Idealist/Amillennialism

[Red Baker]

That is incorrect. The belief scripture (prophecy/apocalypse) is extra-biblical.

Would you be so kind as to explain yourself with this statement~Thanks.

 

[CrowCross]

Post #24. Not a lengthy post.

Neither was 26

 

[Arial]

Neither was 26

As I said, deal with #24 and THEN we can move on to #26. First things first.

 

[Josheb]

Would you be so kind as to explain yourself with this statement~Thanks.

My bad. Musta maybe had a buffer lag in my connection, so words typed didn't make it to the post. Idealism takes a specific view of the apocalyptic genre of literature and a particular view of prophecy, especially as contained in the book of Revelation. Those views are not something found stated in scripture itself. They are, instead, extra-biblical.

 

[Josheb]

OK. There is no way to respond to that without going completely off topic.

And yet a response was posted.

There is no presuppositional denial of anything predictive in prophecy in idealist/amillennialism.

That is incorrect and the dismissal of specified prediction should be understood simply from the emphasis on symbolism as described in the affirmation of Idealism. However, here's an example from noted Idealist Vern Poythress in his book, "The Returning King,"

"If Revelation is so clear, why do so many people have trouble with it? And why is it so controversial? We have trouble because we approach it from the wrong end. Suppose I start by asking, 'What do the bear's feet in Revelation 13:2 stand for? If I start with such a detail, and ignore the big picture, I am asking for trouble. God is at the center of Revelation (Rev. 4;-5). We must start with him and with the contrasts between him and his satanic opponents. If instead we tro right away yo puzzle out details, it is as if we tried to use a knife by grasping it by the blade instead of the handle. We are starting at the wrong end. Revelation is a picture book, not a puzzle book. Don't try to puzzle it out. Don't become preoccupied with isolated details. Rather, become engrossed in the overall stroy. Praise the Lord. Cheer for the saints. Detest the Beast. Long for the final victory."​

Every word of that is presuppositional. Poythress knows that and did not include that fact - the fact of presuppositional assumptions - in his exposition. I happen to hold Poythress with some modicum of esteem but on this occasion, he failed his readers by not being full forthcoming (about his tacit assumptions pre-existing his explanation).

Throughout the book Poythress couches his commentary in themes. For example,

"We can illustrate how to understand Revelation by starting with one of its most important themes, the theme of spiritual warfare. Satan, the leader of the forces of evil, fights against God and the angels and God's people, but is ultimately defeated by the victor, Jesus Christ."​

He then spends the next ten pages describing hos the dragon of Revelation has parallels first with the beast and then with other aspects of scripture found in the epistolary and the creation account. At the end of those ten pages he concludes....

"The same message comes out clearly in Revelation in pictorial form. Satan and his agents have impressive power and cleverness. Revelation does not conceal or minimize the reality of evil. The forces of evil, by their absolute opposition to God, and God's absolute opposition to them, underline the contrast between God's goodness and their evil. The warfare is real and bloody. But who is it that depicts the entire scene? Who is it that tells us not only what Satan is like, not only what he will in fact do, but what he must do because he has no alternative? It is God. God shows us the whole course of the warfare beforehand, thereby showing how thoroughly he controls the whole of history."​

Aside from the fact that every Christian who has already read the Bible KNOWs God is sovereign and, therefore, Poythress has been unnecessarily redundant..... he has not added anything new to our understanding of Revelation as a whole, or the texts specifics. I would, personally, argue he has some of his facts wrong, too. Satan is not the chief adversary of the Christian in Revelation. Sin is the chief problem (and Satan is just as much a victim of his own disobedience as we humans are). The Jews, and the Rome, were the chief persecutors of Christians (both in Revelation and in factual history) but Poythress left ALL of that out. Yes, we could rightly say that Satan was at work in the Jews and the Romans to foment that persecution but that would necessarily involve overlooking some very important specifics of Revelation at the expense of a more thematic interpretation.

Let's take a look at a couple of criticisms of Idealism from noted Reformed thinkers...

