The Book of Revelation: Amillennial/idealist Interpretive Method

[Rufus]

Let's discuss this. Would you mind starting a new and separate op summarizing your view on the continuity/discontinuity and @ me at the end so I know it's up? I don't want Arial's op to be hijacked to discuss the subject here. Thx

Let me think about it. Right now I have a lot on my platter.

 

[Rufus]

Read the book! Hamstra makes the case for the Idealist pov. Keep in mind the op is Amillennial idealist, not Idealist that is amillennial.

I'm just pointing to the Idealist's claims about Idealism.

Read the book. It's worth a read because partial-preterist Ken Gentry writes the apologetic for the preterist view.

Does the book address the prophecy issue in Revelation? That's a fundamentally important issue. If an Amil-Idealist denies that Revelation is prophetic literature, and they proceed to interpret on the basis of that presupposition then there's no way I would be convinced.

 

[Rufus]

By the way, @Josheb, another thought occurred to me after you said yesterday that you cannot see that scripture recognizes and places great emphasis on just two covenants: the Old and the New, or first and second covenants, respectively. I would remind you that the councils and synods, etc. that put together the canon of scripture apparently recognized this truth because all bibles are split up between the Old and New Testatments. The term "testament" is an archaic term that means "a covenant between God and the human race" (M-W Collegiate Dictionary). It easy to sometimes overlook the obvious but there it is, as plain as the noses on all our faces. The bible is split up between the Two Great Covenants. The one covenant made before Christ and the other covenant made during his first advent and continuing after his ascension and for all eternity. You might want to rethink your denial of this division of covenants in scripture.

 

[Josheb]

By the way, @Josheb, another thought occurred to me after you said yesterday that you cannot see that scripture recognizes and places great emphasis on just two covenants: the Old and the New, or first and second covenants, respectively.

I do not believe I said any such thing. Of course there is an old covenant and a new covenant, but that does not mean they are not smaller parts of a larger whole, nor does it mean they are discontinuous.

I would remind you that the councils and synods, etc. that put together the canon of scripture apparently recognized this truth because all bibles are split up between the Old and New Testatments. The term "testament" is an archaic term that means "a covenant between God and the human race" (M-W Collegiate Dictionary). It easy to sometimes overlook the obvious but there it is, as plain as the noses on all our faces. The bible is split up between the Two Great Covenants. The one covenant made before Christ and the other covenant made during his first advent and continuing after his ascension and for all eternity. You might want to rethink your denial of this division of covenants in scripture.

Post it in a new op and I'll take up that discussion with you.

As you think about it and prepare your case let me recommend you do a quick study of the word "covenant" in the Bible. Among the many things you'll presumably find three are important: 1) there are only four places where the plural form, "covenants" occur, only two of the four have anything to do with God, and one of which ties all the covenants together under the auspices of God's promises, 2) the covenant made with Abraham is also said to have been said to Abraham and Jesus, and from the time when those promises were first spoken the scriptures themselves chronically ties future references back to that covenant, and 3) all those many, many mentions of covenant and promises are said never to be able to violate the covenant God has for the day and the night.

 

[Josheb]

Does the book address the prophecy issue in Revelation? That's a fundamentally important issue. If an Amil-Idealist denies that Revelation is prophetic literature, and they proceed to interpret on the basis of that presupposition then there's no way I would be convinced.

@Rufus,

Go read Post #193. Give Post 195 a read, too. I should not be asked about content already posted and neither should I be expected to repeat myself unnecessarily when you could go read the post for yourself and have all the questions asked so far answered. If that post is of interest, then you can purchase the book and read it for yourself and not rely on my second-hand account. It's an inexpensive book that isn't long in length or difficult to read by someone with your faculties.

 

[Rufus]

I do not believe I said any such thing. Of course there is an old covenant and a new covenant, but that does not mean they are not smaller parts of a larger whole, nor does it mean they are discontinuous.

Post it in a new op and I'll take up that discussion with you.

