The Book of Revelation: Amillennial/idealist Interpretive Method

[Arial]

I do not believe that this method has been put forth in these threads. I may have missed it.

There are four basic interpretive approaches to this book: Preterism including partial preterism, futurism, historicism, and idealism.

Attached to these are the categories of premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. Add to that the two basic interpretive tools, dispensationalism and covenant, and we have yet more divergences in methods and categories.

Just to be clear, neither dispensationalism or covenant are doctrines in and of themselves. Doctrines do come from them, but they are the framework around which interpretation comes. Just as in building a house, the framework determines the shape and size of the house, but is not the house. Everything put together in the finished product is the house. And just as in building a house, if the whole is not integrated, if the foundation and the framework are off as to plumb, the house will not stand true in all its parts. There are many branches of dispensationalism, some believing this, some that, but at its core it views God's relating to humans through dispensations--ages, in which He did this one way for a time, and a different way at a different time. That is my understanding of it.

Covenant theology on the other hand has the premise that God relates to and is in relationship with humans and creation through covenant. The amillennial/idealist method of viewing Revelation is covenantal. Without going into a detailed interpretation of Revelation, I will give an overview of the method.

First of all it interprets the book according to the type of literature it is, which is apocalyptic prophecy as is much of the writings in the prophets of the OT. Just as in the OT, Revelation makes use of highly symbolic and figurative language. As in Rev 1:1 John himself states, "The revelation of Jesus Christ. which God gave Him to show to His servants things which must shortly take place and He sent and signified (sermaino) by His angel---

Amillennialism in this method understands the millennium to be a picture of the present reign of Christ and the saints in heaven. This was initiated by the binding of Satan (Matt 12:29) resulting in him no longer being able to deceive the nations. (Matt 4:14-16; Acts 17:30-31). Satan was bound through Christ's triumph in the crucifiction and His resurrection. The believer is no longer condemned by sin as they have His righteousness imputed to them, and death can no longer hold them any more than it could hold Jesus. The believer is sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit and no one and nothing can take them out of His hand. Through the believer the gospel goes to all nations which Satan is bound from stopping, until he is released from those chains for a short time. So the millennium in this view is the time period from His resurrection to His second coming. A long undesignated period of time as the number 1000 signifies in other places of the Bible.

The idealist view says the visions of Revelation represent trends and forces, often spiritual and invisible. They are engaged in an ongoing warfare between the kingdom of God and the devil's kingdom of darkness. The visions do not depict specific events but ongoing and repeated patterns in this spiritual war. These principals operate through all of the church age and may have repeated embodiments. The visions provide complementary perspectives of the church age rather than a chronological, successive calendar of events. The book is also not pertaining only to future events but in the visions we also see an overview of the the entire historical accounts we have from the Exodus forward, from the perspective of the spiritual realm, and the correlation to the OT shadowing of Christ, His fist coming, and the time between that and His second coming. What was, what is, and what is to come.

 

[3 Resurrections]

What was, what is, and what is to come.

Not quite. "...what is about to be hereafter", as of the time when John was writing.

 

[Josheb]

There are four basic interpretive approaches to this book: Preterism including partial preterism, futurism, historicism, and idealism.

Correctly understood, Preterism (partial- or full-) is not a "method."

Preterists are preterists because scripture is read as written and the logically necessary conclusions of reading scripture as written and applying long-held and well-established rules of exegesis is (partial-)preterism.

I, as a partial-preterist, DO NOT approach scripture with a pre-existing belief everything or most everything is in the past. That never happens. It is and has always been a false accusation wrongly leveled against preterism. I read verse like Revelation 1:3 literally. I, unlike most others, do not add anything to the verse and subtract nothing from it. I read it exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words as found in ordinary everyday usage. Many hermeneutics claim to do this but they do not.

Revelation 1:3
Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

If the time was near to John's writing, then the things written have all already come and gone..... unless there is something written that states the condition or event is not near. I take the words exactly as written and base my eschatology on that, not on something I believed to be true before I read the words.

