idealist interpretation?

[nonconformist]

some peaple interpret dan and rev from an idealist perspective this is new to me.I know of 1 postmill idealist and 1 amill idealist what do you guys know and think about this view? do you have any positive or negative criticism?

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by nonconformist
some peaple interpret dan and rev from an idealist perspective this is new to me.I know of 1 postmill idealist and 1 amill idealist what do you guys know and think about this view? do you have any positive or negative criticism?

I think it is definitely true of many passages and applicable to the book of Revelation. I have not read any 'indealist' interpretations of Daniel, so I'm not really aware of their approach to this book.

Positives: very helpful in understanding what is going on in the world. For example, although I would apply the symbols of beast and false prophet, to specific historical individuals, I definitely believe that there is an element that we can identify current State oppressors as beasts, Hussein, Mao, Stalin, etc. I would speak the same way with respect to many of the other passages in Revelation, especially the final 2 ch. Some will simply point this as being part of the 'already-not yet' tension, but I definitely believe the 'new heavens & new earth' have broken into history with the death, buriel and resurrection of Jesus, but their fulfillment/consummation is still future. I like the idealists understanding of this passage.

Negative: this ties in with my hermeneutic, but I see the issues applying to specific individuals and not merely the wrangling b/t good and evil during the church age. It is helpful to identify specif events in Rev. & Dan., so we can properly understand their fulfillment.

openairboy

 

[RamistThomist]

Ditto to what openairboy said.
Idealist interpretations of Revelation provide great sermons and they do shed light on many of the NeoCons activities.
However,
Revelation is laden with time-referents that warn the readers of "soon" "know" etc., thus clinching the partial-preterist position. Rush was an Idealist.

 

[nonconformist]

Positives: very helpful in understanding what is going on in the world. For example, although I would apply the symbols of beast and false prophet, to specific historical individuals, I definitely believe that there is an element that we can identify current State oppressors as beasts, Hussein, Mao, Stalin, etc. I would speak the same way with respect to many of the other passages in Revelation, especially the final 2 ch. Some will simply point this as being part of the 'already-not yet' tension, but I definitely believe the 'new heavens & new earth' have broken into history with the death, buriel and resurrection of Jesus, but their fulfillment/consummation is still future. I like the idealists understanding of this passage.

thats the way i feel about it

 

[nonconformist]

Revelation is laden with time-referents that warn the readers of "soon" "know" etc., thus clinching the partial-preterist position. Rush was an Idealist.

to me that makes a perfect case for par-preterism in my mind, yet i can totally see how you could apply them to other ages like an idealist ,i wonder what rush said about the destruction of jerusalem since i hear he was not a preterist.I wonder how he could possibly reject it?

 

[Fernando]

I agree with much of what has been said already. A preterist hermeneutic keeps us honest on the time indicators and other evidence of specific fulfillment. On the other hand, a dose of Idealism keeps us from seeing the Bible as merely a historical record of past fulfillment with no application to us today. Milton S. Terry, author of 'Biblical Apocalyptics,' seems to have combined Preterism and Idealism in his exegesis.

 

[nonconformist]

Milton S. Terry, author of 'Biblical Apocalyptics,' seems to have combined Preterism and Idealism in his exegesis.

no kidding i will have to add him to my reading list thanks