While addressing the tendency of the Idealist to overlook the specificity within Revelation, the noted Anglican Richard Bauckman stated in his book, "The Theology of the Book of Revelation,"

"Thus it would be a serious mistake to understand the images of Revelation as timeless symbols. Their character conforms to the contextuality of Revelation as a letter to the seven churches of Asia. Their resonances in the specific social, political, cultural and religious world of their first readers need to be understood if their meaning is to be appropriated today............... Not only does the idealist approach tend to ignore the historic specificity demanded by its character as a letter, it also tends to ignore the hermeneutical implications of its character as a prophecy. The Old Testament prophets used highly figurative and symbolic language, but they used this language to speak of real historical nations and specific impending historical judgments. Writing his own prophetic book, John does the same."​

We should ask ourselves, "Is Baucham correct?" As a critic, he's a biased source but is his appraisal correct? Has he accurately represented the Idealist pov?

The quotes from Poythress prove Bauckham correct.

Here's what noted Reformed theologian Cornelis Venema wrote about Idealism....

"The idealist approach differs from the first three [futurist, preterist, historicist] approaches in its reluctance to identify any particular historical events, institutions, or people with the visions of the book of Revelation. Sometimes called 'iterism,' this approach views the visions of Revelation as a portrayal of the church’s struggle throughout the entire period between the first and second comings of Christ. Idealism acknowledges that the book of Revelation was originally written to encourage the early church in its struggles under religious and political persecution. But it also maintains that the letters to the seven churches and the visions of the book reflect circumstances that characterize the entire church age, from Christ’s first coming until His return at the end of the present age. Whereas futurists, preterists, and historicists identify the harlot Babylon in Revelation 17 with an endtime, first–century, or historical figure, respectively, idealists argue that Babylon symbolizes a variety of political and religious forms of opposition to the church and the gospel that recur throughout history."​

The Idealist eschews the details, and the predictive aspect of those details that the other three approaches think very much important.

Within Reformed thinking..... Idealism is an outlier. It is NOT the norm (as the article this op referenced asserts). Within Amillennialism (both Bauckham and Venema are classic Amils), Idealism is an outlier. The statement in the original source article, "Among Reformed or covenant theologians, the most commonly embraced method of interpreting the Book of Revelation is the Amillennial and Idealist (or Symbolic) view." proves factually untrue. Reformed theologians do not commonly embrace the Idealist method. It is very, very, very strange (and inconsistent) that the de-emphasis on prediction would be disputed because the original source article for this op explicitly states,

• Emphasis: This view interprets the book's imagery as timeless truths about spiritual realities, rather than specific historical events or predictions about the future.

.

There is no presuppositional denial of anything predictive in prophecy in idealist/amillennialism.

The article sourced for this op explicitly states otherwise. It explicitly states the emphasis is NOT on the historical events or predictions about the future.






.

 

[Josheb]

There is such a thing as idealist/amillennialism. That is the specific position being discussed. It is a false equivalency to say that all idealism is amillennial.

I completely agree and stated the very same things in my posts.

There is such a thing as Idealist amillennialism BUT Idealism is not synonymous with Amillennialism. Amillennialism is a much, much larger perspective then the smaller viewpoint of Idealism. Amillennialism encompasses a wider array of methodology than Idealism and while an Amillennialist may or may not accept and apply Idealist perspectives and practices (like the inherent symbolism of the text), he or she will also accept and apply concepts and practices (like the historical events and predictive aspects of the text) that the Idealist does not emphasize. It is a false equivalence to say all Idealism is amillennial and that is one of the reasons Idealist should be circumspect and forthcoming about coupling Idealism with Amillennialism, especially in cases where the "/" is used because the "/" is normally and indicator of synonymity or the interchangeableness of the terms. If I were to say, "Preterist/Amillennialist" that would be misleading, even though all Amillennialist are partially preterist to some degree small or large. I could be a partial preterist with an Amillennial eschatology or a partial preterist with a Postmillennial eschatology. I could even be a partial preterist and be a Historical Premillennialist (George Eldon Ladd believed much of Revelation had already occurred) or a Dispensational Premillennialist and have partial-preterist views (like John MacArthur).

Therefore, when an Idealist writes about Idealism and mentions he or she is also amillennial, it should be stated as such in a fully forthcoming manner so as to preclude any implication Idealism and Amillennialism are always and everywhere synonymous. Here's what the source article states,

"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."​

The first statement answering that question is factually incorrect. "Amillennial AND Idealist" is not the most common view among the Reformed.

