Yes, both Idealists and Amillennialists use interpretive methods, but 1) so does everyone else, and 2) Idealist methods and Amillennialist methods are not identical. To say, "
'Xists' use methods" is to say nothing new. That's not a strength. Appeals to "
the broader Reformed emphasis," is not a strength, either. The reason it is not a strength is because it is an appeal to affiliation. The basis of the argument is, "
Because we are Reformed the eschatology has validity and veracity" but that is a false cause fallacy. Emphasizing unity and continuity from a Reformed perspective does not make Idealism true or correct. It helps, but it is not a guarantee of correctness. The reason I point this out is because sometimes theologians make mistakes and examining their views reveals their errors. Leading Dispensationalists appeal to their preferred aspects of Reformed emphasis, too (they choose different emphases) but that appeal to Reformed emphasis does not make Dispensationalism correct. EVERYONE considering Idealism versus Dispensationalism MUST necessarily understand they both cannot be correct (because they teach completely irreconcilable, contradictory viewpoints). The question is whether or not either one of them is correct.
When the Idealists states they, "
avoid overly literal or speculative interpretations of apocalyptic literature...," that should cause alarm because the very first two rules of proper and sound exegesis are to 1) read the text exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage unless there is reason to do otherwise, and 2) understand the text as the original author and his original audience would have understood the text. In other words, the Idealist either partly or wholly discards the very foundation of sound exegesis! The Idealist might appeal to the word "overly," but that's not a term they define with any substance. How much literalness is too much? At what point of literalness does "
overly" occur? The answer depends on one's point of view and that makes Idealism very subjective.
The strength of Idealism is its emphasis on the transcendent conditions of God's involvement in redemptive history (or God's ongoing involvement in human history, if one prefers). Another of its strengths is understanding and asserting the transcendent nature of scripture's symbolism. The symbols of judgment, redemption, salvation, etc. are never-ending. God acts throughout history, and He does so in ways that have previously occurred, but in principle or precept not detail. Another strength of Idealism is its reliance on precedent. For example, when an apostle treated a prophecy figuratively, allegorically, symbolically, then it is good and right, and correct for anyone and everyone else coming after them to follow their example and do likewise. The irony is that would be a literal treatment of scripture. The apostle literally treated the text symbolically
(and that would be a place where Idealism and Dispensationalism part ways). The strength of Idealism comes only when the symbols are correctly interpreted and then correctly applied. So, for example, when scripture states
the light was coming into the world, and
came, that does not preclude that light from being Jesus or that the effect of his coming into the world had only a fixed effect at a fixed time and none other (that would be an overly literal interpretation
). That's not a very good example because it's not from an apocalyptic genre. An apocalyptic example would be the fact judgement did come, and it came literally, and literally as a fact and a specific event in history...... from which there is a witness and therefore a testimony upon which those who live a year, a century, a millennium later, etc. can rely. In other words, we build our faith on God having actually factually kept His word in real time and space and not solely on God acting in commonly re-occurring ways that aren't based on
predictive scripture. The latter is of benefit, but it's built on the former. Lastly, yet another strength of Idealism is its ability to include soteriology in eschatology; it's understanding and asserting Jesus' soteriological entrance into redemptive human history is inherently and necessarily tied to a whole-scripture view of end times.
In these senses, Idealism stands a better alternative to understanding eschatology than the alternative of modern futurism (Dispensationalism and modern Zionism). However, Idealism is best understood as a subset of Amillennialism but not a point of view wholly representative of Amillennial eschatology. Classic Amillennialism does not deny, de-emphasize, or dismiss scriptural predictivity, not even in apocalyptic writings. Classic Amillennialism does not deny literalness or symbolism and does not pit the two against one another (a little, moderately, or overly). In this sense Idealism provides a contrast to preterism. All Christians are Christological and soteriological preterists. All Christians are in some small or large way also eschatological preterists. Full preterism is at the extreme end, eschatologically speaking, and Idealism risks being at the opposite end with its minimalization of (prophetic and/or apocalyptic) scripture as predictive and historical.
Luther, Calvin, and Knox, for example,
might be considered partially Idealists in their eschatology simply because they (along with many other Reformers) believed the Pope (or the papal system) was the antichrist. The irony is that if he believed only one Pope was
the antichrist then he could NOT be considered Idealist because that Pope would be the fulfillment of predictive apocalyptic prophecy, and we'd have to leave Calvin's specific view behind to generalize popes in general as example of antichrists (in general) that occur throughout history. Alternatively, if it was the papal system as a whole that could correctly be construed as
the antichrist, then that would necessarily preclude anything or anyone else from being
the antichrist. Otherwise, these men were Augustinian Amillennialists but not Idealists.
So..... there are many reasons to read and adhere to the Idealist perspective, but the veracity of that viewpoint is dependent upon sound exegesis, sound hermeneutics, a correct understanding of symbolism as scripture asserts it (rather than extra-scriptural or post hoc interpretations), and the understanding Idealism is amillennial, not Amillennial.
.
