How much of the book of Revelation is literal and how much is symbolic?

CryptoLutheran · #81 27th June 2011, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Edial

I understand what you are saying and this is a Lutheran theology concerning the Revelation.
I think we are wrong on this one.

We are basing out views based on our church' teachings and not the Scriptures.

I would understand if Catholics and Orthodox would base it on their church teachings, because they believe in their churches authority that is at par or above the Scriptures.

But Lutherans cannot do that, since we claim to stand on Scriptures.
We have no excuse.

The overwhelming Scriptural evidence is that much of it takes place in the future.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

I don't think such a reading requires reliance on "Church authority", I think this is simply a matter of taking the text seriously given its context and content.

I don't think a Futurist reading of the Revelation is biblically tenable.

-CryptoLutheran

LittleLambofJesus · #82 27th June 2011, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by CryptoLutheran

I don't think such a reading requires reliance on "Church authority", I think this is simply a matter of taking the text seriously given its context and content.

I don't think a Futurist reading of the Revelation is biblically tenable.

-CryptoLutheran

What view do the Lutherans hold concerning Revelation?
Historicism, Preterism, Amil, etc.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7552234/#post57253321
Difference between amillennialism & preterism

Edial · #83 27th June 2011, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by CryptoLutheran

I don't think such a reading requires reliance on "Church authority", I think this is simply a matter of taking the text seriously given its context and content.

I don't think a Futurist reading of the Revelation is biblically tenable.

-CryptoLutheran

Prior to learning theology I had no idea we designed specific groups with names such as Futurist, Historicist, Partial Preterist and so forth.

In my opinion, if we interpret the book for what we think it says as compared to what it says - we lose the whole book.

I realize I am a rebel in this context, but I simply cannot go against the Scriptures - I gotta stand on something.

Thanks,

In Christ,
Ed

LittleLambofJesus · #84 27th June 2011, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Edial

Prior to learning theology I had no idea we designed specific groups with names such as Futurist, Historicist, Partial Preterist and so forth.

In my opinion, if we interpret the book for what we think it says as compared to what it says - we lose the whole book.

I realize I am a rebel in this context, but I simply cannot go against the Scriptures - I gotta stand on something.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

But at least thou art a "rebel with a cause"

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

NKJV) Ezekiel 20:38 "I will purge the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against Me; I will bring them out of the country where they dwell, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I [am] the LORD.

NKJV) Daniel 9:5 "we have sinned and committed iniquity, we have done wickedly and rebelled, even by departing from Your precepts and Your judgments.

YouTube - ‪Rebel Without A Cause Trailer‬&rlm;

Edial · #85 27th June 2011, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

But at least thou art a "rebel with a cause"

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

NKJV) Ezekiel 20:38 "I will purge the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against Me; I will bring them out of the country where they dwell, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I [am] the LORD.

NKJV) Daniel 9:5 "we have sinned and committed iniquity, we have done wickedly and rebelled, even by departing from Your precepts and Your judgments.

YouTube - ‪Rebel Without A Cause Trailer‬&rlm;

NIV also translates antitasso (rebelling) as opposing.
Like here ...

JAS 4:6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
"God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble."

Thanks,

In Christ,
Ed

CryptoLutheran · #86 27th June 2011, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

What view do the Lutherans hold concerning Revelation?
Historicism, Preterism, Amil, etc.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7552234/#post57253321
Difference between amillennialism & preterism

I'm fairly certain that the official/"official" Lutheran view is Historicst. However, I take the Partial-Preterist position myself.

It's worth noting that, initially, Luther himself held the Revelation with a great deal of suspicion and it was one of four traditionally accepted New Testament books which Luther nearly regarded as apocryphal (along with Hebrews, James and Jude)--all four of which appear at the end of Luther's translation of the Bible instead of their (well at least in the case of Hebrews and James) standard position in the New Testament Canon.

-CryptoLutheran

CryptoLutheran · #87 27th June 2011, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Edial

Prior to learning theology I had no idea we designed specific groups with names such as Futurist, Historicist, Partial Preterist and so forth.

In my opinion, if we interpret the book for what we think it says as compared to what it says - we lose the whole book.

I realize I am a rebel in this context, but I simply cannot go against the Scriptures - I gotta stand on something.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

And that's at the heart of the discussion. Not going against what Scripture says and taking what it says seriously. The same reason you adhere to a Futurist position is the same reason I reject that same Futurist position--on the basis of what Holy Scripture itself says. Obviously we can't both be right--and perhaps both of us are, in fact, wrong--but that does not mean we are not both basing our positions based on the text of Holy Scripture and attempting to parse it using the best available tools at our disposal and attempting to make ultimate sense of it in order to be faithful to it.

-CryptoLutheran

LittleLambofJesus · #88 27th June 2011, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by CryptoLutheran

I'm fairly certain that the official/"official" Lutheran view is Historicst. However, I take the Partial-Preterist position myself.

It's worth noting that, initially, Luther himself held the Revelation with a great deal of suspicion and it was one of four traditionally accepted New Testament books which Luther nearly regarded as apocryphal (along with Hebrews, James and Jude)--all four of which appear at the end of Luther's translation of the Bible instead of their (well at least in the case of Hebrews and James) standard position in the New Testament Canon.

-CryptoLutheran

I am closer to the Amill view myself, but I have a different view of that 1000yr period than they do

I debated with partial preterists on another forum where both full and partial preterists could debate on the same board against futurists [and sometimes against each other! ehehe].
The board is simply called "Preterism" [but I cannot put up the link to it here].

According to this "partial preterist", there seems to be 2 camps concerning Matthew 24 which I find rather confusing [I view Revelation and the Olivet Discourse as one and the same event btw]. Thoughts?

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html
　
Bait and Switch?

I had promised that although I am not dogmatic beyond..
There are two primary camps within preterism on this issue:

one view holds that there is a break in Matthew 24 beginning with either verse 35 or 36 [Switch-On],

and another that holds that the entire enchilada primarily belongs to the first century [Switch-Off].

Proponents of the former view include Dan Trotter and Gary DeMar, and proponents of the latter include Kenneth Gentry and Marcellus Kik.

Frankly there are strong arguments for both, and I have held both positions, in fact in writing this piece I have waffled - when I started writing I was becoming very convinced of a Pro-Switch view, now upon writing it I am back to my former position of a No-Switch view........
------------------------------------------------------
A member made a correction to the above on the thread we were debating concerning Matthew 24 [which I view as the same event in Revelation btw

]

quote: Hopefully a point of clarification: The quote (in the original) contains a typo of sorts. I talked to this person about it some months ago and she agreed. It reads,

Basically the references to "former" and "latter" are backwards. It should read

proponents of the latter view [that holds that the entire enchilada primarily belongs to the first century [Switch-Off]] , include Dan Trotter and Gary DeMar

and proponents of the former view [that there is a break in Matthew 24 beginning with either verse 35 or 36 [Switch-On]] include Kenneth Gentry and Marcellus Kik

Again, I talked about this with the author about a year ago and she agreed it was backwards (no ignorance on her part, just a typo of sorts); I guess she never got around to changing it, however.