Exegetically, I continue to read because I want to avoid the problem of prooftexting, or taking one single verse and making it define everything in neglect of all else scripture has to say on the matter. Looking at other scripture I find verse 19 in that very same chapter explicitly states John was directed to write down things he'd seen, "things which are" at the time of his writing, and things that would take place after these things. I do not read those words and filter then through an already existing end-times view. I read them exactly as written and take them to mean exactly what they explicitly state with the normal meaning of the words in ordinary everyday usage. I also apply one of the most basic, fundamental, and foundational rule of sound exegesis and endeavor to understand the words and John intended and his original first-century readers would have understood them. The logical exegetically-arrived conclusion, and NOT the eisegetic assumption, is that some of what is found in Revelation pertains to things John had personally seen and therefore it cannot possibly be in the future. Likewise, some of the events or conditions described in John's vision pertains to events or conditions that existed at the time of the vision and, therefore, cannot be something that does not yet exist but will exist in the future. The first two clauses of verse 19, if read exactly as written necessarily preclude a futurist interpretation. When combined with verse three it means the events that some of what is written is either past or present to John's writing and what is prophetic is near or at hand.

Jumping ahead for the sake of space in the posts, when I look at how the book of Revelation concludes I find the book ends the same way it starts. It closes with an admonition not to add to or subtract from what is written, again because the time is near or at hand. If that is read literally without any pre-existing view in mind then it necessarily means the events described were going to happen "near" to the time of their being written. Working outward from individual verses, through the immediately surrounding text, and then through the book as a whole, and then through what other books of the New Testament and then through all the books of the Bible as a whole I find one very important fact: God NEVER uses the word "near" to mean anything other than near in time or space. God always uses the word "near" to mean near and never to mean anything other than its normal meaning in ordinary usage.

Preterism is not a method. Literalism and adherence to exegetical precepts is the method. Preterism is the consequent conclusion of a truly grammatical-historical AND truly redemptive-historical hermeneutics (both). As far as to whether scripture should be approached literally, morally, allegorically, or anagogically, there is a principle that ties all four together so false dichotomies can be avoided. Treat the Old Testament in the same manner the New Testament writers treated it. Where they treated the Old Testament literally we should do the same. Where they treated the Old Testament allegorically, we should do the same. Preterism is not a method.

It is an outcome.

 

[Josheb]

I do not believe that this method has been put forth in these threads. I may have missed it.

There are four basic interpretive approaches to this book: Preterism including partial preterism, futurism, historicism, and idealism.

The Book of Revelation Amillennial/Idealist intepretive Method

I am encouraged to read someone combine the two methods because they do overlap. So too, to a lesser degree, do they overlap with Postmillennialism.

 

[Arial]

I am encouraged to read someone combine the two methods because they do overlap. So too, to a lesser degree, do they overlap with Postmillennialism.

There are elements of agreement in all of the four basic methods, though the agreements are not always in the same places. The millennial views, of course, have to do with the thousand year rule of Christ in Rev 20:1-10. This is my understanding of them.

Pre says the thousand years follows the second coming described in 19:11-21, which changes the meaning of the binding and unbinding of Satan form the amillennial/idealist view. And in dispensationalism it is an earthly reign of Christ in geo/political Israel and is God dealing separately with Israel, even in some views returning to the animal sacrifices.

Post says that the kingdom of Christ and the church will experience much more expansion and visible influence in social and political conditions on earth before the second coming. And there are subviews in this. If my history is correct, it was the view largely held by the Puritans, and understandably so as it was inevidence with the settling of the Americas. History and culture has disavowed most from that particular aspect. Either that or we are a long, long way from Christ's return.

 

[EarlyActs]

I do not believe that this method has been put forth in these threads. I may have missed it.

There are four basic interpretive approaches to this book: Preterism including partial preterism, futurism, historicism, and idealism.

Attached to these are the categories of premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. Add to that the two basic interpretive tools, dispensationalism and covenant, and we have yet more divergences in methods and categories.

Just to be clear, neither dispensationalism or covenant are doctrines in and of themselves. Doctrines do come from them, but they are the framework around which interpretation comes. Just as in building a house, the framework determines the shape and size of the house, but is not the house. Everything put together in the finished product is the house. And just as in building a house, if the whole is not integrated, if the foundation and the framework are off as to plumb, the house will not stand true in all its parts. There are many branches of dispensationalism, some believing this, some that, but at its core it views God's relating to humans through dispensations--ages, in which He did this one way for a time, and a different way at a different time. That is my understanding of it.

Covenant theology on the other hand has the premise that God relates to and is in relationship with humans and creation through covenant. The amillennial/idealist method of viewing Revelation is covenantal. Without going into a detailed interpretation of Revelation, I will give an overview of the method.

