Posted on 09/12/2002 7:19:20 AM PDT by xzins
Amen!
There are at least 6 ways to mess up scripture.
One, adding to the word of God
Two, subtracting.
Three, interpretating something to be figurative when it is literal
four, interpretating something literal when it should be interpretated figuratively
Five, dropping the context.
Six, not obeying the truth that has been already revealed to you. (See Ezek.14:4)
Example, 666 is the calculated value of a particular man's name. It identifies one, and only one person if done according to the method employed in Hebrew commerce when they used those characters as numbers.
I re-read my #10, and I see that I let my mind get too far ahead of my fingers. Having left an entire clause out of the reply, I reversed my meaning. I ment to say that it would happen after.
The problem with your implied argument for literalism is is that we amills will respond that WE DO understand Revelation 20 rather well. We are actually flabbergasted at the number of obvious mistakes folks have made through the ages.
IMO, premills just ignore or twist John 5:25-29 to try to salvage their presupposed literal reading of Revelation 20. We amills refuse to do that, because there is nothing especially holy about presuming that the Lord has no right to encrypt His meaning in some situations--perhaps even more situations than the premills realize.
As a matter of fact, we notice that the Scriptures themselves say that "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter."
Does this mean that we go looking for meanings other than plain meanings? No, but we try to be very wary as to what texts are "plain" and what texts are not. We think that anything less would be hermeneutically irresponsible (even if this sober assessment is a step which premills often jump over!).
Being forewarned in our hermeneutical sobriety, we come up with different intepretive conclusions for certain texts.
Being forewarned, we are diligent in trying to get the reading right, not to agree with some Bible teacher or some set of study Bible footnotes. This diligence pays off, I believe, because the Scriptures promise that "the soul of the diligent shall be made fat."
Besides, it seems to me that there is very good reason to be wary about what is going on with the Book of Revelations. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. It strikes me as rather brattish and therefore foolish to assume that God has to accommodate Himself to my first-glance faculties of understanding (i.e., the ability to grasp the strictly literal stuff).
Speaking of the fear of God, I frankly think a lot of premills are complete fools--i.e., unregenerate. I'm sure there are some amill fools, too, but I worry that the conservative premillennial fools actually outnumber the liberal amillennial fools in our day.
Why do I dare to say that about the problem of lost premills? Because I used to be one. And I know other folks who would say the same thing about their own spiritual odyssey.
I did not immediately leave premillennialism after I was finally converted to Christ for real, and, of course, I don't make eschatology a litmus test of Christianity. I just think we have an unknowably bad mess on our hands.
(The ones who really worry me are the dispensational premills. The very worst sermon I have ever heard in more than 25 years as a Christian was preached by a department head from a major dispensational seminary. The guy did not understand the gospel at all. He was actually doing more harm than good in the pulpit. The problem is, many dispensationalists just can't seem to grasp that many of their so-called "carnal Christian" converts aren't really Christians in the first place.)
***
Back to what I was trying to say at the top of this post, let me emphasize that there are some difficult interpretive points in Revelation 20, but we say that there are not as difficult as the premills have made them by a kind of hyper-literal stubbornness.
(As I said in my most recent post to you, I think the dyed-in-the-wool literalist is doomed to come up with an interpretation which is complicated, tortured, hermeneutically dubious, and eisegetical.)
I'm trying not to sound smug, brother, but I think that your appeal to some overarching need for Revelation 20 to be understandable backfires on you. I say Revelation 20 is understandable only if you quit equating "literal" with "understandable." In other words, I say that a godly FEAR, which teaches us to respect God's sovereign prerogatives as a communicator in Holy Scripture, is the key to the kind of WISDOM which John himself warns us that we'd better have for understanding his Revelation.
So, again, I believe that we amills understand Revelation 20 better than you premills do. We amills regard the two resurrections in Revelation 20 as being among the very clearest things in the Bible. And we think that it is spectacularly clear that the first resurrection is regeneration-unto-conversion--and not a bodily resurrection at all.
(Many of today's premills say "Hey, it can't be all that clear, because I have never seen it--and it's not in my study Bible! Therefore, the amills are bound to be wrong!" [Yeah, sure])
But that is not symbology, is it? - It's generalization, a big difference.
I think Satan is more deceptive than you realize.
Please see my #76 and #89.
In the end, this whole subject must deal with two issues:
1st. If we have an eschatological view in which matters become increasingly worse, what does that say about the lordship of King Jesus? Isn't His kingdom an everlasting kingdom.
