19 Votes and counting… Click here or in the sidebar if you would like to join in. Feel free to comment as well.
If you need definitions for the terms below then check out this previous post.
Click here if you would like to tour our gallery of Christian kitsch.
Dispensational Premillenial 11% (2 votes)
One of the ‘other’ votes is basically an ‘undecided’ between the first three choices, the other ‘other’ vote is for Hope/Kingdom eschatology which I think [if the voter is referring to the popular notion of 'Hope" theology] would be a kind of Marxist postmillenialism.
Well I know you’ve been waiting for it! Here’s more Christian kitsch!
Disclaimer: To any who might be offended by visual representations of the rapture: We are not making fun of the doctrine of the rapture…we are making fun of PICTURES of the docrine of the rapture.
February 23, 2008 at 2:53 am
What I can’t believe is how many are voting A-millenial. This comes from a lack of understanding of Scripture, or should I say a “spritualization” of scripture.
February 23, 2008 at 9:57 am
Hi Adam, thanks for the comment!
I have been surprised by the amill vote as well, although I know that there has been a real resurgence of this form of eschatology in recent times.
Of course you know that amills would charge you with the same “lack of understanding of Scripture” according to their own hermeneutic. The same could be said of any differing branches of Bible interpretation.
Being raised dispensationalist, I’m pretty sure I already know what you mean by the “spiritualization of Scripture”, but for the benefit of our reading audience would you mind defining the term?
March 1, 2008 at 11:33 pm
What I mean by “spiritualization of Scripture” is fairly simple. This is when a person takes a plain piece of scripture which essentially has no symbolism, and they turn this into a symbolized piece of scripture. If one uses Occam’s Razor(This is often paraphrased as “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam’s razor is usually understood.) when interpreting scripture. The bible is pretty clear on when a symbol is being used as in Matthew 24:27. Where Christs return is equated/symbolized by lightning from the east being visible from the west.
Granted there are many pieces of scripture that use symbolism, however most of the bible is written plainly and should be interpreted as such. We should only use symbolism in interpreting scripture when the scripture plainly calls for this and we also need to ensure that any symbolism that we interpret does not contradict any other piece of scripture.
March 2, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Thanks for the clarification. That’s what I thought you meant.
I think that this is the first time that I have ever seen Ockham’s Razor used outside of metaphysics or epistemology. It seems to make for an interesting principle of hermeneutics. In many ways it could be equated with the old saying, “all things being equal, if the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.” Of course this is principle doesn’t always work.
I think (just to push back a little) the amillenialist (and no,I’m not one as I’m still studying things out) would respond that even a cursory reading of many of the ‘Messianic” Psalms reveal that they became so after the fact. Many of these Psalms were written by David and referred specifically to the crises that he was facing at the moment; portions were later quoted by the four evangelists (and even Jesus) to apply to the Messiah.
Indeed Christ and the apostles often quoted the Hebrew Scriptures with apparent disregard to their grammatical-historical context – not with the gusto of, say, Origen or Augustine of course – but nonetheless…
And then you have portions of Scripture where direct allegorization is used. Paul does this a few times in Romans and Galatians; specifically in regard to Isaac and Ishmael.
This is not to say that I think that we should interpret the Bible allegorically. The NT authors were divinely inspired of course. I’m just not so sure about the modern emphasis on strict literalism. As a matter of fact, some genres of Scripture are symbolic in their very essence. Like the apocalyptic style of Revelation. I have heard some crazy interpretations of that book to say the least (think choppers, nukes, and diabolical bar codes).
Speaking from experience, I think people raised in a dispensational milieu often imbibe a suspicion of all things symbolic with their mother’s milk. The Bible is literature after all, and Christians often miss important spritual truths that are bound up within the very literary style of the text. I’m not advocating anything like rampant spiritualization, I just wish that their was more thoughtfulness in regard to these matters.
Thanks for the comment and clarification Adam! Stop by anytime!
And so my book ends here.
March 4, 2008 at 3:35 am
Glad to offer my perception on the Bible as I see it, and I suppose I offered my perception of how many people tend to take away the literal essence of the scriptures. I agree with you in the fact that many parts of scripture hold vast symbolic meaning and to deny these is to deny oneself another view into God’s Word.
I suppose I should clarify myself a little bit more as well. I don’t think that a solely literal interpretation of scripture is the only way that we can interpret it. In my case I use a literal interpretation to form the structure or the foundation for any meaning I may take from the Bible. If there is symbolism used in any way it must complement the literal meaning of Scripture and not contradict any part of Scripture. I think it’s important for us to read the Scriptures ourselves prayerfully and see what God points out to us that is complementary to Scripture. It can be helpful to examine others viewpoints or interpretations of scripture so long as they do not contradict the Scriptures in any way. These other perceptions can aid us in our own personal views on God’s Word and His divine will in our lives. I think we also must remember that only the original manuscripts were “perfect” and that through editing and translation errors of interpretation, language, logic, etc have been introduced into the Bible by men. Sometimes a translation or version that we read can affect how we view the Scriptures and God. With all this taken into account we can then come to a well rounded scriptural view of God and His will in life and our lives.
Just as a side note though, I think sometimes we place too much emphasis on these “less important” issues to our salvation as we probably should. Whether or not we all agree that Christ will personally return to reign on earth with us should not stop us from being united in Christ as brothers and sisters in faith.
I also should note that I am no theologian, nor have I any degree or expertise in theology or biblical history/translation…etc. I am just a regular Joe, who wants to know what His will is for my life and what His plan is. I want to please Him alone, and glorify His name above all else. Everyday I discover something new in God’s character or His will through the Scriptures and I pray that I will always continue to learn from His word.
It is my prayer that we all as bible believing Christians can unite(in spirit) under the essential tenants of our faith and work for the glory of God alone.
March 4, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Thanks Adam, I’m happy to see that you are in the ranks of the thoughtful.
I appreciate that fact that you distinguish between essentials and nonessentials in regards to your theology. There is far too much heat and far too little light being produced on too many subjects that are incidental to a saving relationship with Chirst. Not to say that these things are unimportant, just that there should be much more humility demonstrated by those who approach them.
I think our desire to know Christ and glorify God is exactly proportional to how we address these issues.