First of all it interprets the book according to the type of literature it is, which is apocalyptic prophecy as is much of the writings in the prophets of the OT. Just as in the OT, Revelation makes use of highly symbolic and figurative language. As in Rev 1:1 John himself states, "The revelation of Jesus Christ. which God gave Him to show to His servants things which must shortly take place and He sent and signified (sermaino) by His angel---

Amillennialism in this method understands the millennium to be a picture of the present reign of Christ and the saints in heaven. This was initiated by the binding of Satan (Matt 12:29) resulting in him no longer being able to deceive the nations. (Matt 4:14-16; Acts 17:30-31). Satan was bound through Christ's triumph in the crucifiction and His resurrection. The believer is no longer condemned by sin as they have His righteousness imputed to them, and death can no longer hold them any more than it could hold Jesus. The believer is sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit and no one and nothing can take them out of His hand. Through the believer the gospel goes to all nations which Satan is bound from stopping, until he is released from those chains for a short time. So the millennium in this view is the time period from His resurrection to His second coming. A long undesignated period of time as the number 1000 signifies in other places of the Bible.

The idealist view says the visions of Revelation represent trends and forces, often spiritual and invisible. They are engaged in an ongoing warfare between the kingdom of God and the devil's kingdom of darkness. The visions do not depict specific events but ongoing and repeated patterns in this spiritual war. These principals operate through all of the church age and may have repeated embodiments. The visions provide complementary perspectives of the church age rather than a chronological, successive calendar of events. The book is also not pertaining only to future events but in the visions we also see an overview of the the entire historical accounts we have from the Exodus forward, from the perspective of the spiritual realm, and the correlation to the OT shadowing of Christ, His fist coming, and the time between that and His second coming. What was, what is, and what is to come.

D'ism has a doctrine: that there are two distinct program and peoples.

 

[Josheb]

There are elements of agreement in all of the four basic methods, though the agreements are not always in the same places. The millennial views, of course, have to do with the thousand year rule of Christ in Rev 20:1-10. This is my understanding of them.

Pre says the thousand years follows the second coming described in 19:11-21, which changes the meaning of the binding and unbinding of Satan form the amillennial/idealist view. And in dispensationalism it is an earthly reign of Christ in geo/political Israel and is God dealing separately with Israel, even in some views returning to the animal sacrifices.

Post says that the kingdom of Christ and the church will experience much more expansion and visible influence in social and political conditions on earth before the second coming. And there are subviews in this. If my history is correct, it was the view largely held by the Puritans, and understandably so as it was inevidence with the settling of the Americas. History and culture has disavowed most from that particular aspect. Either that or we are a long, long way from Christ's return.

D'ism has a doctrine: that there are two distinct program and peoples.

I did not have time to post this earlier but the Historic, Amillennial and Postmillennial positions are ones reached by methods. They are not themselves a method. Dispensationalism is a method. Its position is premillennial.

Dispensationalism is a construct. Covenantalism is a construct. Dispensationalism OVERTLY asserts a specific hermeneutic by which it overtly tells readers how to read. Before the book is opened Dispensationalism assumes the scriptures should always be read literally (when what they mean is literalistically, not literally). It is a priori assumed there are discontinuous dispensations, there are two groups of people (not one) for whom God has two completely different plans (not one). These three tenets make up the Dispensational hermeneutic and because of that method the conclusion reached is a different premillennialism than the Historicists reach. Idealism, less egregiously but no less eisegetically assumes as an a priori condition the belief the Bible can and should be read allegorically and the stories therein (whether real and true or not) are indicative of patterns or cycles in history that repeat and will repeat in different ways until the end comes.


One more thought that proves to be important when discussing comparative eschatology. Because the KJV mistranslates "synteleia tou aionos" (Mt. 13:49) as "end of the world," instead of "end of the age" several hundred years of Christian eschatology was concerned with a literal end of the world and not a mere end of an age which the world survives. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly state the world will come to an end where it ceases to physically exist in its entirety.

 

[Arial]

I, as a partial-preterist, DO NOT approach scripture with a pre-existing belief everything or most everything is in the past. That never happens. It is and has always been a false accusation wrongly leveled against preterism. I read verse like Revelation 1:3 literally. I, unlike most others, do not add anything to the verse and subtract nothing from it. I read it exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words as found in ordinary everyday usage. Many hermeneutics claim to do this but they do not.