2d. We must address the question of why the book of Revelation was written. Was it written to give a road map of events that would not be fulfilled until the "end of the age." Or, was the book written primarily for first cent. Christians with implications and applications for our day?
I can read the book of Revelation and find a reading that offers hope and comfort to the persecuted church, that Chist will avenge His and our enemies, and that He shall reign forever.
It is undeniable that the most prevailing reading of eschatology, throughout church history, is post-millenial. I believe it is a view most in keeping with the sovereignty of God and His omnipotence.
Occam's Razor is a logical/philosophical principle popularized by an otherwise obscure Scholastic theologian, Willem of Ockham. (I believe that is the majority spelling, anyway.) And it's not about "choosing the obvious." Rather, it is about finding and selecting the simplest explanation for a problem having many features.
The "obvious" way to read Revelation 20, according to your level of discernment, at least, is to read the first resurrection as a bodily (material) resurrection just like the second resurrection.
But the materialistic interpretation of the first resurrection in Revelation 20 forces you to jump through a lot of hoops to set aside what would certainly appear to be the obvious implications of John 5:25-29 and 2 Peter 3.
Besides, your interpretation doesn't mesh in a very satisfactory way with the two-resurrection form which we do see in John 5:25 (spiritual) and 5:28-29 (carnal). By the same token, your interpretation doesn't exactly mesh with what Paul says in Ephesians 1 and 2, either!
My intepretation fits ALL of these points--John 5, 2 Peter 3 and Ephesians 1-2. And my interpretation is SIMPLE.
According to Occam's Razor, my interpretation is to be preferred.
(Actually, I was just being polite to ksen when I cited Occam's Razor. I actually maintain that John 5 and 2 Peter 3:9 completely rule out the premill position.)
***
The stumbling block for many people is that they equate a premillennial belief system with saving faith. Many premills can't abandon their premill system--because they would have no faith at all if they did.
Those folks on their way to hell, IMO. Remember: The Pharisees were folks who were inclined to take Christ literally when they shouldn't have.
(Notice that I didn't say all premills are lost. I just maintain that premillennialism is often substituted for the gospel by careless pastors.)
I am referring to the odd fact that you can't seem to come around to the amill position--no matter how simple and elegant it is.
How does my very simple theory account for that? Gosh, it automatically accounts for it. As I read the text of Revelation 20, I conclude that it was encrypted to cause you to stumble, xzins.
I haven't seen any who hold such a position posting on these threads. Apparently you have, so would you name them please so that we can attempt to reason them out of such false ideas?
You guys are too much ===
No, At least for me, I'm just going to sit back and let the_doc pull out enough rope to hang himself...and he's on his way....
I've stated my position, and I have read those texts more times in the last week than I have in the last 6 months. I have looked them up in other translations, looked online for other materials to broaden my knowledge and to understand the amil position. The more I read, the more I dig, and the more I pray about it, the more convinced I am that the amil position is wrong. The one benefit that has accrued from all this is it has driven me deeper into the Word, and into study. That's a good thing in and of itself. I wish I had more time to post, but I rarely have time at work, and my evenings are not always free.
I really would like the _doc to quit being so dad-blamed abrasive, insulting, and uppity when he posts. My first impression is that he is quite angry with everyone. then I think, naw, he's just really enthusiastic about his beliefs. But as I see him castigate people time and again, I think that he does have a problem with patience. If his posts were the only ones in support of the amil position, there's NO WAY I'd even listen to him, because I don't like to be shouted at, told I'm carnal, stupid, and immature, and I certainly don't like being told that I'm maybe not even born again, some 31 years after a very real encounter with Jesus, where I gave Him my heart and my life. The reality of Jesus in my life is precious to me, and He has led me through some very difficult times in my life. To have that questioned over a doctrine that is not even central to my eternal fate is offensive, rude, and certainly not being gentle, apt to teach, patient, and instructing in meekness and humility.
I fully expect another round of castigation and abuse from the_doc for my saying this publicly, but I will not back down from what I know is right and good. The Lord is my shield and strength, and in Him I place my trust.
That is a remarkable statement; a position birthed in a liberal mindset.
I'd say it's a vote for tossing out the bible.
Literal reading of selective scripture is how people arrive at Calvinism.
Besides, I don't know of a single premellenialist who accepts very much literally. Really, premellenialist vs. amellenialist is more about what to literalize and to figurize, not literal vs. figurative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.