OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Sadly:tear: you are absolutely correct!
-
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!
Go figure
- Thread starter SaggyWoman
- Start date
Sadly:tear: you are absolutely correct!
This is an unfair statement.
One could say the same thing concerning the allegorization of the Scripture by many non-dispensationalists.
The natural conclusion of allegorizing the Scripture ends in neo-orthodoxy. With allegory I can make the Scripture fit whatever pattern suits me.
So I can also say:
When you start allegorizing the Scripture where do you stop?
Or, when you start treating prophetic Scripture as metaphorical where do you stop?
Do we not all divide the Scripture starting with distiguishing between the Old Testament and The New? Do we not all divide the Scripture concerning the Second Coming?
The reality is that we are to "rightly" divide the Scripture.
Admitedly we don't all get it right.
The way we often treat each other for our differences is more worthy of a teary face than the content of those difference (IMO).
HankD
Your point is well taken and I would agree with you. Allegorizing of scripture is usually not very helpful, but always interesting!
I follow one basic rules, what did it mean the original hearers. Following that rule alone dispensationalism quickly falls to the wayside.
Sorry you are getting all teary eyed, but I have been accused of not being a Christian and not believing the Bible all because I didn't follow Darby's scheme. Just have to develop tougher skin I guess
I follow one basic rules, what did it mean the original hearers. Following that rule alone dispensationalism quickly falls to the wayside.
Sorry you are getting all teary eyed, but I have been accused of not being a Christian and not believing the Bible all because I didn't follow Darby's scheme. Just have to develop tougher skin I guess
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
i know I shouldn't mentioned that name, misspelled though it was!
Then you must not much about dispensationalism do you?
If we are to understand as the original hearers then we must conclude, as they did and for the first 350+ of Church history, that Jesus was coming back and setting up an earthly Kingdom to reign for a 1000 years also known as Chiliasm or Premillennialism .
He wasn't, he was commenting on the tearing eyes of someone who was agreeing with you.
Secondly, it has been proven time and again that Darby did not start originate Dispensationalism any more than John Calvin did the Reformed doctrines. Dispensationalism is founded upon early church doctrines known as premillennialism and, as stated above by Justin Martyr, was considered the orthodox view of the church.
Dispensationalism is nothing more than an addition to that doctrine in general but the core and foundation of this belief is rooted and indeed part of the early churches doctrines and indeen the main doctrine concerning end times for the fist 350+ years of the church.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Who is allegorizing Ccripture today?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
It has never been proven that Darby is not the father of dispensationalism and can't be for the simple reason that he is. Furthermore, historic premillennialism has much more in commoon with Covenant Theology than Dispensationalism. The only belief that historic premillennialism shares with dispensationalism is the belief in a literal earthly millennial reign though even there they differ as to who is dominant, the Church or Israel.
Actully I have, and specifically to you, in the other denominations threads where I should the view going back even up to 250+ years earlier. Here are some examples of those who held and proclaimed a pre-trib view BEFORE 1830 (other than John Darby 1800-1882)
Joseph Mede (1586-1638);
Edward Bickersteth (1786-1850);
James H. Frere (1779-1866);
William Cuninghame (1775-1849); amoung various others.
In another thread as well I used your own source here (by George Eldon Ladd) to prove to you that premils did in fact hold to a distinction between Israel and the Churhc. physical Israel is known will be God's people and they will be evangelized in/during the Mil-reign. We as the Church will rule and reign with Christ.
And no, historic premil does not compare with Covenant. The only thing they hold similar is in the sub-group of Amills that hold to a post-trib rapture and that is about as far as it went. However what the premiils share with respect to dispensationalism is this:
* There will be an earthly reign of Jesus Christ for approximately one thousand years. tThough some understand the thousand years to represent a substantial but indefinite period of time the majority did not. This reign will be personal and bodily. Believers will reign with Christ for this period.
* Prior to the millennium, there will be a period of turmoil, persecution, and suffering called the Great Tribulation. The world will be at its worst.
* There will be a literal person who will be the Anti-Christ as a world ruler
* The millennium will not begin gradually. It will begin with a cataclysmic event prior to the mil-reign.
* The millennium will be a time of world peace and harmony. Nature will be freed from its curse.
* There will be two literal physical resurrections.
* The nation of Israel will have some special significance in the millennium.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi OR,
I believe it was you who had a debate with me concerning the topic of creation and Genesis 1.
Many believers today follow after the view that the Genesis 1 account of creation is an allegory:
There are other areas as well: The Flood of Noah for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
HankD
Last edited:
Indeed.
I would rather say - what did it mean to the Holy Spirit as He moved the human authors to write?
I wasn't getting teary eyed but simply commenting on someone who already had an emoticon shedding tears. I implied that if I were to get teary eyed it would be because of the way we treat each other concerning our differences rather than the actual content of the differences.
Darby was a relative latecomer to modern dispensationalism.
As has been stated, modern dispensationalism has not always gone under that title. The revival of modern dispensationalism/futurism/chialism goes back to a jesuit priest Francisco Ribera (1537-1591). The word "rapture" is a morphed word which comes from his use of the Latin Vulgate rapiemur which translates from the Greek harpazo (caught up) of 1 Thessalonians 4:17.
The root elements of modern dispensationalism go back to the early church as has already been shown.
There are many schools of thought and variations in dispensationalism just as there are with other areas of systematic theology.
Someone mentioned calvinism as an example. The elements of which precede Calvin. Also, I daresay that some calvinists would object to infralapsarianism as erroneous (as opposed to supralapsarianism - as an example and vice versa).
The point being that there are significant variations in dispensationalism
and a long history of development under different nomenclatures just as there are in many other systematic studies of the Scriptures.
To lump every dispensationalist under the Darby umbrella is not accurate just as labeling every calvinist as a 5 pointer is not accurate.
Rather, each point of modern dispensationalism should be scrutinized as has often been done here at the BB.
One example was the protracted debate that OR and others had concerning whether Jesus offered an earthly Kingdom to Israel as some have taught.
My contention as a dispensationist was that Israel already had possession of the Kingdom, though the Romans had conquered them and they could not exercise that commission as under David and Solomon.
Jesus said the Kingdom of God is at hand not that it was to be given at this time, in fact He later said it would be taken away from the current leadership.
This is an example only and not meant to start up that debate again.
The example showing that again there are variations, not everyone follows after every jot and title of Darby, Scofield, Gabelein, Walvoord etc.
In my experience it is the same with preterism, partial preterism, amillenialism, etc.
After all we are Baptists (soul liberty being a distinctive).
HankD
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
We did not debate Genesis 1 or the Flood of Noah unless you believe they are allegorical.
OK I guess it was someone else. I hold to a young earth creationists view. I believe the flood of Noah was global.
So in answer to your question as to who is allegorizing Scripture these are at least two areas in which modern Christianity views Scripture (at least in thiese areas) as allegorical.
Many also view the Book of Revelation as a book of allegories.
HankD
Allegories are usually hidden messages within the text. I don't think there is anything allegorical about Revelation, pretty clear what is going to happen. I believe it is apocalyptic, written in a specific style/ genre to encourage the believers of that day and today that though things may look bad now, in the end Jesus returns as conquering judge to bring to an ultimate conclusion what was begun earlier. It really is a picture of victory for the believer.
Interesting enough, it is the dispensational school that often uses allegorical methods in understanding Revelation. Fire from heaven as nuclear bombs, UPC codes as the mark of the beast, picking and choosing empires while skipping over others to fit the statue in Daniel, counting up letters from people's name to "reveal" the anti-christ again and again as the last guy dies. Seven hills as Rome or New York or wherever seven hills are popping out of the ground.
Interesting enough, it is the dispensational school that often uses allegorical methods in understanding Revelation. Fire from heaven as nuclear bombs, UPC codes as the mark of the beast, picking and choosing empires while skipping over others to fit the statue in Daniel, counting up letters from people's name to "reveal" the anti-christ again and again as the last guy dies. Seven hills as Rome or New York or wherever seven hills are popping out of the ground.
Marcia
Active Member
Allegory is not hidden messages in the text; rather, an allegory is like a metaphor and/or is symbolic. An allegory's message is pretty plain - a good example would be Pilgrim's Progress.
The above examples you give in your 2nd paragraph are interpretations - it is not allegorizing.
Here is an example of allegorizing a text:
Jesus rebuking the sea and waves means that Jesus calms the storms in our lives.
That is not what the text is about. Jesus may calm the storms in our lives but that is not what that passage is about nor is it its message.
Source
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/allegory.html
From Merriam-Webster:
Last edited by a moderator:
The only way you get to those interpretations is to understand the text to mean something other then what it actually says. To understand them as symbols for something else not understood at the time of the writing of Revelation. It's a bad way to understand Revelation.
There is symbolic language in Revelation but the 1st century hearers understood the symbols, it wasn't mysterious to them To understand fire from the sky as nuclear war is to extend the metaphor beyond it's original intent equating it with meanings outside the narrative itself, to make understand it allegorically according to your posted definitions.
There is symbolic language in Revelation but the 1st century hearers understood the symbols, it wasn't mysterious to them To understand fire from the sky as nuclear war is to extend the metaphor beyond it's original intent equating it with meanings outside the narrative itself, to make understand it allegorically according to your posted definitions.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Our discussion was on the Second Coming and Book of Revelation. Though I do not believe in a strict literal interpretation [such an interpretation is impossible given the symbolism in the book] of the Book of Revelation I do not believe in an allegorical interpretation for the simple reason that there is no limit on such interpretation.
That being said I like the following remarks by John P. Newport [covenant premillennial]. Writing in The Lion and the Lamb [page 38] he quotes Gordon Fee[34] as stating: ....no one should approach Revelation without a proper degree of humility. There are already too many books on ‘Revelation made easy.’ But Revelation is not easy!
I also like the following comments of two prominent dispensationalists regarding the number 666 as recorded by Steve Gregg in his book Revelation, Four Views:
John Nelson Darby, the father of dispensationalism, page 305:
I confess my ignorance as to the number six hundred and sixty-six. I cannot present you with anything satisfactory to myself. We find, answering to the number six hundred and sixty six, the words apostasy and tradition; but I cannot say anything positive on the point.
Arno C. Gaebelein, a prominent dispensational writer early in the 20th century, page 306:
But what does the number 666 mean? If we were to state all the different views on this number and the different applications we would have to fill many pages and then we would not know what is right and wrong. ..... The number 666 signifies man’s day and man’s defiance of God under Satan’s power in its culmination.
Marcia
Active Member
I am not agreeing with nor defending the interpretations. I was merely responding to your statment that an allegory has hidden meaning; it does not.
allegory |ˈaləˌgôrē|
noun ( pl. -ries)
a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one : Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory of the spiritual journey.
• the genre to which such works belong.
• a symbol.
I guess we just have different dictionaries
noun ( pl. -ries)
a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one : Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory of the spiritual journey.
• the genre to which such works belong.
• a symbol.
I guess we just have different dictionaries