 

[Arial]

There is such a thing as Idealist amillennialism BUT Idealism is not synonymous with Amillennialism

Since no one said it was, I don't see why that is what is being discussed. And done so repeatedly as though the OP title was Amillennialism and then declared that amillennialism was idealist. That is what concerns me about these posts. Note in the opening of post #1:

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

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:

Amillennial Interpretation:

Over view given.

Idealist (Symbolic) View:

Basic view given. Note before this it states that what follows is the most common found among Reformed theologians. It does not state that all millennial views are the same or that all amillennial views are the same. It is dealing with one thing, which most closely conforms to the idealist approach to interpretation.

When it comes to part 2, it gives the idealist approach to interpreting apocalyptic literature.

Amillennialism encompasses a wider array of methodology than Idealism and while an Amillennialist may or may not accept and apply Idealist perspectives and practices (like the inherent symbolism of the text), he or she will also accept and apply concepts and practices (like the historical events and predictive aspects of the text) that the Idealist does not emphasize.

The subject of the OP however is the Reformed approach to interpreting apocalyptic literature which is---among other things naturally----amillennial. That is, not a literal thousand years but an expanse of time only known by God. We are in the millennial reign of Christ now, have been since the resurrection and ascension, and will be until he returns. It most closely aligns to an idealist approach of recognizing symbols, visions, figures of speech, for what they are and finding from their OT usage what it is they represent. Not so much as symbols in all cases, but spiritual truths and comfort that God is in control even in the midst of what looks to us as chaos. Some is current at the time of the writing of Revelation, some was immediately future, some was past, some was yet to come, some would be present in all generations until his return.

It is a false equivalence to say all Idealism is amillennial

When someone does that, that would be the time to make an issue of it.

Idealist should be circumspect and forthcoming about coupling Idealism with Amillennialism, especially in cases where the "/" is used because the "/" is normally and indicator of synonymity or the interchangeableness of the terms.

The "/" has no "normal" use. It is used however it is being used and that should be obvious. Light/darkness (opposites). Good/perfect (synonymity but magnified). Idealist/Amillennialism (the ism of the ist).

If I were to say, "Preterist/Amillennialist" that would be misleading

Yes, that would be misleading. However Pretrist/Amillennialism would not be. What is the title of the OP?

even though all Amillennialist are partially preterist to some degree small or large. I could be a partial preterist with an Amillennial eschatology or a partial preterist with a Postmillennial eschatology. I could even be a partial preterist and be a Historical Premillennialist (George Eldon Ladd believed much of Revelation had already occurred) or a Dispensational Premillennialist and have partial-preterist views (like John MacArthur).

Rabbit trail.

Therefore, when an Idealist writes about Idealism and mentions he or she is also amillennial, it should be stated as such in a fully forthcoming manner so as to preclude any implication Idealism and Amillennialism are always and everywhere synonymous. Here's what the source article states,

The author never mentioned themselves. They are not writing about themselves. If a person wants to preclude something incorrectly it wouldn't matter at all how they identified themselves. If someone wants to preclude something no where actually contained in the material, that is on them. It is completely irrelevant to the conversation particularly since you can't clear it up with the author themselves.

"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."

The first statement answering that question is factually incorrect. "Amillennial AND Idealist" is not the most common view among the Reformed.

And you know this how? Admittedly, we have no way of knowing how the author knows that either so it is pretty much a moot point. I was simply presenting the work.

 

[Red Baker]

My bad. Musta maybe had a buffer lag in my connection, so words typed didn't make it to the post.

Oh, do I ever understand! Been there, done that, as the old saying goes.

Idealism takes a specific view of the apocalyptic genre of literature and a particular view of prophecy, especially as contained in the book of Revelation. Those views are not something found stated in scripture itself.

My brother, how can you say that, if they can take other scriptures and tied them with each other and never step outside of the scriptures for their source of information. Amill/idealism are the only ones that practice this system of bible prophecy with Daniel, Matthew 24; Mark 13, Luke 21; 2nd Thess 2; and Revelation.

They are, instead, extra-biblical.

Josheb, when I say someone is using extra biblical source of information~I'm thinking more along the lines of them using Josephus' book on the wars of the Jews, etc. to support their teachings on bible prophecy.

