing his freedom” (p.190).
“The Israel of the future is not the [progressively improved] Israel of the past. It is freed from its sin and changed in order to relate to its God in a new way. In such an atmosphere there can be a new covenant; certainly the old one will not do. [Now]There can be an everlasting covenant (Jer. 32:40;Ez. 37:26 p.199.) [Can we not see that the Millennium demands this permanent and enduring restructuring of the nation's character and life? Nothing hereafter can be subject to change, relapse, or backsliding. This is not a condition to which Israel—or any—might ever have come by process of change or gradualism. What is required is that radical and total newness of life that could only emerge out of resurrection from death! And that the whole of Israel's previous history was proof as well as preparation for this necessity. Why haven't we as the Church seen this?]
What a ‘mitzvah’ for Israel herself as “only an ‘everlasting’ covenant speaks to deep psychological anxieties that had arisen over Judas’s life, identity and purpose being rooted in its [experience] of rejection and Exile (p.203). The people are creatively transformed into a new humanity; accordingly a new level of obedience and knowledge of God is required of them and made possible for them. This covenant is therefore inviolable” (p.201). Raitt speaks of “The annihilation of the national existence of Israel” as the necessary preliminary to this Millennial glory. But is it not also for us? Is our unwillingness for ‘annihilation’ (at the Cross) a basis for our rejection of Israel’s? How much does our flesh-sparing propensity blur if not oppose the majesty of God’s destiny for Israel through her own death? Except we have an eschatological [i.e., millennial and eternal] view and expectancy we miss the whole genius of this deliverance. Restoration is set in the context of a Theocratic Kingdom and will be missed by those who miss that. If we ourselves require transfiguration unto a glorified body in order to have part from the heavenlies, what is required of Israel from its place among the nations of the earth?
Our understanding of this mystery is critical to our participation: what was represented and demonstrated by Jeremiah, Ezekiel and other Old Testament prophets must be replicated corporately by the prophetic-remnant Church of the Last days! The prophet is no mere spectator but the agent that brings Israel to her hapless condition through the word of judgment but equally restores her through the word of Resurrection as event! Raitt quotes the distinguished Old Testament scholar, G. Von Rad who sees this:

 2016/4/21 16:02









 Re:

I already told you which ones did. I'll look in the volumes for you with exact quotes later when I'm home

 2016/4/21 16:02









 Re:

What you asked for PP:

Premillennialisin is so clearly taught in Revelation 19 and 20 that it is hard to understand how anyone can think otherwise without realizing honestly that they are going against the Biblical text. A kingdom reign of the Messiah was just as clearly taught in the Old Testament. Jesus and His Scripture-writing disciples also support the notion of an earthly kingdom headed by the Messiah. Such clearness in the Bible provides the likely reason why the early church fathers who spoke on this matter were all premillennialists.

THE FIRST PREMILLENNIAIJSTS

The first premillennialists were those who received God's revelation and wrote it down in the Bible. Eusebius tells us that one of the earliest church fathers that had heard the Apostle John and others who had known the Lord and His Apostles was Papias (AD 60-130), the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, Asia Minor. Papias taught "that there will be a millennium after the resurrection of the dead, when the kingdom of Christ will beset up in material form on this earth." (1) Irenaeus (AD 130-202) tells us that Papias "related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times" (the Millennium) in book 4 of Papias' writings, which are no longer extant, except a few fragments. Papias is recorded as saying: "there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth." (2) Polycarp (A.D. 70-155), bishop of Smyrna, is also said to have been a premillennialist. (3) The Epistle of Barnabas (written between AD 120-150) presents the common belief that "in six thousand years, all things will be finished ....then shall He truly rest on the seventh day." The writer speaks of the second coming of Christ with the clear implication that He will setup the thousand year kingdom on earth, followed by the eighth day or the eternal state. (4)

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) in his Dialogue With Trypho c. AD 140, a Jewish man, made the following premillennial statement: "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 he built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare." (5)

Justin considered premillennialism an aspect of orthodoxy in his day, "And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place." (6)

IRENAEUS AND TERTULLIAN

Two of the greatest ante-Nicene fathers were Irenaeus and Tertullian (AD 160-230). Irenaeus grew up in Asia Minor and was discipled by Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John. Irenaeus had a very extensive view of Bible prophecy in his last five chapters of Against Heresies, which were suppressed throughout the Middle Ages by anti-premillennialists and rediscovered in 1571. (7)The restoration of a more literal interpretation and reading of the early church fathers by many post-Reformationists led to a revival of premillennialism in the early 1600s. (8) Irenaeus' writings played a key role because of their clear premillennial statements. "John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first 'resurrection of the just,' and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth," he says, "and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize [with his vision]." (9) Again, Irenaeus declares, "But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom." (10)

"RIGHT-MINDED CHRISTIANS...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." -- JUSTIN MARTYR

