# literial, but



## thistle93 (Feb 12, 2011)

Hi! I find it interesting there are many of those out there who raise a stink against amillennialism and how we must take the Bible literal but when you get to passages that deal with the sovereignty of God and passages that use words like elected, chosen, predestined, many of them are the very ones that want to reinterpret the plain meaning of those words so they will fit into their theological presuppositions. I think we need to lovingly call people on this because they might not see they are just as guilty of the very exact thing they are accusing others of. Any thoughts?

Thank you!

For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 12, 2011)

In all honesty, going to the "literal" argument never works. I have seen people bring this point up and I have pointed it out as well. I have yet to convince someone that they pick and choose when to be literal or that amil guys are literal interpreters. They have preconceived ideas in their head and just run with it. Anything that slams against what they have been learning in Sunday School for 40 years is seen as goofy and in some cases cultic.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 12, 2011)

I disagree. When I first met a kind calvinist when I was 13 who showed me predestination from the Bible, he might have thought he wasted his time with me. Five years later I realized he was right and I needed to let the Bible say what it says even if I wasn't comfortable with it.

By all means point the discrepancy out charitably. You just never know.


----------



## Philip (Feb 12, 2011)

Fact is, no one interprets the Bible _literally_ and no one should. Instead we should interpret _literarily_, that is, we should treat poetry as poetry, apocalyptic lit as apocalyptic (and therefore highly symbolic and cryptic in character), history as history, didactic as didactic, etc.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 12, 2011)

My apologies I just had a brain fart. I read the OP and in my mind went down a rabbit trail about DTS. My post was in response to my rabbit trail about showing the literal interpretation of Scripture to prove the amil position. 

I agree with austin. I was converted by someone showing me the word "predestination" in the Bible (which shows how much Bible knowledge I had) and the rest is history.


----------



## Jack K (Feb 12, 2011)

thistle93 said:


> Hi! I find it interesting there are many of those out there who raise a stink against amillennialism and how we must take the Bible literal but when you get to passages that deal with the sovereignty of God and passages that use words like elected, chosen, predestined, many of them are the very ones that want to reinterpret the plain meaning of those words so they will fit into their theological presuppositions. I think we need to lovingly call people on this because they might not see they are just as guilty of the very exact thing they are accusing others of. Any thoughts?
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> ...



I think your idea of showing how no one consistently takes every part of Scripture literally (nor should they) may be a good one. But if your goal is to convince them that the amil position is feasable, I don't see why you'd choose to bring predestination into it. That'll just open yet another can of worms and likely make them more defensive.

Philip is right that we ought to interpret Scripture according to its genre. But to say this makes many people very nervous. They'd actually rather go ahead and be wrong about their eschatology than allow any talk about non-literal interpretations, fearing such talk will inevitably lead to bad stuff like reading the gospels as allegory. Well, their concerns have some merit. So we have to show them how it actually isn't dangerous to treat apocalyptic passages apocalyptically.

I think I'd just engage them straight from Revelation and ask if they believe Satan truly is a seven-headed dragon or if that's symbolic imagery. If they believe that's symbolic, yet they can still believe that Jesus being the Son of God is something to take literally, then good! That's correct interpretation. So why can't I believe the thousand years are symbolic? It's consistent with how we treat the dragon, and it really doesn't threaten core doctrines the way people fear it might. In fact, if we insist all Scripture must be interpreted the same way (literally) _that's_ when we threaten our core doctrines. Because then the depiction of Satan as a seven-headed dragon and the assertion that Jesus is the Son of God must both be treated the same way. Bad idea.

Anyway, the key is to show that properly interpreting some passages non-literally is necessary for preserving orthodoxy rather than being a threat to it.

(And, yes, I realize the most thoughtful dispesationalists have a convoluted answer to the dragon scenario I posed. But I think your typical the-Bible-must-be-taken-literally guy might respond to it.)


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 12, 2011)

Many of the passages that deal with God's decree, predestination, election, etc, are more "straightforward" than the book of Revelation which must be dealt with in terms of its symbols.

Dispensationalism has a lot to answer for.


----------

