Valid, alternative models must continue to be considered.
To make a choice that some passage is symbolic when you formerly favored a literal interpretation is your right to a preference. However, since we are speaking of future things that are not certain, it strikes me as inappropriate to then reject the former model.
Viable BIBLICAL models presented by sincere Christians must be kept on the table....not written off. Their strengths and especially WEAKNESSES must honestly be pointed out by their ADVOCATES. Their weaknesses and especially STRENGTHS must honestly be pointed out by their CHRISTIAN detractors.
Well, if the former model does not fit the biblical facts, then it must be rejected or at least set aside until some additional, previously unknown information is received. So far I have not received any new information that would cause me to rethink my position.
Do I consider the premil, literal interpretation possible? Sure. Do I consider it likely possible based on my current understanding of Scripture? No.
Viable BIBLICAL models presented by sincere Christians must be kept on the table....not written off.
On whose table? My personal table? The table of my church or denominations? I don't think so.
For example, my denomination is not shy about the fact that it is Calvinistic. We do not allow Arminianism to be taught in our churches or schools, except by way of contrast. We do not allow our officers to hold to an Arminian view. At the same time we recognize there are sincere Christians who differ with us on this matter of soteriology. Just because there are sincere Christians does not mean we have to "keep the matter on the table."
Likewise there are certain forms of eschatology, notably dispensationalism, that we generally frowned upon.
VERY WELL said, imho.
Thanks.