Revelation 1:3
Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

The OP isn't about preterism. It presented idealism. But regarding what you say here.It gives one usage of what is "near" when even in the scriptures it does not always mean immediately. And it gives this usage of "near" precedence over what is said in verse 19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.
The "time" quite possibly does not refer to everything that follows but to the time of Christ's return. In which case it was not near at all when John received the relation, as we count near ordinarily. He still has not returned 2000 plus years later. John did not know when He would return, and Jesus did not either in His incarnation, but told us to always be ready, as He would come as a thief in the night, and at any moment.

Some things were happening when John wrote, somethings had already happened, some things were going to happen.

Exegetically, I continue to read because I want to avoid the problem of prooftexting, or taking one single verse and making it define everything in neglect of all else scripture has to say on the matter. Looking at other scripture I find verse 19 in that very same chapter explicitly states John was directed to write down things he'd seen, "things which are" at the time of his writing, and things that would take place after these things. I do not read those words and filter then through an already existing end-times view. I read them exactly as written and take them to mean exactly what they explicitly state with the normal meaning of the words in ordinary everyday usage. I also apply one of the most basic, fundamental, and foundational rule of sound exegesis and endeavor to understand the words and John intended and his original first-century readers would have understood them. The logical exegetically-arrived conclusion, and NOT the eisegetic assumption, is that some of what is found in Revelation pertains to things John had personally seen and therefore it cannot possibly be in the future. Likewise, some of the events or conditions described in John's vision pertains to events or conditions that existed at the time of the vision and, therefore, cannot be something that does not yet exist but will exist in the future. The first two clauses of verse 19, if read exactly as written necessarily preclude a futurist interpretation. When combined with verse three it means the events that some of what is written is either past or present to John's writing and what is prophetic is near or at hand.

Just a question to chew on. Do you think that if someone does not arrive at the same conclusions you do it is because they do not do the above? And the thread is not about preterism or futurism. It explicitly states in the title what it is presenting. I am not familiar enough with either of those views to debate it point by point.

Preterism is not a method. Literalism and adherence to exegetical precepts is the method. Preterism is the consequent conclusion of a truly grammatical-historical AND truly redemptive-historical hermeneutics (both). As far as to whether scripture should be approached literally, morally, allegorically, or anagogically, there is a principle that ties all four together so false dichotomies can be avoided. Treat the Old Testament in the same manner the New Testament writers treated it. Where they treated the Old Testament literally we should do the same. Where they treated the Old Testament allegorically, we should do the same. Preterism is not a method.

Off topic. I never said a thing for or against any view. I merely listed them.

 

[Arial]

I did not have time to post this earlier but the Historic, Amillennial and Postmillennial positions are ones reached by methods. They are not themselves a method

Let's not split hairs.

method

mĕth′əd

noun​

1. A means or manner of procedure, especially a regular and systematic way of accomplishing something.
2. Orderly arrangement of parts or steps to accomplish an end.
3. The procedures and techniques characteristic of a particular discipline or field of knowledge.

All views, even the preterist, use methods to arrive at their conclusions. Therefore the name given to the conclusion can be referred to as the method by which said conclusions were arrived and most frequently are. It was not the millennial views that were stated as methods. And historic is not a millennial view but an interpretive view.

 

[3 Resurrections]

One more thought that proves to be important when discussing comparative eschatology. Because the KJV mistranslates "synteleia tou aionos" (Mt. 13:49) as "end of the world," instead of "end of the age" several hundred years of Christian eschatology was concerned with a literal end of the world and not a mere end of an age which the world survives. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly state the world will come to an end where it ceases to physically exist in its entirety.

YES, absolutely right.

 

[Josheb]

The OP isn't about preterism. It presented idealism.

I know.

Not trying to hijack or otherwise undermine the op. Simply pointing out preterism is not an "interpretive approach" or a method and explaining how it is not so.

There are four basic interpretive approaches to this book: Preterism including partial preterism, futurism, historicism, and idealism.

Off topic. I never said a thing for or against any view. I merely listed them.

It is not off-topic, and I did not say you said a thing for or against any view.

