It is simply, in my view anyway, more balanced rhythmically to say amillennial/idealist than the other way around. It still means the same thing.
I understand how someone might view it that way but,
doctrinally speaking, Idealism is a much different eschatology than Amillennialism, even though most Idealists are amillennial. A few are Postmillennial. Calvin, for example, appears to have held elements of Postmillennialism and Idealism in his eschatological views. When the millennial views are discussed they are usually listed as
Historic Premillennialism
Amillennialism
Postmillennialism
Dispensational Premillennialism
And Idealism is left out. That's typically because Idealists tend to be amillennial, even though they vary from Amillennial doctrine in significant ways. For example, an Amillennialist who is partial-preterist is not going to apply the same degree of allegorical and anagogical reading the idealist does. A full-pret might well be more "idealist" than the partial pret because he's going say EVERYTHING is ALL already fulfilled BUT the patterns and cycles persist throughout human history. Neither the pure Idealist nor the full-preterist might have an end in their view of end times. Life and history will go one for billions of years until the solar system decays or the magnetic poles of earth faulter, or some other cosmological event ends life as we know it. I've known some full prets and Idealists who think 1 Corinthians 15 has come and gone and the "resurrection" spoken of in that chapter is simply life in Christ
(josh purses lips and shakes head in incredulity). In other words, the Idealist may not see the "a" in "Amillennialism" simply as an extended non-spcific period of time with an eventual end (like classic amillennialism). The "a" may be seen in the truer meaning of the "a" as in "non-existent," or "absence of," which is what the "a" prefix normally means. Classic Amillennilaists believe there is a millennium, but it is not a literal 1000 years. A highly symbolic, (over-)spiritualized, mystical view of the millennium would consider it a condition of creation found in Christ that is eternal. It is a reference to a perfect state.
It is
ideal.
Hence the name.
And by scripture do you mean all of scripture or just the book of Revelation?
I respect the op. I'm the guy who wants topical discourse. I'm the guy who disdains hijacking and hijackers. I'm the guy who likes to limit digression, keep it as op-relevant as possible, and likes to bring it back to the op in a timely manner. Therefore, because this op specifies Revelation I'm trying to stick to Revelation. I tried to evidence that in an earlier post by explicitly pointing out the hermeneutical spiral working from one verse, through the immediately surrounding text, through the book as a whole and then and only then to the passages the text of Revelation itself explicitly and directly connects us. I'm not a fan of wanton copy-and-paste, doctrinally-driven eisegesis
. The principle of scripture interpreting scripture is supposed to be a principle in which the scriptures themselves, not extra-biblical doctrine, connect us. I used the example of lampstands to illustrate that. Dispensationalist, for example, might use Zechariah 7 to infer Christ comes to earth in the millennium. That kind of inference is not exegetical. It' most definitely not an interpretive method the Amillennialist would use idealist or otherwise). The classic Protestant hermeneutical position is that the New Testament explains the Old, not the other way around, and the non-Dispensationalist sees continuity between Old and New where the Dispensationalist does not. Furthermore, because of the two-peoples/two-purposes/two-kingdoms view Dispensational Premillennialists think Revelation is about Israel.
All scripture should be used to obtain a sound eschatological doctrine.
But this op specifies Revelation, so I've tried to stick to Revelation and exegete
from Revelation and not from other texts
to Revelation. I've avoided the posts that want to impose Matthew 24, Daniel 9, or 2 Thessalonians 2 on the thread. In a thread specifically on Revelation the only other texts we should be mentioning should be the ones Revelation itself explicitly connects us. It is an assumption Revelation mentions the man of sin or the antichrist in other terms. Revelation nowhere states either by those names. In a thread specifically on an Amillennial Idealist interpretive approach the emphasis should be on that approach. The only reason any other method, approach, or tool should be mentioned is for contrast and comparative purpose and then brought back to the specified view. That's how I approach threads. But it's "your" thread and I try to follow the op's lead (even if I am not believed and the relevance of my content not immediately grasped
).
All of scripture is necessary, but this op is on Revelation and the Amillennial idealist approach thereof.
Because I think the categories of interpreting Revelation pertain to Revelation, except where they are directly related to prophecies in the OT.
I do too.
As I have often noted, there are more than 340 OT references in Revelation and (with the possible exception of the author of Hebrews), John is the most Jewish writers of the NT. His gospel is also the most anti-Judaic (but that's fodder for a separate op
). How can anyone read a book with340+ OT references, not exegete the OT references and think the book correctly understood?
And even then, I think it is more (since the NT) of Revelation interpreting those prophecies in relation to us rather than trying to interpret Revelation by the OT.
Me too!
It is in the OT and comparing the two, that we find the meaning of the symbols.
I would use the word "exegete" instead of "compare," but otherwise I whole-heartedly agree.
Chances are John's immediate audience knew their meaning already and therefore did not struggle with them as we do.
Yep.
Logically, any exegetical approach denying the principle of original intent is going to be flawed.
One problem with dispensationalism/premillennialism, which typically adds the chronological and separate aspects to the visions and judgments, does not apply any of it except to a short seven years, reduces the tribulation to a seven year period immediately before Christ's return, and inserts an unsupported rapture that delivers believers out of this tribulation. It produces a lot of support for this by Matt 24 and telling Matt 24 what it is saying, then carrying it into Rev. And one verse in Thess. And then it sets out to identify the things that are signified exactly and date the rapture from their deductions.* Then adds another thousand years for ethnic/ geopolitical Israel to be purified.
I completely agree. I've devoted a few decades to the study of eschatology and soteriology and done so from diverse perspective and a plethora of authors, having started out as a Lindsay/Smith-informed Dispensational Premillennialist. I find it a horrible eschatology built on profoundly unscriptural and irrationally presumptive and eisegetic methods and I could consume many a thread with criticism.
But I try practice what I preach
.