As you think about it and prepare your case let me recommend you do a quick study of the word "covenant" in the Bible. Among the many things you'll presumably find three are important: 1) there are only four places where the plural form, "covenants" occur, only two of the four have anything to do with God, and one of which ties all the covenants together under the auspices of God's promises, 2) the covenant made with Abraham is also said to have been said to Abraham and Jesus, and from the time when those promises were first spoken the scriptures themselves chronically ties future references back to that covenant, and 3) all those many, many mentions of covenant and promises are said never to be able to violate the covenant God has for the day and the night.

Actually you did. Here's what you wrote in 215, I believe:

I reject any premise of "two covenantal periods in history." The covenant spoken to Abraham was also spoken to Jesus (according to Galatians 3) and throughout both old and new revelations God ties His mention of "covenant" back to that covenant. All mentionsof "covenant" should be understood in the context of those verses and passages that reveal conditions existing prior to creation. 1 Peter 1:20 would be an example. Everything in scripture should be read in light of, in the context of Christ being foreknown before the foundation of the world.

Yet, as stated earlier our bibles are indeed divided by those "two covenantal periods in history". Evidently, neither the writer of Hebrews or the historic councils of the past that put together the canon of scripture thought the Old and New Covenants were mere "smaller" parts of a larger whole. This is especially true of the eternal New Covenant of which Christ himself is the very embodiment. The New Covenant ultimately fulfills all the other covenants.

And how do not all the covenants have to do with God? Who else established the terms to any of the covenants, if not God?

But I digress...As you have intimated the covenants are immensely important and a huge topic that deserves its own thread. Ultimately, the discussion will take us down that well traveled road that has often been debated and still is to this day: The red hot topics of Law and Grace.

 

[Josheb]

Actually you did.

No, I did not. You moved the goalposts.

Here's what you wrote in 215, I believe:

I reject any premise of "two covenantal periods in history." The covenant spoken to Abraham was also spoken to Jesus (according to Galatians 3) and throughout both old and new revelations God ties His mention of "covenant" back to that covenant. All mentions of "covenant" should be understood in the context of those verses and passages that reveal conditions existing prior to creation. 1 Peter 1:20 would be an example. Everything in scripture should be read in light of, in the context of Christ being foreknown before the foundation of the world.

Yet, as stated earlier our bibles are indeed divided by those "two covenantal periods in history". Evidently, neither the writer of Hebrews or the historic councils of the past that put together the canon of scripture thought the Old and New Covenants were mere "smaller" parts of a larger whole. This is especially true of the eternal New Covenant of which Christ himself is the very embodiment. The New Covenant ultimately fulfills all the other covenants.

The claim of "two covenantal periods in history" is not the same as "scripture recognizes and places great emphasis on just two covenants". I do not deny the existence of an old covenant and a new covenant. It's how you use them with which I disagree. Things are made worse when you tell me I said things I never said. Please refrain from doing so again. Ask for clarification before making (and posting) assumptions.

And how do not all the covenants have to do with God? Who else established the terms to any of the covenants, if not God?

But I digress...As you have intimated the covenants are immensely important and a huge topic that deserves its own thread. Ultimately, the discussion will take us down that well traveled road that has often been debated and still is to this day: The red hot topics of Law and Grace.

I have also asked you not to sandbag or hijack another s op. I have asked you to start a new up summarizing your position on the covenants because this thread is on the Amillennial idealist interpretive method of Revelation not the continuity or discontinuity of scripture's covenant. I will not ask again.

 

[Rufus]

No, I did not. You moved the goalposts.

The claim of "two covenantal periods in history" is not the same as "scripture recognizes and places great emphasis on just two covenants". I do not deny the existence of an old covenant and a new covenant. It's how you use them with which I disagree. Things are made worse when you tell me I said things I never said. Please refrain from doing so again. Ask for clarification before making (and posting) assumptions.

I have also asked you not to sandbag or hijack another s op. I have asked you to start a new up summarizing your position on the covenants because this thread is on the Amillennial idealist interpretive method of Revelation not the continuity or discontinuity of scripture's covenant. I will not ask again.

Ooh....demanding chap, aren't you? I think I'll just let you play in your own sandbox. I wonder if your alter-ego ever answers back to ya?

