Idealist/Amillennialism

[Arial]

From monergism.com
Part One

Which method of interpretation of Revelation is the most common found among Reformed or covenant theologians?

Among Reformed or covenant theologians, the most commonly embraced method of interpreting the Book of Revelation is the Amillennial and Idealist (or Symbolic) view. This approach is consistent with the overall theological framework of Reformed theology, which emphasizes the sovereignty of God, the centrality of Christ in all of Scripture, and the continuity of God’s covenantal dealings with His people. Here's a brief overview:

1. Amillennial Interpretation:
   • Overview: Amillennialism, common in Reformed theology, holds that the millennium (the thousand-year reign mentioned in Revelation 20) is symbolic and represents the current church age, rather than a literal future period.
   • Key Features: This view sees Christ's reign as spiritual rather than earthly, with the millennium symbolizing the reign of Christ in heaven and through His church on earth, beginning with His first coming and continuing until His return.
   • Eschatology: It interprets the final judgment and the new creation as events that will occur at Christ’s second coming, rather than as part of a literal thousand-year earthly kingdom.
     
2. Idealist (Symbolic) View:
   • Overview: The Idealist approach interprets Revelation as a timeless portrayal of the cosmic struggle between good and evil. It sees the book as highly symbolic, conveying spiritual truths relevant to believers in every age.
   • Key Features: This view tends to avoid identifying specific events or figures in Revelation with particular historical or future occurrences, instead focusing on the ongoing spiritual realities and truths represented by the book's imagery.
   • Application: It emphasizes the encouragement and hope that Revelation offers to Christians in all eras, highlighting the ultimate victory of Christ and the call for faithfulness amidst trials and persecutions.

Both these approaches align with the broader Reformed emphasis on the unity and continuity of Scripture, the overarching narrative of redemptive history, and the application of biblical truths to all believers, regardless of their historical context. They avoid overly literal or speculative interpretations of apocalyptic literature and instead focus on the theological and spiritual lessons that can be drawn from the text.

 

[Arial]

Part two



What About Apocalyptic Literature, such as the Book of Revelation?

The Idealist view often interprets the symbols in the Book of Revelation as being closely tied to imagery and themes found in the Old Testament. This approach is grounded in the principle of "Scripture interpreting Scripture," which is a key tenet in Reformed hermeneutics. Here's how this works in the context of Revelation:

1. Old Testament Imagery: Many symbols in Revelation have their roots in the Old Testament. For example, the use of beasts, numbers, and figures like Babylon and Jerusalem often draw on Old Testament language and symbolism. The Idealist view sees these symbols as conveying deep theological truths that are consistent throughout Scripture.
2. Consistency with Biblical Themes: The Idealist approach maintains that the themes and symbols in Revelation should be understood in a way that is consistent with their usage and meaning in the broader biblical narrative, especially as found in the Old Testament.
3. Typology and Foreshadowing: In Reformed theology, many elements of the Old Testament are seen as types or foreshadows of New Testament realities. The Idealist interpretation of Revelation often views its symbols as the fulfillment or continuation of these typological patterns.
4. Contextual Interpretation: Understanding the context in which certain Old Testament passages were written helps to inform the interpretation of similar imagery in Revelation. This includes understanding the historical, cultural, and literary context of both the Old and New Testament texts.
5. Thematic Unity: The Idealist view emphasizes the thematic unity of the Bible. Thus, symbols in Revelation are interpreted in a way that aligns with the overarching themes of Scripture, such as God’s sovereignty, the fall and redemption of humanity, the conflict between good and evil, and the ultimate restoration of creation.

In summary, the Idealist approach to Revelation doesn’t isolate its symbols and imagery from the rest of Scripture. Instead, it views them as part of the continuous and unified narrative of the Bible, deeply connected to and often illuminated by the Old Testament. This approach encourages a holistic understanding of biblical theology, seeing Revelation as a capstone to the biblical story that begins in Genesis.

 

[Josheb]

From monergism.com
Part One

Which method of interpretation of Revelation is the most common found among Reformed or covenant theologians?

Among Reformed or covenant theologians, the most commonly embraced method of interpreting the Book of Revelation is the Amillennial and Idealist (or Symbolic) view.

Amillennialism and Idealism are not methods of interpretation.

I'm surprised someone at monergismdotcom wrote these statements. Correctly understood, eschatological positions are the result of methodology, not the methodology. In addition, Idealism constitutes a portion of Amillennialists; the two are not identical or synonymous. Therefore, to say Idealism is a "method" of interpretation implies all the non-idealist Amils are using a different methodology, which necessarily implies at least two different methodologies exist. We're not supposed to read scripture with an already-existing belief system in mind. We're supposed to develop and hold our beliefs based on an exegetical examination of scripture. Exegesis* is the methodology, not an eschatological position. Exegesis is supposed to a be a scientific practice of analysis. The precepts or "rules" of exegesis are not partisan; they have been well established for a very, very long time and are supposed apply to every reader of the Bible, whether they be Amil, Idealist, Dispensationalist, Trinitarian, non-Trin, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Branch Davidian, British, American, or otherwise. The only reason any diversity in doctrine exists is because the rules of exegesis are somewhere inconsistent or otherwise lacking. If we all practiced a perfect exegesis, then our hermeneutic(s) and doctrines would all be identical.

Amillennialism would be a product of an exegetical analysis of Revelation. Idealism would be a minority viewpoint within the Amillennial position.



Would you provide a link to the specific article at monergismdotcom where the op's content was taken? I'd like to read that article for myself. Thx















* Exegesis is the process of interpreting a specific text, while hermeneutics is the set of principles used to apply exegesis to make what was written useful in our time and circumstance.
.

 

[Arial]

Do you have anything pertinent to the content of the OP to explore. Other than a discussion/correction of someone's terminology?

Reformation Theology Blog | Monergism

Monergism.com is a free, comprehensive online theological library comprised of Reformed Christian resources designed to bring glory to Jesus Christ alone.

www.monergism.com

 

[Josheb]

Do you have anything pertinent to the content of the OP to explore. Other than a discussion/correction of someone's terminology?

Proper terminology is op-relevant, and it is op-relevant for several reasons but if there's no interest in discussing them, I will gladly move on or discuss the op's content with those who do have interest.

Reformation Theology Blog | Monergism

Monergism.com is a free, comprehensive online theological library comprised of Reformed Christian resources designed to bring glory to Jesus Christ alone.

www.monergism.com

Thank you. The link takes me to the blog, but not the specific article used in the op. I did, however, find the article HERE. Thx


Assuming you subscribe to an amillennial Idealist point of view (ala Poythress?)....

• What do you think are the strengths of the Idealist pov (relevant to scripture)?
• What do you think are the weaknesses of the Idealist pov (relevant to scripture)?

.

 

[Mr GLee]

Amillennialism would be a product of an exegetical analysis of Revelation. Idealism would be a minority viewpoint within the Amillennial position.

I would offer

Amil (no signs needed to wonder, wonder, wonder after) as a evil un redeemed generation.. The "out of sight out of mind " Pagan foundation.

In parables like that of in 2 Peter one day as if a thousand years comparison that parable denotes a un-revealed.

He desires we walk or understanding by the things writen .Not looking to the temporal dying, lying

First used

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Again

Ecclesiastes 6:6 Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?

Last

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

As a Thousand . .Three times to indicate the end of the matter.

Without parables the signified understanding of prophecy Christ spoke not. Signified using the temporal things seen as signs to give the unseen eternal.

Revelation 1King James Version1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Signified. . . . hidden manna daily bread

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

 

[Arial]

Assuming you subscribe to an amillennial Idealist point of view (ala Poythress?)....

• What do you think are the strengths of the Idealist pov (relevant to scripture)?

My focus is not the idealist interpretive method in general, (see OP board) but the idealist amillennial interpretive view in Revelation. And I point out here, just so we don't continue or revert back to a discussion on the use of "method", that both idealism and amillennialism use interpretive methods. (A means or manner of procedure, especially a regular and systematic way of accomplishing something.) This idealist/ amillennial view of course is the product of consistency with idealism.

The title of the article I posted from however is "What are some of the different views of interpreting Revelation? Perhaps I should have included that title, but I figured the OP board would make it clear.

In interpreting Revelation this is the strength with which I fully agree.

"Both these approaches align with the broader Reformed emphasis on the unity and continuity of Scripture, the overarching narrative of redemptive history, and the application of biblical truths to all believers, regardless of their historical context. They avoid overly literal or speculative interpretations of apocalyptic literature and instead focus on the theological and spiritual lessons that can be drawn from the text."

• What do you think are the weaknesses of the Idealist pov (relevant to scripture)?

To the whole of scripture? Not understanding genre, Bible historical context, symbolizing where symbols are not being used. So the weakness is in people, not the view. And when it comes to amillennialism it would be the same weakness---people's inaccuracy concerning what to us in this time is alien (apocalyptic prophecy). It is not easy, especially since most of us began our Christian journey presented with one view and one view only---that of pre-trib premillennialism and it is hard to escape the influence now when reading Rev.

But this is a great benefit to getting the message and purpose of Rev instead of getting lost in what one sees as a puzzle to be solved.


What About Apocalyptic Literature, such as the Book of Revelation?

The Idealist view often interprets the symbols in the Book of Revelation as being closely tied to imagery and themes found in the Old Testament. This approach is grounded in the principle of "Scripture interpreting Scripture," which is a key tenet in Reformed hermeneutics. Here's how this works in the context of Revelation:

1. Old Testament Imagery: Many symbols in Revelation have their roots in the Old Testament. For example, the use of beasts, numbers, and figures like Babylon and Jerusalem often draw on Old Testament language and symbolism. The Idealist view sees these symbols as conveying deep theological truths that are consistent throughout Scripture.
2. Consistency with Biblical Themes: The Idealist approach maintains that the themes and symbols in Revelation should be understood in a way that is consistent with their usage and meaning in the broader biblical narrative, especially as found in the Old Testament.
3. Typology and Foreshadowing: In Reformed theology, many elements of the Old Testament are seen as types or foreshadows of New Testament realities. The Idealist interpretation of Revelation often views its symbols as the fulfillment or continuation of these typological patterns.
4. Contextual Interpretation: Understanding the context in which certain Old Testament passages were written helps to inform the interpretation of similar imagery in Revelation. This includes understanding the historical, cultural, and literary context of both the Old and New Testament texts.
5. Thematic Unity: The Idealist view emphasizes the thematic unity of the Bible. Thus, symbols in Revelation are interpreted in a way that aligns with the overarching themes of Scripture, such as God’s sovereignty, the fall and redemption of humanity, the conflict between good and evil, and the ultimate restoration of creation.

In summary, the Idealist approach to Revelation doesn’t isolate its symbols and imagery from the rest of Scripture. Instead, it views them as part of the continuous and unified narrative of the Bible, deeply connected to and often illuminated by the Old Testament. This approach encourages a holistic understanding of biblical theology, seeing Revelation as a capstone to the biblical story that begins in Genesis.

The entire article is worth a read.

monergism.com/reformation-theology/blog/what-are-some-different-views-interpreting-revelation

 

[Mr GLee]

This idealist/ amillennial view of course is the product of consistency with idealism.

I would offer

"Idealism" as in a philosophy "imaginative faculty "In that sense or parable the signified understanding which without Christ spoke not?

"Idealism" it would seem the lying sign of liar King Satan. Lying and wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder after as if his power was true prophecy (sola scriptura) and not what is really is. . false prophecy sent by false apostles. Oral traditons of dying mankind .

 

[CrowCross]

Amillennial Interpretation:

• Overview: Amillennialism, common in Reformed theology, holds that the millennium (the thousand-year reign mentioned in Revelation 20) is symbolic and represents the current church age, rather than a literal future period.
• Key Features: This view sees Christ's reign as spiritual rather than earthly, with the millennium symbolizing the reign of Christ in heaven and through His church on earth, beginning with His first coming and continuing until His return.
• Eschatology: It interprets the final judgment and the new creation as events that will occur at Christ’s second coming, rather than as part of a literal thousand-year earthly kingdom.

Yes, some may see it that way....but id this is the millennial reign...happening right now...why doesn't this time reflect what the bible teaches about the 1,000 year reign of Christ?

Satan is not currently in a bottomless pit.
The beast nor the mark hasn't become a reality yet.

 

[Arial]

Yes, some may see it that way....but id this is the millennial reign...happening right now...why doesn't this time reflect what the bible teaches about the 1,000 year reign of Christ?

Satan is not currently in a bottomless pit.
The beast nor the mark hasn't become a reality yet.

You are simply reading into idealist/amillennialism your interpretation of the scriptures you reference. Your interpretation is not in idealist/amillennialism. They interpret it differently than you do. In order to refute this view you will have to show how they interpret them and how it is wrong. In which case you would need to know how they interpret them. Maybe someone wants to go into those specifics, but I do not, at least not at the moment.

 

[CrowCross]

The title of the article I posted from however is "What are some of the different views of interpreting Revelation? Perhaps I should have included that title, but I figured the OP board would make it clear.

There are several ways in which people interpret the accounts presented in the book of Revelations.
When I read it..and let Revelation speak for itself I see it as the prophetic future....which when today's events are laid side by side with portions of Revelation seem to be positioned in the futuristic interpretation of the book of Revelation.

As an example we can see the infrastructure for the future mark of the beast being constructed and tested as we speak.
As a second example we can read Revelation chapter 8 and see what is mentioned has never happened on the planet.
Other examples such as when other scripture is hermeneutically compared to Revelation we learn that the current Christians are not destined for the wrath or judgement mentioned in the book of Revelations. One major reason for this is that the "harpazó" mentioned in 1 Thes 4:17 hasn't occurred yet.

 

[Arial]

There are several ways in which people interpret the accounts presented in the book of Revelations.
When I read it..and let Revelation speak for itself I see it as the prophetic future....which when today's events are laid side by side with portions of Revelation seem to be positioned in the futuristic interpretation of the book of Revelation.

As an example we can see the infrastructure for the future mark of the beast being constructed and tested as we speak.
As a second example we can read Revelation chapter 8 and see what is mentioned has never happened on the planet.
Other examples such as when other scripture is hermeneutically compared to Revelation we learn that the current Christians are not destined for the wrath or judgement mentioned in the book of Revelations. One major reason for this is that the "harpazó" mentioned in 1 Thes 4:17 hasn't occurred yet.

This OP is not about your view or the signs of the world. You are changing the subject and using yet another thread as your chance to repeat, repeat, repeat your position. This post of yours quoted my post and then posted something that had nothing to do with what I posted.

Please stop it.

 

[CrowCross]

You are simply reading into idealist/amillennialism your interpretation of the scriptures you reference.

Yes I do. I have no problem with doing that. You do.
If you were around back in the day and from the far east you would ave criticized the "wisemen" for understanding there would be the appearance of a "star" in their future.

Your interpretation is not in idealist/amillennialism. They interpret it differently than you do. In order to refute this view you will have to show how they interpret them and how it is wrong.

I have done that on numerous occasions...I have mentioned chapters such as Rev 8 haven't historically happened as of yet.
I have mentioned the return of Christ happens twice...Jesus in the clouds and then again on a white horse.
I have mentioned that at the end of the tribulation period the world will be in such a shambles that people will not be partying and getting married as a daily occurrence.
I have mentioned the Christians will not be destined for such wrath.

With the presentation of such theology I have show how they interpret them and how it is wrong.

In which case you would need to know how they interpret them.

I understand much of how they interpreted them...and have using the scripture pointed out their flaws based upon their limited knowledge of the times in which those interpretations were derived.
For example we all know the reestablishment of Israel was a prophetic prediction....and 1,000 years ago seen as an impossibility. Then from our position in history see it actually happened in 1948. The bible was right.

Maybe someone wants to go into those specifics, but I do not, at least not at the moment.

Which is OK.

 

[CrowCross]

This OP is not about your view or the signs of the world. You are changing the subject and using yet another thread as your chance to repeat, repeat, repeat your position. This post of yours quoted my post and then posted something that had nothing to do with what I posted.

Please stop it.

The OP presented an opinion as if it was the only correct opinion.

It's not that I don't disagree with the descriptions presented...but I understand they didn't stand the test of time.
Who knows, 500 years from now if my (and others) interpretations proves to also be wrong they'll have to come up with another. But, like the wisemen seeing the star...we can look at what's going today in 2024 going into 2025 on and see that the table is pretty much set.

 

[Arial]

The OP presented an opinion as if it was the only correct opinion.

No it didn't. That is what you do. The OP parts 1 and 2 present what idealist/amillennialism is.

It's not that I don't disagree with the descriptions presented...but I understand they didn't stand the test of time.

What do you mean it didn't stand the test of time? There are more turning to various amillennial views today who began as though the premillennial, pre-trib dispensationalist view overtook popularity. Thanks to the Left Behind novels, and Hal Lindsey. Few heard any different so believed it. Not so anymore. That is the view that has not been standing the test of time since it began to be promoted. They are always wrong in their predictions. None have been right yet.