 

[Arial]

While addressing the tendency of the Idealist to overlook the specificity within Revelation, the noted Anglican Richard Bauckman stated in his book, "The Theology of the Book of Revelation,"

"Thus it would be a serious mistake to understand the images of Revelation as timeless symbols. Their character conforms to the contextuality of Revelation as a letter to the seven churches of Asia. Their resonances in the specific social, political, cultural and religious world of their first readers need to be understood if their meaning is to be appropriated today............... Not only does the idealist approach tend to ignore the historic specificity demanded by its character as a letter, it also tends to ignore the hermeneutical implications of its character as a prophecy. The Old Testament prophets used highly figurative and symbolic language, but they used this language to speak of real historical nations and specific impending historical judgments. Writing his own prophetic book, John does the same."
We should ask ourselves, "Is Baucham correct?" As a critic, he's a biased source but is his appraisal correct? Has he accurately represented the Idealist pov?

My experience with the idealist approach finds his assessment to be incorrect. I have found it, and I myself consider it, Revelation as a historical letter written in a historical context central to the view. As is its prophecy. To be sure it places the prophecy where it belongs, whether in what the letter recipients were experiencing or were about to, or whether in the distant future. And it places the time period between the two advents. And it interprets the visions as visions depicting literal events, using the OT historical use of the same symbols, numbers, and figures of speech to identify the meaning of those things. It does not read them chronologically as to do so has the same things happening repeatedly, all culminating in the return of Christ. In my experience, the idealist view has the book depicting what has happened, was happening at the time of the writing, and is happening and will happen until Christ returns, judgment occurs and the restoration of all things. And often this is presented from the perspective of the spiritual realm. A war against Christ and his church.

I will have to deal with the rest later.

 

[Arial]

The Idealist eschews the details, and the predictive aspect of those details that the other three approaches think very much important.

You are lumping all idealists into one lump of clay---as did those two or three you quoted and then said that illustrated that the idealist view was not the norm with Reformation theology.It is quite likely that those who categorize the idealist view in that negative light do not know what the actual idealist means when he says things the way he says them. For example, to say something like this:

It is very, very, very strange (and inconsistent) that the de-emphasis on prediction would be disputed because the original source article for this op explicitly states,

• Emphasis: This view interprets the book's imagery as timeless truths about spiritual realities, rather than specific historical events or predictions about the future.

ignores the fact that if the prophecies in Revelation are taking place between the two advents, they are historical events, but not events that are being specified, and with the exeception of what the seven churches were experiencing at the time of the writing---are future from that time. Some have happened long before our time, some in our time and in our past and will in our future. You are not giving credence to the word specific in that underlined quote. And idealism is not giving specific identification to a future beast, but does recognize a partial fulfillment in the historical past that are identified, because they are so identified in the OT prophetic passages and verified in history.

 

[Josheb]

My brother, how can you say that, if they can take other scriptures and tied them with each other and never step outside of the scriptures for their source of information. Amill/idealism are the only ones that practice this system of bible prophecy with Daniel, Matthew 24; Mark 13, Luke 21; 2nd Thess 2; and Revelation.

Well, first, I have already answered that question. There are no scriptures stating historical events aren't important (or should be de-emphasized at the expense of the highly subjective "spiritual" interpretation that emphasizes symbols instead). Second, show me the scripture that states apocalyptic genre is a portrayal of Church struggle throughout the whole of history and I will change my posts accordingly. Otherwise, I will take a more holistic approach to whole scripture that begins with the examples set by the biblical writers themselves (where a literal interpretation is declared then a literal reading will be practiced and where a figurative, allegorical, symbolic or spiritualized precedent is established then that precedent will be followed).

Josheb, when I say someone is using extra biblical source of information~I'm thinking more along the lines of them using Josephus' book on the wars of the Jews, etc. to support their teachings on bible prophecy.

