[2] Parables - Most parables have only one message or central idea, and even if multiple messages are present, one of them will be the chief idea. This is such a common, monotonous refrain of the moderately liberal interpretive advocates that I cannot believe they don't mention that others simply don't see it that way. Only one meaning is a gross assumption that ALSO means by these folks that one can make only ONE allegorical cross-application. The story of the treasure hidden has only one application -- the treasure equals the kingdom of heaven. One cannot speculate on who the man represents. But look at the parable of the sower who went out to sow. Jesus says that virtually everything in that parable has an allegorical application. The seed equals the word of God. The seed that fell on the good soil equals and abundant harvest. Jesus uses this parable as an example of how we will interpret any parable. 13Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14The farmer sows the word. 15Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them.
[3] Apocalypse (especially Revelation) -- Revelation is a vision of warning and encouragement to the early church This is such a gross misrepresentation of the current debate over Revelation that it's almost laughable. The moderate liberal will always try to relegate the Revelation to that early Church era. They don't want to see a future application aspect to it. This man has just told you that proper interpretation of Revelation REQUIRES YOU to strip it of any notions YOU might have about its being a futuristic book. Despite what you might read in that sounds futuristic, looks futuristic, compares with other passages as futuristic, this man tells you that you are mistaken.
_____________________________
I don't know anything about this fellow's presuppositions, but I think what he wrote is basically sound. I think you may be being a little tough on the guy for not saying more.
[1]Prohpecies. I think I understand your point, but it seems to me that even you would agree that, as far as he goes, he is correct. Certainly, the vast majority of prophecies did have a near-term application.
But of course, you argue, "Others believe the vast majority of the preserved writings dealt with a time other than that of the author." But, I think, most would say that there is a second, futuristic, application, not that there was no near-term (to the writer) application. Is that not true?
[2]I am not sure I understand your point here. You say Jesus gives us an example of interpretation and He does. But it is quite a specific interpretation and He clearly implies that He had a single meaning in mind and His listeners were dense not to appreciate that meaning He wasn't arguing that there were several meanings available and they were dense for only seeing one.
So, I think I need to hear more as to why he is so wrong here. He appears to allow for secondary applications and meanings as the context might indicate. What is wrong with that? On what basis should anyone assume multiple available interpretations?
[3] Revelation. Again, what he says seems unremarkable. I wouldn't think anyone -- even a thoroughgoing dispensationalist -- would dispute the truth of what he said. They might say it was also much more, but it was at the very least a warning and encouragement to the early church. Is that not true?
Perhaps you are much more sensitive to liberal phrasing than I am, but I didn't find that much to quarrel with in what he said
By the way, wouldn't you agree that where secondary meanings and/or fulfillments are to be found, there should be some direct clue in the text that tells us? We shouldn't be simply assuming such, should we?
2. Parables. Some see a gold-mine of symbolism and meanings in each parable. This man says there's just one. Having taken a "liberal" class on the parables, I know that this "one meaning" mantra has a vise-grip on their minds. They don't see a gold-mine; they see a single nugget. The example of the parable of the sower shows that each act and actor in the story had a relevant parallel. The sower represented someone, the seed represented something, the paths represented something, the birds represented something else, etc. Now go to the parable of the treasure hidden in the field. Who is the man? (What does that mean?) What does he find. (What does that mean?) What does he do? (What does that mean?) What is the result. (What does that mean?) If Jesus' interpretive method in the parable of the sower is instructive -- that each item had a representation and a meaningful application -- then one would think he could apply that same method to the parable of the treasure. According to this methodology, you are wrong if you do. AND THEY ENFORCE IT.
Revelation. I'm not convinced that Revelation was written to encourage the early church. It says about itself 1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies to everything he saw--that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near
For those who wish to discuss the points "soon take place" and "time is near," I call them to the section of this book about the various judgements and the new jerusalem. In light of those, what must this book mean by "near" and "soon" other than "from God's perspective."