Now what have you to say about the interpretive perspective of idealist/amillennialism? What do you say about the way in which they view Revelation and OT prophecies. I would think you would know that it is the NT that interprets the OT, not the other way around as dispensationalists do.

But, like the wisemen seeing the star...we can look at what's going today in 2024 going into 2025 on and see that the table is pretty much set.

That is an opinion that presumes its position is the only correct one and belongs in another thread. Not this one

 

[CrowCross]

Thanks to the Left Behind novels, and Hal Lindsey. Few heard any different so believed it. Not so anymore. That is the view that has not been standing the test of time since it began to be promoted.

People for some reason like to make it sound like Darby then later on linsey invented the rapture.

I found this a little while ago to help you out...

I can't copy and past the information but this link should help you understand the pre-trib rapture isn't a new or novel idea.

Liberty University article. A brief history of the rapture.

 

[Arial]

Yes I do. I have no problem with doing that. You do.

But you cannot successfully refute idealist/amillennialism or argue against it by simply saying it isn't true because it interprets something differently than you do. That is my point! (Critical thinking come back!) You must know what it is you are disagreeing with and then you must show what is wrong with it and why. The OP is about HOW the view interprets apocalyptic literature. It is not about the specific interpretations themselves.

If you were around back in the day and from the far east you would ave criticized the "wisemen" for understanding there would be the appearance of a "star" in their future.

Please stop trying to discuss the signs of the times in this thread. Anymore of it will simply be deleted to avoid someone taking the bait and derailing the thread.

I have done that on numerous occasions...I have mentioned chapters such as Rev 8 haven't historically happened as of yet.
I have mentioned the return of Christ happens twice...Jesus in the clouds and then again on a white horse.
I have mentioned that at the end of the tribulation period the world will be in such a shambles that people will not be partying and getting married as a daily occurrence.
I have mentioned the Christians will not be destined for such wrath.

With the presentation of such theology I have show how they interpret them and how it is wrong.

That is eschatology not theology. But read that again. Only your view is presented. It at no point takes into account the interpretive means of idealist/amillennial or the interpretation that it would give to the things above. You need to show that the means of interpretation is faulty FIRST and what is faulty about it. And then perhaps move onto specific prophecies if that were the subject of this thread---which it ISN"T. Do the first thing and save the rest for an appropriate thread.

All you have ever done and do again here is say you are right and that makes a different view wrong.

Critical thinking come back!

I understand much of how they interpreted them.

Then discuss that. It is what the OP is about after all.

and have using the scripture pointed out their flaws based upon their limited knowledge of the times in which those interpretations were derived.

Now you have slipped off the OP topic again why and how the view interprets apocalyptic prophecy as it does and onto specific interpretations---again. The times have nothing to do with it. You consider they do because of the way YOU interpret apocalyptic prophecy.

For example we all know the reestablishment of Israel was a prophetic prediction....and 1,000 years ago seen as an impossibility. Then from our position in history see it actually happened in 1948. The bible was right.

Completely irrelevant to the OP. This is the last post I will allow that to continue.

 

[Mr GLee]

Yes, some may see it that way....but id this is the millennial reign...happening right now...why doesn't this time reflect what the bible teaches about the 1,000 year reign of Christ?

Satan is not currently in a bottomless pit.
The beast nor the mark hasn't become a reality yet.

It does teach us about to not use signs to wonder ,wonder, wonder after rather than prophecy .

Satan the deceiver of lying signs to wonder, wonder after uses wondering to replace believing prophecy through parables .

It would seem many fear rightly dividing, interpreting the parables. . . above lying signs and wonders. Jesus said a man must be born again to a sign and wonder seeker Nicodemus ending with marvel or wonder not .

Why wonder when a person can believe as a anchor to ones new soul

Prohecy as parables Signified instruction verse 1 Revelation 1 .

No literal thousand walking by sight the temporal dying things seen.

 

[CrowCross]

All you have ever done and do again here is say you are right and that makes a different view wrong.

I have presented biblical verses as to why I believe is correct or the most correct. You haven't addressed the scripture I've presented.

Perhaps some day you will.

 

[Arial]

I have presented biblical verses as to why I believe is correct or the most correct. You haven't addressed the scripture I've presented.

Perhaps some day you will.

The reason I haven't is because that is not what this OP is about and I am not going to cater to your desire to take this thread there. I have told you that more than once.