I understand. I understood what you previously posted to mean exactly that. My reply should be understood accordingly. Various approaches to scriptural interpretation specifically pertaining to eschatology have developed over the course of the two centuries since the New Testament books were written and with most of those developments little incremental departures from the NT precedents have occurred. With each decision to "emphasize" one thing an implicit (sometimes explicit) decision has been made not to emphasize some other thing. Idealists emphasize "timeless truths about spiritual realties" (and they are the ones deciding which of those timeless truths and spiritual realities" are relevant. I have demonstrated that fact using Idealists' own words. That is NOT my personal opinion; it's their self-report. I have no particular need or want to criticize Idealism (although I do not think it is the best point of view or method), and not a single word I have posted should be construed as me ragging unjustly on Idealism or trolling. I have tried to provide non-Idealist examples of the same types of problems occurring in other viewpoints (like the Dispensationalist emphasis on literalness at the expense of de-emphasizing what the Idealist emphasizes. I do this aware of the irony: timeless spiritual truths can be witnessed in the respective practices of what's emphasized or de-emphasized.

It is a timeless truth that Christians should teach fact and truth and, on the occasion of this op's source article, not make claims about what is the most common method when the claim is not true. In other words, the author of that article had the opportunity to prove his views valid and veracious but over-reached and thereby undermined his own objective (which is, presumably, a defense of, and promotion of, Idealism).

Amillennialism is the most commonly held eschatology (both normatively and statistically) but Idealism as articulated in that article (and Poythress) is not. I would like to be able to say Amillennialism is normatively, statistically, and historically the most commonly occurring and prevailing view but that would not be true...... so I stop short of saying so. Historically speaking, what we now call "Historical Premillennialism," or less specifically, classic premillennialism, was around long before Amillennialism was formalized. It would remain thusly if the Dispensationalists hadn't come along in the 19th century and mucked up premillennialism. We may be watching the same thing happen within Amillennialism. I do not know that for sure, but Idealism was a small niche within Amillennialism, but it is now gaining popularity. We should all be careful not to fall prey to ad populum and end up like the Amillennial version of the Dispies.

 

[Josheb]

Since no one said it was, I don't see why that is what is being discussed.

Then re-read my posts as many times as it takes to understand it because I have explained why. And I have done so both here in this op and in another op on Idealism.

You are lumping all idealists into one lump of clay....

Never happened.


Were you always an Idealist? If not, then what to what eschatological point of view did you subscribe before learning about Idealism?

 

[TMSO]

I agree and that is the idealist/amillennial view also. Of course with exceptions among individuals.

Eleanor said:
Keeping in mind that the kingdom of God is here now (Lk 11:20, Mt 12:18), it is everlasting (Lk 1:33)-- there is no other coming kingdom of God.
It is not of this world, earthly (Mt 18:36), it is spiritual, hidden and within (Lk 17:20-21) the hearts where he reigns and rules.

My greatest concern with the above, if that it is His kingdom now, looking at the whole world as His Kingdom, and understanding that the state of a kingdom is a reflection of the ruler, I have to disagree. The state of the world right now is like a reflection of Satan's kingdom, as the prince of the power of the air. I would not put that on Jesus. Sin abounds. This world is not our home. It was never meant to be our home. Revelation 21 makes that pretty clear. The first Earth and first heavens passed away, which other passages say the elements will melt with fervent heat. Why? Sin. It all has to be destroyed due to the contamination of sin. He isn't destroying His Kingdom, but the remains of Satan's domain.

Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father until His enemies are put under His feet. Under His dominion/sovereignty. Our enemies are His enemies, and they seem pretty much to be running the place. All the way to the end of Revelation 19.

 

[Arial]

My greatest concern with the above, if that it is His kingdom now, looking at the whole world as His Kingdom, and understanding that the state of a kingdom is a reflection of the ruler, I have to disagree. The state of the world right now is like a reflection of Satan's kingdom, as the prince of the power of the air. I would not put that on Jesus. Sin abounds. This world is not our home. It was never meant to be our home. Revelation 21 makes that pretty clear. The first Earth and first heavens passed away, which other passages say the elements will melt with fervent heat. Why? Sin. It all has to be destroyed due to the contamination of sin. He isn't destroying His Kingdom, but the remains of Satan's domain.

Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father until His enemies are put under His feet. Under His dominion/sovereignty. Our enemies are His enemies, and they seem pretty much to be running the place. All the way to the end of Revelation 19.