My point is singular: Preterism is not an interpretive approach. It is not a method. Preterists do not open the Bible and say, "I will make the Bible say everything is past." Such a thing never happens. The only things we think are past are those things the scriptures themselves states are past. We do not "interpret" scripture that way. We do not approach the scriptures interpretively. We read scripture plainly. That is our "interpretive approach." Not to approach scripture interpretively is the interpretive approach preterists use, and on any occasion where interpretive approaches are applied, we're using the same rules everyone else should be using.

That's all I'm saying.

There isn't a need to respond at all other than to say, "right," or "correct," or "thanks," or "appreciate that clarification," or "I didn't know that," or "I disagree and here's why...." if there is disagreement.

 

[Arial]

Simply pointing out preterism is not an "interpretive approach" or a method and explaining how it is not so.

Why is it not and the others are?

My point is singular: Preterism is not an interpretive approach. It is not a method. Preterists do not open the Bible and say, "I will make the Bible say everything is past." Such a thing never happens. The only things we think are past are those things the scriptures themselves states are past. We do not "interpret" scripture that way. We do not approach the scriptures interpretively. We read scripture plainly. That is our "interpretive approach." Not to approach scripture interpretively is the interpretive approach preterists use, and on any occasion where interpretive approaches are applied, we're using the same rules everyone else should be using.

How have you determined that the other approaches open the Bible with a predetermined position to make everything say whatever that view says? Or from any particular angle. Every one and every view thinks they are finding the meaning from the plain reading of scripture---and according to the type of literature it is. To use amillennial/idealism as an example, when they come to the word near in Rev 1, they do not automatically say, oh that means all that follows is just around the corner, when John wrote it or happened during John's lifetime, and hold the majority of the rest of the book to that standard. They keep reading. They use the whole picture. And they come to things that were happening in his lifetime when he wrote such as what we find in the seven churches. We see that John was in a time of tribulation.

And from our time frame, we see that the visions and the judgments have had historical applications at different times and in different places and to different degrees, all through the church age, and will continue to do so. So it is not a series of chronological separate judgments, and it does not all happen within the seven years prior to His return. And through other evidence within both OT and NT which interprets/reveals the mysteries of the OT (and the fact that it only ever speaks in the NT of two ages, this age and the age to come, the defeat of satan in the life of the Christian, and their sealing in Him. we find the thousand years to most likely refer to this age---the church age between the resurrection and Christ's return.

We know Christ has not returned yet, and we know there are only two comings of Christ, not three. Etc. I know there is some agreement in idealism in some places with preterism. And I cannot tell you where they differ because I have not studied preterism much. I tried to once, and there were so many differing viewpoints within it, that it became too confusing. I once had conversations with one who thought everything in Rev had already happened including the return of Christ and the new heaven and the new earth, the wicked already judged and wandering around in some outlying wasteland like a parallel universe, but still having the possibility of coming to Christ, and the redeemed in another.

 

[Josheb]

Let's not split hairs.

Hmmm... what follows is splitting hairs.

method

mĕth′əd

noun​

1. A means or manner of procedure, especially a regular and systematic way of accomplishing something.
2. Orderly arrangement of parts or steps to accomplish an end.
3. The procedures and techniques characteristic of a particular discipline or field of knowledge.

All views, even the preterist, use methods to arrive at their conclusions.

Yes, but the preterism is not the method or interpretive approach. Preterism is the conclusion. The approach is to begin without interpreting anything unless or until the text f scripture itself gives reason or warrant to do so. That is the approach or method. That is the mean and manner of procedure. The systematic way of accomplishing an understanding what is written is the same as everyone else BUT the Dispensationalist.

Therefore the name given to the conclusion can be referred to as the method by which said conclusions were arrived and most frequently are. It was not the millennial views that were stated as methods.

Nonsense.

And historic is not a millennial view but an interpretive view.

No, because the "historic" in "Historic Premillennialism" is not a reference to an interpretive approach, method, or a means or manner of procedure.

I can go to any seminary and gather ten theologians who happen to be preterist, ten who happen to be amillennialist, ten who happen to be historicist and talk exegesis with them and all thrity of them will agree to the basics of exegesis. If I add ten idealist to the mix some difference and debate will ensue because idealism is an interpretative approach and not just an eschatological position. The moment I add a dispensationalist to the mix everything changes. The first four groups share much more in common with each other than they do with the dispensationalist and the reason they share much more in common is because the share a common interpretive approach. The dispensationalists' approach is inherently, by self-definition different and they are openly explicit about their approach being different.

