The book of Revelation

[PreachTony]

Ok once you start comparing scripture to secular documents then you have a problem. Not a legitimate comparison. The word of God is living, it is powerful, and its truths are timeless.

Rev, at what point did I compare the two documents? I never did. I compared the reactions of those reading them in an attempt to make a point. I believe comparing the reactions of people to the documents is legitimate.

By your own admission the Word of God is living and its truths are timeless, yet part of this discussion has hinged on seeking only original intent. If the Word of God is alive, then what is wrong with allowing the Spirit of God to show us how certain scriptures can apply to our lives today? If the Word of God is living and timeless then why do our interpretations of it have to be limited to the ideals of the author 2000 years ago?

 

[PreachTony]

2Pe_1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

How are you defining "private interpretation?" Because honestly, certain uses of that particular verse could shut down much of Christianity and evangelism. Entire denominations would be forced to close their doors, because they don't subscribe to the "official" or "public" interpretation.

I've always taken that verse to mean that no single human has control over what the Scriptures mean.

 

[Yeshua1]

How are you defining "private interpretation?" Because honestly, certain uses of that particular verse could shut down much of Christianity and evangelism. Entire denominations would be forced to close their doors, because they don't subscribe to the "official" or "public" interpretation.

I've always taken that verse to mean that no single human has control over what the Scriptures mean.

Think that its rather that there has been no prophecy given by God that was just thought up by the person, but that it was inspired by God, and to understand it, one must seek the intended meaning based upon the entire word of God!

The meaning to it is to be found in the bible itself...

 

[Greektim]

For those interested... If you want to hear how an idealist preaches from Rev and not just chapters 2 & 3, I have a sermon that you might enjoy called "Victory in Revelation".

 

[DHK]

How are you defining "private interpretation?" Because honestly, certain uses of that particular verse could shut down much of Christianity and evangelism. Entire denominations would be forced to close their doors, because they don't subscribe to the "official" or "public" interpretation.

I've always taken that verse to mean that no single human has control over what the Scriptures mean.

As Yesua pointed out the original intent of the Scripture must be found first. What did the writer mean to convey? How did his readers understand what he was writing? Without that original intent the Scripture becomes meaningless.
This is where the allegorical method of interpretation fails. They often skip this step.
Having said that, once that original purpose is found, then one may apply the scripture to our present day situations. As it was said: the scriptures are timeless. We have a living Word.

"There is one interpretation but many applications."

When the sciptures say "the Bible is of no private interpretation," the meaning is that one man or group cannot claim an interpretation and force it upon others such as the RCC does today. They are the ones with the private interpretation (though they will deny it). Their interpretation is in the Catechism, and all must abide by it.

Baptsits have soul liberty--the right to believe what the Holy Spirit has led them to be true.
They also believe in the priesthood of the believer--that every person is a priest before God and can thus come straight before the throne of God, individually, without any other mediator.
The two are somewhat connected. As a priest before God he allows the Holy Spirit to lead him into the truths which the Lord teaches him.

But then again, he is constrained by the church that he joins. Every Baptist church ought to have a statement of faith. He must agree to that statement of faith. There is no soul liberty to be exercised there. That statement of faith is what brings unity to the local church. If you disagree with it you need to find a church that you agree with.

 

[Yeshua1]

For those interested... If you want to hear how an idealist preaches from Rev and not just chapters 2 & 3, I have a sermon that you might enjoy called "Victory in Revelation".

Does an idealist look for the second Coming of Jesus, or is it more like a story of good vrs evil?

 

[Yeshua1]

As Yesua pointed out the original intent of the Scripture must be found first. What did the writer mean to convey? How did his readers understand what he was writing? Without that original intent the Scripture becomes meaningless.
This is where the allegorical method of interpretation fails. They often skip this step.
Having said that, once that original purpose is found, then one may apply the scripture to our present day situations. As it was said: the scriptures are timeless. We have a living Word.

"There is one interpretation but many applications."

When the sciptures say "the Bible is of no private interpretation," the meaning is that one man or group cannot claim an interpretation and force it upon others such as the RCC does today. They are the ones with the private interpretation (though they will deny it). Their interpretation is in the Catechism, and all must abide by it.

Baptsits have soul liberty--the right to believe what the Holy Spirit has led them to be true.
They also believe in the priesthood of the believer--that every person is a priest before God and can thus come straight before the throne of God, individually, without any other mediator.
The two are somewhat connected. As a priest before God he allows the Holy Spirit to lead him into the truths which the Lord teaches him.

But then again, he is constrained by the church that he joins. Every Baptist church ought to have a statement of faith. He must agree to that statement of faith. There is no soul liberty to be exercised there. That statement of faith is what brings unity to the local church. If you disagree with it you need to find a church that you agree with.

That can cover almost any doctrine/practice, as many have a peculiar take on what the bible teaches and tries to force that as only legit view, see Mormons/JW/WoF/Hyper Cals/HyperDispy/HyperArms etc!

 

[DHK]

That can cover almost any doctrine/practice, as many have a peculiar take on what the bible teaches and tries to force that as only legit view, see Mormons/JW/WoF/Hyper Cals/HyperDispy/HyperArms etc!

That is true. Baptists in England and other European nations died for the principle of soul liberty, which is basically religious tolerance. It is that principle which brought them over to America.
It is like saying: I may hate the doctrine of the J.W., but I will fight for their right to teach and express it. If they will be shut down, then we will be next.