Stop looking at the world and pray for understanding of the scriptures. Jesus is ruling in heaven right now, not on earth. His inauguration was the ascension when he defeated sin and death for those he died for. Believers are his foot soldiers so to speak, spreading the gospel to all nations. In this way he is gathering his sheep into the fold. When the last one comes through the narrow gate then he will return and utterly remove evil from the planet, forever, restoring all things.

 

[Josheb]

My greatest concern with the above, if that it is His kingdom now, looking at the whole world as His Kingdom, and understanding that the state of a kingdom is a reflection of the ruler, I have to disagree. The state of the world right now is like a reflection of Satan's kingdom, as the prince of the power of the air. I would not put that on Jesus. Sin abounds. This world is not our home. It was never meant to be our home. Revelation 21 makes that pretty clear. The first Earth and first heavens passed away, which other passages say the elements will melt with fervent heat. Why? Sin. It all has to be destroyed due to the contamination of sin. He isn't destroying His Kingdom, but the remains of Satan's domain.

Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father until His enemies are put under His feet. Under His dominion/sovereignty. Our enemies are His enemies, and they seem pretty much to be running the place. All the way to the end of Revelation 19.

Hmmm....

What does the word "God" mean to you? As defined in and by scripture, what does the word "God" mean? This is a rock-bottom, foundational question and so too is the answer. Everything we believe is built on the answer to that single, simple, foundational inquiry. Is God almighty or not? Is God always and everywhere sovereign or not? Is the Creator of every creature that exists greater in every way than the creature He created or not?

The person who says "Yes, of course God is almighty, sovereign and in every way greater than any finite creature He created...," but who also holds a belief God's kingdom isn't (in this place or that place or this time or that time) has a HUGE inconsistency in their theology.

The state of the world right now is like a reflection of Satan's kingdom, as the prince of the power of the air.

I encourage and exhort you to reflect upon that statement in light of what scripture states about God being God because that sentence is sheer, unmitigated nonsense.

And unless and until it is tied to Idealism, it's also off-topic.



EVERYONE: While it is true the scriptures often and repeatedly speak of conflict, of wars and battles and struggles there is a single fundamental truth in which all such language inherently an inescapably occurs: God is the almighty sovereign Creator. No finite created creature can EVER foment a real war with the Creator. It is logically impossible. The Creator is INFINITE and infinite in His might, and His sovereignty. Logically speaking, a sinfully dead and enslaved created creature trying to wage a war with God is the equivalent of trying to blow chewed up pieces of paper at ground zero of a nuclear explosion. It's fruitless. The nuclear blast doesn't even know you're there and the spit-wad has absolutely no effect on the explosion whatsoever.

War with God lasts only as long as He permits.

He can think a thought or utter a word and Satan's entire existence is instantaneously gone. God is so powerful and sovereign He could wipe the existence of Satan gone so thoroughly that any evidence, any memory, of his once having existed is equally gone, completely non-existent. God can do the exact same thing with every single human, or humanity as a whole. We do not actually wage a real war with God simply because God's eternal response (not an after-the-fact post hoc response) can be to make you and I non-existent. Whenever God's Word speaks of kings and kingdoms it always does so within the context I have just described: The Creator's infinite might and sovereignty.

Any conflict with God, therefore, occurs only by His consent and serves only His purpose. That is what the Bible is about in its entirety.

Therefore..... anyone who says God is not King and His Kingdom does not exist somewhere, or another is full of dross. At best they are woefully ignorant of scripture as a whole and at worst they are lying to you. Their views are not to be given any credence.

Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father until His enemies are put under His feet.

Amen! Psalm 110:1 provides context for every single human eschatological doctrine ever made and some of them ignore that verse (or re-define it to make it say something other than what it explicitly states).

Under His dominion/sovereignty. Our enemies are His enemies, and they seem pretty much to be running the place. All the way to the end of Revelation 19.

Welll... sorta. The fact of Psalm 110 is everything detailed there in is already decided. It is all already a fait accompli. It's also a mistake to truncate God's dominion/sovereignty at Revelation 19. His almighty sovereign dominion includes chapters 20, 21, and 22, too. That's the fundamental, foundational point of every word written in the whole of scripture. There is no verse where God is not almighty, sovereign, or in whole dominion. If that were not the case, then he would not be God.

