Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins; ksen; editor-surveyor; jude24; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Matchett-PI; RnMomof7; Jean Chauvin; ...
Occam's Razor is about choosing the obvious. You IGNORE the obvious.

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.)

95 posted on 09/12/2002 5:17:50 PM PDT by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: xzins; ksen; editor-surveyor; jude24; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Matchett-PI; RnMomof7; Jean Chauvin; ...
I forgot to mention that my very simple interpretation also explains one of the odder things about the larger interpretive problem.

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.

96 posted on 09/12/2002 5:34:17 PM PDT by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]

To: the_doc
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.

Actually, all of Israel, including these Pharisees, were expecting a conquering Messiah when Jesus came the first time. It even fooled the Apostles until they had the Holy Spirit (See Acts 1:6). And it seems that this same idea, i.e. the physical 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, is fooling a lot of people today. Of course, you already knew this. ;-)
111 posted on 09/12/2002 7:57:49 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson