The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

I have noted in the past that persons have been used and invoked in a cherry-picking fashion to appear to endorse hyperpreterism. Anyone involved in this subject for an amount of time is aware the Spurgeon is trotted out as giving a favourable word to J.S. Stuart’s The Parousia - and such comments, as demonstrated by multiple questions that I have received, are confusing to the uninformed examiner. I had suspected that there was more to the story as involving his alleged endorsement of Stuart’s book, but had not gotten around spefically to researching it. Today I ran across a quite humourous anti-preterist rant by Bob Ross (of any stripe, he would hate my views just as much as the hyperpreterists) and give it an A+ for sheer flaming value. However, Mr. Ross did me a service by getting to the bottom of the less than forthright use of Spurgeon. Here is what Mr. Ross stated

Inasmuch as C. H. SPURGEON’S name is being “misused” to enhance the book by J. Stuart Russell, entitled THE PAROUSIA, published in 1878 and reprinted by Baker Book House in 1983, we want to “balance-the-books” in regard to this matter and let you “in” on “the rest of the story.” You will plainly see that Spurgeon DID NOT endorse this book in its “messchatology,” but set-it-aside as “much more than ought to have been said” — and, as to its view of the Book of Revelation, Spurgeon said it would require “more ingenuity and strength than that of men and angels combined” to do what Russell attempts in this book. Here is his review, as published in the October 1878 issue of The Sword and the Trowel Magazine —

“The second coming of Christ according to this volume had its fulfilment in the destruction of Jerusalem and the establishment of the gospel dispensation. That the parables and predictions of our Lord had a more direct and exclusive reference to that period than is generally supposed, we readily admit; but we were not prepared for the assignment of all references to a second coming in the New Testament, and even in the Apocalypse itself, to so early a fulfilment. All that could be said has been said in support of this theory, and much more than ought to have been said. In this the reasoning FAILS. In order to concentrate the whole prophecies of the Book of Revelation upon the period of the destruction of Jerusalem it was needful to assume this book to have been written prior to that event, although the earliest ecclesiastical historians agree that John was banished to the isle of Patmos, where the book was written, by Domitian, who reigned after Titus, by whom Jerusalem was destroyed. Apart from this consideration, the compression of all the Apocalyptic visions and prophecies into so narrow a space requires more ingenuity and strength than that of men and angels combined. Too much stress is laid upon such phrases as ‘The time is at hand,’ ‘Behold I come quickly,’ whereas many prophecies of Scripture are delivered as present or past, as ‘unto us a child IS born,’ etc., and ‘Surely he HATH borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.’ Amidst the many comings of Christ spoken of in the New Testament that which is spoken of as a second, must, we think, be personal, and thus similar to the first; and such too must be the meaning of ‘his appearing.’ Though the author’s theory is carried too far, it…“

[Note: At this point in the half-page review, the Preties have "sliced-off" the following words, printed them on the back-cover of the Stuart book, as if to imply Spurgeon's "endorsement" of the book. Please note that every preceding line has been in a critical and negative category, while the following words are but a meager "conciliatory" remark, which was Spurgeon's usual manner in finding some "positive" commendation for practically all the books sent to him by publishers for "review." Now, the remainder of the sentence —]

” …has so much of truth in it, and throws so much new light upon obscure portions of the Scriptures, and is accompanied with so much critical research and close reasoning, that it can be injurious to none and may be profitable to all.“

Interesting. Mr. Ross’ full piece can be found here