A comparative view book, like "The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views," or "Four Views on the Book of Revelation," readily demonstrates this. Each theologian critiques the others but they are all wholly in agreement the dispensationalist is wanting in exactly the same way BECAUSE of the interpretive approach. It is different. All four will say "Read scripture as written unless the text itself gives reason not to do so," they will all differ in the consistency with which they do so. That is method. The first four groups will agree the Church is not a separate tree with separate and discontinuous goals. The dispensationalist alone has an interpretive approach that is different. The dispensationalist approach scripture openly and explicitly interpreting what is written as if the two groups and two purposes are givens. The first four groups, likewise, will approach the scriptures as continuous. The Dispensationalist will open the Bible with an interpretive method that is wholly different from all the others because they believe the scripture are discontinuous, not continuous.

My point in reply to this op is a fairly simple one: the millennial position is not the interpretive approach or methodology. Premillennialism is not an approach. The "Historic" in Historic Premillennialism is not an interpretive method, but the "Dispensational" in Dispensational Premillennialism is an interpretive approach. The "Historic" simply means it is the premillennial view that is historic, and the term is used to distinguish it from the Dispensational alternative. Prior to dispensationalism it was just called Premillennialism.

If this op is about interpretive approach(es) or method(s) then start with the principles of exegesis and/or the different hermeneutics, not the end states of eschatological position or millennial conclusion. Outcome is not method.

The reasons the premillennialists read the mention of "one thousand years" in Revelation 20 literally is because of how they exegete the text, not because they are premillennialists. The reasons the Dispensationalist and the Historicist apply the literal reading is because the Dispensationalist applies a pre-existing view upon the text where the Historicist does not. The reason the Amil and Postmil read the "1000 years differently" is because how they apply the rules of exegesis, not because they are amillennial or Postmillennial.

The millennialism is not the method. It is not the interpretative approach.

 

[Josheb]

Why is it not and the others are?

I believe I have clarified, corrected, and further explained my original statements in subsequent posts.

 

[Josheb]

How have you determined that the other approaches open the Bible with a predetermined position to make everything say whatever that view says?

I believe I said the exact opposite. Only the Dispensationalist opens the Bible with a preformed interpretive approach. You, me, Fred, Ethel, Bert, Ernie and the rest open our Bible and read what is stated and - if we are applying the basic rules of exegesis correctly - then we read what is written exactly as written with the normal meanings of the words in everyday usage unless there is something in the immediately surrounding text that gives us reason or warrant to do otherwise. Even the Dispensationalist will try to do that but his/her hermeneutic dictates other metrics to "normal meaning," because there is anormal meaning for the Israelite and a normal meaning for the Churchite. There are two different groups with two different purposes and scripture is supposed to be literally, never allegorically.

Google "biblical exegesis."

You'll find a plethora of sites from a diverse set of perspectives (theological and eschatological) but they are all also teaching the same basic set of principles. All of them will say "read the text as written..." and not a single one of them will say, "Never read what is written as written. Always find what the meaning of every word is because they words do not mean what they say." Neither will a source be found teaching exegesis that states, "Ignore how the author and his original readers understood the text and invent your own meanings to apply to your own day in complete disregard to what was going on back then."

Interpretive approach, or method, is the means by which the millennial views are attained. The millennial views themselves are not methods.


Two more things:

I, as a partial-preterist, subscribe to an amillennial point of view. The two are not mutually exclusive of one another. To say preterism and amillennialism are different interpretive approaches is incorrect.

Technically ALL Christians are preterist to some degree. The term "preterism" simply means prophecies have been fulfilled. All Christians believe all the messianic prophecies are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is the only Messiah and there will be no other but Jesus. He is it. That means ALL Christians are messianic preterists . Similarly, since salvation is found in no other name but Christ, we are all also soteriological preterists . Eschatological preterism is something different. Eschatologically, preterists believe some or all of the end times prophecies are fulfilled and even Amillennialists like Anthony Hoekema, Kim Riddlebarger, Michael Horton, and R. C. Sproul are partially preterist. They just happen to be much less preterist than most Postmillennialists and a lot less so than the Reconstructionist Dominionists like Gary Denar of Ken Gentry. So think of preterism as a spectrum in which there is significant diversity and not as something singular or monolithic.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[Josheb]

@Arial,

I'm going to move on away from my point about method versus position and reply to the next point broached in the op.

