Here's what a more mainstream Idealist wrote about Idealism:
In the book, "
Four Views on The Book of Revelation," from the Counterpoint Series, the theologian Sam Hamstra asserts and defends the Idealist view. At the end of his apologetic he writes a summary of Idealism.
1) The idealist acknowledges the apocalyptic nature of Revelation. While granting that the book contains epistolary and prophetic elements, the idealist believes that John employs the genre of apocalyptic literature to carry his message to the reader. Granted, there are some discrepancies between Revelation and typical first century apocalyptic literature, such as pseudonymity. But, in spite of a handful of minor inconsistencies, most evangelical scholars conclude the the book is apocalyptic. Thus, Thomas is correct when he states that the idealist does not treat Revelation as a book of prophecy. The idealist acknowledges that the book does contain some predictions of particular events, such as the second coming of Christ, as well as some epistolary instruction, such as that found in its letters to the churches. This acknowledgement, however, does not mean the idealist denies the reality of the specific biblical prophecy. The Bible is filled with prophesies that were fulfilled at a particular time and place, most notably, those concerning the Messiah. The idealist, however, does not believe that the interpreter should expect to find many specific prophecies in the Apocalypse of John.
2) The Idealist not only acknowledges but also interprets the text as apocalyptic literature. Gentry clearly states the implication of this conviction" "Revelation is a highly figurative book that we cannot approach with a simple straightforward literalism." While nearly every evangelcial scholar agrees that Revelation is to some degree apocalyptic, not everyone interprets Revelation as such. The idealist, however, begins with the presupposition that since the books is apocalyptic, every episode or vision is symbolic until proven otherwise. What are the grounds for nonlinear interpretation of Revelation? The answer is simple: good hermeneutics. Just as the student of scripture, recognizing the genre of a particular passage, refuses a literal interpretation of parables or of poetic literature, so that same student, recognizing the unique genre of Revelation, does not interpret Revelation from a literal perspective. In fact, acknowledging Revelation as apocalyptic, the idealist interpreter prefers the nonliteral approach to every verse in the book. For the idealist there must be good reason to refrain from a symbolic interpretation of the text.
3) The heart and soul of the idealist approach it that Revelation is an apocalyptic book that presents spiriutal precepts through symbols, rather than a book of predictive prophecy fulfilled in specific events or persons in human history. Revelation does not so much forecast events as it does set forth timeless truths concerning the battle between good and evil, which continues through the church age. When we find an event to which, or a person to whom, the prophecy is fairly applicable, we may consider it fulfilled in such an event or person - but not exhausted. This idealist approach does not mean that an event occurs repeatedly throughout history, but that the spiritual truth is timeless, finding several fulfillments throughout this dispensation.... The idealist presupposes that since the prophecy of John is delievered in apocalyptic terminaology, the purpose of Revelation is to relate spiritual truths rather than predict specific events that would be fulfilled in human history. Idealists, therefore, disassociate linkage between a symbol and an historic event, believing that symbols are multivalent in meaning and without specific historical reference................ the idealist affirms that the prophetic element in Revelation is not event oriented as the nonidealist may assume. This explains, in part, why the idealist does not interact with the preterist, the progressive dispensationalist, and the classic dispensationalist. Each of those approaches to Revelation interprets the text as if its primary purpose is to predict the unfolding of future events; the interpreter identifies the fulfillment of each episode of Revelation with a particular event or person in either the first, last, or both centuries. The idealist interpreter is not interested in expending energy on such an endeavor. Instead, he seeks to understand the idea, the spiritual truth, or the theme conveyed in the vision. In short, the hermeneutical presupposition of the idealist is clearly distinct from that held in common by each of the three other approaches presented in this volume."
There's more, but this is sufficient for understanding Idealism and its interpretive method. Hamstra does provide one place where his view of Revelation is different than that commonly held by idealism.
"I waffle from the party line in my comments on Revelation 20-21, convinced that this section complements Jesus' teaching in Matthew 24-25, which presents a general chronological sequence of events culminating in the second coming of Christ. Some idealists are sure to criticize this exception, preferring a thematic interpretation that excludes any futurist prophetic conclusions."
I may post his other points later and a comparative summary of the Amillennial pov.
