....wow, thought it was gonna be a cloud, no wait, maybe it was a bolt of lightning.....
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
But shouldn't we interpret the Bible spiritually instead of literally?
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
....wow, thought it was gonna be a cloud, no wait, maybe it was a bolt of lightning.....
Saddled or bareback?
M
For example,
The 1000 years, A figure of speech. meaning a literal long period of time, i.e. the present age.
all Israel will be saved, Figure of speech, meaning literally, all believers;
See you get it.
Why couldn't He be on a horse, coming thru the clouds?
For example,
The 1000 years, A figure of speech. meaning a literal long period of time, i.e. the present age.
all Israel will be saved, Figure of speech, meaning literally, all believers;
See you get it.
I believe that when Peter wrote 1K years is as i day to God, and vice versa, that he was using a figure of speech saying God isn't limited by time, but that the millenium will be a literal 1K years.
Peter says NOTHING about what you call the millennium.
He has only two applications for the day/thousand years - the time before the day of judgment & destruction of Jerusalem & the scoffers who were accusing Jesus of being a false prophet;
and the time to the final day of the Lord/day of God which will end the present day of grace & bring about the NH&NE.
You can't read a yet future millennium into Peter's letters.
I find it very strange that there is a desire to "spiritualize" rather than to seek the actuality of the last day fulfillments.
Why is there some great avoidance and actual psychological hindrance in embracing a literal millennium, a literal return of Christ as the Scriptures clearly teach?
Here is my personal opinion.
The early church taught a literal physical time in which Christ would rule this whole world.
What changed?
Two.
One the sacking of Rome, and the other the desire to deceive in order to hold control and hold authority.
In both events, the truth of the Scriptures were brought into question. Rather than clinging to that truth, humankind invented other schemes alien to the typical rendering of Scriptures and then deceitfully propagated the scheme(s) to cause confusion and therefore the dependence of reliance that only a select few really knew the truth.
In this day, the lie continues, because it is God's desire that the deceiver be allowed to deceive. That the folks will be confirmed in their own righteousness and not in that of the Son.
Therefore, there is mocking, and shrewd (even cunning) designs to belittle the truth of the Scriptures and bring doubt to the statements of Christ.
Why is there some great avoidance and actual psychological hindrance in embracing a literal millennium, a literal return of Christ as the Scriptures clearly teach?
Here is my personal opinion.
The early church taught a literal physical time in which Christ would rule this whole world.
What changed?
Two.
One the sacking of Rome, and the other the desire to deceive in order to hold control and hold authority.
In both events, the truth of the Scriptures were brought into question. Rather than clinging to that truth, humankind invented other schemes alien to the typical rendering of Scriptures and then deceitfully propagated the scheme(s) to cause confusion and therefore the dependence of reliance that only a select few really knew the truth.
In this day, the lie continues, because it is God's desire that the deceiver be allowed to deceive. That the folks will be confirmed in their own righteousness and not in that of the Son.
Therefore, there is mocking, and shrewd (even cunning) designs to belittle the truth of the Scriptures and bring doubt to the statements of Christ.
Really?? Literalists ignore the genre? This shows a complete ignorance of the grammatical-historical method.
Again, figures of speech are always recognized by the grammatical-historical method.
Every one of these examples are metaphors, which is not spiritual interpretation, but normal exegesis.
I have tried over and over again here on the BB to make this plain. You guys just don't get it. Spiritual/allegorical interpretation does not mean figures of speech.
Last edited:
Even covenant theologians recognize dispensations, because they are Biblical. Berkhof had a system of two dispensations (cf his Systematic Theology, pp. 292-293).Had you not used the term, "dispensation", I would have liked your post a lot more.
Also, I would again argue that I do take the Bible literally. I literally believe that Jesus is literally reigning, right now!
I suppose this has already been mentioned. maybe not.
Do we interpret the Virgin Birth spiritually?
The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as spiritual?
How about His Title - "Christ" is that spiritual?
Before Abraham was I AM? Spiritual?
Do that and it won't be long until we can make the Bible say anything we want.
His visible and bodily return to the earth at which time every eye will see him?
HankD
Do we interpret the Virgin Birth spiritually?
The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as spiritual?
How about His Title - "Christ" is that spiritual?
Before Abraham was I AM? Spiritual?
Do that and it won't be long until we can make the Bible say anything we want.
His visible and bodily return to the earth at which time every eye will see him?
HankD
This is the worst misunderstanding of dispensationalism I've ever seen on the BB. "Schizophrenia within the Godhead"?? Really?
Your idea that dispensationalists only read the OT to moralize or interpret Revelation is the worst kind of false charge. I read the OT every single day of the year, and am blessed greatly by truths in the OT: God's care for us, His love for us, His plan for the ages, fulfilled prophecy in OT times (Isaiah is full of this), etc., etc. I taught through Isaiah in a Tokyo Bible school for what was supposed to be a 2 credit class, but was so blessed I couldn't get through the book in one semester, but with the president's permission taught a second semester of it.
I really hope you withdraw this ridiculous false charge.
You are describing hyper-dispensationalism, not the normal kind.
By denying the bible says what it means and means what it says will, eventually, result in no bible at all.
When the bible doesn't mean what it says it can no longer instruct us.
When I was a kid, if I did not mean what I said, it was called a "lie" and I was punished for it. It makes me wonder how spiritualizers will fare before the judgment bar.
I remember riding horses with my grandfather, who rode a white Tennessee Walking Horse named "Mac." He always looked regal on Mac. Why in the world could Jesus not ride a white horse? It's a kingly, regal thing to do. Do you suppose he'll come in a VW or something?
Why do those who "spiritually" interpret and oppose the literal view of the text always mock things that are clearly written in Scripture? I sincerely don't understand this practice. White horses are completely normal.
Why do those who "spiritually" interpret and oppose the literal view of the text always mock things that are clearly written in Scripture? I sincerely don't understand this practice. White horses are completely normal.
Why do you insist on mocking literal interpretations over and over? You are proving nothing except your own attitude.Saddled or bareback?
Riding a white horse is a completely normal thing to do. When I rode with my grandfather, I rode a bay while he rode a huge, powerful, white Tennessee Walker.
As an adjunct of the historical/grammatical hermeneutic, the culture of that day must be taken into consideration.
Why would Jesus ride a white horse at the time of the second advent?
Simple. The white horse was the symbol of great victory. The victor would ride the white horse when returning to his capital to communicate to the people that a great victory had been won.
Revelation 19:11 goes on to say "he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war."
The Great Warrior returns in victory, riding on the symbol of that Great Victory, the white horse of the Victor.
Why anyone would want to deny Christ His rightful honor and glory is beyond me.
Why would Jesus ride a white horse at the time of the second advent?
Simple. The white horse was the symbol of great victory. The victor would ride the white horse when returning to his capital to communicate to the people that a great victory had been won.
Revelation 19:11 goes on to say "he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war."
The Great Warrior returns in victory, riding on the symbol of that Great Victory, the white horse of the Victor.
Why anyone would want to deny Christ His rightful honor and glory is beyond me.
I hold to Covenant theology, but of the reformed Baptist premil variety!
Isreal was a type of the church to come, but the fullness of it was at time of the Messiah.
Everyone recognises dispensations.....just not all of the 7 classic ones.
Some will mock the literal because they react to the literalist explaining away what can be perceived as spiritual truth.....for example....
Do you believe Jesus is the new exodus?
That term is not clearly spoken of as such although the term exodus is used of our spirit departing from our body.
Again....it would not disturb me at all if it happened exactly as the premill scheme is laid out.
Literalists do indeed see the necessity to take into account genres and figures of speech!
If the 1000 years of Rev. 20 is a figure of speech, why is it repeated six times in the chapter? That is not how figures of speech are presented in literature. So, that means that if you take the 1000 years as a figure of speech, you have to prove how it is one six times in a row. Got any proofs? What type of figure of speech is it?
Last edited:
Could a literal white horse breathe in outer space?
Would it move very slow so it did not burn up on re-entry? Or would it be a supernatural "white horse"....like a hologram?
John.....does Satan get bound by a literal chain like we can buy at Ace hardware?
Or is the "image" of a chain convey an idea that whatever is necessary to bind a Spirit is used to limit the activity of the spirit?
- Status