But shouldn't we interpret the Bible spiritually instead of literally?

I have never denied there are figures of speech in Scripture, but I've also often said they always represent something literal. Notice in Revelation how the writing about one of the beast's horns begins calling that horn "he".

 

The desire to "spiritualize' is mostly by preterists who can't support their doctrine with history.

 

Why not? Ya think Jesus was telling a tall tale?

 

Why not? John didn't know what they look or sound like, what a MG is, or what the crew might wear.

 

Cuz ya uaually can't answer them coherently.

Yeah, seemingly sure it's already been completely fulfilled.

Boy! Someone sure fed you a crock!

 

Please explain your thinking

 

Born again believers live in the real spiritual realm. Prophecy relates to that invisible realm.
Those who insist on "literal" fulfilment are concerned with the physical, carnal realm.

1 Cor. 3:And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.​

 

which person on here?

 

Not really Covenanter. The bread and grape juice (or wine) we use for the Lord's Supper is both literal (molecular) and symbolic of greater spiritual truths and that requested of our LORD - in remembrance of me -.

I find that a blend of literal and symbolic interpretation of the scripture makes the most and best sense IMO.

We keep debating the horse. Can God make a horse that can traverse from the (x,y,z) coordinates (if indeed heaven is somewhere in the material universe - which I don't think so) of the universe? of course.

But rather in my view the LORD coming on a white horse speaks of His return to earth when we see Jesus coming in glory as LORD of lords and King of kings.

If and when I see the white horse I will immediately repent.

HankD

 

This is an extremely poor example of reductio ad absurdum.

Why would an actual white horse be an abasement? And a temple made by hands? FYI, the "temple made with hands" (do you mean the "temple made without hands" statement?) statement occurs only in Mark 14:58 in a statement made by false witnesses (v. 57) against Christ. So here you are, quoting a statement by false witnesses as being what Christ actually said.

 

Robertson was ruled by his theology and his hermeneutic method when he interpreted he Greek. However, he clearly showed the limitations of allegorical interpretation when he wrote about Rev. 20:2--"For a thousand years (chilia etê). Accusative of extent of time. Here we confront the same problem found in the 1260 days. In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one."

Unlike most allegorical interpreters here on the BB, he was honest enough to show his confusion about the 1000 years, and his realization that his method of hermeneutics produced many different views about the 1000 years. He also shows his hermeneutic confusion elsewhere in the chapter, when he writes about Satan's defeat in v. 3, "Glorious relief after the strain of the previous visions of conflict. Small wonder that Christians today cherish this blessed hope whatever the actual meaning may be."

He was ruled by his amil theology so that he could not accept a literal millennium. However, being the great exegete that he was, he admitted confusion about the millennium in his comments on v. 5--"I sympathize wholly with that comment and confess my own ignorance therefore as to the meaning of the symbolism without any predilections for post-millennialism or premillennialism."

Yes, unfortunately the Internet has turned into a tool for people to spread their nonsense about a doctrine which had been dormant for many years--preterism. (I know, that's not "an encouraging word." ) But I'm glad you're learning anyway.

 

Your "generalizations" are vicious.

This simply shows that you know virtually nothing about dispensationalism. It also shows your nastiness clearly. You said, "If you are an honest man...." That presupposes that I am probably not honest. You just can't hold back the nastiness, can you? Your attitude is a great proof against your position, so please, by all means, keep it up.

When I teach a two week block class on it beginning in January, one thing the students will learn is the five OT dispensations. In fact, they will have to know them and explain them for the final exam. Far from ignoring the OT, dispensational theology explains it carefully. And your idea that the past dispensations are irrelevant in dispensationalism could not be further from the truth.

There will also be a lecture in the class (originally put together by my PhD son for me) on the relevance of Israel (which the OT is all about) to the NT. I suggest you read a genuine theology of dispensationalism before you spout more error about it.

P. S. Also, there is a ton of unfulfilled prophecy in the OT, and we dispensationalists are all about unfulfilled prophecy.

 

I saw nothing to answer because (1) you did not really answer the post of mine quoted in the OP, which you also quoted, and (2) you said that my view "leads to heresy." Why should I answer that ridiculous false charge?

 

We need to know what we are discussing & I think we are at cross purposes.

There is no disagreement in principle on aspects like symbols, types, metaphors, other figurative language, etc. We agree that the figures are ways of expressing real truths, real concepts. And I'm happy for white horses to safely graze among the sheep in green pastures.

The question as I see it is a matter of interpretation of the OT prophecies, & "literal" or "spiritual" applies primarily to the realm & people in which they are fulfilled. Physical or spiritual, national ethnic Israel or the Church.

@John of Japan & @TCassidy have emphasised the physical to the extent that Jesus cannot leave heaven spiritually as that would mean leaving his body, & the body without the spirit is dead. The hypostatic union would be violated. And that the prophesied Kingdom (Mediatorial Kingdom?) requires the personal, physical presence of Messiah as a human being reigning over Israel in the flesh.

Whether that represents a valid literal interpretation of OT prophecy requires a careful study, grammatical, historical interpretation with a view to establish the extent of the fulfilment by the Babylonian destruction & exile & the return & rebuilding.

I think most would agree that the prophecies go way beyond the literal, physical restoration & rebuilding, & that a Messianic fulfilment is intended.

The question then becomes, is a literal, physical Kingdom prophesied, only commencing after Jesus returns to establish a future millennial Kingdom? Only after the millennium will the dead be raised for final judgment, after which the NH&NE will begin.
or
Is a spiritual Kingdom with King Jesus living spiritually in the hearts & lives with his born again, redeemed people prophesied, operating presently throughout the Gospel age? When Jesus returns, he will raise & judge all the dead & establish the eternal NH&NE.

That discussion may need a new thread.

 

Baptist pastor Morgan Edwards addressed this. From his work Res Sacrae (1742):

"my text, 'The saints shall reign with Christ [on earth] a thousand years.' Other texts say, that all 'kingdoms and dominions under the whole heaven shall be given to the saints.' (Dan. Vii-- 18. 27): That the saints 'shall judge men and angels.' (1 Cor. vi, 2. 3). Miserable work do the Antimillenarians make of these texts. And as miserable of the following; 'When the son of man shall sit on his throne, ye [my twelve disciples] shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes Israel.' (Matt. xix. 28). 'I appoint unto you a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom.' (Luke xxii. 29, 30.) 'Hence forth I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my father's kingdom.' (Mat. xxvi. 29.) 'To sit on my right hand and on my left [in my kingdom] is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my father.' (Matt. xx.23). 'The meek shall inherit the earth." (Matt. v, 5. 'Thy kingdom come' &c. (Matt. vi. 10) Literal millennarianism alone will do justice to these texts and many others"

"Another event prior to the Millennium is the binding of Satan and shutting him up in the abyss for a thousand years (Rev. xx. 1, 2, 3.). An event this long foreseen and dreaded by the devils (Matth viii. 29.). Poor work do the Antimillenarians or spiritualizing Millenarians (who are much the same) make of this matter: They say that the devil was bound when Christ came in the flesh; because (surfeit) oracles were silenced, and possessions checked: but if the Devil has not been loose these thousand years past, and for seven hundred and forty–two years besides, he never was loose in his life."

 

I didn't say your view. What I wrote was -

Is that your view? Or is it what other dispensationalists have taught? If you don't answer, how can I know what you believe?

 

This is not rocket science. Over and over on these prophecy threads I have stood for grammatical-historical interpretation, which is the literal view. I find it to be disingenuous for you to pretend you don't know that I am a iiteralist, and thus would be a heretic according to your post. (And yes, I believe in a literal millennial temple and animal sacrifice. How in the world is that heresy?)

 

And yet a locust isn't a chopper. So no one really takes Revelation literally.

 

LOL. You're the ones calling into question Christ's veracity:

My kingdom is not of this world.