Eschatology starts with God being God, the Creator of time. There is no end time without the existence of time.




Idealism asserts a critically important truth or reality: God is sovereign in the struggle sinners have with sin, but God is sovereign, and His will and purpose are inevitable. Idealism errs by over-emphasizing symbolism over the literal, factual, historical, and temporal. Sometimes apocalyptic prophecy is specifically fixed, finite, and specifically about real events occurring in real history. That does not preclude a more global revelation of creative principles, but it does mean the meaning and purpose of the prophecy is specific first. When those events conclude they're done. They are NOT going to be repeated. While similar events make later occur and while it is possible those events may (or may not) reflect commonly occurring principles, that is not the specific intent of the original prophecy. Just as all Christians are partially preterist to some degree or another, all Christians are idealist to some degree or another. To not be idealist would be to never grasp any of the precepts or principles ensconced in the letter of a single verse. That is as unintelligent as thinking there might be a time or place where the almighty sovereign Creator of all things might does not rule.

 

[Mr GLee]

nd unless and until it is tied to Idealism, it's also off-topic.

Idealism? Philosophy?

 

[Josheb]

Idealism? Philosophy?

Read the op.

 

[Mr GLee]

. Idealism errs by over-emphasizing symbolism over the literal, factual, historical, and temporal

I would offer.

Without parables the signified prophecy rightly dividing as a sign using the temporal historical things seen and comparing to the unseen eternal things of Christ .

Without the valuable mixing of two prescription below Christ spoke not.

2 Corinthians 4:18King James Version18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not

Not without Idealism, comparing the dying temporal literal to the temporal. literal . . Christ spoke not

 

[Eleanor]

My greatest concern with the above, if that it is His kingdom now, looking at the whole world as His Kingdom,

Your notion of kingdom is the Jewish notion, a physical earthly kingdom, it is not the Kingdom Jesus offered.
Jesus refused the earthly kingdom which the Jews sought and offered him (Jn 6:15).

The temporal Messianic kingdom is not of this world (Jn 18:36), it is of the spiritual world (Mt 3:2), an invisible kingdom (Lk 17:20), within men (Lk 17:21), set up in their hearts and consciences (Ro 4:17).

The whole world is not the Kingdom of God until the new heaven and new earth, the home of righteousness (2 Pe 3:13).
The kingdom of God is now (Mt 12:28, Lk 11:20), within the hearts where he reigns and rules.

and understanding that the state of a kingdom is a reflection of the ruler, I have to disagree. The state of the world right now is like a reflection of Satan's kingdom, as the prince of the power of the air. I would not put that on Jesus. Sin abounds. This world is not our home. It was never meant to be our home. Revelation 21 makes that pretty clear. The first Earth and first heavens passed away, which other passages say the elements will melt with fervent heat. Why? Sin. It all has to be destroyed due to the contamination of sin. He isn't destroying His Kingdom, but the remains of Satan's domain.

Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father until His enemies are put under His feet. Under His dominion/sovereignty. Our enemies are His enemies, and they seem pretty much to be running the place. All the way to the end of Revelation 19.

 

[TMSO]

Stop looking at the world and pray for understanding of the scriptures. Jesus is ruling in heaven right now, not on earth. His inauguration was the ascension when he defeated sin and death for those he died for. Believers are his foot soldiers so to speak, spreading the gospel to all nations. In this way he is gathering his sheep into the fold. When the last one comes through the narrow gate then he will return and utterly remove evil from the planet, forever, restoring all things.

So His Kingdom does not include Earth? If it does, then Earth is a reflection of Him, being His Kingdom. Or, it isn't His Kingdom yet, and will be to come, with the reflection of the nature of His kingdom found in the Old Testament. Now that truly is a reflection of His nature. And, according to Acts, believers are His ambassadors. Sent to/are in, a foreign land/kingdom (Earth) acting as witnesses/ambassadors of Christ. So, by what you wrote above, the nature of His Kingdom now is that there are people who have no idea who He is. That means a King, but no power. The Kingdom, as presented in the Old Testament, the millennial kingdom, everyone knows who Jesus is, and He has all the power. Absentee King who no most do not know/respect, or present King who everyone knows and respects. With punishment meted out to any who fail to follow His commands. Rather specific punishment.