Tertullian, who gave us the Latin word "Trinity" was also a strong premillennialist. He makes his premillennialism clear when he says the following: "But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, 'letdown from heaven,' which the apostle also calls 'our mother from above;' and, while declaring that our citizenship is in heaven, he predicts of it that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld." (11)

OTHER EARLY PREMILLENNIALISTS

Another outstanding premillennialist of the early church was Lactantius (AD 250-330) of North Africa. He wrote an important defense of Christianity that was the first systematic expression of Christianity called The Divine Institutes, which included a section on prophecy. Lactantius said: "But when the thousand years shall be completed, the world shall he renewed by God, and the heavens shall be folded together, and the earth shall be changed, and God shall transform men into the similitude of angels, and they shall be white as snow; and they shall always be employed in the sight of the Almighty, and shall make offerings to their Lord, and serve Him for ever." (12)

Virtually everyone who wrote on this topic for the first two to three hundred years of the church's history was a Millennialist. The list would include individuals like: Clement of Rome, who wrote a letter to an early church around AD 95; (13) Ignatius of Antioch, who is said to have been a disciple of the Apostles John and Peter. Early church tradition tells us that he was thrown to lions in AD 107); 14) Theophilus of Antioch (AD 115-181), who wrote one of the first accounts of primitive church history; (15) Tatian of Assyria, who died in AD 167; Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who died in AD 170; Clemens Alexandrinus, who was a contemporary of Justin Martyr; Hippolytus, a disciple of Irenaeus was martyred in AD 230 for his faith. Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau who died in AD 303; Methodius, Bishop of Tyre died in AD 311; an Egyptian bishop named Nepos of the third century; Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage was martyred in AD 258; and Commodians, a Christian historian, who wrote about AD 250. (16) Others could be added to the list.

"BUT WE DO CONFESS THAT A KINGDOM IS PROMISED TO US ON EARTH, ALTHOUGH BEFORE HEAVEN, ONLY IN ANOTHER STATE OF EXISTENCE..."
-- Tertullian (c. 155-230)

CONCLUSION

It is generally recognized within the scholarly world of early church historians that premillennialism was the most widely held view of the earliest church tradition. One of the leading experts on the doctrine of the early church is J. N. D. Kelly, who says, "millenarianism, or the theory that the returned Christ would reign on earth for a thousand years came to find increasing support among Christian teachers...This millenarian, or 'chiliastic' doctrine was widely popular at this time." (17) "The great theologians who followed the Apologists, lrenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, were primarily concerned to defend the traditional eschatological scheme against Gnosticism," explains Kelly. "They are all exponents of millenarianism." (18)

Philip Schaff, the dean of American church historians and himself a postrnillennialist, provided the following summary of the early church's view of the millennium: "The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius." (19)

European scholar and church historian, Adolph Harnack echoes Schaff and tells us, "First in point of time came the faith in the nearness of Christ's second advent and the establishing of His reign of glory on the earth. Indeed it appears so early that it might be questioned whether it ought not to he regarded as an essential part of the Christian religion ." (20)

The Bible is the sole basis from which a believer in Christ should learn what is true. What others have believed down through church history is really not the issue. However, when we believe the Bible teaches a particular doctrine, it is not surprising that others who ha' read the Bible see the same thing. This is exactly what we find in the early church in regards to premillennialism before allegorical interpretation began to dominate. Maranatha

 2016/4/21 16:05
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: Jeff , go back and read my post in this thread, you did not seem to understand

jeffmar wrote : ///I already told you which ones did. I'll look in the volumes for you with exact quotes later when I'm home///

You went on such a spamming frenzy, I think you must have missed this post of mine :



[Jeff wrote : ///I already addressed that PP & quoted which ones (like Ireaneas, Justin Martyr, etc.) were Premillinealists///

You are responding to what you thought that I was implying instead of responding to what I wrote : I was not refuting the idea that ante-nicene held to chiliasm

I wrote :
" I was specifically addressing : "distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papia, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian...etc.
Find me one christian writing before Moses Maimonides, that taught that the nation of Israel had any significants in the end times.
We over 1,000 years of no record of anyone that taught that the nation of Israel had any significants in the end times."

David Bercot : "a practicing attorney, author, and church historian. Outside of law, his special field of interest and study has been the early church (particularly the church prior to the Council of Nicaea, A. D. 325)"

Bercot has a teaching on What the Early Christians Believed About Israel in Prophecy :

"What the Early Christians Believed About Israel in Prophecy. Millions of Christians have it all figured out how various Old Testament prophecies are being fulfilled today—or how they will be fulfilled in the future—through the nation of Israel. But are we understanding those prophecies correctly?" http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/product2814.html ]

add: I again ask :

"Find me one christian writing before Moses Maimonides, that taught that the nation of Israel had any significants in the end times.

You are reaffirming my research thus far that we have over 1,000 years of no record of anyone that taught that the nation of Israel had any significants in the end times."

added edit : heading

 2016/4/21 16:06Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy