Revelation: A Cyclical View

[Chaps]

What happens if an interpretation of Revelation has a combination of two views.

That is, a past fulfillment and a future fulfillment?

Partial Preterism is exactly that.

So much for four views of Revelation.

Well, I’m not the one who has written books or categorized the various views…im sure partial preterism would get lumped in as a form of preterism. As you know, everyone seems to have their own slant on a book like Revelation so im sure someone could argue there are a million views on revelation. But, the point of categorizing views for the sake of simplicity, these are the four categories scholars over the decades discuss. Don’t shoot the messenger

 

[Inquisitor]

Thanks for the reply. This is what I believe as well. I wasn't really asking for my sake.

Nor was I telling you for your sake.

 

[Inquisitor]

It's obvious to some. While I have your attention, how would you outline very briefly the book of Revelation?...if you are so disposed.

You won't have my attention for very long, I have a short attention span.

My view of Revelation has mostly Partial Preterism, a dab of Historicism, a dose of Idealism, and finally a little Futurism on top.

My view is the only correct view.

 

[Cameron143]

You won't have my attention for very long, I have a short attention span.

My view of Revelation has mostly Partial Preterism, a dab of Historicism, a dose of Idealism, and finally a little Futurism on top.

My view is the only correct view.

Do you have a breakdown of the book of Revelation...like an outline? If so, can you share?

 

[Inquisitor]

Do you have a breakdown of the book of Revelation...like an outline? If so, can you share?

I dare not release an alternate interpretation of the book of Revelation.

I might generate yet another interpretation in eschatology.

What happens If I am wrong?

To push an interpretation in eschatology is a very serious matter.

I prefer just to ask questions.

I can poke holes in viewpoints in eschatology without bearing the penalty.
For proclaiming an erroneous eschatology that may be misleading Christians.

 

[Cameron143]

I dare not release an alternate interpretation of the book of Revelation.

I might generate yet another interpretation in eschatology.

What happens If I am wrong?

To push an interpretation in eschatology is a very serious matter.

I prefer just to ask questions.

I can poke holes in viewpoints in eschatology without bearing the penalty.
For proclaiming an erroneous eschatology that may be misleading Christians.

The book of Revelation isn't meant to be daunting. In fact, it was written to bless and comfort its hearers in a daunting time.
I asked because we understand most doctrine similarly and I thought you might share something I haven't considered.

 

[Chaps]

You used scripture but everyone does. What I said is your claims have no scriptural support. The scripture used did not support the claim.

Not sure how you can say that. The passage literally only depicts the millennium as the “binding of Satan” and indicates he is unable to deceive the nations.

I pointed to multiple NT passages that speak of the truth of the Gospel being preached while Jesus is casting out demons. Jesus, himself, refers to his casting out demons as proof of his ability to “bind the strong man.”
And I pointed to Jesus telling his disciples that he was giving them the keys to the kingdom by which they could bind things on earth and heaven and the gates of Hell would not be able to stand against his Church.

So if you can’t see that there is scriptural support to the idea that preaching the gospel of the kingdom is directly linked to Jesus’ miracles, “binding Satan” and the means by which the Church would “bind“ and raid the gates of Hell, then I dont know what to tell you.

I understand if you believe you have a more plausible explaination of the text (which I would like to hear), but to say my view has NO Scriptural support is silly. Seems like a pretty straight forward explanation. Being “unable to deceive the nations” and Christ’s command for the Church “make disciples of all nations” through the preaching of the Gospel isn’t an outlandish connection.

Again, Rev. 20 says NOTHING about Israel, one-world governments, Antichrist, the Temple, the earthly rule of Jesus or most things futurists attribute to this period. It ONLY says that Satan could not deceive the nations and those who experience the first resurrection would not have to fear the second death. So, I’d argue my view is one of the few views that looks only at the text itself rather than injecting and inferring all kinds of ideas not stated in the text of Rev. 20.

 

[ewq1938]

Except Again, Rev. 20 says NOTHING about Israel, one-world governments, Antichrist, the Temple, the earthly rule of Jesus or most things futurists attribute to this period. It ONLY says that Satan could not deceive the nations and those who experience the first resurrection would not have to fear the second death. So, I’d argue my view is one of the few views that looks only at the text itself rather than injecting and inferring all kinds of ideas not stated in the text of Rev. 20.

Except there is zero support for the chain used to bind satan being the gospel, not to mention the imprisonment in the pit which follows the binding which usually is ignored by Amill.

The start of Rev 20 is definitely set on the Earth because it is the Earthly nations that would be ruled over after the events of Armagedón were over, Rev 19 and the verb RULE in the future tense so it happens AFTER Armageddon.

 

[Chaps]

Except there is zero support for the chain used to bind satan being the gospel, not to mention the imprisonment in the pit which follows the binding which usually is ignored by Amill.

The start of Rev 20 is definitely set on the Earth because it is the Earthly nations that would be ruled over after the events of Armagedón were over, Rev 19 and the verb RULE in the future tense so it happens AFTER Armageddon.

I never said the “chain” was the gospel. I said that the purpose of his binding was so that he could not ”deceive the nations.” The preaching of the Gospel presents people with the truth so that those who are captive in sin can be set free. If you are trying to associate specific meanings to the “chain” and the “pit” and so forth than I would say you are the one that is imposing meaning on the text. I am allowing the Bible to define its own terms. The binding of Satan is explained in detail in both in Rev 20 as well as in the Gospels. It has everything to do with people’s ability to hear truth or lies. You are the one importing ideas into the meaning of the chains, pits, and so forth. So, in my opinion, I am the one using Scripture, you are the one importing ideas from the 21st century that have nothing to do with what the Bible actually says.

So the “keys” to the Kingdom the Church has or the “chain” used to bind Satan are metaphors. It’s not that “this means that.” It’s that an image is being use to convey an idea. The ”keys” of the kingdom communicate the ability to open or lock something. Jesus is telling the disciples they have the ability to bind the work of the enemy and loose captives. We dont have to associate one for one associates. That is known as allegory and is usually fraught with errors as people seek to associate every item in a vision or parable with a specific hidden meaning.

 

[Chaps]

For clarity sake, I will put it like this.

Binding of Satan in Gospels = Jesus‘ displaying his power and the presence of his kingdom which sets captives free. Jesus tells his disciples they would have the keys to advance that kingdom, binding and loosing as well, showing that the kingdom was present and people are set free who enter it (the Church).

Binding of Satan in Revelation = Satan unable to deceive the nations and during that period, the “resurrected” dont have to fear hell.

Seems to me like both are saying the same thing and I’m not adding any ideas to the text. Just letting the passages speak for themselves. Utilizing allegory to implement meaning into individual objects has always been an interpretive method prone to error as anyone can associate any meaning they desire. And those meanings tend to change daily based on the daily news. That is eisegesis, not exegesis, and not a proper way to interpret the Bible, imo.

 

[ewq1938]

I never said the “chain” was the gospel. I said that the purpose of his binding was so that he could not ”deceive the nations.”

That is accomplished by the imprisonment in the pit which makes it impossible to reach the nations to deceive them. The binding is to make him unable to move even insider the pit. A modern equivalent is a straight jacket or being hogtied.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Much of the futuristic views of Revelation that are popular today (most notably Dispensational Premillenialism) were not formulated until the 18th century and based upon the fever dream of a young girl…

Dave MacPherson traces its crucial component, the secret rapture idea, to a feverish vision by a Scottish teenager named Margaret Macdonald in 1830. This idea was almost immediately integrated into the budding dispensational theology being systematized by the early Plymouth Brethren leader, John Nelson Darby. - Cottrell

I hate to be the one to say this... but your research is majorly flawed on this point ^ (and has been thoroughly "debunked" here at CC--perhaps do a "Search"?--and elsewhere)...


... I'm surprised that @ewq1938 hasn't brought up this fact yet Note: even though he and I have differing "rapture-timing" views, we completely agree that what I bolded in your post above, as well as the quote about D. MacPherson's book and the info he supplied therein [also bolded] about it, is incorrect.


Check it out!





[I'll try to come back later, when I get some free time, to address some of the points in the OP. Somehow I missed this thread. ]

 

[Nehemiah6]

I hate to be the one to say this... but your research is majorly flawed on this point ^ (and has been thoroughly "debunked" here at CC--perhaps do a "Search"?--and elsewhere)...

It is really amazing how some Christians simply regurgitate the nonsense that has already been debunked.

 

[Chaps]

I hate to be the one to say this... but your research is majorly flawed on this point ^ (and has been thoroughly "debunked" here at CC--perhaps do a "Search"?--and elsewhere)...


... I'm surprised that @ewq1938 hasn't brought up this fact yet Note: even though he and I have differing "rapture-timing" views, we completely agree that what I bolded in your post above, as well as the quote about D. MacPherson's book and the info he supplied therein [also bolded] about it, is incorrect.


Check it out!





[I'll try to come back later, when I get some free time, to address some of the points in the OP. Somehow I missed this thread. ]

Could you point to some references? I’d be happy to look at published literature rather than searching online forums where anyone can say anything. I’m not trying to be obtuse, I tend to trust people who do research for a living and have their work backed by reputable publishers. The author I quoted has a PhD, wrote dozens of books and was published by several very reputable publishers.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The author I quoted has a PhD, wrote dozens of books and was published by several very reputable publishers.

But he had no spiritual insight. This is not a secular matter.

 

[Chaps]

But he had no spiritual insight. This is not a secular matter.

And who are you to judge that? To dismiss someone who has spent countless hours studying the Bible and the history of the church and has led churches for decades because you sit as judge over them and declare them to have “no spiritual insight” is ridiculous. Besides, this is either a historical fact or it is not. It has little to do with ”spiritual insight.”

 

[ewq1938]

Could you point to some references? I’d be happy to look at published literature rather than searching online forums where anyone can say anything. I’m not trying to be obtuse, I tend to trust people who do research for a living and have their work backed by reputable publishers. The author I quoted has a PhD, wrote dozens of books and was published by several very reputable publishers.

Dave MacPherson wrote a book that blamed Margaret McDonald for starting the pre-trib doctrine. In the book he presented Margaret’s vision, except he removed two parts of it. The two removed sentences were, "This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus" and "The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept". Obviously her vision is post-trib with the antichrist persecuting the Church.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Dave MacPherson wrote a book that blamed Margaret McDonald for starting the pre-trib doctrine. In the book he presented Margaret’s vision, except he removed two parts of it. The two removed sentences were, "This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus" and "The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept". Obviously her vision is post-trib with the antichrist persecuting the Church.

Right (re: her supposed vision). In past posts I supplied some LINKS taking one to this information... (plus some fuller quotes).

@Chaps -- check it out to see what documents those LINKS have supplied (scroll down to see "references" also: Hommel; Wilkinson; Norton). Thanks!

Post #123 - https://christianchat.com/threads/t...a-sick-and-deranged-woman.190422/post-4175367



Hope this helps. = )

 

[Nehemiah6]

And who are you to judge that?

The very fact that he has given false information means that EVERYONE is free to judge that. Beware of false teachers.

 

[Slimsumo]

Right. My view is this “binding of Satan” is a metaphor which refers to his inability to deceive the nations due to the preaching of the Gospel. The text is not saying that Satan and his demonic forces are unable to do anything or are completely inactive in the world, but simply that they are restrained in their ability to deceive the nations as they once were. I think the visual applies to Satan and all his capabilities (demonic forces, etc), not just him personally.

I hope that makes sense.

This view is the only possible view that makes sense regarding the rest of the New Testament, where its so plain and simple, Jesus returns and this age ends and the eternal age begins.

Sheep or Goat
Wheat or Tare
Eternal glory or eternal damnation

No middle line, no one surviving in the flesh, no one will inherit the kingdom in the flesh as the Bible teaches.