 

[Josheb]

Ooh....demanding chap, aren't you? I think I'll just let you play in your own sandbox. I wonder if your alter-ego ever answers back to ya?

That response is common.

ALL posters, including you and me, have liberty to post whatever they like whenever they like as often as they like, as long as it does not violate the forum's tou. On this occasion a digression about the covenant structure of scripture or history would do exactly that (violate the tou). On occasions like this I ask a poster to abide respect the op and sometimes nothing changes. It happened earlier in this very thread. I tell a poster my personal boundaries (I do not do digression) and sometimes get attacked for doing so, typically labeled controlling or demanding. So, take note of my handle for future exchanges: Josh does not do protracted digression. I will practice that exact same standard if I discuss covenants with in a dedicated op, and the offer to do so was made with sincere interest. There are a half-dozen or more posters here in this thread who may be willing to take up the subject in this thread, but I am not one of them.

 

[Rufus]

That response is common.

ALL posters, including you and me, have liberty to post whatever they like whenever they like as often as they like, as long as it does not violate the forum's tou. On this occasion a digression about the covenant structure of scripture or history would do exactly that (violate the tou). On occasions like this I ask a poster to abide respect the op and sometimes nothing changes. It happened earlier in this very thread. I tell a poster my personal boundaries (I do not do digression) and sometimes get attacked for doing so, typically labeled controlling or demanding. So, take note of my handle for future exchanges: Josh does not do protracted digression. I will practice that exact same standard if I discuss covenants with in a dedicated op, and the offer to do so was made with sincere interest. There are a half-dozen or more posters here in this thread who may be willing to take up the subject in this thread, but I am not one of them.

"Future exchanges"? But I do admire your optimism and self-assurance. However, I have a better system with control fanatics: I put them on my Igggy List.

Have a good day, sir.

 

[Mr GLee]

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.

No signs were given as to the last day under the Sun . Jesus says it's a evil generation that looks to wonder after one . Believers have prophecy the perfect sealed with seven seals till the end of time.
Satn the king of lying wonders as signs is til able to deceive all the nation through lying signs as wonders .Wondering or marveling not believing .it the kind of stuf that makes up Limbo or purgatory eternal wondering when is the end . A doctrine of demons
In that way what we see the temporal as a shadow of the new coming. New bodies, new heaven and earth. No remembrance of things here.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Both Romans 1:20 and 2 Corinthians 4:18 give the what I call mixing direction to give us a understanding of a parable teaching us how to understand Christ faith (understanding)

2 Corinthians 4:18 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 seen are eternal.

Again Revelation the signified or hidden manna.

God knew each time a prophet died mankind would look for a new leader . They refused to worship a God not seen

Below after finishing what I call sola scriptura Moses was to place the bible on the side of the golden ark . Gold the only rudiment of this word called God good during creation used to represent the unseen eternal things hid in parable the golden measure (unknown) In order to solve the mystery of faith on the inside a person must look to sola scriptura

Deuteronomy 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark (sign) of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.And Moses spake in the ears of all the congregation of Israel the words of this song,. . . . . (Poetic tongue of parables) until they were ended.

The time of reformation has come the veil was rent signifying the circumcision of the Son of man Jesus called a bloody husband ,because of circumcision ,as the firstborn of many sons of God.

There was no Jewish man sitting in the Holies as King of kings. Satan fell and could no longer deceive all the nations that God is a Jewish man as King of earthly kings and Lord of earthy lords . Lucifer the legion will be released when men again build the abomination of desolation, temple made with human hands as a will of dying mankind. . . making the word of God we hide in our hearts, to no effect

Revelation 20: 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years (unknown) should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Amillennialism the signified understanding as in without parables Christ spoke not. Therefore using the temporal things seen as a shadow to give us the gospel or unseen understanding hid in the parables. The same kind called hidden manna in Rev 2:17

I wonder . . Why literalize as if we seek after a sign, the things seen the temporal? No sign was given. Parables the understanding of faith were given they teach us how to understand our invisible God .