Add to that the two basic interpretive tools, dispensationalism and covenant, and we have yet more divergences in methods and categories.

Yes!

Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology are two radically different theologies with irreconcilable beliefs and methods. Some attempt has been made to reconcile the two by a few with the Progressive Covenant and Progressive Dispensationalist views, but the differences are too great. Along with the differences between covenant and dispensation another dichotomy has develop: the continuity versus discontinuity of scripture, with covenantalist holding scripture to be continuous and the dispensationalist holding scripture to be discontinuous.

The former opens the Bible to find the term "covenant" actually used and he can use the term to mark the progress and continuity of scripture. The Dispensationalist cannot do any of that because there are no dispensations explicitly labeled in scripture and nothing in scripture itself explicitly stating whether any of the never-named dispensations are continuous or not. All of that is dictated by the theology, not the explicit statements of scripture.

That does not mean the covenantalist is without his/her problems with eisegesis. Covenant Theology asserts a "covenant of grace," where scripture never labels a covenant that way. Despite this, the covenants are clearly the means by which scripture itself renders itself.

 

[Arial]

Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology are two radically different theologies with irreconcilable beliefs and methods. Some attempt has been made to reconcile the two by a few with the Progressive Covenant and Progressive Dispensationalist views, but the differences are too great. Along with the differences between covenant and dispensation another dichotomy has develop: the continuity versus discontinuity of scripture, with covenantalist holding scripture to be continuous and the dispensationalist holding scripture to be discontinuous.

And then you add the so called rapture of the saints seven years prior to the supposed seven year tribulation, and all the numbers used becoming literal rather than figurative, and the judgments becoming a puzzle to solve saying it looked like giant grasshoppers to John because he had never seen a helicopter, and both the number of the beast and the number of the saints being tattoos or implants, the 144,00 being Jews, etc. and a person has lost the picture being presented, for the sake of a jigsaw puzzle. (A ten year old boy once heard the entire book of Revelation read aloud, with no commentary, and when it was done he stood up and punched the air with his fist and said ,"We win!!") He got the picture.

The former opens the Bible to find the term "covenant" actually used and he can use the term to mark the progress and continuity of scripture. The Dispensationalist cannot do any of that because there are no dispensations explicitly labeled in scripture and nothing in scripture itself explicitly stating whether any of the never-named dispensations are continuous or not. All of that is dictated by the theology, not the explicit statements of scripture.

It is definitely continuous with continuity. How else could it be? It is God. The covenant of redemption before creation, not only with man but with the creation itself, moving ever forward to it fullness. In that and as part of it was the covenant with Abraham concerning his Seed and many nations. And within that the land grant covenant with Israel for the purpose of teaching, but also for the purpose of the Seed coming from Israel, with the Abrahamic covenant running steadily through it, never stopping, never slowing down, to the Seed and the fulfillment by Him of all the law, ushering in the new covenant, which was not new but just not yet active. The covenant of redemption. The Bible is one story with many moving parts.

Covenant Theology asserts a "covenant of grace," where scripture never labels a covenant that way. Despite this, the covenants are clearly the means by which scripture itself renders itself.

By which they may or may not simply mean that redemption is by grace through faith as was the covenant with Abraham.

 

[Josheb]

And then you add...

"You"?

The OP isn't about preterism. It presented idealism.

And then you add the so called rapture of the saints seven years prior to the supposed seven year tribulation, and all the numbers used becoming literal rather than figurative, and the....

Is this op intended to be a survey of all the different eschatological views on all the various elements of end times scripture?

 

[Arial]

"You"?

Are you a dispensationalist? Then the you applies to things in dispensationalism\

Is this op intended to be a survey of all the different eschatological views on all the various elements of end times scripture?

Who was it that brought first preterism and then dispensationalism into the conversation? What is the title of the OP? What is the purpose stated in the title, and what does the body of the OP do?

 

[Arial]

Interpretive approach, or method, is the means by which the millennial views are attained. The millennial views themselves are not methods.

I was not going to respond to or even read these posts as you stated you were moving on from them, and I think that is a good idea As they keep the OP of target and we seem to be having trouble understanding what the other is saying. But there is something that needs correcting, that if it had not been presumed or assigned to what was said in the OP----and a response given and then continued from that incorrect starting point, the digginging in of heels exchanges needn't have ever occurred.

I never presented the millennial views as methods, but as categories contained within the methods.